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

C. Is the proiect inconsistent with the setbacks, allowed uses, and goals and policies of the Master Plan 33. In addition to this process error, the Appellant alleged that the current Master Plan did not intend housing or any other bulky or high -intensity use established on the subject property, but rather, indicates the site was intended to serve as the primary access point to the College and, when redeveloped, to support open space, parking, circulation, and related needs of the College. Noting that the Code mandates that an "approved master plan shall remain binding upon the sponsoring institution and the city" (EMC 19.33B. 060), the Appellant cites ECC's Fall 2014 Facilities Master Plan (Exhibits E-25) in support of this argument, as well as Exhibits D (Conceptual Full Buildout Plan, which shows part of the site with one building where the Starbucks is located) and E (Height and Setback Map, which shows small buildings on the subject property) to Ordinance 3089-08, the 2008 Overlay Zone update (Exhibit C-12), the 2005 Overlay Zone update's 25 year conceptual plan, which shows only landscaping on -site (Exhibit E-22, page 8). The 2008 Institutional Overlay Zone update established among its goals the creation of a "front door" and a "heart of campus" and creation of a "major presence on Broadway Avenue." ExhibitE-23, page 2. The Appellant argued that the subject property should be considered to be located within the contemplated "front door" and area of "major presence on Broadway" and that as approved, the project would be inconsistent with these goals. Again citing the ECC Fall 2014 Facilities Master Plan, the Appellant contended that it expressly aims to protect views of the main campus over and across the subject property, which was not contemplated for intense development. Exhibit E-25, page 31; Appellant Briefing. 34. Jane Hendricks, a licensed architect with expertise in campus design - who was involved in the 2005 Overlay Zone update and in drafting the Fall 2014 Facilities Master Plan, but not in the 2008 Overlay Zone update - testified that the intention for the subject property through the master planning process has always been relatively low -impact or low - intensity development, such as parking or open space. She stated that student housing uses were not envisioned on the subject parcel due in part to its size and topography and because the property is within the contemplated "front door" or "gateway" for the College. She opined that Mountain View and Cedar Halls are not located on N. Broadway and therefore the two existing structures have "less impact on the overall campus expression." Jane Hendricks Testimony. 35. Regarding setbacks, the Appellant argued that the fact that the prior two student housing projects were reviewed for compliance with the 20-foot setbacks approved in the 2008 Master Plan (citing Mountain View Hall's required 20-foot rear setback) is evidence that such compliance is required for private developers within the Overlay Zone, contrary to Planning Staff s assertion that private developers are not bound by the Master Plan. Further, Appellant argued that Applicant's position that applying the 20-foot setback to the subject property renders it undevelopable is further evidence that the City chose not to strictly apply applicable development standards in order to help the Applicant out of the 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 19 of 32