by Kirby Lindsay, posted 11 May 2012
According to the City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development (DPD) website the Design Review Program, “provides a forum for citizens, developers and the City to review and guide the design of qualifying commercial and multifamily development projects.” Launched in 1993, the program allows neighbors – through a Design Review (DR) Board of volunteers – to influence the design of larger scale developments.
Over two weeks, two proposed development projects for Fremont were reviewed – and given public input. These two projects were:
- Stone34, at 3400 Stone Way North, a 5-story commercial/office building proposed by Skanska to be developed to the high-standards set for sustainability under the Living Building Pilot Program
- A project currently called ‘Fremont Apartments,’ at 3635 Woodland Park North, a 160-unit apartment building proposed by Harbor Urban (formerly Harbor Properties) including four live/work units and 130 on-site parking spaces
Public Response Both Over & Underwhelming
On April 30th, at 8p, approximately 100 people packed into the auditorium of the University Heights Center for a fourth Design Review meeting on Stone34. On May 7th, at 8p, approximately 20 people gathered at the same place for the second ‘Early Design Guidance’ (EDG) meeting on the ‘Fremont Apartments’ – with only four of those identifying themselves as private citizens unconnected with the City or the developer.
Reports from those who attended it say the first ‘Fremont Apartments’ EDG had a better turnout. Certainly, the initial presentation by Richard Wagner of Baylis Architects to the DR Board addressed neighbor concerns in a slightly defensive manner that supports the idea that the first meeting had a very unsupportive crowd.
Reports from similar sources (Fremont Neighborhood Council and Fremont Chamber of Commerce meetings,) have said that all four Design Review meetings (two EDG and two Recommendation Reviews) on Stone34 have been crowded, contentious affairs.
Design Review meetings usually follow a basic format:
- a presentation by the designer/developer/architect to the DR Board
- clarifying questions by the DR Board
- public comment, directed to the Board Chair
- deliberations by the Board
- in an EDG – the Board its gives priorities for the project design
- in a Recommendation Review, the Board decides whether to recommend the project for permitting
For the Review of Stone34, DPD Staffer Lisa Rutzick announced an adjustment to the time scheduled for public comment. According to her, 61 people had signed up to speak and the Board agreed to give up its time for clarifying questions to give 30 minutes for public comment – allowing roughly 30 seconds for each speaker.
A week later, only two people asked to address the Board on the ‘Fremont Apartments’ development.
Public Impact Weighed
During their deliberations, at both meetings, as the Board discussed the projects, they referenced comments made by the public – and thereby showed that they were listening.
The two people who spoke May 7th made a significant impact, if only because they were the only voices heard beyond those of the designer. The two both spoke as residents living on Albion Place North – the ‘Fremont Apartments’ are sandwiched between Albion and Woodland Park North. One of them, Erik Pihl, also spoke as a representative from the Fremont Neighborhood Council (FNC.)
On April 30th, I counted 47 brave souls that actually gave comment. Some identified themselves – as residents, business owners, property owners, passers-by, lawyers and shoppers. Some gave comment as a representative of an organization including the Wallingford Community Council, the FNC, the Fremont Chamber, FutureWise, and Sustainable Wallingford. And a few were well-known community activists.
It falls to the Board to decide, individually, how much weight they will give each speaker, and their comments. Stone34 has had four DR meetings, which is two more than generally are expected. The last was April 30th, where the supporters outnumbered the detractors by two to one, which may be the reason the Board finally chose to recommend the project – and end its Design Review process.
On-Topic
I remember the ‘dark days’ (the quotes are mine) before DR when neighbors had limited recourse about projects being built in their community, and sometimes adjacent to their property. The problems ranged from designs neighbors deemed “too ugly” to projects that literally caused damage to existing neighboring structures. Design Review gave the public a chance to say, “Hey, did you maybe think about this?,” particularly to projects developed by a designer/architect fully out-of-touch (and/or out-of-town) from the area where the building would be sited.
Still, Design Review only allows comment on the design. For instance, parking may be of concern to the public on the ‘Fremont Apartments,’ but it is not within the scope of Design Review. On Stone34, some of the negative comments addressed matters outside the expertise, and control, of the DR Board.
During its deliberations, DR Board Chair Joe Hurley acknowledged the difficulty in reviewing this project which incorporates new green technologies. “It is not possible to evaluate if it meets green guidelines,” he observed, about the Living Building program goals. “We have to look at the Design guidelines,” he told the audience, “Do the departures meet the guidelines?”
On The One Hand, And On The Other
The design of the ‘Fremont Apartments’ meets code; sometimes (with its height) it even goes below it. The Stone34 developers asked for four departures from code, including increased height and increased bulk (floor area ratio.) The developers have said that in order to meet the extreme standards for sustainability under the Living Building Challenge, they need the increased height and bulk – or else the project doesn’t pencil out.
A few comments against the project objected to departures given, “simply for reasons of economics.” Just as many supporters applauded Skanska for attempting to build “a deep green building,” and pointed out that this project “will encourage other sustainable buildings.”
Comments on the ‘Fremont Apartments’ project displayed a similar push-pull. During his presentation, Wagner addressed concerns raised about the roof-top deck. He showed how they have scaled back the original design, pushed the deck to the Woodland Park North side of the building and cut it up so that it will not work as a space for large parties. Still, a neighbor objects to the deck, and asked the Board to remove it from the design, because the decks on the other buildings in the area create noise – including the deck on her own building.
The Recommendations Made
During deliberations on the ‘Fremont Apartments,’ DR Board members echoed comments made by the neighbors about the quietness of the neighborhood. It was obvious that some Board members (none of whom live or work in Fremont,) took time to visit and familiarize themselves with the site.
At both meetings, these volunteers deliberated and considered the projects seriously, with a clear awareness as to the import of their results.
They chose to pass the ‘Fremont Apartments’ on to the next phase – a Recommendation Review – and gave priorities for the more detailed design to be presented there.
As to Stone34, the Board originally voted two to two on recommending the project for permitting. Board Chair Hurley then chose to change his vote, and the project received a three to one recommendation. It can move to permitting, but as a Living Building Pilot project, Stone34 also must go through further process at the Seattle City Council and the Office of the Mayor.
Both projects will move forward from here, with both designs adapted and adjusted during Design Review. Compromises were made. It is to be expected that some of the people that object to the Stone34 development will appeal the permits. If the project does manage to get built, however, it will be built according to the compromises made.
The compromises change the design, and the project. Opinions will differ as to whether they made the projects better, but they have moved the projects forward. The one obvious conclusion, from both meetings, is that the Design Review process, intended to allow a public forum, did its work.
Related Articles
- A Review Of A Design Review Guidance Meeting
- by Kirby Lindsay, February 3, 2012
- FNC Highlight Reel: Check In On The Work Of Others
- by Kirby Lindsay, March 2, 2012
- Skanska Proposes A Community Asset For Stone Way
- by Kirby Lindsay, November 16, 2011
- FCC Highlight Reel: Fremont Event-centric?
- by Kirby Lindsay, May 2, 2012
- FNC Highlight Reel: Community Building & Celebrating
- by Kirby Lindsay, April 27, 2012
©2012 Kirby Lindsay. This column is protected by intellectual property laws, including U.S. copyright laws. Reproduction, adaptation or distribution without permission is prohibited.