23.41.008

A. Role of the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board shall be convened to review development proposals that are subject to full design review, or Master Planned Community-highrise design review pursuant to this Chapter 23.41 . To accomplish this purpose, the Design Review Board shall perform the following, as applicable: 1. For developments subject to full design review or Master Planned Community-highrise design review, synthesize community input on design concerns, identify guideline priorities, and provide early design guidance to the applicant; 2. Determine whether a proposed design submitted by an applicant does or does not comply with the guideline priorities; 3. For development subject to full design review, recommend to the Director whether to approve, condition, or deny any requested departures from development standards; 4. Recommend to the Director specific conditions of approval that are consistent with the guideline priorities; and 5. Ensure fair and consistent application of Citywide or neighborhood-specific design guidelines. B. Design Review Board membership criteria 1. Members shall reside in Seattle; 2. Members should possess experience in neighborhood land use issues and demonstrate, by their experience, sensitivity in understanding the effect of design decisions on neighborhoods and the development process; 3. Members should possess a familiarity with land use processes and standards as applied in Seattle; and 4. Consistent with Section 4.16.070 , no member of the Design Review Board shall have a financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, personally or through a person in the member's immediate family, in a project under review by the Design Review Board on which that member sits. C. Design Review Board composition 1. The Design Review Board shall be composed as follows: Table A for 23.41.008 Design Review Board composition Representation Development interests Design professions Get Engaged Local residential/community interests General business interests or landscape professions Number 8 8 1 or more 16 (2/district) 8 Selection process 4 appointed by Mayor, 4 by Council 4 appointed by Mayor, 4 by Council 1 or more pursuant to Chapter 3.51 1 4 appointed by Mayor, 4 appointed by Council, 8 jointly appointed by Mayor and Council Jointly appointed by Mayor and Council Confirmation process All appointments made solely by the Mayor are subject to confirmation by Council Footnote to Table A for 23.41.008 1 One or more designated young adult positions are added to the Design Review Board pursuant to the Get Engaged Program, Chapter 3.51 . The selection process and term of service related to these young adult positions are set forth in Chapter 3.51 . 2. Term. Members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed to two-year terms. A member may be re-appointed to subsequent terms pursuant to the selection and confirmation process in subsection 23.41.008.C.1. The Director may extend the existing term of a serving member by up to one year in order to avoid more than two vacancies at any time. This subsection 23.41.008.C.2 does not apply to Get Engaged members, whose terms are governed by Chapter 3.51 . 3. Members may be removed by the Director for cause, including but not limited to: a. Failing to attend the Design Review orientation session offered by SDCI and an onboarding session offered by the City; and b. Failing to attend at least 90 percent of all regularly scheduled meetings that have occurred in the term. 4. Any vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. A member whose term is ending may continue on an interim basis as a member with voting rights until such time as a successor for that position has been appointed by the City Council or confirmed by the City Council. D. Design Review Board assignment 1. Each design review district shall be assigned a Design Review Board consisting of members as follows: a. One member representing development-related interests; b. One member representing the design professions; c. Two members representing local residential/community interests; d. One member representing general business interests or landscape professions; and e. No more than one young adult member from the Get Engaged program. 2. Three Design Review Board members shall be a quorum of each District Design Review Board. 3. The Design Review Board members assigned to each project as described in subsection 23.41.008.D.1 shall be known collectively as the District Design Review Board. All members of the District Design Review Board shall be voting members. 4. Substitutions a. In the event that more projects are undergoing simultaneous design review than a District Design Review Board can review in a timely manner, the Director may assign such projects to a geographically unassigned Substitute Design Review Board, whose five members the Director may select from the Substitute Design Review Board membership described in subsection 23.41.008.D.5, so long as the five members represent each of the five interests required by subsection 23.41.008.D.1. b. If an individual District Design Review Board member is unable to serve, the Director may either appoint an individual from another District Design Review Board or may appoint a Substitute Design Review Board member from the Substitute Design Review Board membership described in subsection 23.41.008.D.5 to serve in the member's absence. c. The Director may assign a Design Review Board to review a project outside of its designated district in order to expedite review, provided that the local residential/community representatives shall review development only within their district. In such a case, the Director shall appoint the local residential/community representatives from the District Board from which the project originated, or the local residential/community representative from the Substitute Design Review Board provided in subsection 23.41.008.D.5, or any combination thereof, to review the project, so long as the local residential/community representatives appointed are from the same geographic district as the project to be reviewed. 5. Substitute Design Review Board membership a. Membership criteria: 1) A person must have been a member of the Design Review Board whose term has expired; 2) A person must indicate a willingness to continue participation on the Board; and 3) A person must have, in the opinion of the Director, demonstrated a commitment to Design Review through exemplary attendance and Board participation. b. The term of service for Substitute Design Review Board members is indefinite. E. Meetings of the Design Review Board 1. Notice of Design Review Board meetings shall be given as described in subsection 23.76.015.C. 2. All meetings of the Design Review Board shall be held virtually, in-person, or a combination of both as follows: a. A physical meeting venue option shall be provided for attendance of virtual meetings; b. Virtual meetings may be offered to supplement in-person meetings; c. If an emergency makes in-person meetings impracticable as declared by the Mayor, meetings shall be held virtually; d. In-person meetings shall be accessible; and e. All in-person or virtual meetings shall be open to the general public. The actions of the Board are not quasi-judicial in nature. 3. Design Review Board meetings are limited to the maximum number described in Table B for 23.41.008. Table B for 23.41.008 Maximum number of Design Review Board meetings for certain projects Type of design review Early design guidance meetings Recommendation meeting Full design review 2 1,2 1 1,2 Footnotes to Table B for 23.41.008 1 There is no limit to the number of Board meetings when: The project lot is abutting or across the street from a lot in a neighborhood residential zone; The development proposal includes a Type IV or Type V Master Use Permit component as described in Chapter 23.76 ; or Departures are requested, unless the project applicant elects the MHA performance option according to Sections 23.58B.050 or 23.58C.050 . 2 The Director may require additional Design Review Board meetings according to subsection 23.41.008.E.4. 4. The Director may require additional Design Review Board meetings above the maximum established in subsection 23.41.008.E.3 if the Director determines the Design Review Board needs additional time for deliberation and evaluation of a project due to the size and complexity of the site or proposed development, the amount and content of public comment, an applicant's insufficient response to previous Board direction, or at the applicant's request. If the Design Review Board cannot complete a recommendation, it shall identify reasons why another recommendation meeting is necessary. F. Design Review Board recommendation 1. The Design Review Board shall determine whether the proposed design submitted by the applicant complies with the guideline priorities. The Board shall recommend to the Director whether to approve or conditionally approve the proposed project based on compliance with the guideline priorities, and whether to approve, condition, or deny any requested departures from development standards. 2. The Director shall consider the recommendations of the Design Review Board when deciding whether to approve an application for a Master Use Permit. 3. If four or more members of the Design Review Board agree in their recommendation to the Director, and if the Director otherwise approves a Master Use Permit application, the Director shall make compliance with the recommendation of the Design Review Board a condition of permit approval, unless the Director concludes that the recommendation of the Design Review Board: a. Reflects inconsistent application of the design review guidelines; b. Exceeds the authority of the Design Review Board; c. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or d. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law. G. Revisions to an issued and unexpired MUP 1. Minor revisions to an issued and unexpired MUP that was subject to design review may be approved by the Director as a Type I decision. A minor revision is defined as any proposed change to an issued and unexpired MUP that has little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design or environmental impact of the issued MUP. 2. Major revisions to an issued and unexpired MUP that was subject to design review may be approved by the Director as a Type II decision. A Major Revision is defined as any proposed change to an issued MUP that is not a Minor Revision that is consistent with the building massing, site plan, and guidance received at Early Design Guidance (EDG), where the current context of the project (e.g. adjacent structures or uses) is comparable to the context at the time of the EDG. In instances when citywide or neighborhood guidelines have been adopted, amended, or updated since the EDG, the Board or SDCI staff may identify additional guideline priorities as part of the major revision process. 3. The Director shall establish, by rule, what constitutes a major and minor revision and the review process for major and minor revisions. (Ord. 126684 , § 2, 2022; Ord. 126509 , § 26, 2022 [zone name change]; Ord. 126188 , § 3, 2020; Ord. 126072 , § 3, 2020; Ord. 125562 , §§ 2, 3, 2018; Ord. 125429 , §§ 6, 7, 2017; Ord. 124843 , § 10, 2015; Ord. 124389, § 3, 2013; Ord. 121475, § 1, 2004; Ord. 120914, § 5, 2002; Ord. 118980, § 3, 1998; Ord. 118672, § 1, 1997; Ord. 118012, § 15, 1996; Ord. 117075 , § 1, 1994; Ord. 116909 , § 1, 1993.)