Conditional Use and Variance -- ESD Phase II revised.pdfI
2
'1lc. 109V
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Edmonds-Woodway High
School Athletic Filed
Improvements
Design Review (PLN20180014)
Height Variance (PLN20180016)
Setback Variance (PLN20180017)
Conditional Uses (PLN20180015
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND RECOMENDATION
INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds School District has applied for a conditional use permit, two variances
and design review for improvements to the athletic fields of Edmonds-Woodway High
School at 7600 212th St. SW. Improvements include a synthetic turf multipurpose
baseball field with football/soccer field and associated lighting and bleachers. Four
tennis courts and associated lighting are proposed east of the athletic fields. Three
batting cages are proposed south of the tennis courts. The conditional use application
covers the proposed bleachers, playfield lighting and structures 25 to 60 feet in height
(eight 50-foot lights around the tennis courts and 40-foot ball control fencing and
netting around the baseball field). The height variance is for eight proposed 70-90 foot
light poles surrounding the baseball/football/soccer fields (six 70-foot poles and two
90-foot poles). The setback variance is to reduce the street setback variance along
216th Street from 20 feet to 4 feet to accommodate the proposed batting cages. It is
CU, Variance and Design Review P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommended that the City Council approve all applications with conditions as
identified at the end of this decision.
The two impacts of greatest concern typically associated with projects involving field
lighting are light and noise. Light impacts have been significantly reduced by light
placement and design. The proposed height of the light poles combined with use of
LED lights installed with light shields helps assure that light spillage will be limited to
less than one foot-candle at the project property lines. Noise impacts are addressed by
the City's performance standards. Specifically, the City Council has exempted high
school athletic events from the noise levels set by its noise ordinance, but at the same
time limits the duration of these events by adoption of a performance standard requiring
lights off at 10:15 pm.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from
a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The
summary is not required or necessary to the recommendation issued by the Hearing
Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this
summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner
or an indication of what the Examiner found significant.
Staff Presentation
Mike Clugston, City of Edmonds City Planning Division, presented a summary of the
proposal. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Clugston
confirmed the staff didn't find it necessary for the applicant to apply for a conditional
use permit for the artificial turf and other improvements outside the scope of the
currently proposed applications even though a conditional use permit is required for
schools in the P zone. Regarding the effect of the lights and light poles on the
surrounding area, Mr. Clugston explained that south of 216th Street is a mixture of
commercial office buildings and southwest there are office buildings and multi &
single-family developments. Directly west there are some multi -family developments.
Mr. Clugston further responded that the front setback variance for the batting cages
was reviewed by the engineering division and found to not create any site distance or
traffic safety problems. Mr. Clugston also confirmed that engineering had reviewed
the project traffic impacts and found such impacts to be negligible.
Applicant Presentation
Bob Harding, project landscape architect, provided a quick site plan overview of the
improvements including the upgrades made to the site and reorientation of the baseball
field.
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Chris Fote, lighting engineer from Stantech Consulting Services Inc., provided an
explanation of the design of the lighting system. He stated that the goal of the design
of the lighting system is the reduction of negative impacts, especially to the south of
the project site. The high pole height is required to keep the lights aimed onto the field
and along with the latest shielding technology to prevent light spillage and glare. The
system is similar to the one that was used to great success for the football field. Mr.
Fote confirmed that shorter poles (under 60 feet) would lead to more adverse impacts
such as light glare and spillage. The lights will be LED.
Camie Anderson, project planner from Shockey Planning Group, discussed the SEPA
process for the project and noted that they received no public comments. She noted that
the school district has not adopted any administrative appeal process for SEPA appeals.
She added that the district concurs with the conditions recommended for approval and
believe the criteria have been met.
Ms. Angie McGuire, athletic director for Woodway, noted that the lights put in at the
football stadium were a game changer. She testified that they have not received any
complaints about the lights on the football field and that adding the lights onto the
baseball field will not hinder the neighborhood in any way. The improvements will be
a good impact for many young athletes in the community and she expressed her
appreciation for the project.
Public Comments
Fred Shull has been an area resident for 58 years, played on the baseball field when it
was first built, and has coached the last 25 years on it. Mr. Shull expressed his
appreciation for the school district in this update project.
Mr. Edward Peters is the Capital Projects Director of the School District. He stated
the three batting cages had to be kept in the same location by the baseball diamond for
efficient use of the baseball fields.
Ms. Stacey Hearst has worked on the project with the school district. Responding to
prior examiner questions regarding the need for the batting cage setback variance, she
noted that the Edmonds-Woodway High School has the largest population of the
schools in the district but the smallest campus. She said the batting cages had to be kept
together because of the limited space available for field improvements. If they were
separate from the other part of the baseball program, then other programs, like football,
might be affected. She thanked the district for pushing forward with the update project.
She noted that the fields have been around 60 years but that they have been considered
non -regulation the entire time and they are long overdue for an update.
Mr. Pete Bennett is a resident and an attorney in Edmonds. He has been an announcer
for the baseball games for 15 years. He has coached 20 years of baseball and soccer as
well. He expressed the need for the improvements because it is hard to find a generally
safe place to play in the community. The field would be available to the community as
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well as the high school. He stated that having the batting cages as a safe place to practice
hitting will greatly help the kids improve as players. He advises keeping the netting for
the cages up most of the time even outside of baseball season because there are only
about two months of the year that baseball is not practiced. He also appreciates the new
lighting plan because it can provide an additional community service by allowing adults
a safe place to walk at night. He also appreciates the plan because games often have to
get cancelled on the existing dirt fields because of rain. Mr. Bennett's written
comments were admitted as Ex. 3.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated March 19, 2015 w/6 attachments (listed on page 2 of
the Staff Report)
Exhibit 2 Staff PowerPoint slides
Exhibit 3 Letter from Peter Bennett dated August 23, 2018
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
Applicant. Edmonds School District
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
applications on August 23, 2018 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds
Public Safety Complex.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The Edmonds School District has applied for a
conditional use permit, two variances and design review for improvements to the
athletic fields of Edmonds-Woodway High School at 7600 212th St. SW.
Improvements include a synthetic turf multipurpose baseball field with football/soccer
field and associated lighting and bleachers. Four tennis courts and associated lighting
are proposed east of the athletic fields. Three batting cages are proposed south of the
tennis courts. The conditional use application covers the proposed bleachers, playfield
lighting and structures 25 to 60 feet in height (eight 50-foot lights around the tennis
courts and 40-foot ball control fencing and netting around the baseball field). The
height variance is for eight proposed 70-90 foot light poles surrounding the
baseball/football/soccer fields (six 70-foot poles and two 90-foot poles). The setback
variance is to reduce the street setback variance along 216th Street from 20 feet to 4
feet to accommodate the proposed batting cages.
The improvements subject to the permits of this application are planned as Phase I
development by the Applicant. Phase II would include the installation of an unlighted
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
natural turf football and soccer field west of the proposed baseball field. Separate land
use and building permits would be required for that work. Figure 1, below, is a site
plan of the proposed improvements.
In addition to the improvements requiring permits as previously identified, the project
also includes relocating several small storage buildings north of the baseball field and
creating of javelin and discus areas in that location. A portion of two existing tennis
courts directly north and one tennis court east of the existing baseball field would be
demolished to accommodate the improvements.
4. Characteristics of the Area. To the south is a mixture of commercial office
buildings while south west has office buildings and multi & single-family
developments. Directly west there are some multi -family developments.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The proposal will not create any significant
adverse impacts. A State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non -
Significance was issued by the Applicant as lead agency on June 11, 2018. Impacts
are more specifically addressed below:
A. Traffic. Mr. Clugston testified that public works had made a preliminary
review of traffic impacts generated by the additional night time use facilitated by
the proposed lighting and found them to be negligible. Public Works also had no
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues with site distance or related traffic safety caused by the setback variance.
Given no other evidence in the record, it is concluded based upon the expert
findings of staff that the proposal will not create any significant traffic impacts.
B. Lighting. The lighting for the proposal is mitigated as much as is reasonably
possible and is found to not be significantly detrimental to adjoining properties. As
testified by the Applicant's light expert, all lights proposed for the project will be
on tall poles that will allow the lights to be directed more steeply downward into
the site which helps minimize against light spillage. In short, the added height
enabled by the variance applications will actually serve to reduce adverse light
impacts, at least as to light spillage. Shielded fixtures and LED lights will also be
used to minimize light spillage and glare (Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, Sheet E 1.1).
This arrangement will result in very low light spill at the site boundaries of less than
1 foot candle measured at 3 feet above the ground (Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, Sheet
ESPL-1). Finally, the duration of light impacts is restricted by ECDC 17.60.0303,
requires that sports field and court lighting must be turned off by an automatic timer
no later than 10:15 p.m.
C. Noise. As conditioned, the project does not create significant noise impacts.
The City Council has adopted what it deems to be acceptable noise levels in Chapter
5.30 ECC. ECC 5.30.100(A)(7) exempts noise from school or league sponsored
athletic events from the noise level restrictions of Chapter 5.30 ECC. This should
be construed as a legislative determination that high noise levels from athletic
events should not be construed as significantly detrimental to neighboring
properties. However, this determination is qualified by the Council's adoption of
ECDC 17.60.030.13, which requires field lights to be turned off at 10:15 pm. Taken
together, this suggests a legislative tolerance for qualifying athletic field events that
end at 10:15 pm. In the absence of any evidence of additional reasonable measures
that could be taken to reduce noise impacts, the noise generated by the proposal is
not considered to be a significant adverse impact.
D. Critical Areas. With one minor exception, there are no mapped critical
areas at the project site and there was no evidence of any critical area impacts in
the record. Given that staff have reviewed the proposal for compliance with critical
area regulations and that those regulations set the legislative standard for acceptable
impacts to wildlife and other environmental resources such as wetlands, it is
determined that the proposal will not adversely affect wildlife or other
environmental resources.
The one "minor exception" is that the ADB report references a small slope near the
southwest corner of the site that qualifies as an erosion hazard area. As noted in
the Staff Report, standard erosion and sediment control techniques will be required
during any construction in the erosion hazard area as required by ECDC 18.30.
These requirements sufficiently mitigate against any impacts to the erosion hazard
area.
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E. Parking. There was no information presented on parking impacts. Given
that staff has reviewed the proposal for consistency with City parking requirements
and that they have cited no need for parking improvements, in the absence of any
contrary evidence it is determined that the proposal will not create any adverse
parking impacts.
F. Compatibility. As no evidence on adverse impacts has been presented by
anyone in this proceeding and there are no impacts found significant enough to
create compatibility problems with surrounding residential and other uses, it is
determined that the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides that the
Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing and issue a final decision on conditional use
permit and variance applications. ECDC 20.01.002(C) requires consolidation of design
review permits with hearing examiner review of conditional use and variance
applications. ECDC 17.00.030(C) requires that the examiner make recommendations
to the City Council on variance requests involving public uses and structures. The
conditional use and design review decisions are consolidated with the variance
applications as recommendations to the City Council as required by ECDC
20.01.002(C).
Substantive:
2. Zoning esignations. The project is zoned Public (P).
3. Permit Review Criteria. A conditional use permit is required for the portion
of the project involving bleachers, field lights and structures 25-50 feet in height (ball
fencing and netting and tennis court lights) per ECDC 16.80.010(C)(3) & (C)(4).
ECDC 16.80.030(B) imposes a height limit of 60 feet on all structures in the P zone.
Consequently, a variance is required for the proposed 70-90 foot field lights. ECDC
16.80.030(A) imposes a 20 foot street setback for structures in the P zone.
Consequently, a variance is required for the four foot street setback proposed for the
batting cages. Conditional use permit criteria are governed by ECDC 20.05.010.
Variance criteria are governed by ECDC 20.85.010. All applicable criteria are quoted
in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the
findings in this section can be made.
A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. As noted in the Staff Report, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the
project area is "Public" within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center overlay. The
site is subject to the 1994 Edmonds-Woodway High School Master Plan (Exhibit 1,
Attachment 6) and the proposal to upgrade the existing sports facilities at the school is
consistent with that master plan.
The proposed improvements are also consistent with the goals for the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal B (p 58 of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan):
Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community
consisting of a mixed use, pedestrian friendly atmosphere of attractively
designed and landscaped surroundings and inter -connected development.
Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service
businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the
region.
Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and
support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by
pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in
concert with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher -
intensity mixed use development to nearby single family residential areas.
The high school site serves as a transition from the more intense commercial uses to the
east along Highway 99 to the residential uses to the west. It is also home to the District's
football stadium and attracts many events throughout the year. Improving the baseball
field and tennis courts and adding lights will improve and extend their playability year-
round.
ECDC 20.05.010(B): Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone
district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance.
5. With the exception of the development standards subject to the variance
applications, the proposal complies with all applicable zoning standards as determined
in Section IV of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set
forth in full.
ECDC 20.05.010(C): Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare,
and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity.
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant
adverse impacts, which includes impacts to adjoining property owners. Consequently,
the criterion is met as the absence of impacts results in no significant detrimental
impacts as contemplated in the criterion quoted above.
ECDC 20.05.010(D): Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether
the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with
the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner
may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County
auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit
may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property.
