StaffReport_PLN20100070.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
th
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project:
PUD Fence Height Variance
File Number:
PLN20100070
Date of Report:
December 28, 2010
From:____________________________
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
Public Hearing:
January 6, 2010 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
th
250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I.SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION AND BACKGROUND
Snohomish County PUD #1 has requested a variance from ECDC 17.30 which limits the height of fences
to 6 feet. PUD’s desire is to replace old electrical equipment at their existing substation (“Richmond Park
Substation”) and enclose the area with a new security fence. The primary purpose of the request is to
thth
enhance the safety of the equipment, the public, and the public right of way for 244 Street SW and 90
Avenue West which is immediately adjacent to the substation. The following is the Edmonds Planning
Division’s analysis and recommendation of the applicant’s submittal.
II.APPLICATION
1.Applicant:
Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) #1.
th
:
2.Site Location 9005 244 Street SW, Edmonds WA 98026 (Attachments 1 and 5).
:
3.ZoningSingle Family Residential (RS-8).
:
4.RequestA variance to allow a fence up to 8 feet tall, which includes a 7-foot chain link fence plus 1
foot of barbed wire (Attachments 4 and 5).
:
5.Review ProcessVariance – the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final
decision.
:
6.Major Issues
Compliance with ECDC 16.20 (Single Family Residential).
A.
Compliance with ECDC 17.30 (Fences).
B.
Compliance with ECDC 17.100.050 (Local Public Facilities).
C.
Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances).
D.
PUD Fence Height Variance
File No. PLN20100070
Page 2 of 5
III.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-
800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). A variance alone does not require SEPA review. Therefore, the
Applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A.
IV.PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
A “Notice of Application and Hearing” was mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site as well published
in the Everett Herald and posted in the required locations (on site, at City Hall, in the Pubic Safety
Complex, and at the Library). Compliance with Chapter 20.03 (Public Notice) has been satisfied with the
assistance of the Planning Division (Attachment 6).
V.TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City’s Fire District, Engineering Division, Parks and
Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. No issues or concerns were raised by the
above reviewing bodies.
VI.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Single Family Urban 1.”The following excerpts
provide guidance for development:
Utilities Element (Other Utilities)
A.3.Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of structures to minimize
impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. When such locations are not available, utility structures
should be located or sited so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated within
the design of their site and surrounding area. Free-standing structures should be discouraged
when other siting opportunities are available.
(Comprehensive Plan, Page 101)
Residential Development
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types
of development and expansion based on the following principles:
B.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government.
B.5.b.Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged.
B.5.c.Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including
noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
(Comprehensive Plan, Pages 69-70)
The site is situated in a residential neighborhood and the use is existing and will not change. New
landscaping will be added for screening (Attachment 5) which will help protect residential privacy. There
are no views in the cul-de-sac and there should be no negative impacts of re-fencing the site.
PUD Fence Height Variance
File No. PLN20100070
Page 3 of 5
VII.PUBLIC CONCERNS
To date, no public comments have been received.
VIII.FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
1.Site Description:
A.Zoning:
The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential (RS-8).
B.Lot Information
: This property was annexed into the City of Edmonds on 10/16/1995 and is
described as tax parcel number 00463302900100. It is 0.23 acres (10,000 square feet) in size.
C.Development:
The site is currently developed as a PUD substation, which will continue to
operate.
D.Terrain & Vegetation:
The site is completely flat, and according to the City’s LIDAR dataset,
has a maximum 2-foot difference in elevation across the entire site.
E.Critical Areas:
A critical areas “checklist” was submitted under file number CRA20050180 and
it was determined that there are no critical areas on or adjacent to the property. Therefore, a
“waiver” from Title 23 ECDC (the City’s critical areas ordinance) was issued. During the site
visit, staff noted no critical areas.
F.Soils:
According to the USDA soils map, this neighborhood consists of “Alderwood Urban Land
Complex, 2-8% slopes.”
G.Wildlife:
None noted upon site visit.
th
H.Access:
The site is accessed via 90 Avenue West, which is considered a “Local Street,” while
th
244 is considered a “Minor Arterial.”
2.Neighboring Development & Zoning:
The site is located in south Edmonds just west of Highway 99
th
and just north of the King/Snohomish County border. The neighborhood is single family along 244
Street SW and is zoned RS-8 in Edmonds. The site is on the corner of a cul-de-sac and the properties
in King County are also developed with single family homes.
3.Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance:
A.Bulk & Use Zoning Standards (ECDC 16.20):
The fundamental site development standards in an RS-8 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.
They allow for “local public facilities” consistent with requirements in ECDC 17.100.050.
A PUD substation is a permitted use, so the proposal is consistent with this code section.
:
B.Community Facilities (ECDC 17.100.050)
Pursuant to ECDC 17.100.050.B, “… Electrical substations… shall be adequately screened from
adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight-obscuring fence not less than six feet in
height…” The applicant is attempting to bring the site into conformance by screening the entire
substation with a 8-foot tall fence. The existing vegetation screening along the south property
line will remain and new vegetation for screening will be planted (Attachment 5). ECDC
17.100.050.B implies that fencing around electrical substations should be a minimum of 6 feet in
height, but it does not create an exemption or another vehicle for granting any height over 6 feet.
A fence higher than 6 feet would not be consistent with the Community Facilities Chapter.
However, if the variance is approved, the proposal would be consistent with this code section.
PUD Fence Height Variance
File No. PLN20100070
Page 4 of 5
C.Fences (ECDC 17.30):
This section of the code allows fences up to 6-feet in height and specifically requires fences over
6-feet in height to obtain a variance (ECDC 17.30.000.C). The applicant has requested a variance
to allow a chain link (and barbed wire) fence up to 8-feet to protect to protect people and
motorists, as this substation is adjacent to a City arterial.
If the variance is approved, the proposal will be consistent with this code section.
:
D.Variance (ECDC 20.85)
ECDC 20.85 states that an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this chapter
pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. This chapter also sets forth the mechanism
whereby a provision of the code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the
provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the
findings that must be made in order for a Variance application to be approved. According to the
aforementioned code section, “No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this
section can be made.” The findings are as follows:
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;
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and
environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats;
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;
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;
Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the
comprehensive plan;
Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning
ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located;
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;
Minimum Variance.That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner
rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
1.
The applicant submitted arguments for how they feel they meet the variance criteria
(Attachment 3), including some additional National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)
requirements.
2.
Staff agrees with the applicant’s review of criteria and their proposal.
PUD Fence Height Variance
File No. PLN20100070
Page 5 of 5
IX.CONCLUSIONS
1.
Special Circumstances –
Special circumstances exist in both the permitted use (Local Public Facility)
th
Street SW. The fence should be “at least” 6 feet in height, but
and the substation’s proximity to 244
the code requires a variance if it is over 6 feet. There are no sight-distance issues from the
Engineering Division, as tall landscaping already exists.
2. –
Special PrivilegeThe City would treat another substation fence in the same way. Most recently,
the City approved a variance for a 10-foot tall fence around Edmonds Elementary School (a Local
Public Facility) due to safety concerns near Puget Drive (File V-2005-99).
–
3.See Section VI of this report for a discussion on consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. The project is compliant with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan related to “Residential Development” and “Utilities.”
–
4. See Section VIII.3 of this report for a discussion on consistency with the criteria
Zoning Ordinance
given the zoning code of the City of Edmonds. If approved, the project would comply with the
Zoning Code.
–
5. The proposal should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners
Not Detrimental
nor to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. No views will be obstructed by the fence. No negative
public comments have been received and no complaints have been voiced. In fact, an increase in
fence height will result in a safer condition for all.
–
6. The requested variance is the minimum necessary, as it meets the NESC
Minimum Variance
requirement of being 8 feet in height. The proposal is for the standard fencing detail erected at the
other 84 substations throughout Snohomish County (Attachments 3, 4 and 5).
7.
Because the proposal meets all of the criteria for a variance, the fence height variance should be
approved as described on the application (Attachment 2) and as shown on the preliminary plans
(Attachment 5).
X.RECOMMENDATION
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff finds that all six variance
APPROVE
criteria are met and therefore recommends that the Hearing Examiner the fence height
variance.
XI.PARTIES OF RECORD
1.
Dennis Wermcrantz, P.E. – Snohomish County PUD #1, PO Box 1107, Everett WA 98206.
2.
Tom Hendricks, P.E. – Snohomish County PUD #1, PO Box 1107, Everett WA 98206.
XII.ATTACHMENTS
1.4.
Zoning & Vicinity Map Photographs of Similar Fencing
2.5.
Land Use Application Preliminary Site Construction Plans
3.6.
Criteria Statement Public Notice