Excerpted from Public comment, by Bryan Telegin, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, submitted 3/30/18
at http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/ (project # 3018711)
===================
Reply to: Seattle Office
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Attn: Sean Conrad and Travis Saunders
700 5th Avenue, # 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
March 28, 2018
Re: Comments on DCI Project No. 3018711: University Prep Campus Extension
Dear Mr. Conrad and Mr. Saunders:
I represent Ravenwood United, a local community group that has come together out of concern over the pending expansion of the University Prep campus in the Ravenna neighborhood (DCI Project No. 3018711). Attached for your review, please find a comment letter from Ravenwood United detailing a number of shortcomings in the current MUP application, together with suggestions for how the project should be conditioned or mitigated to comply with the conditional use provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code. We strongly encourage the city to consider all of these recommendations and include them in your final decision.
Pursuant to SMC 23.76.020.C.2.c, I am also requesting that you provide notice to me of the city’s final decision on the University Prep MUP application. You may provide such notice to me at the address listed below.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below, or by email at telegin@bnd-law.com, if you would like to discuss the issues raised in the attached comment letter.
Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
Bryan Telegin
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101 ● 25 West Main, Suite 234, Spokane, WA 99201 (206) 264-8600 ● (877) 264-7220 ● www.bricklinnewman.com
VIA E-MAIL TO sean.conrad@seattle.gov travis.saunders@seattle.gov
===================
Comments by Ravenwood United
Project #3018711: University Prep Expansion 3.23.2018
This letter covers several conditional use requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (“SMC”), including requirements relating to bulk/scale and transition to the single family neighborhood, that are not satisfactorily addressed by the U Prep MUP application.
It is assumed that U Prep’s MUP application represents its best attempt to comply with both the specific and general prescriptive requirements listed in the conditional use provisions of the SMC. U prep submitted the MUP application on July 10, 2017 and presented the plan to neighbors at a meeting on July 19th. U Prep followed up with another public meeting on December 6, 2017, where the plans were presented again with little change to the original MUP application. The building location on the site and the form/height of the building have not been altered. Landscape areas were not expanded to provide additional screening. After nearly 100 comment letters on the project and a public meeting held by the City of Seattle for additional comments, there has been unsatisfactory progress shown on this project by the applicant.
U Prep’s current MUP application does not comply with the Seattle Municipal Code. While the applicant is assumed to be compliant with certain narrowly-defined elements of the code, the application does not reflect any consideration of the more general, but equally applicable, aspects of the code. These other aspects of the code must be reviewed and enforced by the City as well.
Institutional Uses are allowed in a Single Family Zone, but are subject to Conditional Use code requirements SMC 23.44.018, including the following:
Per 23.44.018 General Provisions. (Conditional Use Permits for Institutional Uses in Single Family zones.)
C. A conditional use may be approved, conditioned or denied based on a determination of whether the proposed use meets the criteria for establishing a specific conditional use and whether the use will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located.
D. In authorizing a conditional use, the Director or Council may mitigate adverse negative impacts by imposing requirements or conditions deemed necessary for the protection of other properties in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located.
The provision above gives the city wide latitude to condition the U Prep expansion and to mitigate its adverse impacts. The provision also does not limit the types of adverse impacts that may be mitigated. Nonetheless, we believe that other sections of the SMC code provide guidance as to the types of impacts that can and should be mitigated. Past provisions of the code also provide guidance on this issue, a technique which was allowed as part of the 2014 interpretation that the City provided regarding a different issue with this project and site. The following quote is from the 2001 version of the SMC, Land Use Policies 23.12.050, Policy 3:, addressing Institutions and Facilities in single family residential areas1:
1 The first paragraph below is also included in DCLU Interpretation No. 87-019, finding of fact #12. That interpretation helped U Prep establish the campus it has today, and it is cited in their MUP application.
“Concentration of Institutions or Facilities: The establishment or expansion of an institution or facility shall not result in a concentration of intuitions of facilities which would create or appreciably aggravate parking shortage, traffic congestion and noise, or physical scale and bulk incompatible with single family residences.”
Bulk and Siting: The bulk of institutions and facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding community. Specific bulk and siting requirements shall be at least as restrictive as those applied to single family residences. Screening and landscaping shall be required.”
This section, though not part of the current SMC, still provides guidance as to the types of impacts that should be mitigated. In all, we believe it is clear that the “protection” that is required includes mitigation of impacts related to the bulk/scale of a proposed development to ensure its compatibility with single family residences in the surrounding properties. Further, landscaping plays a critical role in screening the project from the surrounding neighborhood.
One example of the current code that deals with this protection issue is:
23.44.022. K 5. Facade Scale. If any facade of a new or expanding institution exceeds thirty (30) feet in length, the Director may require that facades adjacent to the street or a residentially zoned lot be developed with design features intended to minimize the appearance of bulk. Design features which may be required include, but are not limited to, modulation, architectural features, landscaping or increased yards.
While minimum setbacks are stated in the code, it is the clear intent of the code, when read in its entirety, that the City is required to impose additional measures on the U Prep expansion project, as listed in SMC 23.44.022.K.5. above. It is clear from the plan/models submitted by the applicant that this project does not fit into the surrounding residential neighborhood.
