Loading...
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