Miklos Kohary, the developer who built a number of townhouse units at 123rd and 10th Place NE in Pinehurst, is planning another Pinehurst project at the NE corner of 125th and Roosevelt Way.
Kohary plans to tear down the two existing apartment buildings and to build 24 townhouse units and is in the process of applying for a demolition permit for the apartment buildings.
A SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) assessment is required before the demolition permit can issued. Notice of the public 14-day comment period that is part of the SEPA process will likely be published January 31, 2008. The notice will appear in the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) Land Use Information Bulletin .
While a development of 24 townhouse units would normally require a design review process, Kohary will not be required to go through design review as the property is legally platted as three separate parcels. This is a loophole in the design review law. [see an interesting post at the Stranger SLOG on this topic and posts at Smarter Neighbors and the West Seattle blog]
Many Pinehurst residents who were concerned about Kohary’s previous Pinehurst projects have asked to be informed of what is happening at this site. Neighbors are concerned about the lack of ability of owners to park in Kohary townhouse garages and about the perception of “poor design” or “cookie cutter design” in the Kohary properties.
Because a design review will not be required [the white board at the site says a design review is required – but this is an error], the only avenue for public comment is through the SEPA process. I will post this information when it is available.
The DPD project numbers for the townhouse project are: 6128924, 6128928, 6128931.
Here is some of my discussion with DPD regarding this project:
From a 11/28/07 e-mail from Michael Jenkins, Legislative Analyst, Council Central Staff – Legislative Department
“I spoke yesterday to staff at the Department of Planning and Development about this proposal. It turns out that while the project is subject to SEPA, as the project requires the demolition of 11 dwelling units (which exceeds the SEPA threshold), it appears that the project as configured is not subject to design review. It seems that the issue of ownership of the contiguous lots does not trigger the design review requirement. It sounds as if the requirement would be triggered if the lots were not existing at the time of application. If they were created through a platting action, it sounds like the creation of new lots would have required design review.”
From a 10/3/07 e-mail from Cliff Portman, DPD – response to my e-mail below
“While there has been some preapplication submittal information exchanged between the prospective applicant and DPD (giving rise to the project numbers you cite), we have not, in fact, accepted development applications for these sites. We are reviewing a lot boundary adjustment that would adjust the property lines between the sites. The lba review is ministerial in nature and is presently ongoing. In general, we do not require environmental review under SEPA for exempt projects on separate legal lots. Common ownership of the contiguous lots in question is not a sufficient basis to determine that separate development of those contiguous lots should be combined for purposes of determining thresholds for SEPA review. However, it appears that demolition of existing residential units would be necessary in order to redevelop the site. I understand there are eleven units on each of two of the sites. The number of units involved in demolition is above the SEPA threshold for exemption and therefore the demolition would trigger the requirement for environmental review. It appears the prospective applicant was unaware and or was not informed of this demolition threshold and now, as a result, he may be reconsidering both the scope and timing of his proposed projects. At this time, we do not have active applications (other then the lba) and it is currently unclear what the actual development applications(s) will be and thus the requirement for Design Review in not now known. In any case however, SEPA will be triggered due to the demo involved and this will need to be included in the eventual applications.”
From my 9/28/2007 e-mail to Cliff Portman
“I am writing to you because I am concerned about a townhouse development that is planned on three adjacent L3 lots in the Pinehurst neighborhood. The developer has submitted three concurrent applications (Projects 6128924, 6128928, 6128931) for review. Each application is for construction of eight townhouses. The properties are contiguous. They share the same owner, Kohary. It does not appear that these developments are going through design review or SEPA review even though they appear to be one action.
Pinehurst neighbors are concerned about the design and the environmental impact of this planned development and ask for you to consider requiring the developer to comply with the design review and SEPA requirements for this 24 unit townhouse development in an L3 zone.”
I just want to thank you for being careful not to continue with negative feedback regarding the current Kohary development. I understand completely the desire to refrain from adding more “cookie cutter” townhomes to the neighborhood, but you must remember that the individuals that now live in these townhouses (which I am one of) are new members of your community and should be welcomed, not ostracized because they chose to fill one. You never know the reasons behind why people choose to move into these townhouses (in my case, going against how I usually feel in these circumstances) and, though they are not low-income housing, they are actually much more affordable than a lot of nearby options (as I was amazed to discover through our search). Please continue to focus on the future development, and remember not to demean your new neighbors – who may, by the way, be very interested in joining your efforts to make the community more desirable and livable.
Katherine –
I am so glad you posted a comment. I agree that we need to be careful (and me more than anyone) of the words and tones we use in our land use and design discussion.
Our issues are not with townhouses in general. We have concerns about the way that some townhouses are built and the impact that the designs have both to the new owners and to the neighborhood. Our biggest concern is the ability of townhouse owners to park in their own garages. You should be able to park in your garage. Some developers choose to maximize the number of units that they place on a lot by scrimping on parking space. They maximize their profit and externalize the cost by forcing the owners to park far from their homes and to end up using their garages for storage space.
Seattle is becoming a denser city and housing is very expensive here. Many of us who live in single family houses today could not purchase our homes again if we were new to the market. Younger families are hard pressed to be able to buy anything in Seattle. I agree the townhouses are not low income housing. It takes above the median income in Seattle to buy a townhouse.
A community is all neighbors – including rentors, condo owners, townhouse owners, single family owners, public housing residents and senior housing communities. I hope that everyone feels welcome to participate in our community and that no one thinks that this is a single family homeowner only group.
This project appears to have been cancelled. See more at http://pinehurstcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/09/kohary-project-mothballed.html