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

bad position they were in because they overpaid for the property, having failed due diligence in advance of purchase. Appellant Briefing. 36. The 2008 Master Plan included an attached height and setback map that includes the subject property. The map points to the subject property with a notation that says, 80 foot height limit, 20 foot setback." Exhibit C-12, Exhibit E. 37. PDI 18-02 stated that building setbacks for the instant project would be determined consistent with the regulations of the underlying BMU zone, including those regulations that allow for modifications to standards. Exhibit C-4. 38. Regarding both the allowed use and goals of the master plan arguments, Planning Staff reiterated that the 2008 Campus Master Plan associated with the 2008 Overlay Zone update (Exhibit E-24) is a "general guide" for development of the subject property binding on the institution and the City, but having no binding effect on private developers. Further, Staff noted again that the College's 2014' Facilities Master Plan (Exhibit E-25) has not been adopted and has no regulatory effect on the subject parcel or any other property. Dave Tyler Testimony; Exhibit C-21. 39. Speaking to the question of why the Master Plan setbacks were not applied to the project, Director Giffen testified that there are three controlling ordinances - the BMU zoning, EMC 19.33B, and the adopted Institutional Overlay Zone, so interpretation of what setbacks apply to the instant proposal was required. In reaching his decision (reflected in PDI 18-02), he reiterated that the Overlay Zone does not extinguish the underlying zoning and that the deciding factor was that the subject property is private rather than institutional property. He testified that the City has always interpreted the various regulations to mean that the intuitional overlay zone is binding on City and the institution but is not binding on owners of private property within the overlay, meaning the project could be reviewed solely for compliance with BMU development standards and without consideration of the overlay zone. However, in light of the previous two student housing projects - both also developed on private property within the Overlay - having been decided through the code interpretation process and reviewed for compliance with the Overlay Zone, it was decided to follow the same procedure for this third privately owned student housing proposal. Through the PDI process, the Master Plan's 20400t setbacks were not applied to Starbucks or to either of the existing two student housing projects. There was no reason to apply them to this property. Allan Giffen Testimony. 40. PDI- 15-03 (Mountain View Hall) expressly required the 20-foot setback from the rear (west) property line called out in Exhibit E to Ordinance 3089-08, but otherwise imposed no specific setbacks from any property line. Exhibit C-S. Planning Staff submitted that the 20-f6ot setback from the rear/western property boundary was the result of the adjacent residential zoning and development. Dave Tyler Testimony. 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 20 of 32