U Prep needs to look no further than its own existing campus to find a project that is much more successful in addressing these relevant issues. This is illustrated by the existing U Prep campus main building and its relationship to the main public right of way adjacent to it, NE 80th St. There, U Prep used a number of techniques listed in K.5, to a much greater extent than its current proposal, including more modulation, both vertically and horizontally, architectural features, more landscaping, and increased and varied yard areas. Along NE 80th Street, U Prep’s existing campus consistently provides one- or two-story facades closer to the street, and also provides significant setbacks to portions of the building that are three stories. (See pages 7 and 8, below). The current proposal appears designed for maximum square footage with no consideration of bulk/scale, location, and transition.
In addition, the U Prep expansion project is subject to the SEPA sections of the SMC, which provides additional support for the need for additional mitigation. We cite sections of the SMC regarding SEPA below for the City’s reference to apply conditions and restrictions to the project:
SMC 25.05.675.G Height, bulk and scale
1. Policy background
a. The purpose of the City's adopted land use regulations is to provide for smooth transition between industrial, commercial, and residential areas, to preserve the character of individual City neighborhoods, and to reinforce natural topography by controlling the height, bulk, and scale of development.
b. However, the City's land use regulations cannot anticipate or address all substantial adverse impacts resulting from incongruous height, bulk, and scale. For example, unanticipated adverse impacts may occur when a project is located on a site with unusual topographic features or on a site which is substantially larger than the prevalent platting pattern in an area. Similarly, the mapping of the City's zoning designations cannot always provide a reasonable transition in height, bulk, and scale between development in adjacent zones.
2. Policies
a. It is the City's policy that the height, bulk, and scale of development projects should be reasonably compatible with the general character of development anticipated by the goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, Growth Strategy Element, and Shoreline Element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan; the procedures and locational criteria for shoreline environment redesignations set forth in Sections 23.60A.060 and 23.60A.220; and the adopted land use regulations for the area in which they are located, and to provide for a reasonable transition between areas of less intensive zoning and more intensive zoning.
b. Subject to the overview policy set forth in Section 25.05.665, the decision maker may condition or deny a project to mitigate the adverse impacts of substantially incompatible height, bulk, and scale. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to:
1) Limiting the height of the development;
2) Modifying the bulk of the development;
3) Modifying the development's facade including but not limited to color and finish material;
4) Reducing the number or size of accessory structures or relocating accessory structures including but not limited to towers, railings, and antennas;
5) Repositioning the development on the site; and
6) Modifying or requiring setbacks, screening, landscaping, or other techniques to offset the appearance of incompatible height, bulk, and scale.
c. The Citywide design guidelines (and any Council-approved neighborhood design guidelines) are intended to mitigate the same adverse height, bulk, and scale impacts addressed in these policies. A project that is approved pursuant to the design review process is presumed to comply with these height, bulk, and scale policies. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that height, bulk, and scale impacts documented through environmental review have not been adequately mitigated. Any additional mitigation imposed by the decision maker pursuant to these height, bulk, and scale policies on projects that have undergone design review shall comply with design guidelines applicable to the project.
Bear particular attention to SMC 25.05.675. G 1.b, which states:
“However, the City's land use regulations cannot anticipate or address all substantial adverse impacts resulting from incongruous height, bulk, and scale. For example, unanticipated adverse impacts may occur when a project is located on a site with unusual topographic features or on a site which is substantially larger than the prevalent platting pattern in an area. Similarly, the mapping of the
City's zoning designations cannot always provide a reasonable transition in height, bulk, and scale between development in adjacent zones.”
It is clear from the submitted MUP application that the current design does not provide nearly enough mitigation regarding height, bulk/scale and the reasonable transition from the single-family neighborhood homes in the area to the proposed project. It also is clear that the City should condition this project using all techniques listed in SMC 25.05.675G.b above to provide the necessary mitigation.
Per 25.05.675. G 6.c. above, it is assumed that, in a design review process, these issues of scale, bulk, height, and transition are covered. Since this project is not required to go through design review, the planner in effect must take on the role of the Design Review Board to enforce these sections of code. The planner has authority to require changes based on the conditional use aspects of the code. The planner should require items customarily required in a design review to allow for a fuller understanding of the project and the process the applicant has gone through to arrive at their current proposal.
The plans and sections provided by the applicant are informative as to what is proposed, but the incongruity of height, bulk, scale and transition become even clearer when you look at the model or 3D imagery of the proposed building. (See page 6 of this document.) Some 3D imagery of the building was presented to the Public in July 2017, but for some reason has been held by the client and not allowed for further review by the City or the public. Any revised plan set should have alternative site plans with pros and cons for each, as is required in the EDG phase of the design review process. A basic site analysis would point the design in the direction of placing the bulk of the building closer to the higher density LR zone to the northeast, and to the arterial 25th Avenue NE. The planner needs this additional information to make an informed decision regarding conditions that should be placed on this project.
Conclusion
The Ravenwood community has tried to work with U Prep and its architectural designer, in the limited opportunities that they have provided us. We have posted nearly a hundred comment letters and held a public meeting with the City. Yet, there has been little effect on the design or the approach by the applicant. It is clear the applicant has proposed what they feel is the maximum allowed. This is not a justifiable approach to design in a well-established single family neighborhood. It is a waste of time and resources for the City and the neighbors.
We recommend the City reject this project and send it back to the applicant so it can propose a more reasonable and justifiable design that is borne out of a more inclusive process. At a minimum, the City should put conditions on this project that are substantial and responsive to the entire SMC. We appreciate the City’s efforts in reviewing this matter.
Sincerely,
Ravenwood United