Full Text
ANJUMAN-E-BURHANI TYPE II SITE PLAN ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL APPEAL Appeal Hearing September 10, 2018 David Lee, Senior Planner Sarah Pyle, Senior Planner ---PAGE BREAK--- Subject: Administrative appeal of the Technical Committee Site Plan Entitlement Decision of LAND2013-00171 Anjuman-E-Burhani Subject ---PAGE BREAK--- Background Location:15252 NE 51ST ST Parcel Size: 2.3 Acres Neighborhood: Overlake Land Use Designation: Low To Moderate Density Residential neighborhood Zoning Designation: R-5 Use Allowed: Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Details • Site Plan Entitlement • 22,657 Square Foot Religious Institution • Prayer Areas • Classrooms • Multi-purpose Room • Parsonage ---PAGE BREAK--- Surrounding Land Use & Zoning Direction Zoning Land Use North R-5 Subdivision (Single Family) East R-5 Single Family South ROW Right-of- Way (COR/WSDOT) West WSDOT SR-520 SR-520 ---PAGE BREAK--- Notable Dates • SPE Submittal: February 13, 2014 • SEPA Determination: March 9, 2017 • DRB Approval: April 6, 2017 • Notice of Decision: June 12, 2018 • Appeal Filed: June 27, 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Request The Appellant is appealing the approval of the Anjuman-E-Burhani based on the following issues: 1. “City erred in calculating required parking based on seating capacity.” 2. “City erred in calculating proper setbacks based on proposed building height.” 3. “City erred in calculating required parking for assembly use.” 4. “City erred in reviewing traffic impacts of the project.” 5. “City erred in approving a guest apartment to be part of the building.” 6. “City erred in not applying scale, bulk, and neighborhood character.” 7. “City erred by not conditioning the application on overall building capacity.” 8. “City erred by not incorporating any growth projections into its review process.” 9. “City erred by not complying with transit corridor preservation rules.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Staff Report Summary • Exhibit C-01 – LAND2018-00701 – Analysis of Cited Appellant Issues • No Evidence Provided – Appellant has burden to prove that the City erred in issuance of Type II permit – No evidence provided to prove City erred procedurally or substantively • Staff Recommendation: Dismiss All Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of Issues • Questions? • Continue? ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues • “City erred in calculating required parking based on seating capacity.” – Appellant has not shown how or why the parking is inadequate or should be based on the IBC – IBC is not the zoning code – RZC specifically prescribes parking – RZC 21.76.100.D. allows for administrative interpretations ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred in calculating proper setbacks based on proposed building height.” – Setback and height requirements are met – Project clearly shows there is a 5’ setback for every 1’ above the 30’ base height. – Application of height setback requirements consistently applied in other zones – Applies to parts of structures over 30’, not entire building Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred in calculating required parking for assembly use.” – IBC is not the zoning code – RZC specifically prescribes parking – RZC 21.76.100.D. allows for administrative interpretations – Meets parking requirements of RZC 21.08.280.C.2. Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred in reviewing traffic impacts of the project.” – Appellant has not submitted factual data that is contrary to studies the city used – “Critiques” used – Assessed peak use – “Membership growth” (if any) is inconsequential – SPE approved with condition of 147 seats – U-Turns are legal and allowed Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred in approving a guest apartment to be part of the building.” – Parsonages commonly accessory to religious uses – One cooking area for both levels, therefore one parsonage/dwelling unit • Living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation – Accessory Dwelling Units allowed in R-5 zone as accessory to a single family house Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred in not applying scale, bulk, and neighborhood character.” – Held to Article III RZC “Design Standards” – Extensive Checklist (Exhibit 7) – Designed To Address Compatibility – Addresses Bulk & Scale – Human Scale – Reviewed By Design Professionals/DRB – Approved April 6, 2017 Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred by not conditioning the application on overall building capacity.” – “Overall Building Capacity” Not Approval Criteria In RZC – IBC is not the zoning code – RZC specifically prescribes parking – RZC 21.76.100.D. allows for administrative interpretations – Off-site Parking & Onsite Valet Mitigates Larger Special Occasion Functions Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred by not incorporating any growth projections into its review process.” – Growth Projections not a part of decision criteria of RZC 21.76.070.Y. – Maximum Development/Membership size based on impacts and mitigation of site – Site Plan Entitlement Sets limits of use • SPE Sets 147 Member Limit The Site Can Accommodate • Code Enforcement, Additional Conditions, and/or Revocation of Entitlement Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- • “City erred by not complying with transit corridor preservation rules.” – Figure RZC 21.28.020.B Does Not Encroach into property – Light Rail Only at 5% Design – Wall Location Adjustable – Timing Issue To Be Resolved Based on Construction Start – Easement Condition On SPE Approval Summary of Staff Report Analysis of Issues ---PAGE BREAK--- David Lee, Senior Planner Planning City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED]