The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-06-2005 ITEM VIII-A-1CITYOF Atu�uRN -- WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5938 for Date: Application No. REZ04-0005 August 31, 2005 Department: Planning Attachments: Ordinance No. 5938, H.E. Budget Impact: Decision, Staff Report, Vicinity Map, MDNS, Application, Reconsideration Request and Order Administrative Recommendation: City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 5938. Background Summary: The Hearing Examiner on July 19, 2005, conducted a public hearing on the request of Cornerstone Homes and Development for a rezone request from RS ("Single Family Residential") to R2 (also "Single Family Residential") for parcels generally located on the east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south. Subsequent to the hearing, the Examiner recommended to the City Council approval of the rezone. On August 11, 2005 a request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was filed with the City. On August 16, 2005, the Hearing Examiner issued an order denying the reconsideration request. The City Council may now either affirm the Examiner's decision, remand to the Examiner or schedule a closed record hearing. The Council can only modify or disaffirm the Examiner's decision after conducting their own closed record hearing. HE\REZ04-7 AND ORD 5938 L0906-4 03.8 REZ04-0005 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ® Building ® M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ® Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD ® Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board ❑Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until _/ I Tabled Until / I Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: Sept. 6, 2005 1 Item Number: VIII.A.1 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED ORDINANCE NO.5 9 3 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-FIVE ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R2) WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON WHEREAS, Application No. REZ04-0005, dated July 22, 2005, has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by Cornerstone Homes and Development, requesting approval of rezone request for approximately thirty-five acres from Single Family -Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2) in Auburn, Washington. WHEREAS, said request above referred the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall on July 19, 2005, . of which the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone on August 2, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on August 15, 2005, considered said request and affirmed the Hearing Examiners recommendation for preliminary rezone based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions, to -wit: Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 1 of 8 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant requests a rezone of approximately thirty-five acres from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential T2). The site is made up of several contiguous parcels located east of 56 h Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336th Street in Auburn, Washington. `Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibits 2 & 3. 2. The rezone is requested in conjunction with an application for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the subject property into 107 single-family residential lots consistent with R2 development standards (City file no. PLT04-0007). The rezone would lower the minimum required lot size. Exhibit 1, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Osaki. 3. The eastern portion of the subject property contains forested steep slopes. The site has not been developed previously due to the difficulties associated with provision of utilities. In February 2005, the City approved a service area agreement with the Lakehaven Utility District by adopting Resolution No. 3824. The service area agreement makes it possible for sewer service to be; extended to the subject property. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3, Application, page 4. 4. The exact zoning history of the site is not known. The City apparently annexed the subject property in 1971 without a zoning designation. It would have been treated as an "Unclassified Use District," which was a default zoning designation assigned to new areas annexed to the City without zoning to prevent the uncontrolled intrusion of uses inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. City records indicate that the subject property has been zoned RS since at least 1987. Exhibit 10, Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Department, dated July 20, 2005. 5. The purpose of the existing RS zoning designation of the site is to provide areas for estate -type residential development on large lots. The minimum lot size allowed in the RS district is 35,000 square feet. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.10.010, .020, and .040. Under the existing zoning designation, the subject property could be developed with approximately twenty-three residential lots. Exhibit 3, Application, page 10. 6. The purpose of the desired R2 zoning district is to create: a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings, in part, through limiting development to relatively low densities. The R2 district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. ACC 18.14.010. Under the proposed R2 'Note: All exhibits referenced herein are exhibits attached to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact and Conclusions, which exhibits are incorporated herein. Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 2 of 8 zoning designation, the site could be developed with 107 residential lots at a density of 3.25 to five units per acre. Exhibit 3, Application, pages 10-11. 7. Properties east of the site are within the City of Auburn and have Comprehensive Plan land use designations of "Open Space" and "Heavy Commercial." Along the West Valley Highway east of the site, properties have a Heavy Commercial (C3) zoning designation and are developed with commercial uses. Properties north and south of the site have an "Urban Residential Low" King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and are zoned low density residential (King County, R1). West of the site, properties have an "Urban Residential Medium" King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and a King County medium density urban residential zoning designation (R4). Some parcels to the west are developed with scattered single- family residential development. Residential lot sizes in the King County area to the south range from 9,000 to 15,000 square feet. North and west of the site, residential lots range from 16,000 to 22,000 square feet. Exhibit 9, Aerial photo; Exhibit 1, pages 2-3; Exhibit 3, Application, see page 7. 8. The forested steep slopes to be retained along the eastern site boundary would buffer the proposed 6,000 to 12,000 square foot residential lots from commercial development along the West Valley Highway to the east. Exhibit 3, Application. 9. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the subject property is "Single Family Residential." The purpose of the Single Family Residential designation is to designate and protect areas for predominantly single-family dwellings. Exhibit 1, page 3. Several goals and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan are particularly applicable to the requested rezone. Housing Goal 7, Residential Development, encourages the development of new singe -family detached housing as a priority in maintaining the community character of the City. Goal 18, Environmental and Natural Resources„ promotes the preservation of the City's unique, sensitive, and productive natural resources. Policy LU -14 encourages densities between four and six units per acre in the majority of the single-family residentially zoned areas within the City. Exhibit 3, Application; City of Aubum Comprehensive Plan, pages 4-10, 10. The smaller lot sizes allowed by the requested R2 zoning designation would be consistent with the City's overall housing development strategy, as established in Chapter 4, the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Auburn currently has a small proportion of middle to higher income households. Development during the past twenty years has primarily addressed the needs of low to moderate income groups through proliferation of multi -family and first -time - buyer housing. The City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to integrate the community through diversifying available housing stock to achieve a more even Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 3 of 8 distribution and diversity of social -economic groups. Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Goal 38, page 3-20; Exhibit 1, page 4. 11. The City's population is forecasted to nearly double by the year 2020 to reach approximately 85,000. Exhibit 3, Application, citing the Auburn Planning & Community Development's July 14, 2004 study, City of Auburn's 2020 Population Estimate. 12. In recommending approval of the rezone, City Planning & Community Development staff submitted that the proposed rezone would be consistent with a decision issued by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in 1995 establishing four units per acre as the minimum appropriate residential density for urban areas. Exhibit 1, page 3, citing Bremerton at al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039c, Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995. 13. The City of Auburn acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposed rezone and preliminary plat. The City issued a combined Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for both proposals on June 7, 2005. It was not appealed. Exhibit 1, page 3; Testimony of Mr. Osaki. 14. Notice of the rezone application was provided to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and other state agencies on November 24, 2004. No comments have been received from any state agency. Exhibit 1, page 3. 15. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site, posted on the subject property, and published in King County Journal on July 7, 2005. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. There was no public comment on the rezone application. Testimony of Mr. Osaki. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on rezone applications pursuant to RCW 35.63.170 and ACC 18.68.130. Criteria for Review For a rezone application to be approved, the Applicant must show the following: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The rezone was initiated by someone other than the City; and Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 4 of 8 3. Changes or modifications to the rezone by the Hearing Examiner or City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.050. In addition to the criteria set forth in the Auburn City Code, the rezone application must be consistent with state law. In the decision Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), the Washington Supreme Court identified the following general criteria for rezone approval: 1. There is no presumption of validity favoring the action or rezoning; 2. The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning; 3. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. In more recent decisions the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have identified an exception to the second Parkridge criterion that is relevant to this case. In Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840, 846 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ... implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The court adopted the rationale from the earlier decision Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County that: If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development may occur until al least one rezone has been granted. Bjamson, 78 Wash. App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wash.2d 363, 370 (1983)). Because the City of Auburn criteria for rezone approval require that the rezone be consistent: with the Comprehensive Plan, no analysis of changed circumstances is required. Conclusions Based on Findinas 1. The proposed rezone would be consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 5 of 8 property is Single Family Residential. The requested R2 zoning would implement this designation. The higher densities permitted in the R2 district: would be consistent with the City's overall housing strategy of meeting the needs of the forecasted population growth. Findings Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. 2. The City of Auburn did not initiate the proposed rezone. Finding No. 1. 3. No modification of the proposed rezone is required. The requested R2 zoning would be compatible with the residential zoning of surrounding properties to the north, south, and west and the Comprehensive Plan. Significant steep slopes along the eastern boundary of the rezone area would buffer any future residential development from existing commercial development east of the site along the West Valley Highway. Findings Nos. 6, 7, and 8. 4. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. The subject property can be provided with public utilities pursuant to the service area agreement with the Lakehaven Utility District. The proposed rezone would allow future residential development consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity and with the land use designation for the site. The contemplated middle and higher income housing would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Findings Nos. 3, 7, 10, and 11. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing's Examiner recommends that the request to rezone approximately thirty-five acres located east of 56th Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336th Street in Auburn, Washington from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2) be APPROVED. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Hearing Examiner are adopted herein by this reference, and the rezone request is hereby approved to rezone approximately thirty-five acres located east of 56th Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336th Street in Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 6 of 8 Auburn, Washington from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2), and as legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the conditions as outlined above. Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Recording. Upon the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor. Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 7 of 8 INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Ordinance No. 5938 August 10, 2005 Page 8 of 8 Peter B. Lewis MAYOR Exhibit "A" Ordinance No. 5938 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lots 1 through 4 in Block 4 and Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 13 of Jovita Heights, according to plat recorded in Volume 20 of Plats at page 12, in King County, Washington; Together with that portion of the former Seattle -Tacoma pole line easement lying within the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 21 North, :Range 4 East, W.N., in King County, Washington, lying Southeasterly of Block 4 and Northwesterly of Block 13 of said addition and between the Easterly and Westerly boundaries of aid Blocks. and Lots 6 through 12 in Block 13; Except the East 250 feet thereof, and all of Lots 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 in Block 13 of Jovita Heights, according to plat recorded in Volume :20 of Plats at Page 12, in King County, Washington. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. REZ04-0005 Cornerstone Homes and Development ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION For Approval for a Rezone. ) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Auburn City Council APPROVE the request to rezone approximately thirty-five acres from Single Family -Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2). SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Cornerstone Homes (Applicant) requests a rezone of approximately thirty-five acres from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2). The site is located east of 56'h Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336`h Street in Auburn, Washington. Hearing Date The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on July 19, 2005. Testimony The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: 1. David Osaki, City of Auburn Planner 2. Lisa Klein, Applicant Representative Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated July 12, 2005 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Rezone Application, filed July 22, 2004 Exhibit 4 Notice of Application Exhibit 5 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 8 Confirmation of publication of legal notice Exhibit 9 Aerial photograph Exhibit 10 Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Department, dated July 20, 2005 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requests a rezone of approximately thirty-five acres from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2). The site is made up of several contiguous parcels located east of 56h Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336th Street in Auburn, Washington.' Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibits 2 & 3. 2. The rezone is requested in conjunction with an application for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the subject property into 107 single-family residential lots consistent with R2 development standards (City file no. PLT04-0007). The rezone would lower the minimum required lot size. Exhibit 1, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Osaki. 3. The eastern portion of the subject property contains forested steep slopes. The site has not been developed previously due to the difficulties associated with provision of utilities. In February 2005, the City approved a service area agreement with the Lakehaven Utility District by adopting Resolution No. 3824. The service area agreement makes it possible for sewer service to be extended to the subject property. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3, Application, page 4. 4. The exact zoning history of the site is not known. The City apparently annexed the subject property in 1971 without a zoning designation. It would have been treated as an "Unclassified Use District," which was a default zoning designation assigned to new areas annexed to the City without zoning to prevent the uncontrolled intrusion of uses inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. City records indicate that the subject property has been zoned RS since at least 1987. Exhibit 10, Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Department, dated July 20, 2005. 5. The purpose of the existing RS zoning designation of the site is to provide areas for estate -type residential development on large lots. The minimum lot size allowed in the RS district is 35,000 square feet. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.10.010, .020, and.040. The site is comprised of thirty-five contiguous tax parcels under four separate ownerships. Legal descriptions and ownership information are included in the Rezone Application at pages 5 and 6. Exhibit 3, Application. z The proposed preliminary plat would not include development of the steep slopes on site. Approximately 14.3 acres would be retained in open space. Exhibit 3, Application. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn Cornerstone Homes Rezone, REZ04-0005 Page,? of 6 Under the existing zoning designation, the subject property could be developed with approximately twenty-three residential lots. Exhibit 3, Application, page 10. 6. The purpose of the desired R2 zoning district is to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings, in part, through limiting development to relatively low densities. The R2 district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. ACC 18.14.010. Under the proposed R2 zoning designation, the site could be developed with 107 residential lots at a density of 3.25 to five units per acre .3 Exhibit 3, Application, pages 10-11. 7. Properties east of the site are within the City of Auburn and have Comprehensive Plan land use designations of "Open Space" and "Heavy Commercial." Along the West Valley Highway east of the site, properties have a Heavy Commercial (0) zoning designation and are developed with commercial uses. Properties north and south of the site have an "Urban Residential Low" King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and are zoned low density residential (King County, RI). West of the site, properties have an "Urban Residential Medium" King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and a King County medium density urban residential zoning designation (R4). Some parcels to the west are developed with scattered single-family residential development. Residential lot sizes in the King County area to the south range from 9,000 to 15,000 square feet. North and west of the site, residential lots range from 16,000 to 22,000 square feet. Exhibit 9, Aerial photo; Exhibit 1, pages 2-3; Exhibit 3, Application, seepage 7. The forested steep slopes to be retained along the eastern site boundary would buffer the proposed 6,000 to 12,000 square foot residential lots from commercial development along the West Valley Highway to the east. Exhibit 3, Application. 9. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the subject property is "Single Family Residential." The purpose of the Single Family Residential designation is to designate and protect areas for predominantly single-family dwellings. Exhibit 1, page 3. Several goals and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan are particularly applicable to the requested rezone. Housing Goal 7, Residential Development, encourages the development of new singe -family detached housing as a priority in maintaining the community character of the City. Goal 18, Environmental and Natural Resources, promotes the preservation of the City's unique, sensitive, and productive natural resources. Policy LU -14 encourages densities between four and six units per acre in the majority of the single-family residentially zoned areas within the City. Exhibit 3, Application; City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, pages 4-10, 10. The smaller lot sizes allowed by the requested R2 zoning designation would be consistent with the City's overall housing development strategy, as established in Chapter 4, the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Auburn currently has a small ' Using the entire site area, the proposed density would be 3.25 units per acre. Excluding the steep slope areas, density of the buildable area would be five units per acre. Exhibit 3, Application, page 10. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Cornerstone Homes Rezone, REZ04-0005 Page.? of 6 proportion of middle to higher income households. Development during the past twenty years has primarily addressed the needs of low to moderate income groups through proliferation of multi -family and first -time -buyer housing. The City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to integrate the community through diversifying available housing; stock to achieve a more even distribution and diversity of social -economic groups. Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Goal 38, page 3-20; Exhibit 1, page 4. 11. The City's population is forecasted to nearly double by the year 2020 to reach approximately 85,000. Exhibit 3, Application, citing the Auburn Planning & Community Development's July 14, 2004 study, City ofAuburn's 2020 Population Estimate. 12. In recommending approval of the rezone, City Planning & Community Development staff submitted that the proposed rezone would be consistent with a decision issued by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in 1995 establishing four units per acre as the minimum appropriate residential density for urban areas. Exhibit 1, page 3, citing Bremerton et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039c, Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995. 13. The City of Auburn acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposed rezone and preliminary plat. The City issued a combined Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for both proposals on June 7, 2005. It was not appealed. Exhibit 1, page 3; Testimony of Mr. Osaki. 14. Notice of the rezone application was provided to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and other state agencies on November 24, 2004. No comments have been received from any state agency. Exhibit 1, page 3. 15. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site, posted on the subject property, and published in King County Journal on July 7, 2005. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. There was no public comment on the rezone application. Testimony of Mr. Osaki. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on rezone applications pursuant to RCW 35.63.170 and ACC 18.68.130. Criteria for Review For a rezone application to be approved, the Applicant must show the following: I . The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The rezone was initiated by someone other than the City; and 3. Changes or modifications to the rezone by the Hearing Examiner or City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.050. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Cornerstone Homes Rezone, REZ04-0005 Page 4 of 6 In addition to the criteria set forth in the Auburn City Code, the rezone application must be consistent with state law. In the decision Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), the Washington Supreme Court identified the following general criteria for rezone approval: 1. There is no presumption of validity favoring the action or rezoning; 2. The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning; 3. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. In more recent decisions the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have identified an exception to the second Parkridge criterion that is relevant to this case. In Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840, 846 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ... implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The court adopted the rationale from the earlier decision Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County that: If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development may occur until a] least one rezone has been granted. Bjornson, 78 Wash. App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wash.2d 363, 370 (1983)). Because the City of Auburn criteria for rezone approval require that the rezone be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, no analysis of changed circumstances is required. Conclusions Based on Findings The proposed rezone would be consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family Residential. The requested R2 zoning would implement this designation. The higher densities permitted in the R2 district would be consistent with the City's overall housing strategy of meeting the needs of the forecasted population growth. Findings Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. 2. The City of Auburn did not initiate the proposed rezone. Finding No. 1. No modification of the proposed rezone is required. The requested R2 zoning would be compatible with the residential zoning of surrounding properties to the north, south, and west and the Comprehensive Plan. Significant steep slopes along the eastern boundary of the rezone area would buffer any future residential development from existing commercial development east of the site along the West Valley Highway. Findings Nos. 6, 7, and 8. 4. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. The subject property can be provided with public Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Cornerstone Homes Rezone, REZ04-0005 Page 5of 6 utilities pursuant to the service area agreement with the Lakehaven Utility District. The proposed rezone would allow future residential development consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity and with the land use designation for the site. The contemplated middle and higher income housing would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Findings Nos. 3, 7, 10, and IL RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request to rezone approximately thirty- five acres located east of 56th Avenue South, between Iowa Drive and South 336`h Street in Auburn, Washington from Single -Family Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2) should be APPROVED. DECIDED this 2 day of August 2005. DRISCOLL & HUNTER Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn By: Theodore Paul Hunter Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn Cornerstone Homes Rezone, REZ04-0005 Page 6 of 6 CITYOF-:...,. w ASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0005 Date: 7/12/2005 Department: Planning Attachments: See Exhibit List Budget Impact: Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to approve the rezone based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Jovita Heights LLC; Halsey Living Trust, Terhune Barrier LLC; Patricia J. Mathews APPLICANT: P.J. Datillo, Cornerstone Homes and Development; AHBL Engineers REQUEST: Change in zoning from RS (Single Family Residential) to R2 (also Single Family Residential) LOCATION: The rezone involves parcels located east of 561h Avenue South, generally between Iowa Drive/South 347th/348th streets and South 336th Street. EXISTING ZONING: RS, Single Family Residential. EXISTING LAND USE Vacant. COMPREHENISVE PLAN DESIGNATION: "Single Family Residential" SEPA STATUS: A Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance on the rezone (and preliminary plat request) was issued June 7, 2005. ❑ Arts CommissioIL COMMITTEES: Reviewed by Counc=Planning Reviewed by Departments 8 Divisions: Building ❑ M80 ❑ Airport ce [I Cemetery ❑ Mayor ® Hearing Examinipal Serv. El r ❑ Human Services❑Finance ing 8 CD ® Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until Ounci mem er: Norman a sa I Meetin a e: U em Um ef: EXHIBIT 1 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0005 Date: 7/12/; The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding (properties are: EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use site "Single Family RS, Single Family Vacant Exhibit 5 Residential" Residential Affidavit of Posting North Urban Residential Low R1 (King County zoning) Vacant Exhibit 9 Kin County) South Urban Residential Low R1 (King County zoning) Vacant (King Count East "Open Space", "Heavy C-3 Heavy Commercial Commercial Commercial" West Urban Residential R4 (King County zoning) Scattered single family Medium Kin Count dwellings. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Application Exhibit 4 Notice of Application Exhibit 5 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 8 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 9 Aerial Photograph FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for a rezone of several contiguous parcels from R -S (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (also Single Family Residential). The site is currently vacant. 2. The change in zoning is requested in order to develop a proposed preliminary plat in accordance with the R2 zone lot development standards. The proposed preliminary plat is being processed concurrently with the rezone request (City Case File No. PLT04-0007). 3. The property is designated "Single Family Residential" on the Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use map. The "Single Family Residential" comprehensive plan designation supports the City's R -S, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. 4. The R2 (Single Family Residential) district allows single family residential uses and certain other limited uses. Auburn City Code (ACC) section 18.14.010 states, in part, that the intent of the R2 zone is, "18.14.010 Intent. The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment. Page 2 of 4 Agenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0005 Date: 7/12/2005 The applicant's rezone request that will provide for the implementation of a single-family residential preliminary plat proposal is consistent with the intent statement of the R-2 zone. 5. On June 7, 2005, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) for the proposed change in zoning. The Final MDNS also addressed the applicant's proposed preliminary plat proposal. 