A portion of these comments were read at the Public Meeting concerning UPrep's proposed expansion.
In September, 1989, University Prep applied for a Master Use Permit to expand at its site on 25th Ave NE. In 1990, the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use issued a carefully reasoned analysis and decision that should serve as a benchmark concerning the current UPA conditional use application for development across the street. We contrast a few aspects of the applicant’s current request to similar issues considered by the city in the past.
(All of the facts asserted in these remarks come from documentation provided by UPA on the DCI website and from public records held by the city.)
Public Support
Benchmark: In 1989 “Five letters supporting [that] proposal were received by the Department during the public comment period. (p. 7)”
Contrast: As of today (Oct. 1, 2017), DCI has posted around 100 letters opposed to the current proposal, and only 1 letter in support of it. Many of the letters in opposition go into great detail concerning matters of design, neighborhood impact including traffic and parking, and the loss of valued neighborhood institutions that would follow the construction of the new facility.
Construction Noise
Benchmark: The 1990 decision requires the applicant to mitigate construction impacts of noise by limiting “construction activity to between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays. (p. 25)”
Contrast: The applicant expects, “Construction activity will be constrained to allowable hours...: 7AM-10PM weekdays, and 9AM-10PM weekends and holidays.” (SEPA checklist response, p.18.) It is remarkably insensitive of the applicant to intend to impose construction noise as late as 10 p.m. on this normally quiet single-family neighborhood. The project site directly abuts homeowners’ property lines. At the very least DCI should restrict construction to normal business hours.
Height, Bulk and Scale
Benchmark: In addressing concerns that the expansion would “substantially change the aesthetic character of the site by introducing additional bulk” (p. 9), the 1990 analysis notes that the approximately 35-foot high building’s impact would be mitigated since it “would be located approximately 190 feet west of the east property line,” “140 feet east of the west property line” and “approximately 12 and 18 feet from the NE 80th St. property line.” In addition, the building facing NE 80th would include “a one-story facade” which would “step back and up towards the north for a maximum height of approximately 35 feet to the top of a pitched roof.” In spite of these large setbacks and design features, the city further required, “ .., in order to mitigate the potential height, bulk and scale impacts along NE 80th St., a 18-foot minimum front setback, and a 10-foot wide planting/landscaped area shall be maintained along the NE 80th frontage...” (p. 10)
Contrast: The applicant’s site plan shows an approximately rectangular block 223 feet by 71 feet that stands about 35 feet high on all sides (pp. 22, 23). This massive structure is to be set back from the north, east and south property lines by 21-28 feet, and from the west property line along 24th Ave NE by a mere 10 feet (p. 3). Both NE 80th and 24th Ave NE are narrow residential access streets, not the wide arterial of 25th Ave NE that separates the current UPA from the neighbors. This massive block, pushed almost to the edges of its natural boundaries, makes a mockery of the appropriate “height, bulk and scale” requirements demanded by DCLU in 1990.
Parking
Benchmark: In 1990 UPA submitted a traffic study that anticipated as a result of their Phase I expansion a “daytime parking demand of approximately 63 spaces to accommodate staff, faculty and students” (p. 11); these spaces would serve an expected enrollment of “280 to 300” students (p. 4), and at least 38 faculty and staff (p. 2). School events such as dances and athletic competitions were expected to generate a demand between 40 and 60 spaces (pp. 11-12). To accommodate parking, UPA built a 70 space parking lot and arranged with Temple Beth Am to use their lot in order to waive the zoning requirement of 94 spaces based on the seating capacity of their gym. Rare events at UPA, 2-3 times per year, were expected to generate an occasional parking demand of 175 spaces. In such cases, all of the Temple’s lot would be used, which would provide an additional 80 spaces and limit the street-parking spillover to approximately 25 spaces (p. 12). At all other times, on-site parking could handle the expected demand.
Yet, in order to further ensure a minimal impact of parking on the neighborhood, the city required that use of the gymnasium “generating a parking demand of higher than 70 spaces” be limited to times “when there are no other high parking demand events taking place” at the school or the Temple; furthermore, the city explicitly prohibited “leasing of the facility to other events not directly associated with the school academic program...” (p. 24), in order to further limit street-parking spillover.
Contrast: Since the 1990 proposal, parking provided by UPA has actually decreased. The 70 space on-site lot no longer exists. AccordingtotheTransportationTechnicalReportsubmittedbyHeffronTransportation,Inc.inJune2017(p.1), there is instead a 28 space lot (plus 8 bus stalls) that is restricted to UPA faculty and staff, and the use of the Temple Beth Am parking lot is restricted to 71 spaces during weekdays. This is a net loss of 51 spaces specifically reserved for UPA since 1990. During this time UPA has expanded and grown to 550 students and 120 employees (p. 1). The current daily parking demand is 207 cars (p. 11). Thus, the rare expected spillover of street parking, anticipated 2-3 times per year, which nevertheless prompted the city to issue additional restrictions on facility use back in 1990 now happens on a daily basis. And, rather than a mere 25 cars that the neighborhood was expected to absorb, we now deal with 100-plus.
The current situation, which already violates the spirit of the 1990 decision, will only be worsened by the proposed project. According to Heffron, the daily parking demand will increase to 275 cars as the enrollment grows to 730 students and 130 employees (p. 27). Yet the proposal provides for only 15 additional parking spaces, all reserved for visitors and staff.
Summary
One must ask, how could UPA grow by more than a factor of 3 since 1989 (when there were 228 students and 38 staff) and not be required to add any parking? The answer appears to lie in the fact that their gymnasium has not changed, and thus the zoning code requirement has also not changed: 94 spaces that are barely provided by the Temple plus UPA lots. Over the years UPA continues adding more and more capacity, but by not increasing the size of their largest gathering space they exploit a loophole in the zoning code. It is precisely this type of code abuse that the Conditional Use Permit review process should prevent.