UW MUP Professional Project - Joming Lau by Joming Lau

! ! ! Neighborhood!Urban!Design!and!Implications!for!! an!Urban!Design!Element!in!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!Comprehensive!Plan! ! ! ! Jo!Ming!Lau! ! ! ! A!professional!project! Submitted!in!partial!fulfillment!of!the! requirements!for!the!degree!of! ! ! ! Master!of!Urban!Planning! ! ! ! University!of!Washington! ! ! ! 2012! ! ! ! ! ! Program!Authorized!to!Offer!Degree:! Department!of!Urban!Design!and!Planning! ! ! ! ! ! !

NEIGHBORHOOD*DESIGN*GUIDELINES*AND*IMPLICATIONS*FOR*AN*URBAN* DESIGN*ELEMENT*IN*SEATTLE’S*COMPREHENSIVE*PLAN* By!Jo!Ming!Lau,!2012!!77!pgs.! Chair!of!the!Supervisory!Committee:!!Professor!Dennis!Ryan! ! Seattle’s!growth!over!the!next!25!years!will!require!good!urban!design!(as!both!a!physical! outcome!and!a!social!process)!!to!accommodate!this!growth!in!order!to!maintain!the!high! quality! of! life! that! its! residents! currently! enjoy.! ! Recognizing! this,! the! City! of! Seattle! is! looking! to! establish! an! overall! design! vision! in! an! urban! design! element! for! its! Comprehensive!Plan!that!captures!the!character!of!what!Seattle!is.! ! In!looking!at!already!established!mechanisms!for!implementing!urban!design!to!inform!an! urban!design!element,!three!case!studies!were!developed!for!the!West!Seattle!Junction,! Wallingford! and! Greenwood/Phinney! Ridge! neighborhood.! ! Through! document! analysis! and! semi]structured! interviews,! these! case! studies! explored! how! these! neighborhoods! contextualized! the! Citywide! Design! Guidelines! by! creating! neighborhood! specific! design! guidelines!that!responded!to!neighborhood!goals!and!site!conditions.! ! The! three! case! studies! detail! how! citywide! design! guidelines! were! contextualized! by! neighborhoods,! and! reveal! that! mediating! the! qualities! of! urbanism! and! the! realm! of! urban!design!tools!are!social!processes!that!are!constantly!playing!out.!!In!acknowledging! the! complexity! of! these! interacting! social! processes,! practicing! good! urban! design! recognizes!that!there!is!no!singular!correct!approach,!and!that!responses!must!be!rooted! in!the!physical!and!social!contexts!of!the!neighborhood.!!! ! The! experience! of! developing! these! neighborhood! design! guidelines! share! a! number! of! commonalities! that! highlight! several! key! opportunities! and! issues! for! urban! design! in! Seattle.! ! Public!participation!  Supplementing! existing! methods! with! new! ways! of! public! engagement! (education,! social! media,! etc.,)! may! address! issues! of! citizen! burnout! and! declining!participation,!and!provide!a!way!to!reach!new!and!underrepresented! groups.! Partnerships!  While! the! costs! of! a! good! urban! process! are! high! in! the! short! term,! the! long! term! benefits! can! be! substantial.! ! Leveraging! partnerships! and! community! resources! are! one!way!to!defray!associated!costs,!that!could!also!help!build!community!trust!in!the! process.!! ! In!creating!an!urban!design!element,!the!City!has!an!opportunity!to!bring!cohesion!to!its! various!urban!design!tools,!and!accompanied!by!a!with!a!meaningful!participation! process,!can!collectively!articulate!a!vision!for!Seattle!that!can!guide!its!future!built!form.!

TABLE&OF&CONTENTS& LIST&OF&FIGURES&..........................................................................................................&3! LIST&OF&TABLES&............................................................................................................&4! IMPORTANT&ACRONYMS&.............................................................................................&5! DEFINITIONS&................................................................................................................&6! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS&................................................................................................&7! INTRODUCTION&...........................................................................................................&8! Structure!...................................................................................................................................................................!9! CHAPTER&1&&!BACKGROUND&.......................................................................................&10! Design!Review!.......................................................................................................................................................!11! Growth!Management!Act!in!WA!......................................................................................................................!12! Urban!Villages!........................................................................................................................................................................!14! Neighborhood!Planning!....................................................................................................................................................!14! Design!Guidelines!.................................................................................................................................................!15! Citywide!Design!Guidelines!.............................................................................................................................................!15! Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!..................................................................................................................................!15! Purpose!...............................................................................................................................................................................!16! Urban!Design!Elements!......................................................................................................................................!17! Scope!of!Urban!Design!Elements!...................................................................................................................................!17! CHAPTER&2&&METHODOLOGY&......................................................................................&20! Approach!.................................................................................................................................................................!20! Case!Study!Selection!............................................................................................................................................!21! Neighborhood!Design!Guideline!Analysis!....................................................................................................!22! Interviews!...............................................................................................................................................................!24! CHAPTER&3&&&CASE&STUDIES&OF&NDGS&AT&THE&CITY&OF&SEATTLE&...................................&27& History!......................................................................................................................................................................................!29! Neighborhood!Planning!....................................................................................................................................................!30! Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!..................................................................................................................................!31! Discussion!...............................................................................................................................................................................!33! Chapter!3.2!Wallingford!.....................................................................................................................................!35! History!......................................................................................................................................................................................!35! Neighborhood!Planning!....................................................................................................................................................!35! Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!..................................................................................................................................!37! Discussion!...............................................................................................................................................................................!38! Chapter!3.3!Greenwood/Phinney!Ridge!.......................................................................................................!40! History!......................................................................................................................................................................................!40! Neighborhood!Planning!....................................................................................................................................................!40! Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!..................................................................................................................................!43! Discussion!...............................................................................................................................................................................!44! Chapter!3.4!Findings!from!Analysis!of!Design!Guidelines!......................................................................!45! Content!of!Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!...........................................................................................................!45! Social!Processes!of!Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!.........................................................................................!46! Wallingford!.......................................................................................................................................................................!46! West!Seattle!Junction!....................................................................................................................................................!46! Greenwood!........................................................................................................................................................................!47! Commonalities!.......................................................................................................................................................................!47! Limitations!of!NDGs!............................................................................................................................................................!49!

CHAPTER&4&! CONCLUSION&AND&RECOMMENDATIONS&...............................................&51! Urban!Design!Element!Recommendations!.................................................................................................!52! Participation!.....................................................................................................................................................................!54! Partnerships!......................................................................................................................................................................!55! Next!Steps!for!Additional!Research!...............................................................................................................!56! CHAPTER&5&&REFLECTIONS&AND&LESSONS&LEARNED&....................................................&57! BIBLIOGRAPHY&..........................................................................................................&59! APPENDIX&A&&URBAN&DESIGN&ELEMENTS&IN&LOCAL&JURISDICTIONS&............................&62! APPENDIX&B&&INTERVIEW&QUESTIONS&AND&SUBFQUESTIONS&......................................&64! APPENDIX&C&&NEIGHBORHOOD&DESIGN&GUIDELINE&MATRIX&.......................................&66! APPENDIX&D&NEIGHBORHOOD&DESIGN&GUIDELINE&MODIFICATIONS&..........................&67! ! !

LIST OF FIGURES ! Figure!1.1!

City!of!Seattle!Design!Review!Process!!

13! !

Figure!2.1!

Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines!

20!

Figure!2.2!

Types!of!variations!in!neighborhood!design!guidelines!

22!

Figure!2.3!

Assumptions,!Constraints!and!Limitations!

26!

Figure!3.1.1! Junction!Plaza!Park!

29!

Figure!3.1.2! West!Seattle!Junction!Vision!Statements!

30!

Figure!3.1.2! West!Seattle!Junction!Hub!Urban!Village!

31!

Figure!3.1.3! Pedestrian!walkways!through!development!sites!

33!

Figure!3.1.4! Pedestrian!walkways!in!West!Seattle!

34!

Figure!3.2.1! Wallingford!Views!!

35!

Figure!3.2.2! Key!Projects!In!Wallingfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!neighborhood!plan!

35!

Figure!3.2.3! Wallingford!Residential!Urban!Village!

36!

Figure!3.2.4! Wallingford!Commercial!Corridor!

37!

Figure!3.3.1! Greenwood!Main!Street!!

40!

Figure!3.3.2! Greenwood!/!Phinney!Key!Integrated!Strategies!

41!

Figure!3.3.3! Wallingford!Residential!Urban!Village!

42!

Figure!4.1!

53!

Landscape!of!City!of!Seattle!Urban!design!policy!and!practices!

! &

LIST OF TABLES ! ! Table&1.1&

Development&thresholds&for&mandatory&design&review&

11&&

Table&1.2&

Urban&Village&Types&

14&

Table&2.1&&

Comparison&of&Neighborhood&Guidance&on&Parent&Guidelines&

23&

Table&2.2&

Interviewee&List&&

25&

Table&3.1.1& West&Seattle&Junction&Growth&Targets&from&Comprehensive&Plan&& Table&3.2.1& Wallingford&Growth&Targets&from&Comprehensive&Plan&

29& &

36&&

Table&3.3.1& Greenwood&/&Phinney&Growth&Targets&from&Comprehensive&Plan&

41&

Table&3.4.1& Commonalities&in&social&process&amongst&case&study&neighborhoods&

49&

Important Acronyms ! ! APA! CDG! ! ! DCLU& DON& DPD& DRB& EDG& GMA! HUV& LUC! NDG! RCW& RUV& SMC& UDE! UDF! WAC& WSJ! !

–! –! !

American!Planning!Association! Citywide!Design!Guidelines!(also!known!as!Design!Review!Guidelines!for!! Multifamily!and!Commercial!Building!!!

–& –& –& –& –& –! –& –! –! –& –& –& –& –& –& –!

Department!of!Design,!Construction!and!Land!Use!(preceded!DPD)! Department!of!Neighborhoods! Department!of!Planning!and!Development! Design!Review!Board! Early!Design!Guidance! Growth!Management!Act! Hub!Urban!Village! Land!Use!Code! Neighborhood!Design!Guideline! Revised!Code!of!Washington! Residential!Urban!Village! Seattle!Municipal!Code! Urban!Design!Element! Urban!Design!Framework! Washington!Administrative!Code! West!Seattle!Junction! !

Definitions ! Comprehensive&Plan:!Land!use!document!providing!the!framework!and!policy!direction!for! where!and!how!growth!projections!will!be!met.!Cities!are!required!to!have!a!comprehensive! plan!under!Washington!State’s!Growth!Management!Act!(GMA).! ! Design&Departure:!A!deviation!from!the!requirements!of!the!City’s!Land!Use!Code.!The!City,! guided!by!the!design!review!board’s!recommendation,!grants!departures!when!a!departure! allows!for!a!design!that!better!meets!the!Design!Guidelines!and!the!intent!of!the!land!use! code.!! ! Design& Guidelines:!Standards!of!design!or!aesthetics!that!are!used!to!guide!development! projects! in! a! particular! city,! community,! or! neighborhood.! Design! guidelines! are! used! by! design! review! boards! in! evaluating! new! development! projects! in! a! particular! city! or! neighborhood.! ! Hub& Urban& Village:& & A!designation!of!urban!village!in!the!City!of!Seattle’s!Comprehensive! Plan,! intended! for! communities! that! provide! a! balance! of! housing! and! employment,! generally!at!densities!lower!than!those!found!in!urban!centers.!!These!areas!provide!a!focus! of! goods,! services,! and! employment! to! communities! that! are! not! located! close! to! urban! centers.! ! Master& Use& Permit& (MUP):! A! permit! issued! by! DPD! that! consolidates! all! discretionary! reviews! into! one! permit! and! provides! for! the! consolidation! of! appeals! for! all! land! use! decisions.! ! Neighborhood:&An!area!within!a!town!or!city!that!has!a!distinct!physical!or!social!character!! ! Residential& Urban& Village:! A! designation! of! urban! village! in! the! City! of! Seattle’s! Comprehensive! Plan,! intended! for! concentrations! of! low! to! moderate! densities! of! mostly! residential!development!with!a!compatible!mix!of!support!services!and!employment.! ! Urban& Centers:! Urban! centers! are! the! densest! neighborhoods! within! a! city! and! are! both! regional! centers! and! neighborhoods! that! provide! a! diverse! mix! of! uses,! housing,! and! employment!opportunities.!! ! Urban& Villages:! ! Areas! of! focus! for! new! development! or! redevelopment! in! Seattle’s! Comprehensive! Plan! that! enable! the! City! to:! deliver! services! more! equitably,! pursue! a! compact! development! pattern,! and! provide! a! better! means! of! managing! growth! and! change!through!collaboration!with!the!community!in!planning!for!the!future!of!these!areas.!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! ! ! The!author!wishes!to!express!thanks!to:! ! ! Dennis!Ryan!and!Manish!Chalana,!for!their!guidance!and!patience! ! Kristian!Kofoed!for!providing!direction!and!insight!for!my!research! ! Krista!Bargsten!and!Jan!Brooks!for!making!my!life!easier! ! All!the!individuals!I!spoke!with!and!who!shared!their!knowledge!to!inform!my!research! ! My!friends!who!kept!me!on!track!and!motivated! ! My!family!for!believing!in!me!and!always!providing!their!support! ! And!Katie!for!being!there!for!me!always,!and!getting!me!through!grad!school!in!one!piece! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Introduction “Today's)city)is)not)an)accident.)Its)form)is)usually)unintentional,)but)it)is)not) accidental.)It)is)the)product)of)decisions)made)for)single,)separate)purposes,) whose)interrelationships)and)side)effects)have)not)been)fully)considered.”)) (Barnett!1982,!9)) ! Over!the!next!25!years,!Seattle!will!add!more!than!70,000!households!and!115,000!new!jobs! (City! of! Seattle,! 2012).! ! The! role! of! thoughtful! planning! and! design! will! be! important,! particularly!in!multifamily!and!commercial!development,!where!a!large!proportion!of!this! growth!will!occur.!!There!is!also!a!need!for!a!more!holistic!model!of!development!based!in! meaningful!public!engagement.!Good!urban!design,!both!as!a!physical!outcome!as!well!as!a! social!process,!is!seen!as!a!means!of!gracefully!accommodating!this!growth.!!This!research! looks!at!the!City!of!Seattle’s!experience!in!providing!highdquality!built!environments!using! design! guidelines! localized! to! neighborhood! levels,! through! case! studies! of! three! neighborhoods.!!In!developing!this!set!of!case!studies,!social!processes!were!found!to!be! one!of!the!most!important!factors!influencing!neighborhood!design!guideline!development,! with! issues! of! public! participation! and! leveraging! partnerships! within! the! community! common!to!all!three!cases.! ! ! ! These! neighborhoodddeveloped! guidelines! emerged! from! of! the! neighborhood! planning! processes! in! the! 1990s,! and! were! aimed! at! guiding! development! to! respond! to! a! community’s!goals!and!its!neighborhood!character.!!This!research!looks!at!the!process!of! how!these!neighborhood!design!guidelines!(NDGs)!were!developed!and!how!they!helped! neighborhoods!respond!to!community!needs,!and!the!development!challenges!that!were!

facing!them.!!This!research!examines!key!lessons!from!this!process!that!could!inform!the! City!of!Seattle!as!it!embarks!on!creating!an!overall!design!vision!for!the!City.!!This!research! was!developed!in!part!by!DPD!and!is!meant!to!inform!the!City!in!the!creation!of!an!urban! design! element! (UDE)! in! the! City’s! Comprehensive! Plan,! by! examining! how! Seattle’s! previous!experiences!with!urban!design!could!inform!its!latest!effort.!! !

Structure In! building! an! understanding! of! Seattle’s! experience! in! design! guidelines! to! inform! the! development!of!an!urban!design!element,!it!is!first!important!to!understand!the!context!of! urban!design!in!Seattle.!The!first!chapter!provides!this!background!of!the!regulatory!context! in!which!urban!design!operates!in!Seattle,!the!efforts!to!localize!planning!and!urban!design! tools!at!the!neighborhood!level,!and!what!the!role!of!an!UDE!might!play!within!the!larger! context!of!Seattle.!!The!second!chapter!presents!the!methodology!of!the!research,!outlining! how!information!was!gathered!and!analyzed,!the!rationale!for!case!study!selection,!and!the! assumptions!and!constraints!of!the!research.!!The!third!chapter!looks!at!the!application!of! design!guidelines!in!the!City!of!Seattle!at!a!neighborhood!level!through!case!studies!of!three! neighborhoods,! Greenwood/Phinney! Ridge,! Wallingford! and! West! Seattle! Junction.! Particular!attention!will!be!paid!to!the!experience!of!these!neighborhoods!in!contextualizing! the! citywide! design! guidelines! (CDGs)! through! developing! neighborhooddspecific! design! guidelines!that!responded!to!neighborhood!need!and!site!conditions,!and!what!lessons!can! be! learned! from! each! neighborhood’s! experience.! ! The! fourth! chapter! discusses! the! significance! of! the! results! from! the! case! study! research,! provides! recommendations! to! inform!the!development!and!implementation!of!an!UDE!at!the!City!of!Seattle,!and!identifies! areas!for!further!research.!The!fifth!chapter!will!conclude!with!a!personal!reflection!on!this! research,! discussing! its! strengths! and! weaknesses! and! personal! lessons! learned.! ! The! sources!used!in!this!report!are!referenced!in!the!text!using!an!authorddate!format.!!The!full! reference!list!can!be!found!after!the!fifth!chapter,!organized!alphabetically!by!surname!or! organization!name.! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

Chapter 1

Background

â&#x20AC;&#x153;It)is)designing)cities)without)designing)buildingsâ&#x20AC;?)(Barnett!1974,!29)) ! As!a!result!of!frustration!amongst!neighborhoods!about!the!poor!quality!and!incompatibility! of!buildings!that!were!appearing!as!a!result!of!the!City!of!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!land!use!code,!a!design! review!program!was!established!in!1994!that!was!intended!to:! ! Encourage!better!design!and!site!planning!to!help!ensure!that!new! development!enhances!the!character!of!the!city!and!sensitively!fits!into! neighborhoods,!while!allowing!for!diversity!and!creativity;!and! ! Provide!flexibility!in!the!application!of!development!standards!to!better!meet! the!intent!of!the!Land!Use!Code!has!established!by!City!policy,!to!meet! neighborhood!objectives,!and!to!provide!for!effective!mitigation!of!a!proposed! project's!impact!and!influence!on!an!neighborhood;!and! ! Improve!communication!and!mutual!understanding!among!developers,! neighborhoods,!and!the!City!early!and!throughout!the!development!review! process!(City!of!Seattle!1993)! ! Particularly!in!the!case!of!Seattle,!where!site!conditions!of!steep!topography!and!different! platting!patterns!have!created!awkwardly!shaped!lots,!the!strict!application!of!the!land!use! code! results! in! poor! design.! Design! review! is! a! tool! that! allows! finedgrain! adjustments! to! zoning!that!does!not!address!the!specifics!of!a!site!very!well!(E.!Bourquard,!pers.!comm.).!! By! engaging! with! developers! early! in! the! development! process,! the! hope! is! to! allow! for! changes! while! the! design! is! still! malleable,! so! that! significant! costs! associated! with! late! design!changes!can!be!avoided!(V.!Lyon,!pers.!comm.).! ! Not! all! development! is! subject! to! design! review;! only! private! projects! exceeding! the! thresholds! in! Table! 1.1! are! required! to! undergo! the! review! process.! ! Above! these! thresholds,! development! is! more! likely! to! have! a! significant! impact! on! the! surrounding! urban!fabric.!!One!complaint!regarding!these!thresholds!has!been!that!design!guidelines!are!

10!

easy!to!sidestep!by!building!just!below!the!threshold!for!design!review.!This!has!resulted!in! buildings! that! do! not! respond! to! site! conditions! continuing! to! be! built,! and! has! been! especially! problematic! with! the! construction! of! townhouses.! ! One! solution! has! been! a! separate! streamlined! administrative! review! process! to! deal! with! this! specific! building! typology!for!projects!that!include!at!least!three!townhouse!units!(City!of!Seattle!2011).!! !

Table&1.1&Development&thresholds&for&mandatory&design&review&(DPD&2008,&2)&

Design Review Outlined! in! Figure! 1.1,! the! design! review! process! is! built! into! the! permitting! process! as! a! requirement! to! the! application! for! the! Master! Use! Permit! (MUP).! ! In! doing! so,! DPD! has! created!a!predictable!process!to!provides!design!guidance!prior!to!applicants!investing!too! much! time! and! money! into! a! specific! design! (Department! of! Planning! and! Development! 2008).! ! Starting! with! a! predsubmittal! step,! applicants! are! provided! with! the! necessary! !

11!

materials!to!allow!them!to!start!thinking!how!to!design!a!building!that!responds!well!to!its! context.!!Once!the!early!design!guidance!(EDG)!application!has!been!started,!public!notice! about!the!project!is!given,!setting!the!date!of!the!EDG!meeting.!!This!meeting!convenes!the! applicant!and!his/her!team!(with!their!initial!designs)!with!design!review!board!members,! neighborhood!residents!and!city!staff!providing!citizens!the!opportunity!to!participate!in!the! process! and! identify! the! community! concerns! from! the! project.! ! Using! this! information,! design! review! boards! set! design! priorities! for! the! applicant,! and! decide! whether! to! recommend!the!applicant!to!the!MUP!application!stage.!!! ! Once!past!the!EDG,!other!review!processes!(zoning,!SEPA,!land!use,!etc.)!required!by!the! MUP! can! begin,! concurrently! with! the! refinement! of! details! for! the! project! based! on! priorities!established!at!the!EDG!meeting.!!The!applicant!refines!their!design!to!bring!to!a! recommendation!meeting,!after!which!the!project!goes!to!the!Director!of!DPD!for!a!final! decision.!!Overall,!this!process!helps!to!streamline!the!development!cycle,!with!the!intent! that! through! design! review,! physical! development! of! the! city! could! be! carried! out! at! the! neighborhood!scale.! ! One!of!the!strengths!of!how!the!design!guidelines!are!applied!in!practice!is!that! they!are! flexible!in!recognizing!that!not!all!sites!have!the!same!opportunities!and!constraints.!!At!the! design!review!meeting,!the!guidelines!most!relevant!to!a!site!are!identified!by!the!design! review!boards,!based!on!their!understanding!of!the!site,!as!well!as!from!what!is!presented! by!the!applicant!and!the!communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!specific!response!to!a!proposed!project.! !

Growth Management Act in WA In! the! State! of! Washington,! the! Growth! Management! Act! (GMA)! was! passed! in! 1990.!! The!GMA!mandated!local!governments!to!manage!their!growth!in!the!following!ways:! ! ! Identifying!and!protecting!critical!areas!and!natural!resource!lands! ! Designating!urban!growth!areas! ! Preparing!comprehensive!plans!while!ensuring!public!participation!! ! Implementing!through!the!use!of!capital!investments!and!development! regulations!!(Washington!State!Legislature!1990a)! ! In!1994,!The!City!of!Seattle!adopted!its!first!comprehensive!plan,!in!response!to!the!state! Growth!Management!Act.!!A!key!strategy!of!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!approach!to!growth!management!was! the! strategy! of! implementing/creating! urban! villages! that! concentrated! growth! into! designated! urban! centers! and! facilitation! of! transitdoriented! development! (City! of! Seattle! 2009,!viii).!! ! ! ! ! !

12!

! Figure&1.1&City&of&Seattle&Design&Review&Process&(Department&of&Planning&and&Development&2008,&5)& & !

13!

Urban&Villages& ! A! key! component! of! the! designation! of! urban! villages! was! a! method! for! prioritizing! and! ensuring!concurrency!of!development!and!investment!in!amenities!and!infrastructure!into! different!typologies!of!urban!villages!(City!of!Seattle!2009,!1.4),!as!shown!in!Table!1.2.! ! In! tandem! with! the! urban! village! approach! was! an! extensive! neighborhood! planning! effort! that! engaged! the! 38! designated! neighborhoods! to! tailor! the! Comprehensive!Plan!and!implement! it! at! a! neighborhood! level! by! creating! neighborhood! plans! that! articulated! citizen! priorities! to! inform! any! development! decisions! made! regarding! that! neighborhood! (City!of!Seattle!2009,!8.3).! ! ! Table&1.2&Urban&Village&Types&

Neighborhood&Planning& ! Through! the! neighborhood! planning! efforts,! Seattle! neighborhoods! had! the! chance! to! sit! down!with!City!staff!and!articulate!what!it!was!that!makes!them!unique!as!a!neighborhood,! in!terms!of!character!and!context,!and!to!imagine!the!future!for!their!community,!from!a! physical!development!standpoint!(M.!Kimelberg,!pers.!comm.).!! ! From!1993d2000,!all!38!of!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!neighborhoods!adopted!neighborhood!plans!that!served! several! key! purposes.! ! These! plans! recorded! past! planning! initiatives! to! provide! some! institutional!memory!of!the!previous!work!done.!!They!also!articulated!the!vision!developed! by!the!neighborhood,!and!identified!planning!goals!in!several!key!areas!(such!as!economic! development,!housing,!land!use,!transportation,!public!safety,!and!open!space).!!!!In!order! to! reach! those! goals,! key! projects! or! strategies! were! then! developed.! ! In! a! number! of! communities,!there!was!a!strong!desire!to!enhance!neighborhood!character,!as!they!saw! this!characteristic!as!an!important!and!effective!way!to!meet!planning!goals!(GPRNPC!1999;! FOJ!1999;!Community!Connection!1998).!!In!many!of!these!neighborhood!plans,!the!content! of!these!plans!help!to!provide!a!fuller!picture!of!a!communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!vision!for!their!built!form!(C.! Marcheselli,!pers.!comm.).!!

14!

Design Guidelines Citywide&Design&Guidelines& ! In!the!past!twenty!years,!the!City!of!Seattle!has!recognized!the!need!for!a!more!flexible!way! to!successfully!incorporate!new!development!into!its!neighborhoods!as!the!city!experienced! high!rates!of!population!growth.!!!In!creating!the!Design!Review!Program!in!1993,!the!City! established! Citywide! Design! Guidelines! for! multifamily! and! commercial! buildings,! with! subsequent! updates! in! 1998! and! 2007! (Department! of! Planning! and! Development! 2010).!! Acting!as!the!authority!that!design!review!decisions!are!based!upon,!these!design!guidelines! are! a! basic! set! of! timedtested! site! and! building! design! principles! to! consider! in! the! development! process.! Design! guidelines! serve! as! a! scope! of! discussion! for! design! review,! and!provide!a!basis!for!which!new!development!can!be!designed!to!be!more!compatible! with!their!context!(M.!Kimelberg,!pers.!comm.).! ! The!citywide!design!guidelines!is!made!up!of!31!different!guidelines!in!five!general!topics! related!to!urban!design!and!loosely!structured!around!the!development!process:!!! A. Site!Planning! B. Height,!Bulk,!and!Scale! C. Architectural!Elements!and!Materials! D. Pedestrian!Environment! E. Landscaping!! ! In! addition! to! the! citywide! design! guidelines! that! apply! generally! to! the! city! as! a! whole,! there!are!19!additional!sets!of!neighborhooddspecific!guidelines,!many!of!which!came!out!of! the!neighborhood!planning!processes!of!the!1990s.!There!were!also!two!aspects!related!to! citywide! design! guidelines! that! are! beyond! the! scope! of! this! research.! ! The! first! is! the! downtowndspecific! design! guidelines,! which! were! created! in! 1999! to! consider! the! unique! circumstances! of! the! scale! of! downtown! projects,! looking! at! the! five! categories! of! site! planning!and!massing,!architectural!expression,!streetscape,!public!amenities,!and!vehicle! access!and!parking!(City!of!Seattle!1999,!5).!!Secondly!are!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!seven!historic!districts! that!have!their!own!separate!sets!of!design!guidelines!to!respond!to!their!unique!historical! context.! ! Each! district! has! its! own! design! review! board! that! is! much! more! focused! on! historic!preservation.! ! Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& & ! At! the! time! that! the! Design! Review! Program! was! implemented,! the! differing! conditions,! character!and!circumstances!of!various!parts!of!the!city!was!recognized.!!It!was!conceived! that! neighborhoods! could! develop! design! guidelines! specific! to! their! character.! ! These! neighborhood! design! guidelines! would! provide! guidance! to! and! augment! the! citywide! design!guidelines,!as!a!way!to!carry!out!design!goals!identified!by!the!neighborhood.!!As!part! !

15!

of! this! effort,! the! City! created! a! toolkit! for! communities! to! develop! their! own! design! guidelines!(Tobin!1993).!!Many!communities,!especially!those!who!had!been!energized!by! the! neighborhood! planning! efforts,! wanted! a! voice! in! determining! what! shape! and! form! growth! in! their! communities! would! take! and! approached! the! City! to! create! their! own! neighborhood!design!guidelines.!!Important!to!this!process!was!the!City’s!recognition!of!the! importance! of! allowing! neighborhoods! some! degree! of! selfddetermination! by! acknowledging! that! in! cases! of! conflict! between! CDGs! and! NDGs,! the! latter! design! guidelines!would!prevail.! ! The! process! for! developing! neighborhood! design! guidelines! began! with! a! kickoff! educational! meeting! between! the! neighborhoods! and! City! staff.! ! The! purpose! of! these! meetings!was!to!create!a!common!understanding!of!what!design!review!is!and!its!process,! the!threshold!to!trigger!design!review,!what!the!citywide!design!guidelines!for!multifamily! and!commercial!buildings!are,!and!what!design!review!doesn’t!cover!as!topics!of!discussion.!! This!was!followed!by!detailed!study!of!the!neighborhood!plan,!and!a!brainstorming!session! to! learn! from! residents! what! they! valued! in! the! neighborhood.! ! From! this! stage,! urban! design!principles!for!physical!development!were!teased!out,!and!a!five!to!twelve!member! committee!was!created!to!further!develop!the!initial!concepts!over!a!period!of!six!to!eight! months.! ! These! committees! consisted! of! residents! as! well! as! business! owners! (M.! Kimelberg,!pers.!comm.).! ! Purpose( ! Within!the!context!of!Seattle’s!Urban!Village!Strategy,!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines! are! a! chance! for! the! community! to! have! a! voice! in! how! it! develops! into! the! future! and! accommodates! growth.! ! While! there! is! a! reluctance! to! give! citywide! design! guidelines! dimensional! requirements! and! prescriptive! requirements,! in! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines! there! is! a! move! towards! higher! specificity! as! guidelines! can! be! tailored! to! the! specific!needs!of!the!community!(G.!Hill,!pers.!comm.).! ! Seattle’s!citywide!design!guidelines,!while!providing!solid!urban!design!principles!to!inform! the! design! process,! do! not! often! address! the! issues! of! the! specifics! of! neighborhoods.!! These!issues!could!inform!the!design!process!to!site!opportunities!and!constraints!such!as! topography,!and!areas!that!warrant!special!design!attention.! Neighborhood!design!guidelines!were!seen!as!a!way!to!provide!a!level!of!accountability!not! just!to!the!city,!but!more!importantly,!to!the!neighborhood,!through!neighborhood!specific! design! guidelines! that! provide! specific! changes! to! how! the! citywide! design! guidelines! are! interpreted!at!a!local!level.! ! Neighborhood!design!guidelines!can!also!be!powerful!tools!in!community!building.!!Their! relative! simplicity! has! provided!neighborhoods! with! an! excellent! starting! point! for! talking! about!their!neighborhood!and!visions!for!its!future,!and!providing!a!common!language!that! residents,! developers! and! City! staff! can! use! to! express! their! ideas.! !Neighborhood! design!

16!

guidelines!can!also!provide!traction!and!legitimacy!to!neighborhood!groups!as!a!document! that!can!uphold!the!neighborhood’s!vision!of!the!future!in!light!of!new!projects.!(M.!Speigel,! pers.! comm.).! When! a! project’s! design! improves! as! a! result! of! community! input,! neighborhood!design!guidelines!build!a!neighborhood’s!investment!into!the!design!review! process!and!keeps!people!invested!in!their!neighborhoods.!!! !

Urban Design Elements In!jurisdictions!such!as!Washington!State!where!comprehensive!planning!is!legislated,!there! are! requirements! for! plans! to! address! the! following! elements:! ! land! use,! transportation,! housing,!capital!facilities,!utilities,!rural,!economic!development,!and!parks!and!recreation! (RCW!36.70A.070).!!Beyond!this,!communities!can!add!certain!optional!elements,!including! conservation,!solar!energy,!and!notably,!urban!design!(RCW!36.70A.080!and!WAC!365d196d 445)!!In!particular,!WAC!365d196d445,!which!outlines!for!the!Department!of!Commerce!the! procedural! criteria! for! the! adoption! of! comprehensive! plans,! recommends! that! counties! and!cities!strongly!consider!including!an!urban!design!element.!!! ! Urban! design! elements! address! two! competing! community! needs:! a! desire! to! retain! a! valued! sense! of! place! and! a! need! to! anticipate! changing! trends! and! needs! in! the! future.! Creating! a! sense! of! place! and! character! is! indicative! of! a! society’s! need! for! stability! and! reassurance! in! the! face! of! environmental! changes,! while! the! need! for! communities! to! constantly!reinvent!themselves!through!the!development!of!a!future!context!speaks!to!the! need!to!remain!responsive!to!new!cultural,!technical!or!economic!pressures!(Ministry!for! the!Environment!2005a,!20).! ! Scope&of&Urban&Design&Elements& ! Appendix! A! –! Urban! Design! Elements! in! Local! Jurisdictions! summarizes! the! urban! design! element!of!a!number!of!local!jurisdictions,!looking!at!the!overall!design!vision,!the!intended! purpose! of! the! UDE! in! their! comprehensive! plan,! and! the! scope! covered! within! the! document.!!Although!both!urban!design!elements!and!design!guidelines!work!at!building!a! design! vision! for! jurisdictions,! they! differ! in! how! they! are! approached! by! cities.! Design! guidelines!have!a!similar!sense!of!organization!across!jurisdictions,!typically!outlining!various! aspects!of!development!such!as!site!planning,!landscaping!and!architectural!context.!Design! guidelines!are!typically!not!of!a!statutory!nature!and!instead!serve!as!general!principles!of! urban! design! to! be! applied! during! a! design! review! process.! Urban! design! elements,! however,!do!not!have!that!sense!of!consistency!that!urban!design!guidelines!exhibit,!in!the! issues!that!are!typically!addressed.!Instead,!most!urban!design!elements!usually!include!a! statement! of! purpose,! and! a! set! of! urban! design! goals! and! policies.! ! This! is! primarily! a! function! of! the! different! needs,! priorities,! and! regulatory! and! political! context! that! each! community!faces,!and!how!individual!regulations!and!city!departments!are!set!up.!! ! !

17!

While!the!scope!of!an!urban!design!element!will!vary!widely!depending!on!the!needs!and! priorities!of!a!jurisdiction,!they!generally!address!issues!of!physical!character,!both!existing! and!future,!and!identify!characteristics!that!are!important!to!residents.!In!many!ways,!an! urban!design!element!can!help!set!the!stage!for!implementation!of!other!urban!design!tools! such!as!design!guidelines!or!design!review!processes,!by!establishing!the!legal!grounds!for! them!(C.!Tobin,!pers.!comm.).! ! Appendix!A!also!notes!that!Urban!design!elements!can!perform!some!of!the!following! functions:! ! ! Inform!how!new!development!should!respond!to!context!of!the!neighborhood,! in!terms!of!the!built!and!natural!environment! ! Describe!existing!development!patterns! ! Set!a!vision!for!physical!development!within!the!comprehensive!plan,!describing! the!desirable!and!undesirable!characteristics!for:! o Different!types!of!development!(residential,!industrial!and!business! areas)! o Different!kinds!of!space!(parks,!plazas,!streetscape,!parking!lots)! o Specific!sub!areas!of!the!community!(waterfronts,!downtowns,!historic)! ) Despite! some! of! the! benefits! that! an! urban! design! element! can! provide,! there! are! communities! that! use! design! tools! (design! guidelines! and! design! review)! to! maintain! and! improve! the! quality! of! their! built! environment,! without! having! already! established! an! overarching!vision!for!the!physical!development!of!their!city.!!!This!situation!speaks!to!the! chaotic!reality!of!local!governance,!in!that!it!is!not!always!possible!to!do!things!in!a!rational! sequential!order.!!!Sometimes!political!necessity!(i.e.!mandates)!drives!the!need!for!specific! design!control!ordinances,!and!other!times!it!may!simply!be!an!issue!of!timing!for!allocated! funding!of!planning!initiatives.!The!mandatory!elements!of!the!GMA!were!required!to!be! completed!within!a!given!time!frame,!and!in!jurisdictions!with!less!planning!capacity,!this! task! has! occupied! much! of! their! organizational! resources! (C.! Tobin,! pers.! comm.).! As! jurisdictions!update!their!comprehensive!plans!for!the!next!required!update!period!in!2015,! there! is! an! opportunity! to! create! a! vision! to! direct! growth,! particularly! in! the! current! economic! climate! where! the! pace! of! development! has! slowed.! ! Such! a! vision! would! also! bolster! the! authority! of! the! existing! tools! in! communities! by! providing! a! greater! level! of! defensibility!in!their!use!(C.!Tobin,!D.!Meier,!pers.!comms.)! ! Through! an! urban! design! element! for! a! comprehensive! plan,! â&#x20AC;&#x153;a! community! can! begin! to! realize! a! vision! for! its! overall! built! environment.! ! Coupling! this! with! other! specific! implementation! measures,! e.g.! public! participation,! establishment! of! special! districts,! incentive! and! performance! zoning,! performance! standards,! design! guidelines,! transfer! of! development!credits,!and!providing!needed!guidance!to!the!transitdoriented!development! (TOD)â&#x20AC;Ś!a!realization!of!urban!design!as!it!has!been!intended!in!the!past!30!years!is!more! likely!to!occurâ&#x20AC;?!(Schurch!1999,!20).!!! ! !

18!

While!local!governments!can!maintain!the!quality!of!their!built!environment!using!the!suite! of!urban!design!tools!(i.e.!implementation!measures)!described!by!Schurch,!the!creation!of! an!urban!design!element!can!help!in!articulating!the!collective!vision!that!each!urban!design! tool!is!trying!to!achieve!individually.!!An!urban!design!element!could!help!local!governments! align!their!various!urban!design!efforts!to!fit!together!in!a!cohesive!way.! ! The!City!of!Seattle!already!possesses!the!design!controls!that!have!helped!to!establish!of! community! character! within! neighborhoods.! ! However,! it! does! not! have! an! urban! design! element!that!explicitly!states!a!future!design!vision!for!the!City.!!In!this!instance,!what!is!the! policy! hierarchy! between! goalsdobjectivesdprinciplesdguidelines,! and! how! would! citywide! urban! design! policy! relate! back! down! to! the! level! of! the! neighborhood,! and! how! can! neighborhoods!inform!the!direction!of!this!broader!policy?! ! To!answer!these!questions,!it!is!critical!to!examine!the!role!that!neighborhoods!play!in!cities,! and!specifically,!how!urban!design!at!a!neighborhood!level!can!help!frame!how!residents! contribute! to! cities! in! a! meaningful! way.! ! According! to! Fathabadi! Gharai,! neighborhoods! play! an! important! role! in! cities,! with! a! city’s! success! hinging! upon! the! support! for! local! character!at!the!scale!of!individual!neighborhoods.!!“The)availability)of)local)areas)and)the) ability)of)people)to)personalize)at)the)group)and)individual)level)will)help)them)to)establish) group) identity) and) express) their) preferences,) perform) their) proper) activities) and) create) noticeable)differences)and)complexity)in)the)cities”!(Gharai!1998,!3).! ! Beyond! simply! acting! as! functional! units,! neighborhoods! provide! an! important! source! of! identity!or!meaning!for!their!residents.!!Through!an!emphasis!of!the!differences!between! the! character! of! different! neighborhoods,! a! greater! of! diversity! of! choice! is! provided! for! residents,! and! helps! them! orient! themselves! within! cities.! ! In! this! way,! neighborhoods! mediate!between!the!individual!and!the!metropolis,!and!make!urban!life!more!attractive!by! “counteracting!the!“gigantism”!of!the!metropolis!and!“protecting!their!residents!from!the! hazards!and!inconveniences!of!the!city”!(Gharai!1998,!4).!!A!strong!sense!of!neighborhood! identity!can!also!encourage!residents!to!be!more!actively!involved!in!managing!the!urban! environment! (Oktay! 2002,! 262;! Gharai! 1998,! 4).! ! Involving! neighborhood! residents! in! the! development!of!design!guidelines!specific!to!where!they!carry!out!daily!life!can!help!them! derive! a! sense! of! identity! and! meaning! by! providing! them! with! a! degree! of! selfd determination!over!their!environment.!!By!allowing!them!to!express!their!preferences,!and! facilitating!the!creation!of!distinctive!neighborhoods!in!using!a!neighborhoodddriven!process! to!articulate!its!design!character,!tools!such!as!neighborhooddspecific!design!guidelines!can! mediate! between! residents! and! the! metropolis.! ! When! a! community! is! engaged! in! the! design! of! their! neighborhood,! the! fit! between! design! and! a! community’s! needs! can! be! improved,!allowing!for!more!effective!use!of!resources.!!Done!well,!it!can!result!in!urban! design!that!is!more!responsive!to!both!the!neighborhood’s!unique!physical!conditions,!and! to!the!needs!of!its!residents!(MfE!2005b,!64).! ! ! ! ! !

19!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter 2 Methodology ! The! driving! question! behind! this! research! is! that! as! the! City! of! Seattle! develops! a! Urban! Design! Element! in! its! Comprehensive! Plan,! what! can! the! City! learn! from! its! previous! experiences! in! implementing! urban! design! through! its! design! guidelines! programs?! ! Specifically,! how! can! the! process! of! contextualizing! these! guidelines,! or! calibrating! them! to! better! respond! to! the! conditions! of! individual! neighborhoods! by! developing! Figure&2.1&Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& NDGs! inform! the! development! and! (Photo&credit:&&author)& implementation! of! an! overall! urban! design!vision!for!the!City!of!Seattle?! ! Taking! a! set! of! NDGs! as! the! unit! of! analysis,!this! research! looks! at! where! NDGs! deviated! from!the!CDGs,!and!analyzing!the!reason!for!changes!in!content!and!the!process!in!which!it! happened.!!!Following!this!is!a!synthesis!of!the!findings!from!the!case!studies,!which!could! help!to!inform!the!City!of!Seattle!as!it!develops!its!Urban!Design!Element!and!seeks!ways!to! engage!its!residents!in!this!process.! !

Approach This!research!began!by!working!with!Kristian!Kofoed,!planner!with!Department!of!Planning! and!Development!(DPD)!at!the!City!of!Seattle,!and!Dennis!Ryan!and!Manish!Chalana,!two! professors!in!the!Department!of!Urban!Design!and!Planning!at!University!of!Washington!to! !

20!

develop!the!scope!of!work,!using!an!exploratory!approach!to!examine!the!ways!in!which! neighborhoods! appropriated! and! adapted! citywide! design! guidelines! to! meet! community! needs.!!To!start,!the!research!looked!at!various!City!of!Seattle!documents!providing!broad! guidance! to! urban! design.! ! Documents! include! the! 2007! Design! Review! Guidelines! for! Multifamily!and!Commercial!Building!(Citywide!Design!Guidelines),!web!pages!related!to!the! City! of! Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! Design! Review! Program,! and! neighborhooddspecific! design! guidelines.!!! Given! the! sheer! number! of! neighborhoods! in! Seattle,! and! the! complexities! of! the! neighborhood!planning!processes!that!resulted!in!the!development!of!design!guidelines,!the! use!of!case!studies!was!necessary!to!gain!a!deeper!understanding!of!the!factors!that!shaped! the!particular!nuances!within!a!set!of!neighborhooddspecific!design!guidelines.!The!findings! from!each!case!study!were!derived!from!a!review!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines!and! neighborhood! plans! for! each! case,! and! supplemented! with! interviews! with! relevant! stakeholders.! ! These! findings! were! then! organized! into! common! themes,! and! assembled! into!an!overall!portrait!for!the!cases!that!served!as!the!basis!for!the!recommendations!of! this!report.! !

Case Study Selection A! 2008! report! by! Leslie! Bain! of! Weinstein! A+U! and! Cheryl! Sizov! at! the! Department! of! Planning! and! Development! was! used! initially! to! inform! the! direction! of! this! research! (Weinstein!AU!2008).!The!report,!created!at!the!first!phase!of!an!update!of!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!CDGs! for! multifamily! and! commercial! buildings,! detailed! their! findings! and! their! analysis! of! the! Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! system! of! design! guidelines.! That! document! provided! a! comparison! matrix! of! the! citywide!design!guidelines!for!multifamily!and!commercial!buildings!against!the!19!sets!of! neighborhooddspecific! design! guidelines.! ! This! comparison! (shown! in! Figure! 2.1)! outlined! where! neighborhood! design! guidelines! provided! supplementary! guidance! to! the! citywide! design! guidelines! (shown! in! grey! cells)! and! where! specific! wording! or! the! intent! of! the! design! guidelines! was! altered! by! the! neighborhood! design! guideline! (shown! in! red! cells).!! Where! a! NDG! did! not! provide! any! guidance! to! a! citywide! design! guideline,! the! cells! on! Figure! 2.1! were! shown! in! white.! ! From! this! report,! I! developed! a! research! methodology,! comparing!three!variations!in!neighborhood!design!guidelines:!a)!a!neighborhood!that!most! altered!how!citywide!guidelines!was!stated,!with!guidance!that!changed!the!intent!of!the! original!guideline;!b)!a!neighborhood!that!provided!substantial!supplementary!guidance!to! the! parent! guidelines;! and! c)! a! neighborhood! that! predominantly! accepted! the! parent! guidelines,!providing!only!minor!supplementary!guidance!to!the!CDGs.! ! In!choosing!these!three!kinds!of!alterations!to!the!CDGs,!rather!than!trying!to!obtain!typical! cases!of!where!a!guideline!was!modified,!the!goal!of!the!research!was!to!convey!a!spectrum! of! design! guideline! alterations! that! could! allow! the! researcher! to! parse! out! specific! examples.!!Each!case!study!begins!with!a!brief!overview!of!the!neighborhood!and!its!history! with!respect!to!its!neighborhood!planning!efforts,!in!order!to!better!understand!the!context! in!which!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines!were!developed.!!A!discussion!follows!on!how! the!NDGs!contextualized!the!CDGs!by!analyzing!the!guidance!provided!to!a!specific!design! !

21!

guideline.!!Finally,!there!is!a!focus!on!the!process!of!how!the!NDGs!were!developed,!looking! at!the!issues!that!neighborhoods!sought!to!address!through!design!guidelines,!and!how!the! response!were!manifested!within!the!NDGs.&

Neighborhood Design Guideline Analysis While!the!2008!DPD!Report!provided!a!foundation!to!this!research,!a!more!detailed!analysis! provided! a! better! idea! of! the! degree! to! which! neighborhood! design! guidelines! were! substantively! altering! the! citywide! design! guidelines.! ! For! each! neighborhood,! I! looked! at! each!guideline!within!each!NDG!to!understand!where!it!deviated!from!the!citywide!design! guidelines,!and!the!extent!of!its!deviation.!!An!initial!review!of!the!! ! Elaboration&of&citywide&guideline&(E)!–!Guidelines!provided!either!greater!specificity,!or!a! different!focus!for!how!the!guideline!is!interpreted,!rather!than!relying!on!the!text!provided! by!the!CDG,! ! Application&of&citywide&guideline&(nonFneighborhood&specific&examples)&(NN)!–!A!guideline! that!provides!examples!and!general!guidance!for!its!application!that!are!not!described!in! either!the!CDG,!but!are!generally!applicable!and!not!responding!to!specific!and!unique! neighborhood!conditions! ! Application&of&citywide&guideline&–&neighborhood&specific&examples&(N)&–!Use!of! neighborhood!specific!examples!that!pertain!to!unique!site!conditions!in!the!neighborhood,! and!would!not!work!well!in!other!instances! ! SiteFspecific&application&of&citywide&guideline&&(SS)!–!Use!of!an!example!from!the!CDG!to!a! specific!area!within!the!neighborhood.!! ! Another&guideline&(A)!–!guidance!in!the!NDG!is!actually!more!appropriate!listed!under! another!guideline!

! Figure&2.2&&Types&of&variations&in&neighborhood&design&guidelines&

22!

Table&2.1&&Comparison&of&Neighborhood&Guidance&on&Parent&Guidelines&& (Source:&Weinstein&AU,&2008)&

! !

23!

neighborhood! specific! design! guidelines! revealed! that! there! were! several! typologies! of! change! to! the! guidelines,! and! were! consistent! with! findings!by! Cheryl! Sizov! at! DPD.! ! The! types!of!changes!are!listed!in!Figure!2.2.!! ! This!analysis!served!as!a!starting!point!for!the!research!by!helping!to!bring!an!understanding! of!the!changes!to!the!content!of!neighborhood!guidelines,!and!providing!a!sense!of!the!site! conditions!for!each!case!study!neighborhood.!!This!was!supplemented!by!the!neighborhood! plans,!which!often!served!as!a!catalyst!for!development!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines.!!! !

Interviews !These!plans!mentioned!above!provide!some!insight!into!how!neighborhoods!prioritized!the! salient! issues! at! the! time,! and! sought! ways! to! address! them! through! NDGs.! ! What! was! missing!in!all!this,!and!is!of!interest!to!the!City!of!Seattle,!are!the!processes!by!which!NDGs! contextualized! the! overarching! citywide! design! guidelines.! ! These! processes,! most! often! initiated!at!the!neighborhood!level,!were!not!widely!documented.!!In!order!to!quickly!gain! an!understanding!of!these!processes,!interviews!with!key!stakeholders!was!determined!to! be!the!most!effective!means.!!In!total,!nineteen!interviews!were!conducted!with!members! of! the! community,! city! officials,! and! advocates! who! had! been! involved! with! the! development!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines!and!neighborhood!planning!processes.!!! ! City!of!Seattle!staff!at!DPD!served!as!a!starting!point!in!the!interview!process,!in!creating!an! understanding!of!City!processes!such!as!the!design!review!program!and!how!they!interfaced! with!the!CDGs!and!NDGs.!!They!were!also!able!to!identify!initial!contacts!within!each!of!the! case!study!neighborhoods!with!experience!and!insight!into!the!process!of!developing!the! design! guidelines! for! their! neighborhood.! ! These! were! crossdreferenced! with! the! acknowledgements!section!of!the!neighborhood!design!guideline!documents!also!served!as! a!pool!of!interview!candidates.!!Table!2.2!lists!the!individuals!who!were!interviewed!during! the!course!of!this!research.! ! Many!of!the!people!interviewed!were!involved!with!design!guidelines!in!different!capacities,! and! had! varying! levels! of! expertise! in! design.! ! This! made! establishing! a! structured! set! of! questions! unworkable! and! impractical.! ! Instead,! I! established! a! semidstructured! set! of! central! questions! intended! to! guide! the! interview,! supplemented! by! a! list! of! related! sub! questions.!!This!full!set!of!questions!is!shown!in!full!in!Appendix!B.!!This!allowed!for!a!more! fluid,!conversational!format!in!which!I!could!ask!further!for!details!as!required.!!Given!the! large! number! of! variables! inherent! in! the! interview! process! (further! discussed! in! assumptions! and! constraints),! the! relatively! loose! nature! of! the! interviews! may! have! resulted!in!getting!different!pieces!of!information!from!each!interview.!To!overcome!this,! the!responses!of!interviewees!were!aggregated!at!the!! neighborhood!rather!than!at!an!individual!level.!The!intent!was!to!present!a!more!holistic! and!broader!representation!of!how!each!neighborhood!contextualized!a!broad!set!of!urban! design!guidelines!to!the!specifics!of!their!neighborhood.! !

24!

Role& Consultant! Consultant! Consultant! Design!Review!Board! DCLU! DPD! DPD! DPD! DPD! DPD! DPD!(former)!

Name& Constanza!Marcheselli! John!Owen! Leslie!Bain! Boting!Zhang! Michael!Kimelberg! Cheryl!Sizov! Dennis!Meier! Kristian!Kofoed! Lisa!Rutzick! Lyle!Bicknell! Vince!Lyons!

Greenwood!

Evan!Bourquard!

Affiliation& Greenwood!Rezone!Stakeholder!Group! Makers!architecture! Weinstein!AU! DRB,!Getting!Engaged!Member! DCLU! DPD!d!Land!Use!Policy! DPD!d!Land!Use!Policy! DPD!d!Comprehensive!Planning! DPD!d!Design!Review! DPD!d!Neighborhood!Planning! DPD!d!Design!Review! Greater!Greenwood!Design!and! Development!Advisory!Group/!Design! Review!Board! Greenwood!Community!Council! Greenwood!Community!Council! MSRC! Wallingford! Wallingford! West!Seattle! West!Seattle!Junction!Association!!

Greenwood! Marty!Spiegel! Greenwood! Rob!Fellows! MSRC! Carol!Tobin! Wallingford! Greg!Hill! Wallingford! Laura!Hewitt!Walker! West!Seattle! Denise!Lathrop! West!Seattle! Kay!Knapton! ! Table&2.2&&Interviewee&List&& ! !! Assumptions!and!Constraints! ! There!were!several!limitations,!constraints!and!assumptions!that!framed!the!scope!of!this! search.!!!The!decision!was!made!to!use!the!existing!Citywide!Design!Guidelines!from!2007! rather!than!the!set!of!draft!design!guidelines!from!2009!that!was!significantly!restructured! in!terms!of!its!content,!and!likely!to!be!adopted!later!in!2012.!!Accompanying!this!updated! CDG!document!was!a!set!of!new!neighborhooddspecific!design!guidelines!that!have!been! aligned!with!the!organization!of!the!updated!guidelines.!!While!the!content!of!these!NDGs! was! not! changed,! given! the! research! interest! in! how! the! existing! NDGs! were! developed! through! neighborhood! processes,! and! that! the! NDG! update! was! done! by! a! consultant! in! conjunction! with! the! City! without! significant! input! from! neighborhoods,! this! new! set! of! guidelines!would!not!have!resulted!in!a!meaningful!analysis.!!!! ! Another!issue!was!the!fact!that!in!some!cases,!the!NDGs!were!written!over!10!years!ago.!In! general,!there!was!a!lack!of!relatively!accessible!information,!with!most!of!the!institutional! memory!buried!in!file!cabinets,!or!in!the!memories!of!individuals!who!had!been!involved!at! the!time.! !

25!

! In!this!research!into!how!urban!design!is!implemented!in!Seattle,!it!is!important!to!note!the! limitations! of! design! guidelines,! as! they! apply! only! to! multifamily! and! Assumptions,+constraints+and+limitations+ commercial! buildings,! and! not! + detached! single9family! homes! that! ! Use!of!2007!design!guidelines!for! multifamily!and!commercial!buildings,!rather! make!up!the!majority!of!the!housing! than!2009!draft!CDGs! stock!in!Seattle!and!contribute!to!the! character! and! urban! fabric! of! the! ! NDGs!were!developed!5910!years!ago;!lack! of!institutional!memory!in!neighborhoods! city.! ! That! said,! the! amount! of! ! Many!buildings!contributing!to!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! multifamily! and! commercial! urban!fabric!that!are!not!subject!to!design! buildings! only! continues! to! increase! review/guidelines! as! Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! population! continues! to! ! Reliance!on!interviews!as!an!source!of! grow! within! City! boundaries,! and! information!dependent!on!many!variables! highlights! the! need! for! good! urban! beyond!control!of!researcher!! design! to! allow! existing! ! neighborhoods! to! accommodate! this!growth!gracefully!in!the!years!to! Figure+2.3++Assumptions,+Constraints+and+Limitations+ come.! ! There!were!a!number!of!limitations!inherent!in!the!interview!process!for!this!research!that! may!have!affected!the!results.!!While!attempts!were!made!to!find!the!most!knowledgeable! and!suitable!interviewees,!their!availability,!interest!and!memory!were!influencing!factors.!! A!number!of!people!were!unavailable!for!interviews,!and!those!who!were!available!were! interviewed!using!a!combination!of!phone!and!in9person!interviews,!which!seemed!to!result! in!differences!in!the!responses.!!There!were!moments!during!the!interviews!where!people! had! difficulty! in! remembering! the! specifics! of! what! happened! at! the! time,! which! is! something!systemic!to!this!type!of!urban!design!research.!!Lastly,!the!reliance!on!the!initial! interviewees!in!informing!the!list!of!interviewees,!there!is!potentially!bias!in!the!perspective! that! was! be! obtained! on! neighborhood! process.! ! This! was! partially! countered,! through! corroboration! against! the! list! of! names! in! the! acknowledgments! in! developing! the! list! of! interviewees.!!Lastly,!time!constraints!meant!that!I!was!unable!to!obtain!as!much!interview! data!as!I!would!have!liked.

26!

Chapter 3 !

Case Studies of Neighborhood Design Guidelines at the City of Seattle

“The) day@to@day) decisions) about) the) allocation) of) government) money) according) to) conflicting) needs) and) different) political) interests,) or) the) economics)of)real@estate)investment,)are)in)fact)the)medium)of)city)design,)as) essential) to) the) art) as) paint) to) the) painter.) …) Urban) designers) must) rid) themselves) of) the) notion) that) their) work) will) be) contaminated) by) an) understanding)of)political)and)real)estate)decisions.))It)is)not)always)necessary) to)approve;)it)is)essential)to)understand”)(Barnett!1974,!6).) ! To!better!understand!the!role!that!neighborhoods!could!play!in!informing!an!urban!design! element! within! the! City! of! Seattle’s! Comprehensive! Plan,! this! research! focused! on! the! development! of! neighborhood! design! guidelines! at! the! City! of! Seattle.! ! Following! the! methodology!for!the!case!study!selection,!the!three!neighborhoods!of!Greenwood/Phinney! Ridge,!Wallingford,!and!West!Seattle!Junction!were!selected!for!further!analysis.!!The!cases! were! selected! to! compare! three! sets! of! NDGs! that! contained! guidelines! varying! in! three! major!ways:!!! ! ! Altered!parent!guideline!d!elaboration!on!how!a!guideline!within!the!CDG!was!stated:! ! North!Beacon!Hill! West!Seattle!Junction! ! Supplementary!guidance!provided!d!how!to!interpret!a!guideline!within!the!CDG! within!the!context!of!a!neighborhood:!! ! ! Wallingford! ! Prioritization!of!CDG!guidance!d!no!NDG!guidance!provided:! ! ! Greenwood/Phinney!Ridge!

27!

These!variations!are!points!along!a!continuum!of!changes!to!the!CDGs:!the!most!substantive! changes! as! “altered! parent! guidelines,! use! of! neighborhooddspecific! detail! as! “supplementary!guidance!provided”!and!acceptance!of!CDG!guidance!as!“prioritization!of! CDG!guidance.!!Using!these!three!types!of!variations!was!one!way!to!calibrate!the!analysis! of!each!neighborhood,!and!to!determine!if!the!variation!in!their!respective!NDGs!might!be!a! result!of!how!neighborhoods!developed!their!design!guidelines!to!contextualize!the!CDGs.! ! One!alteration!to!the!case!study!selection!methodology!resulted!from!discussion!with!Lisa! Rutzick!of!DPD,!who!noted!that!since!the!implementation!of!the!North!Beacon!Hill!design! guidelines!in!2006,!there!has!been!minimal!development,!reducing!its!value!as!a!case!study! neighborhood!as!there!has!been!little!opportunity!to!apply!the!NDGs.!!The!neighborhood! design! guideline! with! the! next! highest! number! of! elaborations! to! the! citywide! design! guidelines!(West!Seattle!Junction)!was!chosen!instead.! ! This!next!three!sections!presents!case!studies!of!three!neighborhoods!in!Seattle,!looking!at! their! experience! of! developing! neighborhood! design! guidelines,! first! by! providing! some! context! for! each! neighborhood,! and! providing! details! of! how! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines! were! developed,! the! major! issues! they! addressed,! and! observations! about! the! process.!!Appendix!C!–!Neighborhood!Design!Guideline!Matrix!summarizes!the!analysis!of! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines,! showing! the! type! of! modification! to! the! CDG.! There! are!five!ways!in!which!CDGs!were!modified!(expanded!description!of!these!modifications! can!be!found!in!in!Figure!2.2):! ! ! Elaboration!of!citywide!guideline!(E)!! ! Application!of!citywide!guideline!(nondneighborhood!specific!examples)!(NN)!! ! Application!of!citywide!guideline!–!neighborhood!specific!examples!(N)!! ! Sitedspecific!application!of!citywide!guideline!!(SS)!! ! Another!guideline!(A)!! ! Appendix! D! takes! that! analysis! further,! comparing! the! text! of! each! NDG! to! the! citywide! design! guidelines,! and! showing! the! specific! textual! changes! to! give! a! clearer! idea! of! the! extent! and! nature! of! the! modifications.! ! The! results! of! this! analysis! will! be! referenced! throughout! Chapters! 3.1! to! 3.3! within! the! context! of! each! respective! neighborhood.!! Chapter!3.4!will!address!the!three!cases,!and!draw!overall!lessons!that!can!be!useful!for!how! urban!design!was!articulated!within!the!three!case!study!neighborhoods.! !

28!

Chapter 3.1 West Seattle Junction

&Figure&3.1.1:&Junction&Plaza&Park& (Photo&credit:&Allie&Gerlach)&

History&& ! One!of!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!oldest!neighborhoods,!West!Seattle!Junction!(the!Junction)!was!a!place!that! was!limited!in!growth!due!to!its!relative!isolation!from!the!rest!of!Seattle,!and!in!the!early! 1900s,!it!was!only!connected!to!downtown!Seattle!by!ferry,!railroad,!or!a!winding!wagon! road.! Despite! this,! transportation! investment! within! West! Seattle! continued,! and! in! 1904! saw!the!first!municipallydowned!streetcar!system!in!the!country!(Tate!2008).!It!had!been!a! fiercely!independent!place,!even!into!the!1990s.!!Its!attempt!to!secede!from!the!City!was! sparked! in! part! by! its! designation! as! a! hub! urban! village! under! Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! urban! village! strategy.!!A!particularly!sensitive!issue!was!the!concentrated!growth!that!this!designation! entailed,!as!illustrated!in!Table!3.1.1,!which!shows!a!targeted!density!increase!of!over!80%! in!a!twentydyear!period.! ! Households! Density!(HH/acre)! Jobs! The! Junction! is! ! 3108! 7.1! 3108! defined! as! a! jagged! 1994!conditions! +1100! +2300! triangular! shape! expected!change! (2014)! !! (2014)! defined! by! the! three! axes! of! California! 2014!targets! 4208! 13! 5400! Ave.! SW,! SW! Alaska! Neighborhood!Size! 225!acre!Hub!Urban!Village! St.! and! Fauntleroy! Table&3.1.1:&West&Seattle&Junction&Growth&Targets&from&Comprehensive& Ave.! SW! (See! Figure! Plan&(Friends&of&the&Junction&1999,&2)&& 3.1.2),! with! the! intersection! of! California! Ave.! SW! and! SW! Alaska! St.! often! identified! as! the! heart! and! commercial!core!of!the!Junction.!!This!definition!of!the!Junction!aligns!well!with!what!has! been! identified! by! the! neighborhood! as! a! priority,! the! establishment! of! a! connection! between! the! heart! of! the! Junction! with! Fauntleroy! Way! SW,! to! create! a! gateway! and! a! !

29!

sense!of!arrival!to!the!West!Seattle!neighborhood!(Friends!of!the!Junction!1999,!8).!!With!its! designation! as! a! hub! urban! village! in! the! Comprehensive! Plan,! the! neighborhood! was! to! “provide! a! balance! of! housing! and! employment,! generally! at! densities! lower! than! those! found!in!urban!centers,!with!a!focus!of!goods,!services,!and!employment!to!communities! that!are!not!located!close!to!urban!centers”!(City!of!Seattle!2009,!1.4).! ! Into! the! late! 1990s,! the! Junction! had! exhibited! some! signs! of! economic! decline,! with! considerable!vacancies!in!some!areas.!!However,!with!upzoning!and!designation!as!a!hub! urban!village!as!part!of!the!Comprehensive!Plan,!it!was!clear!that!change!was!afoot,!with!a! number!of!businesses!coming!in,!and!the!development!of!the!West!Seattle!! Farmer’s! Market,! which! became! so! popular! that! it! now! operates! yeardround.! ! What! has! resulted!since!is!an!increase!in!the!variety!of!choices!in!amenities!that!has!accompanied!the! new!development!(K.!Knapton,!pers.!comm.).! ! Neighborhood&Planning& ! !While!there!was!fierce!opposition!to!this!increased!growth,!some!community!members!saw! it!as!the!evolution!of!the!Junction,!and!wanted!a!way!to!preserve!the!small!town!feel!that! had! attracted! them! there! in! the! first!place!(Friends!of!the!Junction! ! “The)West)Seattle)Junction)Neighborhood)is) 1999a,! 19).! ! This! resulted! in! the! envisioned)as)a)lively)center)of)community)life) formation! of! the! Friends! of! the! and)an)inviting)place)to)live,)work,)play)and)shop.) Junction! Neighborhood! ! Our)small)town)atmosphere)will)be)preserved)and) Association!(FOJ),!who!were!later! will)serve)as)a)model)for)future)development.) tasked! with! involving! the! ! The)Junction)will)be)a)desirable)place)for)families) community! in! the! neighborhood! with)a)safe)and)attractive)residential) planning!process.!! neighborhood)served)by)a)variety)of)park)and) ! recreation)facilities.) Out! of! a! comprehensive! and! ! The)Junction)business)district)will)be)a)vibrant) inclusive! neighborhood! planning! center)of)shopping,)dining,)and)cultural) process,! the! following! vision! opportunities.) statements! for! the! community! ! Pleasant)pedestrian)and)bicycle@friendly)streets) were!established!(Figure!3.1.2).!! and)a)transit)center)will)provide)convenient) & ! access.”))(Friends!of!the!Junction!1999a,!6)! Figure&3.1.2:&West&Seattle&Junction&Vision&Statements& ! ! ! ! ! ! !

30!

! Figure&3.1.2:&West&Seattle&Junction&Hub&Urban&Village&(Source:&City&of&Seattle&2003)& ! & ! Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& ! From! this! process,! FOJ! identified! two! ‘Key! Integrated! Strategies’! as! ways! to! implement! these!visions:!strengthening!the!MixeddUse!Commercial!Core!and!improving!the!Fauntleroy! Gateway! into! the! Junction! (Friends! of! the! Junction! 1999a,! 8).! ! Design! guidelines! were! tailored! specifically! to! address! issues! in! the! Junction! helped! in! achieving! this,! while! also! helping!the!anticipated!growth!(in!the!form!of!larger!and!taller!developments)!better!fit!into! its!surrounding!neighborhood!through!higher!quality!design!that!enhanced!the!identity!for! the!Junction!(K.!Knapton,!pers.!comm.).!!The!neighborhood!design!guidelines!described!the! elements!that!the!neighborhood!wanted!to!see!as!the!neighborhood!continued!to!develop,! particularly!in!enhancements!to!the!pedestrian!ambiance!and!preservation!of!the!Junction’s! small!town!feel.! ! However,! the! community! at! large! did! not! directly! develop! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines.! Rather,! it! was! an! outgrowth! of! the! neighborhood! planning! efforts! that! had! included! significant! community! participation,! and! was! then! further! developed! by! a! small! committee!of!interested!individuals.!!The!design!guidelines!helped!to!provide!more!specific! direction!to!the!neighborhood!plans!to!identify!the!places!that!the!community!valued,!to! retain!West!Seattle’s!small!town!feel,!and!to!provide!enough!density!to!support!the!desired! amenities!expressed!by!the!community!(K.!Knapton,!pers.!comm.).!!The!committee!charged! with!developing!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines!was!comprised!of!representatives!of! !

31!

Friends!of!the!Junction,!the!West!Seattle!Merchants,!the!Chamber!of!Commerce!and!West! Seattle!Trusteed!Properties!(Friends!of!the!Junction!1999b,!15).!This!strong!representation! by!the!business!community!is!reflected!in!much!of!the!content!of!the!guidelines.!!One!of!the! most!vocal!members!on!the!committee!included!a!West!Seattle!developer!who!advocated! that! the! guidelines! should! not! be! overly! difficult! for! developers! to! move! forward! with! projects.! His! role! seems! to! have! had! an! effect! on! the! final! form! of! the! guidelines,! with! consideration!to!not!overly!burden!developers!in!implementing!the!design!guidelines.!!The! guidelines!also!include!specific!wording!encouraging!the!Design!Review!Board!to!facilitate! design!departures!in!return!for!additional!sidewalk!space,!or!for!the!addition!of!a!pedestrian! walkway! through! the! street! wall! connecting! to! the! alley! and! parking! lots! behind! the! commercial!corridors!(K.!Knapton,!pers.!comm.).!! ! During! the! development! of! the! guidelines,! there! was! tension! between! the! various! stakeholders! involved,! particularly! with! guideline! Bd1! related! to! height,! bulk,! and! scale! compatibility.!!This!was!in!part!due!to!the!frustrations!of!residents!with!the!increased!height! limits!that!accompanied!the!Junction’s!designation!as!a!Hub!Urban!Village.!!The!associated! zoning!resulted!in!abrupt!edges!between!new!and!existing!buildings,!and!is!an!issue!that!is! still!unresolved,!and!apparent!during!design!review!board!meetings.! ! While! the! people! most! heavily! involved! in! the! neighborhood! planning! efforts! were! local! residents! and! neighbors,! the! focus! of! the! neighborhood! plan! on! strengthening! the! commercial! core! required! business! community! involvement! in! developing! the! NDGs.!! However,!this!meant!that!many!of!the!decisions!regarding!the!design!guidelines!ended!up! being! made! by! businesses.! One! example! of! this! is! reflected! in! WSJ’s! neighborhood! plan,! where!the!one!of!the!draft!recommendations!for!the!business!district!focused!on!reductions! in! building! height! in! the! commercial! core! from! 85’! to! 65’.! ! Despite! receiving! the! most! community!support!during!its!outreach!efforts!and!that!it!would!have!had!more!consistency! with!its!HUV!designation!as!per!the!City’s!comprehensive!plan,!it!was!eliminated!from!the! plan! in! favor! of! an! alternate! recommendation,! as! “the! support! did! not! constitute! a! community! consensus! among! all! the! major! stakeholders”! (Friends! of! the! Junction! 1999a,! 19).!!While!business!owners!were!generally!reluctant!to!take!a!strong!stance!on!these!issues! as! to! not! alienate! their! patrons,! overall,! they! were! more! accepting! of! incoming! development! than! the! neighborhood! residents.! ! Through! the! West! Seattle! Junction! Association!(WSJA),!businesses!were!able!to!express!their!opinions!indirectly!without!fear!of! reprisal!(loss!of!business)!(K.!Knapton,!pers.!comm.).!!While!it!may!seem!that!the!interests!of! businesses! and! residents! are! always! competing,! the! case! study! of! West! Seattle! also! highlights! the! power! of! partnerships.! ! Over! time,! the! people! of! the! Junction! have! rediscovered! the! value! of! neighborhood! business! areas,! and! that! healthy! neighborhood! businesses!and!the!resulting!pedestrian!traffic!(that!the!NDGs!were!aimed!to!facilitate)!can! also! result! in! a! neighborhood! that! is! prosperous! and! safe! with! a! highdquality! built! environment.! !

32!

Discussion( ! In# general,# the# West# Seattle# Junction# NDGs# did# not# modify# the# majority# of# the# guidelines# within#the#Citywide#Design#Guidelines,#as#summarized#in#Appendix#C.##Where#modifications# were# made# to# the# goal# of# the# design# guidelines# to# strengthen# the# mixedCuse# commercial# core,#it#was#often#a#significant#shift#that#was#in#response#to#the#unique#site#conditions#of# West# Seattle# Junction# identified# by# the# design# guideline# committee.# # A# more# thorough# description#of#the#modifications#to#the#CDGs#by#the#neighborhood#design#guideline#can#be# found#in#Appendix#D.1#–#West#Seattle#Junction#NDG#Modifications.### # In# most# cases,# the# changes# pertained# specifically# to# the# primary# commercial# corridors# of# California#and#Alaska#Avenues#SW,#specifying#treatments#such#as#active#sidewalks#to#engage# pedestrians# (e.g.# widening# sidewalks# for# public# space,# or# providing# outdoor# power# and# water# sources)# or# encouraging# pedestrian# walkways# through# larger# sites# to# provide# movement#to#adjacent#parking#and#neighborhoods#(see#guidelines#AC2,#AC3,#AC10,#DC1#and# DC5#in#Appendix#D.1).##Another#area#of#change#was#identifying#examples#to#avoid#such#as# previous#areas#of#incompatible#development,#and#describing#what#was#required#of#future# development#to#ensure#a#smooth#transition#from#different#intensities#of#use#(see#guidelines# BC1,#CC2#in#Appendix#D.1).# # Given#the#West#Seattle#Junction’s#key#concerns#of#maintaining#the#smallCtown#character#and# strengthening#the#mixedCuse#commercial#core#of#the#Junction,#another#major#aspect#of#the# guidelines#dealt#with#how#to#maintain#this#character#in#the#face#of#development.##This#was# evident#in#the#attention#to#building#facades,#and#in#ensuring#that#the#facade#of#any#larger# buildings# reflected# the# original# narrow# platting# patterns# and# architectural# details# of# historically#significant#buildings#(see#guidelines#BC1#and#CC1#in#Appendix#D.1).#The#guidelines# paid#particular#attention#to#details#and#methods#that#would#help#to#maintain#the#connection# to#the#Junction’s#historic#roots.# # The# treatment# of# the# parking# lots# and# alleys# behind# the# main# commercial# corridors# (California#Ave.#SW#and#SW# Alaska# St.),# and# the# pedestrian# walkways# through# the# street# wall# addresses# issues# very# specific#to#the#Junction#(See# Figure#3.1.3).##In#the#1960s,# Trusteed# Properties,# made# up# of# local# merchants# and# property#

owners,#

had# Figure(3.1.3(Pedestrian(walkways(through(development(sites(

33!

acquired!several!lots!of!deteriorating!singledfamily!houses!along!44th!between!SW!Alaska!St! and! SW! Edmunds! St,! and! converted! them! to! offdstreet! parking! lots! for! the! retail! along! California!Ave.!SW.!This!was!seen!as!an!important!amenity!particularly!to!the!retailers!along! the!California!Ave.!SW!corridor,!and!reflected!in!guideline!Dd1!(pedestrian!open!spaces!and! entrances)!providing!guidance!to!grant!departures!in!upper!lot!coverage!requirements!for! mixedduse! projects.! ! This! would! help! to! make! up! the! loss! in! ground! floor! development! potential! for! projects! addressing! the! unique! middblock! passageways! between! businesses! that! would! provide! easy! access! to! the! surrounding! neighborhood,! but! primarily! to! the! parking!lots!behind!the!businesses.!!! ! These! passageways! have! contributed! to! the! pedestrian! activation! of! the! alleys! behind! the! businesses! on! California! Ave.! SW! and!have!encouraged!businesses!to! embrace! the! rear! portions! of! new! buildings! as! part! of! a! pedestrian! streetscape.!!West!Seattle!Junction,! with! small! town! character,! and! its! unique! urban! fabric! utilizing! alleys! as! pedestrian! corridors,! has! struggled! somewhat! with! the! Figure&3.1.4&Pedestrian&walkways&in&West&Seattle& amount! of! growth! that! has! (Photo&credit:&Christopher&Boffoli)& happened!in!the!area.!!Despite!that,! and! a! process! that! was! more! focused! more! on! the! business! community! than! on! the! neighborhood!residents,!there!has!been!the!growing!recognition!that!both!businesses!and! residents!need!to!work!together!to!be!successful!as!Junction!continues!to!grow!and!evolve! into!a!vibrant,!pedestriandoriented!urban!village.! ! ! !

34!

Figure&3.2.1&Wallingford&Views& &(Photo&credit:&Steve&Bowles)& &

Chapter 3.2 Wallingford History&

! Wallingford,!a!traditional!1920s!neighborhood!was!built!up!with!bungalows!and!box!houses! on!intimate!treedlined!roads!adjacent!to!the!predominantly!pedestriandoriented!onedstory! masonry! commercial! buildings.! ! These! commercial! corridors! follow! the! path! of! the! traditional!streetcar!lines!that!once!served!the!neighborhood.!!Wallingford!has!had!a!long! history!of!high!community!involvement!in!planning!and!land!use!issues!dating!back!to!the! late!1960s!and!early!1970s.!!Even!prior!to!the!beginning!of!the!design!review!program!in! 1993! (Community! Connection! 1998,! 7),! the! neighborhood! was! already! organized! in! the! sense! that! they! were! actively! appealing! to! the! hearing! examiner! on! projects! that! the! neighborhood!thought!of!as!inappropriate!to!the!community!context!(G.!Hill,!pers.!comm.).! Neighborhood&Planning& ! Team! Wallingford! was! a! concerted! neighborhood! planning! effort! formed! to! help! the! community! go! through! the! neighborhood! planning!process.!From!1996d1998,!this!process! had! a! strong! commitment! to! community! outreach,!and!out!of!it,!three!key!projects!(see! Figure! 3.2.2)! were! identified! as! part! of! Wallingfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!neighborhood!plan:!! !

35!

! ! !

Revitalize)and)Enhance)the)45th) Street)Business)District) Build)the)Sense)and)Value)of)the) Community)) Calm)Traffic)and)Enhance)the) Pedestrian)Environment) (Community!Connection!1998,!14)! !

Figure&3.2.2&&Key&Projects&In&Wallingfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s& neighborhood&plan&

Figure&3.2.3& Wallingford&Residential&Urban&Village&(Source:&City&of&Seattle&2003)&

& As! a! planning! area,! Wallingford! was! designated! as! a! residential! urban! village! (RUV),! and! shown!in!Figure!3.2.3,!bounded!by!N!60th!St!to!the!north,!Id5!to!the!east,!Lake!Union!to!the! south,!and!Stone!Way!N!to!the!east,!with!the!southwest!corner!carved!out!by!the!hub!urban! village!at!Fremont.!The!main!commercial!areas!include!much!of!the!corridors!of!!N!45th!St.,! Stone!Way!N,!and!the!bottom!terminus!of!Wallingford!Ave.!N.! ! Within!its!neighborhood!plan,!Wallingford!had!identified!that!it!has!both!the!capacity!and! demand! for! additional! housing! units! within! the! boundaries! of! its! residential! urban! village! (RUV).! ! Table! 3.2.1.! shows! the! 20! year! household! growth! targets! in! 1990,! which! were! achieved!within!two!years!of!its!designation!as!a!RUV!(G.!Hill,!pers.!comm.).!!Recognizing! that!growth!was!likely!to!continue!beyond!targeted!levels,!the!neighborhood!was!interested! in! some! way! to! provide! guidance! to! developers! !! Households! Density!(HH/acre)! in! meeting! community! 1990!conditions! 1973! 8.1! standards! of! design.! ! In! expected!change! 200!add'l!(2010)! !! providing! guidance! to! 2010!targets! 2173! 8.9! specific! areas! of! the! Neighborhood!Size! 245!acre!Residential!Urban!Village! neighborhood,!the!!!NDGs! provide! developers! with! Table!3.2.1:!Wallingford!Growth!Targets!from!Comprehensive!Plan! a! predictable! and! (Community!Connection!1998,!20)! &

36!

affordable!path!to!move!forward!on!their!projects.!!At!the!same!time,!NDGs!provides!the! neighborhood!with!a!mechanism!for!guiding!new!development!to!fit!into!the!existing!urban! fabric,!at!a!more!granular!level!than!would!be!possible!through!the!land!use!code!alone.! ! Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& ! Two! major! areas! of! concern! in! Wallingford’s! design! guidelines! were! the! architectural! character! of! the! commercial! core! and! the! enhancement! of! views! of! the! Olympic! and! Cascade! mountains! along! N! 45th! St! and! the! views! of! the! downtown! skyline! on! the! NdS! streets!south!of!N!40th!St.! !

! Figure&3.2.4& Wallingford&Commercial&Corridor&(Photo&Credit:&Aaron&Thompson)&

The!neighborhood!design!guidelines!came!out!of!the!desire!of!residents!and!businesses!for! a!set!of!guidelines!to!influence!the!design!of!development!along!Wallingford’s!commercial! corridors!in!a!way!that!was!specific!to!the!character!of!Wallingford!and!that!could!help!with! neighborhood! efforts! to! revitalize! and! enhance! the! 45th! St! business! district! by! creating! a! vibrant,!pedestriandoriented!public!realm!(Hewitt!Walker!and!Weaver!2001).!Prior!to!this,! Wallingford!had!relied!on!the!citywide!design!guidelines,!but!found!that!the!guidelines!did! not!sufficiently!address!the!unique!context!of!the!neighborhood!(G.!Hill.!pers.!comm.).!In! 1998,! the! Wallingford! Design! Guidelines! Team,! a! subcommittee! of! the! Wallingford! Community!Council!was!formed!to!develop!these!guidelines.!!Over!a!twodyear!period,!they! developed! a! set! of! design! guidelines! tailored! to! Wallingford’s! unique! character,! working! with!the!community!and!business!groups!(Wallingford!Community!Council!and!Chamber!of! Commerce,!Weaving!Wallingford),!DCLU!(DPD’s!predecessor),!and!the!community!at!large.!!! ! The! neighborhood! was! also! aided! by! the! efforts! of! a! UW! Planning! Studio! led! by! Ron! Kasprisin.!!Using!a!draft!of!the!NDGs!to!identify!sitedspecific!design!guidelines!for!a!number! of!key!lots!in!Wallingford,!the!students!in!the!studio!explored!the!possibilities!of!what!the! application! of! Wallingford’s! NDGs! might! look! like! on! a! specific! site.! ! This! work! was!

37!

integrated!into!a!process!of!identifying!properties!that!were!likely!to!be!developed!in!the! near! future! and! that! would! set! a! substantial! precedent! for! future! projects! within! Wallingford’s! commercial! corridors.! ! The! idea! was! that! properties! redeveloping! in! accordance! with! the! identified! sitedspecific! guidelines! could! undergo! an! expedited! design! review! process,! although! this! was! not! incorporated! into! the! final! version! of! the! NDGs.!! Rather!they!are!simply!identified!as!desirable!examples!of!development!on!those!key!sites.! ! The!Wallingford!Design!Guidelines!Team!put!together!a!community!involvement!strategy,! starting!with!flyers!and!newsletters,!and!later!moving!to!Ednewsletters,!a!website!links!to! the! draft! design! guidelines,! open! bimonthly! team! meetings! as! well! as! visibility! at! design! review!board!meetings!and!neighborhood!events.!!Lastly,!there!were!a!series!of!five!design! guideline!workshops!that!allowed!an!opportunity!for!the!public!to!participate!in!influencing! the!final!form!of!the!design!guidelines!(Hewitt!Walker!and!Weaver!2001,!6).! ! Within! the! Wallingford! neighborhood! plan,! the! following! process! was! outlined! for! developing!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines,!and!having!this!methodical!framework!has! helped!to!set!expectations!for!people!interested!in!participating!in!the!process:! ! ! Obtain)services)of)a)design)professional)or)planner)to)assist)the)community)in) developing)general)guidelines.) ! Conduct)a)visual)preference)survey)among)key)stakeholder)groups.) ! Develop)guidelines)for)neighborhood)commercial)and)multi@family)areas)in) Wallingford’s)Residential)Urban)Village,) ! Identify)key)properties)likely)to)be)developed)with)housing,)including)mixed@use) proposals,)and)likely)to)set)a)substantial)precedent)for)design)of)new)projects)in) these)corridors.) ! Develop)site@specific)guidelines)for)key)properties)using)DCLU)processes)(with) costs)covered)by)City).) ! Establish)a)review)process)that)strongly)involves)the)neighborhood)and)that) identifies)those)who)will)review)projects)on)behalf)of)the)neighborhood.) ! Assemble)Wallingford)guidelines)for)adoption)by)City)Council.))) (Community!Connection!1998,!23)! ! Discussion&& ! There! were! several! key! features! that! shaped! how! Wallingford’s! neighborhood! guidelines! were!tailored!to!respond!to!the!context!of!the!neighborhood.!!First!was!the!community’s! prior! experience! in! planning! and! land! use! issues,! where! the! neighborhood! had! been! successful! in! getting! developers! to! change! their! designs! to! better! fit! the! neighborhood! context,! and! the! experience! of! several! committee! members! in! the! development! of! the! citywide! design! guidelines.! ! Cognizant! of! the! time! constraints! that! design! review! boards! worked!with!during!design!review!meetings,!the!design!guidelines!team!put!focus!on!how! to! make! it! easy! for! design! review! boards! to! understand! the! intent! of! the! neighborhoodd

38!

specific!guidelines.!!A!heavy!emphasis!was!placed!on!the!use!of!photos!and!drawings,!and! specificity!in!providing!examples!that!were!generally!relevant!to!Wallingford!or!sitedspecific! applications!that!delineated!areas!where!a!guideline!would!be!particularly!effective!(G.!Hill,! pers.! comm.).! Using! the! structure! of! the! CDGs! as! a! template,! the! design! guideline! committee! systematically! examined! each! guideline! and! attempted! to! provide! as! much! guidance! that! would! be! specific! to! Wallingford,! in! contextualizing! the! citywide! guidelines! into!the!neighborhood!(L.!Hewitt!Walker,!pers.!comm.).!! ! ! Wallingford!has!also!recognized!it!is!sometimes!necessary!to!break!the!design!guidelines!so! that!rather!than!simply!responding!to!context,!a!building!can!actually!provide!a!new!context! for!future!development.!!Specifically,!the!NDGs!state!that!“departures!are!favored!if!they! facilitate! design! that! encourages! pedestrian! activity! within! the! Wallingford! retail! core! or! reinforce!the!identity!or!character!of!the!neighborhood”!(City!of!Seattle!2006a,!3).! ! For! example,! departures! have! been! considered! to! allow! the! retention! of! significant! trees! (guidelines! Ad7,! Ed3),! setbacks! for! view! corridor! enhancement! (guideline! Ad10),! and! provision! of! public! realm! (guideline! Ad10).! ! These! departures! are! directly! linked! to! Wallingford’s! “key! projects”! of! reinforcing! neighborhood! character! and! identify,! and! encouraging!pedestrian!activities!within!the!Wallingford!retail!core.!!These!considerations! for!departures!are!integrated!with!the!guidance!from!other!guidelines!within!the!NDGs!to! provide! a! holistic! vision! of! Wallingford’s! community! character.! ! ! A! more! thorough! description!of!the!modifications!to!the!CDGs!by!the!neighborhood!design!guideline!can!be! found!in!Appendix!D.2!–!Wallingford!NDG!Modifications.! ! With! the! case! of! Wallingford,! the! design! guidelines! committee! leveraged! its! expertise! in! design! review! with! a! commitment! to! public! engagement! through! a! comprehensive! community!involvement!strategy!to!create!a!set!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines!that!was! based! on! neighborhood! planning! goals,! built! upon! existing! resources,! rather! than! reinventing!the!wheel.! ! ! ! !

39!

Figure&3.3.1&Greenwood&Main&Street&&(Photo&Credit:&Joe&Mabel)&

Chapter 3.3 Greenwood/Phinney Ridge History& ! With!a!“Main!Street”!that!has!developed!along!the!historic!trolley!route!along!Phinney!and! Greenwood! Aves.! N,! Greenwood/Phinney! Ridge! has! an! eclectic! character! of! mixedduse! buildings,!an!active!commercial!core!and!some!of!the!most!affordable!existing!housing!in! the! City,! despite! the! significant! development! pressure! during! the! housing! bubble! of! the! 1990s.!!In!part,!it!was!the!perception!of!poor!access!to!the!neighborhood,!as!well!as!the!lack! of! formal! sidewalks! north! of! North! 85th! St.! that! contributed! to! the! neighborhood’s! high! level! of! affordability! (City! of! Seattle! 2003,! 47).! ! The! development! pressure! is! particularly! notable! in! the! rate! of! building! permit! applications:! more! building! permit! applications! for! additional!housing!units!were!filed!in!the!subsequent!four!years!after!the!enactment!of!the! Comprehensive! Plan! in! 1994! than! were! allocated! in! the! twentydyear! growth! targets! that! were!established!for!the!urban!villages!(GPRNPC!1999,!6).!!The!neighborhood!has!also!seen! a! demographic! shift,! with! many! of! the! established! residents! giving! way! to! younger! and! more!affluent!families.! ! Neighborhood&Planning& ! In!1996,!the!neighborhood!hired!Davidya!Kasperzyk!of!A!Northwest!Collaborative!(ANC)!to! lead! their! neighborhood! planning! process,! engaging! with! the! stakeholders! of! the! neighborhood! and! transcribe! their! neighborhood! vision! for! the! next! ten! to! twenty! years.!! There! was! a! shared! concern! about! the! development! pressure! that! accompanied! the! booming! real! estate! market! of! the! 1990s,! with! many! people! wanting! to! build! and! buy! !

40!

properties,)and)much)discussion)revolved)around)where)the)development)was)going)to)take) place,) and) issues) related) to) traffic.) ) Through) this) process,) the) following) “key) integrated) strategies”)were)identified)in)Figure)3.3.2.)) ) As) a) planning) area,) ! Create&a&vital&Greenwood&that&supports&an& Greenwood/) Phinney) Ridge) economically&viable&Main&Street&and&redeveloped& was) designated) a) residential) commercial&area& urban)village,)and)is)bounded) ! Connect&civic&centers&and&commercial&areas&with& by)N)105th)St.)Aurora)Ave.)N,) "Main&Street&"&plan& N)50th)St.)and)8th)Ave.)NW,)as) ! Open&spaces&and&walkways&"put&the&greenback&in& shown) in) Figure) 3.3.2.) The) Greenwood&"…&And&Phinney&Ridge& City’s) initial) allocation) of) ! Improve&mobility&and&accessibility&regionally&and& growth) to) the) neighborhood) within&the&community& through) their) urban) village) ! Support&infrastructure&improvements&in&the&northeast& strategy) was) into) a) box) and&northwest&quadrants)(GPRNPC)1999,)4\5)) bounded)by)N)85th)St.,)N)80th) ! St.,) 3rd) Ave.) NW,) and) Aurora) Figure&3.3.2&Greenwood/Phinney&Key&Integrated&Strategies& Ave.) N.) ) Eventually,) after) much)discussion)with)DPD,)DON,)and)even)City)Council,)it)was)changed)to)better)reflect)the) neighborhood’s) historic) development) patterns,) in) a) cruciform) shape) along) N) 85th) St) and) Greenwood) Ave.) N.,) with) the) remaining) parcels) outside) that) area) to) remain) single) family) residential) (M.) Spiegel,) pers.) comm.).) Despite) a) narrower) physical) form,) the) proposal) initiated) by) the) neighborhood) included) far) more) additional) residential) units) to) be) added) into)the)neighborhood)than)the)original)proposal)by)the)City)(R.)Fellows,)pers.)comm.))and) Table)3.3.1)provides)a)sense)of)the)amount)of)growth)that)was)planned.) ) )) )) Households) Density)(HH/acre)) 1990)conditions) 1236) 13.1) expected)change) 350) )) 2010)targets) 1586) 16.9) Neighborhood)Size) 94)acre)Residential)Urban)Village) )Table&3.3.1:&Greenwood/Phinney&Growth&Targets&from&Comprehensive&Plan& )(Source:&City&of&Seattle&2003)&

41!

! Figure!3.3.3:!! Greenwood/Phinney!Ridge!Residential!Urban!Village! ! (Source:!City!of!Seattle!2003)! !

42!

Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& ! Two!of!the!“key!integrated!strategies”!from!the!Greenwood/Phinney!Ridge!Neighborhood! Plan! that! influenced! the! NDGs! related! to! the! revitalization! of! two! main! areas! in! the! neighborhood:! ! the! “Main! Street”! along! Greenwood/Phinney! Aves! N,! and! the! “Town! Center”!area!surrounding!the!historic!intersection!at!Greenwood!Ave.!N!and!N!85th!St!(M.! Spiegel,! pers.! comm.).! Subsequent! work! after! the! neighborhood! plan! on! these! areas! resulted! in! the! 2001! Greenwood/Phinney! Main! Street! Plan! (completed! by! Makers! Architecture!and!Urban!Design),!and!2002!Town!Center!Plan!(completed!by!GGLO).! ! The! urban! design! issues! addressed! in! these! documents! formed! the! starting! point! for! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines! in! Greenwood/Phinney,! as! a! response! to! development! slated!to!come!into!the!neighborhood.!!In!particular,!an!existing!Fred!Meyer!was!looking!at! redeveloping! their! property! at! 100! NW! 85th! Street.! Despite! its! C1d40! zoning! (an! autod oriented,! primarily! retail/service! commercial! area! with! a! height! limit! of! forty! feet),! the! neighborhood! was! interested! in! creating! a! more! pedestriandoriented! and! urban! environment,!as!opposed!to!similar!precedents!further!south!on!Aurora!Avenue,!which!are! predominantly!automobiledoriented!(E.!Bourquard,!pers.!comm.).! ! The!Greenwood!Community!Council,!working!with!economic!development!staff!at!the!City! of! Seattle,! formed! a! steering! community! made! up! of! the! property! owners,! Greenwood! Community!Council,!and!the!GreenwooddPhinney!Chamber!of!Commerce.!!This!committee! was! formed! to! develop! the! concept! of! a! town! center! for! Greenwood.! ! Part! of! the! town! center!plan!was!to!provide!a!set!of!design!guidelines!that!would!give!a!sense!of!coherence! to! the! area,! with! the! hopes! of! engaging! the! developer! and! getting! them! on! board! in! creating!a!development!that!would!contribute!positively!to!the!community!(R.!Fellows,!pers.! comm.).! In! developing! the! overall! Greenwood/Phinney! Neighborhood! Guidelines,! Makers! Architecture!and!Urban!Design,!who!had!worked!previously!on!the!Main!Street!Plan,!spent! considerable!effort!in!formulating!the!actual!structure!of!the!design!guidelines,!and!relied! heavily!on!the!community!to!express!their!preferences,!and!their!major!issues!and!concerns! (M.!Spiegel,!pers.!comm.).! ! There! were! eight! to! ten! individuals! that! participated! in! the! core! neighborhood! design! guidelines!group,!with!each!person!representing!an!organization!beyond!themselves.!!Once! they! had! developed! a! draft! set! of! guidelines,! they! involved! the! public! into! the! process,! presenting! the! work! at! public! meetings! and! community! events,! and! soliciting! feedback! through! survey! forms.! ! Public! engagement! in! urban! design! can! be! tricky! to! navigate,! particularly! when! there! were! groups! that! were! often! underrepresented! at! community! meetings.! ! In! the! case! of! Greenwood,! two! such! community! groups! included! those! with! language!and!cultural!barriers!who!did!not!feel!comfortable!engaging!in!the!environment!of! a!public!meeting,!as!well!as!a!number!of!vocal!absentee!homeowners,!who!entered!partway! into! the! process! as! they! felt! they! had! not! been! adequately! consulted.! ! This! resulted! in! another!round!of!engagement!to!ensure!that!the!feedback!of!these!groups!had!been!fed! into!the!process!(M.!Spiegel,!pers.!comm.).!After!this!process,!the!City!provided!additional! !

43!

work,!mainly!to!add!graphics!and!photos,!and!standardize!the!formatting!to!be!consistent! with!the!CDGs,!and!in!2006!the!Greenwood/Phinney!neighborhood!design!guidelines!were! adopted!(L.!Bicknell,!pers.!comm.).! ! Discussion&& ! The! Greenwood/Phinney! Design! Guidelines! accepted! twentydone! of! thirtydone! citywide! design! guidelines,! and! with! changes! to! the! other! ten! guidelines! summarized! in! Appendix! D.3.! While! the! NDGS! went! without! providing! further! guidance! on! many! of! the! CDGs,! Greenwood’s! design! guidelines! differ! from! many! of! the! other! neighborhood! design! guidelines!in!a!major!way.!!A!lot!of!work!had!gone!into!the!town!center!plan,!with!the!intent! to!make!it!more!pedestriandoriented!with!a!mix!of!uses,!combining!housing!and!retail,!and! help!that!part!of!Greenwood!transition!away!from!being!so!autodoriented!(M.!Spiegel,!pers.! comm.).! The! priority! placed! on! the! Town! Center! in! the! development! of! the! NDGs! is! reflected!in!the!framework!of!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines,!which!has!an!additional! section! for! Town! Center! Specific! Guidelines.! ! The! Town! Center! Specific! Guidelines! were! developed! from! the! urban! design! recommendations! coming! from! the! 2002! Greenwood! Town! Center! Plan! that! provide! very! specific! detail! regarding! issues! of! compatibility,! midd block! connections,! open! space,! street! pattern,! landscaping,! pedestrian! lighting,! signage,! building!orientation,!massing,!parking!and!vehicular!circulation!(City!of!Seattle!2006,!13)!! While!these!topics!were!covered!by!various!sections!of!the!citywide!design!guidelines,!the! town! center! was! a! critical! issue! at! the! time! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines! were! developed,!centering!on!what!would!happen!with!an!anticipated!Fred!Meyer!development.! The! community! felt! that! the! issues! surrounding! the! town! center! warranted! separate! treatment,! and! an! extra! level! of! specificity! about! where! certain! guidelines! were! to! be! applied.!! ! Besides!the!Town!Center!Design!Guidelines,!Greenwood’s!Neighborhood!Design!Guidelines! provide! some! neighborhood! specific! guidance,! with! an! emphasis! on! the! guidelines! that! address! community! character! (Ad1! Responding! to! Site! Characteristics,! Ad2! Streetscape! Compatibility,!and!C!Architectural!Elements),!particularly!in!respect!to!supporting!the!Main! Street!Plan!through!enhancing!pedestrian!streetscapes,!and!consideration!of!Greenwood’s! utilitarian,!nondflamboyant,!traditional!architectural!styles.! ! In!a!sense,!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines!were!the!manifestations!of!the!urban!design! concepts! of! both! the! town! center! plan! and! the! main! street! plan,! with! a! regular! set! of! guidelines!looking!at!the!linear!corridor!of!Phinney!and!Greenwood!Aves.!N,!and!a!set!of! Town!Center!Specific!Guidelines!focusing!on!the!area!surrounding!Greenwood!Ave.!N!and!N! 85th!St.! ! In!speaking!with!those!involved!in!developing!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines,!it!was! evident! from! their! structure! that! they! had! been! derived! from! the! extensive! public! engagement! process! of! neighborhood! planning! efforts.! While! Greenwood/Phinney’s!

44!

experience!was!that!its!design!guidelines!had!been!an!outgrowth!of!neighborhood!planning,! its!approach!in!its!development!was!to!start!with!the!community!and!really!understand!its! goals!(as!identified!through!the!neighborhood!planning!process),!rather!than!start!with!the! citywide!design!guidelines.!!In!this!way,!the!Greenwood/Phinney!design!guidelines!help!to! weave! together! the! different! elements! of! their! neighborhood! plans,! and!are! less! specific! about!needing!to!elaborate!on!each!specific!citywide!design!guideline.! ! !

