Full Text
[gl~ fC~ U QI CITY OF REDMOND APR 0 7 2017 CityofRedmond WA S H I NGTON CITY OF REDMOND APPEAL APPLICATION FORM (Staff Use Only) File No: _ Date Received:. _ Receipt No. _ To file a land use appeal, please complete the attached form and pay the applicable appeal fee by 5:00p.m. on the last day of the appeal period. Form submission and payment must be by PERSONAL DELIVERY at City Hall 2"d Floor Customer Service Center c/o Office of the City Clerk-Hearing Examiner, 15670 NE 85th Street. Contact the Office of the Hearing Examiner with process questions at [PHONE REDACTED]. Standing to Appeal: • Appeal to the Hearing Examiner of an Administrative, Technical Committee or Design Review Board Decision (Type I or II)- the project applicant, owner, or any person who submitted written comments (party of record) prior to the date the decision was issued may appeal the decision. The written appeal and the applicable fee must be received by the City of Redmond's Office of the Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 141h calendar day following the date of the decision. • Appeal to the City Council of a Hearing Examiner decision on an appeal (Type I or II) - the project applicant, owner, City staff, or any patty who appealed the department director's or Technical Committee's decision to the Hearing Examiner. The written appeal and the applicable appeal fee must be received by the City of Redmond's Office of the Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00p.m. 10 business days following the expiration of the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration period. • Appeal to the City Council of a Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) decision on an application (Type III) - the project applicant, owner, City staff, or any person who established themselves as a patty of record prior to or at the public hearing. The written appeal and the applicable appeal fee must be received by the City of Redmond's Office of the Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. 10 business days following the expiration of the Hearing Examiner's (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission's) reconsideration period. Should the appellant prevail in the appeal, the appeal application fee will be refunded (City of Redmond Resolution No. 1459). The appeal application fee will not be refunded for appeals that are withdrawn or dismissed. City Council decisions may be appealed to Superior Court by filing a land use petition which meets the requirements set forth in RCW Chapter 36.70C. The petition must be filed and served upon all necessary parties as set forth in State law and within the 21-day time period as set fmth in RCW Section 36.70C.040. Requirements for fully exhausting City administrative appeal opportunities must be fulfilled. Please continue to page 2 to select your appeal type. ---PAGE BREAK--- Please check the applicable appeal: Appeal to the Hearing Examiner of a SEPA decision RZC 21. 70.190(£). (Please he sure to understand the type o{SEPA appeal you are filing, and i{a further appeal to the underlying action is needed.) D Appeal to the Hearing Examiner of an Administrative, Technical Committee or Design Review Board Decision (Type I or II) RZC 21. 7 6. 060(1) D Appeal to the City Council of a Hearing Examiner decision on an appeal (Type I or II) RZC 21.76.060(M) D Appeal to the City Council of a Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) decision on an application (Type III) RZC 21. 76.060(M) Section A. General Information fPb 1<-f's IVI.A ~ NameofAppellant: -EJGEJJE £ 2Ai~J-\A-)2E;jEv' + Svso._n ~vll\(lfi)S r ,<;stn lf f'J~ qep11 Gf Address: S J 2.6 ISlt TH ftvf: tvE '[?t-Df'IIVlVD, \Nr~ q@5'v City: 0 State: Zip: :J'JOjZ Email: EUGENE .2:Q OUTLOO"'-· COM Phone: (home) (work) (cell) (Lio 4 2.1-Z 126 Name of project that is being appealed: AJJ..Juf'A.ANN E BUP-H-AN I MO .S.Q \JE File number of project that is being appealed: SE P A - z.o I ~ - 00 I 7-Z Date of decision on project that is being appealed: fVI A l2.U-t .9 1 Z...O I' Expiration date of appeal period: What is your relationship to the project? CR.Party of Record D Project Applicant D Government Agency Pursuant to the Redmond Zoning Code, only certain individuals have standing to appeal a decision on application or appeal (See page 1 above). Below, please provide a statement describing your standing to appeal, and reference all applicable City Code citations. 5a; A-TTA Ci-t MEN\ FO 11-ff f2t:.S. potJ.,SE: Page 2 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Section B. Basis for Appeal Please fill out items 1-4 below. Reference all applicable City Code citations and attach additional sheets if necessary. 1. Please state the facts demonstrating how you are adversely affected by the decision: SEE ATTAC.HM£1v'T Fog_ JZ.ES.porvSI::: 2. Please provide a concise statement identifying each alleged error of fact, law, or procedure, and how the decision has failed to meet the applicable decision criteria: 5EE Ar[}\-0-t fVIt NT If appealing a Hearing Examiner decision: Please provide the findings of fact or conclusions (as outlined in the Hearing Examiner's decision) which are being appealed: Page 3 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Please state the specific relief requested: 4. Please provide any other infonnation reasonably necessary to make a decision on the appeal: Do not use this form if you are appealing a decision on a: • Shoreline Permit (must be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board RZC 21.68.200(C)(6)(b)) • Shoreline Variance or a Shoreline Conditional Use Pennit (must be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board RZC 21.68.200(C)(6)(c)) • Hearing Examiner decision on a SEPA appeal (not an appealable action as successive appeals are not allowed RZC 21. 70.190(D • City Council approval or denial (must be appealed to Superior Court RZC 21. 76.060(Q)) Page 4 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Section A. Standing The appellant is Redmond resident owning the property located at 5126 154th Ave NE, Redmond WA 98052, and a party of record to SEPA DNS SEPA-2017-00172 Anjuman E Burhani Mosque. The appellant property is located near the project property located at 15252 NE 51st Street, Redmond WA 98052. The appellant has submitted the comments on SEPA DNS to the City of Redmond via email on March 23 2017. The response received from the City of Redmond staff did not adequately address the issues brought up in the comments. Section B. Basis for Appeal Subsection 1. Please state the facts demonstrating how you are adversely affected by the decision The SEPA threshold determination as issued adversely affects the appellant, properties nearby and the area as whole on the following environmental elements regulated by SEPA: air quality, increased traffic, parking, environmental health (noise), aesthetical issues and increased demand on public services. Subsection 2. Please provide a concise statement identifying each alleged error and how the decision has failed to meet the applicable decision criteria The Determination of Non-Significance was rendered without adequate consideration of environmental factors. Specifically, the SEPA DNS and the associated Environmental Checklist do not disclose or address: • Air quality impacts The project documentation lists industrial size kitchen as part of the building. There is no mention of this in the Checklist as well as any mitigations planned by the applicant • Noise impacts associated with the project At peak usage, the project will be used by hundreds of people (including outside areas) and provide parking for over 60 cars (according to the applicant's documents). No record was provided of the impact, nor were mitigations suggested • Traffic and parking impacts of the project There exist two reviews of the traffic impact analysis study submitted by the applicant, each performed by a certified traffic engineer. Both reviews show significant issues with methodologies used in the traffic impact analysis study and question the study conclusions as to trip generations and number of the parking stalls required. Based on these critiques it SEPA-2017-00172 DNS appeal 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- is apparent that the traffic study provided by the applicant does not meet professional standard of care and is inadequate. Additionally, at this time (April7, 2017) the project impact on levels of service of state highway SR-520 is being reviewed by WSDOT; the results of the review are not available and were not considered by the lead agency • Land use and housing impacts The DNS and the Checklist do not correctly list proposed usage for the building and number of dwelling units it will create. In addition to the religious assembly area, the building will include classrooms, offices, guest living quarters, a parsonage, a warehouse, a kitchen and a large multipurpose area. • Aesthetical impacts of the project At maximum height of 50 feet and bulk of over 22,000 sf, the project blocks the views for neighboring properties, and the SEPA documents do not address that. • Increased demand of the project on public services The applicant identified that the project does not increase need for public services, yet the Capital Improvement Project, directed by the City of Redmond and currently in design stages, includes budgeting for a left turn lane into the property and identified the improvement as benefiting this specific development. The bus stop will be moved out of area to improve sight lines for the project driveway (making the bus stop less accessible to the neighborhood residents). The City has granted the applicant's sight line deviation request and has agreed to move the bus stop as part of the Capital Improvement Project on 51' 1 Street. Additionally, the city did not perform the evaluation ofthe potential environmental impacts to the elements of land use, noise, traffic and public services as they relate to full utilization of the project building. There is no sufficient record to demonstrate that the lead agency complied with the SEPA procedural requirements in assessing the information available or in making the decision. The appellant maintains that the information provided in the DNS, the Checklist and the supportive documentation was missing or incorrect and as such was "not reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal." Therefore, the DNS issued by the City of Redmond is in error. Subsection 3. Please state the specific relief requested The City of Redmond should withdraw the DNS issued. SEPA-2017-00172 DNS appeal 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Susan Wilkins Project Name: Anjumann E Burhani Mosque SEPA File Number: SEPA-2017-00172 Subject: Appeal ofthe Determination ofNon-significance April 7, 2017 Dear Hearing Examiner: The City ofRedmond issued a Determination ofNon-significance on March 9, 2017 for the Anjumann E Burhani Mosque project. It is a proposed religious facility located at 15252 NE 51st Street in Redmond. I am appealing the Determination ofNon-significance because the parameters of the facility are not fully defined by the Redmond Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan and in some cases do not appear to adhere to the regulations or the regulations are contradictory. BACKGROUND: The basis of the City of Redmond's current zoning code for religious facilities (RZC 21.08.280 Churches, Temples, and Other places of Worship) was introduced in November 2010 when Ordinance 2559 was passed by the Redmond City Council. It was based on Ordinance 1930 from March 1997 that added section 20D.l70.40 to the Redmond Community Development Guide, replacing section 20C.80.735. The earlier versions of the development guide and zoning code were written at a time when land was more plentiful and significantly less expensive. The current shortage of large or even medium sized parcels of land for religious facilities has created conditions not anticipated by land use planners or the city government. We are now seeing religious facilities that are quite large for their respective parcels that seem to be out of proportion to the residential neighborhoods where they are being proposed. Two examples are a 20,000 square foot church that was built at 13216 NE lOOth Street in 2014 on 1.58 acres ofland and a chapel that was built at 11505 Redmond-Woodinville Road in 2010 on 2.48 acres where nearly 50% of the lot has a steep slope and is not usable for parking or setbacks. The proposed mosque will be a 22,657 square foot building on 1.12 acres. The current zoning of the site is R-5. RZC 21.08.080 applies to R-5 zoning. The proposed building height will be 45 feet in places and will create an impervious surface on 75% of the parcel. The setbacks for a building this tall should be 95 feet on all sides, requiring a land parcel that is significantly larger than 1.1 acres. The impervious surface area exceeds the allowable impervious area for R-5 zoning. ---PAGE BREAK--- The current zoning code contains confusing and contradictory rules and is vague on the definition of how a religious facility is defined. Depending on how the code is interpreted, it seems to provide special privileges to religious facilities that supersede the zoning rules that apply to ordinary residential neighborhoods and zones. Furthermore, the zoning code doesn't consider or even mention the minaret that is an integral structure on a mosque. Normally, the Redmond Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan provide adequate guidance for land use development; however, in the case ofRZC 21.08.280 Churches, Temples, Synagogues and Other Places of Worship, historically vague wording has left a void in the planning process. RZC 21.08 "Residential Regulations" covers all residential zones. It includes sections for the specific residential zone densities as well as regulations that apply to all zones. RZC 21.08.080 "R-5 Single Family Urban Residential" C. Regulations Common to All Uses Table 21.08.080B -Lot coverage for structures is 40% of total lot area. -Maximum impervious surface is 60% ofthe total lot area. -Maximum building height is 35 feet. RZC 21.08.170 "Site Requirements for Residential Zones" This section applies to all residential zones. Sections H, K and M of are listed below. H. Building Setbacks 2. b. Measurement. All setbacks shall be measured at right angles, or as near to right angles