Still nothing back yet. The geotechnical consultant I talked to last week can't get the ball rolling until the 9th. I hit up one of my geotechnical contacts (I work in civil and environmental engineering by day, so this is right in my wheelhouse) and he gave me a good recommendation for a firm that does small projects in Seattle. Armed with that as a backup plan I started tackling the information DPD had given me, vaguely, last week. Basically they gave me two options based on a "Tips" system that they have in place to make things "easier" for people applying for a permit.
1. Tip 327A allows for exemptions to steep slope development prohibitions, but it doesn't outline AT ALL what is required. I have an email in to DPD asking for the specifics. The problem with 327A is that out of the six possible reasons for granting an exemption, I only line up with one of them. This will be a tough battle, and the one that will require, I think, the geotechnical report. The review process was relayed to my contractor as "about two weeks" and later to me as "many months." Subtle difference... Ugh...
2. Tip 327B allows exemptions in ECAs for accessory structures. Sounds perfect right? Well, in a steep slope ECA the maximum ground disturbance allowed under the exemption is 300sf. I've got plans at this point for a 14'x24' building that sits on a building pad that measures 17'x26', which is the area that qualifies as the ground disturbance. At 442sf, that's 142sf over the limit and definitely far enough to make this unrealistic for my purposes using 327B. By the time you factor in the footprint of the block walls and the 6" clear distance from the edges of the structure to the back of the blocks it would only allow me room to build an 8.5'x24' structure. I could widen that out at the expense of width, but either way the dimensions start to get really pinched. The widest I can make the structure is 14', and by the time you account for the block walls and clearances that only leaves me with a 14'x15.64' (nobody builds to that tolerance, so it would likely be 14'x15' or POSSIBLY 14'x15.5'). Either way I'm getting close to a square building which is a major no-no in terms of acoustics. The vaulted ceiling helps to mitigate that, but not enough to not end up with some nasty room modes. So now I'm back to making it a skinnier structure. Going down to 12' wide allows me to get to a 12'x18' structure. That's not horrible, but it cramps things down enough that building the soft dividing wall is no longer an option. That dividing wall was the difference in being able to track a live drummer, or a mic'd guitar/bass amp, or a singer, or anything requiring a microphone without having to wear headphones in the control room (which would now no longer be its own separate room). That seemingly subtle difference changes the use of the space from a room that can serve as a recording and production studio as well as a creative and session work space for myself, to only being the latter. I would really only be able to use it for my own creative work and when I'm doing sessions remotely. I could still record material for people's projects, but it becomes a much tougher sell. "Hey, come to my professional room that is actually treated for acoustics properly, but stil retains the feel of a nice bedroom studio which will makes you think that it's not a professional space."
Trying to keep my chin up. We'll see how this goes. Hopefully the DPD contact responds to my email by tomorrow.
I think I need to figure it out though.
