My New Studio Build (perhaps overly detailed)

[silky smoove]

This is me today:

Pursuant to SMC 25.09.055.A.6, retaining walls may of any height may not be constructed within an ECA or its buffer without an exemption. I will now need an exemption to construct 63sf of my project within an ECA buffer, an exemption to build a retaining wall an ECA buffer, and an exemption to construct within the alley setback by using one-hour firewall standards. Any other exemptions I can throw in while I'm at it? Wow...

 

[kcole4001]

Great thread!
Best of luck with the red tape.

 

[silky smoove]

Tiny bit of progress. I've gotten confirmation that 327B will not work because of the retaining wall that I have to build to take out 2' of elevation. Can't be done. That narrows it down to applying for exemption from prohibition on development on steep slopes or their buffers. There are six possible options for that approach, of which I only meet the criteria for one. At this point I feel like it's a long shot, but it's my last possible option short of throwing in the towel and either building a small 12'x14' structure outside of the buffer, or developing the lower lot of my property, both of which are much less attractive prospects.

Gathering some documentation tonight and submitting a new document package tomorrow morning. Fingers crossed!

 

[Marial]

Good luck man!!!!

 

[silky smoove]

Every time I open my mouth and declare that something is finally going my way in the permitting of this project something comes along and knocks me back two steps from where I was previously. We're now being told that the placement adjacent to the alley cannot be done as proposed, even with a one-hour fire wall. They are requiring 5' clear from the property line. That relegates my building width down to a nominal 9'. Complete non-starter. I've reached out to some contacts for help, and am going to scour the Seattle Municipal Code tonight.

It's funny; Earlier today I was listening to a podcast and the sentence "If you want to learn to hate the government, try and build something on your own property." was said by the host. Well guess what? Absolutely correct. I work for a municipal government, so I feel like I should cut them some slack, but when you're trying to build a well-built, fully engineered, highly stable building contained completely within your property to replace a horribly constructed garage from 1946 that encroached into the alley and the steep slope buffer, and the city says they couldn't possibly allow such a heinous thing to occur... I just... I... Where's the logic? Where's the rationale? I'm furious and just venting at this point.

Good thing I have a lower lot where I can PROBABLY build something. The kicker is that I would either have to go for a 5-minute walk (not necessarily a bad thing), or a quick car ride just to use my studio space, as opposed to just walking out my back door. UGH!

 

[silky smoove]

Earlier today I sent my 327A submittal package to my contractor to upload to the city's DPD document portal for review. As opposed to asking their permission to do a few things I made the proposed site plan in such a way that they'll have to tell me no as opposed to me waiting for them to tell me yes. If that makes sense... Feels rambly... Much like this... Anyway! I know this will come back with comments, and I'm fully prepared for that, but hopefully they'll be reasonable. If they are, I'll be in a position to make some minor adjustments and get this thing back on track. If not I'm going to try permitting it as a garage rather than an accessory structure. Garages have different requirements with respect to setbacks that would potentially help me out. If that doesn't work it means I'll need to develop my lower lot. Hoping for the best!

 

[silky smoove]

Documentation submitted... And now we wait...

 

[silky smoove]

Today's update brought to you in super condescending phone conversation paraphrasing.

DPD: We've rejected your application because we need to conduct a site inspection. Please call our support staff to setup a pre-application site visit. There will be an additional fee associated with this inspection.

Support Staff: We don't need to setup a new pre-application site visit. The previous owners of your home did one last year when they were trying to do a similar project before they sold it to you. A PASV is good for five years and follows the property, not the project. This one looks good, so there won't be a new fee involved and you don't have to waste time waiting for an inspector. Please call DPD back and let them know. Here's the previous PASV number for their reference.

DPD: Oh, okay. Please submit this along with a resubmittal of your entire application package including supporting documentation so we can get it back in the hopper. We'll get this over to our geotechnical staff for review as soon as it clears.

The moral of the story is that they did an intake of the documentation, decided to not do any research on the property, reject the application without telling my contractor who only found out after I prodded him to get an update, inform my contractor only after being bugged, request a PASV, get told by their own staff that they already have a valid PASV, and then tell me that everything's good, but I have to go stand in the back of the line.

Talk about inefficiency and an utter screwing of my project timeline. To give this a positive spin, at least now there's a clear path forward to getting an exemption approved... Hopefully.

 

[peterpalmieri]

I'll take it as a positive congrats

 

[silky smoove]

I had to make a tough call regarding the updated submittal to DPD on the studio building. My contractor hasn’t sent the building size changes back through his engineering department, so the current plans are representative of the original 14x26 building with no one-hour firewall, as opposed to what the proposed site plan is showing, which is a 14x24 building with a one-hour firewall on the western side of the building adjacent to the alley. I marked up the plans and sent them back to my contractor to be revised by his engineering department down in Colorado. This will delay the process by the amount of time it takes to get a new set of plans, but it will help to eliminate confusion when everything gets reviewed at DPD. I don’t want them to look at the proposed site plan and see something that doesn’t match the building plans. We’re attempting to depict the ideal conditions as a starting point rather than acquiescing to what DPD has stated anecdotally. I’d rather take the time to argue from the position of what’s reasonable and achieves all of my goals, as opposed to starting a few steps behind where I want to be and attempting to scrape my way forward.

Basically it's a short-term delay now to avoid a long-term delay later.

 

[J Posega]

You're one patient dude @silky smoove! I'm sure there's lots of face-palming and swearing out there IRL, but you seem to have a good idea what you're doing!

 

[silky smoove]

You're one patient dude @silky smoove! I'm sure there's lots of face-palming and swearing out there IRL, but you seem to have a good idea what you're doing!

Thanks. Fortunately this type of thing is what I do professionally (i.e. Civil and environmental engineering/development for a city government), so I'm able to navigate it better than most. That said, Seattle's DPD is ridiculously cumbersome. I had one geotechnical consultant refer to it as "a black hole where good ideas go to die." Hopefully mine doesn't suffer that fate.

 

[silky smoove]

Here's how my in-person meeting at the DPD office went...

Chris: I'm here to talk about my permit application. The screening was rejected and the note said that I needed to come in. This is my project number.
DPD: Oh you didn't need to come in for this, we could have worked it out over the phone.
Chris: The note specifically says it can't be discussed over phone or email. Who submitted the note?
DPD: I did.
Chris' thoughts: [we're off to a great start]
DPD: I can't process this until you submit a site plan.
Chris: I did submit a site plan, it's right there on your screen.
DPD: You didn't submit this through the project portal.
Chris: Yes I did.
DPD: You used the wrong part of the project portal.
Chris: There are different parts?
DPD: Yes, you need to use this little link buried in text over here.
Chris: Will that get it into your system?
DPD: Yes
Chris: So you can see it on your screen?
DPD: Yes
Chris: Like the one that's on your screen now?
DPD: Yes, but I can't use this one.
Chris: Why not?
DPD: You need to use the other link.
Chris: What's the difference?
DPD: The other link routes it through another office that needs to review it.
Chris: Where's this other office?
DPD: [points to the person LITERALLY STANDING NEXT TO HER]
Chris: You can't just give them the file? They're three feet away.
DPD: Nope. Can't.
Chris: Do you see the absurdity in that?
DPD: You should have used the other link.
Chris: How would I know to use that link? I did EXACTLY what two different people in your office told me to do.
DPD: Who did you speak to?
Chris: I spoke to A and I spoke to B.
DPD: You couldn't have spoken to A, he doesn't answer those kinds of questions.
Chris: I did.
DPD: You couldn't have.
Chris: How would I know his name and that he's in your office if I hadn't? Why would I make it up?
DPD: I have no way of knowing that.
Chris: Fine, what about B?
DPD: B is on vacation. He'll be back tomorrow. You can come back on talk to him then if you'd like.
Chris: Great. So at this point I have no recourse but to return home and submit all of this stuff again so that you can see it on your screen in the same way that you can now, but it will go through your neighbor's office despite the fact that he could easily get it from you.
DPD: Yes.
Chris: Wow, what an efficient process. How long will the intake process take to complete?
DPD: 1-2 weeks.
Chris: It will take 1-2 weeks to get information you already have in your system a grand total of 3' from where it is now?
DPD: It will take 1-2 weeks.
Chris. Wow, what an efficient process. [leaves the office of DPD]

 

[NOLA Bass]

Here's how my in-person meeting at the DPD office went...

Chris: I'm here to talk about my permit application. The screening was rejected and the note said that I needed to come in. This is my project number.
DPD: Oh you didn't need to come in for this, we could have worked it out over the phone.
Chris: The note specifically says it can't be discussed over phone or email. Who submitted the note?
DPD: I did.
Chris' thoughts: [we're off to a great start]
DPD: I can't process this until you submit a site plan.
Chris: I did submit a site plan, it's right there on your screen.
DPD: You didn't submit this through the project portal.
Chris: Yes I did.
DPD: You used the wrong part of the project portal.
Chris: There are different parts?
DPD: Yes, you need to use this little link buried in text over here.
Chris: Will that get it into your system?
DPD: Yes
Chris: So you can see it on your screen?
DPD: Yes
Chris: Like the one that's on your screen now?
DPD: Yes, but I can't use this one.
Chris: Why not?
DPD: You need to use the other link.
Chris: What's the difference?
DPD: The other link routes it through another office that needs to review it.
Chris: Where's this other office?
DPD: [points to the person LITERALLY STANDING NEXT TO HER]
Chris: You can't just give them the file? They're three feet away.
DPD: Nope. Can't.
Chris: Do you see the absurdity in that?
DPD: You should have used the other link.
Chris: How would I know to use that link? I did EXACTLY what two different people in your office told me to do.
DPD: Who did you speak to?
Chris: I spoke to A and I spoke to B.
DPD: You couldn't have spoken to A, he doesn't answer those kinds of questions.
Chris: I did.
DPD: You couldn't have.
Chris: How would I know his name and that he's in your office if I hadn't? Why would I make it up?
DPD: I have no way of knowing that.
Chris: Fine, what about B?
DPD: B is on vacation. He'll be back tomorrow. You can come back on talk to him then if you'd like.
Chris: Great. So at this point I have no recourse but to return home and submit all of this stuff again so that you can see it on your screen in the same way that you can now, but it will go through your neighbor's office despite the fact that he could easily get it from you.
DPD: Yes.
Chris: Wow, what an efficient process. How long will the intake process take to complete?
DPD: 1-2 weeks.
Chris: It will take 1-2 weeks to get information you already have in your system a grand total of 3' from where it is now?
DPD: It will take 1-2 weeks.
Chris. Wow, what an efficient process. [leaves the office of DPD]

Holy *&$^!!!!! It is both hilarious but so infuriating since you have to actually deal with this! Renovations on the house we bought are just under way and working on plans for the rehearsal space with the contractor now. Fortunately, the permitting, etc. will be his problem!

 

[Luke19Boarder]

Here's how my in-person meeting at the DPD office went...

Chris: I'm here to talk about my permit application. The screening was rejected and the note said that I needed to come in. This is my project number.
DPD: Oh you didn't need to come in for this, we could have worked it out over the phone.
Chris: The note specifically says it can't be discussed over phone or email. Who submitted the note?
DPD: I did.
Chris' thoughts: [we're off to a great start]
DPD: I can't process this until you submit a site plan.
Chris: I did submit a site plan, it's right there on your screen.
DPD: You didn't submit this through the project portal.
Chris: Yes I did.
DPD: You used the wrong part of the project portal.
Chris: There are different parts?
DPD: Yes, you need to use this little link buried in text over here.
Chris: Will that get it into your system?
DPD: Yes
Chris: So you can see it on your screen?
DPD: Yes
Chris: Like the one that's on your screen now?
DPD: Yes, but I can't use this one.
Chris: Why not?
DPD: You need to use the other link.
Chris: What's the difference?
DPD: The other link routes it through another office that needs to review it.
Chris: Where's this other office?
DPD: [points to the person LITERALLY STANDING NEXT TO HER]
Chris: You can't just give them the file? They're three feet away.
DPD: Nope. Can't.
Chris: Do you see the absurdity in that?
DPD: You should have used the other link.
Chris: How would I know to use that link? I did EXACTLY what two different people in your office told me to do.
DPD: Who did you speak to?
Chris: I spoke to A and I spoke to B.
DPD: You couldn't have spoken to A, he doesn't answer those kinds of questions.
Chris: I did.
DPD: You couldn't have.
Chris: How would I know his name and that he's in your office if I hadn't? Why would I make it up?
DPD: I have no way of knowing that.
Chris: Fine, what about B?
DPD: B is on vacation. He'll be back tomorrow. You can come back on talk to him then if you'd like.
Chris: Great. So at this point I have no recourse but to return home and submit all of this stuff again so that you can see it on your screen in the same way that you can now, but it will go through your neighbor's office despite the fact that he could easily get it from you.
DPD: Yes.
Chris: Wow, what an efficient process. How long will the intake process take to complete?
DPD: 1-2 weeks.
Chris: It will take 1-2 weeks to get information you already have in your system a grand total of 3' from where it is now?
DPD: It will take 1-2 weeks.
Chris. Wow, what an efficient process. [leaves the office of DPD]

And all this time, I thought that parks & rec was fictional...

 

[peterpalmieri]

That's our tax dollars at work. The opposite of efficient is government.

 

[silky smoove]

That's our tax dollars at work. The opposite of efficient is government.

I agree. When I took my engineering position with a city government here in Washington state I was convinced that all the stereotypes about government inefficiencies were false given that my office operates exactly like every private-sector consultant I've ever worked for. I would even get into arguments with people about how said stereotypes were overblown, made-up, nonsense. Well... I was wrong. As it turns out, MY office in city government gets a monumental amount of work done, but there are certainly others that are living up to the stereotype. Unbelievable. The overwhelmingly confusing, inefficient, painstaking beuracracy of trhe whole thing is what kills me. That kind of behavior would not fly in the private-sector.

 

[silky smoove]

Holy *&$^!!!!! It is both hilarious but so infuriating since you have to actually deal with this! Renovations on the house we bought are just under way and working on plans for the rehearsal space with the contractor now. Fortunately, the permitting, etc. will be his problem!

It was my contractor's problem too until beuracrats got involved and flew the plane into the side of a mountain, haha. His problem then, my problem now.

It's odd to think that this thread started with a tale about me selling a houes because I couldn't get through regulations to build a studio, so I sold that houes, bought a new one, am attempting to build a studio in this new location, and am once again stuck in regulations. If my wife's business wasn't based here in West Seattle I would move to an unincorporated portion of south King County and build whatever I wanted, which I assure you would be much larger than the 14'x24' structure that's got Seattle all in a knot

 

[Photobassist]

My Dad dealt with a similar problem when trying to build his detached two-car garage in Virginia. It took him two years of dealing with city BS "red tape" before he could finally proceed.

I hope it doesn't take you that long @silky smoove, and I wish you the best of luck in getting your studio built.

My fingers are crossed, and I'll continuing watching this thread for updates.

 

[ahc]

You might have better luck here...