as possible, to the nearest property line in a plane horizontal to the ground. K. Maximum Impervious Surface 2. Requirement. The maximum impervious surface percentage in the zone use chart for each residential zone (RZC 21.08.020 through 21.08.140) establishes the maximum percentage of a lot's area that may be covered with structures (including outdoor storage), paved areas, and other impervious surfaces. M. Maximum Height of Structures 2. Requirements. The maximum height of structures requirement sets the limit above which structures shall not extend, as set forth in the zone use chart for each residential zone. a. Hose towers (when associated with a fire station), chimneys, antennae, smoke and ventilation stacks flagpoles, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment, mechanical equipment screens and enclosures, roof access stair enclosures, solar panels, and wind turbines may exceed the highest point of the existing or proposed structure by no more than 15 feet. b. Religious Icons and Structures. Special height exceptions for steeples, bell towers, crosses or other symbolic religious icons are contained in RZC 21.08.280, Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and Other Places of Worship. ---PAGE BREAK--- RZC 21.08.280 "Churches, Temples, Synagogues and Other Places of Worship" C. Requirements. The following development criteria shall apply to places of worship and related activities without regard to the zone in which it is located or the permit under which the use is processed: 4. Places of Worship Within Shorelines. Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, site development shall comply with the general standards of the zone in which it is located, except as otherwise provided in subsection RZC 21.08.280.D below. The maximum building height, exclusive of steeples, bell towers, crosses or other symbolic religious icons mounted on the rooftop is 3 5 feet. An additional building height allowance of 15 feet is allowed for symbolic religious icons located on the building. (SMP=Shoreline Master Program.) D. Development Criteria for Seating Capacities in a Residential Zone. 1. Places of worship with a seating capacity ofless than 250 seats: c. Buildings shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from all property lines; building setbacks shall be increased by five feet for every one foot in building height over 30 feet; d. The maximum building height does not exceed 50 feet inclusive of steeples, bell towers, crosses, or other symbolic religious icons; f. The maximum lot coverage of structures may not exceed 35 percent, and total impervious surfaces may not exceed 75 percent of lot area; The issues that are not clearly defined that I am asking the Hearing Examiner to consider are: Height limits for religious facilities Maximum impervious surface Setbacks for religious facilities Definition of icon and minaret HEIGHT LIMITS In the R-5 zoning, meaning that the allowable housing density is 5 houses per acre, the maximum height limit for a house is 35 feet. In RZC 21.08.280, Item C.4. states: -The maximum building height, exclusive of steeples, bell towers, crosses or other symbolic religious icons mounted on the rooftop is 35 feet. -An additional building height allowance of 15 feet is allowed for symbolic religious icons located on the building. It sounds like the maximum height for a religious facility is 35 feet, regardless of the zone where the building is located. So for example, in R-20 and R-30 zoning, where the maximum building height is 60 feet, the maximum allowable height for a religious facility would still be 35 feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- However, in R-5 zoning, are religious facilities allowed to exceed 35 feet for their bell towers, steeples and icons? Or is the maximum height 35 feet in the R-5 zone? It appears that there is a glass enclosure around the stairs that lead to the roof. Is this structure allowed? Also, minarets are not allowable exclusions as stated in RZC 21.08.280(C)(4) so what appears to be a minaret structure is prohibited to be higher than 35 feet. What would prevent a homeowner in an R-5 neighborhood from declaring their house to be a "religious facility" and building an addition that increases the height of the building to 50 feet and then declaring that the addition is a "bell tower"? Does allowing a religious facility the right to increase its building height to 50 feet in an R-5 zone provide a special privilege that discriminates against ordinary homeowners who are not religious or whose houses are not religious facilities? MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE In the SEP A Checklist for the proposed mosque, Item B. Environmental Elements asks: What percentage of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces after the project construction? The applicant answered 7 In the R-5 zoning contained in 21.08.080, the maximum impervious surface allowed is 60% of the total lot area. And in RZC 21.08.170(K)(2) that applies to all zoning areas, it states: 2. Requirement. The maximum impervious surface percentage in the zone use chart for each residential zone (RZC 21.08.020 through 21.08.140) establishes the maximum percentage of a lot's area that may be covered with structures (including outdoor storage), paved areas, and other impervious surfaces. However, the zoning for religious facilities in RZC 21.08 .280(D 1 states: f The maximum lot coverage of structures may not exceed 35 percent, and total impervious surfaces may not exceed 75 percent of lot area; Both RZC 21.08.170 and 21.08.080 state that the maximum impervious surface for R-5 zoning is 60%; however, RZC 21.08.280 says that the maximum impervious surface "may not exceed 75%." Does this allow religious facilities to exceed the 60% limit for impervious surfaces in R-5 zones? Is the proposed mosque project allowed to create impervious surfaces on 75% of its lot as stated in the SEP A checklist? Again, what would prevent a homeowner from declaring their house as a religious facility in order to exceed the 60% impervious surface limitation? Does this provide a special privilege to religious facilities that is not available to homeowners? ---PAGE BREAK--- SETBACKS FOR RELIGIOUS FACILITIES RZC 21.08.280(D)(l states: c. Buildings shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from all property lines; building setbacks shall be increased by five feet for every one foot in building height over 30 feet; The height of the main building for the proposed mosque will be 30 feet; however there will be two structures that extend from the top of the main building- an 8-foot-tall elevator structure with a windowed greenhouse and a 15-foot-tall domed building (the minaret?) RZC 21.08.280(D)(1)(c) states that the building setback should be 20 feet, plus it is to be increased by 5 feet for each foot that the height exceeds 30 feet. In examining the plans for the building, the maximum height appears to be 45 feet, so the setback for the building should be 20 feet plus 5 feet for the height that exceeds 30 feet. For the mosque building the setbacks from the lot lines should be 95 feet on all side . The setback for the mosque building is only 20 feet on the back and sides. It appears that the architect for the building used multiple setbacks. The architect measured the setback from the lot line to the main building as 20 feet. The setback for the additional structures taller than 30 feet were measure at a higher elevation. Having multiple setback lines for a building is not defmed in the Redmond Zoning Codes and is not defined in any other building codes. It appears to be a misuse of the setback regulation. DEFINITION OF A RELIGIOUS ICON DEFIN;TION OF A MINARET 21.08.280(D)(l)(d) states: The maximum building height does not exceed 50 feet inclusive of steeples, bell towers, crosses, or other symbolic religious icons. The definition of an icon is a picture or representation. A minaret is not a steeple, bell tower, cross or other symbolic religious icon. It is not defined in the Redmond Zoning Code and is not an exception that is allowed to exceed the height limitation. It is likely that the intent of the Redmond Zoning Code is to include a minaret as a religious structure; however, currently, it is not defined and it is not an allowable exception. It should be. I am asking that the Hearing Examiner clarify the height limits, impervious surface limits, setback limits and the definitions of religious structures and icons. Submitted by Susan Wilkins 18024 NE 99th Ct Redmond, W A 98052 [EMAIL REDACTED] (425) 558-3740 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 1. 95 Ft Setbacl< Section 1 - E/W s .,tbacks Page 25 of Architectural Plans of Rolluda Architects for the project Based on RZC 21 .08.280(0)(1 the setback for a religious building that is 45 feet tall should be 95 feet on all sides. The architect uses 20 foot setback for the main building, but then uses variable setback for the structures on the top of the building. Having multiple setbacks for a building is not defined in the Redmond Zoning Code or in any other available building code_ ---PAGE BREAK--- BILLING CONTACT Eugene Zakhareyev 5126 154TH AVE NE Invoice Number: 00038163 Case Number - LAND-2017-00348 Description - I PL Appeal Fee 100.89000.32290 1035 15252 NE 51ST ST REDMOND, WA 98052 Project Name: Anjumann E Burhani Mosque Payment Note: Evgene Zakhareyev Transaction Note: Approval Code 00715P April 07, 2017 04:19pm Kim McGinty it:,:cf R edmon cl Payment Method Amount Paid I Credit Card OTC Last 4: 3576 $500.00 Sub Total $500.00 Total Paid $500.00 Page 1 of 1