by Kirby Lindsay, posted 3 February 2012
It seems that buildings don’t just get built. Instead, at least in Seattle, they must be proposed, planned, designed, reviewed, permitted, constructed and decorated before occupancy occurs – sometimes cycling through the plan, design, review, permit process like ‘Rinse. Repeat.’
In Seattle, commercial and multi-family construction go through the Design Review program. This forced public input process avoids a neighborhood gaining a building that resembles the Experience Music Project next door to the Fremont Branch of the Seattle Public Library. It also can make building more difficult, more expensive and less likely. Some argue that the 10 year delay on construction of the Stoneway Village Development (at 3920 Stone Way N) started with a contentious Design Review process that slowed the development, and did little in the end to improve the project.
Early Design Review Guidance On The Thunderbird Motel
On January 30th, a proposed development for low income housing by Catholic Community Services (CCS,) at 4251 Aurora Avenue North, went for Early Design Review Guidance. The City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development (DPD) require Design Review (by appointed private citizens) as part of obtaining a permit to build, Early Guidance has become a regular step for many proposed developments as well.
As the only official City employee, DPD Staffer Colin Vasquez led the meeting which he described as a “time to offer design concerns early in the process.” CCS presented their plan to an open public meeting in July, 2011, and at meetings of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, the Fremont Neighborhood Council (FNC) and the Wallingford Community Council. However, this meeting provided the first official review of the development.
The meeting agenda sounded simple – a presentation by the applicant (a .pdf of the presentation can seen on-line,) clarifying questions by the Board, public comment from the floor directed toward the Board Chairperson, deliberations by the Board and a summary. Yet, for the public (particularly myself) much of it proved tedious. The presentation, clarifying questions and deliberations contained a lot of design/development/architectural techno-jargon. Also, Design Review is limited to design, so many public concerns about street parking, trash pickup, community safety and zoning end up being irrelevant to this Board.
Guided, Successfully, On Limited Input
Surprisingly, perhaps, the process appeared to work in the instance – and might have worked better if more ‘public’ had attended. Only four residents came, with only three giving comments – a huge difference from the July public meeting.
The sole resident, whose home will look at the proposed 4-story apartment building, voiced concerns on the scale of the building. “It’s way bigger than everything west of it,” he said. He spoke strongly about the loss of privacy this would cause for neighbors, as third and fourth floor residents of the building will look into the neighboring houses and yards. Finally, he pointed out that the building, which could house approximately 80 people in 71 units, and will triple the number of people living on the block.
Other public comments, by residents who also serve as FNC Board Members, concerned trash pick-up, and the need for viable commercial space (although CCS will ask to be allowed to use the commercial space for resident amenities, the design will allow the commercial spaces to be converted into leasable storefronts if need be in the future.)
From these comments, the Design Review Board deliberated – and seriously evaluated the design in the face of the public comments, and their own observations. They looked for solutions and compromises. They also used examples from other projects they’ve reviewed, to find solutions.
Guided, By Design Review Standards
While the Design Review Board worked to settle public concerns, they also brought established design standards to bear on the design – and their own input. The CCS design included a ‘green wall’ to be built along the west side property line, using a variety of plants growing vertically to buffer the neighbors. The Board seemed taken with this idea, but they also suggested CCS seek a special allowance to lower the footprint of the building to allow more space for this buffer in the design.
Also, Board Chairperson Ted Panton voiced concern about how this development will remove an “iconic building,” and he observed how, “unfortunate to have these sites wiped completely clean.” He suggested incorporating visual aspects of the current site into the development design. For some Fremonsters (particularly myself) the benefit of this development is removing the graffiti and filth of the current structure – and to preserve it is a disturbing idea. Although, CCS is at work with private citizens (MOHAI turned it down) to preserve the Thunderbird sign elsewhere in Fremont – on a site where it hasn’t been associated with criminal activity.
Ultimately, the Design Review Board for the Northwest Area did recommend this project to move on to the permit process, with a list of priorities in developing the site. A report on the meeting, and the guidance recommendations, will be published in three or four weeks, Vasquez informed the public at the meeting. Also, anyone who could not attend the meeting, but would like to be informed about future meetings, can contact Vasquez – at 206/684-5639 – to become a party of record.
Related Articles
- Homeless Housing Plans Move Forward For CCS
- by Kirby Lindsay, November 21, 2011
- FNC Highlight Reel: Catchin’ Up & Lookin’ Forward
- by Kirby Lindsay, January 27, 2012
- Affordable Housing Aspirations
- by Kirby Lindsay, October 2, 2008 in the North Seattle Herald-Outlook
- A Pit Transforms Into A Village
- by Kirby Lindsay, February 23, 2011
©2012 Kirby Lindsay. This column is protected by intellectual property laws, including U.S. copyright laws. Reproduction, adaptation or distribution without permission is prohibited.