Chapter 3.4 Findings from Analysis of Design Guidelines The!spectrum!of!differences!in!the!content!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines!ranges!from! elaboration,! where! the! wording! and/or! intent! of! the! guideline! itself! was! altered;! the! application!of!the!CDGs!with!neighborhood)and)non@neighborhood)specific)examples;!site@ specific)application)of)an)example!in!the!CDGs,!and!where!a!guideline!seemed!misplaced)in) another) guideline.! The! changes! in! content! of! the! NDGs! serve! as! a! starting! point! for! understanding!the!approaches!taken!by!neighborhoods!as!they!developed!these!guidelines.!! These!approaches!are!shaped!by!the!social!processes!inherent!in!urban!design.!! ! Content&of&Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& ! Neighborhood! design! guidelines! provide! value! in! that! they! provide! a! flexible! structure! within!which!to!discuss!the!agreed!upon!goals!for!the!community,!and!that!they!simplify! neighborhood!plans!in!a!way!that!makes!them!useable!(M.!Spiegel,!pers.!comm.).!!This!can! be! seen! in! the! fact! that! not! all! guidelines! in! the! CDGs! require! elaboration! at! the! neighborhood!level.!!By!allowing!neighborhoods!the!choice!to!select!only!those!guidelines! that! pertain! to! their! own! individual! context,! these! communities! are! able! to! more! clearly! articulate!the!character!of!their!community!while!operating!within!the!frameworks!of!the! broader!citywide!design!guidelines.! ! In! the! analysis! of! the! content! for! the! three! NDGs,! looking! at! the! specific! guidelines! individually! provided! little! in! terms! of! insight.! ! Rather,! it! was! in! looking! at! groups! of! guidelines,! or! even! the! design! guidelines! as! a! whole! that! their! value! emerged.! ! While! all! three!of!the!design!guidelines!in!the!case!studies!were!developed!as!a!response!to!incoming! change!to!the!neighborhood,!the!manner!in!which!they!were!formulated!(in!terms!of!their! intent!and!approach)!provides!some!insights!to!the!nature!of!urban!design!in!Seattle.! ! Community! concerns! such! as! maintaining! community! character! that! were! especially! important!to!West!Seattle!Junction!and!Wallingford!were!not!addressed!with!a!single!design! guideline,! but! rather! approached! through! multiple! guidelines! primarily! from! the! Site! Planning,!Height,!Bulk!and!Scale,!and!Architectural!Elements!and!Materials!sections!of!the! design! guidelines.! Greenwood/Phinney,! on! the! other! hand,! took! another! approach! by!

45!

creating!a!separate!set!of!town!center!guidelines!as!a!way!of!influencing!the!character!of! incoming!development.! ! Social&Processes&of&Neighborhood&Design&Guidelines& ! In!looking!beyond!simply!what!adopted!as!the!content!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines,! this!research!also!looked!at!the!social!processes!of!urban!design!that!affected!how!NDGs! developed!within!each!the!three!case!study!neighborhoods.! Wallingford( There! were! two! main! social! factors! that! influenced! Wallingford’s! NDG! response! to! the! citywide!design!guidelines.!!First!was!the!design!guideline!committee’s!familiarity!with!the! City’s!design!review!process,!(with!some!of!the!committee!members!having!played!a!role!in! developing!the!process)!which!allowed!them!to!think!strategically!about!how!to!structure! the!NDGs!in!a!way!that!would!be!useful!for!the!purposes!of!design!review.!!!In!keeping!this! end!goal!in!mind!for!how!the!NDGs!were!to!be!used,!the!committee!combed!through!the! citywide!design!guidelines,!and!ensured!that!a!response!was!developed!to!a!majority!of!the! guidelines! where! relevant.! Rather! than! try! to! fit! the! neighborhood’s! vision! into! the! framework! of! the! citywide! design! guidelines,! they! used! the! CDGs! as! a! reference! point! in! engaging! with! the! neighborhood.! ! This! resulted! in! Wallingford’s! NDGs! exhibiting! a!strong! alignment!with!the!CDGs,!and!provides!a!basis!for!the!design!review!board!to!give!guidance! that!would!maintain!neighborhood!character.!The!second!factor!influencing!Wallingford’s! NDGs! was! its! ability! to! leverage! partnerships! through! a! comprehensive! community! involvement! strategy.! ! In! doing! so,! they! were! able! to! involve! the! neighborhood! to! a! substantial!degree,!in!an!inclusive!manner!that!included!different!forms!of!communication! that!could!reach!stakeholders!with!varying!preference!for!engagement.! ! West(Seattle(Junction( In!the!case!of!West!Seattle!Junction,!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines!responded!to!the! parking! access! concerns! by! vocal! local! businesses! on! the! California! Avenue! commercial! corridor.!!With!the!strong!influence!of!developers!and!businesses!on!the!design!guidelines! committee,! and! the! challenge! of! transitioning! the! 65’! and! 85’! buildings! allowable! by! the! zoning!to!the!height,!bulk!and!scale!of!the!existing!buildings,!the!FOJ!saw!a!need!to!modify! the!original!intent!of!several!of!the!CDGs!and!make!it!relevant!to!the!issues!at!the!Junction.!! A!balance!is!needed!in!order!to!maintain!the!‘small!town’!character!that!gives!the!Junction! its!sense!of!place,!and!being!able!to!accommodate!the!projected!growth.!! ! !

46!

Greenwood( Greenwood!started!by!engaging!the!neighborhood!from!the!outset,!recognizing!the!concern! over!the!development!of!the!Town!Center.!!Rather!than!using!the!citywide!design!guidelines! as!a!starting!point,!a!separate!set!of!Town!Center!Guidelines!was!created!that!provided!a! higher!level!of!specificity!on!how!the!area!surrounding!the!Fred!Meyer!site!should!develop,! with!less!neighborhooddspecific!guidance!to!the!neighborhoods!other!areas.!!! ! Commonalities& ! In!comparing!the!three!sets!of!neighborhood!design!guidelines,!there!were!commonalities! in! terms! of! the! modifications! made! by! the! NDGs! to! help! achieve! neighborhood! planning! goals.!In!many!ways,!the!value!of!NDGs!is!that!they!allow!communities!to!tailor!the!CDGs!to! emphasize!and!the!pressing!issues!in!their!neighborhoods,!even!though!the!specific!issues! addressed! may! vary.! ! If! a! guideline! in! the! CDG! does! not! apply! within! the! neighborhood! context,!by!excluding!it!from!the!text!of!the!NDG,!the!salient!issues!of!a!neighborhood!have! the!opportunity!to!come!to!the!forefront,!as!was!the!case!with!West!Seattle!Junction!and! Greenwood/Phinney.!!On!the!other!hand,!Wallingfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!design!guideline!team!approached! the! process! differently,! with! its! understanding! of! the! design! review! process.! ! They! went! through!each!guideline!of!the!CDGs,!providing!as!much!information!specific!to!Wallingford,! as!a!way!to!convey!its!desired!neighborhood!character!to!the!design!review!boards!when! they! looked! to! the! NDGs! as! a! basis! for! decision! making.! ! The! experiences! of! each! neighborhood!in!developing!their!NDGs!highlights!that!there!is!no!single!correct!way!to!â&#x20AC;&#x153;do! good! urban! designâ&#x20AC;?;! each! process! is! complex,! and! responds! to! the! specifics! of! its! participants,! resources,! goals! and! context.! ! What! works! in! one! situation! may! not! be! appropriate! in! another.! ! By! understanding! these! specifics,! it! becomes! possible! to! find! leverage!points!that!are!key!to!creating!change.!!! ! While! there! is! no! single! approach! to! the! urban! design! process,! the! research! identifies! a! number! of! common! characteristics! in! the! social! processes! in! each! of! the! cases,! shown! in! Table!3.4.1.!

47!

!! ! Table&3.4.1&Commonalities&in&social&process&amongst&case&study&neighborhoods& ! ! The!most!prominent!characteristic!was!the!major!influence!of!social!processes!in!all!three! cases.! ! Rather! than! the! physicality! of! the! neighborhood! being! the! primary! driver! of! the! NDGs,! it! was! most! often! the! social! processes! that! had! a! heavier! influence! in! shaping! the! NDGs.!!! ! Partnerships! were! also! something! common! to! each! of! the! three! neighborhoods! to! some! degree,!in!terms!of!different!neighborhood!groups!working!together!to!find!solutions!to!a! common!purpose.!!In!the!neighborhood!planning!goals!for!all!three!cases,!the!creation!and! strengthening!of!the!commercial!center!of!the!neighborhood!was!an!important!feature!of! their!goals,!creating!a!linkage!between!the!design!guideline!teams!and!local!businesses!and! developers! (who! in! the! case! of! West! Seattle! Junction,! were! the! same! people).! ! In! Wallingford,!a!partnership!with!the!University!of!Washington!structured!in!the!format!of!a! planning! studio! course! allowed! for! a! windwin! scenario! where! both! parties! were! able! to! derive! benefit.! ! In! Greenwood,! the! committee! itself! was! comprised! of! representatives! of! organizations!in!the!neighborhood!that!allowed!the!group!to!draw!upon!their!organizational! resources.! ! Declining!participation!in!neighborhood!planning!efforts!was!another!characteristic!that!was! raised! as! a! concern.! ! Whether! through! community! councils! or! through! City! planning! processes,! there! has! been! a! decrease! in! participation! since! Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! initial! neighborhood! planning! efforts! in! the! 1990s.! ! Those! who! are! those! engaged! less! likely! to! participate! in! traditional! ways! (i.e.! public! meetings),! meaning! that! much! of! the! timedintensive! work! of! meetings!and!organizing!the!community!fall!on!too!few!people,!resulting!in!burnout.!!This! was!something!also!common!with!individuals!who!had!been!involved!in!all!three!cases.!!In!a! volunteer! role! that! requires! tenacity! and! perseverance,! and! a! heavy! time! commitment! outside!of!work!and!family!obligations,!it!is!something!that!can!be!hard!to!balance.!!Many!of! those! interviewed! were! no! longer! involved! in! neighborhood! planning! (understandable,! given!that!it!has!been!at!least!five!years!since!their!neighborhood!developed!their!NDGs).!

48!

! With!the!neighborhood!plans!and!design!guidelines!becoming!dated,!the!current!reality!of! neighborhoods! may! potentially! be! very! different! from! the! drivers! behind! the! original! neighborhood! plans.! ! Neighborhood! residents! are! increasingly! unaware! of! neighborhood! design! guidelines,! and! their! relevance! to! community! goals! (E.! Bourquard,! pers.! comm.).!! However,!this!does!not!mean!that!they!are!necessarily!less!involved!in!their!community!in! other! respects,! and! through! social! media,! neighborhoods! can! be! quickly! mobilized.! ! At! a! recent!design!review!recommendation!meeting!for!a!project!in!Wallingford,!the!number!of! people! in! attendance! easily! topped! 60! people,! demonstrating! that! people! are! indeed! interested!in!what!happens!in!their!neighborhoods.!!It!is!useful!to!keep!in!mind!that!in!many! cases,! neighborhood! residents! are! primarily! concerned! with! the! personal! impacts! on! a! specific!project!on!them,!rather!than!looking!to!see!how!well!a!project!matches!up!to!a!set! of!neighborhood!design!guidelines!(G.!Hill,!pers.!comm.).!!! ! Particularly!in!urban!design!at!a!neighborhood!level,!the!people!who!best!understand!a!site! will! be! the! local! residents! who! experience! it! on! a! daily! basis,! even! if! they! may! lack! the! design! vocabulary! to! discuss! the! issues! at! hand.! ! While! this! vocabulary! can! be! in! written! form,!it!can!be!equally,!if!not!more!powerful!in!visual!or!spatial!terms.!!The!City!of!Seattle! has!an!important!role!and!opportunity!in!building!up!the!capacity!to!discuss!urban!design!in! neighborhoods,! something! it! has! done! successfully! in! the! past,! having! helped! neighborhoods!in!developing!NDGs.! ! This! past! work! is! also! something! that! should! not! be! lost;! it! can! serve! as! a! starting! point! when!engaging!with!the!new!demographics!in!a!given!neighborhood,!to!see!if!past!issues! are! still! relevant! today.! ! In! their! own! way,! each! neighborhood! was! able! to! modify! the! citywide!design!guidelines!through!the!social!processes!present!to!create!NDGs!that!spoke! to!the!character!of!their!neighborhood.!! ! Limitations&of&NDGs& ! One! issue! that! was! raised! by! interviewees! across! the! cases,! and! with! City! staff! was! the! limitations!of!the!NDGs,!or!design!guidelines!in!general.!!The!most!common!complaint!was! the!inability!of!design!guidelines!to!â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;look!beyondâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;!the!parcel!at!the!larger!context!of!how!it! contributes! to! the! neighborhood,! not! just! in! terms! of! building! aesthetics,! but! also! transportation!and!open!space!connections,!which!are!key!to!good!urban!design.!!Instead,! neighborhoods!have!been!limited!to!making!piecedmeal,!incremental!changes.! ! The! work! on! Urban! Design! Frameworks! (UDFs)! that! the! City! of! Seattle! has! already! embarked!on,!are!one!way!to!address!this!gap.!!UDFs!have!been!initiated!in!a!number!of! neighborhoods! around! the! City! (West! Seattle! Triangle,! South! Lake! Union,! and! University! District,!among!others).!!Typically,!their!locations!correspond!with!areas!of!transportation! investment!such!as!station!areas!for!rapid!transit.!!UDFs!are!similar!to!NDGs,!in!that!they!are! aimed!at!addressing!the!neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!vision!for!the!area!through!the!use!and!design!of!

49!

buildings,!streets!and!public!spaces!in!a!planning!area.!!However,!the!difference!is!that!they! take! an! approach! on! a! neighborhood! rather! than! building! scale,! which! allows! them! to! holistically! address! the! various! urban! systems! that! are! given! short! shrift! in! the! NDGs! (community!spaces,!natural!drainage,!green!streets,!etc.,)!but!which!play!an!important!role! in!the!development!of!complete!and!highly!functional!communities.!!Although!the!UDF!does! not! appear! to! be! an! official! City! program,! it! does! have! a! consistent! and! methodical! approach!that!provides!people!with!reasonable!expectations!if!they!want!to!participate.! ! Urban!design!frameworks!can!help!in!mediating!between!the!application!of!zoning!through! the!Land!Use!Code!(a!necessary,!if!imprecise!tool!for!influencing!the!built!form!at!a!broad! level),! and! the! flexible! specificity! of! the! NDGs! (that! allows! development! to! better! meet! unique! neighborhood! conditions! and! maintain! the! neighborhood! character! focused! at! a! building! level).! UDFs! are! a! way! of! working! towards! neighborhood! goals! that! provides! predictability!in!development,!by!providing!the!broad!brushstrokes!determining!the!location! and! intensity! in! a! way! that! can! inform! transportation! and! open! space! linkages.! ! ! Its! integration!into!Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!suite!of!urban!design!tools!could!be!enhanced!through!an!urban! design!element!that!beyond!describing!the!design!character!of!the!city,!also!articulated!how! urban!design!can!be!implemented!through!its!collection!of!tools.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

50!

! ! ! !

Chapter 4 !

Conclusion and Recommendations

“Urban'design'is'a'social'process'with'a'spatial'outcome,'while'its' implementation'is'a'spatial'process'with'a'social'outcome”'(Social'Agency'Lab)' ! The!contextualization!of!CDGs!through!the!modification!of!NDGs!can!inform!the!UDE!as!the! City!moves!towards!developing!an!overall!urban!design!vision!for!the!City.!!Both!in!terms!of! its!approach!as!well!as!its!rationale,!there!are!lessons!in!the!use!of!urban!design!processes! that!deal!with!issues!of!implementation.!! ! The! three! case! studies! detailing! how! citywide! design! guidelines! were! contextualized! by! neighborhoods! reveal! that! mediating! the! qualities! of! urbanism! and! the! realm! of! urban! design! tools! are! social! processes! that! are! constantly! playing! out.! ! ! Practicing! good! urban! design! requires! an! understanding! of! how! these! processes! interact,! and! recognizes! that! there!is!no!singular!“right!answer”;!two!very! different! approaches! can! be! appropriate! ! depending! on! their! context.! ! However,! “…!mediating!the!qualities!of! there! are! certain! considerations! that! can! urbanism!and!the!realm!of!urban! work!to!attenuate!problems!that!invariable! design!tools!are!social!processes! arise,! and! form! part! of! the! that!are!constantly!playing!out”! recommendations!of!this!report.! ! As!a!city!that!has!lacked!an!overall!design!vision,!but!that!has!already!established!a!number! of!mechanisms!(design!review,!CDGs,!NDGs)!for!implementing!urban!design,!it!makes!sense! for!Seattle!to!look!at!these!mechanisms!to!see!what!lessons!can!be!learned.!!Through!the! process! of! developing! these! case! studies! and! navigating! the! relationships! of! the! policy! hierarchy! (that! creates! linkages! between! goals,! objectives,! policies! and! guidelines),! it! became! possible! to! conceive! how! urban! design! is! operationalized! in! Seattle! through! its! different!urban!design!tools!operating!at!different!scales,!as!illustrated!in!Table!4.1.!!Focused! only!on!comprehensive!plan!elements!and!other!plans!related!to!implementation!of!urban! design,! this! diagram! shows,! that! while! urban! design! is! dispersed! throughout! other! comprehensive!plan!elements,!there!is!a!lack!of!clarity!as!to!how!the!urban!design!tools!are! related!and!contribute!to!a!large!design!vision!for!the!City.! ! ! !

51!

Figure&4.1&Landscape&of&City&of&Seattle&Urban&design&policy&and&practices&

! !

Urban Design Element Recommendations In!understanding!examining!the!role!of!an!urban!design!element,!it!is!necessary!to!place!it! within!the!context!of!its!parent!document,!Seattle’s!Comprehensive!Plan.!!The!purpose!of! the! plan! is! to! “provide! broad! policy! direction! and! aspirational! goals! for! the! City! over! the! next!20!years,!articulating!a!future!outcome!for!the!City,!with!policy!that!provides!guidance! for!decisiondmaking!for!achieving!it”!(City!of!Seattle!2005).!! ! Mandated! by! the! State! of! Washington! as! part! of! the! Growth! Management,! Seattle’s! Comprehensive!Plan!enables!the!City!to!create!plans!and!policy!consistent!with!its!goals!and! policies! on! how! to! accommodate! growth.! ! There! has! been! City! support! for! urban! design! throughout! the! years,! as! evidenced! through! its! adoption! of! urban! design! tools! that! has! shaped!its!built!form.!Whether!through!design!guidelines,!design!review!processes!or!more! recently! urban! design! frameworks,! it! has! been! an! accretive! process,! building! upon! new! practices! and! lessons! learned,! and! subject! to! the! forces! of! changing! organizational!

52!

capacities! and! shifting! staff! roles.! ! At! the! same! time,! Seattle! does! not! currently! have! an! overall!urban!design!vision!for!the!city;!in!creating!an!urban!design!element,!the!City!would! be!provided!with!the!legal!basis!for!creating!urban!design!policies!and!tools!in!the!future,! and! provide! an! opportunity! to! consolidate! existing! policies! into! something! cohesive! that! explains!how!urban!design!is!articulated!at!citywide,!neighborhood,!and!subarea!scales.! ! Urban!design!elements!have!typically!been!used!to!define!the!key!elements!of!city!pattern! (e.g.! block! structure! and! orientation! to! water! and! topography;! defining! the! public! realm;! and! how! people! use! the! city)! that! contribute! to! a! resident’s! quality! of! life.! ! In! Seattle,! a! strong!sense!of!place!and!neighborhood!character!also!contributes!to!the!high!quality!of!life! that! draws! people! to! this! city.! These! notions! of! neighborhood! character! are! embedded! within! Seattle’s! development! process! as! part! of! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines,! and! serve!as!one!of!Seattle’s!defining!features,!and!should!be!something!that!could!be!drawn! upon!within!a!highdlevel!policy!document!such!as!the!urban!design!element,!as!Figure!4.1! shows.!! ! Beyond!bolstering!the!legal!authority!of!the!City!to!operationalize!urban!design!in!the!city! through!tools!such!as!design!review!and!design!guidelines,!the!urban!design!element!(UDE)! can! also! strengthen! the! linkages! between! Seattle’s! comprehensive! planning! goals! to! its! policies!and!guidelines,!by!providing!the!overall!urban!design!vision!into!which!urban!design! programs!and!tools!can!be!integrated.! ! Urban! design! in! Seattle! is! primarily! implemented! through! the! combination! of! design! guidelines!and!its!design!review!processes,!occurring!essentially!on!a!parceldbydparcel!basis.!! This! can! become! an! issue! when! buildings! are! not! explicit! in! addressing! the! larger! neighborhood! context! that! they! should! be! part! of.! ! The! UDE! could! be! a! policy! tool! that! addresses!this,!by!enabling!the!further!development!of!urban!design!frameworks!to!address! these! issues! of! streetscapes,! open! space! and! transportation! connections! at! the! neighborhood!level.!!This!is!something!that!has!started!with!neighborhoods!like!South!Lake! Union,!West!Seattle!Triangle!and!the!University!District,!that!can!be!built!upon!the!existing! knowledge! embedded! within! the! neighborhood! design! guidelines! and! the! neighborhood! plans.!By!providing!a!certain!level!of!specificity!(e.g.!how!development!should!contribute!to! the!public!realm!or!connect!to!open!space)!without!dictating!absolutely!what!development! looks! like,! there! is! a! better! chance! of! development! contributing! to! the! goals! of! a! neighborhood,!while!providing!greater!predictability!in!the!development!process!via!clear! guidance!for!City!staff!in!decision!making.!! ! Of!the!38!neighborhoods!in!Seattle!with!a!neighborhood!plan,!only!about!half!of!them!have! neighborhood!design!guidelines!providing!guidance!to!development.!Together!with!urban! design!frameworks,!neighborhood!design!guidelines!can!provide!a!spatial!outcome!to!the! neighborhood! planning! process,! bringing! to! life! a! neighborhood’s! vision! for! the! future.!! Another!requirement!of!the!Growth!Management!Act!is!for!cities!and!counties!to!provide! for! “early! and! continuous! public! participation”! in! creating! plans! and! regulations! for! implementing! comprehensive! plans! (Washington! State! Legislature! 1990a).! ! Given! the! !

53!

impact! of! social! processes! in! the! development! of! urban! design! tools! (as! seen! in! the! case! studies! of! Seattle’s! NDGs),! addressing! public! participation! will! be! an! important! task! in! developing! the! Urban! Design! Element.! ! With! that! in! mind,! there! are! several! recommendations!in!engaging!the!city’s!residents!in!urban!design!that!may!be!useful!for!the! City! as! it! develops! and! implementing! an! Urban! Design! Element! related! to! issues! of! participation!and!cost.! ! Participation( With!public!participation!in!traditional!formats!(large!public!meetings)!on!the!decline,!and! more!and!more!things!competing!for!people’s!‘mindshare’!there!is!the!question!of!how!do! we!keep!something!like!the!UDE!relevant!to!City!and!citizens,!so!that!it!doesn’t!gather!dust! on!a!shelf,!and!what!the!UDE!can!learn!from!other!City!urban!design!initiatives.!The!main! method,! as! demonstrated! in! the! case! of! Wallingford,! is! to! keep! people! invested! in! the! process:! ! ! Build!the!capacity!within!neighborhoods!to!discuss!urban!design!as!a!way!to!build! a!network!within!neighborhoods!to!prevent!the!prevalence!of!citizen!burn!out! o Building!up!capacity!within!neighborhoods!also!can!reduce!the!amount!of! handholding!required!by!City!staff,!and!can!also!serve!as!a!way!to!pique! and!keep!people’s!interest.!!Two!good!examples!of!this!capacity!building! include:! ! Events!such!as!“Coffee!Talks”,!put!on!by!the!Washington!Chapter! of!the!American!Planning!Association’s!Community!Planning! Assistance!Team!(CPAT)!that!covers!topics!from!design!review!to! placemaking! ! Foundation!for!Louisiana’s!“Citizen!Guide!to!Urban!Design”,!which! helps!to!provide!neighborhood!residents!with!the!language!to! contribute!meaningfully!in!planning!and!visioning!efforts.! ! ! Find!new!ways!to!engage!new!and!existing!audiences,!and!leverage!new! technologies!(social!media)!on!top!of!existing!methods!to!access!underrepresented! groups,!and!redengage!with!neighborhood!residents!! o Despite!declining!participation!in!traditional!neighborhood!planning! efforts,!there!is!latent!neighborhood!interest!within!the!case!study! neighborhoods.!!Addressing!this!issue!requires!understanding!how! neighbors!want!to!engage,!and!building!these!preferences!into!current! processes.! ! ! Provide!multiple!entry!points!for!participation!that!accommodate!busy!or!unusual! work!schedules,!by!using!a!variety!of!meeting!settings!to!facilitate!different!types! of!engagement!(larger!groups/small!neighborhood!groups).!

54!

o Wallingfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!community!involvement!strategy!serves!as!a!potentially! useful!example!on!how!this!could!happen.! Have!a!transparent!process!that!allows!participants!to!quickly!get!up!to!speed,!set! reasonable!expectations,!and!create!institutional!memory!that!can!help!projects! survive!attrition.! o Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!UDFs!serve!as!a!good!starting!point,!with!meeting!notes!and! presentations!available!online! o Provide!participants!and!interested!neighbors!with!current!updtoddate! status!of!project!

Partnerships( Partnerships! form! an! important! piece! of! a! good! urban! design! process,! in! that! with! neighborhood! partnerships! in! particular,! they! help! to! build! a! sense! of! trust! from! the! neighborhood.!!Partners!can!provide!a!unique!understanding!of!the!community,!and!help!to! navigate! neighborhood! politics,! and! potentially! save! significant! amounts! of! time! and! money.!!Developing!robust!and!meaningful!processes!to!engage!the!public!in!urban!design! can!be!costly.!!Given!the!reality!of!the!economic!climate!and!funding!freezes!and!shortfalls,! the!costs!can!sometimes!be!difficult!to!justify!to!decision!makers.!!However,!urban!design! that!involves!public!participation!is!an!important!investment,!in!creating!a!built!environment! that! responds! to! community! needs! and! neighborhood! character.! ! Taking! a! long! view! on! investment!into!urban!design,!if!done!well,!it!can!provide!a!long!list!of!benefits,!as!outlined! in!the!background!section!of!this!report.!!! One! important! way! to! defray! some! of! the! costs! of! urban! design! processes! involves! leveraging!partnerships.! ! ! The! following! are! some! possibilities! on! reducing! the! cost! of! implementing! urban! design! processes:! ! ! Working!with!nondprofits!(e.g.!APA,!Great!City),!or!educational!institutions!such! as!the!University!of!Washington!to!leverage!volunteers/expertise/service! learning!opportunities.! o A!partnership!with!a!specific!scope!can!allow!partners!to!focus!on!their! strengths,!as!was!UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!partnership!with!Wallingford!to!identify!sited specific!design!guidelines!for!key!lots!in!the!neighborhood.! o Many!community!services!(print/copy!shops,!cafes,!banks)!are!often! willing!to!help!particularly!at!a!neighborhood!level! ! Innovative!funding/participation!mechanisms!like!Brickstarter,!that!similar!to! Kickstarter,!is!an!online!platform!for!funding!community!projects!that!also! provides!an!interface!for!people!to!engage!with!city!administration! !

55!

Next Steps for Additional Research This!research!has!generated!many!questions,!and!there!are!three!main!areas!where,!given! additional!time!and!resources,!further!opportunities!for!research!could!be!of!interest.!!First! would! be! an! analysis! of! the! NDGs! for! other! neighborhoods! in! Seattle,! in! order! to! better! gauge! the! generalizability! of! this! research! and! to! potentially! generate! additional! findings.!! This! would! provide! a! more! complete! picture! of! how! neighborhood! design! guidelines! are! developed.!!In!selecting!my!case!studies,!the!type!of!urban!village!(HUV!or!RUV)!was!not!a! consideration,! and! analysis! of! NDGs! from! similar! types! of! urban! villages! could! allow! for! comparison!across!urban!village!types.!!It!is!possible!that!the!issues!facing!hub!urban!villages! may!differ!from!residential!urban!villages!in!terms!of!the!issues!of!population!growth!and! development!pressures.!! ! While! the! current! research! was! focused! more! on! the! experience! of! neighborhoods! in! modifying! CDGs! to! respond! to! local! conditions,!determining! the! efficacy! of! NDGs! at! their! task! will! require! a! close! look! into! the! design! review! process,! in! order! to! parse! out! the! impacts! of! NDGs! at! design! review! meetings.! ! This! area! for! further! study! would! involve! interviews!with!the!design!review!boards!in!order!to!first!understand!how!they!utilize!NDGs.!! It!would!also!require!the!researcher!to!follow!a!development!project!through!the!stages!of! design!review,!to!see!how!the!buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!design!is!or!is!not!shaped!by!the!NDGs!by!analyzing! the!design!proposals!from!the!applicants,!and!design!review!reports!from!DPD.!!!!This!would! be!difficult,!particularly!in!parsing!out!impacts!of!the!CDGs!from!the!NDGs,!as!well!as!the! impact!of!the!NDGs!from!the!expertise!of!the!Design!Review!Boards.! ! Ideally,! followdup! would! also! occur! after! the! completion! of! the! project,! to! see! how! the! building! actually! responds! to! its! context.! ! This! would! be! difficult! research! to! undertake,! given!the!length!of!time!projects!generally!take!to!go!from!design!to!completion,!which!is! necessary!in!an!understanding!of!how!a!project!might!respond!to!its!context!over!time.!!! ! Lastly! would! be! to! analyze! the! urban! design! frameworks! being! used! by! the! City! to! implement!urban!design.!!As!one!of!the!more!recent!urban!design!tools!being!used!by!the! City,!some!useful!research!would!include!how!does!it!fit!into!the!Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!policy!hierarchy,!the! specific! role! it! would! play! in! urban! design! in! the! city,! and! in! understanding! how! urban! design!frameworks!can!contribute!to!neighborhood!character.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

56!

Chapter 5 Reflections and Lessons Learned ! ! Originally! starting! out! as! a! number! of! case! studies! of! other! cities,! the! aim! of! this! research!was!to!look!at!how!cities!operationalized!both!their!design!guidelines!and!their! urban!design!element!as!a!set!of!urban!design!controls.!!As!background!research!began! on!the!process!at!the!City!of!Seattle,!I!quickly!realized!that!the!scope!of!the!proposed! research! was! untenable,! especially! given! the! many! differences! between! cities,! in! political!and!physical!contexts,!and!in!how!urban!design!was!regulated.!!The!enormous! task! of! a! comparative! study! across! jurisdictions! was! overwhelming! given! the! research! capacity!constraints.!!! ! As!the!research!honed!into!looking!at!the!experience!at!the!City!of!Seattle,!and!I!began! looking! specifically! at! how! citywide! design! guidelines! were! contextualized! at! a! neighborhood! level,! the! scope! and! methods! of! analysis! shifted! from! strictly! a! comparison!of!the!content!in!the!CDGs!and!NDGs,!to!look!at!the!process!of!developing! the! NDGs,! in! order! to! better! understand! the! implications! it! might! have! for! an! urban! design! element! in! Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s! Comprehensive! Plan.! ! As! I! developed! a! greater! understanding! of! the! research! topic,! it! became! apparent! that! in! order! to! better! understand! the! social! processes! at! work! in! the! neighborhood,! a! more! qualitative! approach!would!be!necessary.!!In!pursuing!this!more!qualitative!approach,!the!research! began!to!delve!into!the!complexities!of!urban!design!as!a!social!process.!!As!something! that! is! messy! and! deeply! political,! at! times! it! was! difficult! to! not! be! caught! up! in! neighborhood!politics!during!interviews!when!presented!with!both!sides!of!an!issue.! !! The!research!for!this!professional!project!has!helped!me!to!develop!an!appreciation!for! the!complexity!of!urban!design!processes,!and!the!difficulty!with!doing!research!well!on! the! topic.! ! It! is! a! tricky! balance! to! narrow! the! scope! in! a! manner! that! provides! useful! insight! without! compromising! the! breadth! of! content! necessary! to! adequately! understand! urban! design! processes.! ! Also! evident! as! part! of! the! complexity! in! urban! design!research!has!been!its!incremental!nature,!which!happens!over!a!long!period!of! time! and! with! numerous! social! processes! operating! in! tandem,! making! it! difficult! to!

57!

study!as!a!phenomena,!as!it!may!sometimes!take!10!years!before!its!impact!manifests! itself,!at!which!point!the!individuals!involved!at!the!time!may!no!longer!be!available!to! interview.!!At!the!same!time,!the!design!guidelines!themselves!are!something!that!is!not! static,! having! undergone! updates! in! 1998,! 2007! and! most! recently! in! 2011,! that! have! completely!restructured!the!design!guidelines.! ! This! research! has! also! provided! a! much! better! understanding! of! how! urban! design! is! operationalized!in!Seattle,!the!urban!development!process!that!it!encompasses,!and!the! influence!of!neighborhood!planning!in!shaping!what!Seattle!is!as!a!city.!!!

58!

Bibliography ! Barnett,!Jonathan.!1974.!Urban)Design)as)Public)Policy)Practical)Methods)for)Improving) Cities.!New!York:!Architectural!Record!Books.!! ———.!1982.!An)Introduction)to)Urban)Design.!1st!ed.!New!York:!Harper!&!Row.!! City!of!Seattle.!1993.!“Ordinance!116909.”! http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archives/Ordinances/Ord_116909.pdf.! ———.!1999.!Design)Review)Guidelines)for)Downtown)Development.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@drp/documents/We b_Informational/cos_005121.pdf.! ———.!2003.!Urban)Village)Case)Studies.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/W eb_Informational/dpd_001112.pdf.! ———.!2005.!City)of)Seattle)Comprehensive)Plan)@)Reader’s)Guide.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/W eb_Informational/cos_004502.pdf.! ———.!2006a.!Wallingford)Neighborhood)Design)Guidelines.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@drp/documents/We b_Informational/cos_005116.pdf.! ———.!2006b.!Greenwood/Phinney)Neighborhood)Design)Guidelines.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/greenwood2006_LatestReleased_DPDP_01596 4.pdf.! ———.!2009.!“City!of!Seattle!Comprehensive!Plan!d!Toward!a!Sustainable!Seattle”.! Seattle.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/we b_informational/dpdp020401.pdf.! ———.!2011.!“SMC!23.41.004!d!Applicability.”!http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nphd brs.exe?s1=23.41&s2=&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1&d= CODE&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=L3;1;23.41.004.SNUM.! ———.!2012.!Seattle’s)Comprehensive)Plan:)Major)Review.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Seattle_s_Comprehensive_Plan/CitywideUp date2030Beyond/default.asp.!

59!

Community!Connection.!1998.!Wallingford)Neighborhood)Plan.! http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans/wallingford/.! Department!of!Planning!and!Development.!2008.!DPD)Client)Assistance)Memo)#238)@) Design)Review:)General)Information,)Application)Instructions...)Requirements.! http://www.seattle.gov/dclu/publications/CAM/cam238.PDF.! ———.!2010.!“Design!Review!Program!d!Multifamily!and!Commercial!Buildings.”! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Design_Guidelines /default.asp.! Friends!of!the!Junction.!1999a.!West)Seattle)Junction)Hub)Urban)Village)Neighborhood)Plan.! http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans/wsj/documents/WestSeattleJun ctionPlandnewscan_000.pdf.! ———.!1999b.!West)Seattle)Junction)Approval)and)Adoption)Matrix.! http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/matrices/pdf/foj.pdf.! Gharai,!Fathabadi.!1998.!“The!Value!of!Neighborhoods:!A!Cultural!Approach!to!Urban! Design.”!University!of!Sheffield.! Greenwood/Phinney!Ridge!Neighborhood!Planning!Committee.!1999.! Greenwood/Phinney)Ridge)Neighborhood)Plan.! http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans/greenwood/gr_phinney_plan.pdf.! Hewitt!Walker,!Laura,!and!James!R.!Weaver.!2001.!Community)Guide)to)Wallingford) Design)Guidelines.! Ministry!for!the!Environment.!2005a.!New)Zealand)Urban)Design)Protocol.!Wellington,! New!Zealand.!http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/urban/designdprotocold mar05/urbanddesigndprotocoldcolour.pdf.! ———.!2005b.!“The!Value!of!Urban!Design:!The!Economic,!Environmental!and!Social! Benefits!of!Urban!Design”:!91.!http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/urban/valued urbanddesigndfulldreportdjun05/valuedofdurbanddesigndfulldreportdjun05.pdf.! Oktay,!D.!2002.!“The!Quest!for!Urban!Identity!in!the!Changing!Context!of!the!City!d! Northern!Cyprus.”!Cities!19!(4):!261–271.! Schurch,!Thomas!W.!1999.!“Reconsidering!Urban!Design :!Thoughts!About!Its!Definition!and! Status!as!a!Field!or!Profession.”!Journal)of)Urban)Design!4!(1):!5–28.! Social!Agency!Lab.!“About.”!http://www.socialagencylab.org/about/.!

60!

Tate,!Cassandra.!2008.!“Seattle!Neighborhoods:!West!Seattle!Junction!d!Thumbnail!History.”! http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8725.! Tobin,!Caroline.!1993.!“Preparing!Your!Own!Design!Guidelines:!a!Handbook!for!Seattle’s! Neighborhoods”.!Seattle:!Planning!Dept.,!Dept.!of!Construction!and!Land!Use.! Washington!State!Legislature.!1990a.!RCW)36.70A)@)Growth)Management)—)Planning) by)Selected)Counties)and)Cities.! http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A&full=true.! ———.!1990b.!Title)35A)RCW)@)Optional)Municipal)Code.! http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35A.! Weinstein!AU.!2008.!City)of)Seattle)Design)Guidelines)Update)Findings)and)Alternatives) Report)@)Phase)1.!Seattle.! http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@designguideupdate/ documents/web_informational/dpds017458.pdf.! ! ! !

! ! ! )

)

61!

Appendix A Urban Design Elements in Local Jurisdictions ! !

62!

! ! ! ! ! !

63!

Appendix B Interview Questions and Sub-questions ! NDG&relationships&& What&is&the&role&of&NDGs&fit&within&the&broader&context&of&neighborhood&plans?& What!does!the!neighborhood!regard!as!the!purpose!of!the!NDGs?! How!did!the!neighborhood!see!NDGs?! How!did!it!come!out!of!neighborhood!planning!processes?! In!terms!of!the!development!of!the!NDGs,!what!did!the!role!of!personalities!and! characters!play!in!the!final!product?! How!much!was!the!community!involved!in!formation!of!NDGs?! Do!they!have!a!sense!of!ownership!over!it?! What!has!the!developer!response!to!NDGs!been,!as!opposed!to!just!the!CDGs?! what&is&the&relationship&of&the&NDGs&to&overall&guidelines?& Is!it!necessary!for!neighborhoods!to!provide!their!own!guidance!as!NDGs,!rather! than!simply!IDing!its!defining!features!and!simply!allow!them!to!be!interpreted!through! the!CDGs?! Sense&of&place& Does&it&allow&communities&to&define&their&character&that&should&be&considered&during& design&review?&& If!a!specific!CDG!is!not!really!addressed!in!the!NDG!with!additional!guidance,!then!is! it!perceived!as!really!relevant,!or!is!something!that!is!just!negotiated!during!the!design! review!process?! How&are&specific&guidelines&contextualized&within&neighborhoods?& What!were!some!specific!things!that!the!NDG!was!trying!to!address,!by!providing! supplementary!guidance?! Is!there!a!concrete!example!of!a!moment!when!the!design!guidelines!was!successful! in!maintaining!a!sense!of!place?!(where!NDGs!have!helped!to!improve!the!quality!of! built!environment!in!a!neighborhood)! How!have!these!deviations!in!the!NDGs!helped!in!better!maintaining!a!sense!of! place?! How!specifically!have!the!NDGs!allowed!the!application!of!CDGs!to!facilitate!better! design!in!the!neighborhood?! Does!the!community!generally!feel!like!the!guidelines!were!successful!in!its! intentions?! Do&NDGS&project&to&developers&a&sense&of&what&the&City&values?!(or!at!least!the!design! review!boards)! & & & & & & & !

64!

NDG&modifications& Why&did&the&community&feel&it&was&necessary&to&not&just&provide&supplementary& guidance,&but&to&actually&alter&the&language&of&citywide&guideline&in&a&given&topic?& How!was!this!codified!in!the!guidelines?! Have&the&deviations&of&NDGs&from&CDGs&been&successful&in&maintaining&the&character& of&specific&neighborhoods,&by&providing&a&mechanism&for&new&projects&to&better&fit& their&neighborhoods?& Is!there!the!sense!that!NDGs!actually!deviate!significantly!from!CDG?! Are!there!instances!where!CDGs!and!NDGs!are!in!conflict?! Where&there&is&no&deviation&from&the&parent&guidelines,&what&does&it&mean?& Where!the!neighborhood!design!guidelines!deviate!from!the!parent!guidelines,!what! was!their!reason!for!doing!so?!! Role&of&design&review& Do&design&guidelines&serve&a&purpose&outside&of&their&application&in&design&review?& What!is!the!weight!between!having!good!NDGs,!vs.!having!a!good!design!review! board?! If&a&NDG&has&for&the&most&part&followed&the&CDGs&and&provided&minimal&additional& guidance,&would&it&be&considered&less&useful,&as&it&does&not&provide&the&necessary& contextualization?& Is&it&possible&to&regulate&great&design?& ! !

65!

APPENDIX C Neighborhood Design Guideline Matrix ! ! ! ! ! !

Legend! ! !

! !

Elaboration&of&citywide&guideline&(E)!–!Guidelines!provided!either!greater! specificity,!or!a!different!focus!for!how!the!guideline!is!interpreted,!rather!than! relying!on!the!text!provided!by!the!CDG,! Application&of&citywide&guideline&(nonFneighborhood&specific&examples)&(NN)!–! A!guideline!that!provides!examples!and!general!guidance!for!its!application!that! are!not!described!in!either!the!CDG,!but!are!generally!applicable!and!not! responding!to!specific!and!unique!neighborhood!conditions! Application&of&citywide&guideline&–&neighborhood&specific&examples&(N)&–!Use!of! neighborhood!specific!examples!that!pertain!to!unique!site!conditions!in!the! neighborhood,!and!would!not!work!well!in!other!instances! SiteFspecific&application&of&citywide&guideline&&(SS)!–!Use!of!an!example!from!the! CDG!to!a!specific!area!within!the!neighborhood.!! Another&guideline&(A)!–!guidance!in!the!NDG!is!actually!more!appropriate!listed! under!another!guideline! !

66!

67!

APPENDIX D Neighborhood Design Guideline Modifications ! ! ! ! ! !

Legend! ! !

! !

68!

A"2$Streetscape$Compatibility A"3$Entrances$Visible$to$the$Street

Importance#of#pedestrian6oriented#streetscapes#in#new#dev't#in#the#Junction's# mixed#use#areas,#in#particular#SW#Alaska,#Genesee,#Oregon#and#Edmunds# Streets $"$provide$outdoor$power$and$water$sources $"$reduce$scale$of$street$wall$through$well"organized$bays$and$entries$that$are$ reinforced$by$placement$of$street$amenities

E,$SS

An$active$and$interesting$sidewalk$engages$pedestrians$through$effective$transitions$ between$the$public$and$private$realm.

A"4$Human$Activity A"5$Respect$for$Adjacent$Sites A"6$Transition$Between$Residence$and$ Street A"7$Residential$Open$Space A"8$Parking$and$Vehicle$Access A"9$Location$of$Parking$on$Commercial$ Street$Fronts

$"$Esp$along$California$Ave$corridor,$dev't$is$encouraged$to$set$back$from$front$ E,$SS property$line$to$provide$public$space$that$enhances$the$pedestrian$environment $"$the$Design$Review$Board$is$encouraged$to$consider$design$departure$to$ exceed$64%$upper$lot$coverage$req$for$mixed"use$projects$to$make$up$loss$in$ ground$floor$development$potential

New$corner$lot$dev'ts$should$use$the$corner$as$a$place$of$convergence$and$pedestrian$ activity$while$allowing$for$pedestrian$flow In$the$Junction,$several$intersections$serve$as$gateways$to$the$neighborhood$and$bldgs$ located$here$should$"announce$the$block"

$"$California$Avenue$SW$and$SW$Alaska$Street $"$California$Avenue$SW$and$SW$Oregon$Street $"$SW$Alaska$Street$and$Fauntleroy$Way $"$SW$California$Avenue$SW$and$SW$Edmunds$Street $"$SW$Alaska$Street$and$44th$Ave $"$SW$Fauntleroy$Way$SW$and$35th$SW A"10$Corner$Lots

E,$SS

Appendix D.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; West Seattle Junction NDG Modifications

A.#Site#Planning A"1$Responding$to$Site$Characteristics

B.#Height,#Bulk,#Scale B"1$Height,$Bulk,$and$Scale$ Compatibility C.#Architectural#Elements#and#Materials C"1$Architectural$Context C"2$Architectural$Concept$and$ Consistency C"3$Human$Scale C"4$Exterior$Finish$Material C"5$Structured$Parking$Entrances D.#Pedestrian#Environment

D"1$Pedestrian$Open$Spaces$and$ Entrances D"2$Blank$Walls D"3$Retaining$Walls D"4$Design$of$Parking$Lots$Near$ Sidewalks D"5$Visual$Impacts$of$Parking$ Structures D"6$Screening$of$Dumpsters,$Utilities,$ and$Service$Areas D"7$Personal$Safety$and$Security D"8$Treatment$of$Alleys D"9$Commercial$Signage D"10$Commercial$Lighting D"11$Commercial$Transparency D"12$Residential$Entries$and$Transitions

Zoning$in$the$Junction$has$created$abrupt$edges$between$different$use$intensities,$and$ results$in$bldgs$exceeding$the$scale$of$existing$dev't,$and$architectural$methods$should$ E,$NN be$used$to$create$buildings$consistent$with$existing$existing$multi"bay$commercial$ buildings$in$the$Junction's$commercial$core Photographic$examples$of$preferred$architectural$elements$in$the$Junction special$attention$to$integrating$upper$and$lower$levels$of$buildings$located$in$NC"65$ areas Weather$protection$should$be$viewed$as$architectural$amenity$and$be$appropriately$ scaled

Signage$(should$be$in$D@9)

Along$commercial$corridors$(California,$Alaska),$encourage$larger$sites$to$incorporate$ pedestrian$walkways$in$breaks$in$the$street$wall$for$movement$to$surrounding$ neighborhoods. $"$the$Design$Review$Board$is$encouraged$to$consider$design$departure$to$exceed$64%$ upper$lot$coverage$req$for$mixed"use$projects$to$make$up$loss$in$ground$floor$ development$potential

N NN,$SS NN,$A

E,$SS

Site$parking$structures$to$enhance$pedestrian$access$and$circulation$from$parking$areas$ to$retails$uses E,$SS $"$Limit$auto$access$from$principal$street $"$embrace$alleys$&$rear$parking$facades$as$$active$and$vibrante$environment

E.$Landscaping E"1$Landscaping$to$Reinforce$Design$ Continuity$with$Adjacent$Sites E"2$Landcaping$to$Enhance$the$ Building$and/or$Site E"3$Landscape$Design$to$Address$ Special$Site$Conditions

Legend  (E)#Elaboration#of#citywide#guideline$–$a$variation$in$the$intent$or$scope$of$the$guideline  (NN)#Non6neighborhood#specific#examples$–$Other$ways$to$apply$the$guideline$not$described$by$CDG  (N)#Neighborhood#specific#examples$–$Ways$to$apply$the$guideline$that$respond$specifically$to$neighborhood$conditions  (SS)#Site6specific#application#of#citywide#guideline$–$Use$of$CDG$example$in$specific$area  (A)#Another#guideline#–$Example$was$more$appropriate$in$another$guideline Text%in%bold%indicate%where%guideline%has%been%modified%or%elaborated%upon.%% Text%in%italics%indicate%where%guidance%should%be%located%within%another%guideline.

Setbacks$should$be$used$along$N45th,$Stone$Way$N,$and$other$N"S$streets$south$of$ A"1$Responding$to$Site$Characteristics N40th$to$preserve$views$on$public$ROWs$of$water,$mountain$and$skylines Visually$reinforce$existing$street$wall$using$paving$materials$to$differentiate$setback$ A"2$Streetscape$Compatibility area$from$the$sidewalk Along$N$45th$Street$and$Stone$Way$N,$$primary$business$and$residential$entrances$ A"3$Entrances$Visible$to$the$Street should$be$oriented$to$the$commercial$street Increase$ground$level$setback$to$accommodate$pedestrian$traffic$and$amenity$ features,$esp$along$N$45th$Street,$where$existing$sidewalks$tend$to$be$too$narrow. A"4$Human$Activity Public$realm$amenities$should$be$esp$encouraged$on$N$45th$and$Stone$Way$N.

N,$SS N NN.$SS N/SS

A"5$Respect$for$Adjacent$Sites A"6$Transition$Between$Residence$and$ Street On$sloping$land,$use$terraces$to$create$level$open$space Use$bldg$setbacks$to$create$public$open$space$at$grade.$$Spaces$20x20ft$or$larger$and$ A"7$Residential$Open$Space include$significant$trees$are$encouraged$in$exchange$for$landscape$departures Locate$structured$parking$entrances$on$side$streets$or$alleys A"8$Parking$and$Vehicle$Access Drive$in$facilities$with$main$frontage$ingress/egress$is$discoruaged A"9$Location$of$Parking$on$Commercial$ Multi"purpose$parking$areas$with$units$pavers$is$encouraged$(these$can$also$serve$ Street$Fronts public$open$space$needs)

A"10$Corner$Lots B.#Height,#Bulk,#Scale

B"1$Height,$Bulk,$and$Scale$ Compatibility

N N N

Provide(definition(at(main(neighborhood(gateways(using(special(features(that(enhance( the(entrance(to(Wallingford:(N(45th(St(and(I?5,(N(45th(St(and(Stone(Way(N,(and(Stone( N,$SS Way(N(and(Bridge(Way(N Larger(setbacks(for(wider(sidewalks,(plazas,(and(view(corridor(enhancement(at( gateways(should(be(considered(for(departures(in(lot(coverage(and(landscape(reqs

Consider$upper$level$setbacks$to$limit$visibility$of$floors$above$30ft$to$protect$SF$zones For$dev'ts$>180ft$in$length,$consider$multiple$structures$with$separate$circulation White,$off"white$and$pinky"beige$buff$on$parts$of$bldgs$abovce$24ft$is$discouraged Consider$stepping$back$floors$5ft/floor$in$areas$with$sensitive$public$views$(N$45th$St,$ Stone$Way$N$and$N"S$avenues$south$of$N$40th$St.

N,$SS

Appendix D.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Wallingford NDG Modifications

A.#Site#Planning

C.#Architectural#Elements#and#Materials C"1$Architectural$Context C"2$Architectural$Concept$and$ Consistency C"3$Human$Scale C"4$Exterior$Finish$Material C"5$Structured$Parking$Entrances D.#Pedestrian#Environment D"1$Pedestrian$Open$Spaces$and$ Entrances

Respond$to$nearby$pre"World$War$II$structures$and$early$20th$century$commercial$ building$details Integrate$rooftop$building$systems$into$the$building$desin,$screening$them$from$sight$ with$parapets,$screens$or$other$methods Signage(section(?(should(be(in(D?9 Use(durable,(attractive,(and(well?detailed(finish(materials((should(be(in(C?4)$$ see$C"3

Upper$storey$residential$entries$should$be$on$the$street$rather$than$the$rear$or$the$ property,$to$add$activity$and$visual$surveilliance$for$personal$safety Locate$ground$floor$windows$to$maximize$commercial$faรงade$transparency Encourage$use$of$operable$large$windows$to$facilitate$indoor"outdoor$interactions Encourage$windows$on$walls$perpendicular$to$the$street Minimize$the$height$of$retaining$walls.

D"2$Blank$Walls D"3$Retaining$Walls D"4$Design$of$Parking$Lots$Near$ Sidewalks Minimize$visual$and$physical$intrusion$of$parking$lots$on$pedestrian$areas D"5$Visual$Impacts$of$Parking$ Structures D"6$Screening$of$Dumpsters,$Utilities,$ and$Service$Areas

D"7$Personal$Safety$and$Security

N NN,$ A,$N A,$NN

N,$NN N NN NN

Discourage$solid$fences$that$reduce$security$and$visual$access Lighting(Section(should(be(in(D?10 Encourage(pedestrian(scale(lihgting Glare(producing(or(light(spilling(fixtures((i.e.('wallpacks')(is(discouraged A,$N Installing(pedestrian(light(fixtures(as(part(of(a(dev'ts(sidewalk(improvements(is(strongly( encouraged(and(should(be(consistent(with(Wallingford's(preference(through(City(Light's( pedestrian(lighting(program

D"8$Treatment$of$Alleys D"9$Commercial$Signage see$C"2 D"10$Commercial$Lighting see$D"7 D"11$Commercial$Transparency D"12$Residential$Entries$and$Transitions

n/a n/a n/a n/a

E.$Landscaping E"1$Landscaping$to$Reinforce$Design$ Continuity$with$Adjacent$Sites

Flower$boxes$on$windowsills$and$entryway$planters$are$encouraged Greening$of$streets$lacking$trees,$flowers$and$landscaping$is$strongly$encouraged

Use(thick(evergreen(hedges,(non?invasive(vines(on(fencing/low(walls(and(other( substantial(landscaping(to(visually(and(physically(buffer(sidewalks(and(adjacent(bldgs( from(parking(areas E"2$Landcaping$to$Enhance$the$Building$ camouflage(exposed(concrete(walls,(and(buffer(adjacent(SF(houses(and(residental(dev't

and/or$Site E"3$Landscape$Design$to$Address$ Special$Site$Conditions

Design$Review$Board$is$encouraged$to$consider$design$departures$allowing$for$ retention$of$significant$trees$or$allow$for$new$large$trees$at$grade

Legend  (E)#Elaboration#of#citywide#guideline$–$a$variation$in$the$intent$or$scope$of$the$guideline  (NN)#NonFneighborhood#specific#examples$–$Other$ways$to$apply$the$guideline$not$described$by$CDG  (N)#Neighborhood#specific#examples$–$Ways$to$apply$the$guideline$that$respond$specifically$to$neighborhood$conditions  (SS)#SiteFspecific#application#of#citywide#guideline$–$Use$of$CDG$example$in$specific$area  (A)#Another#guideline#–$Example$was$more$appropriate$in$another$guideline Text%in%bold%indicate%where%guideline%has%been%modified%or%elaborated%upon.%% Text%in%italics%indicate%where%guidance%should%be%located%within%another%guideline.

Site$buildings$on$Greenwood$Ave$N$to$take$advantage$of$views$of$Green$Lake,$ A"1$Responding$to$Site$Characteristics Puget$Sound,$and$Olympic$and$Cascade$mountains$on$E"W$streets N Reinforce$commercial$and$residential$development$patterns$by$a)$building$ commercial$bldgs$up$to$sidewalks$along$Greenwood/Phinney$corridor$and$N$ 85th$St,$b)$setting$back$residential$units$5"15ft$and$3ft$above$street$level$to$ provide$privacy$(should$be$in$A"6)$and$c)$provide$side"street$treatments$to$ A"2$Streetscape$Compatibility provide$transition$to$residential$neighborhoods N,$SS A"3$Entrances$Visible$to$the$Street A"4$Human$Activity A"5$Respect$for$Adjacent$Sites A"6$Transition$Between$Residence$and$ Street see#A%2,#B%1 A"7$Residential$Open$Space A"8$Parking$and$Vehicle$Access A"9$Location$of$Parking$on$Commercial$ Street$Fronts A"10$Corner$Lots see#C%2 B.#Height,#Bulk,#Scale Consider$setbacks$of$upper$stories$of$new$dev't$on$Greenwood$and$N$$85th$to$ reduce$dominance$of$new$bldgs,$and$respect$small"scale$historical$storefront$ patterns$on$Greenwood$(~50ft$in$width,$brick/stone/masonry$units) Consider$following$departures$using$alternate$techniques$in$transitioning$from$ intensive$uses:$(should$be$in$A"6) B"1$Height,$Bulk,$and$Scale$ $$$"$relax$min.$size$limit$for$nonresidential$uses$by$15% Compatibility $$$"$relax$residential$amenity$or$setback$reqs N$,$SS

Legend  (E)#Elaboration#of#citywide#guideline$–$a$variation$in$the$intent$or$scope$of$the$guideline  (NN)#Non@neighborhood#specific#examples$–$Other$ways$to$apply$the$guideline$not$described$by$CDG  (N)#Neighborhood#specific#examples$–$Ways$to$apply$the$guideline$that$respond$specifically$to$neighborhood$conditions  (SS)#Site@specific#application#of#citywide#guideline$–$Use$of$CDG$example$in$specific$area  (A)#Another#guideline#–$Example$was$more$appropriate$in$another$guideline Text%in%bold%indicate%where%guideline%has%been%modified%or%elaborated%upon.%% Text%in%italics%indicate%where%guidance%should%be%located%within%another%guideline.

Appendix D.3 – Greenwood/ Phinney NDG Modifications

A.#Site#Planning

C.#Architectural#Elements#and#Materials

C"1$Architectural$Context

C"2$Architectural$Concept$and$ Consistency C"3$Human$Scale

C"4$Exterior$Finish$Material C"5$Structured$Parking$Entrances D.$Pedestrian$Environment

D"1$Pedestrian$Open$Spaces$and$ Entrances

Signage$section$should$be$in$D"9$(Discourage$illuminated$box$$and$pole"mounted$ signs) Faรงade$articulation/modulation$is$most$critical$in$MF$residential$bldgs,$but$less$so$in$ comm'l/mixed$use$bldgs$as$long$as$details$lend$the$bldg$a$human$scale Architectural#Style:#bldgs#along#main#corridors#chaacterized#by#utilitarian,#non% flamboyant,#traditional#styles A,$N

Architectural$style$section$should$be$in$C"1 Building$entrances$section$should$be$in$A"10$(Most$bldgs$on$corners$along$ main$corridors$have$corner$entrances$and$new$dev't$should$be$consistent) New#multi%story#devt#should#coordinate#upper#and#lower#stories#of#bldgs,#and# function#as#a#unified#composition. A,$SS should$be$in$C"2 A Bldgs$should$reference$existing$finish$materials,$and$architectural$canopies$for$ weather$protection$as$opposed$to$plastic$awnings. Look$in$appendix$for$examples$of$desireable$exterior$finish$materials N

a)$Provide$small$useable$open$spaces b)$New$dev't$should$enhance$pedestrian$environment$along$N$85th$and$ Greenwood$Ave,$north$of$N$87th c)$new$dev;t$should$integrate$pedestrian$amenities Where$blank$walls$are$unavoidable,$consider$treatment$with$methods$ suggested$in$the$citywide$design$guidelines

D"2$Blank$Walls D"3$Retaining$Walls D"4$Design$of$Parking$Lots$Near$ Sidewalks D"5$Visual$Impacts$of$Parking$ Structures D"6$Screening$of$Dumpsters,$Utilities,$ and$Service$Areas D"7$Personal$Safety$and$Security D"8$Treatment$of$Alleys D"9$Commercial$Signage see#C%1 D"10$Commercial$Lighting D"11$Commercial$Transparency D"12$Residential$Entries$and$ Transitions

a)$NN b)$SS c)$NN NN

E.$Landscaping E"1$Landscaping$to$Reinforce$Design$ Continuity$with$Adjacent$Sites E"2$Landcaping$to$Enhance$the$ Building$and/or$Site E"3$Landscape$Design$to$Address$ Special$Site$Conditions

see#TC#%#Landscaping

TC$Town$Center$Specific$Guidelines Compatibility Mid;block%connections Open%Space Street%pattern Landscaping Pedestrian%Lighting Street%Elements

Structure%Orientation

Parking%and%Vehicular%Circulation

Mass%and%Scale

Use$human"scale$historical$storefront$patterns$on$Greenwood$as$a$guide(see$A" 2,$C"1,$C"4) N Where$relevant,$consider$incorporation/enhancement$of$midblock$ connections,$with$pedestrian$amenities,$aligning$with$mid"block$crosswalks NN Encourage$publicly$accessible$urban$plazas,$as$part$N"S$streets,$and$proposed$ mid"block$connections$(see$D"1) NN Respond$to$existing$street$pattern$to$create$pedestrian/visual$continuity N Use$of$native$PNW$plants$encouraged,$and$provide$treatment$to$parking$ areas,$public$streets$and$private$internal$drives.$(also$could$be$in$E"2) N Pedestrian$lighting$should$conform$to$existing$Greenwood$lighting$desing$plan$ standards$(Lumec$Z"14$Green$finish$GN8TX),$and$not$over"illuminate$(see$D" 10) SS Integrate$public$art$and$adequate$wayfinding$with$Main$Street$Plan SS Building$setbacks$(see$A"2) Consider$impacts$of$bldgs$to$solar$exposure Corner$lot$treatments$(see$A"10) Avoid$auto$access/circulation/parking$at$public$street$intersections Blank$Walls$(see$D"2) NN (pertains$to$A"8,$A"9,$D"4) Where$street$adjacent$parking$is$necessary,$mitigate$its$visual$impact "consolidate$curb$cuts$along$N$85th "$consider$special$paving$treatments$at$parking$entrances "consolidate$access$to$offstreet$parking$around$Palatine,$1st$and$3rd$Aves$N N,$SS (see$B"1) NN