6. On November 24, 2004, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) and other State agencies received notice of the proposed zone cKange, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 which requires a 60 day notification period. CONCLUSIONS: ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone: 1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the "Single Family Residential" comprehensive plan designation is: "To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings". The rezone to allow for a single-family residential preliminary plat that implements this purpose statement. 2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider the request. This rezone request was not initiated by the City and may therefore be considered by the Hearing Examiner. 3. Any changes or modifications to a rezone request made by either the Hearing Examiner or City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. Staff is not recommending any changes or modifications to the request. In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone applications (see Parkridge V. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978)): 1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established. Development of the site has historically been difficult due to an inability to bring utilities to the site. In February 2005, the City of Auburn approved a service area agreement (Resolution No. 3824) with the Lakehaven Utility District. This agreement facilitates the City's ability to serve the site with sewer and provide for the densities that make for the efficient development of the area subject to the rezone request. In addition to a change in the area, a decision issued by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (see Bremerton, et. al. v Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039c, Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995)) established, as a general rule, a "bright line" that 4 units/acre should be the minimum residential density in urban areas (unless certain exceptions can be demonstrated). The proposed rezone would be consistent with this decision by rezoning land, that dye 0 UI 4 Agenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0005 Date: can now be served by public facilities, from its present minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet to a higher zoning density that exceeds the "bright line". 2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community. The rezone will allow for future development of the property consistent with the established land use pattern in the general area and with the site's "Single Family Residential" comprehensive plan designation. The provision of more affluent housing is also consistent with the city's strategy and approach to encouraging more upper income housing to provide a balance with the City'i already high proportion of low and -moderate -income housing. Specifically, Auburn Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Housing Element), states "Housing Strategy Auburn's Overall Housing Development Strategy Over the past twenty years, Auburn responded positively to the housing needs of low and moderate income groups. Over the next twenty years, Auburn will attempt to economically integrate its community by diversifying its housing stock to include all income groups. Auburn currently has a relatively small portion of households consisting of middle and higher income groups. By striving to bring its number of low and moderate income households in line with the rest of King County, while increasing the growth rate of households with more affluent incomes, Auburn should achieve a more even distribution and diversity of social -economic groups." Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 4, Housing Element, Page 4-7. In addition, as cited above, a decision issued by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board established, as a general rule, a "bright line" that 4 units/acre should be the minimum residential density in urban areas (unless certain exceptions can be demonstrated). The proposed rezone would be consistent with this decision by rezoning land that can now be served by public facilities to a density above the present minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet and that also exceeds the "bright line" established by the CPSGMHB. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report HEWPPISTRZ04-5 Page AFFLICA I1UN NU.: REZ04-0005 APPLICANT: Cornerstone Homes LOCATION: east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south EXHIBIT 2 REZONE APPLICATION 'ROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Sec. Twp. Rng.: Area Code: Scheduled Public Hearing: Staff Project Coordinator: I ................................................................................................ . SPd4 "00aCP Do Not Write Above This Line 2o, Zone Existing: Zone Request: Date Received:--) Q q APPLICANT: COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except signatures) OR NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ATTACH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION. I (we), the undersigned, OWNER(S) of property numbered opposite my (our) names(s) hereby petition for a change of zoning classification of property described herein from: RS TO R-2 A. How is the property involved in this application more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than those permitted in 4he present classification? The use of the property will not change under this Rezone. Both the existing RS and proposed R-2 zone call for single family residential uses. The Rezone will lower the minimum allowed lot size. The property is more suitable for the smaller lot sizes and resulting higher density based on the urban level of services that will be extended as part of the development. The level of utility and infrastructure improvements will support the higher density and result in greater efficiencies in the extension, provision, and maintenance of the services. King County Countywide Planning Policy LU30 states that jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to "establish a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. " This Rezone proposes to provide urban services in conjunction with the development of a project with urban densities. While the Rezone will enable greater densities in the upland portions of the property, the project does not propose development on the forested steeper slopes located in the eastern portions of the property. Approximately 14.3 acres (41% of the site) will be retained as open space. EXHIBIT 3 Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page4 of 11 Remse 7/1 zw3 B. Explain why there is a need in the area for more zoning of the type requested, and wherever possible, substantiate this statement with factual data. A Rezone to R-2 will provide more housing that what is currently possible under the existing RS Zone. The need for more housing is supported by the following factual data and information: (1) As discussed in question A, above, there is a need for urban services. Access and sanitary sewer service is not currently available to the area, with the exception of substandard and unmaintained Ding County roads located to the west. The approval of this Rezone will substantially increase the level of services in the area at the cost of the developer. The higher the number of units, the greater the efficiencies in the provision of urban services, Provision of efficient urban services is a primary goal of the Washington State Growth Management Act, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. By having the developer pay for the infrastructure costs and by providing services at urban densities rather than rural densities, the City can provide a higher level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers. (2) The City of Auburn's 1995 Comprehensive Plan states that the City is in need of providing more middle to upper middle income housing to offset the development over the last decade of predominantly multi -family and first-time buyer housing. The Jovita Heights Preliminary Plat and Rezone project will provide approximately 107 dwelling units on lots oriented to capture views of the Auburn Valley and Mount Rainier. The homes will be 2,600 — 3,500 square feet in size and prices will range in the upper -middle level, from $380,000 - $450,000. The Rezone will provide more middle to upper middle income housing than possible under the existing zone. Growth rates in Auburn and South King County are strong. The relatively affordable housing costs and convenient location between Seattle and Tacoma make Auburn desirable to many home buyers. By providing additional housing, the City can meet the market demand. Auburn's population is forecasted in the year 2020 to be 85,556 — almost double the 2000 population of 43,047.1' 1 The proposed Rezone will assist in providing housing to accommodate this population increase. 1. Source: City ofAuburn's 2010 Population Estimate, Auburn Planning & Community Development, July 12, 2004. Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 5 Revie ]/16/2003 C. Why is this zoning compatible with the other existing uses in the neighborhood? The proposed Rezone is compatible with existing uses because it proposes to develop single family residential uses consistent with the existing single family uses located sporadically to the north, west, and south of the property. The forested steep slopes along the eastern portions of the property will buffer the new neighborhood from the few commercial uses located along West Valley Highway. Many lots surrounding the property are currently vacant residential -zoned land. The Rezone would allow for the development of a neighborhood with 6,000 — 12,000 square foot lot sizes, consistent with the range of lot sizes on the surrounding properties. To the south, across the city boundary in King County jurisdiction is a neighborhood with lot sizes that range from 9,000 to 15,000 square feet. To the north and west lot sizes range from 16,000 to 22,000 square feet. To the west, Blocks 14, 24 and 27 of Jovita Heights Addition Plat were subdivided in 1911 at a lot size of 4,800 sf. By proposing a zone allowing development similar to the surrounding properties, the uses will be compatible. Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 6 Revs 7/1VPOQ9 D. Why is this rezone compatible with the existing zoning in the area? The Rezone is compatible with the existing zoning in the area because the proposed use remains as single family residential, consistent with the surrounding zoning. The surrounding zoning designations are designated by three jurisdictions. The proposed Jovita Heights Preliminary Plat and land to the east of the project is located in the City of Auburn. The adjacent property to the north, west, and south is located in unincorporated King County and the Potential Annexation Area of the City of Federal Way. The zoning designated by of these jurisdictions is illustrated below. Jovita Heights Area Zoning Designations Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 Remsed 7/14/2003 Wt Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 Remsed 7/14/2003 Auburn Land Use & Zoning Desi nations Area Land Use Designation Zoning Equivalent Density Northeast Single Family Residential RS Single Family 35,000 sf lot minimum Central and Southeast Commercial C-3 Commercial Kin Count Land Use & Zoning Designations Area Land Use Designation Zoning Equivalent West and South of Jovita Heights Urban Residential, 4-12 units per acre R-4, Residential, four DU r acre North of Jovita Heights Urban Residential, 1 unit per acre R-1, Residential, one DU r acre Federal Wa PAA Land Use & Zoning Designations Area Future Land Use Zoning Equivalent Desknation Northwest of Jovita Single Family, Medium RS 35.0 Heights Density (1 unit/35,000 SF) West of Jovita Heights Single Family, RS 9.6 High Density (I unit/9,600 SF) South of Jovita Heights Single Family, Medium RS 35.0 Densit (1 unit/35,000 SF) Rezone for Hearing Examiner ] RevjPage. 8 of 8 s R 02003 E. Why is this rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area? 1 his Kezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the following; reasons: (1) The type of Rezone that is proposed is one that meets the City's definition of a rezone that "clearly implements or is in full conformance with the Comprehensive Plan ". (2) The property's designated Land Use is Single Family Residential. The R-2 zone is considered an "Appropriate Implementation" of this Land Use. (3) City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan Goal 7, Residential Development (Chapter 1) states: ... "the development of new single family detached housing is a priority of the City in order to maintain its traditional community character. " Jovita Heights Rezone offers substantially more single family housing than the underlying zone. (4) Goal 13, City Utilities (Chapter 1) states: "Auburn will only permit development if adequate public utilities are, or can be guaranteed to be, available to support new development. " This goal is based on the Washington State Growth Management Act goal, which states that local jurisdictions should encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Jovita Heights project proposes to extend urban public services, including water, sanitary sewer, and public roads, which will support the new development. The proposed Rezone will result in higher densities resulting in greater efficiencies for extension maintenance and provision of these services. (5) Goal 18, Environment and Natural Resources (Chapter 1) states: "To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment, preserve the quality of life, and to protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive natural resources." While the Rezone will enable greater densities in the upland portions of the property, the project does not propose development on the forested steeper slopes located in the eastern portions of the property. Approximately 14.3 acres (41% of the site) will be retained as open space. (6) Goal 7, Objective 7.1, Policy LU -14 (Land Use Chapter 3) states: Rezone for Hearing Examiner Page 9 of 9 Rews d 7/142003 "Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should be no greater than 6 units per acre... The bulk of the single family residential community should be developed at a density of between 4 and 6 dwelling units per acre. " This goal is consistent with the urban density minimums mandated by the Growth Management Act of 4 du/acre. There are two ways to calculate the existing and proposed density of the: Jovita Heights project to determine its consistency with this goal, using the entire acreage of the property, 35.25 acres, or just the developable upland areas, approximately 20.95 acres. Density of Jovita Hei hts Density Calculation Existing RS Zone Proposed R-2 Zone Using Entire Project Area (35.25 acres) 1.2 du/acre 3.25 du/acre Using Developable Area (20.95 acres) 2 du/acre 5 du/acre Under either calculation method, the R-2 zone density is more consistent: with the goal stated in the Comprehensive Plan. While the intent of the original RS Zone designation for this property may have been to limit densities on the West Hill because of the steep slopes in the area, the density calculation for just the developable area is still under the stated goal. (7) Goal 7, Moderate and High Income Housing, LU -38, (Land Use Chapter 3) states: "Codes should be revised to ensure that Auburn obtain its 'fair share" of high end single family housing. " This section of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the desire that the City increase the amount of housing oriented toward those with moderate and high incomes. The Jovita Heights project proposes 107 dwelling units that will feature spectacular views of Mt. Rainier. In addition, the close proximity to Highway 18, Highway 167, Seattle, and Tacoma, make it very competitive in today's market place. The applicant proposes to develop homes in the 2,600 — 3,500 square foot range that will take advantage of the views. Home prices are expected to be in the upper -middle income price range, from $380,000 - $450,000. The Rezone to R-2 will result in 84 more (107 total) moderate and high income homes than those possible with the underlying RS zone (23 total). This higher density more closely meets this goal of the Comprehensive Plan and correspondingly expands the tax base. (8) The Auburn Zoning Code implements the City's Comprehensive Plan and states that the intent of the R -S Single -Family Residential District is to: Rezone for Hearing Examiner )/14 RQv1Page .i 0 of 10 s 2003 "provide areas for estate -type residential development on large lots. This zone would normally be located in the areas particularly suited for such development. " The presence and availability of urban -level services combined with the develop - ability of the upland portions of the site make it less suitable for estate -type residential development and more suitable for urban level densities. (9) The Auburn Zoning Code states that the intent of the R-2 Zone is: "intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwelling. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density" The Rezone to R-2 will result in a density of 3.25 to 5 dwelling units per developable acre. These are relatively low densities for an urban area consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Land Use Cha Rezone for Hearing Examiner Reviwd 7/14/2003 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Page 11 of 11 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS. Rezone In ial PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER NUMBER (Please Print) 375160-0095 Patricia J. Mathews -0097 -0099 37202 56th Av ntla 4n h -0101 -0103 Auburn, WA 98001 -0105 375760-0107 -0109 -0111 -0283 -0285 375160-0287 0293 -0295 -0297 -0299 -0301 -0303 5 6 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON: Name: Patricia J. Matthews Address: 37202 56th Avenue, South City. Auburn, WA 98001 Phone: (253) 939-0068 PARCEL NUMBERS 375160-0307 375160-0309 375160-0313 375160-0315 375160-0317 375160-0319 Preliminary Plat Rev ]11 12003 SIGNATURE'. (253) 939--0068 Paye 5 of 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lots 1 through 9 in Block 4 and Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 13 of Jovita Heights, according to plat recorded in Volume 20 of Plats at page 12, in King County, Washington; Together with that portion of the former Seattle -Tacoma pole line easement lying within the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M.,in King County, Washington, lying Southeasterly of Block 4 and Northwesterly of Block 13 of said addition and between the Easterly and Westerly boundaries of aid Blocks. and Lots 6 through 12 in Block 13; Except the East 250 feet thereof, and all of Lots 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 in Block 13 of Jovita Heights, according to plat recorded in Volume 20 of Plats at Page 12, in King County, Washington. FEE PAYMENT: $1,000.00 and $50.00 per lot plus $700.00 for Environmental Checklist T.R. #: DATE RECEIVED: CASHIER'S INITIALS: Preliminary Plat aem 711112m3 Page 6 of 6 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW OPPOSITE A ^PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS, Rezone 2ni—i t��i--a1 PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER NUMBER (Please Print) 375160-0713 Terhune-Barrier, LLC -0715 -0717 36330 208th Avenue, SE -0719 -0721 Auburn, WA 98092 -0723 -0725 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON Name: Rob Terhune Address: 18306 Driftwood Drive East City: Sumner. WA 98390-9462 Phone: (253) 891-2200 SIGNATURE: (253) 569-5512 Preliminary Plat Rew.d 7nirM Page 5 of 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcel A: Lot 4, City of Auburn Lot Line Adjustment Number LLA -01-0007 (Revised), recorded under recording no. 20011106001193, in King County, Washington. Parcel B: Lot 4A, City of Auburn Lot Line Adjustment Number LLA -01-0007 (Revised), recorded under recording no. 20011106001193„ in King County, Washington. Parcel C: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 25, Jovita Heights, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 20 of Plats, page 12, in King County, Washington. FEE PAYMENT: _ T. R. #: DATE RECEIVED: CASHIER'S INITIALS: Preliminary Plat RMSW 71111 3 $1,000.00 and $50.00 per lot plus $700.00 for Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 6 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS. Rezone Initial PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS S PHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE= NUMBER (Please Print) 375160-0289 Jovita Heights, LLC -0291 Sumner, WA 98390-9462 (253) 891-2200 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON: Name: Rob Terhune Address: 18306 Driftwood Drive East City: Sumner, WA 98390-9462 Phone: (253) 891-2200 PreliminaryPlat3Page 5 of 6 Revisal 1n ry Lot 4, Block 13 thereof recorded Washington. PARCEL B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY of Jovita Heights Addition, according to the plat in Volume 20 of Plats, page 12, in King County, Lot 5, Block 13 of Jovita Heights Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 20 of Plats, page 12, in King County, Washington. FEE PAYMENT: $1,000.00 and $50.00 per lot plus $700.00 for Environmental Checklist T.R. #: DATE RECEIVED: CASHIER'S INITIALS: Preliminary Plat RW7/11!1003 Page 6 of 6 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS. Rezone In%Y `u ` T PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER NUMBER (Please Print) 375160-0311 Halsey Living Trust South 4822 Low Way Court Spokane, WA 99206 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON: Name: Sharon Kay Halse Address: _South 4822 Low Way Court City: Spokane. WA_ 992o6 Phone: (509) 922-0439 Preliminary Plat Rw1w ]1112003 SIGNATURE 0•92270439 Page 5 of 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 15, Block 13, Jovita Heights, according to the plait thereof in Volume 20 of Plats, page 12, in King County, Washington. FEE PAYMENT: $1,000.00 and $50.00 per lot plus $700.00 for Environmental Checklist T.R. #: DATE RECEIVED: CASHIER'S INITIALS: Preliminary Plat Rev W inlaao3 Page 6 of 6 # .www- ;r CITY OF-p..,...d'"' ell Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Maxi Sheet # Autwm WA 98001-4998 # www.ci.aibom.wa.us *253-3I NOTICE OF APPLICATION This notice is to inform you that the City of Auburn has received the following application that may of interest to you: Nature of Project or Request: Request is for a proposed 106 lot preliminary plat and rezone from RS (Single Family Residential) to R2 (Single Family Residentiaq. Plat modifications to the city's cul-de-sac length standard and also to park dedication requirements have also been requested. Location: The proposal is generally located on the east side of the 56th Avenue South right of way between, approximately, South 34811 Street and South 3361' Street. A portion of the proposal extends as far east as 5911 Avenue South. Elements of the proposal include right -of way impr Avenue South.h. ovements and wetland mitigation in unincorporated King County west side of 56 Avenue South, and a southerly extension of 5611 Date of Notice of Application: January 8, 2005 Permit Application Date: July 22, 2004 Date of Notice of Completeness: December 29, 2004 File No(s): REZ04-0005; PLT04-0007 Applicant: AHBL Engineers (2215 North 30°i St, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA) on behalf of Cornerstone Homes & Development 10909 Portland Avenue East, Suite F,Tacoma, Washington 98445 Other Permits Required: No other permits are required for the rezone, preliminary Plat and modification requests; however, if approved, permits identified as necessary to date include grading, utility and facility extension permits. Eventually, building and related permits (plumbing, mechanical) in support of structures will be required. In addition to the preliminary plat and rezone applications, the applicant has also filed an environmental checklist application (SEPA File No. SEP04-0026). It is also expected that permits will be required from King County for related development activities in King County's jurisdiction. Additional Studies Provided with the Application EXHIBIT 4 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED The following additional studies have been submitted to date -in support of referenced applications: "Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared for Cornerstone Homes and Development for the Jovita Heights Preliminary Plat". Prepared By AHBL. July 2004 "Cornerstone Homes, Jovita Heights Wetland and Stream Analysis Report." Prepared by B-12 Associates. July 13, 2004 'Conmerstone Homes-Jovita Heights Wetland and Stream Analysis Report, Revised'. Prepared by B-12 Associates. December 7, 2004. "Jovita Heights Plat Traffic Impact Analysis". Prepared by Transportation Planning and Engineering Inc. June 11, 2004. Supplemented by September 28, 2004 letter. "Jovita Heights Plat Traffic Impact Analysis Update", Prepared by Transportation Planning and Engineering Inc. December 21, 2004. 'Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation.' Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. July 13, 2004- Supplemented by letter dated August 24, 2004. Zipper Zeman Associates. Notice of Application Public Comment Period You are invited to comment on the application, request a copy of the decision, when available, receive notice of and participate in any hearing and be made aware of any appeal rights. Comments on this notice of application must be received in writing by the Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development at 25 West Main, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 24, 2005. Public Hearing An open record pre -decision public hearing is required for the project. The City has not determined the date of the hearing at this time. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the dosing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing. A separate notice regarding the time and date of the hearing will be provided in the future. Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations For that portion of the proposal inside the Auburn City limits, the proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Auburn Comprehensive Plan, International Building Code, International Fire Code and Auburn Design and Construction Standards. Proposed Mitigation Measures A SEPA determination and SEPA mitigation measures for the proposal have not yet been finalized. At this time, the City anticipates assuming lead agency status for the proposal. Additional Information If you have further comments or questions related to this application, you may contact Steve Pilcher or Dave Osaki with the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department at (253) 931-3090. * CITY OF * 00_ WASHINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Please be advised that the AUBURN HEARING EXAMINER on July 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request: REZ04-0005 Application of Cornerstone Homes and Development for a rezone request from RS ("Single Family Residential') to R2 (also "Single Family Residential") for parcels generally located on the east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-535, this hearing will be open to the consideration of the environmental impact of the proposal. All environmental documents prepared pursuant to SEPA for the subject proposal will be available for consideration at this public hearing. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted prior to the hearing to the Auburn Planning Department, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA. 98001. If you have further comments or questions, please call the Planning Department at (253) 931-3090. A staff report will be available approximately one week in advance of the hearing date and can be obtained by contacting the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department at (253) 931-3090. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For the location of the property, refer to the cross -hatched area on the map below. EXHIBIT 5 r-_ CERTIFICATION OF POSTING APPLICATION NO. PLT04-0007 and REZ04-0005 LOCATED AT: east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: July 19, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES POSTED: This date I certify that I did post land use posting notices. These notices are required to be posted at least 10 days prior to the public hearing as required by Chapter 18.68.040(B)(1)(a) and for plats Chapter 17.06.030(C)(3) of the Auburn Land Division Ordinance of the Auburn Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing date is scheduled for July 19, 2005. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Date:xyt/� Name: Tu Nguyen, Plann' g Department EXHIBIT 6 CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION AND MAILING CERTIFICATION OF PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION IN THE KING COUNTY JOURNAL ON THE FOLLOWING: APPLICATION NO.: PLT04-0007 and REZ04-0005 APPLICANT: Cornerstone Homes and Development DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: July 19, 2005 I did on July 1, 2005, send via e-mail to the King County Journal a newspaper of general circulation a notice of public hearing, as required by City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.66.130 and 18.70.040, for said notice to be published on July 7, 2005, at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. I also on July 7, 2005, sent to all the legally known property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site a copy of the notice of public hearing for the above stated application at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. Si ature EXHIBIT 7 Page 1 of 1 Patti Zook From: Tom Meagher [tom.meagher@kingcountyjournal.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 3:07 PM To: Patti Zook Subject: RE: Notice of Public Hearing for publication July 7 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Patti!! I have received your email with the attachment and will publish the notices (re: Notices of Public Hearnings for PLT04-0006, PUD04-0001, VAR04-0005, and VAR04-006 for Centex-Riversand and REZ04-0005 and PLT04-0007 for Cornerstone-Jovita) in the Thursday, July 7, 2005 edition of the King County Journal. Thank You!! Jody Barton for: Tom Meagher Legal Advertising Representative King County Journal Newspapers Phone: 253-234-3512 or 425-453-4296 Fax: 253-859-9268 or 425-635-0602 -----Original Message ----- From: Patti Zook [mailto:pzook@aubumwa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 3:07 PM To: 'legal ads -Tom Meagher' Subject: Notice of Public Hearing for publication July 7 Importance: High Hi Tom - Attached are notice of public hearings for publication on July 7, 2005. Please e-mail a confirmation. Have a great holiday weekend! Patti Zook City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development 253-931-3090 zook auburnwa oov This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient($) and may contain confidential and pnvileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank You. EXHIBIT 8 7/11/2005 e. LO , i S 34TH ST S 340THST, ti r N. ;: :fl w , o e. LO LL, 348TH ST , ,Ln ! ` �L `.fes r 'dam l - Own r { BO UNARY-BIND' N f i �r'y T 14 ' i • .y 5 1 `t TO: FROM: CITY OF ■� ..r WASHINGTON Memorandum Mr. Theodore Hunter, Hearing Examiner City of Auburn Planning and Community Developmgrfl Department `.///� DATE: August 12, 2005 SUBJECT: PLT04-0007 and Reconsideration REZ04-0005 — Request For The City of Auburn has received a request for reconsideration related to the above referenced cases that were heard by the Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, July 19, 2005. The reconsideration request was filed by Abdul and Shanaz Chahim. A copy of the reconsideration request dated July 9, 2005 is attached. Please contact Patti Zook with the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department should you have questions or require additional information related to this request. Thank you. 08/11/2 5 03:48 2062967212 KCFMO King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, W2shington 98055-1219 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Carolyn trowy FAX NUMBER: 3� 114 FROM: SHARNAZ C1iAHZM PHONE NUMBER: (206) 296- 6665 FAX NUMBER: (206) 296-6729 PAGE 01 AUG 1 1 200.5 FtANNiNG;;,,:11?e0 Ni Date: -,O>/jTime: 4 :3_C�_AM &M PAGE 1 OF 2 00/11/2005 03:46 2062967212 August 9, 2005 Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter Hearing Examiner- SEP04-0026 / PLT04-0007 Council Chambers Auburn City Hall 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Dear Mr, Hunter. KCFMO PAGE 02 AUG 1 1 1005 `r41'�r�1Et31 My husband and I own lot 6, block 14 ofJovita Heights. We submitted an explanatory letter with Exhibits dated July 13 to be considered for the hearing. We feel that our request for mitigation were not addressed because of the determination which was made by the SEPA Responsible Official that the impacts will be more appropriately addressed by King County. This statement is in error for the following reasons. All the developer has to do with King County DDES about block 14 is to apply for single family residential permits which will not address any conservation easement mitigation issues or other reviews, they will review the house plains. The City is well aware of this and we do not know how and why they made that statement. 2. City of Auburn is the SEPA Lead Agency and is responsible to address the mitigations of the impacts of the conservation easement that they have approved. Early on when i found out about the proposed conservation easement I talked to King County SEPA Authority and I was advised that City of Auburn is the SEPA Lead Agency and I should contact them. We feel that we have been impacted very badly by the conservation easement dectisions made by the City. Please refer to our July 13 letter and its attached exhibits for explanations and our request for mitigation. We are filing for reconsideration. The city, the applicant and his agents all know and have stated many times that thele will not be anything left to be done with King County about Block 14 but single family residential building permits which will not address any of the impact issues. Therefore they should be decided at this time. We feel that we should receive mitigations for the impacts of the conservation easement on our property. Your reconsideration will be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. We look forward to bearing from you. 9 / Sincerely, X P�--- Shahnaz T. Chahim 206- 354-6106 Abdul J. Chahim (husband) 6716 37th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 CITY OF * ** w AUBUR �1 Peter 8. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000 August 17, 2005 SHAHNAZ AND ABDUL CHAHIM 6716 37TH AVE SW SEATTLE WA 98126 VIA FACSIMILE 206 296 6729 RE: APPLICATION NO. PLT04-0007 — Jovita Heights Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chahim: Attached is the Hearing Examiner's official decision regarding your Request for Reconsideration. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please give us a call. Sincerely, pulK�rauss, AICP Director PK:pz Attachment cc: Lisa Klein, AHBL VIA FACSIMILE 253 383 2572 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. PLT04-0007 P.J. Datillo, ) Cornerstone Homes ) Jovita Heights Plat For Preliminary Plat ) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BACKGROUND P.J. Datillo of Cornerstone Homes, represented by Lisa Klein of AHBL Consulting Engineers (Applicants), requested approval of a preliminary plat application to subdivide 40.86 acres into 107 lots for future single-family residential development, an open space tract, and a storm water tract. The subject property is comprised of several contiguous parcels located east of 56i° Avenue South between Iowa Drive and South 336" Street. The Applicant also requested modifications from Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 17.12.260 relating to the dedication of land for park and playground purposes and from the City of Auburn Design and Construction standards relating to maximum cul-de-sac length. An open record hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Auburn on July 19, 2005. Eleven individuals testified at that hearing, and 40 exhibits were admitted. Following a review of the testimony and exhibits, and based on the criteria established by the City Council, on August 2nd the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat subject to seven conditions. On August 11, 2005, Ms. Shahnaz T. Chahim and Mr. Abdul J. Chahim, husband and wife, filed a request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner recommendation. The request was timely filed, and forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for consideration. REQUEST The Chahims did not testify at the open record hearing, but did submit two letters (dated ]March 1 and July 13) with attached exhibits that were admitted into the record. The letter requesting reconsideration references the letter of July 13, and issues raised therein. The letter requesting reconsideration states that "our request(s) for mitigation (raised in the July 13 letter) were not addressed because of the determination which was made by the SEPA Responsible Official that the impacts will be more appropriately addressed by King County." Request for Reconsideration, August 11. The request alleges this is in error for two reasons: (1) King County will not review the conservation easement, but only the building plans; and (2) Auburn is the lead agency that is responsible for addressing the impacts and the conservation easement. The request closes with a plea that "we should receive mitigations (sic) for the impacts of the conservation easement on our property." Apparently, the Chahims are concerned about the impact of water that may flow across their land toward the wetland as a result of the proposed subdivision. In their July 13 letter, the Chahims requested that the conservation easement be limited to Lot 7, and not placed on Lots 2,3 & 5 and that the Applicant/Developer contribute 50% toward the cost of a gravel driving surface leading to Lot 6. RESPONSE TO REQUEST The Chahims are concerned about environmental issues that are addressed in the Final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MONS). Exhibit IS. The MDNS was issued June 7, 2005. It contains 25 mitigation -conditions. One of those conditions (Condition 16) relates to the conservation easement now questioned by the Chahims. The deadline for an appeal of the MDNS is clearly identified in the MDNS as June 28, 2005. The Chahims did not appeal the MDNS, but look to the preliminary plat review for a "second look" at the conservation easement. This is inappropriate. The City of Auburn conducted an environmental review of the preliminary plat proposal and issued an MDNS. The MDNS was available to the public and could have been appealed. It was not. Therefor, it becomes a final document that cannot be disturbed by the Hearing Examiner when reviewing the proposed plat. Issues involving the conservation easement are issues related to environmental review, not to plat review. The request for reconsideration must be denied.' DECISION The request for reconsideration is DENIED. So ordered this to day of August 2005. DRISCOLL & HUNTER Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn By: Theodore Paul Hunter ' The Hearing Examiner is guided by ACC 18.66.150 when reviewing a request for reconsideration. That section states that: The planning director or any interested party affected by the recommendation of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 calendar days of the examiner's request. The examiner's written decision on the request for consideration shall be transmitted to all parties of record within 10 calendar days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or receipt of the additional information requested, whichever is later. The request filed by the Chahims does not allege an error of fact, law, judgment or procedure of the hearing examiner. It does not assert that new information is available. Rather, it states that the Responsible Oficial made an error. Again, an allegation that the Responsible Official erred must be raised in an appeal of the threshold determination (here, an MDNS) not in the reconsideration of a recommendation for approval of a preliminary plat. A land use attorney could have provided helpful advice to the Chahims that may have preserved their appeal of the MDNS. It is now too late to consider the issues they now raise related to the conservation easement. The MDNS is final. CITY OF t WASHINGTON HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 The regular meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: HEARING EXAMINER: Ted Hunter, Driscoll -Hunter STAFF: Paul Krauss, Planning and Community Development Director; David Osaki, Community Development Administrator; Steve Pilcher, Development Services Coordinator; Aaron Nix, Environmental Protection Manager; Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner; Duane Huskey, Utilities Engineer; Walt Wojcik, Development Review Engineer; Stephen King, Assistant City Attorney; Daryl Faber, Parks and Recreation Director; Joe Welsh, Transportation Planner; Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Engineer; and Patricia Zook, Planning Secretary Mr. Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying. Hearing Examiner informed the audience that the City received a request from Centex Homes, proponent for the River Sand project, that their cases be withdrawn from tonight's agenda. The cases are rescheduled to the August 16, 2005 meeting at 7:00 p.m. No additional mailing or posting is required unless the City warrants. Hearing Examiner announced that the rezone and preliminary plat cases will be taken separately. REZ04-0005 Application of Cornerstone Homes and Development for a rezone request from RS ("Single Family Residential") to R2 (also "Single Family Residential") for parcels generally located on the east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south. Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing and admitted Exhibits 1 through Exhibit 9 into the record. Mr. Osaki presented the staff report (appended) and explained the difference between the RS and R2 zoning designations. Until 2004, the City's RS zone was to encourage high quality large lot development. This concept changed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process to specifically target areas as urban separators in King County. The parcels in the proposal aren't part of the urban separator. The rezone is appropriate. He referred to recent Growth Management Hearings Board cases. In this case, the applicant is able to demonstrate that they can bring utilities to the site and is able to address concerns of critical areas in SEPA. Allowing the rezone change is supportable and staff recommends approval. SEPA review was done in conjunction with the plat application. Part of the plat proposal involves off-site improvements in King County. The Lakeland Utilities District (LUD) and the City of Auburn have entered into an interlocal agreement to provide sewer service to the project. There was no public comment on the rezone. Lisa Klein, AHBL, concurs with Mr. Osaki's comments. Lots across from the subject plat are already platted in 4,800 square foot lots and these lots are consistent with their project. They went through the legal lot determination process through King County and confirmed with the King County assessor's office. They were able to prove that the project has water and sewer. She referred to policies in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to Auburn's need to provide upper and middle class housing. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JULY 19. 2005 Mr. Osaki referred to page 4 of the agenda bill, and said that Chapter 4, Housing Element, of the Comprehensive Plan, talks about housing strategy. The City was obligated in 2000 to do a major update of the Comprehensive Plan. The chapter talks about housing strategy for the community. Auburn has done a good job of accommodating low to moderate income housing and is encouraging higher quality housing in order achieve a more reasonable balance of housing types. The project will cater to higher level incomes. The current Comprehensive Plan was updated in December, 2004. Similar language has been in the Comprehensive Plan since 1995. Mr. Osaki remarked that the property was annexed into the City in 1971 and the zoning code was in place at that time. He can research the zoning designation that was applied at the time of annexation. Hearing Examiner will leave the record open until 5:00 pm on July 20 for this information and then issue his recommendation within 10 days. 2. PLT04-0007 Application of Cornerstone Homes and Development for a proposed 107 lot preliminary plat (with tracts) on approximately 40.86 acres on parcels generally located on the east side of 56th Avenue South between, approximately, South 336th Street to the north and Iowa Drive/South 348th Street to the south. In accordance with Auburn City Code section 17.16.010, the preliminary plat proposal also includes a modification request from a cul-de-sac length standard and a modification request from park dedication standards. Modification requests are processed simultaneously with the preliminary plat request. Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing and entered Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 37 into the record. Additional exhibits include Exhibit 38 access plan, Exhibit 39 comment letter from the Watkins, and Exhibit 40 comment letter from Chahim. Mr. Osaki presented the staff report (appended) and remarked that the plat request is slightly larger than the rezone request, and pointed out where the open tracts and storm drainage tracts would tie, topography of the site, City limits, and the potential annexation boundary. Mr. Osaki confirmed that currently there is not an interlocal agreement with the Federal Way School District to collect fees on their behalf. The school district submitted a comment letter. The school district requested that the City adopt their Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and enter into an interlocal agreement to collect the school impact fees on their behalf. Auburn has interlocal agreements with the school districts of Kent, Auburn and Dieringer to collect impact fees. Auburn is not recommending that school impact fees be imposed as part of the conditions of approval of the rezone and plat. The City will look at adopting school impact fee collection for the Federal Way School District; however, there is no school impact fee mitigation now. Mr. Osaki confirmed that in addition to school impact fees, transportation and safety, part of the plat will ensure the construction of a pedestrian walkway from the plat to the bus stop. It was a cautious decision on the school district's part not to appeal the SEPA decision. Mr. Osaki spoke about the site's unique topography, and the required road improvements in unincorporated King County. Lakehaven Utility District is the water provider. The City and LUD entered into an agreement related to provision of utilities to the area. Auburn will provide sewer service and storm drainage will be with Auburn. Drainage will be on the downhill side to a storm drainage pond and will convey off site into the City of Algona's system. Mr. Osaki provided information about the SEPA determination which contains a number of conditions related to mitigation. Wetland streams and geological issues are addressed in the SEPA. Off-site impacts and transportation impacts are addressed through the SEPA. In response to Hearing Examiner's inquiries, Mr. Osaki provided information on the required road improvements. Hearing Examiner asked for clarification of the park land requirement which was provided. Hearing Examiner asked for clarification of the easements which was provided. Hearing Examiner complimented staff on a good presentation which explained how the impacts are being mitigated. PAGE HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JULY 19. 2005 Dick McDonnell, 33925 55th Avenue South, travels down 340th to Military Road and wants the applicant to install speed bumps or roundabouts because people speed down the road at more than 40 mph. Traffic will go even faster when the road is paved. This road also has lots of pot holes. He spoke of the need for a safe and secure pedestrian walkway. The school buses should go to 561h Avenue: so kids don't have to go to Military Road. Malcolm Phillips, PO Box 2022, Auburn, is interested in purchasing land south of the proposed development. The lots are on side of Iowa Drive down to 348th. He is concerned about drainage to his potential lot and what will the developer do for interface cooperation with the owner of lots along Iowa. He could possibly pay to tap into utilities at his expense. Raymond Evans, 33915 53rd Avenue South, has concerns about traffic and water runoff. It's dangerous for kids to catch the school bus on Military Road. He spoke of the need for flashing amber lights to catch peoples' attention. There are no street lights in the vicinity and poor line of sight. He welcomes the project and welcomes paved roads. Shawn Evans, 33915 53ftl Avenue South, is concerned about safety of kids walking along the roadway. She has concerns about traffic and speeding vehicles. She has concerns about road maintenance in unincorporated King County. Dustin Chessler, lived on 55th Avenue for 25 years and has nearly been hit by cars on many occasions while walking on the road. He spoke about the need to increase safety for pedestrians. There should be improvements from 56th Avenue to 51st Avenue and from 56th Avenue to Military Road. Cars often drive 40 mph on the road. Geri Walker, Federal Way School District, indicated they previously provided written comments during the SEPA process. The project is in the Federal Way School District and will generate 70 new students. There is currently insufficient capacity at the elementary and high schools. The project will have adverse impacts to their educational services and there is no assurance that these impacts will be mitigated. The school district requested the adoption of school impact fees. They request that a special condition be imposed related to collection of the school impact fees in anticipation of an interlocal agreement. Hearing Examiner marked the Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan as Exhibit X41. Ms. Klein provided information on their request to pay fees in lieu of park dedication. Comments from the audience are primarily related to traffic. She offered to pay reasonable school impact fees in an amount to be determined by the methodology described in the Federal Way School District's capital facilities plan. Victor Bishop, Transportation Engineer, prepared the traffic impact analysis reports. The traffic accident summary data for intersections in the area of the plat for the past three years was reviewed. As reported by King County, 340" and Military Road had zero recorded accidents. For 340' and Peasely Canyon, also zero recorded accidents. He spoke about channelization requirements and illumination requirements. He spoke about sidewalk requirements. Mr. Bishop said they had discussions with Federal Way School District about relocating the bus stops within or adjacent to the plat. The plat will have a loop road and connect so that school buses can get in to the subdivision. Mr. Welsh provided information on the traffic impact fees that the applicant is required to pay. Traffic impacts of the proposed project were thoroughly reviewed during the SEPA process. Kristen Langley, Traffic Engineer, King County Street Center, 201 South Jackson, Room 222, Seattle, is representing the King County Road Engineer, and said that mitigation measures were required by King County, presented to Auburn, and imposed on the applicant. She spoke about the requirement to improve Military Road at 3401h Street, channelization, and illumination. Ms. Langley said that regarding neighborhood calming improvements, King County doesn't preinstall traffic calming. King County has policies of installation of the measures which require an engineer's evaluation of the conditions to suggest something be done; find the problem and then find the optimum solution. There could be concerns related PAGE 3 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JULY 19. 2005 to storm drainage with any calming measures. If the neighbors have concerns they can contact the King County Department of Transportation. King County requires street lights on arterial streets. She spoke about King County standards for school walkways. If the applicant wishes or the Hearing Examiner imposes a condition requiring street lighting on 340th, King County wouldn't have any objection. However, King County won't pay to maintain the lights or pay for electrical costs of the lights. Matt Webber, Civil Engineer, AHBL, referred to the comments about drainage and described the collection system in the road and said there won't be any uncontrolled surface water down the slope. lie referred to conditions in the SEPA. Hearing Examiner is aware of the audience's concerns and appreciates their comments. He acknowledged that some road improvements are needed and that the applicant intends to provide improvements. Hearing Examiner said a critical concern to be looked at is the safety of children walking. The applicant is willing to make improvements for safety and has presented creative park proposals. There needs to be mitigation of impacts to the school district. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. HE\AGNOWIN 07-2005 PAGE 4