 
|
|||
|
Appeals Filed March 16, 2005 On March 16, 2005, a number of appeals were filed with the Hearing Examiner against the Master Use Permit (MUP) 2306429.pdf the Department of Planning an Development issued to Bertschi School on March 3, 2005. The appeals cover four problem areas the MUP failed to adequately address.
The Hearing Examiner's Office consolidated these four appeals into one as they all are appealing the same MUP decision. For your information we have posted the text of these appeals. Each appeal listed a number of appellants. All the appellants are home owners and/or residents of the neighborhood surrounding the school. Appeal on Parking 1. What is your interest in this decision? How are you affected by it? As property owners and residents within close proximity to the applicant we are directly and adversely impacted by the daily operations of this commercial enterprise. The institution generates nearly 800 vehicle trips per day, on-street parking for staff and volunteers in excess of 43, on-street parking for a portion of the drop-off traffic during peak rush hour in the morning and upwards of 140 vehicles that all must traverse narrow and cramped side streets throughout the area to secure on-street parking in the afternoon. Over and above the notable impacts associated with traffic, congestion, and related safety issues, the on-street parking demand generated by the applicant far exceeds the on-site capacity of the applicant. The unmitigated impacts generated by the applicant on the fixed quantity of public parking in this largely residential area affects a footprint in excess of 16 square blocks. 2. What are your objections to this decision? List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with this decision. DPD is not holding the applicant accountable to the on-site parking requirements clearly established by Seattle Municipal Code SMC Chart A, 23.54.015. This SMC specifically states that private elementary schools with no auditorium or assembly room must provide one (1) space for each staff member. The school has never had an "auditorium or assembly room" yet has never provided parking spaces commensurate with its staffing levels. In addition the impact of the parking requirement associated with the morning student drop-off sequence and even the more egregious afternoon student pick-up sequence have not been addressed in any manner in the decision. Finally the parking requirement for 160 vehicles and over 400 people that will be associated with the applicants "special events," many of which will be scheduled for evening and weekend timeframes, has not been addressed in the decision. There are 54 appellants on this portion of the appeal. Appeal on Traffic 1. What is your interest in this decision? How are you affected by it? All appellants are property owners and residents living within close proximity to the applicant. We are directly and adversely impacted by the daily traffic-related operations of this commercial enterprise. This institution generates nearly 800 vehicle trips per day, nearly all clustered around typically heavy traffic timeframes. Extended traffic queues, blockage of intersections and METRO stops, significant public and pedestrian safety risks to include impeding emergency vehicles, and spillover congestion on all narrow and cramped side streets are the rule not the exception. These adverse impacts are all attributed directly to vehicle demands generated by the applicant. The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has failed to demonstrate that the applicant's project meets the conditional use criteria for traffic (and parking) management. Problems with the supporting Traffic Analysis that was attached to the SEPA Checklist have not been addressed. The traffic management plan submitted by the applicant and "accepted" by DPD will not provide the required levels of mitigation. 2. What are your objections to this decision? List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with this decision. DPD is not holding the applicant accountable for traffic management requirements clearly established by Seattle Municipal Code. This is a busy thriving neighborhood in the heart of an urban center of the City where some congestion is to be expected. However, the applicant has historically not dealt with even 3% of its loading demand. No increases in student enrollment, in staff, and in the applicant's capacity to hold events (160 vehicles, 400 attendees) should be allowed without significant redesign and a comprehensive package of transportation mitigation that addresses existing adverse impacts. The DPD decision, which includes the "Conditions for Administrative Conditional Use" issued March 3, 2005 does not provide for these essential and critical components. There are 54 appellants on this portion of the appeal. Appeal on Noise 1. What is your interest in this decision? How are you affected by it? We live in the immediate vicinity of the property and will be severly harmed by the noise pollution if the project described in MUP 2306429 is allowed. The current Bertschi School harms many of the neighbors with excessive noise and the proposed expansion will spread the noise to even more neighbors. 2. What are your objections to the decision? List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with this decision. The MUP was approved without consideration of significant noise pollution generated by the school as required by SMC 23.45.100. There are 15 appellants on this portion of the appeal. Appeal on Variance 1. What is your interest in this decision? How are you affected by it? All appellants own property and live in the immediate vicinity of the property and will be harmed by the size of the project. The proposed building does not meet the SMC code for L2-Residential zone. It is 20% wider than is allowed. We will all be harmed by the overall size, shape, orientation, out-of-context design of the building and by the location of the over-sized entrance to the below grade parking structure. 2. What are your objections to the decision? List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with this decision. The approved design violates numerous width, modulation, maximum depth and setback requirements of the SMC. The MUP was approved without due consideration of the size of the project in relation to residences in the neighborhood as required by the SMC. It will destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. There are 8 appellants on this portion of the appeal. |
||
|
|
|||