HE V0794.pdfr C 1soU
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020- (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. V-2007-94
Edmonds School District ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
For a Variance. )
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a variance from the street setback requirement of the Public Use zone to install a
light pole 14.12 feet from 212' Street SW is GRANTED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Edmonds School District (Applicant) requested a variance from the street setback requirement of
the Public Use zone to install a light pole 14.12 feet from 212' Street SW. The purpose of the
light pole is to illuminate the fast -pitch softball field at Edmonds-Woodway High School. The
subject property is located at 7600 212t" Street SW in Edmonds, Washington and is identified as
Tax Parcel Number 27043000104800.
Hearing Date:
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of
Edmonds on January 17, 2008. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following-iiidividuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Mike Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Camie Anderson, ShockeyBrent, Inc., representing the Applicant
3. Marla Miller, Assistant Superintendent, Edmonds School District
4. Paul Koehn, Edmonds School District
5. Alvin Rutledge
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report dated January 8, 2008
2. Variance Application filed December 4, 2007
3. Site Plan received December 6, 2007
4. Applicant Declarations for Variance received December b, 2007
5. Notice of Public Hearing, with Affidavits of Posting and Mailing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94 Page I of 7
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
6. Staff Report for CU -2007-45, with seven attachments as identified on pages 6 and 7 of
the Staff Report
7. Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions, and Decision, CU -2007-45
8. Lighting Guidelines, Amateur Softball Association of America
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
The Applicant requested a variance from the street setback requirement of the Public Use
zone to install a light pole 14.12 feet from 2124, Street SW. The purpose of the light pole
is to illuminate the fast -pitch softball field at Edmonds-Woodway High School. The
subject property is located at 7600 212th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington and is
identified as Tax Parcel Number 27043000104800. Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibits 2 and 3.
2. On October 31, 2007, the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner issued a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP -2007-45) authorizing the Applicant to install four 60 -foot -tall light poles to
illuminate the fast -pitch softball field at Edmonds-Woodway High School! One of the
four proposed light pole locations did not comply with the building setback requirement
of the P zone. Condition No. 2 of CUP -2007-45 required the Applicant to obtain a
variance for the setback reduction prior to building permit issuance.2 This variance
request followed. Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 7.
3. The subject property is zoned Public Use (P). One of the purposes of the P zone is "to
provide for siting and development of regional public facilities to be located in or near
residential areas and to establish standards which will minimize the impact of these
facilities on nearby properties." ECDC 16:80.000. The minimum building setback from a
public street in the P zone is 20 feet. ECDC 16.80.030(A); Exhibit 1, page 3.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Public Use, with a School
Overlay. The 2004 - 2009 Edmonds School District No. 15 Capital Facilities Plan, which
the Comprehensive Plan. adopts by reference, includes playfield and athletic facility
improvements at the Edmonds-Woodway High School. Exhibit 1, page 2.
5. The properties surrounding the subject property are zoned multi -family residential, with
the exception of the parcels at the intersection of 212th Street SW and 70 Avenue W,
which are zoned Neighborhood Business. The land uses in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed light pole are multi -family residential. Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2; Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
6. The Applicant proposes a four -pole light configuration for the fast -pitch softball field, as
described in the Lighting Guidelines of the Amateur Softball Association of America
1 Although High Schools are a permitted use in the P zone, playfield lighting and structures exceeding 25 feet in
height are permitted only with CUP approval. ECDC 16.80.010.
2 One of the criteria for approval of a CUP is that the use "will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning
ordinance." ECDC 20.05.010(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94
Page 2 of 7 .
(Exhibit 8). The configuration calls for specific pole locations and pole heights to ensure
efficient lighting, uniform light levels, reduced light spillage, and reduced glare for
players. The configuration reduces glare by keeping the light fixtures out of the players'
normal line of sight. The proposed site plan is consistent with the recommended.
configuration. The subject light pole is located near the infield, along the first base line.
Exhibit 8; Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, pages 1-2, Testimony of Mr. Koehn.
7. The play field was constructed in its current location in 1979. The north edge of the play
field is set back less than 25 feet from 212' Street SW. Within that setback there is a
dugout, a set of bleachers, and fencing.3 Due to these constraints there is limited area to
install a light pole along the first base line. The proposed location is immediately behind
the dugout, as close as possible to the existing backstop fencing. Compliance with the
street setback standard would require placement of the pole within the dugout or the field
of play, or at a location 20 feet to the west of the dugout. If the pole were placed to the
west of the dugout, the entire lighting configuration would need to change to provide
field lighting that is adequate for player safety. The proposed configuration is crucial to
minimizing the number of lights; moving one light would likely require installation of
additional lights. The approved CUP allows only four. Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of Mr.
Koehn.
8.. The light pole will increase use of the field by allowing practice and games after dusk.
The field is not only used for school events, but for public events such as little league
games. Exhibit 4.
9. The light pole will, be fitted with a spill and glare control fixture with down -shielding to
reduce obtrusive light on neighboring properties. Exhibit 4, page 1.
10. The impacts of the light pole were reviewed through the CUP application. The methods
the Applicant proposes to control impacts are summarized in Findings No. 2, 16, and 17
of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the CUP. The conditions of CUP approval limit
the lighting to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 AM to 10:00
PM, Friday and Saturday. Exhibit 7.
11. The light pole at the proposed location will not present a safety hazard to traffic 'on 212th
Street SW. The pole will be set back 24 feet from the closest travel lane, and the light will
be shielded from the street. Exhibit 4, page 3.
12. The Applicant has already installed a concrete foundation for the proposed light pole. The
installation was done with City approval. The submittals associated with the CUP
application indicate that both the City and the Applicant believed that the light pole had
been approved as part of an earlier building permit application and that a variance would
not be required for the reduction in street setback. Exhibit 6, page 4 and Attachment 4.
3 The bleachers intrude into the required 20 -foot street setback. Exhibits 3 and 4.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94
Page 3 of 7
13. Public comment was in support of the variance application; however, concern was raised
that if additional light poles were required as a result of the Hearing Examiner's decision
on the variance, then those residents who raised concerns regarding light impacts at the
CUP hearing (but were not present at the variance hearing) would not have an
opportunity to comment. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge.
14. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to adjoining property owners, and posted
on site and at the Civic Center and the library on January 3, 2008, and published in the
newspaper on January 3, 2008 and January 9, 2008. Exhibit 5.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B).
Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless the
following findings can be made:
A. 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 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;
B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the comprehensive plan;
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;
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94
Page 4 of 7
E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will
not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
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.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. Because the zoning and use of the subject property are unique to the area, a comparison
cannot be made between the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the
vicinity and the requested land use. However, the proposed use is reasonable and
consistent with the type of improvements that could be expected at a high school ball
field. Special circumstances relating to the property warrant granting the variance,
including the location of the existing field (which has been in place since 1979), the
location of the associated improvements, and the limited area in which safe and
appropriate field lighting can be installed. The special circumstances are not predicated
on the extra expense (if any) of modifying the light configuration for compliance with the
zoning ordinance — keeping the number of lights to a minimum is necessary to reduce
impacts to neighboring properties consistent with the CUP decision. The special
circumstances are also not predicated on factors resulting from the School District's
actions. Although the School District has already installed the foundation for the light
pole, the location happens to be the only reasonable place where a light pole could be
installed. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13.
2. Approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. As described above,
the zoning and use of the subject property are unique to the area. The proposed use is
reasonable and consistent with the type of improvements that could be expected at a high
school ball field. A light pole at the proposed location is needed for safe and efficient
field lighting that minimizes impacts to surrounding residential properties consistent with
the intent of the P zone and the CUP decision. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6 and 7.
3. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding 4.
4. The variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. One of the
purposes of the zoning ordinance, which is similar to the purpose of the P zone, is to
protect the character of residential uses within the City by regulating individual parcels of
land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects. ECDC 16.00.010(B)(3). The proposed
variance would allow the Applicant to light the field using the minimum number of
lights. Findings 3 and 7.
5. The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity'and within the P zone. Findings 9,
10, and 11.
6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use. Finding 7
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94
Page 5 of 7
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance from the street
setback requirement of the Public Use zone to install_ a light pole 14.12 feet from 212`x' Street SW
is GRANTED.
DECIDED January 30, 2008.
Toweill Rice Taylor, LLC
Hearing Examiners for the City of Edmonds
By:
v�J
LeAnna C. Tovell
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for
reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for
reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the
Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is
filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends
the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person
holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or
the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions.
Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the applicant; (2)
anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the
application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing.
Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being
appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and
address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and
(3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section
20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development Services
Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94 Page 6 of 7
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration
is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is
stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner
has issued his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day
five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal
after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20:$5.020{C} of the ECDC states, "The approved variance must be acted on by the
owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and
void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the
city approves the application."
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a
change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Edmonds School District Variance, No. V-2007-94
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
� c 1S9\3
In the Matter of the Application of )
Edmonds School District )
For a Variance.
NO. V-2007-94
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
DECLARATION
1, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a
professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision
of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States,
a resident of the State of Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a
witness and make service herein;
3. That on January 30, 2008, I did serve a copy of the decision in the case V-2007-94 upon
the following individuals at the addresses stated and in the manner indicated:
1. Camie Anderson
ShockeyBrent, Inc.
2716 Colby Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
2. Terri McMahan
Edmonds School District
20420 68" Avenue W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
3. City of Edmonds Development Services Dept,
Attn: Diane Cunningham
121 - 5tn Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
4. Edmonds City Council
121 - 5d` Avenue North --1St Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
5. Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
• Incorporated August II, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
6. Paul Koehn
2929 Alderwood Mall Blvd
Lynnwood, WA 98036
7. Marla Miller
Edmonds School District
20420 68' Avenue W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Service was made to each parry above by:
❑ By facsimile transmission.
❑ By electronic transmission (e-mail).
By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US I" Class
Mail.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing
is true and correct:
DATED THIS 3)�hday of Q, 2008 at Boise, Idaho.
&L � aw�d
LeAnna C. Toweill
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington