|
project. The Director has authority under both the BMU zoning standards and the
<br />Institutional Overlay ordinance to exercise discretion in determining whether uses not
<br />explicitly identified as permitted shall be permitted. Apartments restricted by covenant to
<br />be leased primarily (minimum 75%) to enrolled ECC students, built within easy walking
<br />distance of campus, is arguably supportive of the institution. There is no credible
<br />evidence in the record supporting the assertion that the Director improperly exercised his
<br />discretion in the instant decisions. The Applicant had been on notice of the student
<br />housing definition in PDI 15-02 since that document's issuance date, as it was issued in
<br />the Applicant's previous student housing project next door. Given the facts in the record,
<br />it is not necessary to resort to reliance on deference to the Director's interpretation of the
<br />City regulations in question, but said deference further supports his decisions permitting
<br />the use on the subject site. Findings 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 38.
<br />2. Again, given the express authority invested in the Director to determine whether uses not
<br />specifically listed as permitted shall be permitted within the Overlay Zone and
<br />considering the deference due to the Director's 'interpretation of the various applicable
<br />regulations, the argument that the City was required to go through the legislative process
<br />in order to approve a private student housing project within the Overlay is unpersuasive.
<br />Findings 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, '29, 30, 31, 32, and 38; EMC
<br />19.33B.060; Ordinance No. 2232-97.
<br />3. The Appellant's argument that the approved project is inconsistent with the 20-foot
<br />minimum setbacks established in the 2008 Master Plan, with the open space, landscaping,
<br />or parking envisions in the conceptual site plans for the Master Plan, and the Master
<br />Plan's "front door" goals does not provide grounds for reversal. As concluded above, the
<br />adopted Master Plan is not binding on non -institutional developers on privately owned
<br />parcels. Even if it were binding (which it is not), EMC 19.3313.060 clearly identifies the
<br />Master Plan as a general guide from which the Director would still have authority to
<br />grant modifications after site specific review. The three recently approved projects -
<br />Mountain View and Cedar Halls and the Starbucks - did not comply with the minimum
<br />20-foot setback, which also indicated on Exhibit E of the Master Plan as applicable to
<br />those properties; thus the current interpretation is based on a consistent practice of the
<br />City. Findings 8, 12, 13, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.
<br />4. With regard to the zoning modifications approved in REVII #17-016, the record
<br />presented failed to establish clear error. No evidence submitted tends to show that the
<br />approved flat roof form was clearly erroneous in light of the shape and topography of the
<br />subject property and specifically considering the compatibility of the approved roof
<br />design with. the two existing student housing structures across the street from the site.
<br />The only traffic engineering evidence in the record supports the reduced driveway
<br />separation on the site as a safer condition, presenting less opportunity for vehicle/
<br />pedestrian conflict than would be expected to result from a driveway spaced 100 feet
<br />from the Starbucks curb -cut. No evidence was offered to support the allegation that the
<br />Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of
<br />Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # 15-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013
<br />Everett Hearing Examiner page 30 of 32
<br />
|