StaffReport+Attachments_PLN20090055.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:
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number:
PLN20090055
Date of Report:
March 9, 2010
From:
____________________________
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
Public Hearing:
March 18, 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:
The Applicant desires to keep a 6-foot cedar fence that they constructed around a portion of the
th
Street SW in the RS-8
perimeter of an open space tract as it borders their property at 8314 208
zone. A fence permit is required for fences proposed within 10 feet of the right of way or near a
critical area. In this case, the site contains a critical area (steep slope) and the fence is within 10
feet of the public right of way (Attachment 5). It was noted on an October 10, 2008 site visit that
a cedar fence was constructed 8 feet in height bordering the City right of way on or near the open
space tract to the east of their property (COD20080044). When made aware that a permit was
required to construct a fence near the right of way, they applied for the fence permit
(BLD20080944, November 13, 2008). Through the building permit process, it was found that
this site is within a formal Planned Residential Development (PRD) and that there is a specific
restriction printed on the face of the plat that requires Tracts 100 and 101 to remain in a
“substantially natural state.” Each of the 6 lots in the PRD has an equal (1/6) interest in the tracts.
rd
Ave W
The building permit indicates that the requested fence area is 108 linear feet along 83
with 12 feet along the south property line that would join their existing fence. They submitted an
addendum to their building permit that contains the signatures of the other PRD property owners
acknowledging the fence request and establishing maintenance and liability of the fence with the
owners of Lot 2 (Attachment 4).
The Planning Division determined that installing a fence in the open space tract of the PRD is
considered “construction activity.” The Planning Division notified the Applicant that they would
need to reduce the height of the fence down from 8-feet to 6-feet and also move the fence onto
their own private property – not keep it on the adjacent open space tract. Alternatively, they were
given the opportunity to apply for a plat/PRD “modification” which could remove the language
prohibiting construction on the tracts, however it was found that Chapter 20.35.050.D ECDC
requires a minimum 10% of “open space” for PRDs so if they were to visually absorb the tract
into their property they may have a difficult time meeting the PRD open space requirement.
Over the course of the ongoing permit discussion with the Applicant in 2009, they asked if they
could instead apply for a variance to allow the fence. The Planning Division notified the
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
Applicant that they could apply for a variance at their own risk, understanding that staff would
not be able to recommend approval due to the situation’s apparent failure to meet all six criteria
outlined in ECDC 20.85.010. Also, it was noted that a variance is for some requirement of the
zoning ordinance, not for an existing restriction that has been recorded against the plat/PRD, so
staff is still uncertain that a variance is even an appropriate avenue for the Applicant to explore.
The Hearing Examiner will need to determine if a variance is appropriate. If the variance is an
appropriate method to resolve the issue, then the Hearing Examiner will determine if the proposal
meets all six variance criteria. The Applicant has outlined several reasons why they feel the fence
is appropriate in the proposed location and feels that it meets all of the variance criteria
(Attachment 3). The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
II.GENERAL INFORMATION:
:
1.RequestA variance to allow the fence to remain along a common open space tract. ECDC
20.85 states that “a variance to any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16
and 17) except use and procedural requirements may be approved when the findings required
by this chapter can be made.” See Attachment 3 for the Applicant’s criteria statement.
2.Review Process:
Variance – the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the
final decision. However, staff feels that the most applicable review process would be to
modify the PRD (which would involve re-platting the property) in order to remove the
restriction from the face of the plat map. The Applicant is requesting clarification of
“construction activity” as it relates to fences.
3.Major Issues:
Compliance with ECDC 16.20.030 (Single-Family Residential).
A.
Compliance with Chapter 20.35 ECDC (Planned Residential Development – “PRD”)
B.
Compliance with ECDC Title 23 (Critical Areas).
C.
Compliance with Chapter 17.30 (Fences).
D.
Compliance with Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances).
E.
4.Owner/Applicant:
Brent & Kelley Picasso (Attachment 2).
5.Tax Parcel Number:
00789700000200 – Park Court PRD, Lot 2 (Attachment 3).
th
6.Location:
8314 208 Street SW, Edmonds (Attachment 1).
rd
7.Access:
The site is accessed via an access tract off of 83 Avenue West.
8.Zoning:
Single-Family Residential (RS-8).
9.Size:
10,664 square feet (Lot 2).
10.Proposed Use:
To construct a fence on Tract 101 \[where “construction of any kind” is
restricted “except for necessary utility installations”\] (Attachment 3).
11.Existing Use:
Single family residential open space tract.
III.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Page 2 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
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:
ECDC Title 20 now requires Applicants to be responsible for the public hearing notice.
Affidavits asserting compliance with the noticing requirements are due March 15 and are not
available at this time. Receiving the affidavits would confirm that the site was posted, neighbors
within 300 feet were notified, and that the hearing was published in the Herald (Attachment 8).
V.TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City’s Fire Department, Engineering
Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. The Engineering
Division commented that the “fence will close access to \[the\] drainage easement on \[the\] south
property line. \[A\] gate must be installed to allow \[the\] City access to \[the\] easement”
(Attachment 7).
VI.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1.Topography:
The site slopes down from east to west from the street edge at an approximate
55-60% slope and then tapers off to a rolling decline throughout the PRD (Attachment 5).
2.Soils:
According to the USDA Soils map, this neighborhood consists of “Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes” (Map Unit Symbol 3).
3.Critical Areas:
A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted under file number CRA19920187
and it was determined that there is a slope on the property. See section X.3 of this report for
further discussion on critical areas.
4.Wildlife:
Typical of a residential environment.
5.Vegetation:
The existing vegetation is typical of a single-family residence.
VII.NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
This site is located in a single-family neighborhood near Pine Ridge Park in the Five Corners
neighborhood. Most of the adjacent zoning is Single-Family Residential (RS-8); however this lot
in particular is adjacent to the Wood Ridge community to the immediate south, which is a
multiple family community (zoned Multiple Residential RM-2.4).
VIII.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Single Family – Urban 1.” The City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and to achieve this vision
the applicable excerpts are provided:
Residential Development
Page 3 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle
of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the
City to influence the quality of housing to all citizens should be approached realistically
in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following
policies:
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.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts
of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C.1.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant
benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.).
(2009 Comprehensive Plan, pages 69-70)
The PRD is a high quality residential development. The proposed fence does not appear to
encroach upon any views and would provide the owners of the property with increased privacy.
As with all PRDs, the open space tract is considered a benefit for the owner and for the area. If
geotechnically sound, the fence could provide some protection against slides (as in, pedestrian
slides as the Applicant suggests).However, because the fence is proposed at the top of a slope, a
geotechnical report may be required to ensure it is constructed property so as to protect the
critical area.
IX.PUBLIC CONCERNS:
To date, no public comments have been received.
X.FINDINGS:
1.
Chapter 16.20 ECDC (RS – Single-Family Residential)
A.
Development standards in the RS-8 zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030:
MinimumMinimumMinimumMinimumMaximumMinimum
SubMinimumMaximum
Lot Area Street SideRearCoverageParking
District Lot Width Height
(St. Ft.) SetbackSetbackSetback(%) Spaces
RS-88,00070’25’7.5’15’25’35%2
B.
No deviations from the development standards in Title 16 are requested. The Applicant
must prove that all development standards are met through the building permit process.
2.
Chapter 20.35 ECDC (Planned Residential Development – “PRD”)
Page 4 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
A.
The Applicant’s property is one of six lots in the Park Court Planned Residential
Development (File PRD-1990-1, Attachment 3). The open space tract (Tract 101)
belongs in common to all six properties. Only the Applicant signed the land use
application form. The criteria statement asserts that all six properties are in support of the
proposal and an “addendum” was submitted with the building permit providing
permission for the fence (Attachment 4).
B.
Tracts 100 and 101 are restricted for “construction” (Attachment 3). Tract 102 is a
private road.
C.
PRDs require 10% open space – whether or not this tract was considered “usable open
space” is unknown. It is, however, labeled “common open space” on the plat map
(Attachment 3). Tract 100 is labeled “detention pond and common open space” and is
the more “useable” of the two open space tracts.
ECDC 20.35.050.D.
Open Space and Recreation. Usable open space and recreation facilities shall be provided and effectively
integrated into the overall development of a PRD and surrounding uses and consistent with ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6). “Usable
open space” means common space developed and perpetually maintained at the cost of the development. At least 10 percent of
the gross lot area and not less than 500 square feet, whichever is greater, shall be set aside as a part of every PRD with five or
more lots. Examples of usable open space include playgrounds, tot lots, garden space, passive recreational sites such as viewing
platforms, patios or outdoor cooking and dining areas. Required landscape buffers and critical areas except for trails which
comply with the critical areas ordinance shall not be counted toward satisfaction of the usable open space requirement. \[Ord.
3465 § 1, 2003\].
D.
Chapter 20.35.100 ECDC describes how approved PRDs are administered. Park Court is
an approved PRD.
ECDC 20.35.100
Administration of an approved PRD.
After the effective date of the final approval, the city shall permit use of the land and erection of structures in compliance
with the plans as approved. Any use or structure inconsistent with the approved plan shall not be permitted. The application for a
building permit or other authorization to begin work on the project shall be accompanied by:
A. Bond. Any bond required pursuant to these ordinances guaranteeing completion of a specific portion of the project as
authorized and approved, and a standard subdivision bond if subdivision and sale of lots is a part of the project;
B. Deeds. Deeds to any land or properties intended for public ownership and use in the completed project;
C. Plans. A complete project site plan and construction plans and specifications for the initial buildings.
The city may deny issuance of permits if any plan submitted for construction fails to comply with the conditions of approval
imposed by the approved PRD. In that event, the sole appeal shall be by mandamus to superior court. \[Ord. 3465 § 1, 2003\].
E.
On the face of the Park Court plat, sheet 1 of 2 (Attachment 3), the following
“restrictions” are listed. These “restrictions” are the reason why staff determined that the
fence must be moved onto the Applicant’s private property.
Tracts 100 and 101 shall remain in a substantially natural state. No clearing, grading, filling, or construction of any kind shall
occur except for necessary utility installations.
Removal of trees located within Tracts 100 and 101 shall be limited to those which are dead, diseased, and/or determined to be
hazardous to life or property.
F.
The Hearing Examiner will determine whether or not fencing the tract will keep it in a
“substantially natural state” and whether or not the installation of a fence is considered
construction “of any kind.”
G.
If the Hearing Examiner determines that fencing the tract is appropriate and grants the
variance, then finding and conclusions should be made that would address how to handle
any future requests for fencing Tracts 101 or 100 in this PRD.
Page 5 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
H.
The Applicant’s criteria statement indicates that they have spoken with the “contractor
company” and that it was not their intent to prohibit fences by agreeing to the language
given in the plat restrictions (Attachment 3).
I.
The original plat/PRD file does not discuss perimeter tract fencing. It does, however,
discuss what language to use if a tree in an open space tract fails. Adding language to
provide instructions on how to handle hazardous trees is a standard plat condition that
ends up on the face of the map.
J.
The Hearing Examiner should consider whether or not the addition of a new hedge near
the sidewalk would be appropriate as an alternate option. Vegetation isn’t considered
“construction” and vegetation could be considered leaving the tract in a “natural” state.
K.
Modifications to approved PRDs are permitted in Chapter 20.35.110.A ECDC. Adding a
fence in the proposed location would not reduce the amount of open space, but it would
make access to the open space along the east property line of Lot 2 difficult.
ECDC 20.35.110.A.
Minor changes in the location and siting of buildings and structures and minor changes to lot lines which
do not change the number or orientation of the approved lots may be authorized by the planning manager without additional
public hearings if these changes were required by engineering or public works or are due to circumstances not known at the time
the final plan was approved or if they are located in a portion of the PRD that was already identified for potential minor changes.
Minor location, siting or lot line changes shall be performed through a lot line adjustment between a property owner of a specific
lot and the homeowners' association as the owner of the open space. No change authorized by this section may cause any of the
following:
1. A change in the use, intensity or character of the development;
2. An increase in the overall ground coverage of structures;
3. A decrease in approved traffic circulation utility; and/or
4. Any reduction in public use or tenant use areas which include but are not limited to perimeter buffers/setbacks,
utility easements, required critical areas open space, usable open space, off-street parking, loading zones, right-of-way or
pavement width.
Such minor changes may be approved only if they are shown to be in the best long-term interests of the residents of the PRD
and do not impact the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Changes in uses, rearrangements of lots, blocks, buildings, tracts, or changes in the provision of common open space
changes prohibited under subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section and changes other than those specifically permitted above
shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner, following the same notification and public hearing process as required for the original
approval. Such amendments may be made only if they are shown to be in the best long-term interests of the community as
determined under the criteria required. \[Ord. 3465 § 1, 2003\].
L.
The Hearing Examiner could determine if a PRD modification is a more appropriate
method than a variance to permit a fence on Tract 101.
3.
Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 ECDC (Critical Areas)
A.
The site contains a geologically hazardous area. The slope along the east side of the
property appears to be in excess of 40% (landslide hazard area) and has a height of
approximately 30 feet while most of the remainder of the site is in the “erosion hazard”
category (15%-39%). Alterations to a critical area may occur under Section
23.80.070.A.2 ECDC as long as a hazards analysis by a qualified geotechnical engineer is
submitted that would ensure that the soils and slope could support the fence and that it
would be supported and constructed properly. At a minimum, an erosion and sediment
control plan would be required with the building permit.
B.
A geotechnical report by Cascade Geotechnical on May 24, 1990 for Thuesen Custom
Homes (Job # 9003-35G) was found in the PRD file and on page 4 (conclusions and
Page 6 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
recommendations) states: “We conclude that the site is suitable for the above project if
our recommendations are carefully followed. Our preliminary analysis indicates that
slope stability is not an issue on any lot except Lot 2. With the exception of Lot 2, the
slopes at the site are approximately 5 to 35%. Lot 2 is steeper and will require further
review.”
C.
The Applicants own Lot 2 and the proposed fence is shown adjacent to Lot 2 in the open
space tract along the steepest portion of the development. A geotechnical report has not
been submitted with the building permit application. The Hearing Examiner could
require a geotechnical report that analyzes the proposed fence in relation to the slope with
the building permit application, if the variance is approved allowing the fence to remain
in its current configuration.
D.
The Applicant cites the slope as a reason why the City should allow the fence, which they
feel would help protect pedestrians from falling onto their property. The Planning
Division has not been made aware of any accidents of this kind at this site.
4.
Chapter 17.30 ECDC (Fences)
A.
A fence permit is required for this proposal because it is a 6-foot fence within 10-feet of
the right of way and also a critical area (steep slope).
B.
A fence permit was required to be obtained in order to bring the fence into conformance
and the Applicant began to explore this process (BLD20080944), however the building
permit has not been issued.
C.
Fences are defined in Section 21.30.020 ECDC as follows:“Fence means any
construction of wood, metal, masonry or other nonliving material which provides a
visual and/or physical obstruction to an observer at ground level…”
D.
“…Construction of any kind…” is restricted on Tracts 100 and 101.
E.
The permitting database indicates that the building permit for the fence will expire on
November 13, 2010.
F.
The permitting database indicates that the City has, over the years, approved 16 fence
permits in the vicinity (approximately 800 feet) of this site.
G.
The request is not for a deviation of standards in ECDC Chapter 17.30, but rather a
request to consider the language on the face of the plat map and determine if a fence is
considered “construction” and/or if building a fence is still in keeping with the
requirement for the tract to remain in a substantially natural state.
5.
Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances)
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:
A.
Required Findings:
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;
Page 7 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
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.
B.
The Applicant has submitted a Criteria Statement explaining why they believe they
should be granted the proposed variance (Attachment 3).
C.
Staff’s Variance Findings & Conclusions:
1.
Special Circumstances. There is indeed a slope to the property. At this point it is
unknown whether or not all current owners of the tract would be okay with the fence
in its proposed location; however the Applicant’s criteria statement indicates their
approval. The Applicant constructed an 8-foot tall fence, which is an action they
created. The alternative option, a PRD modification and essentially the re-platting of
the property to remove the restriction, is substantially more costly and time
consuming and requires the services of a professional land surveyor.
2.
Special Privilege.A 6-foot cedar fence is not a special privilege. A 6-foot cedar
fence would be allowed on other properties in the vicinity so long as there are no
sight-distance issues and so long as there are no critical areas issues. There have
been 16 fence permits granted in the vicinity within 800 feet of this property.
3.
Comprehensive Plan. The fence would increase privacy for the PRD. There is an
existing hedge north of the property that has presumably been in place for a while
(because it is not shown on any maps in the PRD file). If it can be determined that
the hedge was planted after the PRD was created, then Planning Staff doesn’t see
why planting a similar hedge (as an alternative option) would be a problem so long as
it did not create a sight-distance hazard. Both a hedge and a fence would act as a
Page 8 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
screen and increase privacy. A hedge would have roots that could help uphold the
slope. A fence on a slope may need further geotechnical review.
4.
Zoning Ordinance.6-foot tall fences are permitted in the RS-8 zone throughout the
neighborhood.
5.
Not Detrimental.It is unknown if the fence would be detrimental, because it is
unknown if it would adversely affect the slope. That is why a geotechnical report
may be required during the building permit process to ensure that it was/is
constructed properly. The Applicant argues that the request is not detrimental
because it would ensure that pedestrians wouldn’t fall off the sidewalk and down the
slope and into their backyard. The fence would be considered detrimental if it causes
a loss of scenic view or use of surrounding properties. If the tract is fenced off, then
the other five owners of the tract would not have access to the tract, thus denying
them the use of the tract. That said, when the plat was recorded, it was important that
the tract be kept in a substantially natural state, so it is arguable that any of the
owners should be enjoying the tract for recreational purposes. The tract more
suitable for recreation is Tract 100 near the bottom of the development.
6.
Minimum Variance. The variance does not appear to be the minimum necessary.
They are only asking for a 6-foot tall cedar fence, not an 8-foot tall fence as
originally constructed (the top two feet of “alta top” material will be removed). And,
a 6-foot fence would be permitted on their property, but they are requesting the fence
to remain outside their private property lines onto the common open space tract. An
alternative method to screen the tract, should the Hearing Examiner determine that
this is appropriate, is the installation of a hedge similar to that which appears to be
located north of this site. Another alternative would be a 4-foot chain link fence,
which could be considered the minimum necessary to accommodate the Applicant.
But, the City does not regulate the height of hedges (so long as they don’t pose a
safety hazard) so a large tall hedge could potentially have a more detrimental
aesthetic impact than a 6-foot cedar fence or a 4-foot chain link fence.
D.
The design of the proposed fence is shown in photographs submitted by the Applicant
(Attachment 3).
E.
Per Section 20.85.000 ECDC, a variance could be applied for to modify any of the
requirements in the zoning code. The zoning code is found in ECDC Titles 16 and 17.
The Applicant wishes to obtain a fence on the open space tract. Fences are regulated in
ECDC 17.30.
F.
The neighbors signed a statement (“addendum”) that was submitted with the building
permit application allowing the fence in the common open space tract (Attachment 4).
XI.CONCLUSIONS:
–
1. Special circumstances exist on the property, specifically the steep
Special Circumstances
slope where the fence was constructed. Another special circumstance is that, unlike other
residential properties in this neighborhood, this development is part of a PRD which requires
open space. There is a restriction on the open space as noted on the face of the recorded plat
map that requires the open space to remain “substantially natural” with no “construction.”
–
2.City records indicate that there have been 16 fence permits in the
Special Privilege
neighborhood. A fence permit, if compliant with other codes, should not be a grant a grant of
Page 9 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
special privilege if the Hearing Examiner determines that a fence is not considered
“construction” as was envisioned when the plat restriction language was created.
3. –
Comprehensive PlanSee Section VIII of this report for a discussion on consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Specifically, providing residential privacy
is encouraged. The slope itself provides some residential privacy, however the addition of an
opaque fence would further increase the Applicant’s privacy. The proposal is not
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. –
Zoning Ordinance See Section X of this report for a discussion on consistency with the
criteria given the zoning code of the City of Edmonds. The fence use is consistent with the
zoning ordinance – they are not requesting relief from any provisions of the zoning code. It
is up to the Hearing Examiner to determine if the variance is even applicable, because the
request is from relief of the restrictions on the plat that prohibit “construction” in or on the
open space tracts.
5. –
Not Detrimental It is unknown if this proposal will be detrimental, as a geotechnical
engineer has not been involved. No public comments have been received, so no complaints
have been voiced. The neighbors signed a statement (“addendum”) providing their consent
for the fence.
6. –
Minimum Variance A 6-foot fence is not the minimum necessary to accommodate the
proposal. A sight-obscuring hedge is the minimum necessary, because a hedge can grow
taller than 6-feet but may not provide the same physical barrier as a fence that the Applicant
is requesting. But, 4-foot chain link fence would provide the same barrier. For these reasons,
the proposal does not appear to meet this criterion.
XII.RECOMMENDATION:
DENIAL of the requested
Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends
variance, because it is not clear that all six variance criteria are met nor is it clear that a variance
is the appropriate review process. Staff finds that the construction of a fence is restricted on or in
the open space tract based on the specific language in the plat restrictions.
If the Hearing Examiner finds it appropriate to approve the variance, the following conditions
are proposed:
Page 10 of 11
Picasso Fence Variance
File Number: PLN20090055
1.A gate is required to be installed in order to allow the City access to the drainage easement
along the south property line.
2.A geotechnical report is required to ensure compliance with Section 23.80.070.A.2 ECDC.
3.A building permit for the fence is required pursuant to Section 17.30.000.A ECDC to ensure
compliance with various City codes and provisions.
4.The maximum height of the fence is limited to a maximum of 6-feet so long as the
Engineering Division does not feel it creates a sight-distance hazard (the fence shall not be
8-feet as constructed so the top two feet of “alta top” material would need to be removed).
XIII.PARTIES OF RECORD:
Brent & Kelley Picasso Planning Division
th
Street SW
8314 208Building Division
Edmonds WA 98026 Engineering Division
XIV.ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Zoning & Vicinity Map
2.
Land Use Application
3.
Criteria Statement, Recorded PRD/Plat Map, Supplemental Maps, & Photos
4.
Neighborhood Addendum
5.
Critical Areas Map
6.
Site Plan (File BLD20080944)
7.
City Comments
8.
Public Notice & Publishing
Page 11 of 11