Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit PL13-009 - SMITH TODD - COOKE COTTAGES APPEAL
COOKE COTTAGES -TODD SMITH 13325 MACADAM RD S PL13-009 L13-008 APPEAL FINDINGS, DECISION and ORDER OF THE HEARING E ED FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA r, a *ie In the Matter of the Appeal of � ptiVt.LU1'MLNt TODD SMITH Department Reference: From a decision by the Director of the of the L-13-008 Department of Community Development Revoking a decision Introduction On February 28, 2013, the Director of the Department of Community Development issued a "Revocation of Decision" letter which stated that the letter "revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120)." The Appellant, Todd Smith, filed an appeal of the Director's revocation letter on March 13, 2013. The appeal hearing was held on May 28, 2013. Parties represented at the proceeding were: the Appellant, Todd Smith, by Gerald F. Robison, attorney at law; and the Director, Department of Community Development, by Rachel Turpin, Assistant City Attorney, and Stacy McGregor, Assistant Planner. Except as otherwise noted, references to "Code" or "TMC" refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code. The following exhibits were admitted into the record for this appeal: May 14, 2013 DCD staff report and attachments A -S. After due consideration of the evidence elicited during the hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision and order of the Hearing Examiner on this appeal. Findings of Fact 1. On October 3, 2005, the Tukwila City Council passed Ordinance 2103, which established a "Housing Options Program" and adopted regulations for what was described by the ordinance as a "three-year demonstration program for small-scale housing." The regulations were codified in Chapter 18.120 TMC. 2. The ordinance established the selection process and criteria that the Director of DCD was to follow in deciding "which projects are eligible for project selection and allowed to apply for design review and/or for platting." TMC 18.120.030.A. The ordinance provided that the Director "shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria." TMC 18.120.030.C. In addition, the Director's decision "shall be the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may not be administratively appealed." TMC 18.120.030.D. Findings and Decision of the nearing Examiner Appeal of Revocation of Decision L13-008 Page 2 of 4 3. The ordinance stated that "The Housing Options Program is available for three years from the effective date of this ordinance. A total of three projects may be developed as part of the Program and selected projects must vest themselves with a Type 2, 4 or 5 application before the program expires on October 12, 2008." TMC 18.120.070. 4. In December of 2007, the Appellant filed an application for a housing project to be considered under the Housing Options Program. The project was described as nine residential units (eight compact single family units and one cottage), located at 13325 Macadam Road South. 5. The Appellant's proposal is shown in Attachment B to the staff report. The proposal stated that "Designs Northwest Architects, Inc., will provide the prime architectural services in association with Kasprisin Pettinari Design, who will serve the project as the urban design consultant and develop the Design Guidelines." 6. A DCD staff report to the Director, dated April 3, 2008, stated: "Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage." Page 5, Dhaliwal staff report, Attachment C. 7. On April 4, 2008, the Director issued a Notice of Decision determining that the Appellant's application satisfied the criteria for project selection under the Housing Options Program. The Notice included a statement that "This approval... is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase I. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. 8. On October 2, 2008, the City's Code Enforcement Officer issued a Stop Work Notification to the Appellant for removing trees and brush without permits at the project site, including from within the wetland buffer area. The Appellant subsequently applied for and received tree clearing permits and approval of a wetland buffer mitigation plan, but has not commenced the wetland mitigation work required by the Department. 9, The Department issued several technical comment letters to the Appellant, between 2009 and 2012; the correspondence between the parties is shown in the record. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner Appeal of Revocation of Decision L13-008 Page 3 of 4 10. On August 21, 2012, the Department issued a "Notice of Pending Cancellation" to the Appellant regarding the short plat and design review applications. Attachment I; extensions were subsequently granted; Attachments L and M. 11. On February 28, 2013, the Director issued a letter entitled "Revocation of Decision" to the Appellant, stating in part that "this letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the referenced project." The letter also advised that the design review and short plat applications could therefore no longer be processed. The letter referenced Condition 2 and Condition 3 of the 2008 decision as not having been met. The letter went on to describe an appeal process. The letter is signed by Nora Gierloff, who is the Deputy Director of DCD. Attachment P. 12. On March 13, 2013, the Appellant filed an appeal of the Revocation of Decision letter with the Department. Conclusions 1. Under TMC 18.120.030.D, the Director's 2008 decision was the final decision of the City on the selection of eligible projects under the Housing Options Demonstration program; no administrative appeal is allowed of that decision, and no judicial appeals were taken. Thus, the Director's 2008 decision, including its conditions, was final as of the date of that decision. 2. The Appellant raised several arguments, including that the tree removal from the wetland buffer had been approved by the City as part of the 2008 approval; that the identification of a specific design team was not required by the Code; that the Appellant had proposed reasonable alternate design professionals that the staff arbitrarily rejected; and that the revocation was not signed by the Director, Jack Pace. 3. It is not clear whether the Director's February 28, 2013 revocation letter is actually a decision recognized by the Code; see TMC 18.104. But of more importance is that no Code provisions have been identified which allow the revocation decision letter to be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Although the Appellant argued that any decision of the Director can be appealed, the question is whether the Code grants the Hearing Examiner jurisdiction over this appeal, and the Code in this case does not. Although the Director's revocation letter included a reference to an appeal process, the Code also does not grant the Examiner equitable authority to hear an appeal based on the Director's representation that an appeal process exists. 4. Even if the Examiner had review authority, the Appellant essentially challenges the 2008 conditions requiring tree preservation in the wetland buffer and the inclusion of Designs Northwest on the project team. At this time, neither condition has been met; the trees were not preserved, nor is Designs Northwest on the project team. The conditions are part of the decision and therefore final under TMC 18.120.030.D. Arguably, even the Director cannot now change those conditions, although it appears that the Director has interpreted the conditions very broadly during his negotiations with the Appellant, presumably because of the City's interest in having a successful project under the 2008 Ordinance. But in any event, given the language of TMC Findings and Decision of the nearing Examiner Appeal of Revocation of Decision L13-008 Page 4 of 4 18.120.030.D, there would be no basis upon which the Examiner could require DCD to either ignore or amend Conditions 2 and 3 as they are stated in the 2008 decision. 5. Because the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction over the revocation letter, the appeal of the revocation letter must be dismissed pursuant to TMC 18.116.020. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Entered this 4th day of June, 2013. Order and Decision Anne Watanabe Tukwila Hearing Examiner BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF TUKWILA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on this date I sent true and correct copies of the attached FINDINGS, DECISION AND ORDER to each person listed below, or on the attached mailing list, in the matter of TODD SMITH, Hearing Examiner File L-13-008, in the manner indicated. Party Method of Service Gerald Robison 348 South 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 /1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Inter -office Mail E-mail Fax Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Todd Smith 8129 Hudson Place SW Lakewood, WA 98498 'I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Inter -office Mail E-mail Fax Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Stacy MacGregor City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ►1 ❑ i4 ❑ ❑ ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Inter -office Mail E-mail Fax Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Rachel Turpin Assistant City Attorney City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ❑ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid ❑ Inter -office Mail /1 E-mail ❑ Fax ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Dated: June 4, 2013 Title: Legal Assistant Stacy MacGregor From: Rachel Turpin Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:35 PM To: ferry@gfrobisonlaw.com. Subject: FW: Todd Smith, File No. L-13-008 Attachments: L-13-008 DECISION.pdf Dear Mr. Robison, The hearing examiner's decision on Mr. Smith's appeal is attached. If you could please pass it on to your client I would greatly appreciate it. Best, Rachel Rachel B. Turpin Assistant City Attorney City of Tukwila (206) 433-7199 Ext. #1199 From: Vee, Linda [mailto:Linda.Vee(aseattle.govj On Behalf Of Examiner, Hearing Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:46 AM To: Stacy MacGregor; Rachel Turpin Subject: Todd Smith, File No. L-13-008 Good Morning, Please see the attached Findings, Decision and Order issued by Hearing Examiner Anne Watanabe for the above entitled matter. The original decision and record is being mailed to Stacy MacGregor today. Thank you, Linda Linda Vee LEGAL ASSISTANT Office of Hearing Examiner (Phone) 206.615.1718 1 (fax) 206.684.0536 http://seattle.gov/examiner/ P.O. Box 94729 Seattle, WA 98124-4729 1 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPEAL & PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Gerald F. Robinson of the Law Offices of Gerald F. Robinson has filed an appeal of the Revocation of Decision for Cooke Creek Meadows Cottages development. The appeal is of a Type 2 (Director's) Decision and notice is hereby given for an open record appeal hearing. Property Owner: Todd Smith and Reiko Ohno-Smith Appeal File Number: L13-008, PL13-009 Location: 13325 Macadam Road South. Tax Parcels: 7340600982 and 7340600983. Permits applied for include: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review, E09-001 SEPA, L09- 020 Short Plat, L09-012 Special Permission -Director for a wetland buffer reduction, L08-065 Tree Clearing Permit This appeal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act review per WAC 197-11- 800(11b). FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, scheduled for 10:00 AM in Conference Room #2 at the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. To confirm this date call Stacy MacGregor at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431- 3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Stacy MacGregor at (206) 431-3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeal Filed: March 13, 2013 Notice of Hearing: May 14, 2013 7.47-1 G : T1 -, c=) X gyri Lr CD -n ' 11 .-$ N N nJ AEI a Ar o � Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Law offices of Gerald Robinson 648 S 152nd' Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 Don Scanlon 13510 40th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 ®0915 ®A?J3AV CA Jerry Knudson 14925 58th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 �1Soc)S 1 '3 2S6 011-\ Vie, � �cr (") Sieg A83AV-09-008-L wOYAJane'MMM AVERY® 5160® Shirley and Curtiss Robinson 13422 40th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 P+not_ 0e-90 t- L r v- 700 Cie-I-".19uL SJ -6 11c Pb Berg .14-72,9 SeeML totzi 418 0 q- co e-) ®09L5 31V1dIN31®AJanV asrl 6uRupd aai3 a6pnws pue wer • 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 REC VED MAR 13 2013 COMMUNI 1 Y DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: Cooke Cottages 13325 Macadam Road South L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application I. Identification of Appealing Party Name of Appealing Party: Todd Smith Address of Appealing Party: 8129 Hudson Pl. SW Lakewood, WA 98498 Phone No. of Appealing Party: (253) 691-8191 Represented by: Gerald F. Robison, Attorney at Law ( -OOT II. Decision Being Appealed From Revocation of Decision, Dated February 28, 2013, which revoked the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Copies are attached. Page 1 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 III. Errors A. Arbitrarily revokes a final decision. The City made its decision to revoke the earlier decision nearly five years after the original decision was made, based on what appears to be staff's determination to force Mr. Smith to employ the particular professional named in the original decision. The decision, while specifying that it only applied to "Phase 1", was not in any way deemed to be provisional or otherwise subject to arbitrary revocation. The decision in fact granted approval only for Mr. Smith to apply under the Housing Options Program ("HOP") within one year. There was no requirement in the decision that Mr. Smith obtain final approval on any permit application within that time. Mr. Smith made his application within the required time period. The decision to revoke is not clear as to the grounds for revocation, but discusses two conditions that were allegedly violated. Condition 2 of the original decision required that the site design preserve existing trees in the wetland buffer area. Mr. Smith did remove trees from the wetland buffer area, but that action was approved by the City, in connection with the original decision, over three years ago. The City's approval of that change constitutes a change in the conditions under the original decision and cannot support revocation of the decision at this time. Condition 3 of the original decision stated only that the decision was based on "the understanding" that Designs Northwest Architects ("DNW") "will" be part of the project team and "will" be involved "during" construction of the project. But, the selection criteria (TMC 18.120.030.C.4) only called for "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere." Identification of a specific design team or professional who would remain involved through the entire project was not required. Successful development of such a product was, and still is, extremely rare in the market place, so it is evident that the Director extended the term `applicant' to include the applicant's entire design team, and, since Page 2 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 DNW had not actually been a material part of any successful development of cottage housing, that its concern was with the potential to complete a successful project more than its actual history of development. Mr. Smith however soon became convinced that DNW would not be able to fulfill its role of helping him develop a successful project, so he sought to replace DNW. City staff stated that they would accept a change in the identity of the design professional if the right person was found for the replacement. Mr. Smith proposed replacements with successful experience at least equal to that of DNW, but the City arbitrarily refused to accept any replacement, insisting in the end that Mr. Smith must use DNW. The City has already determined that TMC 18.120.030.C.4, requires only that the applicant's development team represent a good chance of successfully developing the project, not an actual history of successful development by the applicant that a literal reading of the ordinance seems to require. Having made the original decision under a relaxed standard the City cannot now revoke that decision under a stricter standard, arbitrarily insist that Mr. Smith stay with his original choice of design professional, or arbitrarily apply a different standard to any new design professional Mr. Smith selects. It is far too late for the City to reconsider or revoke the decision it made in 2008. The parties moved past the selection phase and the City cannot arbitrarily revoke that selection. B. Revocation of Decision Not Signed by Director. Jack Pace is identified as the Director on Tukwila's web site and on the Revocation of Decision. The signature on the Revocation of Decision is illegible, but bears no resemblance at all to the signature of Jack Pace found on the original decision. Page 3 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 IV. Harm Suffered or Anticipated If the Revocation of Decision is allowed to stand Mr. Smith will lose the chance to develop the green, modern and forward thinking development he spent years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars on. He will not get to turn the property he inherited from his mother into a model for modern living. He will lose an undetermined further amount of money that could have been made from the cottage development as opposed to simply selling the land for development of conventional single family homes on large lots. V. Relief Sought Mr. Smith asks that the Revocation of Decision be vacated or otherwise canceled restoring the situation that existed prior to issuance of said order. March 12, 2013 Gerald F. Robison, WSBA #23118 Attorney for Appellant Page 4 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director February 28, 2013 REVOCATION OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Owner, sent via email TSmith@cottagesnw.com All parties of record RE: Cooke Cottages L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application Dear Mr. Smith: This letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Since the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of approval this project is no longer eligible to be considered under the Housing Options Program. Therefore, the above referenced permit applications can no longer be processed by the city at this time and your resubmittal dated February 14, 2013, for a nine lot short plat application for cottage housing is deemed incomplete. On April 4, 2008, you received a Notice of Decision (Attachment A) granting your application consideration as one of three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program, subject to several conditions. Your Notice of Decision states that approval was granted for the "...conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscape buffer and streetscape issues." These conditions were intended to ensure satisfaction of the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. In September of 2008 you cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Condition #2 above. A code enforcement action was initiated (RFA08-273) for clearing in a wetland buffer without a tree clearing permit. You subsequently obtained a tree clearing permit which approved a buffer enhancement plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area. The required mitigation plan was approved in June of 2010 but at this time the work has not started. In order to satisfy Condition #3 above, you were asked on multiple occasions to verify Designs Northwest's role in your project. Condition #3 was based on TMC 18.120.030.C4, stating that the selection criteria for the housing options program requires "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. On February 14, 2013 SM Page 1 of 2 02!28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc 6300 Sottthcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 you submitted a response to city's comments (Attachment B) on your design review application along with additional information on your incomplete short plat application. In your resubmittal, you state: "Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired 1 have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate..." You were offered the option of using a different architect in lieu of Designs Northwest provided the criteria for approval (TMC 18.120.030.C4) was met. The resumes submitted for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah do not demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction development of cottages elsewhere. You were informed of this in January of 2013 and you responded via email with the statement "The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. 1 am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO" (Attachment C). According to 18.120.030-C, the Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. Your application does not meet the conditions of approval and therefore the Director's Decision is revoked. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by March 14, 2013. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $563. Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Sincerely, (Jack Pace Director of the Department of Community Development Encl: Attachment A -Original Notice of Decision dated April 4, 2008 Attachment B- Resbumittal memo from Todd Smith received on Feb 14, 2013 Attachment C -.Email from Todd Smith dated Jan 15, 2013 SM Page 2 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc city of Tukwila Attachment A Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. Jack Pace, Director I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and one cottage. Location: 13325 Macadam Road South Comprehensive Plan esi nation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director hasddetermined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: M17 Page 1 of 2 Q:1Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431.3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval Is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for Inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project, planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King .County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Director, rt.�• . rt nt of Community Development • City of Tu ila MD Page 2 Q:1Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development February 28, 2013 REVOCATION OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Owner, sent via email TSmith@cottagesnw.com All parties of record RE: Cooke Cottages L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application Dear Mr. Smith: Jack Pace, Director This letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Since the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of approval this project is no longer eligible to be considered under the Housing Options Program. Therefore, the above referenced permit applications can no longer be processed by the city at this time and your resubmittal dated February 14, 2013, for a nine lot short plat application for cottage housing is deemed incomplete. On April 4, 2008, you received a Notice of Decision (Attachment A) granting your application consideration as one of three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program, subject to several conditions. Your Notice of Decision states that approval was granted for the "...conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscape buffer and streetscape issues." These conditions were intended to ensure satisfaction of the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. In September of 2008 you cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Condition #2 above. A code enforcement action was initiated (RFA08-273) for clearing in a wetland buffer without a tree clearing permit. You subsequently obtained a tree clearing permit which approved a buffer enhancement plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area. The required mitigation plan was approved in June of 2010 but at this time the work has not started. In order to satisfy Condition #3 above, you were asked on multiple occasions to verify Designs Northwest's role in your project. Condition #3. was based on TMC 18.120.030.C4, stating that the selection criteria for the housing options program requires "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. On February 14, 2013 SM Page 1 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 you submitted a response to city's comments (Attachment B) on your design review application along with additional information on your incomplete short plat application. In your resubmittal, you state: "Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired 1 have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate..." You were offered the option of using a different architect in lieu of Designs Northwest provided the criteria for approval (TMC 18.120.030.C4) was met. The resumes submitted for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah do not demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction development of cottages elsewhere. You were informed of this in January of 2013 and you responded via email with the statement "The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. 1 am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to sleet the minimum criteria set out in HOO" (Attachment C). According to 18.120.030-C, the Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. Your application does not meet the conditions of approval and therefore the Director's Decision is revoked. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by March 14, 2013. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $563. Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Sincerely, (L°Jack Pace Director of the Department of Community Development Encl: Attachment A -Original Notice of Decision dated April 4, 2008 Attachment B- Resbumittal memo from Todd Smith received on Feb 14, 2013 Attachment C -.Email from Todd Smith dated Jan 15, 2013 SM Page 2 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc Department of Community Development April 4, 2008 • NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on,the following project and permit approval. Attachment A Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director Applicant: I. PROJECT INFORMATION Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: Location: Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and one cottage. 13325 Macadam Road South Low Density Residential (LDR) II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director has determined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection,listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included In the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: MD Page 1 of 2 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431.3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the'exiting trees In the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process -applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are .available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project, planner Is Minnie Dhaliwai, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Director, ��r•. rtrr'nt"of Community Development City of Tu ila MD Page 2 Q:1Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/94/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED APRIL 3, 2008 APPLICANT: Todd Smith, Cooke Riverside Properties LLC OWNER: Todd Smith REQUESTS: To construct 9 residences including 8 compact single family homes (less than 1500 sf) and one cottage house Tess than 1000 sf. LOCATION: 13325 Macadam Road South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal ATTACHMENTS: A. Application letter B. Conceptual site plan FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build eight compact single family units and one cottage house. There are clustered around common open space. The western side of the property contains a wetland and the buffer of Southgate creek. The proposal includes request for 50% buffer reduction for the wetland in exchange for improving the highly degraded buffer. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed In the Riverton neighborhood. The surrounding properties are very low density single family. The general area contains Southgate Creek and wetlands. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The property includes 20 feet of the adjacent right-of-way that recently went through a Quiet Title process. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on October 11, 2007, to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the proposed site. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off S feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and streetscape. The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of phase one to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program to further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to Include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. The next step after being approved as a project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for SEPA (if cumulative grade and fill amount exceeds 500 2 cubic yards), Design Review and Short Plat applications. The review process for all these applications includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Design Review application. A detailed review of the parking, frontage improvements and streetscape, wetland buffer reduction and enhancement and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. .1 PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. 1. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: a) Increase the choice of housing styles available In the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; This project may not be marketed or considered "affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community In a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. Two residences are proposed along the street and all the units face a shared common area that opens onto a larger open space (wetland area). The applicant has stated that each house will be unique design that fits overall In the scheme, which will be an alternative to cookie cutter homes. Also, the proposed site layout and the homes shall be built green and shall incorporate sustainable design features. 3 d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. .t. e) Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods. These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single family and Targe multifamily complexes. 2, Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamish f Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton 1) Foster j) Thorndyke. Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th .Ave South. This Is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Riverton neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. The applicant's design team includes Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects. Applicant has stated that Mr. Stever will be the architect of record and Designs Northwest will assisting and providing concept site design and concept house design and will have some site review and quality control review during construction. Designs NW has several cottage housing projects at various stages being built in the 4 Northwest such as Sequoia project in Kirkland, Haller Point, Collins Cottages and Splritbrook Cottages in Redmond. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The area around the property is zoned Low Density Residential. However the properties across the Street are Commercial/ Light Industrial. There Is a large portion of the site on the east side that is constrained by a wetland and a stream buffer. This area will not have structures and will be of low impact to the properties to the east. The existing trees in the buffer area will be required to be preserved. Further landscaping will be required along the north 'and south property lines to provide adequate buffer to the adjacent properties. ' 6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the site on October 11, 2007. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and providing an inviting streetscape. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for Short Plat, Design Review and SEPA (if more than 500 cubic yards of cumulative grade and fill) within one year of the date of the approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need to be addressed as part of the review process are: providing enough guest parking, preserving existing trees, providing an inviting streetscape, adequate landscape buffers along north and south property lines, frontage improvements, meeting Fire Department access issues, placement and design of garbage/recycling areas. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects and Designs NW has experience in development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be involved ail throughout the project including the construction stage. 5 The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of Phase 1 to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program. If approved for Phase 1 they would further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood.meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As.part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape Issues. 6 C O d Ike C4C-- Me -et -14 Attachment B FEB 14 2013 fan Comments to technical comments#4: ease address all technical comment to Todd Smith, CEO and approved applicant. { YMt141 UtiVL-Q1 Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role in this project To accomplish infrastructure improvement and wetland mitigation sequencing of the development will be two fold. 1 have talked with numerous funding agencies to discover that to get this project off the ground recordable lots if not required but is recommended. The Wetland improvements preferable should be done during the period units #6 & 7 are excavated and built to reduce the impact on the wetland later in the project. Thus to build Units #6 & 7 the lending agency would want the underlying lots recorded. This would allow me to submit Construction Drawings, while the wetland is modified. Thus we would request that because Units #6 & 7 are not encumbered the City would allow me to record these two lots prior to completing short plat. We have received from King Conservation District (KCD) a grant to supplement the work to enhance the area from the wetland buffer to the creek for 2012. We have received from USACE #29 permit to do Wetland Enhancement for 2012. Stage One: 1. Record lots #6 & 7. 2. Commence wetland improvements and obtain approved Construction Drawings for unit #6 & 7. 3. To repair/mitigate the wetland area and build units #6 & 7. The bulk of our grading activities take place. We are able to place silt barrier below #6 & 7 during construction phase then move it East of these unit when completed. Protecting the wetland as the project is under construction. 4. Finish wetland and install preliminary rain garden. 5. Install the French drain along S boundary as described in Civil Plan while the overflow drains to wetland. 6. Units #6 & 7 are furthest from the street which allows us to install necessary infrastructure required for short plat and required by construction loan. As utilities are installed to unit #6 & 7 utility stubs would be capped to the other lots. a. We place a fire hydrant on East side of Macadam bring the water main across, stub all the houses and install water meters; b. Work with City Light to install community service panel and run conduit from panel to individual Tots, and service to #6 & 7. c. Work with Puget Power to provide gas lines and meters to individual lots; 7. Install Private Road to access foremost units #6 & 7. Utilities which are designed under driveway would be completed. 8. 1 would request a variance to Short Plat requirement allowing the sidewalk subsurface material be installed while postponing hard surfacing to improve access to units #1 & 2 during construction of Second Phase and prevent construction damage to sidewalk. We will excavate this area during 1st Phase to provide concept contours for utilities, rain garden, landscaping and signage. 9. Lots #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 and the promenade will be graded accordingly to meet Short Plat requirements. 10. This will get us a completed short plat and recordable lots except for the requested variance for finished sidewalk, which will be installed during 2nd Phase. Second Phase: 1. Units #6 & 7 are complete along with short plat. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 are recorded, while Construction Drawing for units #8, 9, 4, 5, 3, 2, & 1 are submitted and approved. Construction begins to complete project, order of foundations units #8, 9, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1; Buildings #8, 9, 5, 4, 1, 2, & 3; The promenade and access stairs next to #1, 2 & 4 will be completed when it is most feasible. 2. Sidewalk completed after foundations #1 & 2 are completed, back filled and during process installing front rain garden, landscaping and parking space #19. Connecting rain garden to storm water sewer. 3. Complete rain garden flowing west through promenade and landscape promenade. Silt barriers will be positioned accordingly to protect wetland and limit offsite impacts. 4. Complete Landscaping for lots and promenade. Technical comments by Planning Dept: Basement areas do comply with the Housing Option Ordinance; "Excluded Area: unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage." These houses have limited storage space. The garages are required by the ordinance and the CC&R to be used for vehicles with limited storage space. I believe what you are requesting is beyond the scope of the Ordinance. Use of the basements is multi -faceted: 1. Unheated storage area 2. Equally important, as a Cool Sink to be used to passively cool the building in summer, ducting air to main floor while drawing air from north or east side of building and exhausting overheated 2nd floor. For me this is similar to HOO 10'x10' private space. I extrapolated the idea using it to expand the adjacent livable space by making it private. Thus instead of 100SF it is about 250-300SF while improving the livability a project goal. 3. Without this space considerable more energy would be needed to cool these buildings during the summer. 4. One of the HOO goals is to make buildings more affordable. Not using forced air HVAC system is more affordable. The intrusion to the East set back was agreed to during earlier discussions. The 4' of foundation is used for garage with no livable space, above is a deck. 1 included the Airlocks space at the entrance. This area is unheated and provides less heat/cool exchange when one opens and closes front door. This is an important energy feature to these passive solar buildings. Active solar panels were excluded from the design principally because we are not sure of the solar aperture of the units and the cost factors to market value. Whether they are or are not designed into the elevation is not germane to this phase. 1 will note that depending on critical aperture and area concerns 1 plan to install 3-5 KWH systems with availability for Electric Vehicle charging station. Unit Detail comment: Changes were made to limited the size of the units and maintain the 1500SF criteria without compromising the Site Plan. 1 included a table showing the nine units and their respective areas. Architectural consultant comment: Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired. The drawings he presented me indicated a lack of knowledge of HOO, marginal respect of cottage housing perspective, compatibility with neighborhood and passive solar design. l have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualarnallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate. Reviewing the completed plans will attest to their professionalism. Preliminary Short Plat comment: Submitted 4 pages by Schroeter Survey Landscaping comments from Technical Comments #3: KLLA revised the Landscape plans to address comment #3. Civil Engineering Design: Two documents have been submitted that accomplish this task. Water and Sewer Availability Letters, Geo Technical Report & SEPA: Documents have been submitted. Submitted by: Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. Calculations for proposed homes at Cooke Creek Meadow House # Net Area Total floor area (exterior dimentio Floor Area Exemptions Exepted Items (FP White Detail) 1 1451 2423 972 Garage, unheated storage 900SF; Unheated Airlock 51SF; Utility closets 21SF 2 1500 2641 1141 Garage, unheated storage 1067SF; Bay Window 9SF; Wall height <6' SOSF; Utility Closet 15SF 3 1397 2415 1018 Garage, unheated storage 1000SF; Utility closets 18SF 4 1496 2566 1070 Garage, unheated storage 981SF; Head Height <6' 89SF 5 1500 2660 1160 Garage, unheated storage 1139SF; Bay window 7SF; Utility closets 14SF 6 1478 1883 405 Unheated storage 346SF; Bay Window 7SF; Utility Closet 10SF; Unheated Airlock 42SF 7 1484 1908 424 Unheated storage 278SF; Bay Windows 31SF; Utility closet 20SF; Unheated Airlock 63SF; Head Height <6' 32SF 8 1479 1541 62 Bay Window 11SF; Unheated Airlock 40SF; Utility Closet 11SF 9 1500 1837 337 Unheated storage space 251SF; Unheated Airlock 53SF; Utility Closets 335F Element to note 18: garages within plenum under Units #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 creating more space in the basement associated to units #2, 3, 4 & 5 that is also associated with Units #6, 7, 8 & 9. It has been ruled exempt. The question concerning storage space that could possibly be modified by owner to use for liveable space is a mute point and not relevent to this discussion. The Ordinance specifically states "unheaded storage space located under the main floor is exept". All the unheated storage space described in the floor plans qualifies as exempt under the ordinance. Secondly, the Ordinance and CC&R require garage to be use for vehicle storage, cars may not park on street to use garage for other purpose. Thus there is limited storage space for all these units. Respectively submitted by Todd Smith, CEO and Approved Applicant Attachment C From: T Smith jmailto:TSmith(acottagesnw.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:18 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Technical comments #4 Yes it has, I recently saw DNW design drawings for unit #6. They suck he, furthermore they didn't even comply with HOO criteria. Thus I sent letter relieving Dan Nelson of his duties. The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. I am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO. This will be submitted with my latest submittal. As the applicant, to make my submittal 99% complete I would appreciate responses to my questions. These question relate directly with your technical comments and require answers to complete my submittal. Thank you, Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PREPARED May 14, 2013 HEARING DATE: May 28, 2013 FILE NUMBER: L13-008 Cooke Cottages Jack Pace, Director 3 O 'ccri w it i _" (ft C ,-n C t i l •c,..) CO r! =r773 r RELATED FILE NUMBERS: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short Plat Application E09-011 SEPA Determination L09-012: Special Permission -Director, Request to Alter a Type 3 Wetland and Reduce a Type 3 Wetland Buffer L08-065: Request to Approve a Buffer Enhancement Plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area APPLICANT/OWNER: Todd Smith, Owner/Applicant Gerald F. Robinson, Applicant's Council REQUEST: Applicant has requested that the Revocation of Decision dated 2/28/2013, be vacated or cancelled. LOCATION: 13325 Macadam Road South NOTIFICATION: A combined Notice of Appeal and Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to parties of record and posted on the site on May 14th, 2013. ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential SEPA DETERMINATION: The SEPA official has determined that the project is categorically exempt under WAC 198-11-800 Categorical Exemptions: (11.b) Any quasi juducial action of any agency if such action consists of the review of a prior administrative or legislative decision. STAFF: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner (206) 433-7166 Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov Rachel Turpin, Assistant City Attorney (206) 433-7199 Rachel.Turpin@TukwilaWA.gov SM Page 1 of 9 H:U.13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L,12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 ATTACHMENTS: A. City of Tukwila Ordinance 2103 B. Application for consideration into the Housing Options Program, dated 12/7/2007 C. Notice of Decision and Staff Report, dated 4/4/2008 D. RFA08-273, dated 10/2/2008 E. Technical Comments Letter #1, dated 6/16/2009 F. Technical Comments Letter #3, dated 3/10/2011 G. Technical Comments Letter #4, dated 9/6/2011 H. Todd Smith's response letter #5, dated 8/3/2012 I. Notice of Pending Cancellation, 8/21/2012 J. Email from Applicant, dated 8/21/2012 K. Email from Applicant, dated 10/30/2012 L. Three Week Extension of Pending Cancellation, dated 11/16/2012 M. Extension of Pending Cancellation, dated 12/6/2012 N. Email from Applicant, dated 1/15/2013 O. Resumes of Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah P. Revocation of Decision, dated 2/28/2013 Q. Applicant's Notice of Appeal, received 3/13/2013 R. Notice of Decision and Application for other 2 cottage projects S. Cooke Cottages Timeline SM Page 2 of 9 05/14/2013 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx Findings Background In 2005, the City of Tukwila adopted Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.120 Housing Options Program - Temporary (HOP). (Attachment A). The "cottages ordinance," as it came to be called, was adopted as a demonstration program to develop smaller, clustered neighborhoods at a higher density within established single family neighborhoods. As a demonstration program, only three projects were allowed into the program subject to selection and review criteria. Mr. Todd Smith applied in December 2007, to develop nine residences under the Housing Options Program. (Attachment B). Mr. Smith's proposal included Designs Northwest Architects as part of the project team in order to meet the TMC criteria of demonstrating successful development of the cottage housing product elsewhere. On April 4, 2008, the Director of DCD sent a Notice of Decision accepting with conditions "Cooke Cottages" as one of three projects to apply under Housing Options Program. (Attachment C). There were four conditions of approval in the Director's decision: 1. Approval is for Phase 1 only. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. The approval allowed Mr. Smith to apply for SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year, by April 4, 2009. In September of 2008, Mr. Smith cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Tukwila Municipal Code and in violation of condition #2 of his acceptance into the Housing Options program. A stop work order was issued and Mr. Smith was directed to apply for a tree clearing permit (Attachment D). In October of 2008, Mr. Smith applied for a tree clearing permit. To date, Mr. Smith has not started the mitigation plantings required for unauthorized tree removal. [On March 31, 2009, Mr. Smith applied for a 9 -lot short plat, design review, buffer reduction, and SEPA determination. The short plat was deemed incomplete and the City staff agreed to let Mr. Smith delay submitting a complete short plat application until his site design was worked out in order to minimize having to redo survey work while the site details were under review. The SEPA determination was issued on 10/20/09, Buffer Reduction was issued on 6/1/10, and the Tree Clearing Permit was issued on 6/3/10. The decision regarding the design review and the short plat application was not issued as the City was waiting for Mr. Smith to adequately address the City's technical comments. See attached project chronology for details (Attachment S). On four occasions, following each submittal or resubmittal of his project, Mr. Smith was sent a Technical Comment letter. SM Page 3 of 9 05/14/2013 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx In Technical Comment letters #1, 3, and 4, dated 6/16/09, 3/10/11 and 9/16/11, Mr. Smith was reminded of condition #3, which required that his project team include Designs Northwest Architects. He was asked to provide a statement from Designs Northwest detailing their role and verifying that this condition was met. He did not respond to the request until Technical Comment letter #4. (Technical Comment letter #2 was only a response to the wetland buffer reduction permit application and was not subject to condition #3). (Attachments E, F & G). On August 3, 2012, Mr. Smith resubmitted his design review application in response to Technical Comment Letter #4 in which he addressed the role of Designs Northwest. He stated in his resubmittal: Design NW role to the project will be as I have stated to review plans as necessary and provide architectural consultation as needed. DNW has a retainer on file and we consult on the project within the terms of the Ordinance. Because Chandler Stever's drawings were hand drawn I contracted with Landon Beyer P.E. to get the drawings in CAD to address the technical concerns of roof pitch and size criteria. Having a signed form I believe is beyond the scope of the Ordinance." (Attachment H). About the same time as Mr. Smith's resubmittal, City staff received a call from Dan Nelson of Designs Northwest and was told that Designs Northwest had not been actively involved in the project since the initial application for selection. After learning that Designs Northwest was not involved during the design of the homes, City staff sent Mr. Smith a Notice of Pending Cancellation on August 21, 2012. (Attachment I). An email followed on August 21, 2012 from Mr. Smith that states: "I am confused, I did explain Designs Northwest role. I am not required by the ordinance to get a note of permission. We may have a conflict of interest using Design NW because a relative of the company works for Tukwila. Secondly I have tried to use DNW in a more substantive role to no avail. The Landscape design was poor, their house design were garbage and unacceptable, and thirdly their contractual performance has been lacking. Saying this I still use them for feedback, consulting and advice on the project. I believe this rule is untenable and doesn't work. Why should the City force the activities of a consultant on the stakeholder?" (See Attachment J). Mr. Smith then requested to replace Designs Northwest with Landon Beyer, PE of Beyer Consulting. On October 23, 2012, a meeting was held with Mr. Smith, his attorney Gerald Robison, and City staff to discuss the conditions of approval. Mr. Smith was given the option of using a different architect of his choice to replace the stated role of Designs Northwest, provided the new architect had similar experience in successful development of a cottage housing product. Staff explained to Mr. Smith that the resume submitted for Mr. Beyer showed site development and platting work of a civil engineer and did not demonstrate cottage development, and as such was not an equivalent replacement for an experienced architecture firm. On October 30, 2012, Mr. Smith sent an email stating that he was "discussing finish detail SM Page 4 of 9 05/14/2013 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages \L12-010 Staff Report.docx tasks with DNW's Dan Nelson" and was requested a 60-90 day extension. (Attachment K). An extension for three weeks was granted provided Mr. Smith, City staff, and Designs Northwest staff could meet to discuss the outstanding issues and expectations, (Attachment L). A conference call between the three parties was held on December 6, 2012 and a third extension was granted until February 14, 2013. (Attachment M). Mr. Smith sent an email on December 27, 2012, where he explained that Designs Northwest was too costly to use and he would like to use Fatah Boualamallah as the project architect. He included Mr. Boualamallah's resume, which did not include any cottage housing development experience. After being told that Mr. Boualamallah did not demonstrate successful cottage housing experience and as such was not an acceptable alternative to Designs Northwest, Mr. Smith requested to add Mr. Christopher Peragine as a project team member and included his resume. Mr. Peragine's resume also did not show cottage housing projects. When told the resumes did not demonstrate successful cottage experience, Mr. Smith responded via email dated January 15, 2013 as follows: The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. I am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the City updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in the 1100. This will be submitted with my latest submittal. (Attachment N). On February 14, 2013, Mr. Smith provided revised resumes for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah. Mr. Peragine's resume was updated and included photos of two residences built on previously platted lots on Decatur Island; three cabins on Whidbey designed by his former colleague; and a conceptual site plan of clustered housing site in Langley. Mr. Boualamallah's updated resume did not include any cottage housing projects. (Attachment 0). On February 28' 2013, the Director revoked the decision for Cooke Cottages to be eligible under the Housing Options Program due to the applicant's failure to meet the conditions of approval. (Attachment P). Mr. Smith appealed the revocation decision requesting the revocation be "vacated or otherwise canceled restoring the situation that existed prior to issuance of said order." (Attachment Q). Discussion The Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD) used the selection criteria of TMC 18.120.030 to select three cottage housing proposals and made them eligible to apply for decision review and/or for platting. (TMC 18.120.030A). Further, according to TMC 18.120.030 (C), the Director of DCD "shall be the sole decision maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria." The selection criteria included TMC 18.120.030 (4): "(d)emonstration of the successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere." The Director used his authority to condition the project to meet the selection criteria. SM Page 5 of 9 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 Condition number 2 of the original decision required that the site design preserve the existing trees in the wetland area. Mr. Smith cut down trees in the wetland area five months after receiving the notice of decision which included the condition to preserve the trees and six months before he applied for the design review and the short plat approval for his project. Mr. Smith was required to obtain a tree clearing permit and the wetland buffer mitigation which he did in June of 2010, but he has not started any mitigation work. Mr. Smith failed to meet the condition of approval. The tree permits were issued to mitigate the loss of the trees. However no work approved under the permits has been performed after three years of receiving the approval. The condition number 3 of the original decision was added to comply with criteria TMC 18.120.030(4), which required demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. The Director broadened the term "applicant" to include members of the project team. All three projects that were selected and made eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program had the same condition of approval. All three approvals were based on the understanding that the architects they had proposed as part of their project teams would be involved during the design and construction of their projects. (Attachment R). When Mr. Smith applied for consideration under the Housing Options Program, he wrote a letter to the Director dated December 7, 2007, which discussed at length how his proposal met the criteria of TM C 18.120.030. (Attachment B). Mr. Smith chose to bring Designs Northwest to his project because, according to his application letter, Designs Northwest is an "award winning Architectural firm" that has "designed several clustered housing developments that were affordable and well received by the community." Mr. Smith references Designs Northwest's involvement will also be used to meet one of the HOP goals, to "promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes" (TMC 18.120.010 2). Mr. Smith was asked in three different Technical Comment letters from June, 2009 to September, 2011 to verify the role of Designs Northwest to meet the condition of approval. He did not respond to the requests until August of 2012. While it is not clear to the City staff when Designs Northwest ended their involvement in Mr. Smith's project, the Notice of Appeal states the "Mr. Smith soon became convinced that DNW would not be able to fulfill its role..." (emphasis added). Yet, Mr. Smith never requested to change architects, nor explained that Designs Northwest was not involved in his project; he never sought approval of a new architect until the end of 2012. Only when Mr. Smith made it clear that Designs Northwest was not involved in the project did the Director move to revoke his approval. In the Notice of Appeal, an assumption is made that: Successful development of such a project was, and still is, extremely rare in the market place, so it is evident that the Director extended the term `applicant' to include the applicant's entire design team, and, since DNW had not actually been a material part of any successful development of cottage housing, that SM Page 6 of 9 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 its concern was with the potential to complete a successful project more than its actual history of development. (Attachment Q). As explained above, the Director extended the term `applicant' to include someone on the project team with applicable cottage housing development experience. According to the resume provided by Mr. Smith when he first made his proposal in 2007 (Attachment B), Designs Northwest had experience developing at least three cottage housing neighborhoods. As the appeal states, successful development of cottage housing projects is rare, which is directly related to the fact that cottage development is not a permitted in most Washington municipalities (the MRSC website lists only 12 municipalities that had codified cottage development by 2010). It was because of this very limited history of the cottage housing model (small homes, higher density, cluster and shared open space, walkability, compatibility with surrounding suburban homes, etc.) that the Housing Options Ordinance included a requirement for successful experience with cottage housing elsewhere. Mr. Smith proposed to have Designs Northwest as part of his team during initial selection phase, but now would like to hire Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah. The City gave Mr. Smith the opportunity to replace Designs Northwest with another architect as long as the architects could demonstrate successful development of the cottage housing product elsewhere. The City did not relax a standard and then apply a stricter standard, it simply required that Mr. Smith either follow-through with the development team his original approval was based on or hire an architect who could demonstrate successful cottage housing development experience. The Notice of Appeal states that the revocation of decision is in error because it is not signed by the Director. Jack Pace is the Director of the Department of Community Development. Mr. Pace was out of the office when the Notice of Revocation was signed by Nora Gierloff (Deputy Director) for Jack Pace. Nora Gierloff is the designee of the Director and is authorized to sign in his absence. Under "Harm Suffered or Anticipated," the Notice of Appeal states that the Revocation of Decision would cause Mr. Smith to lose the chance to develop his project. The City has given many opportunities to Mr. Smith to comply with the code and cannot be blamed for Mr. Smith's own actions. The City is simply asking Mr. Smith to honor his approved submittal. The City even went so far as to allow Mr. Smith to use a new architect, provided the new architect could demonstrate successful completion of cottage housing product elsewhere. Additionally, Mr. Smith is not being denied the rights to develop his property. He could develop the site under the low-density residential (LDR) standards and build standard single family homes; he could also apply for a planned residential development (PRD) and get approval for 15% reduction in lot size from the standard 6500 sq. ft. requirement. The PRD standards would allow him to develop the larger homes with shared common space he has proposed without the home size constraints of the cottage housing ordinance. Neither the LDR nor PRD standards would condition a project to involve a particular design professional or prevent him from developing, according to the appeal, a "green, modern and forward thinking development." SM Page7of9 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 According to the Notice of Appeal, the relief sought by the applicant is for the City to vacate or cancel the revocation decision and "restore the situation that existed prior to issuance of said order." The situation that existed prior to issuance of the revocation is one in which the applicant does not meet the conditions of approval. He has fired the architectural firm that he originally proposed and that is a named participant in the condition of approval after being granted an extension based on his agreement to work with this same architectural firm. If the City were to vacate the revocation decision, the applicant would still fail to meet the conditions of approval. As stated above, if the Revocation of Decision is vacated, Mr. Smith would remain in violation of the conditions of approval and of the housing options ordinance. Finally, failure to meet the conditions of approval would prevent the issuance of an occupancy permit for future cottage homes built under this proposal. According to TMC 18.96.030, an occupancy permit cannot be issued unless the project is in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations under Title 18. Under this code, an occupancy permit means review and recording of zoning compliance accomplished through the building permit procedures. Therefore, if Mr. Smith was to proceed with his project without Designs Northwest or similarly qualified member on his team, the zoning regulations under the Housing Options Ordinance would not have been met and Mr. Smith's homes could not be issued an occupancy permit. Revoking the decision at this stage is saving Mr. Smith time and money over building homes that could not receive an occupancy permit. Conclusions 1. The Director of Department of Community Development selected three projects and made them eligible to be considered under Housing Options Program. The selection process and criteria are listed under TMC 18.120.030. 2. Mr. Smith proposal to develop nine cottages was one of the three selected projects. 3. Mr. Smith's proposed Designs Northwest Architects to be part of his design team, in order to meet the approval criteria under TMC 18.120.030.C4, which required demonstration of successful cottage housing product elsewhere. 4. The Director approved the project under the Housing Options program with the following conditions: 1. Approval is for Phase 1 only. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. SM Page 8 of 9 H:\L13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate quest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. 5. Mr. Smith fired Designs Northwest Architects and did not tell the City that he would not be working with Designs Northwest until nearly four years after approval. 6. The City provided multiple extensions, in order to provide additional time to find a replacement for Designs Northwest. The City made it clear that Designs Northwest Architects could be replaced only by someone who could meet TMC 18.120.030.C4 criteria. 7. Mr. Smith proposed to replace Designs Northwest with Architects Mr. Peragine and Boualamallah. Mr. Smith provided resumes for Designs Northwest, Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah. The resume for Designs Northwest demonstrates design of three cottage housing projects. The resumes for Mr.'s Peragine and Boualamallah show no cottages projects. 8. Mr. Smith had three extensions and a total of six months to propose an architect with cottage housing experience equivalent to Design's Northwest and he failed to do so. 9. The Notice of Revocation was signed by Deputy Director Nora Gierloff for Jack Pace, Director. 10. Mr. Smith is not prevented from developing his property under the Low -Density Residential standards or the Planned Residential Development standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 11. Vacating the revocation would return the project to a state of non-compliance because the conditions of approval are unmet. An occupancy permit could not be issued if the homes were built. . Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner preserves the Revocation of Decision dated February 28, 2013. SM Page 9 of 9 H:\L.13-008 Appeal Cooke Cottages\L.12-010 Staff Report.docx 05/14/2013 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No 2103 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A THREE-YEAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR SMALL-SCALE HOUSING ENTITLED THE HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RECEIVED B M3110 15 PI112: 22; OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council believes that a demonstration housing program would allow development of selected projects that explore housing choices not currently available in Tukwila's single-family neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan suggests a demonstration program for cottage housing and encourages the development of a range of housing types; and WHEREAS, such a program would allow the City to experiment on a small scale with new standards not currently used within the City, and WHEREAS, design review would be administered on the proposed projects ensuring an opportunity to require high standards for design and construction, and WHEREAS, the focus of the program would be on housing for home ownership; and WHEREAS, the City plans to evaluate the results of the projects and might consider modifying City standards to specifically address successful innovations in housing development; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Regulations Adopted. The "Housing Options Program" is hereby established, and regulations for this three-year demonstration program for small-scale housing are hereby adopted to read as follows CHAPTER 18.120 HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM - TEMPORARY Sections: 18.120.010 Program Goals 18.120.020 Program Standards 18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria 18.120.040 Fees 18.120.050 Review and Apphcation Process 18.120.060 Public Notice 18.120.070 Program Expiration 18.120.010 Program Goals The goals of the Housing Options Program are to 1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments, Housing Options Program MB.kn 9/29/2005 Page 1 of 7 2. Promote housing affordability and ownerslup by encouraging smaller homes; 3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas, 4. Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and 5. Provide a greater variety of housing types, which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain m their neighborhoods. 18.120.020 Program Standards In order to meet the goals of the Housing Options Program as set forth in TMC 18 120.010, there will be flexibility with regard to normally applicable requirements. Standards identified in this section will apply to the selected housing projects and will prevail if they conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of Tukwila will continue to apply; however, applicants may propose additional modifications to the Tukwila Municipal Code, as provided for within the Code 1. The Perirutted Uses and Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building Footprint sections of the Low-, Medium- and High -Density Residential Districts (TMC 18.10.020, 18.10 060, 18.10.057, 18 12.020, 18.12.070, 18.14.020, 18.14.070), the Supplemental Development Standards (TMC 18.50) that relate to yards, house design and orientation, and the requirements of Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces (TMC 18.56.050) shall be replaced by the standards identified in this section. 2. Existing homes within a proposed project site must continue to conform to the existing code standards unless it can be demonstrated that the existing home meets the description of a housing type listed below. 3. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as long as the proposed project does not exceed the equivalent unit calculation set forth in TMC 18120.020-4. 4. The following development parameters are applicable to all Housing Options Program applications HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM STANDARDS Housing Types Cottages. Compact single-family Duplexes designed to look like a single-family home or with zero lot lines for fee simple ownership; and included with at least one other housing type in a proposed development (the other housing type may be traditional single-family). A combination of the above types Unit Size Limits A covenant restricting any increases in unit size after initial construction shall be recorded against the property. Cottages = 800 square feet minimum and 1,000 square foot maximum floor area. Compact single-family =1,500 square foot maximum floor area. Duplexes =1,500 square foot maximum floor area per unit. Side yard setbacks are waived so that these homes may be sold on fee simple lots. Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005 Page 2 of 7 Equivalent Units There is no minimum lot size, but there is a maximum project density. The number of allowable dwelling units shall be totalled for each of the existing lots in order to determine equivalent units. Existing single-family homes may remain on the subject property and will be counted as units in the equivalent unit calculation. Cottages = two per each single-family unit that could be built on an existing lot, or a maximum of one unit for every 3,250 net square feet. Compact single family = one and one-half per each single - family urut that could be built on the lot, or a maximum of 4,875 net square feet. Duplexes = overall development not to exceed one and one - half times the number of single-family units that could be built on the lot, or a maximum of 4,875 net square feet. Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units is allowed when the conversion from typical single-family units to equivalent units results in a fraction of one-half or above. Locations All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but not within 1,500 feet of another housing options proposal under review or approved under TMC Chapter 18120. Floor Area Variety m building sizes and footprints is required. Access Requirements Determine flexibility for road widths, public versus private, and turnaround requirements with input from Public Works and Fire Departments. Development Size Mirumum of 8 units, maximum of 36 units Cottages may have a maximum of 12 units per cluster Parking Requirements 1.5 stalls per unit for units 800 to 1,000 square feet in size 2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000 square feet in size Building Coverage 35% Ownership Structure Subdivision Condominium Distance Between Structures 10 feet nurumum Common Open Space for cottages and projects of 20 or more homes. Provide required area according to Recreation Space Requirements (TMC 18 52.060)(1) Exceptions to Floor Area Limitations r Spaces with a ceiling height of 6 feet or less measured to the exterior walls, such as in a second floor area under the slope of the roof. in Unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage. • Architectural projections, such as bay windows, fireplaces or utility closets not greater than 18 mches in depth and 6 feet in width. ■ Detached garages and carports w Attached roofed porches. Accessory Dwelling Units Shall not be allowed as part of this Housing Options Program. Housing Options Program b1B.kn 10/4/2005 Page 3 of 7 5. The following development parameters are supplemental to those in 18.120.020-4, and are applicable to any cottage proposed as a housing options project. ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM COTTAGE STANDARDS Common Open Space ■ Shall abut at least 50% of the cottages in the development, and those units must be oriented to and have their main entry from the common open space. • Shall have cottages on at least two sides. ■ Shall not be required to be indoors. a Each cottage shall be within 60 feet walking distance of the common open space. Private Open Space is Shall be onented to the common open space as much as is feasible. ■ Shall be in one contiguous and useable piece with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. • Shall be adjacent to each cottage and be for the exclusive use of the resident of that cottage. Attached Covered Porches • 80 square feet minimum per unit. ■ Shall have a minimum dimension of 8 feet on all sides. Height 18 feet maximum for all structures, except 25 feet maximum for cottages with a minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts of the roof above 18 feet. Parking - surface, garages or carports ■ Shall be provided on the subject property. r Shall be screened from public streets and adjacent residential uses by landscaping and/or architectural screening. a Shall be located in clusters of not more than six adjoining spaces r Shall not be located in the front yard, except on a corner lot where it shall not be located between the entrance to any cottage. r Shall not be located within 40 feet of a public street, except if the stalls lie parallel to the street and the driveway providing access to those stalls has parking on only one side. • May be located between or adjacent to structures if it is located toward the rear of the structure and is served by an alley or driveway. a All garages shall have a pitched roof design with a minimum slope of 4:12. Community Buildings -- if provided • Shall be clearly incidental in use and size to the cottages. r Shall be commonly owned by the residents of the cottages 18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria A. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined in TMC 18.120.030-C to decide which projects are eligible for project selection and allowed to apply for design review and/or for platting Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005 Page 4 of 7 • B. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended by City staff shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the project for program selection. The applicant must follow the notification procedures outlined in TMC 18.120 060 for public meetings. C. The Director of Ccimmunity Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. The criteria for project selection for the Housing Options Program are as follows: 1. Consistency with the goals of the housing options program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. 2. Not more than one housing option project shall be approved per City neighborhood, which are as follows and illustrated in Figure 18-13. (a) McMicken Heights (b) Tukwila Hill (c) Ryan Hill (d) Allentown (e) Duwamish (f) Foster Point (g) Cascade View (h) Riverton (i) Foster 0) Thomdyke Foster ander.ke'arnerally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Avenue South. 3. Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. 6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design. D. The decision of the Director of Community Development, in,the form of a letter inviting the applicant to submit for the project within one year of the date of the letter, shall be the final decision of the City on selection of'eligible projects and may not be administratively appealed. 18.120.040 Fees There is no fee for application for selection into the Housing Options Program as described in TMC 18.120.030. The adopted fees for the processes, which are described in TMC 18.120.050 shall be charged for the relevant required underlying applications. 18.120.050 Review and Application Process A. Limited time frame to apply. When the Director of DCD selects an application as outlined in TMC 18.120.030, the project proponent must apply within one year for the appropriate decision(s) or the selection will become null and void. Housing Options Program MBffm 9/29/2005 Page 5 of 7 B. Type of Application. Decision types are described in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.104). In all cases, design review is required and shall be consolidated per "Consolidation of Permit Applications" in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (TMC 18.104.030) The type of applications shall depend on the size and type of proposed project: 1. If less than four additional lots are proposed, then a Type 2 decision shall be followed, 2. If between 5 and 9 additional lots are proposed or a project is to be a condominium, then a Type 4 decision shall be followed, or 3 If more than 9 additional lots are proposed, then a Type 5 decision shall be followed. C. Decision Criteria. The relevant decision makers shall use the following criteria to review and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any project allowed into the Housing Options Program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for design review and/or platting. 1. Meets the goals of the program, as set forth in TMC 18 120.010; 2. Complies with the Multi -family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria, stated in the Board of Architectural Review chapter, Design Review Criteria section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.60.050-C); and 3 Demonstrates the following: a. The proposal is compatible with and is not larger in scale than surrounding development with respect to size of units, building heights, roof forms, building setbacks from each other and property lines, parking location and screening, access, and lot coverage; b Variety is provided through a mixture of building designs, sizes and footprints; c The proposal provides elements that contribute to a sense of community within the development and the surrounding neighborhood by including elements such as front entry porches, common open space and/or common building(s); and d. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to requirements of the Permit Application Types and Procedures (TMC 18.104), other than those specifically identified in TMC 18.120.020, are important to the success of the proposal as a housing options project. D. Expiration of Approval. When a Notice of Decision is issued on a Housing Options Program project, the applicant shall have one year to apply for subsequent permits. 18.120.060 Public Notice A. Notice of the pre -proposal meeting with the neighborhood will be a letter from the applicant mailed first class to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. B. Subsequent publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the procedures of the Permit Application Types and Procedures of TMC Chapter 18.104. Housing Options Program MB.kn 9/29/2005 Page 6 of 7 18.120.070 Program Expiration The Housing Options Program is available for three years from the effective date of this ordinance. A total of three projects may be developed as part of the Program and selected projects must vet themselves with a Type 2, 4, or 5 application before the c program expires on th b. Mi /2 , 2008 Section 2. Effective Period of Program. The Housing Options Program established by this Chapter shall become effective as set forth in Section 5 below, and shall continue in effect for up to three years thereafter or until three projects have been developed, unless repealed, renewed or modified by the City Council. A project must vest itself with a Type 2, 4, or 5 application before the program expires three years after the effective date of this ordinance. Section 3. Demonstration Housing Evaluation. Upon completion and full occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate and report to the Planning Commission and City Council on the results of the Program. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the offiaal newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED 13Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C.I1Y OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this 3 day of ACItL L , 2005 ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED. J E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Q -2,q Q 5 BY: Passed by the City Council: /0- 0.3--0 5 Published. 10-67-0 Effective Date: 4-,12- 05 Ordinance Number: ZI03 Housing Options Program MB.kn 9/29/2005 Page 7 of 7 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE No. 2103 City of Tukwila, Washington On October 3, 2005, the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, adopted Ordinance No. 2103, the main points of which are summarized by Its title as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A THREE-YEAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR SMALL-SCALE HOUSING ENTITLED THE HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE MAILED UPON REQUEST Approved by the City Council at their Regular Meeting of October 3, 2005. Published Seattle T es: 10-07-05 e-mailed: bbaker.....-- 10-04-05 — 8:50 p.m. . C,._ _,<_ `i c. ne E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Duwarnish Riverton Cascade View Foster Thorndyke McMicken 1:ko.�Y�lif W. titlf vutummin war 'afi` Z % iyoze J %icePT Tukwila Neighborhoods fi&uk. re -is N A 1/ Chaves Residence Craftsman style house with energy star HVAC system and controls. iJ/Ml ER $T Fossum Residence ,w� ss K zrr r4 --� o.*c ' I`LTrb ev t. a t,,+ R. 5v rt , i.nm meaoik Ns9gr -W.o 71AC ~AR IL}ciaG. G w ft - i ' ram"/PEASEihug 2 1rA,71 14 •f+:D Wrfl 4,4444519 =AI.40 to M1. '1i 11'a�uy'm2 iV1 � te. t tr p wWWD 63,+5.:y — rap G14 o.c �1rD .W OW647I.M1.n a e FF'*rrl 2P.f_Qy�_ 14� Ent•,y� i. eras My GDP fV(Wafin! = K OQ14.4/. WIM1 O IY �OC 4hjK,'� LI ►.4,6P11lvn , W 59-- P•9 AA 1-0.4104 r. �aal:d Lake Chelan house with 16 foot height limit. This house features solar shading devices for passive solar control and passive lighting. Harrison Residence •k, GirMr 4174'A4946.P, McPL r.ur Or maims i3 ni0Ott Nfi.rt • .8 F�17•eM�IT.N !4 mut-Lointx Furl- re, ul i $� fzeaa Fi,46rY/N4 /fXAJ / &AGAR 0ifiNdt 6eGYion1 'YI M ties 12r:—�— J 1._ 1.11 _ e OrW •"b ELexocrioN 1000 s.f. guest house with open plan and exposed structure. Energy conserving feature; include pasive ventilation and solar heat contr.( 12 foot folding door openings providing a seamless indoor outdoor experiance. Handley Residence 04.4mx.eR. See laCtin Japanese / N.W. Craftsman style house with grean features designed including solar panels for passive I water, insulation exceeding code and passive lighting Keir D. Vondruska, Architect 2002 -224th PL. N.E. Sammamish, WA 98074 425.260.0413 kvondruska@comcast.net Objective To join a firm organized around a collaborative team approach providing solutions that create enduring architecture. Registration: Registered Architect, State of Washington; Issued Jan. 2002. License #8120 Professional Practice Architect : Keir Vondruska - Architecture Company March 2006 — Present Architect : Architect: Project Manager: Sole Proprietor working on a variety of custom residential and commercial projects, including a remodel to a 1923 Seattle residence, a new 3,000SF custom residence on an environmentally sensitive site in Gig Harbor, WA, a custom Residence in Phoenix, AZ. and preliminary design for a cottage housing project in Tukwila, WA. Commercial projects include a 4,400SF Salon / Spa in Ballard, WA, and a tenant improvement for a French pastry shop in Ballard, WA. Developed and maintained relationships with several clients on a range of project types working both independently and in collaboration with other Architects. Wimberley Allison Tong & Goo July 2005 — March 2006 Project Architect on a variety of hospitality projects throughout the globe, including hotels in Bali, Indonesia, Cheju island, South Korea, Moscow, Russia and Failaka Island, Kuwait. Provided design drawings, working drawings and code research duties. Kovalenko Hale Architects. Seattle, WA. October 2003 — July 2005 Project architect focused on historic renovation, educational and custom residential projects. Including, Sue Lombard Hall, CWU Campus - Ellensburg, WA; The Gallery, a historic masonry building in Ellensburg, WA containing artist studios and a retail gallery. The Mar Residence, A new 3,000 SF home on an environmentally sensitive site — Mercer Island. Produced 2D & 3D presentation materials and design support for the Masin's Furniture Building in Pioneer Square. This 1906 historic building received a seismic renovation, interior remodel and penthouse addition. Provided project management, design, and construction document preparation for the Verano Condominiums in Redmond, WA, containing 191 existing units in 33 buildings, this apartment complex is being converted to low-income condo housing for a non-profit developer. MulvannyG2 Architecture. Bellevue, WA. September 1997 — September 1999 March 2000 — October 2003 Provided project architect and design services for a variety of retail, industrial, mixed-use, and community projects, including the Mercer Island Starbucks Store, a 1,875 SF contemporary retail building. Metropolitan Markets Stores in Federal Way and Mercer Island; Factoria Town Square Master Plan in Bellevue. The seismic retrofit and remodel of the King County International Airport Control Tower and Office, Seattle. Responsibilities included code research, consultant coordination, building & site design, construction document preparation, obtaining jurisdictional approvals, specification review, quality assurance, bid coordination and construction administration services. Acted as primary contact for a variety of clients, local, national and international. Conducted site visits, punch lists, and project close out services. Intern Architect: Lewis Architects. Bellevue, WA. August 1996 -September 1997 September 1999 — March 2000 Completed schematic design, design development and production of construction documents for public use and custom residential projects, including The Kirkland Teen Center, The Mukilteo Public Library, and a Private Airplane Hanger. Responsibilities included client contact, consultant coordination and computer network administration CHANDLER STEVER ARCHITECT 1715 223rd PI. NE, Sammamish, WA 98074 425.985.2176 ChandlerStever@comcast.net ARCHITECT AND DESIGNER PROFILE Chandler Stever Architects, Chandler Stever has been a Registered Architect in the State of Washington for 10 years with 20+ years of post College experience in architecture and design. Both an artist and Architect, he graduated from the Rhode Island School of Design with B.F.A. & B.ARCH., Chandler has over 60 built projects ranging from residential, retail, restaurant, entertainment, industrial and office buildings. Areas of Expertise: ■ Site Evaluation, Due Diligence • Entitlements, Conceptual Site Layout • Master Planning, Project Management • Design, Image and Place Making • Rendering, Perspectives • Presentation Images and Materials • Bid Negotiations and Administration • Permitting Services PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE CSA — CHANDLER STEVER ARCHITECTS — Redmond, WA Business Owner and Architectural Designer MULVANNYG2 ARCHITECTURE — Bellevue, WA Design Associate L.P.N. ARCHITECTS — Redmond, WA Architectural Designer RICHARD BEYER SCULPTURE — Seattle, WA Assistant Sculptor CALLISON PARTNERSHIP — Seattle, WA Intern and Model Builder GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE ARCHITECTURAL DEAPRTMENT — Renton, WA Architectural Intern BUILT PROJECTS 2004 to Present 1990 to 2004 1987 to 1990 1986 to 1987 1985 to 1986 1984 to 1985 Residential: Handley House — 2007, Dodd House - 2007, Hart House- 2007, Macklin House — 2007, Jung House — 2007, Eastes House - 2007, Schaff House — 2007, Stever House — 2007, Weaver House -2007, Predmore House - 2007, Nelson Cabana — 2007, Kaczynski House — 2006, Fossum Vacation Home — Lake Chelan WA - 2006, Harrison Cabana — 2006, Avery House — 2005, Chavez House, Clyde Hill WA - 2005, Trans House — 2005, Stever Green House — 2004, Kleer House - 2004, Frank House — 2003, Johnson House — 2002, Ellis House- 2001, Walker House, Bellevue WA — 1999, Brecken Ridge Duplex, CO -1998, Frank House, Woodinville WA - 1997, Robert Stever House — 1996, Dwyer House — 1995, Aurora Village, CO, Apartment Remodel and Clubhouse, Platner House Seattle WA - 1993, TeQ.l Wm lea — 1007 Ctnvcr Wnnca -1001 CHANDLER STEVER ARCHITECTS 1715 223`d PI. NE, Sammamish, WA 98074 425.985.2176 ChandlerStever@comcast.net FIRM PROFILE Chandler Stever Architects strive to create structures of artful design, honesty, clarity and affordability. We aim to strike the perfect balance of function orchestrated in design and look for a seamless continuance of inside to outside design. We artfully integrate sustainable features like dead mass solar heating as a sculpture object, passive ventilation sculpted lighting mixing in passive lighting. Our goal is to provide exemplary design service while working as a team to achieve project goals in a design cost effective manner which also reduces environmental impact. PROJECT TEAM PRINCIPLE ARCHITECT: CHANDLER STEVER Business Owner of Chandler Stever Architects, Chandler Stever is a Registered Architect in the State of Washington with 20+ years of post College experience in architecture and design. He is a graduate of Rhode Island School of Design (R.I.S.D), with both a Bachelor of Fine Arts and a graduate degree, Bachelor of Architecture. He has over 60 built projects ranging from residential, retail, restaurant, entertainment, industrial and office buildings. He takes pride in his ability to collaborate successfully with owners, jurisdictions, other Architects and consulting professional to get projects completed successfully. With a track record of success in both team leadership and individual performance he's been a Project Manager for Large Firms since 1991 and a design incorporated Project Architect and Lead Designer for over 15 years. He understands zoning ordinances, code issues, and the governmental approval process and specializes in site evaluations, due diligence, entitlements and conceptual site layout. Once concept and entitlement are complete, he also is able to apply his technical ability to execute building permit, code compliance and construction documents. Incorporating art into architecture and creating the natural flow of inside to outside environments as well as the artful integration of sustainable features is a passion. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: ALEX GENTILE Alex graduated from California Polytechnic University in Pomona, CA. with a B.A. in Architecture and has over 16 years of experience. His creative approach to architectural projects brings a colorful and dynamic edge to the team. With outstanding communication skills he speaks Spanish, Portuguese, English and Italian. Alexis's skills include the artful crafting of design in computer including REVET, AutoCAD, Photoshop, 3D Studio Max Photo Shop and Microsoft Office. As a Project Designer and Project Manager he has worked for such high profile Architects like Frank 0 Gerry in Los Angeles, Mulvanny G2 Architecture, Jensen Fey, Architecture, ImagiCorps and JMA Architecture+Urban Design. PROJECT ARCHITECT: KEIR VONDRUSKA Keir is a Registered Architect in the State of Washington with 10+ years of post College experience in Architecture and Design. Keir Graduated from Washington State University with a Bachelor of Architecture in 1996. He is an expert detailer, technical architect and code specialist. Keir is also extremely proficient at all things computer, Revet, AutoCAD, Photoshop, 3D studio to name a few. Combined with the technical side, Keir is unusual as he masters the design side as well. As an Artist / painter and design Architect he pulls all aspects of architecture together. DESIGNS northwest ARCHITECTS : EACHFRONT COTTAGE The client wanted to remodel an existing garage/ home office structure into a guest house to match the new custom home being designed by Designs Northwest. Taking cues from the exterior details of the home; the guest remodel is both a positive supporting character on site, as well as a jewel in its own right. HALLER POINT This mixed use project honors the character of the Graafstra's Country Charm Dairy, with an intimate retail center which in- cludes an open-air venue for local shops, cafes, and artists. Front porches, walking trails, parkland and Village shops com- bine to inspire a community re- miniscent of yesterday. This tra- ditional neighborhood develop- ment, designed with rural cha- racter to complement its su- rroundings, emphasizes neigh- bors, community, and livability. DESIGNS northwest ARCHITECTS 1) 1 I( north' e s COLLINS110. 111111 11 COTTAGES Zoned for a Cottage Neighbor- hood, this plat approval and schematic design includes 14 individual single-family resi- dential lots. Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. developed six different cottage schemes with 12 exterior color variations. The lots are 3,000 SF each and are designed for a 1,200 SF maxi- mum building footprint. The in- dividualized plans will have the living spaces on the first floor with an option of a loft or vaul- ted ceiling and an attached single car garage. The project has preliminary plat approval and was accepted by the design review board. DESIGNS northwest ARCHITECTS SPIRITBROOK COTTAGES •.282 SF* r 2 2.481 Sit 1 4,060 Sri 1.273 Srt G3 C4 155 05 4. • 6: 51 0 11;8.3,•07.:1 This application proposed a 7 lot preliminary plat and PRD for 6 single family homes plus the exis- ting Puget Sound Energy Power Station on approximately 1.55 acres zoned R5. The project aims to provide homes for middle-income range of families. The cottages combine simple la- youts with cottage architectural style, making them appealing to people of different age groups and lifestyles. The project currently has prliminary plat approval and passed the design board for the City of Redmond. VICINJ TY MAP 1"=2000' art oi k'Ll`TE- r 1C -10-7S 14) ti -q8053 SEQUOIA Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. worked closely with the client to develop 32 modestly sized two and three bedroom single-family homes, that are designed to be part of a com- munity that promotes a sense of place, safety and neighborhood. The community design is inspired by new urbanism principles, in that it overlays a former order (architectural form) within a more natural setting (common areas, narrower meandering road, pond, and dense- ly planted landscape). The existing landsca- pe has an impressive array of mature sequo- ias that are integrated into the new Sequoia neighborhood. The four typical unit plan styles have 14 different facades mixed throughout the community. Garages are de- emphasized by tucking them well under living level porches and arbors. These alternate elevations create a diversity of character that reinforces our image of a pedestrian friendly community as well as being a "good neighbor" to the existing community. DESIGNS northwest ARCHITECTS • Design Media for Architects and Designers John Wiley & Sons NY, 1999 • Visual Thinking for Architects and Designers John Wiley & Sons NY, 1995 (with Professor James Pettinari) • Design for Small Towns AIA,1994 • Watercolor in Architectural Design Van Nostrand Reinhold NY, 1989 1)C.S1c;N nutt 11W CS ARCHITE( rs Graham and Trina Kerr Residence • 2000 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Citation Award Camano Island Sculpture Garden and Information Center • 1999 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Merit Award Howard and Dorcas Anderson Residence • 1998 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Merit Award Bob and Anne Monroe Residence • 1996 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Citation Award Stanwood Riverfront Park Kasprisin Pettinari Design • APA Merit Award for the Haines AK Lookout Park and Waterfront Design • APA Merit Award for the Creek Street Historic District Historic Boardwalk Design (Ketchikan, AK) • National Design Competition, First Place for the Caras Park Waterfront Design (Missoula, Montana) • National Design Competition, Honorable Mention for the Downtown Milwaukee WI Waterfront Design Competition • PAW Outstanding Achievement Award for the Port Townsend Waterfront Master Plan PUBLICATIONS Designs Northwest Architects, inc. • Seattle Homes & Lifestyles, January 2007 (pending) Tobin Residence • Weekend Homes, 2006 Gleadle Residence • Better Homes & Gardens Additions, 2004 N. Anderson Residence • Better Homes & Gardens Home Planning Ideas, Nov. -Dec. 2002 Gleadle Residence • Better Homes & Gardens Remodeling, Oct. -Nov. 2002 N. Anderson Residence • Sunset, Sept. 2002 N. Anderson Residence • Better Homes & Gardens Home Planning Idea, Jan. -Feb. 2002 Vincent Residence • The Best of Better Homes & Gardens Home Plans, Sept. -Oct. 2001 Vowels Residence • Sunset, June 2001 H. Anderson Residence • Better Homes & Gardens Home Plan Ideas, Mar. -Apr. 2001 Wickstrom Residence • Seattle Homes & Lifestyles, June 1999 Vowels Residence Kasprisin Pettinari Design • Composition of Complexity In process, due out Fall 2007 1)F 1CN\ nurihac•1 AI CHI rF(lS of a project lies in the ability to find compromises that move the project forward while protecting the project goals. We pride ourselves in helping our clients achieve successful solutions to the complex issues that now surround most projects. With a staff of ten, our professional services include master site planning, feasibility studies, programming and space planning, architectural design (schematic through bid documents), bidding and negotiation, construction administration and presentation materials (models and renderings). DNW has completed projects throughout Washington State, with a focus on projects located in the northern Puget Sound region. For all projects, DNW provides a high standard of personalized and responsive service from initial planning through completion. Kasprisin Pettinari Design, Langley & Seattle WA, Portland OR Kasprisin Pettinari Design formed in 1975 to provide community design and public involvement services to cities and small towns throughout the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and British Columbia and more recently China. The firm has distinguished itself through numerous national and regional design awards for urban and community design particularly in downtown revitalization and urban waterfront redevelopment. In 1982, the firm received First Place in the Missoula MT Riverfront/Caras Park National Competition, resulting in the construction of the first phase along the Clark Fork River. Ron Kasprisin and James Pettinari are both recognized internationally for their graphic visualization skills in the design and public involvement process, excelling in design charrettes and intensives. Kasprisin Pettinari Design Architects and Urban Designers REFERENCES Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. • Sol Baron Lindstrom Development & Rivers Edge Development 206-399-3851 Projects: Village Commons, Village Square Apartments, Rivers Edge • Joe Bergevin Bergevin Homes 425-736-9312 Projects: Bergevin Townhomes (Juanita Cottages) • Rich Nord RGN Construction 206-255-6967 Projects: Utsalady Townhomes, Maddox Creek Townhomes • Robert Pantley Panterra Homes 206-795-3545 Projects: Sequoia Townhomes, Spiritbrook Cottages, Redmond Court Kasprisin Pettinari Design • David Taylor Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska 907-228-6610 Projects: Newton District Redevelopment Plan, Creek Street Historic District Public Facilities Design • John Talbot & Associates Burnaby, British Columbia 604-294-1525 Projects: Long Term Planning Vision for District of Sechelt, Residential Design Guidelines for 4 New Westminster Neighborhoods including design charrettes • Henry Lawrence City of Edgewood 253-952-3299 Projects: Edgewood Town Center and Meridian Corridor Master Plan • Angie Silva Kitsap County Community Development Agency 360-337-4841 Projects: Silverdale Design Guidelines AWARDS Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. • 2004 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Merit Award Everpark-Colby Avenue Arcade • 2002 American Institute of Architects / Northwest Washington Chapter Merit Award 1/?it nSIGNS u r tha c,t .111 C 1111 ft: TS PROJECT TEAM Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. will provide the prime architectural services in association with Kasprisin Pettinari Design, who will serve the project as the urban design consultant and develop the Design Guidelines. It is the Design Team's goal to work closely with CHB Development to ensure that the priorities and goals of each project are realized in the development of these Master Plans. Each team member's relevant experience, along with their firm profiles, is included on the following pages. Principal Architect: Dan Nelson, AIA Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. Dan Nelson was raised in Everett, Washington and received his first degree in Philosophy from Pacific Lutheran University, and later pursued an Architecture Degree from the Boston Architectural Center and his Masters at Columbia University. He joined Designs Northwest Architects Inc. in 1990 bringing a design philosophy emphasizing the importance of creating a cohesive design that considers the clients' needs and the site's components. In 1991 Dan acquired his Architectural License with the State of Washington. In addition to his creativity and functionality of design in ecclesiastical, municipal, commercial and residential projects, Dan is widely recognized for his ability to develop good rapport with the public. His public involvement programs focus on keeping the community involved and informed of a project's progress as it advances through programming, design and construction. This has helped gain wide acceptance and understanding of the projects with which he has been involved. His professional affiliations include the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Project Architect: Kim 1Nilhams, AIA Designs Northwest Architects, Inc. Kim Williams has over nine years of architectural experience and received her Bachelor of Architecture degree from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. She has experience in developing master plans, commercial facilities, residences and public safety facilities. She thoroughly understands zoning ordinances, code issues and government approval processes. In 2003 she became a registered Architect in California and is currently pursuing reciprocity for the State of Washington. Her professional affiliations include the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Urban Design Consultant: Ron Kasprisin, AIA Kasprisin Pettinari Design Ron Kasprisin has over 38 years of experience in urban planning and architecture. His education includes a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Notre Dame (1966) and a Master of Urban Planning from the University of Washington (1968). Since 1989 he has been an Associate Professor in Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington, providing collegiate instruction in architecture, urban planning, urban design and watercolor painting. His professional experience includes Kasprisin Pettinari Design in Langley/ Seattle/ Eugene since 1975, Hodne Stageberg Partners in Minneapolis in the early 1970's and Dalton Dalton Little Newport in Cleveland and Boston in the late 1960's. His professional affiliations include the American Institute of Architects (AIA). FIRM PROFILES Designs Northwest Architects Inc., Stanwood WA Designs Northwest Architects Inc. (DNW) is one of the region's leading architecture and planning firms. Established in 1990, we are known for a wide range of experience in complex building types for ecclesiastical, municipal, institutional, residential, commercial and mixed-use projects. We have earned the reputation of being innovative in our approach, responsive to our clients' needs, and capable in our negotiations. Many times the success 1)14110?‘ 1SI0l £ n01101'1110"fr., A RCHII"tic t% DESIGNS northwest ARCHITECTS Cooke Riverside Commons Cottage Housing Project A principle cog in our team is ESA Adolfson who is providing biological and site landscape design. This firm and its staff have numerous cottage, clustered housing and small housing developments on its list of credentials. They have been instrumental in moving this project to fruition. Attached is the resume' for Chandler Stever Architects, Project Architect. Chandler has a long track record of effective project management and architectural design with complicated and environmentally sensitive projects. An example in Tukwila is the Family Fun Center which he designed and executed. This project had 24 regulatory agencies requiring approval including wetland enhancement, habitat creation, riparian habitat and Brownfield soil cleanup mitigation. What he brings is an artful design edge with expertise in detailing and cost management combined with a strong knowledge of sustainable Green building design including management and design of passive energy systems. Attached is the resume' for Designs Northwest Architects, Principal Dan Nelson AIA. This firm is multi- faceted with various architects, landscape architects and an urban designer, Ron Kasprisin, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Washington. The firm has several cottage and cottage multi -use developments in various stages being built and completed in the Northwest. Please review Sequoia project in Kirkland which was entitled and completed, Haller Point, Collins Cottages, and Spiritbrook Cottages in Redmond, which we're submitting along with their resume'. Regarding Architectural responsibilities, Mr. Stever would be designated the "Architect of record", as he would be creating and stamping the permit drawings. He would be the Project Architect with general design and process oversight throughout the project related to the typical architect responsibilities. He is local and accessible. Designs NW along with their associate Ron Kasprisin role would be both assisting and providing Concept site design and Concept house design at the initial stages. Their role would morph into design consulting and review during permit documents, and perhaps participate with their team helping assemble individual cottage design plans for variety. Then their involvement would include review of projected costs and pricing analysis using their in house development team and contractors. Finally they could have some site review and quality control review during construction. The development meets the criteria #5 and #6 because the location and size is within the criteria set by the program and has been accepted by the neighbors and will be of low impact relative to the neighborhood which is single family residence and light industrial. The topography will be discussed in our mitigation plan. The street system abuts Macadam Road a collector arterial and is blocks away from Interurban, US I- 5 and Marginal Way Hwy. We have petitioned Metro Bus Service to plan a route for 2009 north and south on Macadam Road to connect the area with Light Rail Facility and South Center. This location is within walking or biking to places of worship, shopping, Community Center, Duwamish River and its pedestrian pathway. We would like to reiterate that the concems of the community were addressed in the proposal's design. To build houses on a piece of land is a task almost any builder or general contractor can accomplish. You have only to evaluate the housing developments in Tukwila. To preserve a wetland, enhance Southgate Creek buffer, and create a feeling of community one needs skill and life experience to accomplish this endeavor. This, beyond a doubt, conclusively demonstrates our ability to successfully develop a project of this nature. Sincerely submitted by, Todd Smith, CEO, Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. E-mail: Cookecottages@q.com Phone: 253.691.8191 3 Cooke Riverside Commons Cottage Housing Project Quality human contact with nature and community is what this project is about. Your Housing Options Ordinance has made this concept possible. This brings us to my proposal for cottage/clustered housing in Tukwila. This project is consistent with the goals of the program because it increases housing styles by maximizing small spaces, allowing for a small amount of wasted space both inside the houses and outside, plus an indoor/outdoor continuum. These homes will be owned as single family residences while the common area will be jointly owned in a maintenance agreement. A primary objective of the project is to maintain a community through design, building a respect for ones privacy. By ignoring the cookie cutter approach we will provide all residents a feeling of community and pride to be part of this new community in Tukwila. We will be providing variations in building styles with a mixture of 1000 SF Cottages and 1500 SF Compact Residences. Among these types, several building designs will be used to maximize space criteria and keep the site architecturally unique and attractive. To compound the variations we will be providing metal roofs with different colors, and different styles of exterior surfacing and colors and different house configurations to address individuality and specific site concerns. The housing will provide innovative interior and exterior amenities to include green built features and sustainability, use of salvageable products, and multiple porches per unit, Bay Windows, basements and some cottages will have multi -media centers that will modulate temperature, lighting, and electronic media. Regarding water drainage from house roof drains and hard surfaces, we have discussed a design to channel drainage to and into landscape and wetland areas throughout the site. This will help keep plantings green and re -charge water tables. We are looking for an equal distribution of water disbursement and infiltration into our site to match the locations of impervious surfaces, allowing our run off to absorb in a similar pattern as before development. Our goal is to provide a warm, welcome feeling that will be environmentally friendly to include sustainable design while being flexible to the community's needs. Sustainable design and energy reducing features could include passive solar heating, passive heat control, passive ventilation, passive cooling, passive lighting, increased insulation, high efficiency appliances and possibly water recycling. To meet the City's affordability goal this project team will acknowledge this formidable task to provide quality, and innovative domiciles at a price that empty nesters, professionals and small or single families will want to call home at an affordable price. One way I plan to accomplish this task is by bringing to the Project Team an award winning Architectural firm Designs Northwest Architects.. They have designed several clustered housing developments that were affordable and well received by the community. For all projects, they provide a high standard of personalized and responsive service from planning through completion. Another aspect is to reduce energy consumption costs. Our goal for these houses is to reduce their energy consumption by 50% from normal building design. We feel strong about the team's abilities and skills which are well suited for this undertaking. I have considerable experience in cottage life and buildings, living and working on houseboats in Seattle for 12 years, and managing Shoreline Management Regulations to maintain and grow houseboat livability. I was also an early member of the Houseboat Association that petitioned the City of Seattle to re-route the sewage system around Lake Union to allow houseboats the ability to connect to the city's system, making the houseboat community a viable alternative housing style and revitalizing the quality of Lake Union making it a jewel within Seattle. This is an example of humans managing their symbiotic relationship with wildlife resources. My other attributes are 13 years as a general contractor. I was involved during the 1970's with the restoration of numerous town houses. This required the metamorphosis of rooming houses to remodeled single family residences for the professional staff of Washington D.C. I was proud to be part of the change for a more livable sustainable city. Furthermore, I have numerous years as a Project Manager with the City of Seattle. My more memorable project was the restoration of Evans Pool and Green Lake Complex. To this day it is the largest Public Works Project undertaken by the Parks Department. 2 Cooke Riverside Commons Cottage Housing Project Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 City of Tukwila Housing Options Program 12/7/2007 To Director of Community Development, This cottage or clustered housing project will be developed in two phases. Phase I being the property at 13325 Macadam Road S and the property directly west of said property. I acquired this property in 1997 and have waited until property values and zoning/housing criteria made it advantageous to develop the property. The back property has Southgate Creek as its west boundary and a type 3 wetland running through it. Phase II will be done on the 2 parcels, 13319 & 13305 Macadam Rd., North of Phase One. I am in the process to acquire this property. Phase I is ready with a completed design layout, wetland survey, mitigation plan and successful neighborhood meeting. During this meeting I would like to note that all of the neighbors had many concerns and were pleased that we had the forethought to be proactive to address them in our design proposal. I have found no other active housing options development in my neighborhood of Riverton, while there are no other developments within 1500 feet of this project. With these factors in mind, I would appreciate that Tukwila's Community Development Director Permits Phase I to allow it to continue through the development process. Phase II, topographical survey, wetland survey, and mitigation plan, results would very likely be comparable to Phase I. A determination from the City whether to allow cottage housing on the Phase 1 site will be critical as to whether to proceed with the acquisition of Phase H. What we have concluded from Phase I process is the wetland and Southgate Creek can be protected, and from my neighborhood meeting there is every indication from the surrounding community that they approve the project. Furthermore, Phase I and 11 tie or complete the preservation of the lower area of the wetland making the sum of its parts more engaging, while removing four at risk housing units from Tukwila's inventory. Please review the design layout of our proposal to find that about 1/3 of the property remains open space exceeding the criteria of the Housing Options Ordinance. We strategically embraced the wetlands and integrating them into the design Layout. A problem with our local society is we divide land; we plat it to give a slice of America to each household. In today's society people drive to work, they return home, park in their garage, seldom meeting or communicating with their neighbors. This kind of environment is what this development is strategically trying to change. Another concept is establishing where people and wildlife can live. By setting aside areas for wildlife and allowing humans to live in close proximity, this gives them the responsibility for maintaining the symbiosis. By doing so, you move people into closer confines, and the concept of what is mine becomes less important while what is ours becomes more important. A point I would like to make is that to preserve these sensitive areas more people, not less, need to be responsible for its management. They are a jewel, and shall be enhanced with improved plantings, and removal of invasive species. The more people that have the opportunity to enjoy and cultivate the societal importance of a stream and wetland in their backyard the more benefits the community will reap from their stewardship. Kleer Residence 1500 S.F. Bungalow style Vashon House with open planning, Sustainable design including Passive ventilation, recycled materials and insulation that exceeds requirements. , 1 se ... 1 IS: ELFIJI:rs' -Al ;'5 ''�- Macklin residence Craftsman style entry porch and trellis Macklin house, Prarie style craftman blend located in Seattle fiv.L.rwe • Jf � T�b�r�•`� t, 7f • 9', r rf 1 • WA' sr f g't W,. -tsar_.2•;� r i• Stever house addition, (under construction). Sustainable design features including Solar dea mass heating, passive ventilation, recycled materials, Passive heat control and insulation th will exceed requirements. Rynolds house, Solar heating, passive lighting and additional insulation. Schaff house addition, Kirkland Wa transformation of 70's split level house (removal of split entry). The project has �z•�: has recycled materials and passive lighting. Johnson house, craftsman style residence, Shelton WA. Mount Baker, Seattle residence addition, 1908, 1 story brick house with new 2nd story addition. Green features include recycled materials and sustainable construction methiods. Queen Anne Town Homes, design development phase /2,17$ -,.? 4.44r4,44/ , (Vf+%n7 ) nr F.ct,,,ci -;r �;p 3' l zrnt5I7 spAy 04:r • .4:41.4 . /?,4S 3/ VA • k2 r !E -t. -S•tar V /20 414 iw:L Alex Gentile residential proiects City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayo, Department of Community Development April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. Jack Pace, Directo, I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Pr�oiect Description: Location: Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoninq District: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and one cottage. 13325 Macadam Road South Low Density Residential (LDR) II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director has determined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: MD Page I of 2 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Director, ��• . rt nt of Community Development City of Tu ila MD Page 2 4/04/08 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED APRIL 3, 2008 APPLICANT: Todd Smith, Cooke Riverside Properties LLC OWNER: Todd Smith REQUESTS: To construct 9 residences including 8 compact single family homes (less than 1500 sf) and one cottage house less than 1000 sf. LOCATION: 13325 Macadam Road South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Low Density Residential (LDR) Minnie Dhaliwal A. Application letter B. Conceptual site plan FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build eight compact single family units and one cottage house. There are clustered around common open space. The western side of the property contains a wetland and the buffer of Southgate creek. The proposal includes request for 50% buffer reduction for the wetland in exchange for improving the highly degraded buffer. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed in the Riverton neighborhood. The surrounding properties are very low density single family. The general area contains Southgate Creek and wetlands. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The property includes 20 feet of the adjacent right-of-way that recently went through a Quiet Title process. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on October 11, 2007, to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the proposed site. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and streetscape. The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of phase one to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program to further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. The next step after being approved as a project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for SEPA (if cumulative grade and fill amount exceeds 500 2 cubic yards), Design Review and Short Plat applications. The review process for all these applications includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Design Review application. A detailed review of the parking, frontage improvements and streetscape, wetland buffer reduction and enhancement and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. I. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: a) Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; This project may not be marketed or considered"affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. Two residences are proposed along the street and all the units face a shared common area that opens onto a larger open space (wetland area). The applicant has stated that each house will be unique design that fits overall in the scheme, which will be an alternative to cookie cutter homes. Also, the proposed site layout and the homes shall be built green and shall incorporate sustainable design features. 3 d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. e) Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods. These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single family and large multifamily complexes. 2, Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamish f) Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton i) Foster j) Thorndyke. Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Ave South. This is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Riverton neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. The applicant's design team includes Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects. Applicant has stated that Mr. Stever will be the architect of record and Designs Northwest will assisting and providing concept site design and concept house design and will have some site review and quality control review during construction. Designs NW has several cottage housing projects at various stages being built in the 4 Northwest such as Sequoia project in Kirkland, Haller Point, Collins Cottages and Spiritbrook Cottages in Redmond. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system, For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The area around the property is zoned Low Density Residential. However the properties across the Street are Commercial/ Light Industrial. There is a large portion of the site on the east side that is constrained by a wetland and a stream buffer. This area will not have structures and will be of low impact to the properties to the east. The existing trees in the buffer area will be required to be preserved. Further landscaping will be required along the north and south property lines to provide adequate buffer to the adjacent properties. 6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the site on October 11, 2007. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and providing an inviting streetscape. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for Short Plat, Design Review and SEPA (if more than 500 cubic yards of cumulative grade and fill) within one year of the date of the approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need '` to be addressed as part of the review process are: providing enough guest parking, preserving existing trees, providing an inviting streetscape, adequate landscape buffers along north and south property lines, frontage improvements, meeting Fire Department access issues, placement and design of garbage/recycling areas. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects and Designs NW has experience in development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage. 5 The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of Phase 1 to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program. If approved for Phase 1 they would further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. 6 City of Tukwila Code Enforcement 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 Stop Work Notification Tukwila Municipal Code § 8.45.030 The undersigned City of Tukwila Code Enforcement Officer, hereby certifies and states that: Violation Location: 13325 Macadam Road South File #: RFA08-273 Owner Name: Todd Smith & Rieko Ohno-Smith Address: 13325 Macadam Road South City/State/Zip: Tuwila, WA 98168 is in violation of Tukwila's Municipal Code (TMC), TMC Chapter: TMC 18.54.070 Tree Regulations - Permit Required Specifically: "No person shall conduct any clearing of vegetation without first obtaining a Tree Clearing Permit..." Corrective Action required: Compliance Date: October 15, 2008 Corrective Action: E, Apply for a tree cutting permit within 15 days the Stop Work Notice. o Remove illegal construction within 15 days of this notice and call for reinspection. Discontinue clearing trees and brush until permit is issued. o Vacate building and secure against entry. Failure to comply will result in further action. Applications and related information explaining the permit process may be obtained at the Department of Community Development Permit Center located at 6300 Southcenter Bi., Suite 100, Tukwila, WA or online at www,ci.tukwila.wa,us, Further questions regarding the issuance of permits can be directed to the Permit Center at (206) 431-3670, Signed: Keed"""I _ " G )7j Today's date: October 2, 2008 Name: Kathryn Stetson Phone: (206) 431-3682 Title: Code Enforcement Officer Entail: ksfetson@ci.tukwila,wa,us Cc: 8129 Hudson Place SW Tacoma, WA 98498 PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 RPA08.273 StopWorkNotice Page lofl r • • June 16, 2009 City of Tukwila Jini Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development TECHNICAL COMMENTS Sent via email to ChandlerStever@comcast.net and CookeCottages@q.com; no hard copy to follow. Chandler Stever 1715 223`d Place NE Sammamish, WA 98074 Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 attitilt Jack Pace, Director Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review, L09-012 Special Permission Buffer Reduction, E09- 001 SEPA Environmental Review Dear Mr.'s Stever and Cooke: The City has completed its review of the above permit applications. The application was submitted on March 31, 2009, routed to City departments for review, and deemed complete on April 24, 2009 for the purpose of meeting state -mandated time requirements. The project was reviewed by the City departments. What follows are their comments. Please address their corrections on the submitted plan set or in a written response as applicable: Building Department Reviewed by Dave Larsen, 206-431-3678 1. Building Department has no comments at this time. Fire Department: Reviewed by Al Metzler, 206-575-4407 1. The Fire Department has granted approval for you to install, in lieu of a turn -around, sprinklers in the houses beyond 150ft from a hydrant. In addition you will install a fire hydrant along Macadam near the main water line in the right of way. Thus, houses #4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 will have sprinkler systems and a fire hydrant will be installed along Macadam across from the NE corner of the property. Add a note to the plan set. 2. Provide a minimum 20 ft inside turning radii at the entrance from Macadam Road. 3. Maximum grade is not to exceed 15%. 4. Provide a minimum 12 ft deep and 4 ft wide level area beneath required 2nd story bedroom rescue windows for ground ladder access. Public Works Department: Reviewed by Dave McPherson, 206-431-2448 The following bulletins are available online at http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/pubwks/cablist.html Pavement Mitigation and Transportation Impact Fees Bulletin -A3 Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement -Sample Resolution 1627: Public Works Fee Schedule SM Page 1 of 11 06/16/2009 H:\L09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Owner shall sign with Notary, a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless Agreement. Agreement will be recorded at King County, after the Mayor signs the document. 2. Owner/Applicant shall complete a Traffic Concurrency Certificate Application. The estimated Traffic Concurrency Test Fee is $1,200.00, based on nine (9) residential units — see attached application. 3. Any street infrastructure within Public Right -of -Way is to be part of a turnover process and on City of Tukwila forms. Public Works will prepare forms as applicable, for the Owner(s) signature. 4. Civil site plans shall be designed per City Of Tukwila standards, details, and specifications. 5. Provide note on site plan — "Project to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by GEO Group Northwest, Inc., dated July 17, 2008 and subsequent geotechnical reports." 6. Rockeries and/or retaining walls over 4 feet high and/or surcharged will require a separate Building Permit. 7. Transportation Impact Fee applies to the future Building Permit(s). See Pavement Mitigation and Transportation Impact Fees Bulletin no. A3. 8. An infrastructure design and construction standard manual, is available at the Public Works Department and on the City Web Site. Public Works requires the following to be constructed / installed and inspected; prior to recording of Short Plat / Subdivision. 1. Install / construct half -street along / within Macadam Rd. South to include; street paving portion, curb/cutter/sidewalk, storm drainage, driveways, streetscape, signage, and possible street light as part of the City of Tukwila Public Works Permit. 2. All stream crossings require written hydraulic project approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The Applicant shall design and install all stream crossing elements to withstand all loading, erosion impacts, hydraulic forces, and to remain water tight and free from changes in alignment or grade. 3. Install power vault with conduit only (no wire required) as part of the City of Tukwila Public Works Permit. 4. Gas (PSE) will make tap with stubs to lots only (meters installed under future Building / Mechanical Permits. (PSE under Franchise Agreement) 5. Seattle City Light under Franchise Agreement. Install power/phone/cable within joint trench. 6. The applicant shall apply for a Public Works (PW) type 'C' permit for approval. A Street Use will be part of this permit and require bonding, insurance, and a Hold Harmless Agreement; for work within the Public Right -of -Way. 7. All utilities including power are required to be underground, per City of Tukwila ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW — L09-013 1. Design Review meets Public Works requirements. SEPA REVIEW — E09-001 1. SEPA meets Public Works requirements. 2. Verify that you no longer intend to run a new sewer line from the west through the wetland. SPECIAL PERMISSION REVIEW — L09-012 1. SP meets Public Works requirements. Public Works Department Also Reviewed by Ryan Larson, Storm Water Engineer 206-431-4256 Page 4 of the Geotechnical Engineering Study states that: "The use of permeable pavement is not recommended due to the poor infiltration characteristics of the site soil." This project proposes the use of permeable pavement and uses a 50% imperious area credit since pervious pavement is proposed. The proponent proposes to mitigate for this increase in flow by increasing the volume of the wetland. SM H:\L.09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments 1 .doc Page 2 of 11 06/16/2009 • A discussion should be provided that justifies the use of this 50% reduction and the conflict with the Geotechnical Study. Will soil amendments be used below the pervious pavements to increase the infiltration rates? Will a potential for groundwater exfiltration be possible? Does the wetland volume need to be further increased to allow for the poor soil conditions? Planning Department: Reviewed by Stacy MacGregor, 206-433-7166 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING COMMENTS 1. A neighborhood association is required. Provide the basic content of any restrictive covenants. Depending on the timing of the covenants, the City may require the following to be recorded on the face of the plat. They will need to include but are not limited to: a) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through the association. i. You may want to include the sensitive areas mitigation monitoring in this. b) A covenant restricting any increases in unit size after initial construction. c) The garages shall be reserved for the parking of vehicles. d) The homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance or correction of any latent defects or deficiencies to the buffer enhancement and mitigation. 2. The project is subject to park and fire impact fees applied to the future building permits. 3. Provide a description of sequencing for the development with consideration given to the seasonal impacts to wetland planting and the City's requirement to put in infrastructure and final short plat approval prior to applying for building permit. The City can help you determining the time various permits take. The SEPA decision needs to be issued first and the appeal period exhausted before any other permit can be issued. 4. Conditions of approval for a cottage project includes keeping Designs Northwest Architects as part of the project team and involved during the design and construction of the project site and individual units. Provide a statement from Designs Northwest detailing their role and verifying that this condition is met. 5. On all sheets that map the wetland, it is based on the Adolfson delineation. However, Adolfson stopped the delineation at the 2007 property line before the property added the north half of South 134th Street. The plans need to reflect the wetland across the length of the property including the south 20' of the property. 6. The sidewalk and landscape strip need to be shown on the plans. 7. Talk to Allied Waste about the trash collection in terms of size and location of facilities. Caren Crowley, Customer Service Manager, Allied Waste Services, 206.652.8850 Office. I see 4 trash sites; where will homes #1 and 5 deposit their trash? 8. Any increase in the wetland ("swale") boundaries may not extend a buffer further on to adjacent properties. The City will not approve impacts to the buffer width outside your property lines. 9. The City's Walk and Roll Plan proposes bike lanes on Macadam Road and a multipurpose path running north south through the Southgate Creek Stream Buffer. The purpose of the path is to provide eventual through access from Southgate Park to Riverton Park. The path should connect to your proposed path through the wetland and provide a recreation easement to the City for access. The path should be 6-10' wide and of bark chips, crushed rock or similar materials. See the City's Walk and Roll Plan for infrastructure guidelines: http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/dcd/walkandroll.html. The street cross section and alignment on Macadam is being determined by an outside consultant. I will let you know when I have it; it is expected at the City on June 30`s. 10. Proposed materials and colors used on the site will need to be reviewed and a materials board submitted prior to design review. 11. Leed and/or BuiltGreen status is not discussed in your plan. That is an admirable goal and seems worth while to make the planning commission aware of as well as to explain the motivation behind the design. DESIGN REVIEW — L09-013 Cover Sheet "Concept Site Plan" 1. When it is ready for BAR, this sheet should be submitted in color. SM H:UA9-013 Cooke Conages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 3 of 11 06/16/2009 Site Survey Sheet 1. Do not include in BAR submittal. If you include it for recording at some point, include the wetland and watercourse buffers. Remove the note arrows pointing to the (absent) eastern wetland that in incorrectly identified in the City inventory. A survey including the 20' to the south will need to be submitted as part of the Short Plat application. Site Plan A1.Ola 1. On the final plans submitted for the Board of Architectural Review hearing (BAR), remove the topographic lines and the civil lines from the site plan to increase readability. The BAR members are not necessarily from the construction community and you want to create plans that are very readable and "sell" your project. (See Blueline's site plan as an example.) 2. Describe the grade change after the driveway excavation. How will the resultant grade change between the driveway and the property to the north be handled? What is the change in elevation from existing to final grade? 3. Add the wetland improvements and plantings into this plan and then separate subsequent sheets into the developed section and the sensitive areas section. 4. At some point, perhaps on this sheet or in your project description (essay), discuss the materials used on the site. Include paving and walking surfaces, the decks, trellises, benches, home siding, colors of paint and roofing colors and materials, etc. 5. This sheet needs to clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, and buffers, including the added 20' to the south. Site Plan A1.01b 1. Describe the decks and trellises that overhang into the driveway area. 2. You show 10' building separation. Explain if the separation is occurring from the foundations, building walls, or outermost limits of structures, including roofs, decks and overhangs. Explain the materials used for the structures (decks, stairs, and trellises) that are in the 10' building separation area. Site Parking Plan, Sheet A1.02 1. Provide a detail of the screening/gate for the trash/recycling areas. 2. Parking shall not be located within 40 feet of a public street, except if the stalls lie parallel to the street and the driveway providing access to those stalls has parking on only one side (TMC 18.120.020 additional program standards). 3. Describe how homeowners will access their units from the garages? Do they exit the garage through the garage door and then walk on the private drive up the paths or is there internal access? Site Property Plan, Sheet A1.03 1. Describe the materials used for the deck, benches, trellises, paths and rockeries. 2. It appears that house #1 encroaches into the front yard setbacks. Porches are allowed to encroach 5' (for a 15' front setback). Explain how the front setback is met (TMC 18.10.060). 3. Lot 6 has some structure encroaching into the side yard setbacks and you have requested a deck to encroach into the setbacks on Lot #5. Provide more details on these proposed setback encroachments—height, materials, purpose, grade changes surrounding them for the City to determine if we can allow them or not. 4. When you submit for building permits, know that eaves and gutters cannot encroach into the yard setbacks more than 18" 5. Describe the materials proposed (combustible or non-combustible and the structures proposed in the 10' building separation areas. 6. Some of the proposed lots bisect the buildings located on them. Lot 1 cuts through the deck or roof of the structure, Lots 3 and 4 bisect a garage, Lots 2, 3, &4 leave off foundation walls, and steps to homes and garage roof overhangs are on shared open space. Floor Plans and Elevations: General Comments 1. Show upon which lots each unit will be built on. Show the variations in elevations and options on the plan set. SM H:\L09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 4 of 11 06/1612009 2. The City of Tukwila uses the International Building Code's definition of height. Show the height using the IBC on the plan set. Show 18' and 25' on the plan and all roof pitches above 18' 3. Show all 4 elevations and any variations for each house. Any external elevation variations need to demonstrate that they meet code on the interior (specifically in regards to floor area). 4. A colors and materials board will need to be provided. Show or list what colors will be used for each house. Unit #4 Floor Plans, Sheet A2.01 1. Provide details so floor area can be verified. Show areas that are exceptions to the floor area. Unit #4, Elevation, Sheet A3.01 1. Demonstrate that building height meets code. Allowed height is 18 feet maximum for all structures, except 25 feet maximum for cottages with a minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts of the roof above 18 feet. Height is calculated per the IBC. East and North Site Elevations, Sheet A3.02 1. The streetscape is an important consideration and designing it well is a condition of approval. It is currently shown with 2 driveways and 2 surface parking stalls. This type of auto -dominated streetscape is not the intent of the cottage ordinance. 2. Include the other homes behind the homes that are drawn. 3. Verify the evergreen trees and deciduous trees shown are generally accurately depicted. 4. This sheet in color will be helpful for the planning commission. Unit #6, Sheet 1 1. This home needs to be less than 1500 square feet. The basement is 783 sq ft, the main level is 800 sq ft and the loft is 200 sq ft. Exceptions to floor area need to be called out and the plan dimensioned so that the floor area can be verified. 2. Demonstrate that building height meets code. Allowed height is 18 feet maximum for all structures, except 25 feet maximum for cottages with a minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts of the roof above 18 feet. Height is calculated per the IBC. This home appears to be too tall for the code. 3. Something projects above the roof line. Explain what it is; if it is a rooftop appurtenance exempt per TM C18.50.080 the just list height but if it is not exempt then ensure it meets code and list height. Civil Plans, Sheet CV -01 1. The legend lists existing conifer and deciduous trees that are not on the plan and the plan shows proposed trees that are not on the legend. 2. This sheet needs to clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, and buffers, including the added 20' to the south. Civil Plans, Sheet RS -01 1. Revise the street cross section along Macadam according to the City's Walk and Roll Plan. The City will provide you with the cross section as soon as it is available (anticipated at the end of June). 2. Add a north and south connection to the trail to eventually link the Southgate and Riverton Parks. See "miscellaneous comments" #10 above. 3. Are the proposed water meters underground or above ground? Landscape General Comments, Additional Review by Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist 431-3663 1. I want to issue the buffer reduction/mitigation decision independent of the developed portion of the project. I see bringing forward to design review the Concept Landscape Plan, and then three subsequent pages, one each for the west and east sections of the property (sheets L0.02 and W-3 drawn in the same style) and a third sheet for the planting details. The western portion of the property will be reviewed for the buffer reduction; for Design Review the eastern portion of the property will go to hearing but the western portion have been approved previously and shown to BAR for the concept but not included in their approval process. SM H:\L.09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments1.doc Page 5 of 11 06/16/2009 2. Discuss if the same landscape contractor will be performing, and responsible, for work across the entire site. 3. Include in plan set: irrigation, tree protection measures, and planting guidelines. Add the "Landscape Notes" to include the following: a. Planting area shall be tilled to a depth of at least 18 inches. b. Till in three inches of compost across all landscaped areas. Mulch is to be kept away from woody stems and crowns of perennial plants. c. Planting pits must be only the depth of the existing root ball or else the bottom of the planting pits must be compacted prior to planting to insure there is no settling. d. Root balls of potted and B&B plants must be loosened and pruned as necessary to ensure there are no encircling roots prior to planting. At least the top half of burlap and any wire straps are to be removed from B&B plants prior to planting. 4. Include a tree replacement table on the landscape plan showing the trees removed. Show the existing trees to be removed. It does not appear that all the existing, mature trees on the site need to be removed. Priority is given to retaining as many existing healthy trees as possible. 5. This sheet needs to clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, and buffers, including the added 20' to the south. 6. Add a north and south connection to the path to eventually link the Southgate and Riverton Parks. See "miscellaneous comments" #10 above. 7. Any excavation proposed in the wetland must be covered under the Corps of Engineers permit. It may also require a permit from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (which accepts the JARPA form and see Public Works comment above). Also, this project must not change the hydrology of any downstream, off-site wetlands. It does not appear that any hydrological studies have been done to determine the effects of the excavation or the height of the proposed weir on downstream hydrology. The wetland biologist should carry out such studies by installing piezometers/shallow groundwater wells. Such a study would need to be carried out over at least a 1 year cycle. 8. Specify the materials to be used for the path through the wetland/watercourse buffer and how it will be constructed and maintained. What is the width of the path? 9. Are you going to have restrictive covenants regarding placing fences between homes? What about pets (dogs specifically?) Concept Landscape Plan L0.01 1. Sign will be permitted according to the sign code in effect at the time a sign application is submitted. The City is in the process of drafting a new sign code and anticipates having the new code adopted prior to you submitting a sign application for this project. Only one sign will be allowed. Add a note to this sheet that the sign is a conceptual design and the final sign will need to meet the codes in effect at the time a permit is applied for. 2. Landscape plan shall include plantings in right-of-way. 3. Provide a note that the concept plan was not reviewed for code compliance but to show the landscape concept across the entire site. 4. Show on the plan the dividing line between the wetland portion of the plan and the development portion of the plan to then show the two sheets of accurate detailed plans. 5. Trash collection is located on the north side of the driveway on this plan sheet and between garages on the other plan sheets. 6. I think I have seen this sheet in color. For the final BAR submittal, provide color copies. Landscape/Lighting Plan L0.02 1. Substitute another plant in place of Prunus luscitanica — it is very invasive and it's proximity to the wetland and stream buffers could be a problem in the future. 2. The dwarf Pampas Grass variety may not be substituted and the landscape contractor must demonstrate that this is the variety supplied — Pumila's seeds are not viable, but any other cultivar is likely to be invasive in the wetland buffer area. 3. Provide more details for the rain garden construction in order to evaluate the suitability of proposed plants. 4. Provide more detail on the dispersion trenches. SM H:VA9-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 6 of 11 06/16/2009 • 5. Provide a note on this sheet that states that "Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height at time of planting. Deciduous trees shall have at least a 2 inch caliper at time of planting, determined according to the American Standard for Nursery Stock. Shrubs shall be at least 18 inches in height at time of planting." 6. Provide quantities, spacing, and sizes for the rain garden plants on the plan. 7. This plan shows a gravel path along the street, the civil plan shows a paved sidewalk. The sidewalk meets code and the planting strip between the street and the sidewalk needs to be shown on the landscape plans and site plans. 8. Verify there is space for water meters and other utilities around the planting plan. 9. The plan has a lot of lawn and very few deciduous trees. Lawn is not an environmentally friendly plant choice. How does it fit in your goals to achieve LEED or BuiltGreen status? We are concerned about fertilizers and herbicides used on lawns not having the chance to filter adequately before reaching the wetland. 10. Deciduous trees provide summer shade and winter solar access; I am surprised by their absence. There is a heavy reliance on columnar evergreen trees acting as hedges (on the north and south sides and between the homes). These hedges will block light and solar access, require regular pruning maintenance, and create isolated pockets of homes rather than the open common space I thought you were envisioning. Increase the use of deciduous trees and decrease the reliance on tall columnar evergreen hedges between homes and at the property line. The site needs to blend with the existing neighborhood rather than create an enclave. 11. Add the "Landscape Notes" to include the following or put on Sheet W-4: a. Planting area shall be tilled to a depth of at least 18 inches. b. Till in three inches of compost across all landscaped areas. Mulch is to be kept away from woody stems and crowns of perennial plants. c. Planting pits are to be backfilled with native soils. Either the entire planting area should be amended with compost or equal or the soil amendments should be placed on the surface around each plant after planting. Studies have shown that survival is reduced if planting pits are backfilled with amended soil. Only when there is insufficient native soil (i.e. too many rocks), should topsoil or compost be used for backfilling. d. Root balls of potted and B&B plants must be loosened and pruned as necessary to ensure there are no encircling roots prior to planting. At least the top half of burlap and any wire straps are to be removed from B&B plants prior to planting. e. Where there are existing tree roots, incorporate soil amendments by hand. BUFFER REDUCTION/MITIGATION--L09-012 Review by Stacy MacGregor, Planner 433-7166 and Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist 431-3663 1. Verify that the buffer reduction area has a slope of less than 15% across its entirety (TMC 18.45.080 G). 2. Mitigation is required in the entire stream buffer for clearing trees without a permit in a sensitive area. Provide one single detailed plan for planting from the eastern edge of the wetland buffer to the western property line. The Wetland Plan states that the area outside the wetland buffer will be planted per the landscape plan. All sensitive area plantings need to be on one plan sheet instead of two. 3. Coordinate between the landscape architect and the wetland biologist. The wetland biologist is responsible for providing the buffer enhancement and reduction mitigation plan per code. 4. The approximate watercourse buffer (100') and wetland buffer (50') and reduced buffer on the east (25') should be shown on the plans, as part of the required mitigation for unauthorized vegetation removal from the watercourse buffer. 5. The Adolfson report calls for a split rail fence along the north property line to prevent ATV's from driving through. Is this an issue here? A fence would need a staggered opening to allow pedestrians to access the recreational path connecting north to south. 6. These sheets needs to clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, and buffers, including the added 20' to the south. Concept Wetland, Buffer Plan, and Weir, Sheet L0.03 1. I think this sheet should probably just be removed and the unique information (such as the excavation details) should be moved to the sheets by Sewell. It is a concept plan but the concept is getting executed in the subsequent sheets and I don't think this sheet's details are as accurate. If you remove this sheet, ignore the following comments (#2-4). SM H:\L09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments( .doc Page 7 of 11 06/16/2009 2. The plants and layout shown on this sheet are not the same as those shown in the Wetland Planting Plan (Sheet W-3). How does this sheet relate to the wetland plans? 3. No genus and species names are provided, so it is difficult to know which plants are being proposed. All plants installed in the wetland or wetland and stream buffers must be native to the Pacific Northwest and genus and species names must be called out. The skunk cabbage (not sure if it is the native species — Lysichiton americanum) generally needs shady conditions and organic soils, and since these conditions don't currently exist, this plant may not be successful. The iris, if it is the yellow iris that grows in wet areas (Iris pseudacorus), is not native to the Pacific Northwest and is very invasive, so it would not be allowed. Other, native irises like Iris tenax or Iris douglasii would be acceptable but they are upland plants. 4. What is to be planted in the meadow? Is it lawn and will it be mowed? Some of the meadow is in the watercourse buffer, where enhancement is being required as mitigation for removing trees and other vegetation without authorization. Putting a significant amount of lawn in the watercourse buffer is not adequate as buffer enhancement, however, some meadow could be approved if it is composed of native grasses and other native plants and not mowed. Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Sheet W-1 1. The enhancement area continues to the western property line. 2. The deck off building 7 appears to encroach into the 10' buffer setback. Wetland Creation Grading Plan, Sheet W-2. 1. Show existing wetland boundaries so they can be compared to the proposed boundaries. 2. The plans by Ken Large (Sheet L0.03) describe the increase in wetland capacity. Is this volume agreed upon by Sewell Wetland Consulting? State the volume increase on this sheet. 3. Detail how the storage created will correspond to the increased volume through enhancement described in the TIR page 4-8. If infiltration is not able to occur (since the geotechnical report says the soils are not suitable) does this proposed volume make sense? Planting Plan, Sheet W-3 1. This sheet could be combined with W-4; there is some redundancy in these comments with the comments for sheet W-4. 2. Include in plan set: irrigation, tree protection measures, and planting guidelines. 3. Add the "Landscape Notes" to include the following or put on Sheet W-4: f. Planting area shall be tilled to a depth of at least 18 inches. g. Till in three inches of compost across all landscaped areas. Mulch is to be kept away from woody stems and crowns of perennial plants. h. Planting pits are to be backfilled with native soils. Either the entire planting area should be amended with compost or equal or the soil amendments should be placed on the surface around each plant after planting. Studies have shown that survival is reduced if planting pits are backfilled with amended soil. Only when there is insufficient native soil (i.e. too many rocks), should topsoil or compost be used for backfilling. i. Root balls of potted and B&B plants must be loosened and pruned as necessary to ensure there are no encircling roots prior to planting. At least the top half of burlap and any wire straps are to be removed from B&B plants prior to planting. j. Where there are existing tree roots, incorporate soil amendments by hand. 4. Existing trees should be shown on the plan. 5. Specify how non-native vegetation will be cleared (no herbicides will be allowed) and whether Reed Canarygrass will be removed from the existing wetland. 6. The wetland sign needs to specifically say to contact the City of Tukwila at 206-431-3670. 7. The Tree Planting Detail doesn't make sense. What does the "18 inch minimum and 6 inch" notes (along the left side of the root ball) refer to? 8. Where will wetland seed mix be planted — the entire wetland or only the created wetland area? It is not clear whether the existing wetland will be enhanced. SM H:'L.09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 8 of 11 06/16/2009 9. Clarify the symbology used and include it in the legend (or remove the map graphic altogether and convey this info on another sheet). 10. Add a note on this sheet or on W-4 that states that "Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height at time of planting. Deciduous trees shall have at least a 2 inch caliper at time of planting, determined according to the American Standard for Nursery Stock. Shrubs shall be at least 18 inches in height at time of planting." Mitigation Concept and Goals, Sheet W-4 1. Provide more details on the environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures and the goal for improving wetland and buffer functions. This should include a description of the site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species, and resource functions (TMC 18.45.090 F2). Is the idea to enhance wildlife habitat, improve water quality, improve hydrology , etc.? Clarify whether the existing wetland will be enhanced along with the buffer. If it is not enhanced, how do you propose to keep Reed Canarygrass out of the new wetland area? How many cubic feet of excavation in the existing wetland and the new wetland are proposed? Include in the discussion that the buffer for Southgate Creek is also being enhanced as mitigation for unauthorized tree clearing within the buffer. 2. Provide performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling the environmental goals and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological, or hydrological criteria (TMC 18.45.090 F3). 3. Detail the monitoring and evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress (TMC 18.45.090F5). Include a contingency plan of actions to take if the project's performance standards are not met (TMC 18.45.090 F6). Regarding Section 5. Monitoring shall be done twice a year, and reported in a once a year monitoring report. Specify who prepares the report. A hydrology performance standard should be included for both the new wetland area and the existing wetland area (given that excavation and a weir are proposed to increase ponding). 4. The Director will require a performance and maintenance security guarantee (bond or cash assignment); the guarantee may be held longer than 5 years if the performance standards have not been met or the mitigation has not been successfully established (TMC 18.45.090F7 and 18.45.210). 5. Sections 1.1 and 2.9. Monitoring will be required for 5 years. 6. Section 2. Include the wetland excavation, construction of bridge and weir in the construction sequencing. 7. Section 2.7 Prior to final planning approval, the contractor, owner, or landscape architect will sign a City of Tukwila Landscape Declaration. 8. Section 3.1.3. End the first sentence at the word "varieties". Site preparation shall include grubbing out of blackberries but the reference to 4.1.3 is for maintenance and involves cutting back and poison which is not acceptable for site preparation. 9. Section 3.2.1. Add a note stating that container grown plants must not be root bound. 10. Section 3.2.5: Add to the note that the City of Tukwila DCD will also need to approve species substitutions or plant sizes. 11. Section 3.3.6. Add a note stating that roots are to be loosened prior to planting. 12. Section 4.1.2. Add under work to be included in each site visit: manual weeding around all installed plants. 13. Section 4.1.3. No herbicides allowed without written permission from the City, and if allowed, must be an herbicide approved for aquatic use (not Roundup). 14. Section 4.2. Maintenance shall be done at least twice a year. 15. Section 4.3. Change wording to state that watering/irrigation is required during dry periods, no matter when they are planted, and must continue for 3 summer seasons. Include an irrigation plan with the plan set. SEPA REVIEW — L09-001 1. No other permits can be issued before the SEPA determination is issued and the appeal period is exhausted. 2. The traffic concurrency test fee needs to be paid before a SEPA determination can be issued. SM H:U09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 9 of 11 06/16/2009 SHORT PLAT—L09-020 1. This application is incomplete; a complete survey is needed and is on hold per the City's request until the general site design is worked out. 2. While not a part of review, staff is concerned about the insurability of the homes with shared garages. For your own marketability, verify that property owners will be able to get insurance and if specific building codes (such as fire separation walls) need to be met for insurance purposes. Verify that your proposal to bisect garages with property lines will be insurable and if occupancy of a garage by someone other than the land owner is insurable. 3. This sheet needs to clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, and buffers, including the added 20' to the south. TREE CLEARING PERMIT –L08-065 1. This is being reviewed and incorporated into L09-012. 2. The mitigation plan provided needs to include the stream buffer and the wetland buffer. 3. The mitigation plan needs to show the trees removed and the tree replacement schedule on a table per TMC 18.54.130 3b as detailed on page 2 of a letter to Todd Smith from the City of Tukwila. 4. Additionally, in the Adolphson Conceptual Mitigation Plan, page 3 states that as compensation for reducing the buffer to 25 feet, "the remaining wetland and stream buffer areas between the development and the wetland and between the wetland and the stream will be enhanced. In addition, the onsite wetland area will be enhanced to compensate for minor impacts from the pedestrian bridge and pathway located in the buffer and wetland areas." Level 1 Downstream Analysis 1. Page 2 states that the area is not located in a Landslide Hazard Area. The City has Class 2 areas mapped on about 50%of the site. Clarify the Blueline report and discuss if there are any resultant changes in the report. 2. Page 3 states that Wetland A is labeled on the Existing Conditions Exhibit (sheet 1.1). It is not. On the Existing Conditions Exhibit, 2 wetlands are shown but one has been determined to not be a wetland. 3. Page 3 states that Sub -basin C is "comprised of undisturbed forest with heavy underbrush" and will "remain undisturbed in the developed condition." Neither of these statements is correct. Page 4 continues with this assertion. Discuss. Geotechnical Engineering Study 1. Page 2 says that the "project soils are mapped as Younger Gravel." On what map are these soils mapped? They are not mapped on the Soil Conservation Service Map for King County. 2. See also the Public Works comment by Ryan Larsen above. OTHER AGENCIES Muckleshoot Tribe Comments Reviewed by Karen Walter, Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, 253-876-3116 Their comments are attached along with the City's response to the Tribe. Water District 125 Install water service lines from water main within Macadam Rd. South to new water meter boxes. Install water meter boxes, water main for new fire hydrant, and new fire hydrant within on-site turn -around. Comply with all Water District 125 & City of Tukwila Fire Department requirements. (Water meter to new Buildings will be part of Building Permit(s). Public Works requires the former to be constructed / installed and inspected prior to recording of Short Plat / Subdivision. Valley View Sewer District Install / construct sanitary manhole(s), sanitary sewer mains, and sanitary side sewers within Macadam Rd. South and on-site. Comply with all Valley View Sewer District requirements. Public Works requires the former to be constructed / installed and inspected prior to recording of Short Plat / Subdivision. SM H:\L09-013 Cooke Cottages\Tech Commentsl.doc Page 10 of 11 06/16/2009 Public Comments During the 14 day comment period, no comments (aside from the Muckleshoot noted above) were received. NEXT STEPS Your next step is to address the comments made in this letter. The comments included in this letter address the plans as submitted. If you would like a meeting with you and your design team to go over the comments please contact me directly to schedule something. Once you have addressed the comments and revised the plans, resubmit four full-sized plan set and one small -sized plan set to the Department of Community Development for review. Please respond within ninety days from the date of this letter (9/14/2009) or the City may cancel your applications from inactivity. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206-433-7166 or by email at smacgregor@ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, (Signature on File) Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner Attachments: Traffic Concurrency Application Impact Fee Zones Comments from the Muckleshoot's Tribe and the City's response cc. File (L09-012, L09-013, E09-001, L08-065) SM Page 11 of 11 06/16/2009 H:UA9-013 Cooke Conages\Tech Comments1.doc March 10, 2011 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Chandler Stever 1715 223`d Place NE Sammamish, WA 98074 TECHNICAL COMMENTS #3 Public Hearing Design Review Jint Haggerton, Mayor Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 Jack Pace, Director Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review Additional Permits Required: L09-020 Short Plat Additional Permits Issued: L09-012 Special Permission Buffer Reduction; L08-065 Tree Clearing Permit Dear Mr.'s Stever and Cooke: The City has completed its review of the above permit applications. The application was submitted on December 29, 2010 and routed to City departments for review. What follows are their comments. Please address their corrections on the submitted plan set or in a written response as applicable. Please direct your questions regarding a specific department's comments to the reviewer who made the comment. Building Department Reviewed by Bob Benedicto, 431-3675 The applicant has been very detailed in his response to the design criteria of the cottage housing development. Consequently, any approval of this proposal by the Board of Architectural Review should not be viewed as acceptance of the various systems as code compliant. The structural, electrical, and energy code compliance will be determined upon review of a building permit submittal. Fire Department Reviewed by Don Tomaso, 575-4407 1. Sprinkler system is required for limited access (noted on sheet RS -01) 2. Fire Flow is required. 3. Addresses will be assigned by the fire department. 4. Fire pit drawing on Sheet A1.03 is missing Fire Pits, IFC Section 307.4.2 which require minimum 25' from combustible construction. Public Works Department Reviewed by Dave McPherson, 431-2448 Design Review — L09-013 No comments. SM HAA Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments3.doc Page 1 of 4 03/10/2011 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Short Plat — L09-020 Owner shall sign with Notary, a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless Agreement. Agreement will be recorded at King County, after Mayor signs the document. Public Works will prepare document for signature. Miscellaneous Comments 1. Transportation Impact Fee applies to the future Building Permit(s). Traffic Concurrency Test fee has been paid. See Pavement Mitigation and Transportation Impact Fees Bulletin no. A3 — previously enclosed. 2. Owner shall sign with Notary a Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement — prior to Public Works permit final. Public Works will prepare document for execution. 3. The Applicant shall design and install Wetland crossing elements to withstand all loading, erosion impacts, hydraulic forces, and to remain water tight and free form changes in alignment or grade. Planning Department Reviewed by Stacy MacGregor, 433-7166 Items outstanding from previous comments: 1. Draft CC&R's addressing previous comments are required as part of the Design Review/Short Subdivision process. Final CC&R's, reviewed by the City Attorney, will be a condition of final subdivision approval. a. In addition to previous comments, include a provision for maintenance of the rain gardens. 2. "Additional Geotechnical Study" was not included. 3. Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. 4. Approval of your cottage project requires Design Northwest Architects as part of the project team and involved during the design and construction of the project site and individual units. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role and verifying that this condition is met. 5. Colors and Materials board needs to be submitted prior to design review. 6. A complete application for short plat is needed at this time, including a site survey sheet. The short plat should include the boundary line adjustment to the north; include the property to the north so that development standards can be met. Wetland Sewer Crossing: If the sewer line crosses the wetland, a new special permission for work within the wetland buffer will be required. Building Separation: The cottage ordinance requires 10' between structures and anything that requires a building permit is a structure. However, planning has flexibility to recommend approval of the decks and stairs that are between structures. The building department has less flexibility. Each house has to have 5' of non-combustible clearance around the outside of any combustible structure or 10' between structures. Verify that this standard is met and revise plans as necessary (see the separation between #3 and #4 as an example) to ensure non-combustible separation is obtained. Also, while the 10' of building separation is met, discuss with the building department if no -build easements may be necessary in places where the property line is less than 5' from the house and design your short plat accordingly. Setbacks: Setbacks only apply to the site as a whole and the cottage ordinance waives side yard setbacks but setbacks must still meet fire and building codes. 1. You are using the zoning code's definition of setback in discussing your eaves/gutters. Since your latest submittal, the zoning code has changed and modified the definition of setback. The new definition may suit you favorably. "Setbacks mean the distances that buildings or uses must be removed from their lot lines except that roof eaves may intrude a maximum of 24 inches into this area. A maximum 24 inch overhang may also be allowed for portions of a building such as a bay window if approved as part of design review approval where the SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments3.doc Page 2 of 4 03/10/2011 overhang provides modulation of the facade." (TMC 18.06.740) This standard would be applied to the 10' building separation provided that the fire and building departments standards are also met. 2. The solar gazebo is located in a side yard setback of the parent lot. No structures (see TMC 18.06.800) including anything that requires a building permit can be located in a setback area of the parent lot. 3. Confirm that the stairs on the north side of building 6 are not in conflict with this standard. Parking: Stalls 19 and 20 do not meet the cottage ordinance but will be recommended for approval in the staff report. House #4 Floor Area: My floor area calculations do not match the floor area stated on the plan. Provide a simple floor plan outline showing the actual floor area calculations and exceptions to floor area (with reasons for the exceptions) for all three levels. Provide a floor plan for the basement/garage level. Height: Final height is not shown on the plans submitted. Height is limited to 25 feet provided that any height over 18' has a roof pitch of at least 6:12. Height is calculated according to the IRC definitions which state: "Height, building": The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. And "Grade Plane": A reference plane representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or where the lot line is more than 6ft from the building between the structure and a point 6 ft from the building. Show 18' and 25' on the each elevation and state roof pitch over 18'; include grade plane needed to calculate final height according to the IRC definitions listed. Floor plans and elevations for all 9 homes need to be submitted and need to include the above standards regarding floor area and height. Elevations shall also include colors of walls/trim/roof and details of other materials that are reflected on the required colors and materials board. .. Landscaping: For design review, the landscaping plan will be reviewed conceptually. Landscaping done for each individual home (building permit) will be submitted and reviewed as part of each individual home permit. Landscaping performed as part of the infrastructure permit (Public Works permit for fmal short plat) will be reviewed for specifics at that time (there may be little to no landscaping for the infrastructure permit). Storm water will need to be managed in advance of home construction but home construction may damage/disturb the rain garden systems. Please provide phasing details of landscaping and rain garden installation as it relates to infrastructure and home construction. Remove the wetland landscaping sheet from the design review plan set. Add the following planting notes to one of the landscaping sheets: Plant selection requirements: 1. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock and shall be healthy, vigorous and well - formed, with well-developed, fibrous root systems, free from dead branches or roots. Plants shall be free from damage caused by temperature extremes, lack of or excess moisture, insects, disease, and mechanical injury. Plants in leaf shall be well foliated and of good color. Plants shall be habituated to outdoor environmental conditions (hardened -off). 2. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height at the time of planting. 3. Deciduous trees shall have at least 1 2" caliper at time of planting, determined according to the American Standard for Nursery Stock. 4. Shrubs shall be at least 18"at height at time of planting. 5. Irrigation: All landscape areas shall be served by an automatic irrigation system. Water conservation features such as moisture sensors with automatic rain shut-off devices, automatic timers, pressure regulating devices, backflow prevention devices, separate irrigation zones for grass and planting beds, and sprinkler heads matched to site and plant conditions shall be installed. Irrigation water shall be applied with goals of avoiding runoff and overspray onto adjacent property, no -irrigated areas and impervious surfaces. SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments3.doc Page 3 of 4 03/10/2011 Planting Notes: 1. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival and shall include incorporation and tilling in of organic material to a depth of 18 inches and mulching. (Tilling and mulching can be done in layers or by hand if you are unable to secure a tiller that will go to 18" depth. This is a code requirement and many root balls of balled and burlapped trees and large pots or at least 18" in depth.) 2. Dig a hole that is the same depth as the size of the root ball and 2 times wider than the size of the root ball. Planting pits must be only the depth of the existing root ball or else the bottom of the planting pits must be compacted prior to planting to insure there is no settling. If planting on a slope, dig a shelf that is two to three times the size of the plant root ball. 3. Root balls of potted and balled and burlapped (B&B) plants must be loosened and pruned as necessary to ensure there are no encircling roots prior to planting. At least the top half of burlap and any wire straps are to be removed from B&B plants prior to planting. The plant should be completely vertical. The top of the root flare, where the roots and the trunk begins, should be about one inch from the surrounding soil. 4. Fill the hole with the original soil, watering to remove air pockets. If planting on a slope, create a soil berm at the front of the plant. Water the tree or shrub again after the transplant is complete. 5. Spread 4 inches of arborist chip mulch over the entire planting area. The mulch should not touch the plant trunk or the tree root flare. Maintain at least a three inch mulch -free ring around the base of the plant trunks, woody stems and crowns of perennial plants. Rain Garden Planting Plan Sheet 1. Number or label this sheet. 2. Create a table on this sheet that lists the rain garden zone, the plant species, the quantity and the plant spacing. 3. Hazelnut should be in zone 3 not in zone 2. It needs dryer conditions. You could substitute Indian Plan in or Elderberry in zone 2 NEXT STEPS Your next step is to address the comments made in this letter. The comments included in this letter address the plans as submitted. Once you have addressed the comments and revised the plans, resubmit four full-sized plan sets and one small -sized plan set to the Department of Community Development for review. Please respond within ninety days from the date of this letter (6/08/2010) or the City may cancel your applications from inactivity. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206-433-7166 or by email at smacgregor@ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, PRGgo..s<of— Stacy MacGregor U Assistant Planner Attachments: Sample Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement cc. File (L09-013) SM HAA Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments3.doc Page 4 of 4 03/10/2011 September 6, 2011 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Chandler Stever 1715 223`d Place NE Sammamish, WA 98074 TECHNICAL COMMENTS #4 Public Hearing Design Review Jim Haggerton, Mayor Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 Jack Pace, Director Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review Additional Permits Required: L09-020 Short Plat Additional Permits Issued: L09-012 Special Permission Buffer Reduction; L08-065 Tree Clearing Permit Dear Mr.'s Stever and Smith: The City has completed its review of the above permit applications. The application was submitted on July 11, 2011 and routed to City departments for review. What follows are their comments. Please address their corrections on the submitted plan set or in a written response as applicable. Please direct your questions regarding a specific department's comments to the reviewer who made the comment. At the last iteration (Technical Comments #3), you were asked to complete your short plat application. We have delayed this request to allow you to work through siting issues and minimize re -doing survey work. A complete short plat application is needed to continue review of your project and bring it forward for public hearing. Because a complete short plan application has not been available to review and due to complexity of the project and the piecemeal review of the various permits, a final decision has not been issued within 120 days per TMC 18.104.130. Building Department Reviewed by Bob Benedicto, 431-3675 1. Building code requirements for dwellings shall be based upon the code edition in effect at the time of permit application (for each dwelling). This includes codes related to plumbing, mechanical, fuel, gas, and electrical installation. 2. All interior and exterior stairs are required to be provided with artificial illumination. This would apply to stairs located in those areas designed as "common areas" and providing access to or from a dwelling. Fire Department Reviewed by Don Tomaso, 575-4407 1. Fire comments remain (they are informational items). By ordinance, all structures shall have a fire sprinkler system installed. Remove references to fire pits from the plans. Public Works Department Reviewed by Dave McPherson, 431-2448 Design Review —1_09-013 No comments. Planning Department Reviewed by Stacy MacGregor, 433-7166 Items outstanding from previous comments: SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments4.doc Page 1 of 4 09/06/2011 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. Draft CC&R's are under review. 2. Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. 3. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role in this project 4. Colors and Materials board needs to be submitted prior to design review. We met and discussed what this can look like on August 24, 2011. It appears that three homes are in CAD (#7-9). It would be helpful to have these three shown in your proposed color schemes as an example. 5. A complete application for short plat is needed at this time, including a site survey. The short plat should include the boundary line adjustment to the north; include the property to the north so that development standards can be met. 6. Landscaping: No changes provided for this round of comments. See comments in Technical Comment Letter #3. Site design: Setbacks: The required front yard setback is 20'; porches/decks are allowed at a 15' setback. It appears that the garage of building #2 encroaches into the front yard setback. The rear yard setback is 10' from the wetland buffer. Sheet A1.01 shows encroachment of houses 6 and 7 in the rear setback area. Cantilevered bump -outs in this setback are acceptable but foundations are not; explain or revise to meet code. Lot Area: With the changed lot area, let me know the new lot area, the area of access road, and the area of building coverage so I can verify that the cottage standards are met. A1.05 Solar Gazebo is not approved and should be removed from the plans. Home Design: The significant outstanding issues are the roof pitch and the floor area. The roof pitch needs additional information to determine if it meets code or not. The floor area calculations do not meet code and the homes are overwhelmingly too Targe. Roof Pitch/Height: Cottage code requires roof pitch of 5:12+ for heights under 18' and 6:12+ for all parts of the roof above 18'. Height is capped at 25' according to IRC definition (provided previously and stated as the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface.—this is typically the midpoint of the roof) The roof pitch needs to meet code with only very minor exceptions (such as a window bump -out with a lower roof pitch). "Grade Plane": A reference plane representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or where the lot line is more than 6ft from the building between the structure and a point 6 ft. from the building. Show the 18' roof height; show the highest roof height; label all roof pitches on each surface. Any exceptions to height and pitch need to be noted and explained before they will be approved. Otherwise, they will not be allowed. Show the grade plane on all elevations. Floor Area: SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments4.doc Page 2 of 4 09/06/2011 The City will consider the garages as detached and not subject to the floor area limitations. Even with the garages removed, the floor area is too large. Our code defines floor area and the cottage ordinance allows for some additional allowances. TMC 18.06.325 Floor Area "Floor area" means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the floors of a building or buildings, measured from the exterior walls and from the centerline of divisions walls. Floor area includes basement space, elevator shafts and stairwells at each floor, mechanical equipment rooms or attic spaces with headroom of 7 feet 6 inches or more, penthouse floors, interior balconies and mezzanines, enclosed porches, and malls. Floor area shall not include accessory water tanks and cooling towers, mechanical equipment or attic spaces with headroom of less than 7 feet 6 inches, exterior steps or stairs, terraces, breezeways and open spaces. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Floor Area exceptions in the cottage ordinance: Spaces with a ceiling height of 6 feet or less measured to the exterior walls, such as in a second floor area under the slope of the roof. Unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage. Architectural projections, such as bay windows, fireplaces or utility closets not greater than 18 inches in depth and 6 feet in width. Detached garages and carports. Porches and Decks with or without attached roofs. Revise the table and plans with the following: Perimeter walls are not to be excluded from floor area. Closet spaces are not to be excluded from floor area unless the real (not false) ceiling height is 6' of less. Explain if this is the case. Stairwells are not to be excluded from floor area. Fireplaces not are not to be excluded from floor area unless they are an architectural projection greater than 18" in depth and 6' in width. None of your fireplaces qualify for this exception. From my calculations, the proposed homes have the following floor areas: House # Total Floor area (includes perimeter walls) Floor Area (less exceptions) Exceptions 1 2892 2004 888sf of Unheated basement space, garage 2 2828 1954 874sf of Unheated basement space, garage 3 2313 1443 807sf of Unheated basement space, garage 4 2789 1885 904sf of Unheated basement space, garage 5 3107 can't be determined Unheated basement space, garage don't' match calculations indicated. Exceptions to floor area need to be clearly shown and explained. 6 2375 2130 245sf unheated/unfinished basement space (estimated area) 7 2195 1979 216sf unheated basement space 8 1750 1750 No exceptions 9 2204 1894 310sf unheated space Explain the "Unheated basement space". I do not want to approve space that can be improved and heated after homes are constructed. The space needs to be maintained as unheated and unlivable to meet the intent of code (increased density allowed but house size is constrained). Label the areas that qualify as exceptions to floor area with their square footage that is considered an exception. With all of the angles and the calculations not including perimeter walls, the area is difficult to verify. NEXT STEPS Your next step is to address the comments made in this letter. The comments included in this letter address the plans as submitted. Once you have addressed the comments and revised the plans, resubmit four full-sized plan sets and one SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments4.doc Page 3 of 4 09/06/2011 small -sized plan set to the Department of Community Development for review. Please respond within ninety days from the date of this letter (12/05/2011) or the City may cancel your applications from inactivity. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206-433-7166 or by email at Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov. Sincerely, Stacy Mac gor Assistant Planner cc. File (L09-013) SM HAA Cooke Cottages\Tech Comments4.doc Page 4 of 4 09/06/2011 1AUG 0 3 2012 COMMUNI j} Design Plan Comments: Please address all technical comment to Todd Smith, CEO. DEVELopy f Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role in this project To accomplish infrastructure improvement and wetland mitigation sequencing of the development will be two fold. I have talked with numerous funding agencies to discover that to get this project off the ground recordable lots if not required but is recommended. The Wetland improvements preferable should be done during the period units #6 & 7 are excavated and built to reduce the impact on the wetland later in the project. Thus to build Units #6 & 7 the lending agency would want the underlying lots recorded. This would allow me to submit Construction Drawings, while the wetland is modified. Thus we would request that because Units #6 & 7 are not encumbered the City would allow me to record these two Tots prior to completing short plat. We have received from King Conservation District (KCD) a grant to supplement the work to enhance the area from the wetland buffer to the creek for 2012. We have received from USACE #29 permit to do Wetland Enhancement for 2012. Stage One: 1. Record lots #6 & 7. 2. Commence wetland improvements and obtain approved Construction Drawings for unit #6 & 7. 3. To repair/mitigate the wetland area and build units #6 & 7. The bulk of our grading activities take place. We are able to place silt barrier below #6 & 7 during construction phase then move it East of these unit when completed. Protecting the wetland as the project is under construction. 4. Finish wetland and install preliminary rain garden. 5. Install the French drain along S boundary as described in Civil Plan while the overflow drains to wetland. 6. Units #6 & 7 are furthest from the street which allows us to install necessary infrastructure required for short plat and required by construction loan. As utilities are installed to unit #6 & 7 utility stubs would be capped to the other lots. a. We place a fire hydrant on East side of Macadam bring the water main across, stub all the houses and place water meters for units #6 & 7; b. Connect sewers to the existing stubs along Macadam, approved by Valley View; c. Work with City Light to install community service panel and run conduit from panel to individual lots, and service to #6 & 7. d. Work with Puget Power to provide gas lines and meters to individual lots; 7. Install Private Road to access foremost units #6 & 7. Utilities which are designed under driveway would be completed. 8. I would request a variance to Short Plat requirement allowing the sidewalk subsurface material be installed while postponing hard surfacing to improve access to units #1 & 2 during construction of Second Phase and prevent construction damage to sidewalk. We will excavate this area during 1st Phase to provide concept contours for utilities, rain garden, landscaping and signage. 9. Lots #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 and the promenade will be graded accordingly to meet Short Plat requirements. 10. This will get us a completed short plat and recordable Tots except for the requested variance for finished sidewalk, which will be installed during 2nd Phase. Second Phase: 1. Units #6 & 7 are complete along with short plat. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 are recorded, while Construction Drawing for units #8, 9, 4, 5, 3, 2, & 1 are submitted and approved. Construction begins to complete project, order of foundations units #8, 9, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1; Buildings #8,9, 1,2, 5, 4 & 3; The promenade and access stairs next to #1, 2 & 4 will be completed when it is most feasible. 2. Sidewalk completed after foundations #1 & 2 are completed, back filled and during process installing front rain garden, landscaping and parking space #19. Connecting rain garden to storm water sewer. 3. Complete rain garden flowing west through promenade and landscape promenade. Silt barriers will be positioned accordingly to protect wetland and limit offsite impacts. 4. Complete Landscaping for lots and promenade. Technical comment Basement Area Concern: Basement areas do comply with the Option Housing Ordinance, "Excluded area is unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage." These houses have limited storage space. The garages are required to be used for vehicles with limited storage space. I believe what you are requesting is beyond the scope of the Ordinance. Unit Detail comment: It is important to note that my previous submittal included siding details as to the look and feel of the buildings. The new CAD files for unit # 1-9 are without these details included since they were described on my previous submittal. These drawing address Floor Plan size criteria describing excluded areas and Elevation details that manage 6/12 roof slope above 18'. Changes were made to limited the size of the units and maintain the 1500SF criteria without compromising the submitted Site Plan. Architectural consultant comment: Design NW role to the project will be as I have stated to review plans as necessary and provide architectural consultation as needed. DNW has a retainer on file and we consult on the project within the terms of the Ordinance. Because Chandler Stever's drawings were hand drawn I contracted with Landon Beyler P.E. to get the drawings in CAD to address the technical concerns of roof pitch and size criteria. Having a signed form I believe is beyond the scope of the Ordinance. Preliminary Short Plat comment: I have contracted with Schroeter Survey to provide preliminary short plat details. They will provide the data as soon as possible. Landscaping comments from Technical Comments #3: This is complete and I responded to this comment with last submittal which I believe was accepted. There is little if any Landscaping during Short Plat while lot landscaping design will be provided during construction drawing phase. We will provide final landscape design after Design Review is approved and during final Short Plat approval. This is the appropriate time to address final landscape design. We need approval of the overall landscape design during Design Review not the specifics. Submitted by Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development August 21, 2012 Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 Jim Haggerton, Mayor NOTICE OF PENDING CANCELLATION Jack Pace, Director Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review, L09-020 Short Plat Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to notify you that resubmittal submitted August 3, 2012 for the above referenced applications, is an inadequate response to my request for additional information dated September 6, 2011. Application for this project was originally submitted to the City on March 31, 2009. Review commenced in stages and approvals were granted for the Tree Removal, Buffer Reduction and SEPA DNS. On September 6, 2011, you received Technical Comment Letter #4. You were asked to address a number of deficiencies in your application, including, but not limited to: 1. Explaining the role of Designs Northwest involvement in the home design; 2. Submit a revised landscape plans addressing the outstanding comments from Technical Comment letter #3 dated 3-10-2011; and 3. Submit a complete short plat application and site survey. According to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.130 "(i)f the department, agency or hearing body determines that the action by the applicant is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies... If the applicant fails to provide a requested correction or additional information within 90 days of the request, the Department may cancel the application due to inactivity." One year later, on August 3`d, 2012, you submitted floor plans and elevations for the nine homes. However, the above deficiencies in your application were not adequately addressed and the drawings your submitted created new deficiencies by not including the level of detail in materials and finishes that previous iterations included. You stated in your August 3`d resubmittal: "Design NW role to the project will be as I have stated to review plans as necessary and provide architectural consultations as needed. DNW has a retainer on file and we consult on the project within the terms of the Ordinance...." SM Page 1 oft 08/21/2012 HAA Cooke Cottages\20120821 pending cancellation.doc �( 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Your Notice of Decision for Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program, dated April 4, 2008, lists as condition #3: "This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and individual units." Designs Northwest Architects have not been involved in the design of the individual units therefore this condition has not been met and it would be futile to review the plans that you submitted without this condition being met. Further, in the letter included with your August 3, 2012 resubmittal, you explain that the design details were omitted because they were included in previous iterations. All the design details to be reviewed and forwarded to the Board of Architectural Review need to be included. The BAR will not have previous iterations of the designs to consider in making their recommendations. While you have made comments regarding the landscape plans, you have not submitted plans illustrating that the comments have been incorporated into the plans. Without actual plans to review, including conceptual plans, staff cannot comment or recommend that the landscape plans be forwarded to the Board of Architectural review for approval. Finally, a complete short plat application including site survey was not submitted with the house plans. The property lines have changed since the project was initially submitted and the individual lots and legal descriptions have never been reviewed. Review cannot begin without a complete short plat application. Because it has been nearly a year since you were asked to provide additional information and the additional information provided remains substantially insufficient, this project will be cancelled if a complete response is not received within 90 days (November 19, 2012) per TMC 18.104.130. If you would like to discuss other development options for your property or if you have any further questions, you can contact me at 206-433-7166. Please be aware that, independent of this project's status, you are required to complete your wetland mitigation plan that the city approved and required due to unauthorized tree clearing. Sincerely, Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner SM Page 2 of 08/2I/2012 HAA Cooke Cottages\20120821 pending cancellation.doc Stacy MacGregor From: T Smith <TSmith@cottagesnw.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:58 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: CCM Design review On September 6, 2011, you reci address a number of deficiencie 1. Explaining the role of De 2. Submit a revised landsca Technical Comment tette 3. Submit a complete short 1. `%I am confused, I did explain Designs Northwest role. I am not required by the ordinance to get a note of permission. We may have a conflict of interest using Design NW because a relative of the company works for Tukwila. Secondly I have tried to use DNW in a more substantive role to no avail. The Landscape design was poor, their house design were garbage and unacceptable, and thirdly their contractual performance has been lacking. Saying this 1 still use them for feedback, consulting and advice on this project. I believe this rule is untenable' and doesn't work. Why should the City force the ,.;,activities of a consultant on the stakeholder? 2. I did address the landscape plan in my earlier submittal your response to my technical comments #4 was no response. You didn't have any comment about Landscape. Thus I believed you accepted my response until your recent letter to the contrary. This was the first time I was aware of the problem. I believe your concern is the rain garden design which was not required but submitted as a courtesy. Please remove that drawing from my submittal as I suggested. We will be doing a comprehensive rain garden after Design Review is approved. We still need to go through final short plat and everyone thought this was the appropriate time for a final landscape plan. As I stated I don't understand the need or desire for an extensive rain garden design that will change during construction. 3. I just signed the contract to do the survey for short plat application. If Tukwila plans to shut this project down let me know before 1 indenture myself. I will call you tomorrow to gain clarity. Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. 1 PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsm ith Pcottages nw.com (253)691-8191 From: Stacy MacGregor(mailto:Stacv.MacGregor(aTukwilaWA.govl Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:05 PM To: Todd Smith Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Todd, Please review and address the attached letter. Please contact me with any questions. Regards, Stacy Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd I Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30-3 ph: (206) 433-7166 I fx: (206) 431-3665 Please note my new email address and the City's new websites stacy.macgregor@TukwilaWA.gov I www.TukwilaWA.gov Stacy MacGregor From: T Smith <TSmith@cottagesnw.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:48 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: extension Our meeting seams fruitful. I am presently discussing finish detail tasks with DNW's Dan Nelson. However, I spent this past week dealing with suspected stroke culminating with an extended stay at ST. Joseph Hospital. Thus I would appreciate 60-90 day extension to complete requested document. From experience the data I review from DNW will take several back and forth collaboration to get good documents. Good documents is what the City was requesting by using DNW. 1 have title insurance document, and completed Landscape designs criteria request in technical comments. Final Short Plat boundary descriptions from Schroeter survey should be available next week. Thank you Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 1 November 16, 2012 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director THREE WEEK EXTENSION OF PENDING CANCELLATION Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review, L09-020 Short Plat Dear Mr. Smith: On August 21, 2012 you were notified that your pending applications for Cooke Cottages would be cancelled if a complete response addressing the previously requested corrections and additional information is not received by November 19, 2012 per TMC 18.104.130. That letter included a summary of the details that are still outstanding. A significant outstanding issue is a condition of acceptance into the housing options program requires that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and individual units. On October 30th, 2012, you indicated you were working with Designs Northwest and requested a 60-90 day extension in order to have quality documents for resubmittal. This letter is to grant a three week extension, until December 7, 2012. In order to consider an extension beyond December 7th, 2012, please set up a meeting between now and December 7th with me and Designs Northwest to go over the outstanding issues and ensure all parties have the same expectations. I am in the office Tuesday -Thursday from 8:30-3pm to meet with you and Designs NW. Sincerely, Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner cc: Rachel Turpin, assistant City Attorney File L09-013 SM H:\A Cooke Cottages\20121116 pending cancellation2.doc Page 1 of 1 11/16:2012 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax.• 206-431-3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Sent via email, no hard copy to follow. December 6, 2012 Todd Smith PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 TSmith@cottaoesnw.com Jim Haggerton, Mayor EXTENSION OF PENDING CANCELLATION Dan Nelson, AIA Designs Northwest Architects 10031 SR 532 Suite B Stanwood, WA 98292 dan©designsnw.com Subject: Cooke Cottages: L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review, L09-020 Short Plat Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Nelson: Jack Pace, Director This letter is to summarize our conversation on December 6th, 2012 and restate the Department's expectations in order to grant an extension on your project. The previous submittal was deemed insufficient; the department will grant an extension until February 14th, 2012 to allow you time to address the insufficiencies. Resubmittal by February 14th shall include: 1. A complete resubmittal of the entire project as if it is a first submittal. Referencing previous submittals (for example, landscape plans) is not sufficient. 2. A complete resubmittal shall include: elevations and floor plans for each of the nine homes, landscape plan, site plan, and a colors and materials board. 3. A complete short plat application, including site survey, is needed. Also, Designs Northwest will be approving and designing/redesigning each floor plan and elevation with the intent that each floor plan, elevation, and square footage meets code and can be supported by all parties involved. Dan Nelson of Designs Northwest will serve as the primary point of contact for questions regarding this project. If the requested information is not provided in its entirety by February 14th, the Department may cancel your application due to inactivity. Resubmittal shall include one small set of plans (maximum 11x14") and four Targe sets of plans (24x36" maximum). Sincerely, Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner SM HAA Cooke Cottages120121116 pending cancellation3.doc Page 1 of 1 12/06/2012 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Stacy MacGregor From: T Smith <TSmith@cottagesnw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:18 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Technical comments #4 Yes it has, I recently saw DNW design drawings for unit #6. They suck he, furthermore they didn't even comply with HOO criteria. Thus I sent letter relieving Dan Nelson of his duties. The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. I am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO. This will be submitted with my latest submittal. As the applicant, to make my submittal 99% complete I would appreciate responses to my questions. These question relate directly with your technical comments and require answers to complete my submittal. Thank you, Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 From: Stacy MacGregor jmailto:Stacy.MacGrecIor@TukwilaWA.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:38 AM To: 'T Smith' Subject: RE: Technical comments #4 Todd, The question of your project architect has not been settled. Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner 1 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd ( Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30-3 ph: (206) 433-7166 1 fx: (206) 431-3665 stacy.macgregor@TukwilaWA.gov I www.TukwilaWA.gov From: T Smith jmailto:TSmithCa�cottagesnw.comj Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:20 PM 1 To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: Technical comments #4 Referring to Site design: east setback. We agreed that the garage could move within the setback 5', if the area contained not living space. It contains a garage while above is a deck, no living space. Your comment challenges this agreement. Technical comment #3 did not refer to this setback controversy, while it existed for this submittal. The NE corner of the garage was moved 5' east on your direction to provide more space and a degree of fire safety between units #2, 3 & 4. I am astounded that this was even brought up for the fact that Sundial's plan excluded a 20' front setback. I need more direction on the West setback. We indicate a 10' buffer the housing foundation is set at this point. Thus the foundation does not encroach on the buffer. The Bay window overhangs the buffer and so does the deck. The Bay has no support and deck has not foundation or support post within the buffer. I believe I understand the confusion. The footprint describes lines within the buffer. Those lines describe the Bay windows and decks. When you reference the West and North elevations you see that there are no foundations within the buffer. How would you prefer it described on the site plan to avoid confusion. Is it sufficient to note: See West and North elevations? Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 2 RECEIVED FEB 14 2013 iii•it,l'MI:.N[ Project Design Team: Christopher F. Peragine Architect Fatah Boualamallah Architect Principal Architect: Christopher F. Peragine 206.281.8931 616 W Emerson St., Seattle , WA 98104 peragine@peraginedesign.com Profile: Christopher Peragine is an award-winning Seattle Architect and Urban Designer known for his exceptional work focused on custom residential design and neighborhood development. Mr. Peragine was a design partner for 12 years at Kasprisin, Pettinari, and Peragine, a Northwest urban design and architecture firm. He has specialized in a freehand graphic methodology for both Architecture and Master Planning that fosters Client and Public collaboration. It generates a lively series of quick and responsive design investigations which lead to the uncovering of the full potential of land use, siting, spatial sequences, and construction assemblies Education 1977-Tulane University — BA in English 1978-Tulane University — BA in Architecture 1986 -University of Washington — Master of Architecture Publications 1993 Design and the Environment — 2020 Vision — Washington Council AIA — urban design component and illustrations 1989 Pedestrian Pocket Book — Afterword - a post-charette reconsideration Metropolis (winter) — What if the birds eat all our trailing breadcrumbs, and we're left face-to-face with the gingerbread house? 1982 Express — White River Park in Indianapolis — Egads!... 1977 Tulane Architectural View — editor Awards: 2010 American Planning Association — Percival Landing Concept Plan '10 Best Places -2010' 1985 National Science Foundation — research assistant for the study of the seismic response of un -reinforced buildings in earthquake zones. 1978 John Lawrence Award for Design 1977 Tau Sigma Delta — Architectural Honor Society Teaching: 1987 — 2001 Lecturer — University of Washington — Multi -Family Housing Design Studios College of Architecture and Urban Planning — Seattle, WA 2000 — One-week workshop: "Sites of Learning: Building Community for City of Tukwila" Cottages & Housing Development Project Examples: • Langley CoHousing: 18 Cottages development, Whidbey Island, WA • Whidbey Island Cabins: 3 Cottages, in collaboration with Kasprisin, Whidbey Island, WA • Decatur Island Cottages: 2 Cottages housing development, Private Island, San Juan, WA • West Emerson Quartet — Seattle (WA): Developer and Architect of 4 three-story townhouses, total of 7500 s.f., overlooking Ship Canal. • Straw -Bale House — Cle Elum (WA): Architect —1200 sf two-story farmhouse . • Ballard Apartments — Lead Architect for 9 units on narrow urban infill lot in Seattle. O 2x12x12 • housing prototype for re -building New Orleans: design proposal and public presentations for the "new shotgun house" for "Reconcile New Orleans, LLC" • Meric Residence — design for 2,700sf single-family house ■ Monson Residence — Seattle (WA): Architect • two-story addition over Shilshole Bay • Cook Residence — Ocean Shores (WA): Architect — two-story house • DeWald Residence — Lake Sammamish (WA): design of waterfront house • Brunton Residence — Seattle (WA): new 2500 sf house • Romano Residence — St. Croix (USVIO:) new 3000 sf house ****Further and complete list of Apartment buildings, Townhouse, and Private Residences can be provided upon request.**** Project Architect: Fatah Boualamallah 425-268-3883 5333 150 PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 fbarchitects@frontier.com Profile: Multi -dimensional architect skilled in exceptional design with a broad range of work including; master planning, single and multi family residential, mixed-use, institutional, and commercial projects. Has a Master of Science in Rural Town and Regional Planning from the University of Montana. He is experienced in interpreting and working with zoning ordinances, and mitigating and resolving complex code and land use issues. He is certified with the National Council of Architectural Registration Board, and he is currently a Licensed Architect in the states of MT, WA, OR, and ID. Education SSCC, Level 1, Energy Auditing, certificate, 2012 Master of Science- 1997 Rural Town & Regional Planning University of Montana, Missoula, MT Advanced Post Graduate Studies in Industrial Design & Wood Construction Architecture School of Tolbiac, Paris, France -1990 US BS Equivalent in Architecture, UMMTO, Algeria,/ US College exams by National Architectural Accreditation Boards (NAAB) 2001 Professional Experience Licensed Architect in WA, MT, ID, OR Member of the National Council of Architectural Registration Board Member of the American Institute of Architects Fatah Boualamallah Architect, Seattle/Edmonds, WA: 2004 -Current BEDIC, Redmond & Everett, WA: Consultant Lead Architect, 2006-2010 Callison, Seattle WA: Project architect, 2005-2006 ITT institute, Bothell, and Everett,WA: Drafting & Design Instructor, 2004-2008 Calvin Jordan Associate, Bellevue, WA: Job Captain/Architect, 2004-2005 Sclater Partners, Seattle, WA: Architect 11, 2003 Ruhl Parr Associates, Bellevue, WA: Architectural Designer, 2003 L'Heureux Page Werner, PC, Missoula, MT: Project Architect/AIT, 1999-2002 Facilities Services, The UM, Missoula, MT: Architect I, 1997-1999 Below is list of some of my most recent projects in the last 5 nears: • Boun Phanny Short Plat, 8 Lots Development Renton, WA: Cost: $4 Millions • Redmond 12 units condominium Redmond, WA: Cost: $5.6 Millions • Dominion 9 Units townhouses Redmond, WA: Cost: 3.6 Millions ■ Over 10 new houses and additions projects ranging from 1000 sqft to 6000 sqft. ****Additional list of Private Residences, and Multifamily buildings projects can be provided upon request.**** Decatur Island Cottages Peragine Design Group designed and inspected the construction of these two houses successively in 1996 and 1998 for Decatur Northwest, a private housing community on Decatur Island in the San Juan chain. Traditional vernacular for these two buildings was required by Design Review of the community since their sites are adjacent to important historical buildings of the island. One cottage is designed to command the meadow, the other to be flanking in the trees — both are now prominent markers of Sylvan Cove Landing. Work by Christopher Peragine Architect Whidbey Island Cabins Three cottages — spare, modular cabins artfully positioned and responsive to their particular locations in a rural setting were recently completed by my colleague Ron Kasprisin with whom I have collaborated on urban design and architectural design for over 20 years. Work by Christopher Peragine Architect Langley CoHousing Peragine Design Group provided programming, planning, and design plans for 18 cottages of 12'x12'x12' construction modules clustered and oriented to preserve a heavily wooded site on Whidbey Island. Work by Christopher Peragine Architect A • West Emerson Quartet, Seattle • Architect & Developer: Christopher Peragine • Built 2001 • Construction cost: $1.2 Million Work by Christopher Peragine Architect - • • ...A !LA.]. at.4•4•4 d . 47-4.?0.• :„Aw_ 4-4 fiassedsft- m ." !N.... - • • ?Pr, - • • • . -';'•411te I •••••••-- Perdyll Plaza "{-.,1-•••• - Final Concept Plan Percival lading tolb<;33. • 1. rt Odd EA: 111 r.) fL. I. 7c ,.7) ...at., 72- WI Ida • e; IJOISey 0 Nitwit ha kt1 . too, ; • • • 6,1* .4 • : ji4.17 -.7 • d• 4' • • pa . . _ ' • !. 1! SMISAILIS-16:— City Dock Work by Christopher Peragine Architect 4 1NO INEA01 1/4. NORTHWEST 1/A Of SECT ON ID, TONVSHP )1 NORTH. RAMC( 5 EAST. %'Y., [INC COUNTY. ITASH:VGION STE AIA1[4JM M OMS SHUT imm 00 0 7 •••11, • e1 -`I MALI DOWERING LW. Oh JOIN TMANNY SNORT PLAT B.P Short Plat, Renton, WA, 8 Lots. Currently, Plat & Construction permit approved In April 2012 Work by Fatah Boualamallah Architect rnt A10.1 •COt to on* . (2 la ATIWO7 LONA .0*, (Kr AT MO YU•R a tute Wn•c•2 :3.11H �'1i F't•'1++ Il u lira Is aa►• �inA i1 4111:111Rf.1RDOW.% P 1JaNGR Af DDYV too lnt tom. t<5av-v N 44770 tOM RV •4ttf4t A /R K 70070 Y Will 9 7G Are goo tr. t0•A4 *float CJtWO J' r4a.0.4n0 14'041 45•{ iat3ul 117S4 J Missoula Housing Authority, 42 units built Project design complete while with LPW, in 2001 North Carlton Town, Montana, under development, project design completed while with LPW, in 2001 Work by Fatah Bouatamallah Architect tilie.- c \,11-'f1 F 'p nYww LI rfL .i ••j 't t^c�reyn ^`g'`Y I((�f 1� 7TEj fi it ��'i Baa `}�a►wt' � g.' ,,,,,.:?0-,-,:40'111:::44114' or !114-1 u► : 1'j:::'<=1"..-1 e.{.j�. v+R pa.'c [1.41"..1'1ape::��fP 1"ha2 CO•ft�..i f�• �. 1{'-E,....-4.A,, �,O 1:7.14.7::' YR �i ��� O 1l i Q tl Ii M�In.� a:�n TMa= Sr :� ----41„ :. ac �i �. •1/01" euaaYvs ..s r7� a „ a uK 7 O4; w..1u.tR ao } �� , •;.�a. ,►„jT� ti <, = . 2. r."cser► -sr: .rl � 'rums: M:,Our►c <n4 f a‘11-1-----2-1,,,, , v..�`._ti aczp -�'?vNi . J QOM � f !aY-l1 ` n...: C• tf..IYLCL•gt.g: • •`l'te 1F3 , JSJTLLLSLL SAC �r1Y�L'S'�1 .1ett K4cGY to Psi<GQaY. ZL 0Fy pc pWr , * �j t.W 1 M1 M Li PRM C a•<. Ti l�' ♦ _ (lam eel ii Si FSu R. P 17; G1 `W N� o`U VVVV t - m } 4 v. nPIA {, ° `;I� 1! Q „IF.; Su •+• rF ti ar..R Na Ge '�•, _� j..� s P. fp c •X h7 ` S`� „1:,—.4.,,i.4, i iii rifesRn� ' •1`.1* ,.2....7/-14,:,,---14 i mi Q al P.s d' 1:u Q d :7s :.,1 f: w Y1es sea I ae �'$! A j� J ri al .; C! 04 ' 4a�Q eu= :AFL.... .uaaa'moe • C .ocn••<G eeeR tl Ya & fl M1a fG ;� ,�« Cs .gYNs ra.lnZste`ee:� '. sifd#'PIS•aSSLL7:a s.. i 17iegi rrl� a;pGNaG1.*`•_uppn . i3f9•t�>A¢ Cf261.1 Fy ¢Ijr' '�' onn,2 A1VM € v.; 12uii'Atti16V2'2iSuri �isae« *`�6••i okft A ti�g.•444 03',1-1051V' A€l'�.ar.+e Pa ih atuE:s1$ Ad.� /'�11- d •0 0 _umTDp . n►cpa Naeew.Ny o.:Y '�yV N it R A•N ''" R!s •71131' RN p • .1,E a v 0PRC6 •C Siryiw110 R= �1,„„.-'',„,„„Is g '�J At -ts-r N c 1.3•1 Ci�yLF •11.40••• li'f•11110.R C fi fi ®fl rgg V -..N r i R sp'AanY<} tNct <v..it = P..P •j/6►.e 110.0.21.12. i11R.u1Yr.Cw••Y 6. .,.,-_ 1 ,a.G.e'r.I.A i4Y►f .................. YIw•.w9!1Rw•s.GM1•.•N00PRp.ss6•1<R•19 R.iR•w.,...RraGNYR1.G214n4 101bG•MSC2 -- -1 CONCEPTUAL SITE STUDY 101 FOY PbG,Oa:`22. •60..' 01 011 2*13 CM11407 ` Vat . 121 C • .•ON: wP• 9 *0166 10 040 112.0.021. 4220212 ' I •ova ORM. N=d! wt12cJ`2la 12 10 0661 PARS! .2 91.I.1 IMA' 1Qw..pp G IHI O N G O Rk MI R A HD GD W S M g& S 'lF J llD Y • Q 'II' IE V M N S Dr li ll. 04 (F4 . v csE w E E u n PAGE W E Ig N ti g• PC £ICDI7DCTU$I FLA/111111C enc�eaea�nr .n tcrv.t • M Swan r K •20.901 i .q 66. 9611.19111 1xa011i1.a 96 ac w 6 921 1222 9101101 ..1 02211 96R111.1 166!70 A wv tGWI 9•Gu (0.61.N111( 406.6. ©mm mutat, .166 111.10 . Master plan design for a new town in Stevensville, Montana. Design completed in 2002 while at LPW Design of 9 townhouses, in Redmond, Design completed with Christopher Peragine in 2006 12 units condominium, Redmond, WA. Design completed in 2010 Work by Fatah Boualamallah Architect • Tam py Hansen Residence (W/ Beyler Consulting), 2011, Lake Tapp, WA , under construction. Goldendale Cabin, 1500 soft House, 2010 Permit approved. kr 111,1k .n 11HG• . N16jlff �HIMr.LI Don Barba,1300 sqft house, Polson, MT, Built, 1999. MJ House, Ebey Island, 1500 SF, Everett, built in 2008 nut• r. .. . ss ' Dims. .r _.. _- , Silcher Residence, Montana, Built 2002, Hamilton, Montana Artiste Cottage, 1200 sf ,Rock Creek, Montana, Built 2002 Work by Fatah Boualamallah Architect City of Tukwila Department of Community Development February 28, 2013 REVOCATION OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Owner, sent via email TSmith@cottagesnw.com All parties of record RE: Cooke Cottages L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application Dear Mr. Smith: Jim Haggerton, Mavor Jack Pace, Director This letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Since the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of approval this project is no longer eligible to be considered under the Housing Options Program. Therefore, the above referenced permit applications can no longer be processed by the city at this time and your resubmittal dated February 14, 2013, for a nine lot short plat application for cottage housing is deemed incomplete. On April 4, 2008, you received a Notice of Decision (Attachment A) granting your application consideration as one of three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program, subject to several conditions. Your Notice of Decision states that approval was granted for the "...conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscape buffer and streetscape issues." These conditions were intended to ensure satisfaction of the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. In September of 2008 you cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Condition #2 above. A code enforcement action was initiated (RFA08-273) for clearing in a wetland buffer without a tree clearing permit. You subsequently obtained a tree clearing permit which approved a buffer enhancement plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area. The required mitigation plan was approved in June of 2010 but at this time the work has not started. In order to satisfy Condition #3 above, you were asked on multiple occasions to verify Designs Northwest's role in your project. Condition #3 was based on TMC 18.120.030.04, stating that the selection criteria for the housing options program requires "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. On February 14, 2013 SM Page I of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc 6 300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 you submitted a response to city's comments (Attachment B) on your design review application along with additional information on your incomplete short plat application. In your resubmittal, you state: "Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired 1 have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate..." You were offered the option of using a different architect in lieu of Designs Northwest provided the criteria for approval (TMC 18.120.030.C4) was met. The resumes submitted for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah do not demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction development of cottages elsewhere. You were informed of this in January of 2013 and you responded via email with the statement "The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. 1 am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessa/y development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO" (Attachment C). According to 18.120.030-C, the Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. Your application does not meet the conditions of approval and therefore the Director's Decision is revoked. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by March 14, 2013. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $563. Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Director of the Department of Community Development Encl: Attachment A -Original Notice of Decision dated April 4, 2008 Attachment B- Resbumittal memo from Todd Smith received on Feb 14, 2013 Attachment C -.Email from Todd Smith dated Jan 15, 2013 SM Page 2 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnielDocuments\Revocation of Decision.doc Attachment A T City of Tukwila i(.a Jim Haggerton, Mayo) Department of Cominunity Development Jack Pate, Director April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and 'one cottage. Location: 13325 Macadam Road South Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director hasrdeterrnined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C, This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: MD Page l of 2 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve theexiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are ,available for inspection at the Tukwila Department �f Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project. planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Director, rtn nt"of Community Development City of Tu ila MD Page 2 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4/04/08 STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED APRIL 3, 2008 APPLICANT: Todd Smith, Cooke Riverside Properties LLC OWNER: Todd Smith REQUESTS: To construct 9 residences including 8 compact single family homes (less than 1500 sf) and one cottage house Tess than 1000 sf. LOCATION: 13325 Macadam Road South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Minnie Dhaliwai A. Application letter B. Conceptual site plan FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build eight compact single family units and one cottage house. There are clustered around common open space. The western side of the property contains a wetland and the buffer of Southgate creek. The proposal includes request for 50% buffer reduction for the wetland in exchange for improving the highly degraded buffer. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed In the Riverton neighborhood. The surrounding properties are very low density single family. The general area contains Southgate Creek and wetlands. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The property includes 20 feet of the adjacent right-of-way that recently went through a Quiet Title process. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on October 11, 2007, to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the proposed site. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and streetscape. The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of phase one to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program to further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. The next step after being approved as a project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for SEPA (if cumulative grade and fill amount exceeds 500 2 cubic yards), Design Review and Short Plat applications. The review process for ali these applications includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Design Review application. A detailed review of the parking, frontage improvements and streetscape, wetland buffer reduction and enhancement and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. 1. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: • a) Increase the choice of housing styles available In the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density mufti -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; This project may not be marketed or considered "affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate Innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community In a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. Two residences are proposed along the street and all the units face a shared common area that opens onto a larger open space (wetland area). The applicant has stated that each house will be unique design that fits overall in the scheme, which will be an alternative to cookie cutter homes. Also, the proposed site layout and the homes shall be built green and shall incorporate sustainable design features. 3 d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements In neighborhoods; and The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. e) Previde a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods. These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single family and large multifamily complexes. 2, Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamish t) Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton 1) Foster j) Thorndyke. Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Ave South. This Is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Riverton neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. The applicant's design team includes Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects. Applicant has stated that Mr. Stever will be the architect of record and Designs Northwest will assisting and providing concept site design and concept house design and will have some site review and quality control review during construction. Designs NW has several cottage housing projects at various stages being built in the 4 Northwest such as Sequoia project in Kirkland, Haller Point, Collins Cottages and Spiritbrook Cottages in Redmond. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The area around the property is zoned Low Density Residential. However the properties across the Street are Commercial/ Light Industrial. There is a large portion of the site on the east side that is constrained by a wetland and a stream buffer. This area will not have structures and will be of low impact to the properties to the east. The existing trees in the buffer area will be required to be preserved. Further landscaping will be required along the north and south property lines to provide adequate buffer to the adjacent properties. ' 6. The concerns of the community are addressed In the proposal's design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the site on October 11, 2007. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and providing an inviting streetscape. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for Short Plat, Design Review and SEPA (if more than 500 cubic yards of cumulative grade and fill) within one year of the date of the approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need to be addressed as part of the review process are: providing enough guest parking, preserving existing trees, providing an inviting streetscape, adequate landscape buffers along north and south property lines, frontage improvements, meeting Fire Department access issues, placement and design of garbage/recycling areas. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects and Designs NW has experience in development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage. The applicant has stated that they are Interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of Phase 1 to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program. If approved for Phase 1 they would further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood, meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As.part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. 6 C ©O { . f`— t 42 Attachment B EB142013 1.an Comments to technical comments#4: .ease address all technical comment to Todd Smith, CEO and approved applicant. • 1).\/1:1-(-)1'MkN Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role in this project To accomplish infrastructure improvement and wetland mitigation sequencing of the development will be two fold. I have talked with numerous funding agencies to discover that to get this project off the ground recordable lots if not required but is recommended. The Wetland improvements preferable should be done during the period units #6 & 7 are excavated and built to reduce the impact on the wetland later in the project. Thus to build Units #6 & 7 the lending agency would want the underlying lots recorded. This would allow me to submit Construction Drawings, while the wetland is modified. Thus we would request that because Units #6 & 7 are not encumbered the City would allow me to record these two lots prior to completing short plat. We have received from King Conservation District (KCD) a grant to supplement the work to enhance the area from the wetland buffer to the creek for 2012. We have received from USACE #29 permit to do Wetland Enhancement for 2012. Stage One: 1. Record lots #6 & 7. 2. Commence wetland improvements and obtain approved Construction Drawings for unit #6 & 7. 3. To repair/mitigate the wetland area and build units #6 & 7. The bulk of our grading activities take place. We are able to place silt barrier below #6 & 7 during construction phase then move it East of these unit when completed. Protecting the wetland as the project is under construction. 4. Finish wetland and install preliminary rain garden. 5. Install the French drain along S boundary as described in Civil Plan while the overflow drains to wetland. 6. Units #6 & 7 are furthest from the street which allows us to install necessary infrastructure required for short plat and required by construction loan. As utilities are installed to unit #6 & 7 utility stubs would be capped to the other lots. a. We place a fire hydrant on East side of Macadam bring the water main across, stub all the houses and install water meters; b. Work with City Light to install community service panel and run conduit from panel to individual lots, and service to #6 & 7. c. Work with Puget Power to provide gas lines and meters to individual lots; 7. Install Private Road to access foremost units #6 & 7. Utilities which are designed under driveway would be completed. 8. I would request a variance to Short Plat requirement allowing the sidewalk subsurface material be installed while postponing hard surfacing to improve access to units #1 & 2 during construction of Second Phase and prevent construction damage to sidewalk. We will excavate this area during 1st Phase to provide concept contours for utilities, rain garden, landscaping and signage. 9. Lots #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 and the promenade will be graded accordingly to meet Short Plat requirements. 10. This will get us a completed short plat and recordable lots except for the requested variance for finished sidewalk, which will be installed during 2nd Phase. Second Phase: 1. Units #6 & 7 are complete along with short plat. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 are recorded, while Construction Drawing for units #8, 9, 4, 5, 3, 2, & 1 are submitted and approved. Construction begins to complete project, order of foundations units #8, 9, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1; Buildings #8, 9, 5, 4, 1, 2, & 3; The promenade and access stairs next to #1, 2 & 4 will be completed when it is most feasible. 2. Sidewalk completed after foundations #1 & 2 are completed, back filled and during process installing front rain garden, landscaping and parking space #19. Connecting rain garden to storm water sewer. 3. Complete rain garden flowing west through promenade and landscape promenade. Silt barriers will be positioned accordingly to protect wetland and limit offsite impacts. 4. Complete Landscaping for lots and promenade. Technical comments by Planning Dept: Basement areas do comply with the Housing Option Ordinance; "Excluded Area: unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage." These houses have limited storage space. The garages are required by the ordinance and the CC&R to be used for vehicles with limited storage space. I believe what you are requesting is beyond the scope of the Ordinance. Use of the basements is multi -faceted: 1. Unheated storage area 2. Equally important, as a Cool Sink to be used to passively cool the building in summer, ducting air to main floor while drawing air from north or east side of building and exhausting overheated 2nd floor. For me this is similar to HOO 10'x10' private space. l extrapolated the idea using it to expand the adjacent livable space by making it private. Thus instead of 100SF it is about 250-300SF while improving the livability a project goal. 3. Without this space considerable more energy would be needed to cool these buildings during the summer. 4. One of the HOO goals is to make buildings more affordable. Not using forced air HVAC system is more affordable. The intrusion to the East set back was agreed to during earlier discussions. The 4' of foundation is used for garage with no livable space, above is a deck. 1 included the Airlocks space at the entrance. This area is unheated and provides less heat/cool exchange when one opens and closes front door. This is an important energy feature to these passive solar buildings. Active solar panels were excluded from the design principally because we are not sure of the solar aperture of the units and the cost factors to market value. Whether they are or are not designed into the elevation is not germane to this phase. I will note that depending on critical aperture and area concerns I plan to install 3-5 KWH systems with availability for Electric Vehicle charging station. Unit Detail comment: Changes were made to limited the size of the units and maintain the 1500SF criteria without compromising the Site Plan. I included a table showing the nine units and their respective areas. Architectural consultant comment: Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired. The drawings he presented me indicated a lack of knowledge of HOO, marginal respect of cottage housing perspective, compatibility with neighborhood and passive solar design. l have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate. Reviewing the completed plans will attest to their professionalism. Preliminary Short Plat comment: Submitted 4 pages by Schroeter Survey Landscaping comments from Technical Comments #3: KLLA revised the Landscape plans to address comment #3. Civil Engineering Design: Two documents have been submitted that accomplish this task. Water and Sewer Availability Letters, Geo Technical Report & SEPA: Documents have been submitted. Submitted by: Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. Calculations for proposed homes at Cooke Creek Meadow House # Net Area Total floor area (exterior dimentio Floor Area Exemptions Exepted Items (FP White Detail) 1 1451 2423 972 Garage, unheated storage 900SF; Unheated Airlock 51SF; Utility closets 215F 2 1500 2641 1141 Garage, unheated storage 1067SF; Bay Window 9SF; Wall height <6' 50SF; Utility Closet 15SF 3 1397 2415 1018 Garage, unheated storage 1000SF; Utility closets 18SF 4 1496 2566 1070 Garage, unheated storage 9815F; Head Height <6' 895F 5 1500 2660 1160 Garage, unheated storage 1139SF; Bay window 7SF; Utility closets 14SF 6 1478 1883 405 Unheated storage 346SF; Bay Window 7SF; Utility Closet 10SF; Unheated Airlock 42SF 7 1484 1908 424 Unheated storage 278SF; Bay Windows 31SF; Utility closet 20SF; Unheated Airlock 63SF; Head Height <6' 32SF 8 1479 1541 62 Bay Window 11SF; Unheated Airlock 405F; Utility Closet 11SF 9 1500 1837 337 Unheated storage space 2515F; Unheated Airlock 53SF; Utility Closets 33SF Element to note 18: garages within plenum under Units #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 creating more space in the basement associated to units #2, 3, 4 & 5 that is also associated with Units #6, 7, 8 & 9. It has been ruled exempt. The question concerning storage space that could possibly be modified by owner to use for liveable space is a mute point and not relevent to this discussion. The Ordinance specifically states "unheaded storage space located under the main floor is exept". All the unheated storage space described in the floor plans qualifies as exempt under the ordinance. Secondly, the Ordinance and CC&R require garage to be use for vehicle storage, cars may not park on street to use garage for other purpose. Thus there is limited storage space for all these units. Respectively submitted by Todd Smith, CEO and Approved Applicant Attachment C From: T Smithjmailto:TSmith(acottagesnw.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:18 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Technical comments #4 Yes it has, I recently saw DNW design drawings for unit #6. They suck he, furthermore they didn't even comply with 1100 criteria. Thus I sent letter relieving Dan Nelson of his duties. The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. I am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in H00. This will be submitted with my latest submittal. As the applicant, to make my submittal 99% complete I would appreciate responses to my questions. These question relate directly with your technical comments and require answers to complete my submittal. Thank you, Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 6..(3 -00S RECEIVED NAR 13 2013 • COFi AUNI I r DLVL-LUNML-NT NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: Cooke Cottages 13325 Macadam Road South L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application I. Identification of Appealing Party Name of Appealing Party: Todd Smith Address of Appealing Party: 8129 Hudson Pl. SW Lakewood, WA 98498 Phone No. of Appealing Party: (253) 691-8191 Represented by: Gerald F. Robison, Attorney at Law II. Decision Being Appealed From Revocation of Decision, Dated February 28, 2013, which revoked the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Copies are attached. Page 1 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 III. Errors A. Arbitrarily revokes a final decision. The City made its decision to revoke the earlier decision nearly five years after the original decision was made, based on what appears to be staff's determination to force Mr. Smith to employ the particular professional named in the original decision. The decision, while specifying that it only applied to "Phase 1 ", was not in any way deemed to be provisional or otherwise subject to arbitrary revocation. The decision in fact granted approval only for Mr. Smith to apply under the Housing Options Program ("HOP") within one year. There was no requirement in the decision that Mr. Smith obtain final approval on any permit application within that time. Mr. Smith made his application within the required time period. The decision to revoke is not clear as to the grounds for revocation, but discusses two conditions that were allegedly violated. Condition 2 of the original decision required that the site design preserve existing trees in the wetland buffer area. Mr. Smith did remove trees from the wetland buffer area, but that action was approved by the City, in connection with the original decision, over three years ago. The City's approval of that change constitutes a change in the conditions under the original decision and cannot support revocation of the decision at this time. Condition 3 of the original decision stated only that the decision was based on "the understanding" that Designs Northwest Architects ("DNW") "will" be part of the project team and "will" be involved "during" construction of the project. But, the selection criteria (TMC 18.120.030.C.4) only called for "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere." Identification of a specific design team or professional who would remain involved through the entire project was not required. Successful development of such a product was, and still is, extremely rare in the market place, so it is evident that the Director extended the term `applicant' to include the applicant's entire design team, and, since Page 2 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206)243-4219 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 DNW had not actually been a material part of any successful development of cottage housing, that its concern was with the potential to complete a successful project more than its actual history of development. Mr. Smith however soon became convinced that DNW would not be able to fulfill its role of helping him develop a successful project, so he sought to replace DNW. City staff stated that they would accept a change in the identity of the design professional if the right person was found for the replacement. Mr. Smith proposed replacements with successful experience at least equal to that of DNW, but the City arbitrarily refused to accept any replacement, insisting in the end that Mr. Smith must use DNW. The City has already determined that TMC 18.120.030.C.4, requires only that the applicant's development team represent a good chance of successfully developing the project, not an actual history of successful development by the applicant that a literal reading of the ordinance seems to require. Having made the original decision under a relaxed standard the City cannot now revoke that decision under a stricter standard, arbitrarily insist that Mr. Smith stay with his original choice of design professional, or arbitrarily apply a different standard to any new design professional Mr. Smith selects. It is far too late for the City to reconsider or revoke the decision it made in 2008. The parties moved past the selection phase and the City cannot arbitrarily revoke that selection. B. Revocation of Decision Not Signed by Director. Jack Pace is identified as the Director on Tukwila's web site and on the Revocation of Decision. The signature on the Revocation of Decision is illegible, but bears no resemblance at all to the signature of Jack Pace found on the original decision. Page 3 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 2434219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 IV. Harm Suffered or Anticipated If the Revocation of Decision is allowed to stand Mr. Smith will lose the chance to develop the green, modem and forward thinking development he spent years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars on. He will not get to turn the property he inherited from his mother into a model for modern living. He will lose an undetermined further amount of money that could have been made from the cottage development as opposed to simply selling the land for development of conventional single family homes on large lots. V. Relief Sought Mr. Smith asks that the Revocation of Decision be vacated or otherwise canceled restoring the situation that existed prior to issuance of said order. March 12, 2013 Gerald F. Robison, WSBA #23118 Attorney for Appellant Page 4 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 2434219 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Depa'n.ent of Community Development DEVE�•�'�� t�T September 7, 2007 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Steve Detwiller, Applicant Riverton Park United Methodist Church, Owner All Parties of Record Steve Lancaster, Director This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Steve Detwiller, Rehabitat NW Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: 33 single detached units, which consist of 31 cottages that are no larger than 1000 square feet and 2 carriage houses (800 sq. fl.) that are proposed to be built above attached garages. Location: 3118 S. 140th Street, Tukwila WA Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director has determined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Cascade View neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on May 8, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Subdivision conditions: • MD Page I of 2 Q:\Cottage tiousing\Direclor's approval -United Methodist Church site.doc 8/30/07 16300 S6uthcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1, The applicant shall revise the proposal to not include carriage houses as part of this project. 2. The site plan shall be revised to have only Fire/Emergency access on to Military Road. 3. Mithun Architecture will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design of the project site and the individual units. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Subdivision within one year of the date of this notice that is by September 7, 2008. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206- 431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Dire City artment of Community Development f Tukwila MD Page 2 8/30/07 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -United Methodist Church site.doc : City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED AUGUST 30, 2007 APPLICANT: Steve Detwiller, Rehabitat Northwest OWNER: Riverton Park United Methodist Church REQUESTS: 33 single detached units, which consist of 31 cottages that are no larger than 1000 square feet and 2 carriage houses (800 sq. ft.) that are proposed to be built above attached garages. LOCATION: 3118 S 140th Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal ATTACHMENTS: A Application letter. B. Conceptual Site Plan C. Architectural details of the proposed cottages. D. Comment letters by Mary Koontz, Abner & Donna Thomas, Memo to Tukwila City Council dated June 25, 2007 by various members of the community. r 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build 33 single detached units, which consist of 31 cottages and 2 carriage houses (units built above a detached garage). The cottages are proposed to be 11/2 story that are no larger than 1000 square feet and the carriage houses will be approximately 800 square feet that are proposed to be built above detached garages. The units are proposed around four pocket parks and will be served by private roads. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed on the north and west of the existing Riverton Park United Methodist Church building. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by S. 140th St on the south and Military Road on the west. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on May 8th to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the church. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns regarding traffic impacts, frontage improvements, parking requirements, maintenance of common areas, litter and crime issues. The next step after being approved as project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for Subdivision, SEPA and Design Review applications. The review process for all these applications includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Subdivision and Design Review applications. A detailed review of the traffic impacts, frontage improvements, parking requirements and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. 2 PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. 1. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: a) Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; • This project may not be marketed or considered "affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. The cottages are proposed around four pocket parks. All cottages will have large front porches that are connected by a sidewalk that wraps around the pocket park. d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. 3 e) Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods The proposed cottages are 1 V2 story 1000 sq. ft. detached dwelling units. These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single family and large multifamily complexes. 2. Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamish t) Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton i) Foster j) Thorndyke. Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Ave South. This is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Cascade View neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. Rehabitat Northwest, the developer has hired Mithun Architecture, an architectural firm to provide design and architectural expertise. Mithun has been involved in cottage housing projects that include Poulsbo Place Cottages and Kirkland Bungalows. 5. The location and size of the project Is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing shou/d be located on land with direct access to a collector arteria/ or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. This project is proposed at the edge of Cascade View neighborhood and the site is bordered by Military Road (classified as an arterial) and South 140th Street. The applicant will be required to provide frontage improvements that include sidewalk and landscaping along Military and for the portion of S. 140th Street that fronts the parcel to be developed. 4 • Landscape buffers will be required to provide buffer from the adjacent areas. Military Road lies within City of SeaTac and they do not allow any access on Military Road, therefore the applicant shall revise their proposal to show Fire/Emergency access only on Military Road. The proposed project is for 31 cottages that are 11/2 story and two carriage units that are proposed to be built above detached garages. The City's Housing Options program does not allow carriage housing product type. As part of the Design Review process the applicant shall revise their proposal to not include carriage housing product type. 6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposals design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the Church on May 8th 2007. The concerns raised at the meeting included appearance/maintenance of open space, lack of sidewalks, increased traffic, parking requirements, issues with the carriage house, control on converting to rental units, safety in the neighborhood and controlling the number of people living in these units. One petition to the City Council and two written letters and were received raising these issues. These letters are enclosed as attachment D. A copy of the conceptual plan was reviewed by SeaTac's Planning and Public Works Department. Tukwila staff met with SeaTac's staff to go over their comments. Frontage improvements on Military Road will have to meet City of SeaTac's standards since SeaTac has jurisdiction over Military Road. Additionally SeaTac will only allow Fire/Emergency access on Military Road. A detailed review of the traffic impacts, frontage improvements, parking requirements, and maintenance of common areas will be done as part of SEPA, Design Review and Subdivision application processes. The proposal will have to mitigate any identified traffic impacts; provide frontage improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter and landscaping along Military Road and the portion of S. 140th Street fronting the parcel to be developed; homeowner's association will be required to maintain the common areas and Covenants Conditions and Restrictions will be recorded; 1.5 off-street parking stalls are required for each unit and an agreement with the church to provide overflow parking may be required; and no carriage units will be allowed. However due to Federal Fair Housing Laws, the City is not able to control the number of people living in any dwelling units. There are existing rules that will prohibit the owners to convert a dwelling in Low Density Zone into a boarding home. Also, International Property Maintenance Code regulates the number of people based on the square footage of the dwelling unit. s CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for SEPA, Design Review and Subdivision applications within one year of the date of approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need to be revised include elimination of carriage houses, limitation of access on Military Road to Fire/Emergency access only. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Mithun Architecture for design services and they have experience in development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Mithun will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage. RECOMMENDATIONS ( Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: The applicant shall revise the proposal to not include carriage houses as part of • this project. 2: The site plan shall be revised to have only Fire/Emergency access on to Military Road. 1 This approval is based on the understanding that Mithun Architecture will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design of the project site and the individual units. 6 Rehabitat ,' Northwest 1�1r`�:It j! . f RECEIVED 11,1" 2 +ilj' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application for Housing Options Program Site; 3118 S. 140th St. (Riverton Methodist Church) Tukwila, Wa. Steve Detwiller Site Description; Slightly sloping, mostly flat 11L1" shaped site. The Project would be north and west of the existing Riverton Methodist Church building. This is a single family residential neighborhood bordered by 140th on the south and Military Road on the west. Project Scope; 33 single detached units total, which consist of 31 cottages and 2 Carriage houses (small Unit build above a detached garage) The Development will also include designing and building 100 parking spaces with landscaped islands and a FBod Shelf building on the Riverton Methodist Church property. Housing Description; The cottages will be constructed as 1 1/2 story Craftsman style cottages no larger then 1,000 square feet. The two Carriage houses will be approximately 800 square feet and be built above detached garages. All cottages will receive a high level of finish and detail to include architectural bracing, gable shakes, granite, hardwood, solid wood cabinets and painted millwork. Housing Ownership; All cottages will be sold "fee simple". All common area will be Jointly owned and maintained through an undivided interest in all parties. The cost of maintaining common space and joint use infrastructure will be borne on the ownership equally. A Homeowners Association will be organized to manage the fiduciary responsibilities. Density; Total land square footage 158,826 Square footage for ROW 42000 Net density 116,826 divided by 6500 (single family zoning) =18 single family units Per equivalent unit requirements two cottages can be built for every single family unit =36 units (33 proposed) Per density guidelines a minimum of 3250 square feet per unit required. =107,250 square feet (116,826 available) ','4) 1 htl,i }+1?711.1•' ATTACHMENT A t1&Nalbltat ;`' Northwest Ir 1inirciny tleigly1;orll ds...One borne at a tine! Steve Detwillet Program Goals; 1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single family developments. The Coltage.s at Riverton will provide new compact single family housing at a price point below older housing. The concmunity design will seamlessly bridge the gap between existing .single family and multifamily located nearby. 2. Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes. The Cottages will provide safe, new and affordable housing that fills a market void between) apartment condo living and older single family detached housing. 3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. All the cottages will have large front porches that are connected by a sidewalk that wraps a pocket park. This innovative design concept brings people together, provides safety and security and provides an opportunity for the development of neighborhood relationships. 4. Develop high quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods The Cottages al Riverton will combine its 4 pocket parks with tree lined streets that are minimized through the use of rear loaded alleys. The professionally landscaped common .space will remain a central feature of the development long after the last cottage sells. The .Project will provide a "green" transition between its neighbors, a grade school and i'eterinary Clinic on the north, A community Church on its south side, a cemetery to the east and Military Road to the west. 5. Provide a greater variety of housing types, which respond to changing household sizes and ages and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhood. The main floor living level, small size and no yard work associated with this development will offer senior move -down Buyers an alternative. The high quality finishes and the detached housing choice might also drive a segment of the apartment.'condo dwellers. Judgingfrom the response of the well attended community meeting about this project, one can only conclude that the neighborhood is looking for alternatives. V a ;tll". v42iF''ilid '1 '1':'1•11.!:-., @Habitat `'' Northwest Imi ri yinc) neiyhburhoods...One home ata lime!;; Steve Delwiller 7:+n•,r,vc5:•.; Program Standard; The Cottages at Riverton meet or exceed most program standards, Although the standards suggest that at least 50% of the units abut common open space this design allows over 90% of the units to have direct access to, and in most cases allow the units to be oriented to the common space. The use of "double fronts" will add to the architectural design by eliminating the blank garage wall. All units will have adequate "private" space that is provided by setting back side yards. A "shared easement" will also be used to provide additional side yard area. All units will have 80 square feet of well located covered porches. Developer's Experience; Rehabitat Northwest has been providing specially crafted in -fill housing in the Seattle area neighborhoods since 1986. From entry level Townhouse projects to high end custom homes Rehabitat has the level of detail, experience and vision to successfully complete a range of residential developments. Mithun Architecture, a Seattle based residential and commercial architectural firm has been contracted to provide design, architectural and planning expertise. Mithun has been involved in several cluster/cottage projects both locally and nationally. Mithun has been invited to speak nationally on cottage projects. Rehabitat Northwest and its Partners request consideration from the City of Tukwila to support their proposal "Cottages at Riverton" to be built under the Housing Option Program. Sincere) Steve Detwiller-President Rehabitat Northwest, Inc. 206-932-7355 *t",•`] _ "i'i ��.,:. "f!li.. SW 5'. ,); Pocket Park, typ. 20' alley R.O.W. 76' paved Trail Existing Tree, tYP• 4RIso. IP:Auwwww.43.k... .w,lin :r""...:-=‘ ±....t...c...'''',...9= czaze'm • ----- ' - r :' : VIELGieon g :1 0 'ftr:111.- . X. •Y‘1".ligilimr.mm:.., "rt a c ;‘. .., ....' '''. LOT SUMMARY: 12 Cottages 1 car detached Garage 6 Front Loaded Homes 1 car attached Garage 2 Carriage Units 1 car garage 13 Alley.Loaded Units 2 Car Garage 33 Units Mp N 28' paved, parallel parking, 5' planter, 5' sidewalk, on both sides • Riverton Cottages May o8, 2007 063850 erst=leme ATTACHMENT B MITHUN 0 7 C CpMaht Riverton Cottages February 23, 2007 063850 aNI o ,5 30 Go Attachment C City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Doug Davies, Applicant & Owner Bruce & Reen Putnam, Owner All Parties of Record Jack Pace, Director This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Doug Davies Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: Nine residential units- Eight cottages and one "live -above" unit Location: 3540/3550 S. 116th Street Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director has determined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions includedii the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on December 27, 200W A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the Shoreline Substantial Development permit, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated February 13, 2008, as modified by the following conditions: MD Page 1 oft Q:\Cottage Housing. Director's approval -Dim amish Neighborhood site.doc 4 04 08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. The applicant shall provide a river bank stabilization report and the top of the bank shall be calculated using 2.5:1 ratio starting at the toe of the bank to find the stable top of the bank. A minimum 20 foot setback shall be maintained from the stable top of the bank. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees along the river bank. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Ross Chapin Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design of the project site and the individual units. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Direct r, Department of Community Development City o Tukwila MD Page 2 4/04/08 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval-Duwamish Neighborhood site.doc APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUESTS: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED APRIL 3, 2008 Doug Davies Doug Davies, Bruce and Reen Putnam To construct 9 residences including 8 cottages (less than 1000 sf) and one "live above" residence (720 sf). LOCATION: 3540/3550 South 116th Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Low Density Residential (LDR) Minnie Dhaliwal A Application submittal including application letter, conceptual site plan and architectural details of the proposed cottages. B. Neighborhood petition in support of the project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build eight cottages and one "live above" residence. The cottages are proposed to be 11/2 story that are no larger than 1000 square feet and the "live above" residence is approximately 720 square feet that is proposed to be built above a detached garage. Two units are proposed facing S 116th St. to provide a street presence and shield the parking spaces from the street. The rest of the cottages face a shared common area with shared access to the River. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed in the Duwamish neighborhood that has the existing pattern of smaller single family homes. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by S. 116th Street on the south and Interurban trail on the west. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on December 27, 2007, to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the proposed site and Tukwila Community Center. A petition signed by sixteen neighborhood residents was submitted in support of the project. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about proximity to the River. The applicant was asked to submit a River Bank Stabilization report. The report was reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and it was suggested that a setback of 20 feet be maintained from the top of the bank, which shall be determined using 2.5:1 ratio starting at the toe of the bank to find the stable top of the bank. This will necessitate moving the cottages along the street closer to the street to maintain adequate setback from the top of the bank. The next step after being approved as a project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Short plat, SEPA and Design Review applications. The review process for all these applications 2 includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Design Review application. A detailed review of the bank stabilization report, frontage improvements, parking requirements and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. 1. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: a) Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; This project may not be marketed or considered `affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. Two cottages are proposed to face the street and the rest of the cottages face a shared common area that open onto the River. The cottages are proposed with gable -roofs, large porches, detailed trim and the layered sequence in the site plan clarifies personal, shared and public territories. 3 d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. e) Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods The proposed cottages are 1 1/2 story 1000 sq. ft. detached dwelling units. These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single family and large multifamily complexes. The applicant has stated that the sale prices of the cottages should appeal to younger buyers attempting to break into the housing market and retirees wanting to downsize or remain in their neighborhood. 2. Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamish f) Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton i) Foster i) Thorndyke. Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Ave South. This is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Duwamish neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. The applicant will be utilizing the design and consulting services of Ross Chapin Architects. Ross Chapin, the Principal Architect of RCA has through his work at RCA and as a joint partner with the Cottage Company 4 developed numerous very successful projects of a similar nature in this region as well as nationally. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arteria/ or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. This project is proposed at the edge of Duwamish neighborhood and the site is bordered by S. 116th Street to the south, Duwamish River to the north and Interurban Trail to the west. Nine residential units are proposed and the small size of the cottages will be of low impact relative to the neighborhood. The existing trees along the river bank shall be preserved. 6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the site and then reconvened at the Tukwila Community Center on December 27, 2008. The concerns raised at the meeting included river bank stability. The applicant was asked to submit a River Bank Stabilization report. The report was reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and it was suggested that a setback of 20 feet be maintained from the top of the bank. The top of the bank shall be determined using 2.5:1 ratio starting at the toe of the bank to find the stable top of the bank. This will necessitate moving the cottages along the street closer to the street to maintain adequate setback from the top of the bank. A petition supporting the project that was signed by sixteen neighborhood residents was received by the City. A detailed review of the frontage improvements, parking requirements, and maintenance of common areas will be done as part of Design Review and Short Plat application processes. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Design Review and Short Plat applications within one year of the date of approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need to be addressed as part of the review process are: river bank stability; preservation of the existing trees along the river bank; and streetscape. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Ross Chapin Architects for design services and they have experience in development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Ross Chapin Architects will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a river bank stabilization report and the top of the bank shall be calculated using 2.5:1 ratio starting at the toe of the bank to find the stable top of the bank. A minimum 20 foot setback shall be maintained from the stable top of the bank. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees along the river bank. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Ross Chapin Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design of the project site and the individual units. 6 Sundial Cottages Tukwila, Washington APPLICATION FOR THE HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM CITY OF TUKWILA February 15, 2008 APPLICANT: Sundial Properties, LLC Doug Davies, Bruce Putnam, Reen Payne 11544 Riviera Place NE Seattle, WA 98125 E: douglas.c.davies@boeing.com T: (425) 283 2218 ARCHITECT: Ross Chapin, AIA, Ross Chapin Architects E: ross@rosschapin.com • T: (360) 221-2373 W: www.rosschapin.com ENGINEER: Ivana Halvorson, Barghausen Engineers, Inc. T: (425) 251 6222 ' V -ter to t. ti "20'40.1 —'i S 1 r1l 1. fLV („L•w1Vi011 4 ' 1-1 'L/vt:-A1,itlic' Af. A.4-1 ii-teh -f (J Je N -a;� is - /�- `(, `-• yet 1 z Pr 111,f {r r if T E -f i G T H ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office box 2.3o • igs Second Street • Langley, Washington 9816o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 12i 1373 • Fx: (36o) 2118603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com /1;/o8 Site Plan f. ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o P: (360) 221 2373 • E: inguiry@rosschapin.com • W: www.rosschapin.com February 15, 2007 SUNDIAL COTTAGES Tukwila, Washington 8 cottages < 1000 SF 1 'live -above' residence = 720 SF 9 total residences 8 garages 5 un -assigned parking spaces 13 total on-site parking spaces Site Area: 33,800 SF Impervious surface: 14,620 SF (42.8%) Building Coverage: 8,296 SF (24.2%) 7,000 SF Common Open Space (>15' width) (20.7%) (778 SF per dwelling) Site Plan Layout Two cottages face South 116' Street, shielding the garage and parking areas, and providing visual surveillance of the street. The rest of the cottages face a shared common area, with views and shared access to the Duwamish River and overlook. Building Design The cottage designs feature gable -roofed buildings with large porches, painted horizontal lap or board and batten siding, traditionally detailed trim, composition roofing. One of the buildings is a 'live -above' residence over garages. Its series of roof gables, dormers, covered roof terrace, porch and trellis downplay its garage function. Its location offers further 'eyes - on -the -public' surveillance. It will be the most affordable residence of the group All buildings have roofs lower than 18 feet at the eaves and no higher than 25 feet to the ridgeline. Landscape Design Deciduous trees will be planted along the street and the Interurban Trail, softening these edges. The mature stand of conifer trees along the bank of the Duwamish River will be preserved, continuing to stabilize the bank. The understory will have native plantings. An overlook platform at the end of the garden walkway offers residents an opportunity to view the river without disturbing the bank. Deciduous trees along the entry drive and the entry to the commons will buffer the buildings and offer some privacy. The shared common area between the cottages will have perennial plantings and low evergreen shrubs. Community, Privacy and Security A layered sequence from public to private clarifies personal, shared and public territories. The entry drive will have a textured surface to signal a private territory; a low wood fence and garden gate marks the transition between the landscaped commons and private yards; a couple of steps above the private garden is a covered porch with low, 'perchable' railings; active interior spaces face the commons, while private spaces are farther back and above. The house plans have three 'open' and one 'closed' side so that they 'nest' together, ensuring privacy between dwellings. The closed side has high windows and skylights. The open side yard to each dwelling extends to the face of the neighboring building, offering more usable garden space. Garages are intentionally placed away from the houses so that neighbors will see one another during their daily comings and goings. These informal interactions form the basis for a strong community. Most importantly, the design of both the site and building layouts ensure that surrounding public space is easily surveyed by the residents — to recognize who is known and welcomed, and who is a stranger to be taken note of. ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 230 • 195 Second Street . Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 2373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross®rosschapin.com 2./1,-+ /OR Perspective Doug Davies — Owner 25815 135`h Ln SE Ste #9 Kent, Wa. 98042 Phone: 425-283-2218 Ross Chapin Architects P.O. Box 230; 195 Second St. Langley, Wa. 98260 Phone: 360-221-2373 Sundial Properties LLC 11544 Riviera P1 NE Seattle, Wa. 98125 Bruce & Reen Putnam — Owner 11544 Riviera PINE Seattle, Wa. 98125 Phone: 206-525-8035 Barghausen Engineering 18215 72nd Ave. S. Kent, Wa. 98032 Phone: 425-251-6222 Sundial Properties would like to address the need for alternative housing options in Tukwila. Per the City of Tukwila ordinance #2103, Sundial Properties is proposing to build a cottage style housing community at 3540\3550 S. 116`h St., Tukwila. This is located in the Duwamish neighborhood and is not located within 1,500 feet of any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. This project will provide greater diversity in new housing options by building 9 smaller cottages (under 1,000 sq. ft.) at more affordable prices while providing high quality homes. The property will have a unique feel through extensive landscaping with shared `common' areas (see the attached site plan). The prices should appeal to younger buyers attempting to break into the housing market and retirees wanting to downsize or remain in their neighborhood. The high build quality should also appeal to couples looking to downsize while still living in a home that is high quality and makes good use of available space. A garage for each cottage will contribute towards these goals. The extensively landscaped property along with the riverfront and bike trail that border the property and the community activity areas that take advantage of these features will create an inviting environment for owners to spend time outside. Along with the higher density of the cottages, this should foster greater interaction with neighbors and develop an increased sense of community while increasing neighborhood safety. This is a wonderful property and will be a flagship community that both the neighborhood and the city will be proud of. We hope you select our project and look forward to working with the City of Tukwila to make this project a success and a model for future projects. Sincerely, Doug Davies, Bruce Putnam, Reen Payne and Ross Chapin for Sundial Properties 18.120.010 Housing Options Program Selection Criteria 1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments: Sundial Properties' mission is to build high-quality craftsman style bungalows promoting a renewed sense of community, environmental sustainability and visually -stimulating landscaping. Allentown currently has an abundance of older, small homes many of which are nearing the end of their useful life. The neighborhood is beginning to revitalize and has some new, tract style homes in the 2,500 sq ft range that have been built over the past two years. They tend to dwarf the current neighborhood. We propose to offer an alternative to tract housing and an increase in new construction diversity with smaller, high quality cottages built utilizing "green" building principles as increasingly demanded by our community. Our emphasis is on housing types that can work well in urban infill sites, that will integrate well into the existing community, and that will fill a niche of quality -built housing at a price point that meets market demands. One of our design principles is that the cottages improve the surrounding neighborhood rather than having just a neutral impact. Off-street parking, landscaping, interesting facades and other design features will result in a better streetscape than typical developments achieve. The cottage cluster will present less mass than standard single family homes while the pedestrian orientation of our cottages puts more people on the sidewalk enhancing neighborhood security. In spite of higher densities, experience has shown that cottage clusters fit very nicely with their surroundings. We believe this will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and have the support of the surrounding community. 2. Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes: This project will consist of 10 craftsman style cottages surrounding a common space and shared access to the Duwamish River. The cottages will be a maximum of 1,000 sq. feet gross floor area (GFA) and will have front porches facing the common area. Based on other similar redevelopment projects with varied housing types including Highpoint, Kirkland Bungalos, Ravenna Cottages, and others, the smaller than average home size is likely to result in homes that are priced below regional averages. Market research and the popularity of similar projects has shown that a large number of individuals and families are looking for an alternative to large-Iot single family homes and have few choices in today's market. We are planning to address that issue through this project. 3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas: The proposed Sundial Properties project is being planned under the guide lines of the City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 2103. This forward -thinking document was implemented to allow the development of selected projects that explore housing choices not currently available in Tukwila's single-family neighborhoods. Ours will be the first project of this type within Tukwila. The cottage\bungalow style "pocket neighborhood" we are suggesting is designed around a common shared space to foster community not only within the property but also with the surrounding neighborhood. Each cottage, though similar in area and footprint, will be unique in facade and design. This fosters a personal bond of caring and identity. The "commons" also creates a safe neighborhood utilizing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design methods. With a single entry point oriented toward the vehicular access area, and with living spaces and porches looking onto the common area, neighbors will have a visual connection to the common area and to each other. The result will create a natural surveillance and territorial reinforcement system where the mutual owners of the homes will look out for one another and the common property that is shared. Our objective is to provide a unique and innovative community homeowners will want to come home to and the surrounding neighborhood is proud and supportive of. Based on the success of other "pocket neighborhood" projects, we expect this model to continue to be implemented in many areas throughout our region as more and more home buyers demand innovative and affordable housing. 4. Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods: When new housing types are built in infill settings they will naturally initiate some change to the look and feel of the neighborhood. To ensure that the smaller houses do not devalue the neighborhood, it is appropriate to mitigate the impacts of such change with high quality in design, construction, materials, and landscaping. The proposed project satisfies all of the above. The Sundial project will include homes constructed with high quality building materials, unique and functional architectural appointments, and landscape features that will be enhanced by the community over time. The extensive landscaping of the commons along with the riverfront and nearby Green River Trail will create an inviting environment for owners to spend time outside. The cottages will include large welcoming porches, a variety of facade materials and floor plans, nice uses of wood and tile, warm colors and indigenous landscaping features for low maintenance and year-round beauty. The site plan and central common area is deigned to provide transitional zones that indicate movement from public to semiprivate to private space. The parking areas are public space, which transition to semi -private space along the central sidewalk, the sidewalks to the individual cottages are the final transition to the private space of the cottages themselves. Inside the cottages, nine -foot and higher ceilings with large windows and skylights will fill the rooms with light creating a much larger perceived sense of space. 5. Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods: There is a large, growing, and underserved market for moderately priced housing types that lie between typical low-density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. Our goal is to provide housing that costs less, uses less land, and supports Regional Growth Management objectives while having lower impacts on the environment and providing opportunities for neighborhood social interaction and alternatives to the current development models. The smaller building size, and therefore price, is expected to appeal to younger buyers who are attempting to break into the housing market. The high quality construction of the future homes will also appeal to aging baby boomers and retirees looking to downsize or remain in their neighborhood. To assist in successfully accomplishing this model we will be utilizing the design and consulting services of Ross Chapin architects. Mr. Chapin was instrumental in the initial creation of this concept and has participated in the development of numerous very successful projects of a similar nature in a variety of our local communities as well as nationally. Dimensions First Floor Kitchen/Living 14' x 21' Dining Alcove 7' x 5'-6" Bedroom 12'-4" x 11'-4" Bathroom full Second Floor >5' Bedroom 11'-4" x Bathroom three-quarter Total Heated Area 1168 sq ft Footprint 111$1111 r zz' x 46' 1 '•� ti Bedroom CL DN Bath open to below 9 Second Floor ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 230 • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 98260 Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 2373 • Fx: (36o) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com 2/15/08 Coho 6 Neighborhood Meeting Summary We had a very successful neighborhood meeting back on Dec. 27th. It included a good discussion of the project, site plan and objectives as well as an overview of the history and thinking behind the evolution of cottage developments provided by Ross Chapin. The neighborhood representatives were very positive about our plan and it is my understanding they sent a letter to Minnie Dhaliwal encouraging the acceptance of this project. Please see her for details. ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Dox 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 1373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com Perspective ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o P: (36o) 221 1373 • E: inguiry@rosschapin.com • W: www.rosschapin.com Ross Chapin Architects Architecture and Site Planning Ross Chapin Architects is dedicated to community -building, environmental stewardship, and expression of the simple joy of living through the creation of wonderfully detailed, "sensibly -sized" custom homes and soulful, vibrant built environments. A full-service architectural firm based on Whidbey Island since 1982, RCA has earned consistent recognition and major awards, the most recent of which are the 2007 AIA National Honor Award and the 2007 Residential Architect Magazine Merit Award. The firm's work is regularly published in widely -distributed magazines and newspapers including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Find Homebuilding, Metropolitan Home, Sunset, Cottage Living, and Coastal Living, as well as in numerous books, perhaps most notably in Sarah Susanka's bestselling "Not -So -Big" series. Mr. Chapin leads the six -person team at RCA in their successful collaboration with developers, city planners and builders to create innovative housing and neighborhood prototypes that have received significant national attention and shifted mainstream development thinking. Ross Chapin, AIA Architect Ross Chapin, AIA, is the founder and Principal Architect of RCA. He is active in his home community of Langley, WA, where he championed the innovative "pocket Neighborhood" code that has been used as a model across the country. Through his work at RCA and as a joint partner with the Cottage Company, he has developed a comprehensive understanding of the subtle and vital connection between authentic design and place that nourish the individual and community. He regularly speaks at universities and professional forums, and is currently writing a book for Taunton Press about neighborhoods. Karen DeLucas, Associate AIA Project Manager Karen DeLucas has twelve years of experience in residential architecture, five of which has been with Ross Chapin Architects. As project manager, she has been intimately involved with all stages of design and construction on the Conover Commons and Danielson Grove projects as well as all of RCA's current 'pocket neighborhood' projects. Her innate ability to analyze and critically assess problems and to find creative solutions has been invaluable to the firm. She brings a sensitive eye for detail to every project as well as the ability to hold on to the big picture. Her passion is creating spaces that both foster community and enrich the individual experience. ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 2373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com Perspective Nellie 998 SF 2 bedroom, 2 bath au WOEIGsil 6®M _1 m■ue .:li !.®®% ■m om® urs mem as® ®flippa tm NM Gulliver .�� I I Ir.;ava'•Jra� ,i�\ c4:•••7-. ` tiir fii r mzi I 'moi tt._*ia'Z.._3it�s ammnase kl -‘' 7606.111:1111:8111. i ��w 7j�ma�oat' .4\ 163:: 1 rramm 720 SF 2 bedroom, 1 bath over 4 garages ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (36o) 221 2373 • Fx: (36o) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com 7/15/oR New Units landscape use easement Open side of house with windows facing the private yard commons space Closed side of the house — slrylights bring light intothe interior without peering at the neighbor sidewalk ./ perennial hedge low fence covered porch 1 \\‘ Concept for Nested Houses 12oo60.oa Oupin ArchiueRt private yard property line landscape use easement of next-door property lowfence ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 13o • i9S Second Street • Langley, Washington 9816o Ph: C36o) 221 1373 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com • www.rosschapin.com Dimensions First Floor Living 11' x 14'-6" Kitchen 13'-9" x 8'-6" Dining Alcove 6' x 6'-8" Guest/Study 12'-6" x 9' Bathroom full Bedroom 92'-2" x 91' Covered Porch 8' x 14' Total Heated Area 838 sq ft Footprint 24' x 42' Sizes are approximate / Plans are subject to change MIN ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 230 • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 98260 (360) 211 2373 • inquiry@rosschapin.com • www.rosschapin.com Betty Jane Description Eight small houses of this 'pocket neighborhood' enclose a shared comunity green. Each dwelling has its own private yard, surrounded by a low fence and garden gate. Garages and parking are clustered off to the side -- a design feature that has residents walking through the commons as a way of fostering a strong sense of community. This project was a joint venture with the Cottage Company and was developed under the City of Shoreline's new Cottage Housing Development (CHD) code. The cottages range in size from 768 to 998 square feet. Cottages around a garden... The hallmark of the development is a landscaped common garden designed to foster a cohesive community and provide a sense of place. The cottage homes, each with a private yard, are arranged around a commons with perennial flower borders, lawn, fruit trees and a tool shed. To the west side of the courtyard is a Commons Building containing a multi-purpose workshop for fixing a bike, planting seedlings or having a party. All cottages include a large covered porch, flower boxes, private yard, gas stove -type fireplaces, gas tank -less water heaters, wood floors, vaulted ceilings, unique interior details, great light and a sense of fun. Each owner has a single car garage (with openers) and there are seven unassigned parking spaces. The cottages were sold as condominiums. ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 2.3o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9816o (36o) 221 2373 • inquiry(Drosschapin.com • www.rosschapin.com Greenwood Avenue Cottages FOUR, GUIDE inTHE REI,10ti'S 70P FRitt1 ; ORTH W ESQ R F'N. 'TOP AFICHITE - -' 50 - - _ a k�f i 4 6, 2 n the mid-1990s, Koss Chapin found himself increasingly frustrated with the state of housing in the United States, particul:u'h the growing trend of urban sprawl and the mediocre designs intpleniented hs mans builders. "Instead ol just moaning and groaning about it, I decided to do something," says Chapin. 1 hat something ss as teaming upwit h developer Jim Soule% of The Cottage Company to create the nation's first cottage deselopment: 1 hird Street Cottages in the town of Langley on \\thidbes Island, l eaturing eight small, exquisite(\ crafted detached homes (the Largest measuring 975 square feet) grouped around a shared courtyard. -aid. the development struck a chord with people tired of oversized, shoddily made houses. "Third Street Cottages' demonstrated that there was a need and a market for this Ross Cnaoin's smart- anc -small neig h sorhooc s is pe of housing.' says Chapin. Since then, Chapin has designed several cottage deselopmcnts for 1 he Cottage C,ompans, including the GreensOOd As cline Cott.,ges in Shoreline (ss inner ol a 2005 Al r\ 1 lousing Committee ,\ss aril). One project currently undersx ay is the Neighborhood of Umatilla 1 lilts in Port'lownsend, a blend ol cottages, hungaloss homes and Custom glo-Gunily residences on to o and a half square blocks. Another is Danielson Grove in I.irklantl, a pocket neighborhood nits ni one-, tsso- and three-bedroom hunks. ranging in sine from 1,501) to 1,701) square feet. clustered around a grassy courtyard. Chapin's ultimate goal for esert project Is 10 "create an em tronttent that supports healthy- relationships and busters ;t sentence of commu • nitv," he says. i\ot only dues knuss ing your neighbors has e strung social benefits, explains C:hapin, it also stakes for a more secure home. "Security is not just about locks and gates, hitt also having a sscb of good neighbors. It's about people looking Out IOr (Inc another'." COTTAGE KING One of Ch.ipin's latest- endear ors is to mals his small. thoughtfully designed hones as ailahlc outside of the Northssest. On rosschapin.coni, prospecIn, c homehuilders tan check out plans for more than 20 cottages. cabins and small houses, ranging in size frons 350 to 1,500 square feet. The plans, which cost from 55110 to $890 each and can he built for approximately $150 to $200 a square loot, recently were Lauded in 11,is Ohl Ilnuse magazine as "a better breed of stock plans." Says Chapin, "The\ use standard, easily found materials. put together in thoughtful ways. Mere is a lot of attention to detail. We've tried to incorporate vitality and richness everywhere." Those who are appre hensive about living in a not -so -big abode should keep in mind that big- ger doesn't necessarily mean better. sass Chapin. Of his designs, he says, There is no n astcd space. Every home lis es larger than its size." ■ ROSS CHAPIN, 195 Second St., Langley; 360.221.2373; rosschaptn.com. ■ TEAM: Karen Delucas, project manager; developers Jim Soules and Linda Pruitt, co-owners of Seattle's The Cottage Company. "Jim and Linda are the development side of the team. We work very closely together." ■ FAVORITE ARCHITECT: "Since 1974, when I first came across his work, I've been inspired by Christopher Alexander. He provided a structure of form and community that relates the physical environment to our human and social environment." • FAVORITE PROJECT TO DATE: "Third Street Cottages in Langley. This was the first contemporary project of its kind in the country, and a true labor of love." • DREAM PROJECT: "A mixed-use project that combines the intimacy of well crafted, sensibly sized houses in the context of a neighborhood with shared green spaces. [It would be] a place where people of all ages could live, work, socialize and create." ■ INSPIRATION: "Simple buildings and small towns." ross chapin architects designs and builds for a demographic ignored by production builders. 0ennyTuner glcy, Wash., a beach town on Whidbey Island, is the kind of place that draws out- siileux. Attrhour north of Seattle, tourists arrive here by the boatload to watch the ureas feedingin Puget Sound, to spot mieruing gray whales in springtime, or to take in the ,,res' !attains, shops. and galleries of this pristine village, population 1,000. Ross Chapin, `-'rAiA, was a tourist who passed through Langley in the lute 1970s. A few years later he came to stay, attracted as much to its strong sense or community as to its panoramic views of Saratoga Passage and the Cascade Mountains. in the past decade, though, Langley has struggled with the growing pains common to all prosperous towns: Big residential developers are beginning to eye the area, and while Chapin bemoans the sad "spaghetti howl of cul-de-sacs and beige boxes" they usually bring with them, he doesn't care much Mr pitched NIMBY battles. Instead, living and working in such an unspoiled spot has inspired hint to come up with housing solutiones that preserve small-town style and scale, changing local zoning ordinances if necessary. Chapin knows that the loose edges of towns, with their mind -numbing mazes of streets. cannot be improved simply by sending out talented architects. Innovative solutions must conic from better planning. So he's teamed up with ace developer Jini Soules to create The Cottage Company, a Seattle -based residential develop- ment tine that specializes in what the pair calls pocket neighborhoods—sensibly sized houses and lots that share a courtyard garden. In 1998 they completed their lirst joint project. Third Street Cottages, which consists of eight exquisitely detailed homes in an existing Langley neighborhood originally zoned for four larger houses it sold out immediately, and within months the national press picked up the story. change agent Since then, Chapin has completed eight other pocket neighborhoods throughout the Northwest with The Cottage Company or other developers. Last year, the partners' Greenwood Avenue Cottages, in Shoreline, Wash., won a national AIA Housing Committee Award. On his Web site, Chapin calls these cottages "the equivalent of the Mini Cooper—small. sensual, well - engineered, and reliable;' And indeed, just as the Mini's market appeal is its design and performance, Chapin doesn't use the D word when discussing the cottage concept, even though it is denser than the typical new -home development, Ile wants to make these homes so inviting that people who can afford more space actually choose Tess. When they're offered an intimate neighborhood with carefully articu- lated public and private spaces, he believes people will choose quality over quantity, and a street -friendly approach to security over a gated community of big houses and big yards. "I'm trying to create models 66 www.residontlalarehttecr.com residential architect 1 January tebruary 2006 change agent Conover Commons, phase one, is organized around Chapin's trademark child- end dog -friendly village green. The homes' fiber - cement siding, painted cedar battens, and Dutch -cut wood doors are updated versions of Northwest vernacular architecture. "what L'ut. ,cOi11g for L1 vitality and life. curia 17',S 110f SO 1111f.r.'l1 c1 111e11Ial cte.i'il1Nfle (1S cr felt character and L1cr;rrf.ty."--rocs Chapin other people can step into, take for a spin, and be inspired by," he says. "Hopefully a homebuyer can walk into u house that's 1,000 square feet, metaphorically kick the tires, and say, 'Oli, this isn't that small: Or they'll say, 'I couldn't live in anything this size, but it makes me think about how much time and money 1 spend taking care of my house.'" Few would question the need to broaden the housing palette. Chapin points out that demographic statis- tics put the number of one-person U.S. households at roughly 40 percent, and 60 percent are one- and two - person households. That's a Targe group of people for whom a big home on a 7,000 -square -foot lot may not make sense in terns of space, money. or time spent on upkeep. By offering a detached alternative to townhouses turd condos in single-family neighborhoods, he aims to provide the missing link between home and a spirit of camaraderie that both nmltil'amily dwellings and 250 -home suburban subdivisions ignore. local lineage "Most zoning is for suburban development. not community," says Chapin, who grew up in a small town north of St. Paul, Minn., in a shingled bungalow on a lake. It seems poetic that he ended up here in Langtry—the first municipality in the Northwest to adopt the Cottage Housing Development provision, and perhaps the smallest town in the U.S. with u design review board. And yet, it is perfectly logical, in the way that people return to the values with which they were raised. His grandfather built the house Chapin lived in as a boy; his sister owns it now. "1 was growing up in a location that had a very strong sense of place," he says. "1 got to know the history of the neighborhood and the people who'd lived for generations in the same place. My grandmother would talk about when she was young, sitting in the crook of u particular tree, and [she would] point to the tree and say, 'Look how big it is now."' When I looked at trees, 1 saw them not just as trees but us a continuum of life." Fast forward to the early 1970s, when Chapin saw his hometown suffer the fate of other traditional settlements. As the freeways carne nut from St. Paul, the first waves of suburbia lapped the edges of the small town. Thousands of cookie -cutter houses went up in what used to be cornfields, and the town center began to decline as more and more people settled close to the shopping centers that were sprouting. It's u familiar story, but Chapin says the Toss hit home as he was heading off to architecture school at the University of Minnesota. "My grandfather would walk in the woods; my dad played there, and I played there," he says. "When the ravine was filled in and the creek was straightened and pat in a culvert, and houses went up, i felt almost a pain in my body." So he went off to college, determined to create mem- orable places that respond to history, neighborhood, the sun, and the contour of the land. "To me it was play," Chapin says of learning to make architecture. "it was all about not only form, but about people and relationships and detailing so that i could feel a place come alive when I would draw." These pocket cottages are quaint in the best sense of the word. Their welcoming perches, flower 68 www resurentialarchitect.com residential architect I January lebruary 2006 Description Developed in joint venture with the Cottage Company, this community is the first built under the City of Redmond's Innovative Housing Code, which gives incentives for developing size -limited homes. The first phase was completed in 2005 and has twelve 1000 SF cottages gathered around a garden courtyard. The buyers include a mix of professional couple, empty nesters, single women and single -parent families. The site plan and home design balance an inviting sense of community with the need for privacy. As in our other garden court neighborhoods, residents walk from the garage door to the front door—passing through a shared courtyard, private garden gate, and room -sized front porch—increasing the chance interactions among neighbors that are the seeds for community. This project received a BuiltGreen 4 -Star rating and Energy Star certification, which covers everything from stormwater management, to high-level insulation, to jobsite recycling. Trees taken down on the site were milled for use as flooring, front -porch beams and columns. The commons building, used for potlucks and meetings, uses whole logs for it's supporting structure, and has 100% of it's electricity supplied by photovoltaic panels on the roof. Awards The American Institute of Architects/Sunset Magazine gave Conover Commons it's 2006 Western Home Honor Award. ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 13o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9816o (360) 121 2.373 • inquiry®rosschapin.com • www.rosschapin.com Conover Commons Cottages • ROSS CHAPINARCH iTECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 13o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 98z6o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (36o) 221 2373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross(erosschapin.com 414/08 Perspective Communities MARCWAPRIL 2000 1 t At the Third Street Cottages, eight one - family homes now occupy land origi- nally zoned for four. cottage industry On a Puget Sound island, one community has found an answer to increasing growth without adding to urban blight. By Linda Humphrey Langtey Washington, a beach town on Whidbey Island. is a short drive from the ferry that connects the island to greater Seattle. Its quaint restaurants and vintage shops that spill down a hillside toward Puget Sound have. in fact. made it a tourist mecca, complete with thorny problems of growth and the conse- quent decline in quality of life. Unlike some small commuities. Langley has faced the problem head- on. A new local zoning ordinance provides an alternative to apartment construction: "Cottage Housing De- velopment" increases population density, while prescning appropriate architectural style and scale as well as a sense of community. The new ordi- nance permits 4 to 12 single family units arranged on at least two sides of a common open space. Maximum footprints are 650 square feet, with to- tal floor space not to exceed 975. And it's working. Three blocks from the hub of commerce sits Third Street Cottages, a watercolor pastiche of small-scale dwellings. Although each is slightly different, they all seem to have been lifted from a story- book. The brainchildren of develop- er Jim Soulcs and architect Ross Chapin, these small houses arc nos- talgic In appearance only. In con- cept. they are another step in the growth of new urbanism. The Third Street Cottages commu- nity consists of eight detached homes built on four 7,400-squarc-foot sin- gle-family lots. In other words, by keeping the units small, the popula- tion density of die land doubled > 1 Description Developed in partnership with the Cottage Company, this pocket neighborhood is located on a quiet street in the North Rose Hill area of Kirkland, Washington. A mix of sixteen three-bedroom homes and one and two-bedroom cottages are arranged around shared garden courtyards. Like our other communities, these homes are tailored for a simpler yet rich lifestyle, in a setting where neighbors can know one another. The houses are BuiltGreen/EnergyStar certified and subscribe to the 'Natural Yard Care' program. Awards Ross Chapin Architects received the prestigious American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2007 Housing Award for Danielson Grove in the One/Two Family Production Homes category. Residential Architect magazine also awarded Ross Chapin Architects the Merit Award for Danielson Grove neighborhood in the Single -Family Production Housing/Detached category. ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o (360) 211 2373 • inquiry@rosschapin.com • www.rosschapin.com Danielson Grove 1 ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 98160 Tukwila, Washington Ph: (36o) 221 2373 • Fx: (36o) 221 8603 • Em: ross(1rosschapin.com 2/1.1/08 Perspective 0 �.s� a • 4016 � �.. ;r1' •j The first project to take advantage of Langley's new cottage housing code, Third Street Cottages encom• passes eight detached homes, all less than 1,000 square feet In size. With Its built -In character, energy efficiency, and neighborly attitude, the pocket -sized community em- bodies Chapin's values of quality construction combined with a strong sense of place. residential architect 1 january • february 2006 Photos: Courtesy Roes Chapin. euapl wham noted www.rosldenlialarehllecl.00m 67 O In N N rough boards 2x4 P,T. 4x4 P.T. post 1x6 1x4 3/4" N N Perimeter & Privacy Fence rough boards 2x4 P.T. 4x4 P.T. post Private Yard Fence WaII Mounted Lamp 1x3 ,1x4 <> Post Light ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 2373 • Fx: (36o) 211 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com z/15/08 Fences & Lighting • VIM ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (360) 221 2373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com 2/14/08 Perspective 1 4 ROSS CHAPINARCH ITECTS Sundial Cottages Post Office Box 23o • 195 Second Street • Langley, Washington 9826o Tukwila, Washington Ph: (36o) 2.21 2373 • Fx: (360) 221 8603 • Em: ross@rosschapin.com 2/14/08 Perspective Cooke Cottages Timeline 12/7/2007 Application for consideration into the Housing Options Program (Attachment B) 4/4/2008 Notice of Decision to consider project under the Housing Options Program (Attachment C) 10/2/2008 RFA08-273 Stop Work Notification for clearing vegetation without a permit (Attachment 0) 10/20/2008 L08-065 Application for Tree Clearing Permit 12/23/2008 L08-065 Technical Comments #1 for Tree Clearing Permit 3/31/2009 L09-012 Application for Special Permission Buffer Reduction L09-013 Application for Design Review E09-001 Application for SEPA 4/24/2009 L09-012 Notice of Completeness for Buffer Reduction L09-013 Notice of Completeness for Design Review E09- 001 Notice of Completeness for SEPA 5/1/2009 L09-020 Application for Short Plat 5/08/2009 L09-012 Notice of Application for Buffer Reduction L09-013 Notice of Application for Design Review E09- 001 Notice of Application for SEPA 5/18/2009 L09-020 Notice of Incompleteness for Short Plat 6/16/2009 Technical Comments #1 (Attachment E) 9/22/2009 Applicant's Response to Technical Comments #1 (only sensitive areas comments L09-012) 11/20/2009 E09-001 SEPA DNS Issued 12/4/2009 Technical Comments #2 (only sensitive areas were reviewed- L08-065 & L09-012) 3/19/2010 Applicant's response to Technical Comments #2 6/1/2010 L08-065 Tree Clearing Permit issued L09-012 Buffer Reduction issued 12/29/2010 Applicant's response to Technical Comments #1 (only Design Review— L09-013) 3/10/2011 Technical Comments #3 (Attachment F) 7/11/2011 Applicant's response to Technical Comments #3 9/6/2011 Technical Comments #4 (Attachment G) 8/3/2012 Applicant's response to Technical Comments #4 8/21/2012 Notice of Pending Cancellation (Attachment I) 11/16/2012 Notice of Three Week Extension of Pending Cancellation (Attachment L) 12/6/2012 Extension of Pending Cancellation (Attachment M) 2/28/2013 Revocation of Decision (Attachment P) 2/28/2013 Notice of Incompleteness #2 for short plat approval due to revocation of decision 3/13/2013 Notice of Appeal received (Attachment Q) Watanabe, Anne From: Watanabe, Anne Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:54 AM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: FW: Hearing Needed Attachments: 20130313 Notice of Appeal.pdf; 20130228 Revocation of Decision.pdf From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy. MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:57 AM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Anne, Attached is the Revocation Decision and the Appliant's notice of appeal. What follows is the applicant's contact information and his attorney's info. Applicant: Todd Smith T Smith TSmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 Cooke Riverside Property LLC PO Box 97193, Tacoma, WA 98497 Applicant's Counsel: Gerald Robinson 648 S 152nd St, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 206-243-4219 Thank you, Stacy MacGregor Tukwila Assistant Planner /Tuesday- Friday 8:30-3 6300 Southcenter Blvd / Tukwila, WA 98188 ph: (206) 433-7166 / fx: (206) 431-3665 Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov / www.TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Watanabe, Anne[mailto:Anne.Watanabe@&seattle.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:56 AM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Hello Stacy, May 28 at 10 a.m. is fine. Could you email me a copy of the Director's decision, the appeal letter, and contact information for the party representatives? Thanks. 1 Anne Watanabe From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:05 AM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Let's do May 28th. How about 10 am? Stacy MacGregor Tukwila Assistant Planner /Tuesday- Thursday 8:30-3 6300 Southcenter, Blvd / Tukwila, WA 98188 ph: (206) 433-7166 / fx: (206) 431-3665 Stacy.MacGrergor@TukwilaWA.gov / www.TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Watanabe, Anne tmailto:Anne.Watanabe@seattle.govl Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 2:52 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Hello Stacy, May 24, 28 or 31 would work for me. Anne Watanabe From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy. MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:06 PM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: Hearing Needed Hi Anne, I need to schedule a hearing for the "Revocation of Decision" for Cooke Cottages. The applicant has appealed the Director's Type II decision. If you could give me a couple of options to schedule the hearing for the second half of May on a Tuesday or Friday, I will verify with the applicant and city attorney as to availability (May 21, 24,28, 31). The Decision needs to be issued by June 11. Thanks, Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd I Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30-3 ph: (206) 433-7166 1 fx: (206) 431-3665 2 stacy.macgregor@TukwilaWA.gov 1 www.TulZwilaWA.gov 3 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 ktCEIVED MAR 13 2013 C;()!JIl41,1141 i Y OEVELUI'MLN r NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: Cooke Cottages 13325 Macadam Road South L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application I. Identification of Appealing Party Name of Appealing Party: Todd Smith Address of Appealing Party: 8129 Hudson Pl. SW Lakewood, WA 98498 Phone No. of Appealing Party: (253) 691-8191 Represented by: Gerald F. Robison, Attorney at Law II. Decision Being Appealed From Revocation of Decision, Dated February 28, 2013, which revoked the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Copies are attached. Page 1 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 III. Errors A. Arbitrarily revokes a final decision. The City made its decision to revoke the earlier decision nearly five years after the original decision was made, based on what appears to be staff's determination to force Mr. Smith to employ the particular professional named in the original decision. The decision, while specifying that it only applied to "Phase 1 ", was not in any way deemed to be provisional or otherwise subject to arbitrary revocation. The decision in fact granted approval only for Mr. Smith to apply under the Housing Options Program ("HOP") within one year. There was no requirement in the decision that Mr. Smith obtain final approval on any permit application within that time. Mr. Smith made his application within the required time period. The decision to revoke is not clear as to the grounds for revocation, but discusses two conditions that were allegedly violated. Condition 2 of the original decision required that the site design preserve existing trees in the wetland buffer area. Mr. Smith did remove trees from the wetland buffer area, but that action was approved by the City, in connection with the original decision, over three years ago. The City's approval of that change constitutes a change in the conditions under the original decision and cannot support revocation of the decision at this time. Condition 3 of the original decision stated only that the decision was based on "the understanding" that Designs Northwest Architects ("DNW") "will" be part of the project team and "will" be involved "during" construction of the project. But, the selection criteria (TMC 18.120.030.C.4) only called for "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere." Identification of a specific design team or professional who would remain involved through the entire project was not required. Successful development of such a product was, and still is, extremely rare in the market place, so it is evident that the Director extended the term `applicant' to include the applicant's entire design team, and, since Page 2 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 2434219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 DNW had not actually been a material part of any successful development of cottage housing, that its concern was with the potential to complete a successful project more than its actual history of development. Mr. Smith however soon became convinced that DNW would not be able to fulfill its role of helping him develop a successful project, so he sought to replace DNW. City staff stated that they would accept a change in the identity of the design professional if the right person was found for the replacement. Mr. Smith proposed replacements with successful experience at least equal to that of DNW, but the City arbitrarily refused to accept any replacement, insisting in the end that Mr. Smith must use DNW. The City has already determined that TMC 18.12O.O3O.C.4, requires only that the applicant's development team represent a good chance of successfully developing the project, not an actual history of successful development by the applicant that a literal reading of the ordinance seems to require. Having made the original decision under a relaxed standard the City cannot now revoke that decision under a stricter standard, arbitrarily insist that Mr. Smith stay with his original choice of design professional, or arbitrarily apply a different standard to any new design professional Mr. Smith selects. It is far too late for the City to reconsider or revoke the decision it made in 2008. The parties moved past the selection phase and the City cannot arbitrarily revoke that selection. B. Revocation of Decision Not Signed by Director. Jack Pace is identified as the Director on Tukwila's web site and on the Revocation of Decision. The signature on the Revocation of Decision is illegible, but bears no resemblance at all to the signature of Jack Pace found on the original decision. Page 3 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243.4219 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 IV. Harm Suffered or Anticipated If the Revocation of Decision is allowed to stand Mr. Smith will lose the chance to develop the green, modern and forward thinking development he spent years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars on. He will not get to turn the property he inherited from his mother into a model for modern living. He will lose an undetermined further amount of money that could have been made from the cottage development as opposed to simply selling the land for development of conventional single family homes on large lots. V. Relief Sought Mr. Smith asks that the Revocation of Decision be vacated or otherwise canceled restoring the situation that existed prior to issuance of said order. March 12, 2013 Gerald F. Robison, WSBA #23118 Attorney for Appellant Page 4 of 4 Law Offices of Gerald F. Robison 648 S. 152nd, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 (206) 243-4219 Vee, Linda From: Watanabe, Anne Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:37 PM To: Vee, Linda Subject: FW: Hearing Needed Attachments: 20130313 Notice of Appeal.pdf; 20130228 Revocation of Decision.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Linda, Here is info from Tukwila re: the Revocation appeal, so could you please set up a file for this? Stacy only sent us the applicant's information - could you contact her to find out who will be representing the Department, and the contact info. Thanks! Anne From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:57 AM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Anne, Attached is the Revocation Decision and the Appliant's notice of appeal. What follows is the applicant's contact information and his attorney's info. Applicant: Todd Smith T Smith TSmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191 Cooke Riverside Property LLC PO Box 97193, Tacoma, WA 98497 Applicant's Counsel: Gerald Robinson 648 S 152nd St, Suite 7 Seattle, WA 98148 206-243-4219 Thank you, Stacy MacGregor Tukwila Assistant Planner /Tuesday- Friday 8:30-3 6300 Southcenter Blvd / Tukwila, WA 98188 ph: (206) 433-7166 / fx: (206) 431-3665 Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov / www.TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Watanabe, Anne[mailto:Anne.Watanabe@seattle.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:56 AM 1 To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Hello Stacy, May 28 at 10 a.m. is fine. Could you email me a copy of the Director's decision, the appeal letter, and contact information for the party representatives? Thanks. Anne Watanabe From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy. MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:05 AM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Let's do May 28th. How about 10 am? Stacy MacGregor Tukwila Assistant Planner /Tuesday- Thursday 8:30-3 6300 Southcenter Blvd / Tukwila, WA 98188 ph: (206) 433-7166 / flc: (206) 431-3665 Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov / www.TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Watanabe, Anne fmailto:Anne.Watanabe@seattle.govl Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 2:52 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Hearing Needed Hello Stacy, May 24, 28 or 31 would work for me. Anne Watanabe From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:06 PM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: Hearing Needed Hi Anne, I need to schedule a hearing for the "Revocation of Decision" for Cooke Cottages. The applicant has appealed the Director's Type II decision. If you could give me a couple of options to schedule the hearing for the second half of May on a Tuesday or Friday, I will verify with the applicant and city attorney as to availability (May 21, 24,28, 31). The Decision needs to be issued by June 11. Thanks, Stacy MacGregor 2 Assistant Planner I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd I Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30-3 ph: (206) 433-7166 I fx: (206) 431-3665 stacy.macgregor@TukwilaWA.gov 1 www.TukwilaWA.gov 3 Watanabe, Anne From: Stacy MacGregor [Stacy.MacGregor@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:06 PM To: Watanabe, Anne Subject: Hearing Needed Hi Anne, I need to schedule a hearing for the "Revocation of Decision" for Cooke Cottages. The applicant has appealed the Director's Type II decision. If you could give me a couple of options to schedule the hearing for the second half of May on a Tuesday or Friday, I will verify with the applicant and city attorney as to availability (May 21, 24,28, 31). The Decision needs to be issued by June 11. Thanks, Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd I Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 8:30-3 ph: (206) 433-7166 I fx: (206) 431-3665 stacy.macgregor@TukwilaWA.gov I www.TukwilaWA.gov 1 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director February 28, 2013 REVOCATION OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Owner, sent via email TSmith@cottagesnw.com All parties of record RE: Cooke Cottages L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application Dear Mr. Smith: This letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Since the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of approval this project is no longer eligible to be considered under the Housing Options Program. Therefore, the above referenced permit applications can no longer be processed by the city at this time and your resubmittal dated February 14, 2013, for a nine lot short plat application for cottage housing is deemed incomplete. On April 4, 2008, you received a Notice of Decision (Attachment A) granting your application consideration as one of three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program, subject to several conditions. Your Notice of Decision states that approval was granted for the "...conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland b: fer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscape buffer and streetscape issues." These conditions were intended to ensure satisfaction of the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. In September of 2008 you cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Condition #2 above. A code enforcement action was initiated (RFA08-273) for clearing in a wetland buffer without a tree clearing permit. You subsequently obtained a tree clearing permit which approved a buffer enhancement plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area. The required mitigation plan was approved in June of 20I0 but at this time the work has not started. In order to satisfy Condition #3 above, you were asked on multiple occasions to verify Designs Northwest's role in your project. Condition #3 was based on TMC 18.120.030.04, stating that the selection criteria for the housing options program requires "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. On February 14, 2013 SM Page 1 of 2 0128/2013 C:1Users`minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 you submitted a response to city's comments (Attachment B) on your design review application along with additional information on your incomplete short plat application. In your resubmittal, you state: "Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired ....J have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate..." You were offered the option of using a different architect in lieu of Designs Northwest provided the criteria for approval (TMC 18.120.030.04) was met. The resumes submitted for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah do not demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction development of cottages elsewhere. You were informed of this in January of 2013 and you responded via email with the statement "The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. 1 am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO" (Attachment C). According to 18.120.030-C, the Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. Your application does not meet the conditions of approval and therefore the Director's Decision is revoked. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by March 14, 2013. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $563. Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Sincerely (PJack Pace Director of the Department of Community Development Encl: Attachment A -Original Notice of Decision dated April 4, 2008 Attachment B- Resbumittal memo from Todd Smith received on Feb 14, 2013 Attachment C -.Email from Todd Smith dated Jan 15, 2013 SM Page 2 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documcnts\Revocation of Decision.doc Attachment A City of Tukwila ila Jtm Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on the following project and permit approval. L PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program project Description: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and one cottage. Location: 13325 Macadam Road South Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director hasddetersnined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selectlon.listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)18.120.030<. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: MD Page 1 of 2 Q:1Couage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc 4!04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • 711kwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431.3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision Is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to indude Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval Is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues, III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are •avaliable for Inspection at the Tukwila Department bf Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project, planner is Minnie Dhallwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. (1 Director, �f, . rt nt of Community Development • City of Tu iia MD Page 2 4/04/08 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development February 28, 2013 REVOCATION OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Owner, sent via email TSmith@cottagesnw.com All parties of record RE: Cooke Cottages L09-013 Public Hearing Design Review L08-020 Short plat application Dear Mr. Smith: Jack Pace, Director This letter revokes the decision issued on April 4, 2008, which approved the above referenced project as one of three projects eligible to apply under the Housing Options Program (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.120). Since the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of approval this project is no longer eligible to be considered under the Housing Options Program. Therefore, the above referenced permit applications can no longer be processed by the city at this time and your resubmittal dated February 14, 2013, for a nine lot short plat application for cottage housing is deemed incomplete. On April 4, 2008, you received a Notice of Decision (Attachment A) granting your application consideration as one of three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program, subject to several conditions. Your Notice of Decision states that approval was granted for the "...conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase 2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the existing trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscape buffer and streetscape issues." These conditions were intended to ensure satisfaction of the criteria for project selection listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. In September of 2008 you cleared trees in the wetland buffer in violation of Condition #2 above. A code enforcement action was initiated (RFA08-273) for clearing in a wetland buffer without a tree clearing permit. You subsequently obtained a tree clearing permit which approved a buffer enhancement plan for unauthorized tree clearing in a sensitive area. The required mitigation plan was approved in June of 2010 but at this time the work has not started. In order to satisfy Condition #3 above, you were asked on multiple occasions to verify Designs Northwest's role in your project. Condition #3 was based on TMC 18.120.030.04, stating that the selection criteria for the housing options program requires "Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere. On February 14, 2013 SM Page 1 of 2 02/28/2013 C:\Users\minnie\DocumentsUtevocation of Decision.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 you submitted a response to city's comments (Attachment B) on your design review application along with additional information on your incomplete short plat application. In your resubmittal, you state: "Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired .....1 have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualamallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate..." You were offered the option of using a different architect in lieu of Designs Northwest provided the criteria for approval (TMC 18.120.030.C4) was met. The resumes submitted for Mr. Peragine and Mr. Boualamallah do not demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction development of cottages elsewhere. You were informed of this in January of 2013 and you responded via email with the statement "The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. 1 am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO" (Attachment C). According to 18.120.030-C, the Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the criteria. Your application does not meet the conditions of approval and therefore the Director's Decision is revoked. In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by March 14, 2013. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $563. Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Sincerely (tack Pace Director of the Department of Community Development Encl: Attachment A -Original Notice of Decision dated April 4, 2008 Attachment B- Resbumittal memo from Todd Smith received on Feb 14, 2013 Attachment C -.Email from Todd Smith dated Jan 15, 2013 SM Page 2 of 2 02128/2013 C:\Users\minnie\Documents\Revocation of Decision.doc City of Tukwila Attachment A Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development April 4, 2008 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Todd Smith, Applicant & Owner Ali Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.120.030 on, the following project and permit approval. Jack Pace, Director I. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Smith Type of Permit Applied for: Cottage Housing under the City's Housing Options Program Project Description: Nine residential units- Eight compact single family units and one cottage. Location: 13325 Macadam Road South Comprehensive Plan pesignation/Zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) District: II. DECISION The City's Community Development Director hasodetermined that this application for constructing cottages under the City's Housing Options Program does satisfy the criteria for project selection .listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.120.030-C. This project will be considered as one of the three projects allowed under the Housing Options Program and the only project allowed in Duwamish neighborhood. This decision was made based on the findings and conclusions included in the staff report. Public meeting to get community input was held on October 11, 2007. A detailed review of the project will be done as part of the SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat review process. This approval to consider this project as one of the projects under the Housing Options Program is for the conceptual site plan dated September 12, 2007, as modified by the following conditions: MD • Page 1 of 2 Q:\Cottage Housing\Directoes approval -Riverton Neighburhuod•doe 4/04/08 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. III. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for the underlying permits that include SEPA, Design Review and Short Plat within one year of the date of this notice that is by April 4, 2009. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are ,available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project. planner Is Minnie Dhallwal, who may be contacted at 206-431-3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King ,County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Director, �t� . rt ni" t of Community Development • City of Tu iia MD Page 2 4/04/08 Q:\Cottage Housing\Director's approval -Riverton Neighborhood.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR PREPARED APRIL 3, 2008 APPLICANT: Todd Smith, Cooke Riverside Properties LLC OWNER: Todd Smith REQUESTS: To construct 9 residences including 8 compact single family homes (less than 1500 sf) and one cottage house Tess than 1000 sf. LOCATION: 13325 Macadam Road South COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal ATTACHMENTS: A. Application letter B. Conceptual site plan FINDINGS VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Project Description The developer has proposed to build eight compact single family units and one cottage house. There are clustered around common open space. The western side of the property contains a wetland and the buffer of Southgate creek. The proposal includes request for 50% buffer reduction for the wetland in exchange for improving the highly degraded buffer. Surrounding Land Uses The project is proposed in the Riverton neighborhood. The surrounding properties are very low density single family. The general area contains Southgate Creek and wetlands. The surrounding land uses are single family residential. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The property includes 20 feet of the adjacent right-of-way that recently went through a Quiet Title process. Background The applicant is proposing cottage housing under the City's Housing Options program. This program was adopted by the City Council in 2005 as a demonstration housing program to increase the choice of housing styles available in the community while still being compatible with the existing single-family developments. A public meeting on the proposed project was held on October 11, 2007, to get the community input. The notice of public meeting was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site. The meeting was held at the proposed site. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and streetscape. The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of phase one to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program to further pursue Phase 2. This decision Is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. The next step after being approved as a project to be considered under the Housing Options Program is to apply for SEPA (if cumulative grade and fill amount exceeds 500 2 cubic yards), Design Review and Short Plat applications. The review process for all these applications includes public notification and a comment period. Further a public hearing will be held for Design Review application. A detailed review of the parking, frontage improvements and streetscape, wetland buffer reduction and enhancement and maintenance of common areas will be done during this review process. •( PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA This project Is subject to project selection criteria of the Housing Options Program, listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. 1. Consistency with the goals of the Housing Options Program as enumerated in TMC 18.120.010. TMC 18.120.010 Program Goals: The goals of the Housing Options Program are to: • a) Increase the choice of housing styles available In the community through projects that are compatible with existing single-family developments; The proposed project will provide smaller single family dwelling units, which will provide an alternative housing style than the typical low- density subdivisions and high density multi -family complexes. b) Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes; This project may not be marketed or considered "affordable" by standard measures tied to median incomes. However they will be more affordable than the lower density alternatives that could have been built in their place and they contribute more to the overall housing supply than the low density alternative while encouraging home ownership. c) Stimulate Innovative housing design that Improves the character and sense of community In a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas. Two residences are proposed along the street and all the units face a shared common area that opens onto a larger open space (wetland area). The applicant has stated that each house will be unique design that fits overall In the scheme, which will be an alternative to cookie cutter homes. Also, the proposed site layout and the homes shall be built green and shall incorporate sustainable design features. 3 d) Develop high-quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and • The landscaping and architectural details that will be required as part of the Design Review process will be of high quality that will improve the character and sense of community in a neighborhood. Further a homeowner's association will be required to keep up the landscaping and maintenance of common areas. • e) Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single -person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods. 'These units will provide home ownership opportunities for a number of individuals and families looking for something different than large lot single fan1ily and Targe niultifamily complexes. 2. Not more than one Housing Options project shall be approved per City neighborhoods, which are a) McMicken Heights b) Tukwila Hill c) Ryan Hill d) Allentown e) Duwamlsh f) Foster Point g) Cascade View h) Riverton I) Foster j) Thorndyke. Foster and Thomdyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th Ave South. This is the first Housing Options project applied for in the Riverton neighborhood. 3. Proposals must be at least 1500 feet from any other housing project considered under TMC Chapter 18.120. No other application has been received by the City for another Housing Options project within 1500 feet of the subject site. 4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed produce elsewhere. The applicant's design team includes Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects, Applicant has stated that Mr. Stever will be the architect of record and Designs Northwest will assisting and providing concept site design and concept house design and will have some site review and quality control review during construction. Designs NW has several cottage housing projects at various stages being built in the 4 Northwest such as Sequoia project in Kirkland, Haller Point, Collins Cottages and Spiritbrook Cottages in Redmond. 5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector arterial or along a neighborhood edge or In or adjacent to medium or high-density districts. The site is bordered by Macadam Road to the east. The area around the property is zoned Low Density Residential. However the properties across the Street are Commercial/ Light Industrial. There is a large portion of the site on the east side that is constrained by a wetland and a stream buffer. This area will not have structures and will be of low impact to the properties to the east. The existing trees in the buffer area will be required to be preserved. Further landscaping will be required along the north and south property lines to provide adequate buffer to the adjacent properties. ' 6. The concerns of the community are addressed In the proposal's design. A neighborhood meeting was held at the site on October 11, 2007. The public comments received during and after the meeting included concerns about not having enough guest parking, rental vs. owner occupied units, drainage, survey being off 8 feet, people walking/cutting through adjacent properties, preserving existing trees and providing an inviting streetscape. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project meets the criteria for project selection listed under TMC 18.120.030-C. The applicant shall apply for Short Plat, Design Review and SEPA (if more than 500 cubic yards of cumulative grade and fill) within one year of the date of the approval notice. Some elements of the project design that will need to be addressed as part of the review process are: providing enough guest parking, preserving existing trees, providing an inviting streetscape, adequate landscape buffers along north and south property lines, frontage improvements, meeting Fire Department access issues, placement and design of garbage/recycling areas. Further the applicant has stated that they have hired Chandler Stever Architects and Designs Northwest Architects and Designs NW has experience In development of a cottage housing project. Since one of the criteria of approval is the demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed product elsewhere, the approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be involved all throughout the project including the construction stage. 5 The applicant has stated that they are interested in including the property to the north as a second phase of development. However they wanted to get approval of Phase 1 to determine if they qualified under the Housing Options Program. If approved for Phase 1 they would further pursue Phase 2. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhood meeting and new decision will be required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of project to be considered one of the three allowed under City's Housing Options Program with the following conditions: 1. This decision is approving only Phase 1. If the applicant chooses to include Phase2, a separate neighborhoodmeeting and new decision will be required. 2. The site design shall preserve the exiting trees in the wetland buffer area. 3. This approval is based on the understanding that Designs Northwest Architects will be part of the project team and will be involved during the design and construction of the project site and the individual units. 4. As.part of the Design Review process applicant shall address adequate guest parking, landscaping buffer and streetscape issues. 6 C ©d lite/ Me -AZ -644 Attachment B fan Comments to technical comments#4: fEB 14 2013 ease address all technical comment to Todd Smith, CEO and approved applicant. Provide a description of sequencing for the development given the City's requirement to put in infrastructure to obtain final short plat approval prior to applying for any building permits. Also address timing of wetland improvements relative to the cottage development. Provide a statement form Designs Northwest detailing their role in this project To accomplish infrastructure improvement and wetland mitigation sequencing of the development will be two fold. I have talked with numerous funding agencies to discover that to get this project off the ground recordable lots if not required but is recommended. The Wetland improvements preferable should be done during the period units #6 & 7 are excavated and built to reduce the impact on the wetland later in the project. Thus to build Units #6 & 7 the lending agency would want the underlying lots recorded. This would allow me to submit Construction Drawings, while the wetland is modified. Thus we would request that because Units #6 & 7 are not encumbered the City would allow me to record these two lots prior to completing short plat. We have received from King Conservation District (KCD) a grant to supplement the work to enhance the area from the wetland buffer to the creek for 2012. We have received from USACE #29 permit to do Wetland Enhancement for 2012. Stage One: 1. Record lots #6 & 7. 2. Commence wetland improvements and obtain approved Construction Drawings for unit #6 & 7. 3. To repair/mitigate the wetland area and build units #6 & 7. The bulk of our grading activities take place. We are able to place silt barrier below #6 & 7 during construction phase then move it East of these unit when completed. Protecting the wetland as the project is under construction. 4. Finish wetland and install preliminary rain garden. 5. Install the French drain along S boundary as described in Civil Plan while the overflow drains to wetland. 6. Units #6 & 7 are furthest from the street which allows us to install necessary infrastructure required for short plat and required by construction loan. As utilities are installed to unit #6 & 7 utility stubs would be capped to the other lots. a. We place a fire hydrant on East side of Macadam bring the water main across, stub all the houses and install water meters; b. Work with City Light to install community service panel and run conduit from panel to individual lots, and service to #6 & 7. c. Work with Puget Power to provide gas lines and meters to individual lots; 7. Install Private Road to access foremost units #6 & 7. Utilities which are designed under driveway would be completed. 8. I would request a variance to Short Plat requirement allowing the sidewalk subsurface material be installed while postponing hard surfacing to improve access to units #1 & 2 during construction of Second Phase and prevent construction damage to sidewalk. We will excavate this area during 1st Phase to provide concept contours for utilities, rain garden, landscaping and signage. 9. Lots #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 and the promenade will be graded accordingly to meet Short Plat requirements. 10. This will get us a completed short plat and recordable lots except for the requested variance for finished sidewalk, which will be installed during Second Phase: 2nd Phase. 1. Units #6 & 7 are complete along with short plat. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 are recorded, while Construction Drawing for units #8, 9, 4, 5, 3, 2, & 1 are submitted and approved. Construction begins to complete project, order of foundations units #8, 9, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1; Buildings #8, 9, 5, 4, 1, 2, & 3; The promenade and access stairs next to #1, 2 & 4 will be completed when it is most feasible. 2. Sidewalk completed after foundations #1 & 2 are completed, back filled and during process installing front rain garden, landscaping and parking space #19. Connecting rain garden to storm water sewer. 3. Complete rain garden flowing west through promenade and landscape promenade. Silt barriers will be positioned accordingly to protect wetland and limit offsite impacts. 4. Complete Landscaping for lots and promenade. Technical comments by Planning Dept: Basement areas do comply with the Housing Option Ordinance; "Excluded Area: unheated storage space located under the main floor of a cottage." These houses have limited storage space. The garages are required by the ordinance and the CC&R to be used for vehicles with limited storage space. I believe what you are requesting is beyond the scope of the Ordinance. Use of the basements is multi -faceted: 1. Unheated storage area 2. Equally important, as a Cool Sink to be used to passively cool the building in summer, ducting air to main floor while drawing air from north or east side of building and exhausting overheated 2nd floor. For me this is similar to 1.10010'x10' private space. I extrapolated the idea using it to expand the adjacent livable space by making it private. Thus instead of 100SF it is about 250-300SF while improving the livability a project goal. 3. Without this space considerable more energy would be needed to cool these buildings during the summer. 4. One of the HOO goals is to make buildings more affordable. Not using forced air HVAC system is more affordable. The intrusion to the East set back was agreed to during earlier discussions. The 4' of foundation is used for garage with no livable space, above is a deck. 1 included the Airlocks space at the entrance. This area is unheated and provides less heat/cool exchange when one opens and closes front door. This is an important energy feature to these passive solar buildings. Active solar panels were excluded from the design principally because we are not sure of the solar aperture of the units and the cost factors to market value. Whether they are or are not designed into the elevation is not germane to this phase. I will note that depending on critical aperture and area concerns I plan to install 3-5 KWH systems with availability for Electric Vehicle charging station. Unit Detail comment: Changes were made to limited the size of the units and maintain the 1500SF criteria without compromising the Site Plan. l included a table showing the nine units and their respective areas. Architectural consultant comment: Design NW role to the project is concluded, Dan Nelson has been fired. The drawings he presented me indicated a lack of knowledge of HOO, marginal respect of cottage housing perspective, compatibility with neighborhood and passive solar design. I have hired Christopher Peragine, Architect & Fatah Boualarnallah, Architect to complete the project, their Resume is included. As noted their expertise is more than adequate. Reviewing the completed plans will attest to their professionalism. Preliminary Short Plat comment: Submitted 4 pages by Schroeter Survey Landscaping comments from Technical Comments #3: KLLA revised the Landscape plans to address comment #3. Civil Engineering Design: Two documents have been submitted that accomplish this task. Water and Sewer Availability Letters, Geo Technical Report & SEPA: Documents have been submitted. Submitted by: Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. Calculations for proposed homes at Cooke Creek Meadow House # Net Area Total floor area (exterior dimentio Floor Area Exemptions Exepted Items (FP White Detail) 1 1451 2423 972 Garage, unheated storage 900SF; Unheated Airlock 51SF; Utility closets 215F 2 1500 2641 1141 Garage, unheated storage 1067SF; Bay Window 95F; Wall height <6' 5OSF; Utility Closet 15SF 3 1397 2415 1018 Garage, unheated storage 1000SF; Utility closets 18SF 4 1496 2566 1070 Garage, unheated storage 981SF; Head Height <6' 89SF 5 1500 2660 1160 Garage, unheated storage 1139SF; Bay window 7SF; Utility closets 14SF 6 1478 1883 405 Unheated storage 346SF; Bay Window 7SF; Utility Closet 10SF; Unheated Airlock 42SF 7 1484 1908 424 Unheated storage 278SF; Bay Windows 31SF; Utility closet 20SF; Unheated Airlock 63SF; Head Height <6' 32SF 8 1479 1541 62 Bay Window 11SF; Unheated Airlock 40SF; Utility Closet 11SF 9 1500 1837 337 Unheated storage space 251SF; Unheated Airlock 53SF; Utility Closets 33SF Element to note 18: garages within plenum under Units #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 creating more space in the basement associated to units #2, 3, 4 & 5 that is also associated with Units #6, 7, 8 & 9. It has been ruled exempt. The question concerning storage space that could possibly be modified by owner to use for liveable space is a mute point and not relevent to this discussion. The Ordinance specifically states "unheaded storage space located under the main floor is exept". All the unheated storage space described in the floor plans qualifies as exempt under the ordinance. Secondly, the Ordinance and CC&R require garage to be use for vehicle storage, cars may not park on street to use garage for other purpose. Thus there is limited storage space for all these units. Respectively submitted by Todd Smith, CEO and Approved Applicant Attachment C From: T Smith f mailto:TSmith(acottagesnw.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:18 PM To: Stacy MacGregor Subject: RE: Technical comments #4 Yes it has, I recently saw DNW design drawings for unit #6. They suck he, furthermore they didn't even comply with HOO criteria. Thus I sent letter relieving Dan Nelson of his duties. The determination of the Architect is not the responsibility of the City. I am the approved applicant and thus will provide as a courtesy to the city updated credentials for Fatah and Chris as experienced WA registered architects with the necessary development design experience to meet the minimum criteria set out in HOO. This will be submitted with my latest submittal. As the applicant, to make my submittal 99% complete I would appreciate responses to my questions. These question relate directly with your technical comments and require answers to complete my submittal. Thank you, Todd Smith, CEO Cooke Riverside Properties, LLC. PO Box 97193 Tacoma, WA 98497 www.cottagesnw.com tsmith@cottagesnw.com (253)691-8191