1020 N BROADWAY EVCC STUDENT HOUSING - WHOLE SITE 2022-05-23

topography, the project provides public benefit in the form of landscaped open space, new sidewalks, and street trees along N. Broadway. Dave Tyler Testimony; Exhibit C-21. B. Were the approvals required to follow the Master Plan review process to establish the private "student housing" use 26. The Appellant argued that even if the proposed private student housing use were permitted as an "institutional" or "closely related" or "ancillary" use to the College (which ECC disputes), the City failed to require the Applicant to follow the proper process to establish such a use. Citing EMC 19.33B.020, Appellant argued that establishment of a new use in the Overlay is required by Code to undergo a master plan review process, which process "requires public involvement and provides predictability to the institution." EMC 19.33B. 010; Appellant Briefing. 27. While EMC 15.16.080.A(24) allows the Director to approve minor revisions to a master plan, the Appellant argued that the Code excludes from allowed "minor" revisions any change in use or density or increase in intensity of development. Thus, both approval of a new use (private student housing) and the proposed level of development on the subject property were required to undergo the City Council and Planning Commission process required by Code. Appellant Briefing. 28. The Appellant characterized the change between prior PDIs addressing student housing parking. standards and those approved for the instant project as unexplained and "abrupt about-face" and as an arbitrary abandonment of its prior position that student housing was owned or controlled by the College in order to be "supportive" of the College. Appellant Briefing; Exhibits E-1 and C-3. The Appellant contended that the City changed its previous policy out of a desire to allow the Applicant to realize the expected and necessary financial return on its investment in the property, "a function of the purchase price Applicant agreed to," instead of adhering to adopted interpretations and Code - required processes and requiring a reduction in the Applicant's desired unit count. Licensed Architect Jane Hendricks testified that fewer modifications would have been required for a project proposing a lower unit count and that the site is challenging due to shape and topography. Jane Hendricks Testimony; Pat Sisneros Testimony; Appellant Briefing. 29. Relevant to the application of student housing parking standards specifically, Mr. Macklin testified that parking is a huge problem now on campus and that there is currently not enough parking for enrolled students. He stated that parking is biggest issue the campus security department deals with. Charles Macklin Testimony. 30. PDI-15-02 was issued on May 7, 2015 in review of Koz Development's proposal that . came to be known as Mountain View Hall. This PDI determined that student housing is permitted in the Institutional Overlay Zone as an accessory use to the College. It determined that the number of off-street parking spaces would be determined on a case Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # 15-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013 Everett Hearing Examiner page 17 of 32