|
Summer 2001 A Case Study from Washington State Making Your Design Review Process Defensible by Mark Hinshaw, FAICP, and Stuart Meck, FAICP One tool that planning agencies and planning commissions can use to promote good community design is design review. Design review promotes or establishes community character by insuring that certain urban design and architectural principles are followed Local governments adopt an ordinance describing the process along with design review guidelines that are applied to the review of projects. The guidelines include both text and graphics in order to describe the characteristics of the desired development.
This article presents a case study of the design review process used in Federal Way, Washington. The focus is not on the design elements, but rather the process of review itself. In Federal Way, the purpose is to ensure that the proposal is coordinated with other known or anticipated development and that the proposal embodies good design principles that result in high-quality development. The steps involved ensure that the process is legally defensible, in that a record of the decision is created, and the opportunity for appeal is available for those who wish to dispute the decision. It is important to emphasize that these reviews are administrative in nature, involving the application of a set of discretionary criteria and guidelines to an individual project or site, and therefore the procedures are formal. They are not legislative, or policy making in character, such as the type a city council might make. An example of policy making would be the passage of a no-smoking ordinance that applied to everyone. In Federal Way, projects are permitted only if approved through the design review process, but there is no public hearing. Here the director of community development has the sole authority to make the design review decision. By contrast, in some states, a locally designated design review board will be the reviewing entity, and the project is reviewed in a public hearing. The review of the project may be assigned to a trained individual who is separate from a department head, but who makes the recommendation to the department head. The department head will accept the recommendation, but is the person who is responsible for the decision. Conceivably, if a community only anticipates a small number design review proposals in an area, the local planning commission could be designated as the design review board. The first step in Federal Way is a completeness review. The guidelines specify what information is necessary for the application and allow the director to determine if additional information is needed. The city has 28 days from the date it receives the application to determine whether or not it is complete. A determination of completeness, however, does not preclude the city from requesting additional information. The director must then create an official file that contains application material, written comments, the written decision itself, and any other relevant information. The file is a public record, and it must be available for inspection and copying during regular business hours.
The project developer or applicant bears the responsibility or burden of proof of convincing the director of community development that the project complies with city standards and criteria. In addition to drawings and other materials provided by the applicant, the director considers all written comments submitted before the deadline for making the decision. The director applies a number of general criteria in making the decision. The project must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, all applicable provisions of the city's development regulations, the public health, safety and welfare, site design standards, and any supplemental guidelines the city may have adopted. Further, the director must find that streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand; and that proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration. Remodeling or expansion of an existing development also must comply with those community design guidelines identified by the director as being applicable. Each decision by the director contains a conclusion, a statement of applicable criteria, and a date. The decision must be in the form of an approval, an approval with conditions, or a denial. It confirms that the proposal has been coordinated with other known or anticipated development and that it embodies good design principles that result in quality design. The decision is then distributed to the applicant, to each person who submitted written comments, to anyone who has requested it, and to the county assessor, in order that the decision and any required conditions are attached to the deed of record–an important item in case the project ownership changes. An appeals process also is built into the Federal Way system. The decision may only be appealed by any person who is required to receive a copy of that decision; this includes both the applicant and the people who submitted written comments. The appellant must pay a fee. If an appeal is filed, the director must provide a statement within a specified time period, that announces that the decision is being appealed. The statement must include identification of the alleged errors made by the director, including any disputed conclusions. In addition the statement must include the name and full address of the appellant. Appeals are heard by a hearing examiner, which is common practice for such matters in the state of Washington. In Federal Way, the burden of proof is on the person filing the appeal who must convince the hearing examiner with a preponderance of evidence that the director's decision contains either an error of law or that the decision's findings of fact or conclusions are incorrect. The hearing examiner makes one of three decisions on the appeal–affirming, modifying, or reversing the director's decision. Appellants have one more step in the appeal process, and that is to the superior court, but not the city council. After receiving approval for a project, the applicant has one year after the final decision to submit a complete building permit application. The applicant must complete construction within five years after the final decision. The city may require a bond to ensure compliance with any aspect of a permit or approval. Finally, the applicant must comply with all aspects of an approval, including conditions and restrictions. Role of the Planning Commission in Design Review In the communities with which Mark Hinshaw has worked, the planning commission is the principal body responsible for the crafting of the design review standards and guidelines. The commission might be assisted in this by a consultant or staff, or a special subcommittee, or a combination of both.
A third role commissions may play is as a monitor. The commissioners are in an ideal position to monitor the results of design review and suggest improvements when needed. The staff function also varies from community to community. Many communities use a design review board for the review process, but the growing trend is for the review to be an administrative staff function. The Federal Way planning commission prepared the design guidelines with participation of staff and a consultant. We asked Mark: "What would the planning commissioners interest or concern be with this topic?" He replied: "planning commissions often agonize about how to get better quality development. Design review is the only real way to do it, as zoning, by itself, cannot."
Images: Top — The city of Woodinville, Washington, is applying its design guidelines to the review of big box retailers to ensure that buildings reflect the agrarian heritage of the community. The design breaks down the massing of the store and makes references to older farm sheds. Middle — This potentially controversial building in Redmond, Washington, contains transitional housing. Design review ensures that it fit into a neighborhood characterized by residential structures. It is well thought of by the community, despite its size and density. Bottom — In Bellevue, Washington, design standards ensure that the redevelopment of a strip mall include a building fronting directly on the street. Although the street is a major arterial, streetscape enhancements, public spaces, and landscaping allow for lively public use. Pictures by mark Hinshaw. Resources from APA on Design Review The following publications, and video and audio training tapes may be ordered from APA's Planner's Book Service at 312-786-6344. Publications Peggy Glassford, Appearance Codes for Small Communities, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 379 (APA, 1995), 26 pp. Mark Hinshaw, Design Review, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 454 (1995), 33 pp. Scenic America, O, Say Can You See (Scenic America, 1999), 113 pp. David Sucher, City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village (City Comforts, 1994), 175 pp. Video Training Packages Understanding Design Context (135 minutes, 1994). Community Decision Marking in Urban Design (90 minutes, 1994). Design Implementation (135 minutes, 1994). Design Review: From Historic Preservation to Site Plans (75 minutes, 1995). Audio Training Package Preserving and Promoting Community Character (60 minutes, 1999). | ||
Printer-Friendly Format
Why
do communities employ design review? Many communities have simply concluded
that good design needs to be encouraged. Some go so far as to hold design competitions
and encourage public interest in design issues. In older, established communities,
the interest might be ensuring the compatibility of new buildings with existing
buildings. In other communities the emphasis might be on avoiding monotony in
new construction. Regardless of the type of community, design review can be
used to significantly improve the quality of development, the nature of the
pedestrian setting and neighborhood character. Certainly the planning commission
may foster the inclusion of design issues in the local comprehensive plan It
can also initially champion a design review ordinance and accompanying guidelines.
The
next step is preparation of a public notice. This is done within 14 days of
the issuance of the letter of completeness on the proposal. The public notice
contains the name, address, requested decision, a brief description of the proposed
project, information on the availability of the official file, a statement of
the right of any person to submit written comments, a statement clarifying that
only those who have submitted written comments may appeal the director's decision,
and the identification of environmental documents. In Federal Way, this public
notice must be published in the official daily newspaper, and posted on the
subject property and in libraries, as well as mailed to the persons receiving
property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of the subject property.
As
mentioned in the article, there is a second role which some commissions may
have–this is most often in smaller communities. In this instance, the planning
commission actually conducts design review. This work is sometimes supplemented
with expertise provided by design and planning professionals in the community
or by consultants.