HE Decision -- City Park Greenhouse Variance (PLN2022-0027)I
2
'11c. 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 City Park Greenhouse
Setback and Landscaping Variance
PLN2022-0027
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Edmonds requests approval of two variances to replace two greenhouses
with a single greenhouse at City Park within the 20-foot setbacks of Pine Street and
SR-104. The City is requesting to locate the proposed replacement greenhouse a
minimum of 14' from the southern property line along Pine Street and 11' from the
western property line along SR-104. The landscaping variance requests waiver of a
requirement to plant two trees within the setback area. The variances are approved
subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an
overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational
purposes only as Appendix A. No assurances are made as to accuracy of the transcript.
Those needing an accurate transcription will have to purchase a copy of the recording
for the City.
Variance 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
EXHIBITS
The eight exhibits identified in Section II of the June 2, 2022 staff report were admitted
into the record at the June 9, 2022 public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
Applicant. City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Services.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the subject application was held on June 9, 2022 at
3:00 pm at the City of Edmonds Council Chambers, 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds,
WA 98020.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The City of Edmonds requests approval of two
variances to replace two greenhouses with a single greenhouse at City Park within the
20-foot setbacks of Pine Street and SR-104. The City is requesting to locate the
proposed greenhouse a minimum of 14' from the southern property line along Pine
Street and I V from the western property line along SR-104. The landscaping variance
requests waiver of a requirement to plant two trees within the setback area.
ECDC 16.80.030.A is the standard subject to the City's setback variance request, which
imposes a 20-foot setback to public streets.
ECDC 16.80.030.E is the standard subject to the City's landscaping variance request,
which requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet apart.
4. Characteristics of the Area. As far as can be discerned from an aerial photograph
of the project site, Ex. 6, there are single-family residences located to the south and
southeast. City Park surrounds the greenhouses on the east and north sides. The
Willow Creek Salmon & Watershed Education Center is located to the west.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The proposed variances will not create any
significant adverse impacts to the environment or surrounding properties.
The only potential adverse impact of concern is aesthetic. Those impacts are not found
to be significant. The replacement greenhouse will be taller and larger than the existing
two greenhouses combined, but will be setback further from the street than the existing
greenhouses. The setback to the west property line will be increased from five feet to
11 feet and the setback to the south property line will remain at 14 feet. The combined
area of the two existing greenhouses is 880 square feet and the area of the replacement
Variance
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
greenhouse will be 1,200 square feet. The height of the existing greenhouses is 8 feet
and that of the replacement greenhouse is 18 feet.
The larger size and height of the replacement greenhouse will largely be shielded from
view and will likely not create any adverse impacts to adjoining residences or the
travelling public. The greenhouse will be well screened by the Photinia hedge at Pine
Street. The buffering of the hedge is enhanced by the fact that the maintenance yard is
several feet below the level of the adjacent sidewalks at Pine and SR-104. Asa point
of reference, the adjoining Prop Building will remain and is almost completely screened
by the hedge at 12' 6" in height (Exhibit 3). As shown in the aerial photograph of Ex.
6, the only residences with line of site to the greenhouses, located to the south, have
buffering on their side with trees and vegetation.
6. Necessity of Variances. The variances are necessary due to unique circumstances
related to the project site. The setback variances are necessary because the greenhouses
cannot be made to further encroach into the City Park maintenance yards without
blocking road access to existing maintenance buildings. The landscaping variance is
necessary because the trees will block sunlight to the greenhouses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. Variance applications are classified as Type III-B
decisions. ECDC 20.01.003B provides that the hearing examiner holds a hearing and
issues a final decision on Type III-B decisions.
Substantive:
2. ZoninDesignations. The project is zoned Public (P).
3. Permit Review Criteria/Design Review Approval. Variance criteria are
governed by ECDC 20.85.010. All applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and
applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
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
Variance
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
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
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;
4. The criterion is met. The proposed improvements serve a public necessity and must
be placed at the proposed locations for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
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;
5. The criterion is met. The two variances for the greenhouse and landscaping
are based on public necessity and would not constitute special privilege. City Park and
the maintenance yard are unique within Edmonds.
ECDC 20.85.010(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
6. The criterion is met. the replacement of the greenhouses was included in the
City Park Master Plan, which is an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan.
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;
7. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the P
zone. ECDC 16.80.000 provides in relevant part that the purpose of the P zone is to
assure continuing availability of public lands for public use. The requested variance
enables the City to maximize its efficient use of available public lands, thus maximizing
the availability of public lands for public use. ECDC 16.80.000 identifies another
purpose of the P zone as establishing standards to minimize impacts on nearby
properties. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed improvements are
consistent with this objective since they will not create any significant impacts to
adjoining properties.
ECDC 20.85.010(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;
8. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal
will not create any significant adverse impacts and thus will not be significantly
detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to surrounding properties.
Variance 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
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.
9. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
DECISION
The two variance requests are approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit is required in order to install a new greenhouse and
related improvements.
2. The greenhouse may be located a minimum of 11 feet from the west street
property line and 14 feet from the south street property line.
3. The Parks Department must install two trees but they may be located
anywhere within City Park where additional vegetation would provide better screening
at the exterior of the site.
Dated this 24th day of June 2022.
Phi A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by
the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Variance
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision