HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2005 ITEM VIII-B-3CITY OF
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 3915 for Application No. PLT05-0001
Date:
Division 1 and PLT05-0002 Division 2
September 28, 2005
Department: Planning
Attachments: Resolution No. 3915
Budget Impact:
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council adopt Resolution No. 3915
Background Summary:
The Hearing Examiner on August 9, 2005, conducted a public hearing on the request of Wayne Jones,
Lakeridge Development (Kersey III Division 1) and Joyce and Peter Bowles on behalf of Landholdings,
LLC (Division 2) for preliminary plat approval for 1) a 169 lot single family residential subdivision known as
"Kersey III Division 1," and 2) a 204 lot single family residential subdivision known at "Kersey III Division
2." The rezones (REZ05-0001 and REZ05-0002 and the planned unit developments (PUD0,5-0001 and
PUD05-0002) are being processed under Ordinance No. 5948).
The project is located on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rtl St. SE, extending approximately 660 feet
south to the Auburn City limits (Pierce County line) and approximately 1320 feet west.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Examiner recommended to the City Council approval of the rezone and
planned unit development.
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\ORD 5948 FOR KERSEY 3
L1003-4
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
® Building ® M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
® Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance Cl 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
Tabled Until _/_/_
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss
Meeting Date: October 3, 2005 Item Number: VI11.B.3
AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
RESOLUTION NO. 3 9 15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR A 169 LOT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
KNOWN AS "KERSEY III DIVISION I" AND A 204
LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
KNOWN AS "KERSEY III DIVISION 2" WITHIN THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application Nos. PLT05-0001 and PLT05-0002, dated April
8, 2005, have been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Wayne
Jones on behalf of Lakeridge Development and Joyce and Peter Bowles on
behalf of Landholdings, LLC, requesting preliminary plat approval for a 169 lot
single family residential subdivision known as "Kersey III Division V and a 204
lot single family residential subdivision known as "Kersey III Division 2"'; and
WHEREAS, said request referred to above was referred to 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 application in the Council Chambers of the
Auburn City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of the preliminary plats on September 9, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on September 19, 2005, considered said
request and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for preliminary
plat based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herewith.
Resolution No. 3915
September 14, 2005
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated in this Resolution.
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for a 169 lot single
family residential subdivision known as "Kersey III Division 1" and a 204 lot
single family residential subdivision known as "Kersey III Division 2" within the
City of Auburn, legally described in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, is hereby approved.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this day of 2005.
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
Resolution No. 3915
September 14, 2005
Page 2
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
City Attorney
Resolution No. 3915
September 14, 2005
Page 3
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of )
Lakeridge Development )
by Wayne Jones )
and )
Landholdings LLC )
by Joyce & Peter Bowles )
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit Development, )
and Preliminary Plat for Kersey III - )
Division I and Division II )
NO. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002
PUD05-0001, PUD 05-0002
PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council approval of a rezone from R-1
Residential to Planned Unit Development of three parcels of land totaling approximately 89.31
acres, the request for approval of a Planned Unit Development, and the request for preliminary
plat approval. for Division 1 and Division 2 of Kersey III, a single-family residential subdivision,
subject to conditions. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Applicants' request for
variances from the required front yard setback and total lot coverage design requirements be
DENIED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
ReQuest
Lakeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce Bowles
and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) request approval of a rezone; a Planned Unit Development; and
preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a single-family residential
subdivision, and variance from certain design standards. The Applicants request a rezone of
three separate tax parcels from R-1 Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development.
The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat would allow 169 lots in Division 1 and 204
lots in Division 2. The variance would be from front yard setback and lot coverage requirements
applicable to the plat. Thesubject property totals 89.31 acres. The property is located within
the city limits of Auburn, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53'd Street SE extending southward
to the King -Pierce County line. '
Hearing Date
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearings Examiner for the City of
Auburn on August 9, 2005.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
Testimony
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Mr. Steve Pilcher; Planner, City of Auburn
2. Mr. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3. Mr. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Auburn
4. Mr. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative
5. Mr. Rob Armstrong, Civil Engineer
6. Mr. Art Sidel, Landscape Architect
7. Mr. Pat McBride, Building Architect
8. Ms. Mieki Fassbind, neighboring property owner
9. Ms. Alice Dubeck, neighboring property owner
10. Mr. Jim Chambers, neighboring property owner
11. Ms. Kristi Knott, neighboring property owner
12. Ms. Joni Brooke, neighboring property owner
13. Mr. John Chaffee, neighboring property owner
14. Mr. Orlen Barnett, neighboring property owner
15. Ms. Diana Johnson, neighboring property owner
16. Ms. Tela Hill, neighboring property owner
17. Mr. Mark Hancock, Segale Properties
Exhibits
At the open record hearing, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record:
1. Staff Report
2. Site Map
3. William & Deborah Jones - Rezone Application (REZ05-0001), PUD Application
(PUD05-0001), Preliminary Plat Application (PLT05-0001); Joyce and Elwood "Pete"
Bolles - Rezone Application (REZ05-0002), PUD Application (PUD05-0002),
Preliminary Plat Application (PLT05-0002); including Project Narrative and Findings