7. The conditional use permit should be construed as running with the land so
long as all ownership of the project is in the hands of a public or private school or a
public agency. This limitation is based upon the fact that some of the standards used to
assess the merits and impacts of the proposal are dependent upon the identity of the
property owner (e.g. noise standards exempting school athletic events and variance
criteria based upon public necessity)'.
VARIANCES
ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section
can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to
the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary
to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the
1 This is arguably a "belt and suspenders" type of precaution since the use authorized by the conditional
use is arguably limited to public field athletic use, but given the sometimes ambiguous nature of the
scope of use authorized by conditional use permits, the added protection of the limitation could have
some value in the unlikely event of a property transfer to a private entity.
CU, Variance and Design Review P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting
from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property;
The added height necessary for the light poles is a public necessity since the height helps
to minimize light spillage onto adjoining properties. The batting cage encroachment is
a public necessity because, as testified by Ms. Stacey Hearst, there is very limited space
to accommodate all the improvements necessary to carry out the high school's athletic
programs and the batting cages need to be kept at their current location next to the
baseball fields to avoid disruption of other athletic uses.
ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not
he a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
8. A height variance for the 70-90 foot light poles would not constitute special
privilege. The high school is unique within the City of Edmonds and light poles of a
similar height are in use at the football stadium on the Edmonds-Woodway High School
campus as well as other sports field installations throughout the District.
A setback variance for the batting cage and fence based on public necessity would not
constitute special privilege. The high school is unique within the City of Edmonds. The
proposed batting cage will replace an existing batting cage in the same location. The
portion of the new cage that would project into the setback would be uncovered like the
existing cage while the covered portion of the cage would meet the 20' street setback
(Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, Sheet F-1.1). The fence will connect existing fencing along
216th to the proposed outfield fence around the baseball field.
ECDC 20.85.101€ — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the comprehensive plan;
9. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons identified
in Conclusion of Law No. 4.
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the
property is located;
11. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the P zone. ECDC 16.80.00
provides that the purpose of the P zone are to provide for siting and development of
regional facilities near residential areas and to minimize impacts on adjoining property.
The proposal has been designed and mitigated to provide for regional athletic use of its
public ball fields (available for both high school and athletic league use) and the field
improvements have been designed and conditioned to minimize impacts to nearby
properties. ECDC 16.80.00 provides that another P purpose is to regulate use of public
lands to assure their continued availability for public use. As testified by numerous
CU, Variance and Design Review P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people at the hearing, the improvements are necessary to provide for both improved and
continued athletic field use to the public.
ECDC 20.85.010€ — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally
approved will not he significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
12. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 6.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
13. The height variance is the minimum necessary because a lower light height,
according to the Staff Report, would necessitate more lights. Further, as testified by the
Applicant's light expert, the added height is necessary to minimize light spillage onto
adjoining properties. The setback is the minimum necessary because, as noted in
Conclusion of Law No. 8, the proposed location of the batting cage is the only feasible
location due to the limited space available for all athletic field improvements necessary
to carry out the athletic programs of the high school.
Design Review
The findings and conclusions of the planning division on design review, Ex. 1, att. 1,
were adopted by the Design Review Board and are adopted by this decision as well. In
addition, this decision adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the Design
Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION
The design review (PLN20180014), conditional use permit (PLN20180015), and
variances (PLN20180016 & PLN20180017) associated with the Edmonds-Woodway
High School Synthetic Turf Conversion project should all be approved with the
following conditions:
1. The landscaping plan proposed in Exhibit 5 shall be revised to meet the intent
of the Type III landscaping criteria in ECDC 20.13, specifically incorporating
the recommendations of the ADB at its August 1, 2018 meeting.
2. An automatic timer that turns the field and court lights off at 10:15 p.m. is
required.
3. The conditional use permit should run with the land so long as subsequent
owners are private or public schools or public agencies.
CU, Variance and Design Review P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dated this 1 lth2 day of September 2018.
< ��
MY A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
This document serves as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will
make the final decision on the permit applications based upon evidence admitted into
the administrative record by the hearing examiner. Please contact the Edmonds
Planning Division, 425-771-0220, to determine when the recommendation will be
considered by the City Council and how citizens can participate in the City Council
review.
a This decision includes a minor revision of a recommendation issued on 9/10/18 in response to a staff
request for clarification. An Edmonds PROS plan provision applicable to the old Woodway school site
had been erroneously referenced as applicable to the project site and has been removed.
CU, Variance and Design Review p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision