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

41. For the instant project, 20-foot setbacks imposed on all boundaries of the subject parcel as called for in Exhibit E to Ordinance 3089-08 would render 15,194 square feet (or 67%) of the property unbuildable, leaving only 7,457 square feet of property for development. Some areas within the remaining buildable area would be less than 10 feet wide, making almost any building infeasible. Joshua Scott Testimony, Exhibit K-10. 42. Of the three prior applications for private development within the Overlay Zone - Mountain View Hall, Cedar Hall, and Starbucks - none were required to abide by the 20- foot setbacks from all boundaries that the College seeks to impose on the subject property. Of note, the Applicant agreed to the 20-foot setback from the west property line of Mountain View Hall to create a desirable separation from the single-family residences. Joshua Scott Testimony. D. Did the City err in permitting multiple desig_modi acations 43. The Appellant argued that the City erred in approving multiple design modifications from the development standards of the BMU.zone, in addition to the error of not implementing the 20-foot setback alleged to be required by the Institutional Overlay Zone, because modifications are only allowed if they "achieve a superior design treatment than could be achieved if those standards were strictly applied." The Appellant argued it was error for the City not to require submittal of a design that complied with all development standards to serve as a comparison to form the basis of a determination of superior design. EMC 19.31A. 040; Appellant Briefing. 44. Jane Hendricks submitted the following opinions on behalf of the Appellant on several aspects in which the project failed to achieve superior design. First, the building's bulk and mass are not superior to what would be allowed without modification due to the subject property's small area. Reduced setbacks take away from the open space intended by the Master Plan to be provided in this "front door" location. Also, the position of the driveway on N. Broadway bifurcates the facade, which is not great design and does not provide enough spacing from the Starbucks driveway, creating pedestrian/vehicle conflict opportunities. She submitted that the driveway would result in illegal left hand turns in and out on N. Broadway and that even for right turns exiting the property, visibility to the left is limited due to the reduced setback. The majority of the open space provided in balconies and rooftops not available to the public. The landscaping provided at ground level is planter areas rather than the extensive landscaping required at Liberty Hall, the University Center, and Starbucks. The design proposed does not create public benefit as a trade off for project -driven deviation from open space. Finally the retail spaces are too small to be viable, in Ms. Hendricks's opinion. She testified that it is a difficult parcel due to size and topography and that a program attempting to put fewer units on the parcel would be able to better fit the site and comply with applicable development standards, suggesting a maximum -of 70 to 75. Jane Hendricks 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 21 of 32