(revised April 5, 2005)
4. Preliminary Plat/PUD Map, prepared by Barghausen Engineers, dated July 17, 2005
5. Project Narrative and Findings (revised May 19, 2005)
6. Kersey Ill - Division I -and Division ll - Conceptual Building Design Guidelines
7. Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated July 2004
8. Kersey III Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated February 2005
9. Notice of Application for Division L dated June 15, 2005; Notice of Application for
Division II, dated June 15, 2905
10. Notice of Public Hearing - Division I, REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, and PLT05-0001
11. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice for Division II, REZ05-0002, PUD05-002, and
PLT05-0002
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice for Division 1, REZ05-0001, PUD05-001, and
PLT05-0001
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
13. E-mail dated July 26, 2005, from King County Journal confirming publication on July 29,
2005, of REZ05-0001, PUD 05-0001, PLT05-0001, REZ05-0002, PUD05-0002, and
PLT05-0002
14. Letter from City of Auburn to Mr. Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated June
8, 2005
15. Letter from City of Auburn to Mr. Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers„ dated June
27, 2005
16. Comment Response Matrix for Kersey III, Division I and Division II, with Engineer's
Responses, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers
17. Letter from Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated July 20, 2005
18. Letter from Barghausen Consulting Engineers to Bonneville Power Administration, dated
July 21, 2005, RE: BPA Easement
19. Colorized landscape plan for both Divisions and BPA Easement
20. Supplemental Memo from City of Auburn Planning Department to Hearing Examiner,
dated August 5, 2005
21. Comment Letter from Segale Properties, dated August 9, 2005
22. Letter from City of Auburn to Hearing Examiner, dated August 15, 2005, RE: Auburn
School District
22A. Letter from Barghausen Consulting Engineers to Auburn School District, dated August
10, 2005
22B. Letter from Auburn School District to City of Auburn, dated August 11, 2005
23. Public Comment Memo from Tom Tracht, received August 9, 2005
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS:
Lakeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce
and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) by and through their representative, Mr. Chris Ferko of
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, requests approval of a rezone of three parcels of land
totaling approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the property from R-1
Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is located
on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE, extending southward to the King -Pierce
County line. The parcels are within the city limits of Auburn and King County. Exhibit
1, Staff Report pages 1 and 3; Exhibit 3, Rezone and PUD Applications; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher.
2. Applicants have also requested approval of a PUD and Preliminary Plat for Division I
and Division H of Kersey III. Applicants propose to develop both divisions in two
phases. Applicants propose to develop Division I with 169 lots, with an average density
of 3.34 dwelling units per acre, and an average lot size of 5,032 square feet, Applicants
propose to develop Division Ir with 205 lots, with an average density of 5.35 dwelling
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
units per acre, and an average lot size of 4,863 square feet. The overall project density is
4.17 dwelling units per acre for both divisions. Both divisions will be developed as
single-family residential; no multi -family is being proposed. Exhibit 3, Preliminary Plat
Application and Narrative; Exhibit 4, Site Plan,
3. Applicants have also requested a variance from certain design requirements set forth in
Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). They seek a reduction in the front yard setback
to 10 feet and an increase in the total allowable lot coverage to 50%. Exhibit 5, Project
Narrative; Exhibit 20, Planning Dept. Memo, Part 1.
4. Three parcels of land are the subject of this proposal. Division I is comprised of two tax
parcels - King County Parcel No; 322105-9015 and No. 322105-9017 which are owned
by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge Development). Division II is comprised of one
tax parcel - King County Parcel No. 322105-9039 and is owned by Joyce and Elwood
"Pete" Bolles (Landholdings LLC). All three parcels are within the city limits of Auburn.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 3, Rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat
Applications.
5. The parcels are currently zoned R -I Single Family Residential and are designated as
Single Family Residential under the„City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan.. The 300 -
foot easement located on the western border of Division I is designated as Open Space
under the City's Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 3, Rezone
Applications and Narrative; Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.5 - Land Use.
6. All applications - rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat - for Kersey III, Division I and
Division II, are being processed by the City concurrently and were consolidated at the
public hearing. Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
Notice of Application was issued on June 15, 2005, for Division I of Kersey III. Notice
of Application was issued on June 15, 2005, for Division II of Kersey III. Exhibit 9.
8. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the property on July 28, 2005. Notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected
site and published in the King County Journal on July 29, 2005.' Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and
13.
9. Public testimony was received into the record at the public hearing and submitted as part
of the environmental review for the proposal. Public comment pertained primarily to
impacts of the development on traffic, wildlife, vegetation, schools; water supply, storm
'Exhibit 10 is a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing for Division I; Exhibit I I is the Affidavit df Posting for
Division IY and Exhibit 12 is the Affidavit of Mailing for Division I. Exhibit 13 is the confirmation from the King
County Journal for publication of Notice of Public Hearing of all applications for both Division I and Division II.
Though a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing and the Affidavit for Mailing in regards to Division 11 and a copy of
the Affidavit of Posting in regards to Division I were not submitted into the record, the Hearing Examiner presumes
that notice procedures were complied with, especially due to the confirmation from the King County Journal that a
notice of public hearing was published on all applications.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
water runoff, and the overall density of homes. Exhibit 8, FEIS, Comments -Response to
Comments, Chapter 3.0, pages 27-128; Testimony of Ms. Fassbind, Ms. Dubeck, Mr.
Chambers, Ms. Knott, Ms. Brooke, Mr. Chaffee, Mr. Barnett, Ms. Johns, Ms. Hill, and
Mr. Hancock 2
10. At the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open to allow for the Auburn
School District, the district affected by the proposal, to submit comments. 'The District's
comments were received into the.record on August 16, 2005, and the Hearing Examiner
issued an order officially closing the record as of that date.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.020(A)(1), a rezone is an amendment to the Zoning Map and may
be initiated by a request from one or more property owners. The Applicants are the
owners of the property involved in this rezone request. The Applicants filed an
application with the City on April 8, 2005. ACC 18.68.020; Exhibit 3, Rezone
Applications.
2. Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and vacant lands. Residential
development is comprised of low and semi -rural densities in the east and south, with the
possibility of higher density PUD development to the west (Kersey III, Division III).
Land west of Kersey III, Division III is comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD
development. Land to the north is a mixture of vacant land and natural (mineral)
resource lands. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.5 Land Use;
Exhibit 21, Segale/ICONLetter (aerial photographs).
3. The R-1 zone is intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-
family detached dwellings by limiting development to relatively low degrees of density.
This district allows for one dwelling unit per 8000 square foot lot. A PUD zoning district
is intended to offer enhanced flexibility for developing a site by utilizing innovative and
alternative development standards and allowing for a greater range of residential
densities. A PUD is required to provide a significantly higher quality development,
generate more public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than it would have been
using standing zoning and subdivision procedures. ACC 18.12.010; ACC 18.69, 010.
4. RCW 36.70A, Washington's Growth Management Act, requires the City of Auburn to
develop a Comprehensive Plans Pursuant to several sections of the ACC°, a rezone,
r For the purpose of this decision, public testimony/comment cited to in this recommendation will be a
representation of the testimony/comment received and, due to the large volume of comments, will not include all
members of the public who presented testimony/comment into the record. The Hearing Examiner does note that all
rublic testimony/comment was considered for the purpose of making this recommendation.
The City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in August 1986. It has been amended in 1995,
2003, and 2004.
'Rezone - ACC 18.68; PUD - ACC 18.69; Plat - ACC 17.06
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
PUD, and plat must be consistent and/or in accordance -with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. An analysis of the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is
provided for in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), issued July 2004. The
DEIS reviewed goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to utilities;
transportation, the environment; natural resources; natural and manmade hazards; and
parks, recreation, and open space. Exhibit 5, Project Narrative, page 6; Exhibit 7, DEIS,
pages 77-86.
5. A conclusion of the DEIS is that the development of the parcels was generally consistent
with the "Single Family Residential" Comprehensive Plan designation. The DEIS
reviewedseveral Land Use Element Policies such as LU -14 (single family residential
density should not be greater than six units per acre); LU -18 (topography, circulation, and
amenities should guide development); LU -20 (development standards should be flexible
so as to encourage urban development and protect critical areas; PUDs allow for
deviations in exchange for enhanced standards and protection); LU -25 (residential units
should be oriented away from arterial roadways); and LU -26 and LU -27 (development
should utilize and preserve natural features, and open spaces and parks should be
designed to separate incompatible uses). The DEIS reviewed several Capital Facilities
Element Policies such as CF -1 (urban level essential public facilities - sewer, water,
storm drainage, and parks - must be developed prior to or concurrent with development);
CF -2 (fire and police services must not be reduced elsewhere); CF -3 (developers must
provide facilities unless public funds are available); CF -13, CF -16, and CF -18 (water
system policies); CF -23; CF -25, CF -27 (sewer system policies); CF -37, CF -38, CF -39,
and CF45 (storm drainage policies); and CF -52 and CF -53 (water quality - natural
hydrology). The DEIS reviewed several Transportation Element Policies such as TR -13
(develop an efficient transportation system by spreading vehicle movement, including
ingress/egress to development and internal streets); TR -21 (applicants must assume a
portion of the construction costs of the transportation systems that serve development);
TR -43, TR -44, and TR45 (sidewalks, trails, and other walking facilities); and TR -61
(impact of road construction on environment and natural resources). The DEIS reviewed
several Environmental Element Policies such as EN -3 (minimized degradation of surface
water quality and aquatic habitat); EN -4, EN -6, EN -10, EN -16, and EN 17 (regulate and
mitigate storm water discharge); EN -13 and EN -14 (water quality and habitat); EN -23,
EN -24, EN -25, EN -26, EN -27, EN -28, and EN -84 (endangered species, habitat
conservation, wetland protection); EN -32 (native vegetation preservation); and EN -68,
EN -72; and EN -73 (geotechnical hazards). The DEIS reviewed several Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Element Policies such as PR -2 and PR4 (development of
parks at a level commensurate with demand); PR -7 (buffering between incompatible uses
with open space); PR -8 (preserve enticaUhazard areas as open space); and PR -12 (non -
intensive development). Exhibit 7, DEIS, pages 77-86.
6. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1) requires the Director of Planning and Community Development to
review a rezone application for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the
Director determines that the application is consistent, the application shall be scheduled
for a public hearing. The Director determined that the application was consistent, and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
the required public hearing was held on August 9, 2005. ACC 18.68.030; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 6.
When considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that
conditions have changed substantially since the original zoning and that the rezone bears
a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. A
variety of factors may satisfy a change in circumstances including changes of public
opinion, local land use patterns, and circumstances relating to the property. ACC
18.69.150 provides specific criteria for justifying the rezone of land to a PUD
designation. ACC 18.68; ACC 18.69.150; Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d
359 (1978); Bjarmon v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846, 899 P.2d 1290 (Div. 1,
1995).
8. The three parcels have been zoned RI since 1987.5 In the narrative attached to the rezone
applications (Exhibit 5 - revised May 19, 2005) and in the Staff Report. The Applicants
and the City state that: this area of the City has experienced significant development
because of Lakeland Hills, an existing PUD community of 3000+ homes to the west; the
overall market conditions in Puget Sound have created a trend towards the smaller lot
size found in a PUD zone; because the property's topography makes it more suitable to
the flexibility a PUD zoning district has to offer; the proposal complies with the goals of
the GMA; and because the proposal would create compatibility between the existing
Lakeland Hills PUD community and the proposed development.6 Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
pages 6-7; Exhibit 5, Narrative; Testitnony of Mr. Pilcher.
9. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposed preliminary plat. For the purpose of SEPA review, the City considered three
proposals. The first alternative (Alternative 481) would allow for a maximum of 481
dwelling units utilizing the City's PUD ordinance over only a portion of the site. This
alternative would accommodate up to 409 single family lots and 18 multi -family lots.
The second alternative (Alternative 700) would allow for a maximum of 700 dwelling
units utilizing the City's PUD ordinance over the entire site. This alternative would
accommodate up to 628 single family lots and 18 multi -family lots. The fmsd alternative
(No Action Alternative) would allow for development of the property under its current
zoning designation, RI, resulting in approximately 34 lots. The Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) became final in February 2005. Exhibit 7, DEIS, pages 2-6; Exhibit 8,
FEIS.
10. At the hearing, the Applicants asserted that several comments being presented pertained
to environmental impacts and should not be considered because the SEPA process,
specifically the EIS, had been finalized. Although a challenge to the adequacy of the
Kersey III EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEPA is the
s In 1987, Auburn adopted its current zoning code.
v Lakeland Hills is a PUD with approximately 3000+ homes on lots ranging from approximately 7,200 to 10,000
square feet. Applicants propose homes on lots ranging from approximately 3,800 to 8,400 square feet.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings. Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
consideration of environmental values. The key purpose of an EIS is to ensure full
disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of a
project. Norway Hill v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 675 (1976). It is
from the impacts disclosed in the EIS that the decision -maker can make an informed
decision about the proposal. Public testimony at the hearing provided further detail in
this regard. Testimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Ms. Dubeck; Testimony of Mr.
Chambers; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Mr. Barnett;
Testimony of Ms. Johnson.
11. Public comment was received into the record in regards to the impact on neighboring
natural resource lands. North of the project site, directly across Kersey Way SE, lies a
664 -acre gravel mining operation owned by Segale Properties/ICON Materials. The
gravel mine has been operating for over 35 years and is anticipated to operate, for another
25 more years. Segale/ICON expressed concern that a dense residential development has
the potential for generating homeowner complaints pertaining to air, noise, Right, traffic,
and safety, and that the construction of Kersey III itself will generate traffic, congestion
and safety issues, impacting the mine's operation. Testimony of Mr. Hancock.
12. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan designates Segale/ICON's land as a Mineral Resource
Area. RCW 36.70A requires the preservation of natural resource lands. Pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.060, a City's development regulations must ensure that the use of lands
adjacent t6'natural resource land shall not interfere with the continued use of the natural
resource land. In the FEIS, Chapter 3 - Response to Comments, the City stated that
construction vehicles related to the Kersey III development would only have an impact
for a limited span of time and that the impacts could be mitigated by development of a
traffic control plan prior to issuance of a hauling permit. The City determined that a
traffic signal to be installed at Kersey Way and Oravetz would mitigate impacts.
However, the City's mitigation measures only address mitigation during consltruction, not
future impacts that the mine may incur as a direct result of the residential development.
Exhibit 8; FUS, ICON Material Letter and City's Response, pages 28-30; Exhibit 21,
Segale Letter; Testimony of Mr. Hancock; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
13. RCW 36.70A.060 requires that any plat within 500 feet of land must contain a notice that
the property is near designated mineral resource land and that commercial activity may
occur that is not compatible with residential development. For mineral resource lands,
the notice must also inform that an application may be made in the future for mining -
related activities, including mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerals. Segale/ICON asked that this notice be required
not only on the plat but on each individual lot's building permit and deed. The City
stated that it is aware of the notice requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 and would make
them required for the final plat, but that inclusion on the building permit would be an
"administrative nightmare," with no potential homeowner seeing the requirement on the
permit or the deed. The City Staff stated that it is possible to include the notice on the
title, but they did not think it would be effective. However, Applicants, through Mr.
Armstrong, agreed to the condition of each deed containing notice. RCW 36. 70A. 060(l);
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
Exhibit 8, FEIS, ICON Material Letter and City's Response, pages 28-311; Exhibit 21,
Segale Letter; Testimony of Mr. Hancock; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
14. The proposal is within the Auburn School District. In Washington State, however ample
provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the state. Y This
requirement is further stated in the laws of the State and the City of Auburn. RCW`
58.17.110 requires that subdivisions make appropriate provisions for the general welfare
of the community, including provisions for schools and for safe walking conditions for
students. RCW 36.70A.020(12) states that when a City is plans for growth, :it is to ensure
that public services, such as schools, that are necessary to support development are
adequate to serve the development. ACC 17.060.070(A) states that a subdivision must
make adequate provisions for the general welfare of the community, including schools.
At the hearing, public comment was received on the issue of overcrowding in the local
schools. The anticipated increase in student population from the development was set as
0.59 students per dwelling unit, or 209 students. No reference to school ;provisions is
provided in the Staff Report but City Staff testified that the impact to schools was
addressed in the EIS. ACC 19.02 allows the City to collect school impact/mitigation
fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit, on behalf of the school district.
Applicants conceded that no communication has occurred between the Auburn School
District and themselves but that the road network includes sidewalks, satisfying the
requirement for safe walking conditions for students. Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.7 -
Public Services, page 117; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony
of Mr. Armstrong.
15. The DEIS does address schools, but only on a very limited basis. It acknowledges that
the development would be served by Gildo Ray Elementary, Mount Baker Middle, and
Auburn Riverside High, and that while the high school is currently over capacity, this
problem should be alleviated when another high school opens in Fall 2005. The school
district's comments (Exhibit 22B), solicited by the Applicants (Exhibit 22A), are limited
solely to transportation issues (bus and walking) and not the ability of the schools to
absorb the incoming students. Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.7 -Public Services, page 117;
Exhibit 22A, Exhibit 22B, Testimony of Mr. Pitcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko,; Testimony
of Mr. Armstrong, Testimony, of Ms. Fassbind, Testimony of Ms. Johnson; Testimony of
Ms. Hill.
16. Traffic impacts (volume and safety) were the most frequently cited issues in public
comment and testimony. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was completed for the
proposal in March 2004.° An addendum to the TIA was completed in January 2005 as a
result of public comment submitted on the DEIS. Applicants propose to construct an
internal road system, including the extension of Evergreen Way from the Lakeland Hills
7 Washington State Constitution, Art. 9, §l
s The Kersey III Residential Subdivision Transportation Impact Analysis, March 2004, complied by Transportation
Solutions Inc was attached to the DEIS as Technical Appendix F. Appendices to the DEIS were not submitted but
are incorporated by reference as part of the record of this proceeding.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
development easterly to Kersey Way, which would be dedicated to the public.'
Evergreen Way is a residential collector and will be 55 feet wide with a five foot planting
strip and five foot sidewalk on both sides. Per City code, no parking is permitted along a
residential collector, but parking may be allowed in the park area (Road G). Internal
residential roads will be 50 feet wide with a five foot planting strip and five foot sidewalk
on both sides. Evergreen Way will intersect Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE, requiring
realignment and a traffic signal. The TIA recommended that Kersey Way be modified to
include a southbound deceleration lane along with northbound and southbound left -turn
lanes and an eastbound right -turn lane. The TIA Addendum concluded that all corridors
affected by the development are expected to meet or exceed the LOS minimum threshold
set by the City of Auburn, which is LOS -D with the proposed signalization in place.to
Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may collect impact fees for transportation
facilities impacted by proposed development. Other mitigation measures were proposed
to address safety issues such as illuminated crosswalks, bulb -out curbing, and speed
bumps. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5; Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.60 -Transportation;
Exhibit 8, FEIS, Appendix A, TIA Addendum; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind, Testimony of Ms. Dubeek; Testimony of Mr. Chambers; Testimony of Ms.
Knott; Testimony of Mr. Barnett; Testimony of Ms. Hill.
17. A mitigation measure proposed in the EIS was the construction of a round -about at the
intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE. Applicants testified that
they are not opposed to the idea but are concerned about their ability to secure the
necessary land. for construction. The proposed tracts of land are currently owned by the
Lakeland Hills Homeowners' Association. Applicants stated that they would "pursue
with earnest" the acquisition of this land but requested that City Staff remove the
roundabout condition from their recommendations. City Staff agreed to this modification.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 10; Exhibit 8, Table 1, page 16; Exhibit 20 Planning
Department Memo, Part 4; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong, Testimony of Mr. Welch.
18. Public comment was received into the record pertaining to water supply, storra water, and
water quality. No private wells would be utilized for water service. Water will be
supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System. Existing groundwater rights are
sufficient to serve the needs of the development. Applicants will be required to construct
a booster pump station at the corner of Oravetz Road and Kersey Way SE and extend a
water line along Kersey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the existing lines in the
Lakeland Hills development. Storm water will be collected and conveyed to a
combined wetpond/detention pond prior to discharge into Bowman Creek, an 'off-site
creek to the north of the development. The drainage facility, designed to the City's
criteria, is located on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and will operate as a
9 The Applicants, owners ofproperty comprising Division I and Division 11 of Kersey III have entered into an
agreement with the owner of property located to the west of the development, future Kersey III Division III, for
construction of Evergreen Way. The right -of --way does not yet exist for the construction of Evergreen'Way, only the
a0greement of the parties. A copy of this agreement was not submitted to the record of this proceeding.
1 LOS (Level of Service) is a tern used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a roadway based on
factors such as speed, travel time; maneuverability, delay, and safety. The LOS of a roadway is designated with a
letter, A to F, with A representing the best condition and F the worst.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
single unit. An energy dissipater will be installed to reduce erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. Due to the creation of impervious surfaces, the EIS
concluded that increased surface run-off could affect the hydrology of the area by
changing the recharge pattern and depositing sediment into the stream system, impacting
water quality. Exhibit 1, StaffRepo?% page 3; Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.4.3, page 74;
Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3; Comments & Responses, Muckleshoot Tribe Letter, page
121; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong;
Testimony of Ms. Fassbind.
19. Public comment was received into the record pertaining to impacts of wildlife and their
associated habitat. The EIS concluded that many of the impacts to wildlife and habitat
were unavoidable. Unavoidable impacts include loss of native vegetation, fragmentation
and isolation of habitat, reduction in native wildlife populations, and disturbance of
retained habitat (open space) by human encroachment. Specific comment was received
from the Muckleshoot Tribe (Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3.0, page 121) as to possible
impacts on the Tribe's treaty fisheries resources. Neither Division I nor Division II
contains wetlands or streams on-site. Stormwater run-off will be dissipated prior to
discharge into Bowman Creek, a non -salmonid bearing creek which drains in to the
White River, so as to eliminate/reduce possible sedimentation/erosion impacts on the
fishery resource of the river. Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.3.4, page 60; Exhibit 8, FEIS,
Table 1, page 14; Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3.0, Comments & Responses, Letters from
Murphy, Bykonen, Covey, Richards, Cocke, Shoemaker, and the Muckleshoot Tribe;
Exhibit 16; Testimony of Ms. Fassfnd; Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms.
Brooke; Testimony of Ms. Johnson.
20. The sanitary sewer service will be provided to the development by the City of Auburn. A
Sewer Alternative Analysis, dated March 2004, was prepared by Apex Engineering and is
attached to the DEIS as Technical Appendix H." A temporary sewage pump station
must be constructed in order to service the development. A deviation from the
comprehensive sewer plan is required for the use of a pump station. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 3; Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.8.1; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16;
Testimony of Mn Pilcher.
21. The western 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105-9017 (Division 1) are
encumbered by an easement held by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for a
high-voltage power transmission lines. Applicants propose .to utilize this area to satisfy
both open space and park requirements for the development. City of Aubum Parks
Department is requiring that BPA approve the park elements and locations. Applicants
testified that they have had several meetings/discussions with BPA regarding a land use
agreement and that BPA supports the project. According to the Applicants, BPA will
not give approval until the City has approved the rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat.
"Appendices to the DEIS were not submitted to the Hearing Examiner but are incorporated by reference as part of
the record of this proceeding.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner, for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 4, Site Plan; Exhibit 20, Part 511; Testimony of
Mr. Scapilina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
22. ACC 18.69.080(A) requires each PUD to set aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as
open space. For the purpose of the Kersey III Development, Division II's open space is
dependent upon the open space being provided within Division I. Total acreage for both
divisions is 89.31 acres, requiring 17.86 acres to be allocated for open space. This figure
may include landscaped areas, native areas, stone water facilities, and parks. ACC
18.69.030(H). Applicants propose a total of 22.81 acres of open space in Division I and
6.13 acres in Division II, for total open space acreage of 28.94 acres, which is 32.4% of
the site. ACC 17.12.60 requires that a subdivision provide for 6.03 acres of park land for
each 1000 -person increase in population. Of the 22.81 acres of open space, Applicants
propose that 7.16 acres be dedicated to the City for park land, all of which are contained
within the BPA easement except for two small tracts, Tract P and Tract Q, totaling less
than 0.50 acres. Applicants propose to develop the park land with both passive and
active recreation amenities, including a walking path and open play fields. A sport court
and children's play area will be provided on Tract P and Tract Q. Exhibit 1, Stgf%Report,
page 4; Exhibit 4, Site Plan; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20.
23. Applicants request variance from ACC 18.69.070(A) for both the required front yard
setback and total lot coverage. Applicants seek to reduce the front yard setback to ten
feet and increase the allowed lot coverage to 50%. ACC 18.69.070(A;) requires a
detached single-family home within a PUD to cover no more than 40% of the total lot
square footage and for the garage to be setback 20 feet from the street with the remainder
of the home set back 15 feet. A variance to design standards is generally only granted if
the land has unique physical or topographical conditions such that strict conformity with
the ACC would not allow for a reasonable and harmonious use of the land. Applicants
state that approval of the variances will allow them to construct a "neo -traditional" lot
layout, providing a more interesting streetsespe by allowing for varying building
orientation/placement and utilizing front porches, which would create a pedestrian -
oriented neighborhood. Applicants further state that variances would allow them to
create a more useable backyard on lots in Division 11 that have slope issues. City Staff
did not recommend approval of the variance requests. City Staff noted that all lots are
100 feet in depth, with many greater than 100 feet, allowing for varied structure
placement. City Staff further noted that the purpose of limiting lot coverage in a smaller
lot development, such as a PUD, is to prevent overcrowding.. Allowing for 50% lot
coverage would amount to a footprint of up to 2500 square feet or a 4000-4500 square
foot two-story home. ACC 18.70.010, Exhibit 5, Narrative; Exhibit 20, Planning
Department Memo, Part 1; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko:; Testimony
of Mr. McBride.
12 Exhibit 20, Part 5 references a letter from BPA to Barghausen Consulting Engineers. A copy of this letter was
not attached to the exhibit but is incorporated by reference as part of the record of this proceeding.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to
hear and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to
make recommendations for an application for rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(1)) and
18.68.030, for approval of an application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Along with the requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court, 13 in order TO
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the following criteria, as set forth
in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan..
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing
Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request.
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing. Examiner or the
City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
In order TO APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18.69.150, the proposal must demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support
the following:
1. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,. other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposal. is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an improvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open. space
protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general, purposes of other applicable policies. or plans
which have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards
of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the design
guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
13 Rezones must be based on a change in neighborhood conditions and bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, and general welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
In order TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, 1, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the
general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
public nuisances.
In order TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the following:
1. Unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship.
2. Strict conformity with Title 18 would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the
property.
3. Variance would not alter, the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to
surrounding properties.
4. Circumstances justifying variance are not a result of the Applicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly. enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning district.
6. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning district in which property is located.
7. Variance would not allow for increased density.
Conclusions Basbd on Findings:
1. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant -Property Owner and not the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(3)(1), in order for the Hearing Examiner to hold a public
hearing and consider a rezone request, the rezone must not be initiated by the City. The
Applicant in this matter is the owner of the property subject to the rezone. Speck
Findings No. 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
2. Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
In considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that
conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning and that the rezone bears
a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
ParAridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). A variety of factors may satisfy a change in
circumstances, including changes in public opinion, local land use patterns, and on the
property itself. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. 1, 1995). The
City and the Applicants have stated that the area where the subject property is located has
experienced significant development as a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; overall
market conditions in Puget Sound creating a demand for smaller lots; topography making
the land more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district; compliance with the
goals of the GMA; and compatibility between the existing PUD corrummity and the
proposed development. The fact that the existing zoning dates back to the original
adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a plan that has since been amended three
times, and the fact that the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the
existing Comprehensive Plan, give credence to the "change in circumstances" within the
community warranting a rezone of the property. However, neither the Applicants nor the
City cites to specific quantitative data demonstrating the need for additional housing of
this type, the trend in Puget Sound towards small lot development, or population growth
projections for the City. This type of information would provide further justification for
changed circumstances and approval of a rezone and a PUD. The Planning :Director and
the DEIS both concluded that the proposal was consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. General Findings No. 2, 5; Specific Findings Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
3. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by
the Applicant.
4. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable goals and policies of the. City Council.
The Director of Planning determined the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding several
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the development, including
improving the City's transportation network; creating and maintaining park land and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
density; improvement to the City's public utility (water/sewer) system; and protecting.
streams and natural areas. The goals and policies of the City Council are embraced in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. General Findings No. 5; Speeuic Findings Nos.
4, 5, and 6.
5. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, water supplies,
sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
Applicants have made provisions for streets with sidewalks for pedestrian safety,
including, safe walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for park access.
EIS mitigation measures and conditions of approval will provide for traffic control and
calming devices to provide safety within and to the community. The development will
be served by City water and sanitary sewer. Storm water facilities will collect and
convey run-off, utilizing an energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output. Applicants
have provided for a total of 28.94 acres of open space, of which 7.16 acres are to be
developed for both active and passive recreation. Specific Findings Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, and 22.
6. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, and provides for the
public benefits required of the development of PVDs.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. Applicants propose to preserve natural
amenities through the use of open spaces. Tract B and Tract I are both steeply sloped.
The preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonstrate a pedestrian -
oriented community with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks with both active
and passive recreation amenities. The plat is structured to utilize the property efficiently
by layout, house design, and open space. Homes will not be facing the residential
collector, Evergreen Way SE, and will be separated from the arterial collector, Kersey
Way SE, by open space. Privacy fencing will separate the development from adjoining
low-density residential areas. Development is consistent with and implements the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Applicants proposed a variety of architectural styles, providing a
varied streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. Applicants propose over seven
acres of active and passive recreation parklands. Affordable housing is a concern within
the entire Puget Sound area. Applicants are providing only single-family housing, no
multi -family, thereby limiting the "affordability" of housing provided. Applicants do not
state the price range for the homes but due state that the increased density helps to
distribute overall construction and development costs among a greater number of buyers.
Specific Findings Nos. 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
7. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards.
The property is currently zoned R-1, which would allow for development of 34 dwelling
units. Applicants seek to develop 373 dwelling units. Development of over 300 more
dwelling units will have more adverse impacts than the existing zoning standard. EIS
provided for impacts on transportation, public services; wildlife, and utilities, some of
which could not be avoided even with mitigation measures. General Findings No. 2;
Speck Findings Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
8. The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and Lakeland Hills PUD's 3000+ homes. The Comprehensive
Plan designation for the area is Single -Family Residential. Development would be
consistent with the character of the Lakeland Hills community.but not with the low-
density development. General Findings No. 2; Specific Findings Nos. 2, 3, and 8.
9. The Preliminary Plat conforms to the.City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and
any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications.
With conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies with all related City
codes and standards. Specific Findings No. 23.
10. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, all potential environmental impacts have not been mitigated to the
point that they would not have an adverse effect. Namely, wildlife and their associated
habitat will be directly affected and no mitigation measures were available to ameliorate
this impact. Wildlife would suffer from loss of native vegetation, fragmentation of
habitat, reduction in native populations, and disturbance in retained habitat clue to human
encroachment. While this impacts can not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted
species are listed as endangered, threatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act. In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be afl.ected by the
increase in impervious surface which would. affect the hydrology of the area due to a
change in recharge patterns. Additional sediment/erosion will enter the water system,
impacting water quality. Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - will all be impacted by
the increased population generated by the development. Specific Findings Nos. 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22:
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent
or abate public nuisances.
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are addressed directly
in ACC 8.12. A public nuisance affects public health and property values by creating
visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic
situations. Compliancewith City design standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) will ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
conditioned the development of a Homeowners' Association and the associated.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions will ensure that visual blights and dangers to
public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specific Findings Nos. 16.
12. The subject property does not possess physical conditions or exceptional
topographic features. that warrant deviating from the applicable design
requirements.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminmy Plat
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends
to the Auburn City Council that the request for a variance from the.required front yard setbacks
and lot coverage be DENIED. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the request for a rezone
of 89.31 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD, approval of a PUD, and Preliminary
Plat approval be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed. on the final
plat and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III
development (Division I and Division In:
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining -related activities including, but not limited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Any final plat for Kersey 1II, Division II, shall not be recorded until (a) the
planned park sites contained in Kersey III, Division I have been dedicated to the
City of Auburn AND (b) the final plat for Division I that defines and restricts the
planned open space tracts as such has been recorded, or in lieu of final plat
recording, Applicant has filed the necessary documents to impose a restrictive
covenant or easement on these lands to ensure that they are maintained as open
space.
3. Prior to issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an open space
tract, Applicant shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a :Declaration
of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions that conforms to ACC 19.69.200.
4. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the construction of
interior improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also submit
engineering/construction drawings for the construction. of all park improvements
as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 19) . The park improvements
shall be approved by the City of Auburn's Parks Director prior to the approval of
the construction drawings for the plat. Any materials supplied and installed for
the parks must meet current City Parks Department standards and be approved by
the Parks Director prior to installation and final plat approval.
5. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Kersey
III Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval by City
Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall include architectural
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
design criteria for new homes and specify the financial means of maintenance of
all common open spaces.
b. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II Conceptual
Building Design Guidelines (Exhibit 6). The Conceptual Building Design
Guidelines shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design
guidelines shall include a color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In
addition, the following conditions shall apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street -facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. No more than a two -car garage shall be used; tandem parking. is
acceptable.
c) The first floor living portion of each house shall be located 5 feet closer to
the street than any garage.
d) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes sharing
the same floor plan are located adjacent to one another.
7. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the, Preliminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 17, 2005, which was included with the
Applicants' application for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval. The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native andlor drought -resistant plants
throughout the plat, including park and landscaped open space arem. Emphasis
should be on the use of native vegetation, thereby mitigating the Voss of native
vegetation.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting landscaping. The
number, style, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be
approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material, style, and
color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivalent
to a six foot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of
the. planned pedestrian pathways requires the approval .of the Planning Director.
All residential properties that border on a native/open space, park, or drainage
tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall be separated from :these areas by use of a two -
rail wooden fence of approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall
delineate the property line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into
the nativelopen space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone and. PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of
the associated preliminary plat.
11. Compliance with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the
Kersey ID Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8), dated February 2005, and as
otherwise noted throughout this recommendation, is required.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way
SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound. Kersey Way
SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE.
This active warning signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE
and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct traffic controls to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way S.E. These traffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a
round -about unless the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-
about is not feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round -about is not
feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and construction as a traffic
signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct traffic calming and
pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area
near Olive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities must
be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment,
namely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main
impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat.
Applicants shall endeavor to provide for preservation of a wildlife habitat by
creating a corridor.containing native vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
18. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School
District. Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school
district can provide transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the
studentsgenerated by the, proposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at
any school. Applicants shall be responsible for all school impact fees in a
manner consistent with local and state law requirements.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat
S
Decided this 2— day of September, 2005.
Examiner for the City of Auburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat Page 20 of 20
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
This decision of the Hearing Examiner is a recommendation to the City Council and will be considered
by the Council at their September 19, 2005, meeting. At the September 19, 2005, meeting the Council
may either affirm the Examiner's recommendation, remand the decision back to the 'Examiner, or
schedule a closed record public hearing.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PLT05-0001— Division 1
The southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and that portion of
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lying southerly of
the H.B. Carter County Road; All in Section 32, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for Stuck Road
and by Deed recorded under Recording Number 5407388;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed by King County for Lake
Jrfapps Access Road, by deed recorded under Recording Number 5801756.
Exhibit to Resolution No. 3915
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PLT05-0002— Division 2
Lot 1, City of Auburn Short Plat Number SP -22-77, recorded under
Recording Number 7905301012, being a revision of Short Plat recorded
under Recording Number 7712130917, in King County, Washington, being
a portion of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 32,
Township 21 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington_
Exhibit to Resolution No. 3915