Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2005 ITEM II-A* r; x CITY OF AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM -� WASHINGTON Agenda Subject Date: Application No. PUD04-0001 November 2, 2005 Department: Planning Attachments: Please see exhibit list Budget Impact: below Administrative Recommendation: City Council to not adopt Hearing Examiner's recommendation of either remanding the case to staff for additional information or denying the Planned Unit Development (PUD). City Council to approve the PUD with Hearing Examiner's recommended conditions (pages 35-43 of Hearing Examiner's decision) with the following changes: • Eliminate Condition No. 6 related to the plat modification and amount of park land dedication and instead substitute staff recommended conditions PLT04-0006 Condition No. 8, 9, and 10 and PUD04-0001 Condition No. 2. • Eliminate Condition No. 28 related to securing access approvals from Kent since it is redundant. • Substitute Hearing Examiner's recommended Condition No. 19 with Condition No. 9 from the Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) to allow averaging of wetland buffer around the Category IV wetland. • And staff recommends that PLT04-0006 Condition No. 4 that was omitted by the Examiner be added to require planter strips between the sidewalk and curb on both sides of internal local residential streets. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ®Building ® M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ® Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ® Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD '., ® Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board ❑Public Works ❑Legal ®Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until _/_/_ Tabled Until _/_/_ Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: November 18, 2005 Item Number: ILA AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: PUD04-0001 Date: November Exhibit List: Exhibit 1 Preliminary Plat Map, DBM Engineers, June 28, 2005 Exhibit 2 River Sands PUD Binding Site Plan, DBM Engineers, July 5, 2005 Exhibit 3 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (SEP04-0037), dated 6-2-05 Exhibit 4 Hearing Examiner Recommendation on the Preliminary Plat and PUD, dated 9-22-05 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 18, Figure 3, Road Layout, Final EIS NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, City of Auburn. July 2004 Exhibit 6 Applicant's River Sand Planned Unit Development Project Description Exhibit 7 River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet SD1.1 - SD1.5, Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc., July 12, 2005 Exhibit 8 Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest, revised July 27, 2004 and supplemented on September 7, 2004. Exhibit 9 Letter from Gary Gill Citv of Kent to Jeff Dixon City of Auburn regarding temporary access to S 277 Street, dated December 15, 2004 The other exhibits that were considered by the Hearing Examiner are listed at pages 3 through 5 of the Hearing Examiner's written recommendation. These exhibits are available for review or may be requested by contacting the Planning Department. Background Summary: The Hearing Examiner on August 16, 2005 conducted an open record hearing on the request of Centex Homes for a planned unit development (PUD) known as "River Sands". The PUD request consists of rezoning from R4 (Multiple Family Residential) and R3 (Duplex Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and binding site plan approval. The project consists of 172 single-family lots and 115 multiple family units. The subject property is located on the south side of the 1200-1700 block of South 277th Street, approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped right-of-way of "I" Street NE. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation issued on September 22, 2005 finds that there is not enough information to make a written recommendation on the request for approval of the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary plat. For this reason, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests be remanded to the Planning and Community Development Department to allow the Applicant to submit the following additional information: L1107-6 03.6, PUD04-0001, 03.5 PLT04-0006 The City has received written confirmation from the applicant that exceeding the 120 -day permit processing timeframe is acceptable. 1. A plan to provide more definite information on a second general access for the proposed access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. The plan should be more certain than the plan presently submitted by the Applicant. 2. A traffic impact analysis that addresses the binding site plan (PUD Exhibit 11), and addresses the different access scenarios that could occur. 3. Current traffic level of service information to ensure the proposed project complies with Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. 4. A reconfiguration of dedicated park land such that Tracts A through G are not considered dedicated park land. The Hearing Examiner decision also states that if the information is submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner will re -hear those portions of the application. If the Applicant is unable to submit the information to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests for plat and PUD be denied. Agenda Subject: PUD04-0001 Date: November 2, 2005 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. Staff is recommending that the City Council schedule a closed record hearing. Staff believes that the specific information requested by the Hearing Examiner is adequately addressed in the existing record of the hearing examiner's proceedings. The items raised by the Hearing Examiner are itemized below followed by a staff response. A plan to provide more definite information on a second general access for the proposed access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. The plan should be more certain than the plan presently submitted by the Applicant. The staff report transmitted to the Hearing Examiner indicates the site is bordered to the north by South 277th Street, a principal arterial that is at that location under the jurisdiction of the City of Kent. Both Auburn and Kent have a history of restricting access to this roadway to ensure the capacity to convey regional traffic is not compromised. The undeveloped north -south oriented right-of-way (ROW) of I Street NE lies approximately 20 feet off-site to the west. The Port of Seattle (Port) owns the intervening property. The applicant previously contacted the Port regarding permission to cross the Port `s property to access the I Street NE ROW. The Port by letter indicated that it would not grant access over this intervening strip of property. The City has extensively studied the future road network in the vicinity of the drive in theater and the River Sands project through the Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued February 2004 and the Northeast Auburn Robertson Properties Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued July 2004. A final schematic design for the arterial road system, which was reviewed and accepted as part of that EIS, resulted in a road network which limited direct access to South 277 1h Street in the final build out condition of the area to one signalized access at a new "I" Street NE location considerably west of the existing I" Street NE right -of- way. Additionally, the final area road network plan envisioned an extension of 49' Street NE to provide an east - west arterial connection between B Street NE on the west, Auburn Way North, the new I Street NE, the Port property and the River Sands property (a.k.a. 49th/51st Street NE). This network is to be developed over a series of years as the Robertson Properties Group (RPG) development, the Port of Seattle (Port) property and River Sands are constructed. The timing of the River Sands development, occurring years before RPG or the Port property, presented access challenges. Limited to one general access to South 277`h Street as a result of government concerns about limiting direct access to South 277 1h Street, the developers of River Sands saw value in the future east - west connection. An agreement was reached in which the applicant would be financially responsible for the 49th/51st Street (east -west) connection through a financial contribution to the City of Auburn. In exchange, the applicant would be allowed to construct a signalized general access from their property to South 277`h Street. At the time that the future road network in the area was perfected and access to South 277th Street is available via the extended 49th/51st Street NE and the future "I" Street NE signal, the applicant's temporary signalized full access to South 277th Street would be eliminated in favor of a right in, right out access at that location. The financial contribution was made a project mitigation measure and is Condition No. 14 of the Final Mitigation Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS). To address concerns about the need for two general accesses required by Comprehensive Plan Policy TR13 for a development of this number of dwelling units, the City required that the applicant's current proposed access to South 277`h Street consist of a boulevard type design with a central landscape median. The intention of the median design, which divides two 20 -foot minimum access lanes was to ensure that, essentially, two access corridors would be available to South 277th Street in the unlikely Agenda Subject: PUD04-0001 Date: November 2. 2005 event one of the lanes became blocked. As insurance, a second emergency vehicle only access located to the east, is also provided to South 277th Street from the development. The proposed interim access design was reviewed by both City of Auburn and City of Kent technical staff. It was determined that adequate stopping and vehicle storage distance existed to allow the development's traffic to safely use the proposed interim access to South 277th Street. Due to the existing speeds on South 277`h Street, the Auburn Traffic Engineer determined that a traffic signal would be required to provide full access to the location. 2. A traffic impact analysis that addresses the binding site plan (PUD Exhibit 11), and addresses the different access scenarios that could occur. The traffic study submitted as part of this project, (Traffic Impact Analysis River Sands PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest, revised July 27, 2004 and supplemented on September 7, 2004) analyzed the year 2020 traffic conditions and studied the impact of more units of development from River Sands than the development will actually create. As a result, the study represented, in effect, a worse case analysis of the development's impact on South 277`h Street. The study found that with or without the project, South 277th Street corridor level of Service would be LOS "E". A separate Northeast Auburn Area EIS traffic study analyzed the impacts of the entire revised final road network discussed in response to point 1 above. This analysis included the expected traffic from the River Sands development. The only item that the RPG EIS or the River Sands traffic studies lacked was an analysis of the interim full access at the River Sands signalized intersection entrance at South 277'h Street. This analysis was conducted by City staff as described above in response to point 1 and found that adequate stopping and vehicle storage existed. 3. Current traffic level of service information to ensure the proposed project complies with Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. The traffic study submitted as part of this project (Traffic Impact Analysis River Sands PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest, revised July 27, 2004 and supplemented on September 7, 2004) analyzed the year 2020 traffic conditions. The study found that with or without the project, South 277th Street corridor level of Service would be LOS "E". Currently, the level of service standard for the South 277th Street corridor is LOS "D". While new development in the immediate area has not occurred, regional traffic demands have resulted in the current actual Level of Service (LOS) of the corridor being LOS "E". It is currently proposed that Intelligent Transportation System upgrades to signalization, and long-term capacity additions to South 277th Street be created. Some additional road capacity on South 2771" Street will also be created by the River Sands development. Nevertheless it is expected that the long term LOS of the corridor will likely remain at LOS "E", hence the City has proposed as part of this year's Comprehensive Plan amendments that the LOS of the South 2771" Street corridor be changed to LOS E. 4. A reconfiguration of dedicated park land such that Tracts A through G are not considered dedicated park land. Auburn City Code (ACC) section 17.12.260 requires the dedication of undeveloped park land when the subdivision will result in 50 or more dwelling units. This code section states: "The council shall be guided by the policies and recommended standards of the Auburn park and recreation plan." and "The acceptability of the size, configuration and location of land proposed for park dedication shall be determined by the city." Agenda Subject: PUD04-0001 Date: November 2. 2005 The plat is proposed to contain 287 dwelling units (172 single family and 115 multi -family) and an anticipated population of 803.6 residents (287 x 2.8= 803.6 or 804). Based on the standard of 6.03 acres per 1,000 population as specified in the 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, the project requires the dedication of 4.85 acres of undeveloped park land (80411000 x 6.03 = 4.85 acres). (Parks Plan Chapter 3; page 3-21, Table 3-14) Based on discussions with the City Parks, Arts and Recreation Department, the applicant has proposed dedicating nine tracts totaling 4 acres. The proposed dedication consists of the public linear park, Tracts A through G, a public park adjacent to the Green River, as Tracts O & P. In accordance with ACC section 17.18.010, the preliminary plat proposal also includes a "Plat Modification" request from the subdivision code in order to dedicate less than the required amount of park land. Plat Modification requests are processed simultaneously with the preliminary plat request. Specifically, the applicant proposes to dedicate 4.0 acres of the approximately 4.85 acres required by City code. The applicant seeks to compensate for the reduction in undeveloped park area by a combination of fees - in -lieu and/or improvements. A typical plat or PUD does not require park improvements, only the dedication of park land. The improvements or fees -in -lieu, provides an opportunity for immediate development of park amenities such as landscaping, play equipment and basketball court area. The provision of improvements either directly or through fees -in -lieu is supported by the PUD regulations (ACC 18.69.080(A)(2)) which state: "If determined by the City that the PUD does not contain an acceptable area for public parks, a smaller park may be accepted if developed to City standards." Specifically, the Hearing Examiner did not consider Tracts A through G as suitable for public park land. The proposed Tracts A through G total 1.23 acres and are 20 -foot wide linear tracts bordering the north and south sides of the internal, east -west roadway(51st Street NE). The seven tracts would contain landscaping and a meandering sidewalk completed by the developer during the corresponding phase. These tracts meet the dual objectives of providing park land while also enhancing the pedestrian orientation that is a stated design objective of the PUD regulations. The Tracts are proposed to be maintained by the Home Owners Association. These proposed linear tracts are supported by the following goals and objectives of the 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Chapter 4; Page 4-8, Goal 7 "Objective 7.1 A network of trails shall be created or extended to provide coverage adequate for both commuting and recreational cyclists. Locations for east/west trails shall be identified and developed. Acquisition of land for the proposed Green River Trail shall continue to be a priority." Chapter 4; Page 4-9, Goal 8 "Objective 8.1 Priority shall be given to the development of community parks and linear parks with trail systems." Through the development approval process, the City has accepted other examples of linear parks containing sidewalks and smaller parks serving the neighborhood. Tracts A through G will serve as a lineal park, one of the park types specified in the Plan. When considering Tracts A through G, the Parks Department reviewed the developer's approach of using the proposed sidewalk as a trail connection from the west side of the plat to the east side of the plat and the future connection to the Green River Trail. The proposed sidewalk along Tracts A through G is in the front of the residences but is separated from the street. No vehicle accesses cross the sidewalk thus providing a safer connection for city residents proceeding east / west along this route as compared to walking along 277th Street or a standard sidewalk that is adjacent to the proposed street. With the Agenda Subject: PUD04-0001 Date: November 2, 2005 development of the future Green River trail this neighborhood park would be visible to other Auburn citizens. Parks signage would identify it as a Auburn park open to the public as is typical for all city parks. CITY Of * ADBUBNPeter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 980014998 * www.ouburnwo.gov * 253-931-3000 FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: dedication. PROPONENT: Rob Pursuer Centex Homes LOCATION: The area south of South 277th Street and west of the Green River LEAD AGENCY: City of Auburn The Responsible Official of the City of Auburn hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP04-0037", and Conclusions of Law based upon the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and other Municipal policies, plans, rules and regulations designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project action involves one parcel totaling approximately 40.9 acres with split zoning. The proposal is located at the northern edge of the Auburn city limits and abuts Kent (the roadway of S 277"' Street) and unincorporated King County to the north. Certain off-site improvements are proposed in Kent. The City of Auburn serves as SEPA lead agency for the proposal as provided in WAC 197-11-932. 2. The proposed action, referred to as "River Sand" consists of the rezoning from R-4, Multiple Family Residential and R-3, Two -Family Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation, initial short platting into two lots and the subsequent preliminary plat approval of a subdivision into approximately 172 single family lots, one multiple family lot with approximately 115 dwelling units and seventeen tracts and binding site plan approval of the multiple family development, all under the provisions of the PUD. The proposal includes the site preparation, construction and dedication of new public streets within and adjacent to the plat, the construction of privately -owned recreational spaces, the installation of on-site landscaping, utilities and the dedication of AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 2 land to be used for a public park. The project includes approval of deviations for street standards, variances from single-family setbacks and relief from RV parking and a modification to plat standards related to park land dedication. 3. The proposal includes substantial grading and clearing, street improvementslincluding off-site improvements in Kent) construction of utilities and wetland mitigation. The proposal is to be constructed and receive final plat in two phases. 4. Construction will consist of the excavation and removal from the site of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of organic soils. The project will also require the importation of approximately 325,000 cubic yards of soil for general site filling for the sub -base under paving and to raise site to equal grades with the adjacent right-of-way and properties, to provide cover for utilities and to achieve the grades necessary for adequate site drainage. Approximately 25,000 cubic yard of excavation and backfill will be necessary for the installation of utilities. Approximately 80,000 cubic yards of excavation and 15,000 cubic yards of filling are proposed for building footings and storm drainage system construction, respectively. The on-site street construction is estimated to include 75,000 cubic yards of fill and 15,000 cubic yards of excavation. 5. The importation and placement of up to 200,000 cubic yards of fill has previously been authorized by city permit GRA04-0025 from the adjacent wetland mitigation construction site by the Port of Seattle. 6. The applicant's geotechnical report: "Geotechnical Report River Sand 1st Street NE and South 277th Street," Terra Associates Inc. February 4, 2004, contains recommendations related to site development that will be incorporated into the project design. The project has the potential for differential settlement and erosion if precautionary geotechnical recommendations are not followed. This proposal includes importing up to 325,000 cubic yards of material to the site. The temporary truck trips generated by the construction operations will likely cause adverse impacts to traffic operations and Kent and Auburn streets during peak traffic hours and will thus generate increased levels of local suspended particulate emissions. A haul route plan must be prepared with specific traffic control measures and submitted to the appropriate jurisdictions to reduce or avoid impacts. 8. Construction activity will include the on-site grading of existing soils and could result in potential water quality degradation that will be mitigated through the compliance with the development regulations prescribed in the City's Design and Construction Standards. 9. Site preparation and construction activities will generate increased levels of local suspended particulate emissions. 10. The applicant indicates that the project includes construction of impervious surfaces over approximately 50 percent of the site. The construction of paved surfaces will adversely impact the area's water quality unless mitigation measures are implemented DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 3 consistent with the guidelines prescribed in the City's Design and Construction standards. 11. Stormwater runoff from the plat will be collected and treated on-site in a system designed in accordance with the City of Auburn Design and Construction standards. Runoff associated with off-site road improvements located in Kent will be designed in accordance with respective design standards. Stormwater will be released to an existing ditch system in King County that flows north and eventually discharges to the Green River. Additional information on the project's storm water system is described in the report: Storm Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, March 31, 2004. The report identifies the existing drainage pattern of the site and the proposed storm drainage system. 12. Impervious surfaces will increase the quantity of storm water discharge from the site. The project's storm drainage facilities must be properly designed and constructed to accommodate the increased runoff in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in the City of Auburn's adopted standards. 13. Lack of maintenance is known to reduce the effectiveness of stormwater collection and treatment facilities, resulting in water quality degradation. 14. The proponent's report: Wetland Assessment of the Bristol Property S 277"' Street and West of the Green River, Auburn WA, J.S. Jones Associates Inc., January 31, 2002, revised July 30, 2002 identifies that the site contains two wetlands. Subsequently, the Army Corps of Engineers modified the delineation via a Letter from Gail Terzi to Jeffrey Jones, May 22, 2003 verifying the wetland boundaries in the attached map. The site contained two wetlands: a 1,243 square foot (0.03 -acre) wetland at the northwest corner and an 18,655 square foot (0.43 -acre) wetland, which is part of a larger off-site wetland at the southwest corner. The letter also noted that the site contained thee ditches meeting the definition of "Waters of the U.S". The applicant proposes to retain, protect and avoid filling the on-site wetlands. To protect site wetlands and compensate for the loss of wetland functions, mitigation measures are necessary for the site to be developed. 15. The project also includes filling or floodplain storage excavation up to the edge of the existing wetlands. This earthwork has the potential to result in adverse wetland impacts if the fill is not properly placed and controlled. Under the current condition, the area of the buffer has previously been disturbed and therefore contains limited vegetation. 16. The project could potentially result in disruption to the functions and values of the existing site wetlands by adding pollutants and creating human intrusions not currently present. The provision of a wetland buffer enhanced.with dense planting of native vegetation of a sufficient width is necessary to reduce and avoid wetland impacts. 17. To compensate and mitigate the loss of wetland functional values associated with construction disturbance, a conceptual mitigation plan was prepared. Information on the proposed mitigation is contained in the report: Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 4 the River Sand Property, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc., revised January 26, 2005. To reduce -or avoid impacts, the proposed construction includes observing a fifty (50) foot minimum enhanced buffer around Wetland 1 (Category II) and observing an average of twenty-five (25) foot enhanced buffer around Wetland 2 (Category 1V). According to the report, the existing buffer does not contain suitable buffer vegetation and buffer enhancement is proposed as a result. The enhancement around Wetland 1 (approximately 68,836 square feet including the adjacent Tract J) and the buffer enhancement around Wetland 2 (approximately 8,034 square feet) will be replanted with native trees and shrubs to create a forested community with habitat structures added. The enhancement of Wetland 2, itself, by replanting is also proposed. 18. The proposed excavation, modification of ground surface and impervious surface construction proximate to the sites wetlands could potentially result in disruption to the functions and values of the existing site wetlands by altering hydrologic support. An analysis of the potential hydrologic changes and implementation of enhancement recommendations is necessary to reduce and avoid wetland impacts. The report Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of the River Sand Property, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc., revised January 26, 2005. states: " Wetland 2 may require supplemental hydrology I order to match the pre and post hydrology condition. Pre and post hydrologic calculation will be provided by the civil engineer at the time of final engineering." 19. To help ensure the long-term preservation of the wetland mitigation area and to discourage the uncontrolled intrusion of humans into the wetland mitigation area, mitigation signage and easement will be required. 20. Based on current FEMA maps, the site contains 100 -year flood plain associated with the Green River. The hydraulic connection to the River is located north of the site. Unless a FEMA map amendment is secured to eliminate the on-site portion of floodplain, a flood zone control permit will be required by the City to complete the project as proposed. 21. The proposed development will include placement of compacted fill within the floodplain thereby increasing runoff and reducing the site's floodwater storage capacity. The proposed earthwork will result in floodwater displacement and potential off-site flooding impact if mitigation measures are not implemented. The project would either provide 100% compensatory storage on-site through excavation of areas southwest of Wetland 1 or through construction of compensatory storage on the Port of Seattle property to the south by others. 22. A portion of the eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Green River. King County property intervenes along the remaining portion of the eastern property boundary. There are on-site areas along the eastern boundary within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark that therefore are within areas subject to the "Conservancy" designation of the City's Shoreline Management Program. According to the plat and environmental checklist application, this area of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to remain undisturbed with this project and dedicated to the City for future recreational use. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 5 23. While the site contains limited vegetation due to previous agricultural use, the proposed development action will eliminate vegetation over the majority of the site. The measures to provide wetland buffering, and revegetation of the site with code -required landscaping will assist in reducing impacts to vegetative and wildlife resources. s 24. A report was prepared to evaluate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous materials. The report: "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River Sand Estates Southeast Corner of the Northeast I Street and South 277n Street, The Riley Group, August 8, 2003, indicates none were found. 25. Concurrent with the plat and PUD applications, the applicant has requested deviations for street standards, a variance from rear yard setbacks and a modification to plat standards related to park land dedication. 26. The proponent prepared a historic and cultural resources study: "Archaeological and Washinoton," Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004. The investigation did not discover any historically significant resources, but identifies that the site's potential to contain archaeological resources cannot be discounted. Based upon the moderate to high probability of resources, the study recommends development of a construction monitoring plan and future monitoring of ground disturbing activities. if any items of possible cultural or historic significance are encountered during construction activities, work will be halted and the contractor must contact the proponent, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Cultural Program and the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation immediately. 27. The Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD, was prepared by Transportation Consulting Northwest, April 12, 2004. The report was revised June 24, 2004 and supplemented on September 27, 2004. This analysis with subsequent revisions and supplements concludes that the proposed project will generate 254 PM peak hour trips including 165 entering and 89 exiting trips in the PM peak hour based on the identified trip rate during an average weekday. 28. At the time of final plat approval, this development can meet Comprehensive PlanPolicy TR 13 by providing a permanent boulevard -type road approach to S 277"' Street from the plat as approved by the City Engineer. The boulevard shall have a divided roadway with central landscape median. This access shall include a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the boulevard approach and S 2774' Street. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the equivalent of the 76th single family unit within the plat, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second permanent access route consisting of the construction of a 24 -foot wide paved roadway with adequate shoulder and storm drainage provisions along the east -west alignment of a new 49th/51 st NE between the proposed boulevard and the new "I" Street alignment and the new "I" Street NE between 49th Street NE and S 277'" Street, plus a span wire traffic signal at the intersection of the new "I" Street NE and S 277"' Street. When the second permanent access route is constructed, the intersection of the Boulevard approach and DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 6 S 277th Street shall have the temporary traffic signal removed and permanent channelization shall be installed on S 277th Street at the intersection in order to prevent left turns into and out of the plat. The applicant shall pay to the City $495,000, which in addition to the development's normal traffic impact fees, provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent access route improvements and related improvements. In the event the City's traffic impact fees are increased prior to payment of the $495,000, this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. 29. Notice of the future second permanent access route and the future intersection modifications (the future removal of the temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S 277 1h Street and the installation of permanent channelization on S 277th Street to prevent left turns into and out of the plat, described above) shall be recorded on the face of the plat and on each individual property title within the plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future traffic improvements must be provided as directed by the City. 30. At the time of plat construction secondary emergency access shall also be provided to the plat from S 277"' Street by means of the establishment of one or more emergency accesses a minimum of 20 feet in width. These secondary emergency accesses shall prohibit general traffic use through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. 31. While initially the internal road lengths will exceed city polices related to the length for dead-end roads without providing for secondary access connection until the 49th/51 st Street extension is constructed, financially guaranteeing construction of a second access point at the 76th dwelling unit will minimize the impacts to a point of non- significance. 32. The City of Auburn adopted a Transportation Impact Fee under Ordinance No. 5506. The traffic impact fee is collected at the time of building permit. 33. The applicant must obtain right-of-way use permits from Kent in order to construct frontage improvements, temporary signalization and street access to S 277'" Street within Kent's jurisdiction. 34. The proposal is located in the Kent School District. The City has an interlocal agreement with the Kent School District to collect impact fees on their behalf. 35. An existing METRO sewer line exists within the S 2770' Street right-of-way with a 12 - inch stub to the south side of the street. 8 -inch mains are proposed to be extended within the project's roadways to serve the lots. The project may necessitate the use of grinder pumps for a few of the single-family homes that cannot be served by gravity. As per the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 "Alternative Sewage Disposal Systems" which states: "It is the City's policy to transport sewage by gravity as the most cost-effective method. Alternative pressure systems should be permitted only in those circumstances when a gravity system would be impractical, unreasonably expensive, environmentally destructive or otherwise infeasible. " DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 7 36. Currently no water lines exist in the project vicinity. In order to provide water service to the roject, the proponent will at a minimum construct a new 12 -inch pipeline along S 2779 Street from Auburn Way N to a point along the north property boundary sufficient for construction of a looped water system in accordance with the improvements identified within the City's Comprehensive Water Plan (Improvement number DS -603- 108,109). 37. In order to meet city policies and standards for water system reliability and multiple directional flows, prior to any Final Plat approval, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second 12 -inch off-site waterline for completion of the looping of waterlines to meet the Water Comprehensive Plan Level of Service criteria. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements would consist of approximately 1,200 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along the proposed extension of "I" Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49th Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along an east west alignment of a new 49th/51st NE between the proposed new 01" Street alignment and the River Sands Development west property line. The applicant shall pay to the City $82,000, which combined with the development's normal System Development Charges, provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent water system improvements. In the event the City's Water System Development charges are increased prior to payment of the $82,000. this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. The water line construction will need to be coordinated with the City of Kent since the right-of-way is within their jurisdiction. 38. The "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP04-0037" is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Staff has concluded that a MDNS may be issued. This is based upon the environmental checklist and its attachments, and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist". The MDNS is supported by Plans and regulations formally adopted by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. The following are City adopted policies, which support the MDNS: 1. The City shall seek to ensure that land not developed or otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems (Policy EN -64, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)). 2. Where there is a high probability of erosion, grading should be kept to a minimum and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading activity (Policy EN -65, ACP). DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 8 3. Large scale speculative filling and grading activities not associated with a development proposal shall be discouraged as it reduces a vegetated site's natural ability to provide erosion control and biofiltration, absorb storm water and filter suspended particulates. In instances where speculative filling is deemed appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be restored as soon as possible and appropriate measures to control erosion and sedimentation until the site is developed shall be required (Policy EN -67, ACP). 4. The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the area (Policy EN -16, ACP). 5. The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended particulates (Policy EN -18, ACP). 6. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as apart of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures (Policy EN -20, ACP). Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed to discharge to groundwater, such as open water infiltration ponds, shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to standards outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Drainage improvement projects that may potentially result in the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as detention ponds, shall also incorporate these standards. (Policy EN -2, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)] 8. The City shall seek to minimize degradation to surface water quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of stormwater and non -point runoff. (Policy EN -3, ACP) 9. The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the water quality and habitat of receiving waters. (Policy EN -4, ACP) 10. The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the water entering, This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP) 11. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. (EN -13, ACP) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 9 12, The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy EN -71, ACP) 13. Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed to discharge to groundwater, such as open water infiltration ponds, shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to standards outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Drainage improvement projects that may potentially result in the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as detention ponds, shall also incorporate these standards. (Policy EN -2, ACP) 14. Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and degraded streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN -6, ACP) 15. The City's design standards shall ensure that the post development peak stormwater runoff rates do not exceed the predevelopment rates. (Policy EN -10, ACP) 16. The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the water entering. This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP) 17. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. (Policy EN -13, ACP) 18. The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality as dictated by the City's Design and Construction Standards and the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. In all new development, approved water quality treatment measures that are applicable and represent the best available science or technology shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and groundwater.) (Policy EN -14, ACP) 19. The City recognizes that new development can have impacts including, but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased water quality on downstream communities and natural drainage courses. The City shall continue to actively participate in developing and implementing regional water quality planning and flood hazard reduction efforts within the Green River, Mill Creek and White River drainage basins. The findings and recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not limited to, the "Draft" Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, the "Draft" Mill Creek Flood Control Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and the Mill DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 10 Creek Water Quality Management Plan, shall be considered by the City as City programs and plans are developed and updated. (Policy EN -15, ACP) 20. The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and storage. However, these natural tystems can be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental review process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. (Policy EN -16, ACP) 21. The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. (Policy EN -17, ACP) 22. The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat (Policy EN -23, ACP). 23. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape vegetation. (Policy EN -24, ACP) 24. The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, reducing the need for man- made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in all new development and will also pursue opportunities to enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple benefits can be achieved. (Policy EN -27, ACP) 25. The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of biological and hydrological functions and values to the community depending on the size, complexity and location of the individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and values should be considered when reviewing proposals which impact wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of protection afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing function and values. The City shall continue to promote policies and practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and aquatic habitat. (Policy EN -28, ACP) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 11 26. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should bd no net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity. (Policy EN -29, ACP) 27. Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide significant plant and animal habitat opportunities are recognized by the City as the most important wetland systems, and shall receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated from major hydrological systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate mitigation. (Policy EN -30, ACP) 28. The City shall seek to protect human health and safety and to minimize damage to the property of area inhabitants by minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundation. (Policy EN -57, ACP) 29. Flood prone properties outside of the floodway may be developable provided that such development can meet the standards set forth in the Federal flood insurance program. (Policy EN -58, ACP) 30. Site plan review shall be required under SEPA for any significant (e.g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the flood plain. Appropriate mitigating measures shall be required whenever needed to reduce potential hazards. (Policy EN -60, ACP) 31. The City shall enact ordinances and review development proposals in a manner which restricts and controls the discharge of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak discharge rate after development shall not exceed the peak discharge rate before development. (Policy EN -62, ACP) 32. The City's development standards should require control and management of storm waters in a manner which minimizes impacts from flooding. (Policy EN -63, ACP) 33. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. As part of this review process, flood engineering and impact studies may be required. Within FEMA designated 100 year floodplains and other designated frequently flooded areas, such mitigation may include flood engineering studies, the provision of compensatory flood storage, floodproofing of structures, elevating of structures, and downstream or upstream improvements. (Policy EN -64, ACP) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 12 34. Developers in floodprone areas shall provide geotechnical information which identifies seasonal high groundwater elevations for a basis to design stormwater facilities in conformance with City design criteria. (Policy EN -67, ACP) 35. The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants that may enter nearby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby promoting conservation). The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development plans through strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following: • Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes and in public facilities. • Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how native plants can be used in private development proposals. • Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the benefits of native plants. (Policy EN -33, ACP) 36. Development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plant materials that complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable to the climatic hydrological characteristics of the region. Regulations should provide specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use. (Policy EN -33A, ACP) 37. The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. (Policy EN -34, ACP) 38. The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in landscaping for both public and private projects. (Policy EN -35, ACP) 39. The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas having a unique combination of open space values, including: separation or buffering between incompatible land uses; visual delineation of the City or a distinct area or neighborhood of the City; unusually productive wildlife habitat; floodwater or storm water storage; storm water purification; recreational value; historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and educational value. (Policy PR -7, ACP) 40. The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas that provide essential habitat for any rare, threatened or endangered plant or animals species. (Policy PR -9, ACP) 41. The City shall encourage development which maintains and improves the existing aesthetic character of the community. (Policy UD -1, ACP) 42. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of a site, preclude the need for security fencing, and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground storage and conveyance facilities should address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function. The facilities should be located within rear or side DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 13 yard areas and the design should preclude the need for security fencing whenever feasible. (Policy UD -6, ACP) 43. The visual impact of large new developments should be a priority consideration in their review and approval. (Policy UD -9, ACP) 44. All new development shall be required to underground on-site utility distribution service and telecommunication lines. (Policy UD -12, ACP) 45. The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants to excessive levels of light and glare. Performance measures for light and glare exposure to surrounding development should be adopted and enforced. (Policy EN -43, ACP) 46. The City shall encourage development, which maintains or improves the existing aesthetic character of the community (Policy UD -1, ACP). 47. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of a site, preclude the need for security fencing, and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground storage and conveyance facilities should address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function. The facilities should be located within rear or side yard areas and the design should preclude the need for security fencing whenever feasible. (Policy UD -6, ACP) 48. The visual impact of large new developments should be a priority consideration in their review and approval (Policy UD -9, ACP). 49. All new development shall be required to underground on-site utility distribution, service and telecommunication lines (Policy UD -12, ACP). 50. The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of significant archaeological resources and historic sites. (Policy HPA, ACP) 51. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on historical resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy HP -3, ACP) 52. Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the development when the proposed new streets serve the development. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction where improvements serve more than adjacent developments. The City will encourage the use of LIDs, where appropriate and financially feasible, and to facilitate their development. The City will consider developing a traffic impact fee system (Policy TR -23, ACP). DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 14 53. The City shall consider both the transit impacts and the opportunities presented by major development proposals when reviewing development under the State Environmental Policy Act. (Policy TR -30, ACP) 54. The City shall explore opportunities to promote alternatives to single occuparicy vehicle travel, including carpooling and vanpooling, walking, biking, and other non -motorized modes. (Policy TR -32, ACP) 55. New developments shall incorporate non -motorized facilities that meet City standards, provide connectivity to adjacent communities, public facilities, and major shopping centers, and that are consistent with the Non motorized Plan and the Land Use Plan (Policy TR -35, ACP). 56. Encourage pedestrian -oriented design features in all development. (Policy TR -37, ACP) 57. The City shall encourage consideration of the needs of pedestrians in all public and private development. (Policy TR -52, ACP) 58. The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements. (Policy CF -38, ACP) 59. The City shall require that storm drainage improvements needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneous with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Drainage Plan and Comprehensive Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City should continue to use direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the financing of off-site improvements required to serve the development. (Policy CF -39, ACP) 60. Individual development projects shall provide the following minimal improvements in accordance with established City standards: a. Full standard streets and sidewalks in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Adequate off street parking for employees and patrons. c. Landscaping. d. Storm drainage. e. Water. f. Sanitary sewers. g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. (Policy LU - 106, ACP) 61. An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 15 accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plana series of collector -arterials and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community. Ample alternatives should also exist to accommodate non -motorized transportation on collector -arterials and arterials, on local roads within and between subdivisions, and on non -motorized pathways. A.. Definitions 1.Dead end street: Street that accesses the roadway system only at one end. Dead end streets are permanent conditions and should end in a cul-de-sac where appropriate. 2.Stub end street: Dead end street that is planned to be extended and connected to future streets in an adjacent development. Depending on its length, it may or may not require a temporary cul-de-sac. B. Access in new development: 1.The internal local residential street network for a subdivision should be designed to discourage regional through traffic and non-residential traffic from penetrating the subdivision or adjacent subdivisions. Local residential streets shall not exceed 1,300 feet in length between intersections and shall not serve more than 75 dwelling units. 2.Where possible, streets shall be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future development. All stub end streets shall be properly protected by traffic barriers in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3.Dead end streets shall not be more than 600 feet in length. Dead end streets ending in permanent cul-de-sacs shall serve a maximum of 25 dwelling units. When applicable, non -motorized paths shall be provided at the end of the street to shorten walking distances to an adjacent arterial or public facilities including, but not limited to, schools or parks. 4.Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the number of local street accesses to arterials and collector -arterials. Residential developments with greater than 75 dwelling units, including single family developments, multi -family developments or any combination thereof, shall have a minimum of two accesses to either a collector -arterial or an arterial. Residential developments with less than 75 dwelling units, including single family developments, multi -family developments or any combination thereof, may limit general access to one access to a collector -arterial or arterial. Developments with between 25 and 75 dwelling units shall also provide a second access route to a collector -arterial or an arterial for emergency vehicle access. C. Access to existing areas: To promote efficient connectivity between areas of the community, existing stub end streets shall be linked to other streets in new development whenever the opportunity arises. D. Acceptable traffic volumes: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 16 Projected trip generation shall be calculated based on the current edition of the tnstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Stub end streets shall not be linked to a new street if the connection is likely to result in traffic volumes which will exceed acceptable volumes for the road's classification. These volumes are defined by the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Transportation Plan (chart titled Functional Classification System, Characteristics of the Roadway Function). Local residential stub end streets shall not be extended if the resulting roadway segment will generate more than 750 trips per day based on the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Consideration may also be given to the character and nature of the neighborhoods proposed to be connected. E. Community Notification: Property owners and tenants adjacent to stub end streets shall be adequately informed of the stub end street functional classification and potential traffic volumes. Methods for such notification should include plat covenants, public roadway signs or other measures. (Policy TR -13, ACP) 62.The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or use. Demand for any City service compared to level of support for such service will also be given substantial consideration when reviewing development proposals (Policy CF -7). 63. No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate share of related system needs (CF -13)- 64. Provisions shall be made wherever appropriate in any project for looping all dead-end or temporarily dead-end mains. Construction plans must be approved by the appropriate water authority prior to the commencement of construction. Where it is not feasible at the time of approval and installation to loop a water system, in the opinion of the fire department, the loop requirement may be relaxed if the intent of the code is met and a stub is provided on the main for future expansion. (ACC 13.16.090 Dead-end mains prohibited Ord. 3064 § 1, 1976.) 65.The growth impacts of major private or public development which place significant service demands on community facilities, amenities and services, and impacts on the City's general quality of life shall be carefully studied under the provisions of SEPA prior to development approval. Siting of any major development (including public facilities such as, but not limited to, solid waste processing facilities and landfills) shall be carefully and thoroughly evaluated through provisions of SEPA prior to project approval, conditional approval, or denial. Appropriate mitigating measures to ensure conformance with this Plan shall be required. (Policy GP -6, ACP) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 17 CONDITIONS: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under R.C.W. 43.21C.030(2)(c), only if the following conditions are met. This decision is made after a review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Prior to the issuance of clearing, grading permits subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, the applicant shall furnish the City of Auburn City Engineer and appropriate City of Kent staff person with a proposed haul route and schedule for hauling soil material to and/or from the site for review and approval by both entities. If, in the opinion of the City representatives, such hauling will adversely impact the street network, hauling hours may be coordinated and limited to appropriate off-peak hours or alternative routes. The haul route plan shall also include a traffic control plan for approval by the City of Kent and the City of Auburn. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report "Geotechnical Report River Sand 1st Street NE and South 277th Street", Terra Associates Inc., February 4, 2004, and/or other subsequent site specific soils or geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into clearing, grading and other appropriate construction plans subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, as determined by the City Engineer. Special consideration shall be given to the recommendations for storm pond design identified in the geotechnical report. 3. The applicant's grading plans subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004 shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities with particular attention to developing a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed on site and address grading and related activities during wet weather periods. 4. A licensed geotechnical engineer shall monitor on-site rough/preliminary plat grading activities subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004 to ensure that the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical report and any additional conditions or requirements that are implemented. Based on recommendations of the geotechnical report, the geotechnical engineer should review final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the project design. The geotechnical services to be provided during construction are to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and geotechnical report recommendations. 5. Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geotechnical engineer re -analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are necessary. If warranted, a revised geotechnical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by the City Engineer. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 18 6, Prior to the placement of fill in addition to that authorized by permit No. GRA04-0025 issued -August 27, 2004, the City Engineer shall approve the source of the imported fill material for all structural fill and the City Engineer shall approve the source of the imported fill material for all other fill activities. 7. Compaction monitoring and testing shall be required for all fill areas, both structural and non-structural for City review. Compaction reports for structural fill shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior to acceptance. 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, a wetland hydroperiod analysis shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The analysis shall include a pre -developed analysis of the existing hydrologic volume tributary to the wetlands, and post -developed volumes from tributary areas directed to the wetlands. A wetland biologist shall be consulted to verify the appropriate hydrologic support necessary to maintain existing wetland's function and value. If augmentation is warranted to reduce or avoid impacts, rooftop drainage or other acceptable means can be directed to the wetlands at a volume approximating existing conditions to maintain hydrologic support of the wetlands. A monitoring plan/program shall also be developed for City review and approval. The Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2001) will provide guidance for performing the wetland hydroperiod analysis, information on maximum acceptable hydroperiod alterations, recommendation for reducing development impacts on wetland hydroperiod and water quality, recommendation for flow control and treatment for stormwater discharges to wetlands and recommendation for post development wetland monitoring. 9. Prior to approval of the grading permit subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, (or approval of half -street improvements to S 277'" Street unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the half -street improvements will not result in wetland filling) a final wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and Public Works Directors. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the subsequent grading permits or other construction permits. If applicable, the plan shall identify the amount of wetland impact associated with half -street improvements to S 277M Street and any associated wetland mitigation. The plan shall include the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion and sedimentation control features needed, planting plans specifying species, quantities, locations size, spacing, and density, source of plant materials, propagules and seeds, water and nutrient requirements for plants and water level maintenance practices. Mitigation for reduction in wetland functions from the disturbance and increased proximity of development shall consist of enhancement of wetland buffers. Wetland mitigation shall be provided in general accordance with recommendations identified in the report: "Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of the River Sand Property", J.S. Jones and Associates Inc., January 26, 2005, as modified by DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 19 the Final Staff Evaluation and MDNS. Major elements of the mitigation plan shall include: a. A final wetland mitigation plan, report and monitoring program, maintenance plan and contingency plan shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the recommendations of the delineation and conceptual mitigation reports, and as modified by the MDNS conditions and Final Staff Evaluation. The plans and supporting hydrologic analysis shall establish goals and objectives to monitor and measure the success of the wetland mitigation project. b. The wetland buffers shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet in width for Wetland 1 and an average of twenty-five (25) feet in width for Wetland 2 and incorporate the following characteristics: areas of flattened slopes (ranging from 4:1 to 6:1 in gradient) adjacent to the wetland edge to provide habitat transition areas; and dense plantings of vegetation native to the northwest that will provide shade and cover for local wildlife. A maintenance plan for the buffer shall also be prepared and submitted concurrently for review and approval. c. The wetland enhancement areas shall be designed to include elements of water saturation (hydrology) and be vegetated with obligate, facultative wetland plants or facultative (hydrophytic) vegetation native to the Pacific Northwest. Trees and other vegetation designed to provide food and cover for local wildlife shall be included. d. The proponent shall as directed, be required to provide the Auburn Building Official with services of an approved biologist with expertise in wetland buffer enhancement, for purposes of inspecting wetland work activities on the City's behalf for conformance with approved plans and specifications. In addition, the biologist shall be retained for a minimum of five years following completion of all wetlands work to monitor the progress of the enhanced wetlands, and to inspect the replacement of unsuccessful plant and habitat materials in accordance with the approved plans. A minimum of biannual monitoring and inspection and annual reports, indicating achievement of goals and objectives, and project status, shall be filed with the Planning Department throughout the five-year monitoring program, with a final report provided at the end of the monitoring program. e. Filling and grading of the site and wetlands mitigation work may occur concurrently. The mitigation construction shall be complete prior to issuance of final plat. f. An appropriate security equivalent to 125 percent of the cost of all wetlands mitigation work shall be submitted to the Auburn Building Official prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall be kept active for a minimum of five years following completion of all wetlands construction in an amount commensurate with the monitoring program and contingency plan. At the end of the monitoring program, the City shall release the security if remedial action is not required. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 20 g. Following completion and acceptance of all wetlands mitigation work, no clearing, .grading or building construction shall occur within the wetlands mitigation area, except as may be authorized by the City of Auburn for: protection of public health, safety and welfare; maintenance purposes, passive recreation improvements or contingency mitigation work. h. The surveyed wetland area shall be clearly indicated on all construction plans approved by the City, indicating the purpose and any limitations on the use of the area. The boundary of the wetland shall be based on the wetland boundary confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) by letter dated May 22, 2003 (reference: File No. 2002-4-00613) and its buffer shall be staked in 25 -foot intervals. This staked line shall continuously remain in place and serve as clearing and construction limits throughout the project for all construction activities adjacent to the wetlands area, or as required by the City. 10. The purpose and intent of the following condition is to discourage the uncontrolled intrusion of humans into the mitigation area, provide a passive recreation opportunity and to ensure long term protection. The following information and improvements shall be provided: a. Interpretative signs shall be installed and maintained at 150 -foot intervals along the boundary of the wetland buffers. The signs shall be constructed of a permanent and durable material and indicate the wetland restrictions related to the use of the area. The sign locations, construction detail and text shall be specified in the final mitigation plan described in Condition above. b. The wetlands and wetland buffer shall be encumbered by a conservation easement granted to the City of Auburn. The easement shall state that any uses within the easement area shall be as approved by the Planning Director. The uses shall be consistent with the purpose of the wetland and stream buffer and be a general benefit to the public. Evidence that the easement has been executed and recorded is required prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the site. 11. Unless a FEMA map amendment is approved to eliminate on-site floodplain, prior to issuance of a grading permit authorizing fill placement in the floodplain, the applicant shall prepare and provide for review and approval a Flood Compensation Plan. The plan shall demonstrate how concurrently with she filling, compensatory flood storage will be provided for the project. The flood storage shall be provided incrementally as the flood stage rises from the seasonal low average, up to and including the 100 -year flood elevation. The compensatory storage shall be provided at a ratio of 1 to 1 (displacement to replacement). The flood storage must designed based on seasonal groundwater elevations with appropriate supporting analysis. 12. Unless a FEMA map amendment is approved to eliminate on-site floodplain, the area of the compensatory flood storage and associated access shall be encumbered by a drainage easement granted to the City of Auburn. The easement shall state that any uses within this area shall be as approved by the Planning and Public Works Directors. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 21 The easement language shall be prepared by the proponent and approved by the City and shall convey maintenance and inspection access to the City. Evidence that the easement has been executed and recorded is required to be shown on the final plat. 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit that is subsequent to permit numbeCGRA04- 0025 issued August 27, 2004 that includes excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation, the applicant shall prepare a historic/cultural resources monitoring plan as recommended by the report: "Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sands PUD, King County, Washington", Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004. The monitoring plan shall establish a protocol for the inadvertent discovery of human remains. The monitoring plan shall also detail what cultural materials may be expected on-site, qualifications of the on-site monitor, the authority of the on—site monitor to halt excavation/construction activities, a protocol for assigning significance to identified materials and safety requirements for the monitor's activities. A copy of that report shall be provided to OAHP, the City and the Muckleshoot Tribe upon its completion. The applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Auburn that the monitoring report recommendations have been addressed prior to commencement of any permitted excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation. Also, in accordance with the report's recommendations, an on-site monitor shall be present during excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation. 14. At the time of final plat approval, this development can meet Comprehensive Plan Policy TR 13 by providing a permanent boulevard -type road approach to S 277"' Street from the plat as approved by the City Engineer. The boulevard shall have a divided roadway with central landscape median. This access shall include a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the boulevard approach and S 277u' Street. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the equivalent of the 76th single family unit within the plat, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second permanent access route consisting of the construction of a 24 -foot wide paved roadway with adequate shoulder and storm drainage provisions along the east west alignment of a new 49th/51st NE between the proposed boulevard and the new 1" Street NE alignment and the new "I" Street NE between 49th Street NE and S 277"' Street,�plus a span wire traffic signal at the intersection of the new "I" Street NE and S 277 Street. When the second permanent access route is constructed, the intersection of the Boulevard _ approach and S 277' Street shall have its temporary traffic signal removed and permanent channelization shall be installed on S 277"' Street at the intersection to prevent left turns into and out of the plat. The applicant shall pay to the City $495,000, which in addition to the development's and normal traffic impact fees, provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent access route improvements and related improvements. In the event the City's traffic impact fees are increased prior to payment of the $495,000, this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. 15. Notice of the future second permanent access route and the future intersection modifications (The future removal of the temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S 277"' Street and the installation of permanent channelization installed on S 277'" Street to prevent left turns into and out of the plat, described in DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0037 (Continued) Page 22 condition number 14, above) shall be recorded on the face of the plat and on each individual property title within the plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future traffic improvements will be provided as directed by the City. 16. At the time of plat construction secondary emergency access shall also be provided to the plat from S 2770' Street by means of the establishment of emergency accesses a minimum of 20 feet in width from S 277th Street. These traffic accesses shall prohibit general traffic use through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. 17. Prior to any Final Plat approval, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a 12 -inch off-site waterline for completion of the looping of waterlines to meet the Water Comprehensive Plan Level of Service criteria. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements would consist of approximately 1,200 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along the proposed extension of In Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49th Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along an east west alignment of a new 49th/51 st NE between the proposed new "I" Street NE alignment and the River Sands Development west property line. The applicant shall pay to the City $82,000, which combined with the development's normal System Development Charges, provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent water system improvements. In the event the City's Water System Development charges are increased prior to payment of the $82,000. this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 21 days of issuance of a final determination. Copies of the final determination, specifying the appeals deadline, can be requested or obtained from the Department of Planning and Community Development. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Paul Krauss, AICP POSITION/TITLE: Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washin ton 98001 (253) 931 90 ,/ DATE ISSUED: June 2.2005 SIGNATURE Any person aggrieved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 21 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above determination must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on June 23. 2006 with required fee. FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SEP04-0037 Date: February 8, 2005 Project Name: River Sand Planned Unit Development Applicant: Rob Pursuer Centex Homes 11241 Slater Avenue NE, Suite 100 Kirkland WA 98033 425-216-3400 Location: Generally, south of South 277t" Street and west of the Green River Legal Description: Generally, a portion of the George E. King Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Section 31, Township 21 Range 5 East, W.M. A full legal description is attached to the applicant's environmental checklist application and provided on the site plan. S -T -R: 31-21-05 Principal Parcel Number: 000420-0023 (approximately 41 -acres) Related Parcel Number: NA Proposal: Request for a rezoning from R4, Multiple Family Residential and R-3, Two -Family Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation, initial short platting into two lots and the subsequent preliminary plat approval of a subdivision into approximately 172 single family lots, one multiple family lot with approximately 115 dwelling units and seventeen tracts and binding site plan approval of the multiple family development, all under the provisions of the PUD. The proposal includes the site preparation, construction and dedication of new public streets within and adjacent to the plat, the construction of privately -owned recreational spaces, the installation of on- site landscaping, utilities and the dedication of land to be used for a public park. The project includes approval of deviations for street standards, variances from single-family setbacks and RV parking and a modification to plat standards related to park land dedication. Existing Zoning: R-4 Multiple Family Residential and R-3, Two -Family Residential Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential/Moderate Density Residential A. Background: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2), the City of Auburn is required to send any DNS which may result from this environmental review, along with the checklist, to the DOE, the US Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies with jurisdiction, affected tribes, and interested parties. Therefore, the City will not act on this proposal for fifteen days after the DNS issuance. 6. Phasing: Initially, the project site is proposed to be short platted into two lots to facilitate purchase of property in phases. Subsequently, the proposal is a formal subdivision that may require two final plat phases. During the preliminary plat, 172 single family lots, one multiple family lot containing 115 dwelling units and seventeen tracts will be proposed, with construction of the permanent storm drainage facility and a interim signalized access to S. 277"` Street. Under a two-phase scenario, the first final plat phase Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 3 Letter from Gail Terzi to Jeffrey Jones, May 22, 2003 re: verification of wetland delineation boundaries. Letter Request for Determination on Ditches on River Sand LLC, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc. Dated February 19, 2004 Joint Anuatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to the Corps of Engineers, DBM Engineers, dated October 2, 2003 revised June 23, 2004, seeking relocation of the north -south ditch to the west and along the west property line. River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Plan, DBM Engineers Inc. March 22, 2005 Storm Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, March 31, 2004, Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, September 28, 2004. River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet S131.1 – SD1.5, Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc., April 14, 2004 River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Map, DBM Engineers, March 22, 2005 Modification to Plat Standards for Required Park Area, DBM Consulting Engineers, November 22, 2004. Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD, King County, Washington, Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004. Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest, April 12, 2004. The report was revised June 24, 2004 and supplemented on September 27, 2004. dated December 15, 2004 B. Environmental Elements: 1. Earth: The 1973 USDA Soil Conservation Service's "Soil Survey for the King County Area, Washington", classifies the site's soils as a combination of Oridia silt loam (Os) and Briscot silt loam (Br). The southwestern portion of the site is identified as Oridia silt loam (Os) while the northeastern portion of the site is identified as Briscot silt loam (Br). Oridia silt loam (Os) is a gently undulating, somewhat poorly drained soil, formed in alluvium in river valleys. This soil generally has slopes of less than 2 percent. Oridia silt loam possesses the following characteristics: moderate to moderately slow permeability in the subsoil; a seasonal water table at depth of 1 to 2 feet; high available water capacity; slow runoff; slight erosion hazard; and moderate flood hazard. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 5 Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows: The City shall seek to ensure that land not developed or otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. [Policy EN -66, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)] The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the water entering. This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP) The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy EN -68, ACP) 2. Air: Short-term impacts on air quality could occur during site preparation and paving operations. Construction activity, including the hauling necessary for the importation of fill material will contribute to short-term increases in local suspended particulate levels. These impacts will be controlled through watering the site as necessary. Street cleaning in accordance with the City's Design and Construction Standards manual will also lessen these impacts. Minimizing the increased levels of suspended particulates is a priority of the City. The City shall consider measures that will keep the levels of on-site and off-site dust emissions at acceptable levels. Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows: The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the area. (Policy EN -18, ACP) The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy EN - 22, ACP) 3. Water: A. Surface: The presence of wetlands on the property was investigated in the Report: Wetland Assessment of the Bristol Property S 277"' Street and West of the Green River, Auburn WA, J.S. Jones Associates Inc., January 31, 2002, revised July 30, 2002. The report concluded that the site contained two wetland areas: a wetland connected to the ditch south of S 277"' Street in the northwest corner and a portion of a larger off-site wetland near the southwest corner. The report noted three wetland ditches: one east -west along the south side of 277' street, a north —south ditch within the western one-third of the site and a ditch along the south side of the pedestrian trail leading to the Green River. The report was supplemented by the report: Hydrology Precipitation Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 7 While the City conceptually agrees with the suggestions and recommendation of the conceptual wetland mitigation plan, the following exceptions are noted: 1) In addition to the vegetative performance standards proposed, hydrologic performance standards are necessary to ensure adequate hydrology to wetlands areas and reported. 2) Permanent, critical areas fencing shall be provided at the buffer boundary to protect wetland construction and enhancement areas. Critical factors in the enhancement of wetland environments include both the timing and subsequent monitoring of activities to ensure satisfactory results. To accomplish this task, the conceptual mitigation plan recommends five-year monitoring of the mitigation performance be conducted. Prior to authorization of the proposed action, a final wetland mitigation plan and details shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. In addition, proper financial assurances and commitments will be provided to the City, which guarantees the success and survival of the wetland mitigation areas. The City should also consider a requirement for provisions of a biological consultant to assist the City in inspection and monitoring of the project in accordance with the recommendation of the wetland report. A portion of the eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Green River. King County property intervenes along the remaining portion of the eastern property boundary. There are on-site areas along the eastern boundary within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark that therefore are within areas subject to the City's Shoreline Management Program. According to the plat and environmental checklist application, this area of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to remain undisturbed with this project and dedicated to the City for future recreational use. An area of FEMA floodway is located within the southeast comer of the site and extends to approximately 49 -feet in vertical elevation. The elevation is based upon the Army Corps of Engineers maximum flow release (12,000 cfs) from the Howard Hanson Dam, located upstream on the Green River. No work will be performed east of the levee or adjacent to the River. The 100 -year floodplain is coincident with the floodway in the vicinity due to the levee. A small area of 100 -year floodplain also occurs within the western portion of the site and it's based on actual field topography (The location of the floodplain is shown on the River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1, DBM Engineers Inc., March 22, 2005). This floodplain is connected to the Green River to the north of the site. The project would fill the on-site area of floodplain and displace approximately 9,000 cubic feet of storage. The project would either provide 100% compensatory storage on-site through excavation of areas southwest of Wetland 1 or through construction of compensatory storage on the Port of Seattle property to the south by others. Alternatively, a FEMA floodplain map amendment is being pursued by others, which if approved would remove any 100 -year floodplain from the site. B. Groundwater: Concur with checklist C. Runoff/Stormwater: The proposed construction will result in approximately 50% of the site being covered with impervious surfaces. The removal of vegetation and the fill, grading and paving operations will increase the site's storm water runoff. As a result, the project will alter the existing surface water runoff characteristics and reduce the water quality of the surface runoff. The site's paved areas have the potential to contribute pollutants to the ground and surface as pollutants are washed from impervious surfaces into the storm drainage system. Pollutants that Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 9 surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP) The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. (Policy EN -13, ACP) The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality as dictated by the City's Developer Design Manual or other designated standard until is completed. In all new development, biofiltration or other approved treatment measures shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and groundwater). (Policy EN -12, ACP) The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality as dictated by the City's Design and Construction Standards and the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. In all new development, approved water quality treatment measures that are applicable and represent the best available science or technology shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and groundwater.) (Policy EN -14, ACP) The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. (Policy EN -17, ACP) The City shall enact ordinances and review development proposals in a manner, which restricts and controls the discharge of storm water for new development. At a minimum, the peak discharge rate after development shall not exceed the peak discharge rate before development. (Policy EN -55, 4. Plants: The subject parcel is predominately covered with pasture grasses with a few scattered trees. The location of trees meeting the City's criteria for significant trees per ACC 18.50.030(E) is identified in the Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, received September 28, 2004. This exhibit identifies five alder trees, which have become established on-site and under the current proposal all existing vegetation, including the identified trees except vegetation within wetlands and portions of wetland buffer areas and within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction. The required new streets will be designed to current standards, which require the installation of street trees approximately every 30 -feet. Construction in accordance with City standards will provide over 200 new street trees within the plat. In addition, the proponent will be providing landscape treatments within both the private and public park space, which will include the installation of new trees. A conceptual landscape design (without street tree plantings) is illustrated on the River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet SD1.1 — SD1.5, Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc., April 14, 2004. The proposed installation of trees will mitigate for the loss of vegetation associated with the site preparation activities. To ensure that adequate provisions for street tree plantings are achieved, the Planning Director shall review and approve the landscape plan, to include street trees. Approval of a landscape Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 11 The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat (Policy EN -23, ACP). The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape vegetation (Policy EN -24, ACP). The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development plans (Policy EN -31, ACP). The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development (Policy EN -32, ACP). The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants landscaping for both public and private projects (Policy EN -33, ACP). 6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: Within recent years the site has been cultivated for agricultural use and is currently grassland. A report was prepared to evaluate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous materials. The report: "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River Sand Estates Southeast Corner of the Northeast I Street and South 277", Street, The Riley Group, August 8, 2003, indicates no presence of any hazardous materials was found. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: The proposal is to develop a 172 -lot single-family subdivision and 115 multiple -family dwelling units under the City's PUD standards. The subject parcel is undeveloped, roughly rectangular in shape, approximately 989 feet north to south and 1,740 foot east to west. The northern approximately half of the site is zoned R-4, Multiple Family Residential, while the southern part of the site is zoned R-3, Duplex Residential. The proposed PUD process requires a rezone under the parameters defined by Auburn City Code (ACC)18.69. The existing comprehensive plan designation splits, with a High -Density Residential designation coinciding with the R-4 zoning and a Moderate Density Residential designation corresponding to the R-3 zoned land. The intent of the PUD is to allow greater design flexibility to the applicant, while providing a higher quality, more environmentally sensitive development than might otherwise be achieved by a conventional development or subdivision. Under the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, the applicant may provide up to 18 units per acre in the portion of the site designated for high density residential development and 12 units per acre in the remaining portion, designated as moderate Density residential. The proposal generally provides 7 units per acre throughout the site. Under the PUD requirements, 20 percent of the gross "buildable area" must be provided as publicly available "Open Space". Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 13 level of design treatment is implemented. Consistency of the elevations and treatments to the requirements of the PUD design criteria will be evaluated as part of the approval process. The City's Design and Construction Standards manual requires that on-site utility lines will be placed underground. The applicant's at -grade storm water facilities are proposed adjacent to the street in the northwest comer of the site. To ensure that the combination of the landscaping amenities and the projects at ground storm drainage facilities do not result in adverse functional or visual impacts, the design of the drainage and landscaping shall be coordinated. High quality design is required to the at -grade stormwater facilities should be designed to preclude the need for fencing. Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows: The City shall encourage development, which maintains and improves the existing aesthetic character of the community. (Policy UD -1, ACP) Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of the site, preclude the need for security fencing and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground storage and conveyance facilities should address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes safety, maintenance needs, and function. The facilities should be located within the rear or side yards areas and the design should preclude the need for security fencing when ever feasible. (Policy UD -6, ACP) The visual impacts of large new developments should be a priority consideration in their review and approval. (Policy UD -9, ACP) All new development shall be required to underground on-site utility distribution, service and telecommunication lines (Policy UD -12, ACP). 11. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: Residential subdivisions greater than 50 -lots are required to dedicate land suitable for parks. The projected rate of park dedication is 6.03 -acres for every 1,000 persons. Under the current proposal, it is anticipated that the average occupancy of each structure shall be 2.8 persons; therefore, 4.846 -acres of land is required for park dedication [(287 d.u. x 2.8 persons per structure = 803.6 personsy(1,000 persons x 6.03 acres) = 4.846 acres]. The proposed linear park, Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F and G (approximately 1.31. acres) as well as the proposed active park land, Tracts O and P (approximately 2.78 acres) are proposed to be dedicated to the City Parks and Recreation Department. According to the latest site plan, River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Map, DBM Engineers, March 22, 2005 these tracts total approximately 4.09 acres. The Tracts may change prior to final plat approval. Therefore, under the current proposal, the applicant is proposing to provide approximately 84% of the required park land dedication to meet the standards of the City's Parks and Recreation Department. To compensate the City for the shortfall in dedication, the applicant proposes to provide a combination of park improvements or in -lieu fees. Since the park dedication is a requirement of ACC 17.12.260 a plat modification is required to be processed and approved to Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 15 The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas that provide essential habitat for any rare, threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species (Policy PR -9, ACP). The City shall seek to acquire open space lands, which provide significant environmental or social value. Such open space shall be managed to conserve and improve the natural, visual, historic and cultural resources associated with the land (Policy PR -10, ACP). All areas of Regulatory Floodway within the City shall be retained as undeveloped open space. However, this shall not preclude the relocation of the Mill Creek floodway as long as any such relocation is consistent with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and with the design criteria of the "Proposal for Mill Creek Corridor" study. The Mill Creek Corridor shall be a minimum of 140 feet in width. All development within the Mill Creek Corridor, including floodway relocation, should be consistent with the "Proposal for Mill Creek Corridor" study (Policy PRA 1, ACP). 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: The proponent has prepared a historic and cultural resources study: "Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD, King County, Washington," Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004. While the investigation conducted as part of the study did not discover any historically significant resources, it identifies that the site's potential to contain archaeological resources cannot be discounted. The study provides an overview of the site's and micro -regional history that includes previous cultural studies (archaeological and traditional cultural places), ethnography, and history. Based upon that research, the consultant determined that the site has a moderate to high probability for cultural resources. While the study's field reconnaissance did not identify any hunter -fisher - gatherer or historic Indian archaeological resources, a moderate to high probability exists. Based upon the high probability of resources in portions of the site, the study recommends development of a construction monitoring plan and future monitoring of ground disturbing activities. If any items of possible cultural or historic significance are encountered during construction activities, work must be halted and the contractor must contact the proponent, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Cultural Program and the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation immediately. Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows: The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of significant archaeological resources and historic sites. (Policy HP -1, ACP) The City shall consider the impacts of new development on historical resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy HP -3, ACP) The City recognizes that the region's history began before the arrival of settlers to the area and should accord the same levels of promotion and protection to Native American sites and artifacts as to those of the more recent past. (Policy HP -7, ACP) 14. Transportation: Short-term impacts on transportation would occur during the site preparation operations. Longer-term impacts to the transportation system will vary in level Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 17 and S 277"' Street. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the equivalent of the 76th single family unit within the plat, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second permanent access route consisting of the construction of a 24- foot wide paved roadway with adequate shoulder and storm drainage provisions along the east -west alignment of a new 49th/51st NE between the proposed boulevard and the new "t" Street alignment and the new "I" Street NE between 49th Street NE and S 277"' Street, plus a span wire traffic signal at the intersection of the new I Street NE and S 277"Street. When the second permanent access route is constructed, the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S 277'" Street shall have its temporary traffic signal removed and permanent channelization shall be installed on S 277" Street at the intersection to prevent left turns into and out of the plat. The applicant shall pay to the City $495,000, which in addition to the development's normal traffic impact fees provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent access route improvements and related improvements. In the event the City's traffic impact fees are increased prior to payment of the $495,000. this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. Notice of the future second permanent access route and the future intersection modifications (the future removal of the temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S 2770' Street and the installation of permanent channelization on S 277"' Street to prevent left turns into and out of the plat, described above) shall be recorded on the face of the plat and on each individual property title within the plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future traffic improvements must be provided as directed by the City. At the time of plat construction secondary emergency access shall also be provided to the plat from S 277th Street by means of the establishment of one or more emergency accesses a minimum of 20 feet in width. These secondary emergency accesses shall prohibit general traffic use through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. While initially the internal road lengths will exceed city polices related to the length for dead-end roads without providing for secondary access connection until the 49'"/515 Street NE extension is constructed, financially guaranteeing construction of a second access point at the 76th dwelling unit will minimize the impacts to a point of non -significance. The intemal street network of the plat will consist of two stacked loop roads with three north -south internal connections. The internal roads will be constructed to the City's "Local Residential" street standard except where deviations are determined appropriate and will be dedicated as public right- of-way. Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the internal streets to meet pedestrian goal of the PUD. The project wilt also include alley -loaded lots accessed by 18 -foot roadways within 20 -foot rights-of-way. Two access tracts meeting city standards will provide access to lots at the east and south portions of the plat. The right-of-way of S 277"' Street is currently within the City of Kent's jurisdiction. The design and construction of the roadway access, temporary signaiization and frontage improvements including drainage will require approvals from the City of Kent. The applicant has coordinated with the City of Kent and is addressed in the Letter from Gary Gill. City of Kent to Jeff Dixon City of Auburn regarding acceptability of temporary access, dated December 15, 2004 indicating general acceptability of the project's access concept. Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows: Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 19 2.a. Signalized Intersection LOS: The level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS "D", except for those intersections currently below LOS "D" per Figure 7.1a where their existing LOS as shown is the adopted standard. 2.b. Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The level of service standard for these intersections, measured as if it were signalized, shall be level of service "D". A traffic signal warrant analysis will be conducted, as necessary, to determine if a signal should be installed. 3. Roadway Link (Capacity) LOS: The arterial link (capacity) LOS standard for each arterial link is LOS "D", except for collector residential arterials. The link LOS standards for collector residential arterials is "C" (Policy TR -18, ACP). The City shall continue to require developers of new developments to construct transportation systems that serve their developments. The City shall also explore ways for new developments to encourage vanpooling, carpooling, public transit use, and other alternatives to SOV travel (Policy TR -21, ACP). Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the development when the development is served by the proposed new streets. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction where improvements serve more than adjacent developments. The City will encourage the use of LIDS, where appropriate and financially feasible, and to facilitate their development. The City will consider developing a traffic impact fee system (Policy TR -23, ACP). Improvements that upgrade existing streets are considered to benefit the abutting property, and such improvements should be funded by the abutting property owners. Some City participation may be appropriate to encourage the formation of LIDs in particular problem areas (Policy TR -24, ACP). Revenues for street improvements should primarily provide for the orderly development of the general traffic flow in compliance with the six-year street plan. The basic criterion for such funding should be the degree to which that project improves the general traffic flow and not the benefit that might accrue to properties. Use of revenues to encourage formation of LIDS should be of only secondary concern, and should be considered appropriate only when used to address particularly significant traffic problems. Where it is possible to establish a direct relationship between a needed improvement and a development, the development should be expected to contribute to its construction (Policy TR -25, ACP). City street standards shall generally provide for sidewalks on both sides of the street (Policy TR -44, ACP). An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collector -arterials and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community. Ample alternatives should also exist to accommodate non - motorized transportation on collector -arterials and arterials, on local roads within and between subdivisions, and on non -motorized pathways. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 21 than 750 trips per day based on the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Consideration may also be given to the character and nature of the neighborhoods proposed to be connected. E. Community Notification: Property owners and tenants adjacent to stub end streets shall be adequately informed of the stub end street functional classification and potential traffic volumes. Methods for such notification should include plat covenants, public roadway signs or other measures. (Policy TR -13, ACP). 15. Public Services: The proposed plat will require normal police and fire protection associated with residential uses. The increase in demand can be accommodated by the existing operations. Average emergency vehicle response times within the City vary depending upon the proximity to fire stations. At the project location, the response time is likely to be around 8 to 10 minutes. This would be one of the highest average response times in the entire City. In 2002 the City purchased a 1.59 -acre site at 30'" and I Street NE for a future fire station, which when developed is expected to improve response time to the northern portion of the City, including this site. The City also has a 1988 Mutual Aid agreement with Kent and adjacent service providers to aid in response time. The applicant will be installing fire hydrants in accordance with City Code The project site is located with the Kent School District. The City has adopted and will collect impact fees for the Kent School district in accordance with ACC 19.02.130. 16. Utilities: The proposal requires the extension of utilities to serve the project and new lots. Sanitary Sewer — An existing METRO sewer line exists within the S 277' Street right-of-way with a 12 -inch stub to the south side of the street. 8 -inch mains are proposed to be extended within the project's roadways to serve the lots. The project may necessitate the use of grinder pumps for a few of the single-family homes that cannot be served by gravity. As per the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 "Alternative Sewage Disposal Systems" states. "It is the City's policy to transport sewage by gravity as the most cost-effective method. Alternative pressure systems should be permitted only in those circumstances when a gravity system would be impractical, unreasonably expensive, environmentally destructive or otherwise infeasible. The City has adopted a packaged grinder pump system for use at specific locations where individual connections cannot be served by gravity. The units are installed one per connection." Grinder pumps must be limited to the extent possible. Water — Currently no water lines exist in the project vicinity. In order to provide water service to the project, the proponent will at a minimum construct a new 12 -inch pipeline along S 277" Street from Auburn Way N to a point along the north property boundary sufficient for construction of a looped water system in accordance with the improvements identified within the City's Comprehensive Water Plan (Improvement number DS -603-108,109). In order to meet city policies and standards for water system reliability and multiple directional flows, prior to any Final Plat approval, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second 12 -inch off-site waterline for completion of the looping of waterlines to meet the Water Comprehensive Plan Level of Service criteria. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements —T_ Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 23 e. Water. f. Sanitary sewers. g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. (Policy LU -106, ACP) C. Conclusion: Pursuant to growth and environmental policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The growth impacts of major private or public development which place significant service demands on community facilities, amenities and services, and impacts on the City's general quality of life shall be carefully studied under the provisions of SEPA prior to development approval. Siting of any major development (including public facilities such as, but not limited to, solid waste processing facilities and landfills) shall be carefully and thoroughly evaluated through provisions of SEPA prior to project approval, conditional approval, or denial. Appropriate mitigating measures to ensure conformance with this Plan shall be required. (Policy GP -6, ACP) Based on this analysis, the proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment if appropriate conditions are properly implemented pursuant to a Mitigated DNS. Conditions of the MDNS are based upon impacts clearly identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above 'FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST,' and supported by Plans and Regulations formally adopted for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or to the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non -significance of the project at that point in time. Prepared by: Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Applications of ) NOS. PUD 04-0001 PLT04-0006 Rob Purser, Centex Homes ) VAR04-0005 VAR04-0006 For Approval of a Rezone to PUD, ) CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS, Two Variances, And a Preliminary Plat. ) CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS As currently submitted, the Hearing Examiner finds there is not enough information to make a recommendation on the request for approval of a rezone to PUD and approval of a preliminary plat located in the 1200 to 1700 blocks of South 277`" Street in Auburn, Washington. For this reason, based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests be REMANDED to the Planning and Community Development Department to allow the Applicant to submit a the following information: 1. A plan to provide more definite information on a second general access for the proposed access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. The plan should be more certain than the plan presently submitted by the Applicant. 2. A traffic impact analysis that addresses the binding site plan (PUD Exhibit 11), and addresses the different access scenarios that could occur. 3. Current traffic level of service information to ensure the proposed project complies with Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. 4. A reconfiguration of dedicated park land such that Tracts A through G are not considered dedicated park land. If this information is submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner will re -hear those portions of the applications. If the Applicant is unable to submit the preceding information to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the record developed at the open public hearing and the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the preceding requests be DENIED. If and when the plat and rezone applications are approved, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the Application for a variance to eliminate the provision of screened recreational vehicle parking spaces as required for multiple family housing by ACC 18.52.020(A)(3) be APPROVED, with the attached conditions. If and when the plat and rezone applications are approved, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the Applications for a Variance to reduce certain yard setbacks for detached single-family dwelling units and a plat modification to dedicate less than the required amount of park land be DENIED, as they do not meet the specific criteria as outlined in ACC 17.18.010, 17.18.030, and 18.70.010(A). In the alternative, if the City Council approves the PUD rezone and other requested applications, the conditions listed should be adopted. SUMMARY OF RECORD Requests Rob Purser of Centex Homes (Applicant) requests approval of: 1. A variance for the reduction of certain yard setbacks required by the PUD zoning district for detached dwelling units on single-family lots; 2. A variance to eliminate the provision of screened recreational vehicle parking spaces as required for multiple -family housing by the Auburn City Code; 3. Preliminary plat approval for subdivision of the 40.9 acre property into 172 single-family lots, one multiple -family lot, and 19 tracts; 4. A rezone of the 40.9 acre property from R4 (Multiple Family Residential) and R3 (Duplex Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Single Family -Residential (RS) to Single -Family Residential (R2), and approve a binding site plan for 115 multiple - family dwelling units and 19 tracts. The subject property is located on the south side of the 1200-1700 block of South 277`h Street, approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped right-of-way of "I" Street NE. 1 Procedural Note Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.7013, the requests were consolidated into one hearing and have been consolidated into one decision by the Hearing Examiner. Hearine Date The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the requests on August 16, 2005. Testimony The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: 1. Jeff Dixon, City of Auburn Planner 2. Rob Purser, Applicant 3. David Halinen, Counsel for Applicant 4. Fred High, Kent School District ' The legal description of the subject property is the Northeast and Southeast Quarters of Section 31, Township 22 North, and Range 05 East Willamette Meridian. RV Exhibit 3, page J. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auhurn River Sand PUD Page 2 of 44 5. Tim Karloss, City of Auburn Stormwater 6. Steve King, Auburn Assistant City Attorney 7. Brian McDowell, DBM Consulting 8. Joseph Welch, City of Auburn Transportation Planner 9. Dana Mower, Property Owner, DBM Consulting Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted into the record: Recreational Vehicle Variance Exhibits ("RV Variance Exhibits") Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated July 12, 2005 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Completed Application Form Exhibit 4 Preliminary Plat Map Exhibit 5 Notice of Application Exhibit 6 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 9 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Yard Setback Variance Exhibits ("Yard Variance Exhibits") Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated July 12, 2005 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Completed Application Form Exhibit 4 Typical Lot Diagram Exhibit 5 River Sand PUD Preliminary Plat Map, DBM Engineers, dated June 28, 2005 Exhibit 6 Notice of Application Exhibit 7 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 9 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 10 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Preliminary Plat Exhibits ("Plat Exhibits") Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated August 11, 2005 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Completed Preliminary Plat Application Exhibit 4 River Sand PUD Preliminary Plat Map, DBM Engineers, dated June 28, 2005 Exhibit 5 Letter Request for Modification to Plat Standards for Required Park Area, DBM Consulting Engineers, July 12, 2005 Exhibit 6 Notice of Application Exhibit 7 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 9 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 10 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 11 2001 Aerial Site Photograph Exhibit 12 Environmental Checklist Application, revised January 26, 2005 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 3 of 44 Exhibit 13 Final Staff Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Application Exhibit 14 Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated June 2, 2005 Exhibit 15 May 23, 2005 comment letter from Mike Carpinito Exhibit 16 June 15, 2005 comment letter from King County METRO Waste Water Exhibit 17 City response to comments from Mike Carpinito Exhibit 18 Figure 3, Road Layout, Final EIS NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, City of Auburn, July 2004 Exhibit 19 Geotechnical Report River Sand 1St Street NE and South 277th Street, Terra Associates Inc., dated February 4, 2004 Exhibit 20 Wetland Assessment of the Bristol Property S. 277`h Street and West of the Green River, Auburn, WA, J.S. Jones Associates, Inc., dated January 31, 2002 and revised July 30, 2002 Exhibit 21 Hydrology Precipitation and Temperature Data for December 2002 to February 2003 of the Bristol Property, J.S. Jones Associates, Inc., dated February 27, 2003 Exhibit 22 Storm Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, dated March 31, 2004 Exhibit 23 Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, dated September 28, 2004 Exhibit 24 Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD, King County, Washington, Entrix, Inc., dated August 10, 2004 Exhibit 25 Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest, revised July 27, 2004 and supplemented September 7, 2004 Exhibit 26 Letter from Gary Gill, City of Kent, to Jeff Dixon, City of Auburn, regarding temporary access to S. 277th Street, dated December 15, 2004 Exhibit 27 Shoreline and Shoreline Setback Exhibit Exhibit 28 Conceptual Westland Mitigation Plan, J.S. Jones and Associates, dated January 26, 2005 Exhibit 29 Compensatory (flood) storage cross section exhibit Exhibit 30 Supplemental Downstream Storm Drainage Analysis for River Sands PUD, DBM Engineers, dated July 25, 2005 Exhibit 31 Fax from Kent School District explaining district's position on proposed project, dated September 6, 2005 Exhibit 32 Faxed letter from Kent School District refining district's position on proposed project, dated September 14, 2005. Rezone/Binding Site Plan Exhibits ("PUD Exhibits") Exhibit 1 Staff report dated July 14, 2005 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Completed PUD Application Form and Narrative Exhibit 4 Preliminary Plat Map, DBM Engineers, dated June 28, 2005 Exhibit 5 Notice of Application Exhibit 6 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 8 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 9 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 10 2001 Aerial Site Photograph Exhibit 11 River Sand PUD Binding Site Plan, DBM Engineers, dated July 5, 2005 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 4 of 44 Exhibit 12 River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet SD1.1 — SD1.5, Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc., dated July 12, 2005 Exhibit 13 Single -Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans, dated March 11, 2004 Exhibit 14 Muliple-Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans, dated March 11, 2004 Exhibit 15 Letter indicating type of lighting standards from Centex, dated January 21, 2005 Exhibit 16 Outdoor bench manufacturer's cut sheet, received January 25, 2005 Exhibit 17 Fence detail and location diagrams from Centex, received January 31, 2005 Exhibit 18 Example declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (recorded), and architectural guidelines for the Laurels, Centex Homes, received January 31, 2005 Exhibit 19 River Sand Project Submittals dated September 14, 2004 Exhibit 20 Exterior Paint Color Palette, Sherwin Williams, 2002 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requested approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be located in the 1200 to 1700 blocks of South 277th Street in Auburn, Washington. The proposed project would consist of 172 single-family and 115 multiple -family dwelling units, for a total of 287 housing units. PUD Exhibit 1, page 3; PUD Exhibit 3, page 5; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Purser, Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 2. The subject parcel was used as farmland in the past and is currently vacant. It has two zoning designations: the northern part of the subject property is currently zoned R4 (Multiple -Family Residential), and the southern portion is zoned R3 (Duplex Residential). The Comprehensive Plan Map designations are similarly divided on-site, with the northern portion designated High Density Residential and the southern portion designated Moderate Density Residential. The proposed project would place multi- family housing in the northern portion of the site and single-family housing in the southern portion of the site. To develop the PUD, the property must be rezoned to PUD. ACC 18.69.110; Plat Exhibit 1, page 3; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11. Surrounding land uses are agricultural to the north, a constructed wetland mitigation site owned by the Port of Seattle to the south, open space/parkland fronting the Green River to the east, and vacant land zoned R4 to the west. The property is fronted by South 277`h Street to the north and an unopened right-of-way "I" Street to the west. Plat Exhibit 1, pages 2, 4; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11. 4. ACC Section 18.69.060 determines the maximum number of units allowed in a PUD. The number of units is determined by subtracting non -buildable area then multiplying the remainder by the number of dwelling units allowed per acre by the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of this equation for the subject property could result in allowing 386 dwelling units in the high density portion of the property and 228 dwelling units in the moderate density portion of the property, for a total of 614 dwelling units. The Applicant Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 5 of 44 has proposed 287 dwelling units for the project. PUD Exhibit 1, page 3; ACC 18.69.060; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11. According to ACC Section 18.18.040, the lot size requirement of R4 zoning is a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, with minimum lot depths of 80 feet and minimum lot widths of 50 feet. As outlined in ACC Section 18.16.040, the lot size requirement for R3 zoning is a minimum of 5,000 square feet, with minimum lot depths of 80 feet, and lot widths of 60 feet. Residential comer lots must be at least five feet wider than required by the zoning ordinance. Lot size standards may be reduced for PUDs; in the present case the proposed moderate density minimum lot size would be 3,600 square feet, and the proposed high density minimum lot size would be 2,400 square feet. The reduction in lot sizes would result in a greater number of lots in the proposed PUD than would be allowed with the current R3 and R4 standards. Plat Exhibit 1, pages 3-4; ACC §§ 18.18.040, 18.16.040, 17.12.250(D); ACC 18.69.070(B) & (C); PUD Exhibit 3, page 8. 6. The Applicant has applied for a variance to reduce certain yard setbacks required by the PUD zoning district for the single-family detached dwelling units (Lots 1 through 172). The Applicant also seeks setback variances for alley -loaded and non -alley -loaded lots. The following is a table showing the Applicant's variance requests compared to the requirements of ACC Section 18.69.070: The stated purpose of the PUD zoning district is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. The PUD zoning district allows zero lot lines for attached and semi-detached units but not for single-family detached units. There are only two other PUDs in the City of Auburn and they did not Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 6 of 44 ACC 18.69.070 Applicant's Variance Requests Code Requirements Front Yard Setbacks: 15 feet from street to structure Alley -loaded lots 1-67 (have 20 feet from street to garage no garage in front): 10 feet from lot line to structure Non -alley loaded lots 68-172 (have garages in front): 15 feet from street to garage 10 feet from street to non - garage portion of structure Street Side Yard Setbacks: 10 feet from street to structure 5 feet from street to structure for all lots 1-172 Rear Yard Setbacks: 15 feet from lot line to Alley -loaded lots 1-67: structure 8 feet from alley to structure Non -alley loaded lots 68-172: 10 feet from lot line to structure The stated purpose of the PUD zoning district is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. The PUD zoning district allows zero lot lines for attached and semi-detached units but not for single-family detached units. There are only two other PUDs in the City of Auburn and they did not Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 6 of 44 seek a yard setback variance; this is one factor of whether or not a variance may be granted. Setback Variance Exhibit 1, pages 3-6; Setback Variance Exhibit 11; ACC 18.69.010; ACC 18.69.070. 7. The Applicant's proposed lots are larger than required by ACC 18.69.070 and range from 31230 square feet to 7.922 square feet. The Applicant contends that larger -than -required lots along with reduced setbacks would allow larger homes with more private area, and reduced setbacks would allow staggered home placement. Smaller yard setbacks would also allow the Applicant to develop more single-family homes; the Applicant stated in its variance application that the sale of these homes would financially justify the extension of water and sewer services and roads to serve the proposed project. The Applicant contends the approval of the variance would be consistent with the flexibility, high- quality design, and pedestrian -orientation purposes of the PUD zoning district and the zoning code. The City reviewed the Applicant's variance request and determined it would not likely be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood or properties. Setback Variance Exhibit 1, pages 4-7; Setback Variance Exhibit 11; ACC 18.69.010; ACC 18.69.070. 8. The Applicant also seeks a variance to eliminate the provision of screened recreational vehicle (RV) sparking spaces as required for multiple -family housing by ACC 18.52.020(A)(3). The parking standards of the zoning code require multiple -family developments of more than fifty dwelling units provide one screened RV parking space for every ten dwelling units. This would result in a requirement of 12 screened RV parking spaces. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan does not mention a policy regarding RV parking spaces, and there are no other written policies regarding RV parking. The Applicant contends that South 277th Street's elevation above the multi -family portion of the project would make it difficult to provide screened RV parking spaces, as there would be no way to screen them from an elevated road. To maximize the aesthetic appearance of the multiple -family development, the Applicant has proposed a considerable amount of landscaped open space. To maximize views of the open space, the Applicant plans to develop the multiple -family portion of the development with attached, enclosed garages for automobile parking. Only a limited number of guest parking stalls as uncovered, surface area parking are proposed. The Applicant stated that providing screened RV parking spaces is not consistent with the character and quality of the proposed development. The Applicant also contends that constructing RV parking spaces would increase impervious surfaces. RV Variance Exhibit], pages 2-6; ACC 18.52.020(A)(3). 9. The proposed project would be completed in three phases. According to ACC 18.69.110(C), each phase must be able to stand alone and be consistent with the Auburn City Code without reliance on subsequent phases. The first phase would include grading, initial engineering, and road work. The second phase would develop the western portion of the site, which would include 115 multiple -family housing units, and single-family lots 1 through 17, 52 though 97, and 129 through 133. The third phase would be the development of the eastern portion of the property, which would include single-family lots 18 though 34, 35 though 51, 98 through 128, and 134 though 172, as well as the bulk of the park land and open space. Construction would most likely begin in Spring 2006 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 7 of 44 with an estimated five-year build -out time. Temporary cut -de -sacs and utility services would need to be provided to ensure that each phase could stand alone consistent with the Auburn City Code. PUD Exhibit 3, page 5; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Plat Exhibit 1, page 3; Plat Exhibit 4; ACC 18.69.110(Q: PUD Exhibit Il. 10. The construction phase would consist of the excavation and removal from the site of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil. Approximately 325,000 cubic yards of soil would have to be imported to fill the site to an equal grade with adjacent rights-of-way and properties, to provide cover for utilities, and to achieve adequate site drainage. The importation of up to 200,000 cubic yards of fill from the adjacent Port of Seattle wetland mitigation construction was previously authorized by City of Auburn permit GRA04- 0025, but an additional permit for the remaining 125,000 cubic yards of fill would be necessary. The truck trips generated by hauling this soil would likely cause adverse traffic impacts and would require a haul route plan designed to avoid traffic impacts generated by truck trips. Plat Exhibit 1, page 2; Plat Exhibit 14, page 2. 11. The preliminary geotechnical report completed by the Applicant indicates that the soils on-site are suitable for the proposed development of single- and multi -family residences. Soil conditions consist of 18 inches of native, tilled silty sand to sandy silt soils overlying fine-grained, loose sandy silt interbedded with loose silty sand to a depth of seven feet, followed by medium stiff clay silt overlaying loose sand. These native soils would be sensitive to moisture variations and would be easily disturbed by construction activity, especially when wet or moist. When disturbed, the soil would be unstable and not suitable to support building construction. To avoid problems with settling, erosion, or runoff, the geotechnical report suggested that the mass grading activity and utility construction should occur during the normally dry summer and early fall months. Plat Exhibit 1, page 2; Plat Exhibit 14, page 2; Plat Exhibit 19, pages 2-3; Plat Exhibit 13, page 4. 12. To establish suitable support for building footings where building grades will be at or below existing site grades, the geotechnical report recommended excavating the existing soft native soils to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the base of the footings, then restoring the footing subgrade with granular structural fill, such as crushed rock or sand and gravel. If additives such as cement, cement kiln dust, or lime are used to dry out soils, Best Management Practices should be used to mitigate potential impacts to construction storm water runoff. Plat Exhibit 19, pages 2-4. 13. Initial access to the proposed project would be provided through a single north -south boulevard -type street ("M" Street NE) that would connect to South 277`h Street, which runs in an east -west direction. "M" Street would consist of a divided roadway with central landscape medians to help control traffic. Access to the undeveloped right-of- way "I" Street NE is not feasible at this time due to intervening land ownership. While "I" Street is contemplated to be opened as a public right-of-way in the future, there are two different road plans: one plan places "P' Street at its current location near the western boundary of the proposed project site, and the "preferred plan" places "I" Street farther west. There is no schedule for the opening of "P' Street NE, and until "I" Street is Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 8 of 44 opened at either location, the intersection of "M" Street NE and South 277`h Street would be signalized for safe ingress and egress from the proposed project. When "I" Street is opened, permanent channelization would be installed on "M" Street to prevent left turns in and out of the proposed project for safe access. The permanent channelization would conform to City of Kent standards, as the southern edge of South 277`h Street is Kent City Limits. PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Testimony of Mr. Welch; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Plat Exhibit 1, page 5; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 18. 14. The initial building phase of the proposed project would include 115 multiple -family dwelling units and 68 single-family dwelling units. Comprehensive plan policy TR -13 states, "residential developments with greater than 75 dwelling units... shall have a minimum of two accesses to either a collector -arterial or an arterial." The City of Auburn suggested that to comply with this policy the Applicant would have to financially secure the completion of a second permanent access before issuance of the building permits for the 76`h residence of the PUD. The second permanent access is projected to be along the east -west alignment of a new 49t11/51'` Street NE between proposed "M" Street and the new "I" Street, in either of "I" Street's proposed locations. However, it is unclear from the staff reports or the testimony given at the hearing as to when "I" Street would be constructed, and there is no established final location for "I" Street at this time. Plat Exhibit 13, pages 16-17; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Welch; Testimony of Mr. Purser; PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7; Plat Exhibit 1, page 5; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 18; PUD Exhibit 11; Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. 15. The City requested that the Applicant financially secure construction of the new "I" Street between 49'h Street NE and 277`h Street, plus pay for a wire span traffic signal at the intersection of the new "I" Street and 277`h Street. The Applicant would pay $495,000 to the City of Auburn, which in addition to the development's normal traffic impact fees would provide funding to secure the second permanent access route and related improvements. From the record it appears the funding would not guarantee the ability to acquire land for the second access due to intervening land ownership. Plat Exhibit 13, pages 16-17; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Welch; Testimony of Mr. Purser; PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7; Plat Exhibit 1, page 5; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 18; PUD Exhibit I1. 16. Mr. Mike Carpinito, a property owner to the north of the proposed project, has a driveway across from the current unopened "I" Street right-of-way. Installation of a traffic signal at the future "I" Street NE would require that Mr. Carpinito's driveway be reconfigured to connect to South 277th Street at the signal. The City of Kent would require the Applicant to provide this new connection if requested by Mr. Carpinito. Plat Exhibit 26, page 1. 17. Until another general access is built to serve the proposed project, secondary emergency access would be provided to the plat from South 277`h Street by one or more 20 -foot wide emergency access roads. It is unclear from the submitted evidence as to where exactly the access would connect to South 277th Street, and the location is not provided for on the binding site plan. These secondary emergency accesses would prohibit general traffic Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 9 of 44 flow through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. PUD Exhibit 1, page 7; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Plat Exhibit 1, page 5; Testimony of Mr. Welch; PUD Exhibit 11. 18. The South 277`' Street right-of-way is located in the City of Kent, and Kent plans to widen this road between Auburn Way North and "I" Street NE. The final street would include two lanes westbound, three lanes eastbound, a left -turn pocket, and an eight -foot wide shoulder on the north side of the street. Because of a ditch, a wetland, and farm limitations to the north, all widening would be done on the south end of the road, partially fronting the Applicant's property. The Applicant would be responsible for frontage improvements including additional dedication for right-of-way and street widening. The Applicant's design and construction of the proposed project's roadway access, signalizations of "M" and "I" Streets, and frontage improvements including trails, sidewalks, and drainage would require City of Kent approval. The Applicant has coordinated its road plans with the City of Kent and consistency is addressed in a letter from Gary Gill, City of Kent, dated December 15, 2004, indicating the City of Kent's general acceptance of the project's access concept. There was no evidence submitted of any subsequent approvals by the City of Kent. PUD Exhibit 1, page 7; Plat Exhibit 26, page 2; Plat Exhibit 1, page 4. 19. The internal street network through the single-family detached portion of the proposed project would be three stacked loop roads, 49`h, 50`h, and 51 s` Streets NE. Two streets, "N" Street NE, and "P" Street NE, would connect these stacked looped roads. Two streets ending in cul-de-sacs, 50`h Court NE and 491h Court NE, would provide access to lots 77 through 86, and 144 through 155, respectively. In addition, an 18 -foot wide paved alley would run between Lots 1 through 67 and would serve as access for those alley -loaded lots. These roads and alleys would all be dedicated as public rights-of-way. Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhibit 11; PUD Exhibit 1, pages 4 & 7; Plat Exhibit 1, page 6. 20. The internal roads of the multiple -family portion of the proposed project would consist of one looped private drive with two access points to 51" Street NE. The looped private drive would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. Two private access drives would provide access to Lots 141 through 143, and 167 through 169 in the east and south portions of the plat. The internal roads would be constructed to the City of Auburn's "Local Residential" street standards except where deviations were determined appropriate by the City Engineer. Sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of the internal streets and would generally be separated from the curb by a landscape strip. Sidewalks along "Local Residential" streets would be five feet wide; it is unclear how wide the meandering sidewalks would be along "M" Street NE and 51" Street NE. PUD Exhibit 1, pages 4 & 7; Plat Exhibit 1, page 6, Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Welch; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 21. To promote safe vehicle speeds on the internal 51St Street NE, the City of Auburn would require traffic calming devices including, but not limited to, traffic circles or stop signs as determined by the City Engineer at the time of roadway design. 50th Street NE is approximately the same length as 51st Street, and would serve as the primary access for Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 10 of 44 Lots 72 through 113. 49`h Street NE is somewhat shorter than 50th and 51st Streets NE, but would serve as primary access for Lots 114 through 160. There appears to be nothing proposed to calm traffic on 49th and 50`h Streets NE. PUD Exhibit 1, page 7; Plat Exhibit 1, page 9; Plat Exhibit 13, page 17; Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhibit 11; Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. 22. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in July 2004 and supplemented in September 2004. The TIA conducted a year 2005 level of service (LOS) analysis for two intersections, South 277th Street & "Site Access," and South 277th Street & "P' Street NE.z The major LOS analysis work on the rest of the intersections and corridors was based on the year 2020 to "ensure that the long term transportation network viability will be maintained .,,3 Plat Exhibit 25, pages 1-3; Plat Exhibit 25, Figure 2; PUD Exhibit IL 23. The TIA concluded, based on a site plan that depicts the proposed project as containing 172 single-family homes and 120 townhomes, that the project would generate 254 PM peak hour trips including 165 entering and 89 exiting trips.4 The City of Auburn has adopted a LOS D standard. In 2005, the intersection of South 277" Street & "Site Access" would operate at LOS B. Projected to 2020, this intersection would operate at LOS C. 5 In 2005, the intersection of South 277th Street & the new "P' Street NE would operate at LOS A. Projected to 2020, this intersection would operate at LOS E.6 ,Site Access" and South 277th Street would operate at a LOS C. Plat Exhibit 25, pages 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; Plat Exhibit 25, Figure 2; Plat Exhibit 25, Tables 3, 5, 7, 8; PUD Exhibit 11. 24. The TIA also studied 26 key signalized intersections for PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) operating standards in the vicinity of the proposed project in the year 2020. These intersections were not studied for the year 2005. The results of the LOS analysis projected to 2020 indicate that only one intersection, the intersection of South 277th Street and "B" Street NW, would have an LOS grade downward change. Six other intersections would operate in 2020 at a substandard LOS; however, these intersections would operate at a substandard LOS without the traffic generated from the proposed project. The a The site plan attached to the TIA (Plat Exhibit 25, Figure 2) shows site accesses to South 277" Street in a different configuration than what is depicted on the binding site plan submitted by the Applicant. Specifically, one access is depicted at the future "I" Street NE, and the second access is depicted not at "M" Street NE as shown on the binding site plan, but at an unnamed access 900 feet to the east of the "N Street intersection. The TIA also prepared its LOS analyses assuming that the new "I" Street and 49'"/51" Streets were completed. Plat Exhibit 25, page 2; Plat Exhibit 25, Figure 2. 3 As a result, there was no data submitted regarding the current (2005) LOS in the intersections and corridors surrounding the proposed project. Only the two proposed accesses, "M" Street NE & South 277`" Street, and "I" Street NE & South 277" Street, were studied at 2005 levels. ° The number of housing units used in the TIA was slightly above the binding site plan; the binding site plan depicts that there would be 172 single-family homes and 115 townhomes. The TIA was conservative in its estimate as the Applicant indicated there was still some uncertainty in the exact unit count for the development. As a result, the TIA was conducted with ten extra single-family units and 10 extra multi -family units. Plat Exhibit 25, pages 2 & 5; PUD Exhibit 11. s This access was assumed to be unsignalized but allow right -in, right -out turns only. Plat Exhibit 25, pages 3, 7, 12; Plat Exhibit 25, Tables 3 & 7. e This access was assumed to be signalized. Plat Exhibit 25, pages 3, 9, 12; Plat Exhibit 25, Tables 5 & 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 11 of 44 proposed project would slightly increase waiting time at some intersections. Plat Exhibit 13, page 16; Plat Exhibit 25, pages 9-11. 25. The TIA also included six traffic corridors that would be impacted by the proposed project. By 2020, four of the six traffic corridors would operate below the City's LOS D standard. The South 277th Street corridor would be primarily impacted by the proposed project and would operate at a LOS E standard by 2020. The TIA found that "severe queuing (on the 277th corridor) would cause spillback leading to gridlock in 2020 unless certain network changes were made." The TIA made specific findings that the intersections of 277`h Street and Auburn Way North and 277th Street and West Valley Highway would operate at a LOS F without the proposed project and are considered system failures unrelated to the proposed project. The analysis also found that "dual left turn lanes for westbound left turns at the 277th Street and "I" Street intersection would be required by virtue of the traffic demand created by the completion of "I" Street, irrespective of the Robertson or River Sand development... If the western "I" Street alignment is selected, there would be sufficient space between the River Sand intersection and the back of the queue to allow left turns out of the River Sand intersection." The City submitted that the LOS problem on South 277th Street is not primarily due to the traffic generated by the development but to high levels of background traffic. The City also submitted that "it is anticipated that corridors will operate within city standard LOS at project completion in 2008 based on the results of other available traffic studies." The traffic analysis concluded that the traffic mitigation fee required by the proposed project would be $169,475.32. Plat Exhibit 13, page 16; Plat Exhibit 25, pages 9-12. 26. ACC Section 18.69.101(B) requires that PUDs be pedestrian -oriented communities that use traffic management and design techniques to reduce traffic congestion and increase the potential use of alternate modes of travel such as mass transit, walking, and biking. The proposed project would have a system of sidewalks along the internal streets both within the rights-of-way. It would have a sidewalk within the linear Tracts A through G, also proposed as public park, along 51St Street NE. The public sidewalks on each side of "M" Street NE are proposed to meander within public Tracts N and Q that include the project's storm water ponds.7 Tracts 0 and P, which would be dedicated to the City, provide room for pedestrian connections to the future construction of the Green River Trail on the west side of the Green River. Although the public would be able to access the trail through the proposed project, neither the City nor the Applicant contemplated that any public parking would be necessary as people would most likely park in different locations. Improvements made to South 277'h Street would help connect the east -west Interurban Trail. PUD Exhibit 1, page 6; PUD Exhibit 3, page 7; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Welch. ' It is unclear how wide the sidewalks through the park would be; this information was not provided in the submitted evidence. Sidewalk standards on "Local Residential" roads would have to be five feet wide. Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhibit 11. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 12 of 44 27. The Sounder Train Station is located approximately four miles from the proposed project in Downtown Auburn. Metro bus route 150 would provide service to the proposed project; there are three stops located near the site at Auburn Way North and South 277`" Street, Auburn Way North and 49`h Street NE, and Auburn Way North and 45`h Street NE. The closest bus stop is within one-fourth of a mile of the proposed project. PUD Exhibit 3, page 8. 28. ACC 18.69.101(H) requires that a PUD provide affordable housing options in accordance with the targets established by King County's Planning Policies and Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project includes townhomes, alley -loaded single family homes, and conventional front -loaded single-family homes of varying sizes.8 PUD Exhibit 3, page 13. 29. The City of Auburn would provide police and fire service with response times being around eight to ten minutes. The City of Kent services would have a faster response time to the proposed project until the new north Auburn Fire Station is completed at 30`h Street NE and "I" Street NE. The Cities of Auburn and Kent are co -signors to the 1988 King County Mutual Aid agreement that compels adjacent service providers to aid in response time. The Applicant would install fire hydrants in accordance with Auburn City Code. Plat Exhibit 1, page 6; MDNS; Plat Exhibit 25, page 4; Plat Exhibit 13, page 21. 30. Utilities would be developed to meet City of Auburn standards. The proposed project site lies at the extreme northeastern corner of the city and there are currently no water lines that exist in the vicinity. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant must financially secure construction of a new 12 -inch -minimum pipeline along South 277`h Street from Auburn Way North to a point along the north property boundary sufficient for construction of a looped water system in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements would consist of approximately 1,200 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along the proposed extension of "I" Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49th Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear feet of 12 -inch waterline along an east -west alignment of a new 49th/51 s` NE between the proposed new "I" Street NE alignment and the subject property's west property line. The Applicant would pay a $82,000 fee to the City of Auburn, which in combination with the development's normal System Development Charges would provide adequate funding to secure the second permanent water system improvements. Plat Exhibit 1, page 6; Plat Exhibit 25, page 3; Plat Exhibit 14, page 7; Yard Variance Exhibit 1, page 4. 31. The proposed project would result in approximately 50 percent of the site being covered with impervious surfaces. The removal of vegetation and the fill, grading, and paving operations would increase the site's storm water runoff. Per Policy EN -55 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the peak storm water discharge rates during 10 and 100 -year storm s The Applicant identified the townhouses as "affordable" housing but provided no data (target housing prices, etc.) as to why they qualify as such. The Applicant also applied for a yard setback variance that would allow the Applicant to build larger single-family homes. The Applicant justified the variance by stating that "larger dwelling units will also assist in financially justifying the project's extension of water and sewer services to the site." It is unclear if the larger homes are intended to be affordable. Yard Variance Exhibit 1, page 4. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 13 of 44 events after development shall not exceed the peak discharge rates during 10 and 100 - year storm events before development. The predevelopment rate is calculated based on the current undeveloped condition of the proposed project site. Plat Exhibit 13, page 9; Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page 1; Plat Exhibit 22, page 1; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 30, page 4. 32. A review of the ditch system for the PUD has been made. The proposed project would collect storm water through a series of catch basins and utilize a tight -line system to convey the water to the proposed detention facility, located on Tract Q in the northwest corner of the property. From this point, the water would be discharged into an existing four -foot deep ditch at the northwest property corner and flow in a westerly direction along the south side of South 277`h Street and into a series of culverts running underneath South 277`h Street to the north. The existing ditches on the north and south sides of South 277`h Street are capable of carrying all of the proposed development's runoff in a 100 - year storm event with no additional improvements being made. Plat Exhibit 30, page 5; Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page 2; Plat Exhibit 22, page 2; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11. 33. A review of the culvert system for the PUD has been made. All flows from the proposed project running along South 277`h Street would eventually intersect at culvert No. 4 (7.2 cfs capacity), on the north side of South 277 1h Street, which conveys water underneath 86th Avenue South. From culvert No. 4, drainage would continue through culverts No. 3 (87 cfs capacity), 2 (19 cfs capacity) and 1 (390 cfs capacity) which completes the downstream storm water corridor to the Green River. In a worst-case scenario with saturated ground and a 100 -year storm event, culverts 2 and 4 would not be able to handle storm water runoff from the proposed project and must be either upsized or reinstalled with a greater slope. Plat Exhibit 30, page 5; Plat Exhibit 1, page 13. 34. During a 100 -year storm event, storm water would be discharged from the proposed project at a rate at or lower than the pre -developed 100 -year flows, calculated at 8.5 cubic feet per second. The size of the storm water detention facility for the proposed project is such that the 100 -year maximum release rate from the pond is equal to or slightly lower than the pre -developed release rate, which would have the net result of slightly lowering the 100 -year flows for the post -developed site. The proposed project would not increase runoff to the downstream storm drain corridor. Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page 1; Plat Exhibit 22, page 1; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 30 page 4. 35. The neighboring property owner to the north of the subject parcel, Mr. Mike Carpinito, submitted a comment letter in response to the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the City of Auburn for the proposed project. Mr. Carpinito questioned the downstream drainage study for the proposed project and indicated that the downstream drainage in the present condition is not adequate, as his property frequently floods. Mr. Carpinito's property, and a majority of the downstream drainage route for the proposed project, lies within a ten-year or less floodplain. The entire downstream ditch system and its culverts are completely submerged during many storm events, statistically having a ten percent chance of occurring in any given year. This is attributed to the fact Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 14 of 44 that the drainage basin is in a low-lying floodplain close to the Green River, and rapid urbanization in the overall drainage basin has caused increases in runoff. Urbanization has also caused a reduction of storage areas through filling of natural wetlands and floodplains; there also have been an insufficient number of artificial retention facilities required for development in the past. Nevertheless, the drainage basin that would be constructed for the proposed project would have sufficient capacity to control storm water flows to match pre -development rates even if it may not solve Mr. Carpinito's flooding issues. Plat Exhibit 15; Plat Exhibit 30, page 4; Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, Exhibit C, page 1; Plat Exhibit 16. 36. Storm water ponds would be privately maintained by a homeowners' association. However, an easement must be dedicated to the City of Auburn to defer ultimate maintenance responsibility should the homeowners' association fail. The City would strive to ensure that public and private storm water collection, detention, and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. Plat Exhibit 14, page 12; Plat Exhibit 13, page 9. 37. An existing METRO 54 -foot sewer line runs underneath South 277th Street with a 12 - inch stub to the south side of the street. Eight -inch mains are proposed to be extended within the project's roadways to serve the lots. The project may necessitate the use of grinder pumps for a few of the single-family homes that cannot be served by gravity alone. The King County Wastewater Treatment Division reviewed the Proposed Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance issued for the proposed project and requested that the City of Auburn submit sewer plans and modifications for the project to King County. Plat Exhibit 12, page 11; Plat Exhibit 14, page 6. Plat Exhibit 16. 38. The proposed project is within the Kent School District. The City and the School District have an interlocal agreement in which the City collects impact fees for the District. Mr. Fred High from the Kent School District testified that the proposed project would generate approximately 214 school -aged children that would have to be bussed to Kent Schools. Children living in the proposed project would attend Kent Elementary School, Mill Creek Middle School, and Kent -Meridian High School. While Kent -Meridian High School and all Kent elementary schools are currently over capacity, Mill Creek Middle School has sufficient capacity to serve the students generated by the proposed project. Mr. High requested at the hearing to delay approval of the proposed project to allow the Kent School District to plan for the new students from the PUD and to determine how it would pay for the new infrastructure needed to serve them. The Applicant and the City contend that no delay is necessary, as the Kent School District was sent notice of the proposed project and school impact fees are collected at building permit issuance, giving the school district plenty of time to plan for infrastructure. The hearing record was left open until the date of decision to admit negotiation exhibits between the Applicant and the Kent School District regarding how the Applicant intends to mitigate the effect of the proposed project on local schools. Plat Exhibit 1, page 6; ACC 19.02.011; Testimony of Mr. High; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Hillen; Plat Exhibit 14a; Plat Exhibit 31. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 15 of 44 39. Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's instructions following the public hearing, the Kent School District sent a letter outlining its position on the proposed project. The District's positions are that: the District would have sufficient time to resolve capacity issues at the elementary and high school levels, the District's February 2006 bond issue would provide local voters with an opportunity to mitigate capacity issues, and requiring a site dedication within the development would not be practical because the development is relatively isolated from the balance of undeveloped property that would eventually yield additional children. The City has indicated a willingness to work with the District to find an appropriate place to send the 600-700 children who would eventually reside at the proposed project and in the surrounding areas to be developed. Plat Exhibit 31. 40. The Kent School District, which would bus children from the PUD to schools, would prefer not to enter the proposed project site. The District initially requested the Applicant install a "Metro -style" bus pull -off near the intersection of "M" Street and South 277'h Street if such a request is made by the District within five years of plat approval. The pull -off would allow school buses to load and unload students without impeding the heavy traffic flow on South 277`n Street. After subsequent communication with the cities of Auburn and Kent, who oppose a bus pull-out, the District submitted that while a pull- out is a viable solution, other solutions, such as a bus turn -around in the proposed project, may be viable. According to the District, the District, the Cities, and the Applicant should agree on the method of providing safe bus stops. The parties have not yet agreed on a method of providing a safe bus stop location; a bus turn -around is not shown on the site plan. Plat Exhibit 26, page 2; PIat Exhibit 31; Plat Exhibit 32; PUD Exhibit 11. 41. ACC Section 18.69.080 requires residential subdivisions of more than 50 lots to dedicate land suitable for parks. The PUD must meet the City's park plan standards for park dedication. The rate of required park dedication is 6.03 acres for every 1,000 persons. The average occupancy of the proposed project is anticipated to be 2.8 persons; therefore the proposed project must dedicate 4.85 acres to parkland. The Applicant proposed to dedicate only four acres of parkland, less than the required amount. Dedicated park areas consist of two, 20 -foot wide, homeowners' association -maintained linear parks (Tracts A through G) containing a meandering sidewalk that run along the backyards of the alley -loaded lots 1 through 34 and along the multi -family buildings 1 through 7 and front 516` Street NE; and public park (Tracts O & P) that fronts the Green River. The linear park/sidewalk space consists of 1.23 acres of park land and the dedicated public parks along the Green River consist of 2.77 acres of park land. PUD Exhibit 1, page 4; PUD Exhibit 4; ACC 18.69.080(A)(2); ACC 17.18.010; Plat Exhibit 1, pages 4 & 11; Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 13, page 13; Plat Exhibit 11. 42. The Applicant has included a request in its preliminary plat application to dedicate less than the standard for park land. ACC Section 18.69.080(A)(2) allows the City to accept a lesser amount of park area if the PUD developer provides improvements to the park land that is being dedicated, and other developments have taken advantage of this code section. To make up for the 0.85 acre parkland shortfall, the Applicant proposes to provide the City with fees -in -lieu of the required dedication and/or improvements to the four acres of dedicated park land. The City evaluated the proposal for less park land and Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 16 of 44 determined the proposal would not be detrimental to the City, alter the character of the neighborhood, or harm the surrounding properties. The City claims that full application of the City's park land dedication provisions would create some practical difficulties in the City's ability to develop the dedicated park land. The City has also determined that the smaller dedication would have no negative effect on any City plans. There are no physical restrictions that would restrict the Applicant from dedicating the required amount of park land. PUD Exhibit], page 4; PUD Exhibit 4; ACC 18.69.080(A)(2); ACC 17.18.010; Plat Exhibit], pages 4 & ]];Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 13, page 13; Rezone Exhibit 11. 43. ACC Section 18.69.080 requires that a PUD set aside at least 20 percent of its buildable area as open space. Park land may be included in the open space requirement. The proposed project has dedicated 23.3 percent of its buildable area as open space, including the dedicated park land discussed above. The Applicant proposes Tracts A through Q as open space/park land. Tracts A through G are seven homeowners' association - maintained open space tracts proposed as linear park and sidewalk space paralleling 51 ' Street NE. Tracts H through L are five homeowners' association -maintained tracts that would be landscaped open space distributed at corner locations. Tract M is a homeowners' association -owned tract that would contain wetlands, wetland buffer and compensatory floodplain storage. Tracts N and Q are two publicly -owned tracts that would contain storm drainage facilities, a wetland, and a wetland buffer. Tracts O and P are two publicly -owned tracts proposed as dedicated park land along the Green River. Also included in the open space set aside are homeowners' association -owned and landscaped open spaces within the multiple -family portion of the site. Multiple -family portions of the open space would be 1.54 acres, corner open space tracts would be 1.13 acres of open space, sensitive areas and buffers would be 1.49 acres of open space, and storm water drainage ponds would be 1.37 acres of open space. PUD Exhibit 1, page 5; PUD Exhibit 4; ACC 18.69.080; Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11. 44. ACC Section 18.69.808(D) requires certain design standards for the building architecture, lighting, furniture, signs, fencing, etc. The Applicant provided proposed building elevations of multiple -family housing to illustrate the building and structural designs. A representative elevation was provided to depict modulation and articulation of the facades that reduce the perception of bulk and mass. Representative design treatments were also provided for the single-family dwellings which would be comprised of eight different designs for detached lot types. A representative color palette for the homes, as well as lighting design, outdoor bench designs, fence details, and architectural guidelines were also provided. PUD Exhibit 1, page 5; PUD Exhibits 13 through 20. 45. A conceptual landscaping plan was submitted as part of the PUD application. No landscaping or site amenities would occur within Tract P to ensure protection of the 200 - foot shoreline buffer of the Green River. The plan shows extensive use of landscaping within the multiple -family residential portion of the development to meet open space requirements. The landscaping plan does not include street tree plantings, but the Applicant has proposed over 200 street tree plantings along with coordinated plantings for the other open space tracts. To ensure that adequate provisions for landscaping and Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 17 of 44 street trees are made, the Planning Director would review and approve the final landscape plan that would include street trees. PUD Exhibit 1, page 6; PUD Exhibit 12; Plat Exhibit 13, page 10. 46. The subject site contains two wetlands including a Category 11 0.43 acre wetland in the southwest comer of the property, and a Category IV 0.3 acre wetland in the northwest corner of the property. Temporary impacts to the 50 -foot buffer of the Category II wetland would occur during construction of compensatory flood storage along the southwestern edge of this wetland. The proposed excavation, modification of ground surface, and impervious surface construction near the on-site wetlands could result in disruption to the functions and values of the existing site wetlands by altering hydrologic support. An analysis of the potential hydrologic changes and implementation of enhancement recommendations would be necessary to reduce and avoid wetland impacts. Plat Exhibit 14, page 4; Plat Exhibit 28, pages 1, 7-9; Plat Exhibit 13, page 6. 47. To reduce or avoid impacts to the wetlands, the proposed project would observe a 50 -foot minimum enhanced buffer around the Category II wetland and a 25 -foot buffer around the Category IV wetland. The buffer surrounding the Category 11 wetland would be increased to include all of Tract M, an increase of approximately 21,500 square feet. Enhancement of the buffer with native plants, trees, and woody debris would be necessary as the wetland does not currently contain suitable buffer vegetation. To ensure the long-term preservation of the wetland mitigation area and to discourage the uncontrolled intrusions of humans and pets into the wetland mitigation area, mitigation signage, fencing, and an easement would be required by the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn would also require a monitoring program and performance bonds. Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 14, page 4; Plat Exhibit 12, pages 7-8; Plat Exhibit 28, pages 1-9; Plat Exhibit 13, page 6. Rezone Exhibit 11. 48. According to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Category II wetland is tributary to the Green River, with the connection to the river being off-site. The Green River is a major passageway for anadromous fish, including Chinook, coho, and chum salmon; sea -run cutthroat and steelhead trout; and Dolly Varden char. The river contains many good spawning riffles near the proposed project, and Fall Chinook, colic, chum, and a few sockeye salmon have been found in this section. Fish and wildlife habitat in the river is being damaged by erosion, sedimentation, channelization, elimination of wetlands, and water pollution from agricultural lands, roads, and urban areas. Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page 5; Plat Exhibit 28, page 1; Exhibit 12, page 12. 49. The proposed project site contains significant bird and wildlife habitat. The floodplains of the valley are an important link to the Pacific flyway used by migratory waterfowl. These areas, as well as wetlands, are used by seabirds and local populations of ducks, great blue herons, songbirds, and raptors. Hawks, Bald Eagle, and deer have also been spotted on or flying above the proposed project site. Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page 5; Exhibit 12, page 12. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 18 of 44 50. There are two agricultural ditches located on the property that are considered "Waters of the United States" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. One ditch runs south to north in the western portion of the property; the other ditch runs west to east on the northern boundary of the property on the south side of South 277`, Street. The Port of Seattle has obtained a temporary drainage easement in the western ditch, which will be used to facilitate construction of the Port's wetland project to the south and west of the property. In addition, the Applicant has submitted a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to move the ditch that runs along the western property line. The JARPA application prior must be approved prior to final plat approval. If approved, the ditch would be relocated a few hundred feet to the west, within the 25 -foot buffer of the Category IV wetland. It would be sufficiently narrow to remain outside of the wetland itself, but would require elimination of some buffer vegetation. Following relocation, the ditch would continue to function to facilitate the Port of Seattle's wetland drainage until completion of that project and would not have negative effects on the nearby wetland. The Applicant also seeks to fill and eliminate the eastern portion of the east -west ditch aloni the northern border of the property to coincide with improvements to South 277 Street. The Applicant has represented to the City of Auburn that the on-site ditch is not wetlands and do not necessitate mitigation or that mitigation has already been completed by the City of Kent as part of their South 277" Street Phase I improvements. There was no evidence in the form of a letter from the Corps of Engineers or the City of Kent that the ditch is not a wetland or that its mitigation has been completed by the City of Kent. The ditch is not shown on the binding site plan. Plat Exhibit 12, pages 8-9; Plat Exhibit 28, pages 1-2; Plat Exhibit 13, page 6; Plat Exhibit ],page 7; PUD Exhibit 11. 51. The southwestem portion of the site contains approximately 12,000 cubic feet of 100 - year floodplain regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This portion of the floodplain would be undisturbed and no compensatory storage would be necessary. The northwestern portion of the site contains approximately 9,000 cubic square feet of 100 -year floodplain, 5,000 cubic square feet of which the Applicant proposes to fill. The Applicant proposes to construct compensatory storage area in the southwestem property corner at a one-to-one acre ratio. Care would have to be taken by utilizing wide -tracked equipment or other soil -covering devices to ensure the Category II wetland in the southwestern corner would not be disturbed during the proposed soil excavation. Unless a FEMA map amendment is secured to eliminate the on-site portion of floodplain, a flood zone control permit would be required by the City of Auburn to complete the project as proposed. Plat Exhibit 12, page 10; Plat Exhibit 14, page 4; Plat Exhibit 28, pages 1-2. 52. Some eastern portions of the property lie within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark and are subject to the "conservancy" designation of the City of Auburn's Shoreline Management Program. The area of property under shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to remain undisturbed and would be dedicated to the City for future recreational use and possible development of the Green River Trail. Plat Exhibit 4; Plat Exhibit 14, page 4; Plat Exhibit 12, page 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examinerfor the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 19 of 44 53. The Applicant prepared a report to evaluate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous materials. None were found. Plat Exhibit 14, page 5. 54. The Applicant prepared a historic and cultural resources study of the site. The investigation did not identify any historically significant resources, although the site was the site of the White River Massacre in which nine settlers were killed by natives. The site has a moderate to high probability of containing archaeologically significant resources as the site was used by native peoples including the Muckleshoot and Duwamish. In 1995, a study of the proposed Green River Trail identified an archaeological site located just north of the proposed project. The proposed project's historic and cultural resources study recommended development of a construction monitoring plan and future monitoring of ground -disturbing activities. It was recommended by the study that excavation activities at the site exceeding three feet in depth be monitored by a professional archaeologist. Plat Exhibit 14, page 5; Plat Exhibit 24, pages 5-6 & 10. 55. The City provided sufficient notice of all of the applications and of the August 16, 2005 public hearing. RV Exhibits 5 through 9; Yard Variance Exhibits 6 through 10; Plat Exhibits 6 through 10; PUD Exhibits 5 through 9. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on a PUD and preliminary plat pursuant to RCW 35.63.170 and ACC Sections 18.69.140 and 17.06.050. The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation on a variance pursuant to ACC 18.70.010. Required Process for Review of Auburn PUDs Pursuant to ACC 18.69.020, the PUD approval process involves three steps. The City of Auburn has combined steps one and two for this PUD application. The Hearing Examiner is not involved in the third step. ACC 18.69.020(A) and (B) set out the requirements for the two-step process: "Step One: Rezone Approval. Approval of a PUD shall be applied by the rezone process as specified in ACC Chapter 18.68. The rezone shall be a contract rezone and shall establish the land uses, density, number and types of dwelling units, number and distributions of lots/units, any modification of plat development standards, general street layout, street right-of-way widths, whether streets are public or private, the amount, type, and location of open space and park land, phasing plans if any, and the responsibilities of the owner/developer. An application for rezone approval shall be in accordance with ACC 18.69.110. Step Two: Preliminary Plat/Binding Site Plan Approval. For those PUDs that consist of only single-family or duplex platted lots, a preliminary plat may be filed pursuant to ACC Chapter 17.06. For those PUDs that contain structures with three or more dwelling units or nonresidential uses, a binding site plan must be approved for those uses. Preliminary Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 20 of 44 plat/binding site plan approval must be concurrent if a PUD requires both approvals. Preliminary plat/binding site plan applications may be for all or a portion of the area zoned PUD, Applications for a binding site plan shall be in accordance with ACC 18.69.180." Sten One Criteria for Review—Rezone to PUD Per ACC 18.69.020(A), the first step in the PUD approval process is the rezone to PUD. The rezone process must comply with ACC Chapter 18.68 and the rezone application must comply with ACC 18.69.110 in that each phase of a phased development must be able to stand alone without reliance upon development of subsequent phases. Under ACC 18.69.150, the hearing examiner shall only recommend approval of applications for a rezone to PUD designation if sufficient findings of fact are drawn to support all of the following criteria: A. 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, playgrounds, or sites for schools. B. The proposed PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan. C. The PUD is consistent with the purpose of this chapter, ACC 18.69.010, and 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 subdivisions standards. D. The proposed PUD conforms to the general purpose of other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council. E. 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. The PUD must also be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations. F. The proposed PUD is consistent with design guidelines that are outlined in ACC 18.69.080(D). ACC 18.69.010 sets out the purpose of a PUD district, which is "to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. A PUD district also allows for a greater range of residential development scenarios, provides for internal transfers of density, and may result in more dwelling units than may be realized by using the existing development standards. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city will require the PUD to result in a significantly higher quality development, generate more public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of standard zoning or Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuhurn River Sand PUD Page 21 of 44 subdivision procedures." For a PUD to be approved, the PUD must be consistent with the following desired public benefits: A. Preservation of Natural Amenities. Preservation of desirable site characteristics such as open spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, rivers, creeks, wetlands, lakes, and scenic ways. B. Pedestrian Oriented Communities. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce traffic congestion and increase the potential use of alternative modes of travel such as mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. C. Land Use Efficiencies. Provide efficient and effective use of land, open space, and public facilities that result in lower development cost and make housing more affordable. D. Improved Transitional Areas. Improve the sensitive development of transitional areas located between different land uses, environmentally sensitive areas, and along significant corridors within the city. E. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Provide development that is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. PUDs may also allow for a small amount of development from other comprehensive plan designations if determined to be appropriate for the PUD and its surroundings. F. Enhanced Design Features. Provide building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their environment. Design standards should reflect quality site planning, landscaping, and building architecture. G. Creation of Public Amenities. Enhance parks and open spaces consistent with the comprehensive park plan and nonmotorized plan. H. Affordable Housing. Provide affordable housing options in accordance with the targets established by the King County countered planning policies and Auburn's comprehensive plan. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examinerfor the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 22 of 44 Step Two Criteria for Review—Preliminary Plat & Binding Site Plan Approval Per ACC 18.69.020, the second step in PUD approval is the hearing examiner's recommendation to approve or deny the preliminary plat and/or binding site plan. A binding site plan application must be in accordance with ACC 18.69.180 to be approved. A preliminary plat may only be approved if findings of fact are drawn to support the following criteria listed in ACC 17.06.070: 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, playgrounds, and sites for schools and school grounds; 2. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan 3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by city council; 4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030; 5. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a PUD pursuant to ACC Chapter 18.69. 6. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; 7. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances. Criteria for Review—Plat Modifications The Applicant seeks to modify the amount of park land dedication required by the PUD zoning code. Under ACC 17.18.010 and .030, the hearing examiner may recommend approval of a plat modification if the following criteria are found to be met: A. Such modification is necessary because of special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or to provide the owner with development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the Zoning district in which the subject property is located. B. That, because of such special circumstances, the development of the property in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the property. C. That the modification, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the property is located. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 23 of 44 D. Such modification will not be materially detrimental to the implementation of the policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use, circulation, and utility plans of the City. E. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. F. The approval of the modification will be consistent with the purpose of this title; G. The modification cannot lessen the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any such modification must be processed as a variance pursuant to ACC 18.70.010. Criteria for Review—Variance Applications The Applicant requested approval of two variances; one to reduce yard setbacks and one to eliminate the requirement for screened recreational vehicle parking spaces in the multiple -family portion of the PUD. To be approved, a variance application must comply with all of the following criteria listed in ACC 18.70.010(A): 1. That there are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise in complying with provisions of this title. 2. That, because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot. 3. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. For nonconforming single-family homes, this finding is determined to be met if the features of the proposed variance are consistent with other comparable features within 500 feet of the proposal. 4. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the Applicant or previous owners. 5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones authorized by the city council. Conclusions Based on Findings Preliminary Plat, PUD, Binding Site Plan, and Plat Modification Conclusions Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 24 of 44 1. As submitted, the Application has made adequate provisions for open spaces, drainage ways, internal streets, internal roads and alleys, and sanitary wastes and water supplies, but has not made adequate provisions for streets, other public ways, parks, or schools. A. The proposed project has adequately addressed open spaces; it has included 23.3 percent of its buildable area as open space, which complies with ACC 18.69.080. Finding of Fact No. 43. The proposed project has adequately addressed storm water drainage. Most of the existing ditch system would be capable of withstanding all of the proposed development's runoff in a 100 -year event with no improvements. However, in a 100 - year storm event with saturated ground, downstream culverts 2 and 4 would not be able to handle storm water runoff from the proposed project and would need to be upgraded. A condition could adequately address this shortfall. The proposed project would not result in an increase in downstream storm water flows. Findings of Fact Nos. 31 though 36. The proposed project has adequately addressed internal streets. Internal streets would be built to City of Auburn "Local Residential" standards and would be lined with sidewalks for safe walking. To further promote safety, traffic calming devices would be required on 51s` Street NE as suggested by the City of Auburn, and on 50th and 49`h Streets NE as they are of similar lengths as 51st and would serve a large number of residents. An 18 -foot wide paved alley would serve as access for alley -loaded lots. As a homeowners' association would be in charge of any -non public roads, the proposed project meets comprehensive plan policy TR -12, that private streets shall only be considered within developments under a common management. Findings of Fact 19 through 21. The proposed project adequately addressed utilities. There are currently no adequate water lines in the vicinity to serve the proposed project, but the Applicant would financially secure construction of a water line in accordance with the City's comprehensive water plan prior to final plat approval. The Applicant would also have to pay other system development charges to the city. There is an existing sewer line running under South 277`h Street; the Applicant would have to secure approval from King County Metro and extend individual mains to each lot. Findings of Fact Nos. 30 & 37. The proposed project adequately addressed schools. The proposed project lies within the Kent School District. Currently the district has no capacity to serve the approximately 214 students that would be generated by the proposed project. The City of Auburn and the district have an interlocal agreement in which the City would collect school impact fees for the district. The five-year build -out time, collection of impact fees, and a February 2006 bond issue would allow the district to plan for where to place children generated by the proposed project. Findings of Fact Nos. 38 & 39. B. The above paragraphs address standards and requirements of the City of Auburn that are adequately addressed by the proposal. However, not all City requirements are satisfied. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examinerfor the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 25 of 44 Access to the proposed project has not been adequately addressed. Initially the development would only have one general signalized access to South 277`h Street through a single -boulevard -type street ("M" Street NE) until a second primary access could be built. Findings of Fact Nos. 13 through 15. The controlling issue, however, is the lack of a definite second access. As noted in Finding No. 14, Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13 requires at least two access points for developments with more than 75 housing units. The building phase would result in more than this number of units and yet only one access would be provided. Findings of Fact Nos. 13 through 15; The City of Auburn suggested that the Applicant could financially secure construction of the second primary access to comply with Auburn City Code and the comprehensive plan. However, because of intervening land ownership, it is unclear from the submitted evidence of the record at what location and when this second access would be built. Until the second access is built, emergency access could be provided through one or more emergency access roads from South 277'h Street. However, the placement of this emergency access is not depicted on the binding site plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 13 through 15; 17. The City of Kent also plans to widen South 277h Street in the future. Although the Applicant received approval of the general project concept, the Applicant did not submit evidence of its subsequent correspondence with Kent regarding South 277`h Street, including any dedication of right-of-way. Finding of Fact No. 18. C. The proposed project also did not adequately address parks. The Applicant proposed to dedicate four acres of park land, less than the 4.85 acres required by the PUD zoning code. Of the four acres of dedicated park land, 1.23 acres consist of a 20 -foot strip of linear park containing a sidewalk running along 515' Street NE. Other sidewalks in the proposed project are five feet wide; there was no evidence submitted as to how wide the sidewalks in the park would be. The park land would also abut the front yards of homes. The Applicant seems to essentially be satisfying two criteria of the PUD (sidewalks and park land) with the same 20 -foot strip running in the front yards of homes. The Applicant's proposal for park land does not adequately address parks. Findings of Fact Nos. 20, 26, 41, 42. D. The proposed project did not adequately address school bus transportation. School children would be bussed from the proposed project to Kent schools. The school district would prefer a "Metro -style" bus pull-out on South 277`h Street, but the Cities of Auburn and Kent object to this idea. The district has indicated it would accept a school bus turn -around within the proposed project. The Applicant did not provide for a bus stop, either along South 277` Street or within the proposed project; school bus stops were not adequately addressed. Finding of Fact No. 40.. 2. While some of the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, some of the facts of the proposal do not prove the proposed PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuhurn River Sand PUD Page 26 of 44 The designation of the project site in the comprehensive plan is "high density residential" in the northern portion of the property, and "moderate density residential" in the southern portion of the property. The placement of the multiple -family and single- family housing in the proposed project corresponds to the intent of the comprehensive plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, & 4; Auburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed project complies with comprehensive plan policy EN -55, which requires that peak storm water discharge rates during 10- and 100 -year storm events after development shall not exceed the peak discharge rates during 10- and 100 -year storm events before development. Findings of Fact Nos. 31 through 35; Auburn Comprehensive Plan Policy EN -55. The proposed project does not comply with comprehensive plan policy TR -13 that requires developments of over 75 housing units to include more than one general access. 287 housing units would be served by only one access until a second access, 49'h/5 Is' Street NE to "I" Street, could be built. Due to intervening land ownership, it is unclear in what location and when this second access could be built. It is also unclear at this time where "I" Street would be built; there are two possible locations. Because there is not enough information as to where and when the second access through "I" Street could be completed, the proposed project does not comply with comprehensive policy TR -13. Findings of Fact Nos. 13 through 15: Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. There is not enough information contained in the submitted application to determine if the proposed project complies with comprehensive plan policies TR -17 and TR -18. Comprehensive plan policy TR -17 states, "new development shall not be allowed if an LOS is below the LOS standard before development or when the impacts of the new development on the transportation system degrades the LOS to below the LOS standard, unless the condition is remedied concurrent with development as described in Chapter Six of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan." Policy TR -18 states that "below the level of service standard" applies to situations where traffic attributed to a development results in a level of service reduction below LOS D. The TIA studied 26 intersections and six corridors that would be impacted by the proposed project projected to the year 2020. Only one intersection would have an LOS downgrade and some intersections' waiting times would be negatively affected by the proposed project's generated traffic in 2020. Four of the six studied corridors would have substandard LOS, although the traffic study and the City do not attribute the downgrade to the proposed project. The City submitted that "it is anticipated that the corridors will operate within city standard LOS at project completion in 2008 based on the results of other available traffic studies." To comply with policies TR -17 and TR -18, the LOS must not be substandard before the project is built. However, there is no evidence other than the City's statement to support this, and there is no evidence of a plan to remedy a substandard LOS condition concurrently with the proposed development, if necessary. Further, the TIA was completed using a different site plan than the binding site plan submitted by the Applicant. The TIA assumed that all accesses would be built, and placed one access approximately 900 feet to the east of the present location on the binding site plan. Findings of'Fact Nos. 22 through 25; Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. The current park land configuration does not fulfill the goals and policies of the Auburn Park Plan. Chapter 4, Goal 5 of the plan states that parks should "enhance city identity by ensuring a quality visual environment. Parks are an effective tool in Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 27 of 44 improving visual appearance. However, many of Auburn's parks are tucked away in residential neighborhoods, unseen and unknown except to residents. This lack of visibility hinders the parks from effectively upgrading the city's overall appearance." Chapter 4, Goal 8 of the park plan states that parks shall "minimize land use conflicts between parks and other uses, and shall use sensitive design measures when locating parks in residential neighborhoods" It is unclear from the submitted evidence as to whether Linear Tracts A through G would be identified as public park, and they would most likely look as though they were part of the front yards of the lots adjoining 51't Street NE. The "park" would remain unknown to Auburn residents other than those living in the proposed project. Findings of Fact Nos. 41 through 43; Auburn Park Plan, Chapter 4, Goals 5 & 8. The PUD is not consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69.010, and does not provide some of the public benefits required to develop a PUD. The application, as submitted, does not provide an efficient use of part of the land of the site, does not improve transitional areas, does not completely implement the comprehensive plan, and appears to not provide for parks in accordance with the comprehensive park plan. The PUD is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69.010 in that it does provide for an improvement in the quality, character, architectural and site design and open space protection over what would otherwise be attained though a development using the existing zoning and subdivisions standards, and it would be a pedestrian -oriented community. The proposed project would set aside more than the required amount of open space, would preserve and enhance wetlands and their buffers, and would not disturb areas within the 200 -foot shoreline buffer of the Green River. Open space and park land would be appropriately landscaped. Findings of Fact Nos. 43 through 48, 52. The project would be a pedestrian -oriented community in that it would include sidewalks along all internal roads, and would be separated from the curb by a landscaped strip. Alley -loaded lots may enhance pedestrian use of the sidewalks, as cars would enter lots through the rear, leaving sidewalks open for people. The proposed project would also facilitate east -west connections to the Interurban Trail and would dedicate land to the city that could be used for the Green River trail. Transit stops are within a fourth of a mile of the proposed project and the Sounder Train makes a stop in Downtown Auburn. Traffic calming devices would need to be installed on internal roads to ensure safe driving speeds. Traffic congestion may be a problem as four out of six road corridors impacted by the proposed project would operate below the City's current level of service standard by the year 2020. Findings of Fact Nos. 19 through 27. It is unclear from the submitted evidence if the proposed project would provide efficient and effective use of land, open space, and public facilities that would result in lower development costs and could make housing more affordable. The Applicant proposes smaller lots than what would otherwise be allowed by current zoning which would provide higher density and more efficient land uses. However, the lot sizes are larger than required by the PUD zoning code. The Applicant has also included multiple - family housing, which is an efficient and effective use of land. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 28. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 28 of 44 More than the required amount of open space would be set aside by the proposed project. However, the proposed project site is in the extreme northeast corner of the city, beyond the extension of adequate water lines. The Applicant would need to extend water lines to the proposed project, which could be expensive, to comply with the Comprehensive Water Plan. The Applicant stated that "larger dwelling units will also assist in financially justifying the project's extension of water and sewer services to the site." The Applicant stated that homes in the proposed project would be affordable, but gave no evidence to support this statement. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 28, 30. With compliance of City standards and conditions of approval, the proposed project may facilitate the sensitive development of transitional areas between wetlands to the south, farmland to the north, the Green River to the east, and vacant R-4 zoned land to the west. The proposed project would place multi -family housing along busy South 277`h Street and would place single-family housing in the southern portion of the site, which could serve as a transition of land uses from a busy street to the wetlands to the south. This design is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 2 & 3. The proposed project would have building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their environment. The PUD must adhere to certain design requirements as set out in ACC 18.69.080(D). The Applicant provided building elevations of the multi- and single-family housing designs. The Applicant also included a color palette, lighting designs, outdoor bench designs, fence details, and architectural guidelines. The Applicant submitted a landscaping plan that shows extensive use of landscaping to meet open space requirements. The Applicant has proposed over 200 street tree plantings which were not included in the landscaping plan. To ensure that the street tree plantings are adequate, the Planning Director would review and approve the final landscaping plan that would include street trees. Findings of Fact Nos. 44 & 45. The proposed project would enhance parks and open spaces through landscaping. The proposed project would facilitate connections of the east -west Interurban Trail, and the Applicant would dedicate land to the city that could be used for the Green River Trail. However, the Linear Parks A though G would not be consistent with the comprehensive park plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 26, 41, 42, 43, 45. 4. The proposed project conforms to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council. The Applicant would extend a water line to the proposed project to comply with the Comprehensive Water Plan. Finding of Fact No. 30. The approval of the PUD would 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. The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations. The site is currently split -zoned R4 (multiple -family residential) and R3 (duplex residential). The comprehensive plan map designations are similarly divided on-site, with the northern portion of the site designated High Density Residential and the southern portion designated Moderate Density Residential. The Applicant proposes to develop the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner far the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 29 of 44 site as multi -family townhomes in the northern portion of the site, and a variety of single family homes in the southern portion of the site. The Applicant proposes smaller lots than what would normally be allowed by the current zoning, which would allow greater area for open space and park land. Under the PUD code, 614 dwelling units would be allowed, but the Applicant proposes only 287 units. Findings of Fact Nos. 2 through 5. The proposed project conforms to most of the Auburn zoning ordinance and other planning and engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city. The Applicant has proposed 287 dwelling units in the project, which complies with the zoning code. In a PUD, lot sizes may be reduced. The Applicant has reduced lot sizes resulting in a greater number of lots in the proposed project than would be possible under the current zoning. The Applicant proposes larger lot sizes than allowed by the PUD zoning code, however. The standards not satisfied have been identified through this recommendation. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 4 through 7. 8. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project could be mitigated with adherence to conditions such that there would not be an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment. There are two agricultural ditches on the property, one in the western portion of the property and one along the northern border of the property. The Applicant has not received a JARPA permit to relocate the western agricultural ditch on the property, but intends to do so. The Applicant also seeks to fill and eliminate the eastern portion of the northern ditch to coincide with improvements to South 277"` Street. The Applicant represented to the City of Auburn that the on-site ditch is not a wetland and does not necessitate mitigation or that mitigation has already been completed by the City of Kent as part of its South 277`" Street Phase I improvements. There was no submitted evidence in the form of a letter from the Corps of Engineers or the City of Kent that the ditch is not a wetland or that its mitigation has been completed by the City of Kent. The ditch is not shown on the binding site plan. There is simply not enough information in the submitted evidence to determine whether or not this ditch is a wetland, and whether or not its filling would adversely effect the environment. IIowever, conditions of approval could address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Finding of Fact No. 50; Preliminary Plat and Rezone Condition No. 19. Apart from the ditches, the Applicant has adequately addressed environmental concerns. To avoid problems with settling, erosion, or runoff, mass grading activities and utility construction would need to occur during the normally dry summer and early fall months. The proposed project would not increase storm water runoff to the downstream storm drain corridor as it would utilize a storm water detention facility designed to hold the appropriate amounts of water. Adequate open space would be set aside. The proposed project would be a pedestrian -oriented community with many sidewalks and possible connections to the Green River trail system. The proposed excavation, modification of ground surface, and impervious surface construction near the on-site wetlands could result in disruption to their functions and values by altering hydrologic support. An analysis of the potential hydrologic changes and implementation of enhancement recommendations would be necessary to reduce and avoid wetland impacts. The proposed project would observe and enhance appropriate wetland buffers. Flood Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examinerfor the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 30 of 44 storage areas would be constructed at a one-to-one acre ratio to compensate for filled floodplain areas. The 200 -foot shoreline buffer of the Green River would remain undisturbed. The Applicant reports there are no hazardous materials on-site. Findings of Fact Nos. 10 through 12, 26, 31 through 36, 43, 45 through 47, 51 through 53. 9. Adequate provisions are made so the proposed project would prevent or abate public nuisances. Public nuisances are addressed generally throughout the Auburn City Code and are addressed directly in ACC Chapter 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. Compliance with city design standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the proposed project. The proposed project would adhere to PUD design standards for architecture, paint colors, and bench and outdoor lighting designs that would reduce visual blight. Installation of a sanitary sewer system, public water system, and adequate drainage would ensure public health protection. Findings of Fact Nos. 30 through 34, 37, 44, 45. 10. A plat modification to the park land dedication would not be necessary because there are no special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide the owner with development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the property is located. There are no physical conditions that would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the property in strict conformity with the provisions of the Auburn City Code. There are no unique physical conditions that justify the dedication of less than the required park land. ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) allows the City to accept less park land if the PUD provides improvements to its dedicated park land. The Applicant proposes to either improve dedicated park land or provide fees in lieu to the City. The City claims that full application of the City's park land dedication provisions would create practical difficulties in the City's ability to develop the park land. However, this is not a unique physical condition that would hinder the Applicant from dedicating the park land and allowing the City to develop the park in the future. Further, the Applicant's configuration of park dedication does not meet the City of Auburn's park plan standards. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, 41, 42. 11. A modification to the park land dedication would not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the surrounding properties. The Applicant proposes only 0.85 acres less than the required park land dedication. This would most likely not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties or alter the character of the neighborhood. Finding of Fact No. 42. 12. A modification to the park land dedication would not be materially detrimental to the implementation of the policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use, circulation, and utility plans of the City. The City determined that the Applicant's proposal would not have a detrimental effect on any City plans. Finding of Fact No. 42. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 31 of 44 13. Literal interpretation of the Auburn City Code would not deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. The PUD zoning district allows dedication of less than the required amount of park land if improvements are made to dedicated park land, but the City is not required to accept less park land. Approval of the modification would not be consistent with the PUD zoning code, as it allows greater densities in exchange for "a higher quality and more sensitive development that would generate greater public benefit." Finding of Fact No. 42; ACC 18.69.010. Yard Setback Variance Conclusions 1. There are no unique physical conditions present that create practical difficulties and/or hardships in developing this particular lot. The Applicant contends that the physical location of the project site, in the northeast corner of the City beyond current extension of utilities and roads, should justify the yard setback variance. The Applicant contends that allowing smaller yard setbacks would allow the Applicant to build more single-family homes, financially justifying the extension of water lines and roads to the site. However, building homes on a site in the northwest corner of the City is the Applicant's choice. The fact that the site lies in the northwest corner is not a physical condition that would create a physical difficulty developing the lot. Findings of Fact 2, 3,5,6,7,30. Any physical difficulties involving the lot would not hinder a reasonable and harmonious use of the lot in strict conformity with the Auburn City Code. The Applicant contends that development of the lots in strict conformity with the zoning code would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the property because the PUD setback requirements would constrain the home size, result in less private area within the lots, and would reduce the ability to achieve a staggered placement of homes on the lots. Achieving larger homes, more private area, and staggered home placement are not factors to be considered when determining whether the lot can be reasonably and harmoniously used in strict conformity with the code. Findings of Fact Nos. 6 & 7. The variance, if approved, would not alter the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to surrounding properties. The variance would most likely result in a few more single-family homes built, which could result in a little more traffic. The character of the neighborhood is currently open land, wetlands, and farmland, but the property is zoned high-density and medium -density residential. The development as a whole would have the main impact on surrounding properties, but the variance would not have a major impact. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7. 4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are a result of the actions of the Applicant. The Applicant contends that the placement of the site in the northeast corner of the City beyond the extension of utilities is a special circumstance. The Applicant contends that smaller yard setbacks would result in more homes, financially justifying the project's extension of utility and road services to serve the development. However, the Applicant could choose to develop a site that is within the current extension of utilities and roads. Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 30. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 32 of 44 Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would not deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. The PUD zoning district allows zero lot lines for attached and semi-detached units, but not for single-family detached units. There are only two other approved PUDs in the City of Auburn, and these did not seek the yard setback variance. Therefore, there is no other property with a reduction of the yard setback in the PUD zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 6 & 7. 6. The approval of the variance would be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. The stated purpose of the PUD is to allow enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. Allowing smaller yard setbacks would allow staggered placement of homes, an innovative development. PUDs also offer increased densities in exchange for public benefits; reducing the yard setback would offer an increased density. The design guidelines at ACC 18.69.080(D)(1) state, "Building setbacks from public streets should be minimized while maintaining privacy and providing a greater portion of the lot to private back yards and parking." Approval of the variance would be consistent with the flexibility and design standards of the PUD zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 6 & 7; ACC 18.69.010; ACC 18.69.080(D)(1). 7. The variance would not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. Approval of the variance would increase the number of dwelling units in the PUD, but would not violate the zoning code as the zoning district allows 614 dwelling units; the Applicant proposes 287 dwelling units. The project as proposed complies with the PUD zoning district requirements. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has designated the project site as high-density and medium - density residential. The variance would not affect the comprehensive plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 6, 7. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. Multiple -family and single-family residential is permitted in the PUD zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 6, 7,-.4 CC 18.69. 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones authorized by the city council. There are no other applicable regulations associated with this variance. Findings of Fact 6 & 7. Recreational Vehicle Parking Variance Conclusions 1. Unique physical conditions are present that create practical difficulties and/or hardships in developing this particular lot. ACC 18.52.020 requires multiple -family developments of more than 50 units to include screened recreational vehicle (RV) parking spots. ACC 18.69.080(D)(5) requires PUDs to screen "parking areas adjacent to Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 33 of 44 right-of-way or adjoining properties... with landscaping, a berm, screen wall or any combination, in order to improve the visual appearance of the streetscape." South 277`" Street rises in elevation to the east beginning near the east -west midpoint of the lot. Due to the site's location along a heavily -traveled elevated road at the City boundary, the high view angle of 277`h Street would result in a practical difficulty in effectively screening RVs parked on-site from view by those traveling on South 277`h Street. Findings of Fact No. 8; ACC 18.52.020, ACC 18.69.080(D)(5). 2. Because of physical difficulties, development of the lot in strict conformity with the Auburn City Code would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. To maximize the aesthetic appearance of the multiple -family development, the Applicant has proposed a considerable amount of landscaped open space. To maximize views of the open space, the Applicant plans to develop the multiple -family portion of the development with attached, enclosed garages for automobile parking. Only a limited number of guest parking stalls as uncovered, surface area parking are proposed. The provision of the RV parking spaces would not be consistent with the character and quality of the development proposal and would not be a harmonious use of the lot. Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 43. 3. The variance, if approved, would not alter the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are wetlands and agricultural uses, so approval of the variance would benefit surrounding properties by not obstructing views in the area due to RV screens. A condition of approval would restrict RV parking in the project so RVs would not become a problem. Findings of Fact Nos. 3 & 8; Condition of RV Parking Variance Approval 1. 4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the Applicant. The configuration of South 277`h Street is not the fault of the Applicant. Finding of Fact No 8; 18. 5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. There are only two other approved PUDs in the City of Auburn; there is no record that those PUDs applied for a similar variance. Under the zoning code, only developments that include more than 50 units of multiple -family housing must include RV parking spaces. Finding of Fact No. 8. 6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. The stated purpose of the PUD is to allow enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. Excluding RV parking would allow the PUD to preserve views. Finding of Fact No 8. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. The project as proposed complies with the PUD zoning district requirements. Finding of Fact No. 8, ACC 18.69. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuhurn River Sand PUD Page 34 of 44 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 2 & 8. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. Multiple -family and single-family residential is permitted in the PUD zoning district. Finding of Fact No. 8; ACC 18.69. 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones authorized by the city council. There are no other applicable regulations or conditions associated with this variance. Finding of Fact No. 8. PUD REZONE and PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION As currently submitted, the Hearing Examiner finds there is not enough information to make a recommendation on the request for approval of a rezone to PUD and approval of a preliminary plat located in the 1200 to 1700 blocks of South 277`h Street in Auburn, Washington. For this reason, based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests be REMANDED to the Planning and Community Development Department to allow the Applicant to submit a the following information: 1. A plan to provide the proposed project second general access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. The plan shall be more certain than the plan presently submitted by the Applicant. 2. A traffic impact analysis that addresses the binding site plan (PUD Exhibit 11), and addresses the different access scenarios that could occur. 3. Current traffic level of service information to ensure the proposed project complies with Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. 4. A reconfiguration of dedicated park land such that Tracts A through G are not considered dedicated park land. When the preceding information is submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner would re -hear those portions of the applications. If the Applicant is unable to submit the preceding information to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the preceding requests be DENIED. If and when the plat and rezone applications are approved, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the Application for a variance to eliminate the provision of screened recreational vehicle parking spaces as required for multiple family housing by ACC 18.52.020(A)(3) be APPROVED, with the attached conditions. If and when the plat and rezone applications are approved, the Hearing Examiner recommends, based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, that the Applications for a variance to reduce certain yard setbacks for detached single-family dwelling units and a plat modification to Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 35 of 44 dedicate less than the required amount of park land be DENIED, as they do not meet the specific criteria as outlined in ACC 17.18.010, 17.18.030, and 18.70.010(A). PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS If the City Council decides to approve the preliminary plat and rezone to PUD at this time, the Hearing Examiner recommends the following conditions: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall secure JARPA approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to relocate the north -south drainage ditch and associated easement located within the western one-third of the site as shown on the plat. 2. The Applicant shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of open space, recreational areas, private roads, park land, and other communally -owned facilities. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the city attorney as to its legal form and effect. Common spaces shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant describing that the space, its maintenance, and improvement are appurtenant to the land for the benefit of the residents of the planned unit development and adjoining property owners. The final plat shall grant easements to the City of Auburn in all private open space and park land tracts so that the City may perform maintenance in the event of improper maintenance by the homeowners' association. All maintenance shall adhere to City of Auburn standards. 3. Prior to final plat approval, traffic calming devices shall be financially guaranteed for installation on 50th and 51st Streets NE. Traffic calming methods and design must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. 4. Prior to issuance of construction approvals, the Applicant shall prepare a sight distance plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Directors. The plan shall document the sight distance triangles at all intersections and corners and shall define measures to ensure maintenance and protection of sight distances within lots and tracts, including easements. This may result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable requirements are satisfied. 5. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Landscaping Plan that demonstrates that all landscaping in the public rights-of-way, storm drainage tracts, and open space tracts conform to City standards. The plan must demonstrate conformance with standards for acceptable tree types and root barriers, etc., and must also show coordination with utility and road improvements. The plan must also include maintenance and conform the standards in ACC 18.50.070. The Applicant shall provide root deflection devices or similar mechanisms for all trees planted within five feet of curbs, sidewalks, or pavement to ensure mature trees does not contribute to pavement deterioration. Care should be taken by the Applicant to account for individual lots' ingress and egress when defining the location of proposed street trees. The landscaped median of "M" Street NE shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association and be included in the landscaping maintenance plan. The plan must be approved by the Planning Department prior to final plat approval. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 36 of 44 6. To meet subdivision requirements of ACC 17.12.260 related to the dedication of recreation land, the Applicant shall dedicate 4.85 acres of park land in the general location of Tracts O and P as identified on the Binding Site Plan, and in a configuration acceptable to the City Parks Director. To address the impacts from the project's new impervious surfaces, the Applicant shall comply with one of the following prior to final plat approval: a. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed on-site to limit the off-site discharge for the post -developed 100 -year flow to less than 7.2 cubic feet per second (efs). 7.2 cfs is the capacity of downstream culvert number four that would be overwhelmed from the storm water generated by the project in the event of a 100 - year storm and saturated ground. Culvert number four is a 24 -inch storm drainage culvert located within the King County right-of-way of 86'h Avenue South approximately 800 feet north of 86'h Avenue South's intersection with South 277th Street. b. The Applicant shall secure approvals from the appropriate agencies for replacement of downstream culvert number four. The replacement culvert must have a minimum capacity of 93 cubic feet per second to correspond with the combined capacity of the tributary culverts located upstream. Culvert number four is a 24 -inch storm drainage culvert located within the King County right-of- way of 86th Avenue South approximately 800 feet north of 86th Avenue South's intersection with South 277' Street. C. The Applicant shall secure approvals from the appropriate agencies to provide an alternate downstream storm drainage route terminating in the Green River. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the alternate drainage route has adequate hydraulic capacity to convey the post - developed 100 -year flow with saturated ground prior to construction authorization. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the alternate drainage route would have no adverse environmental effects. 8. Pedestrian/ornamental street lights shall be installed by the Applicant along the interior streets and sidewalks of the plat. The style of the lights shall be consistent with City standards or be an ornamental style similar to the "Whatley, Washington Series 405 fluted fiberglass pole with acorn -style post -top fixture" as submitted in the preliminary plat application. The City Engineer shall review the spacing and location of the lights to ensure that adequate lighting is provided along the surface of all streets and any adjacent sidewalks. 9. Home designs shall be consistent with the drawings entitled "Multiple Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans," and "Single Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans," both dated March 11, 2004 as submitted as part of the preliminary plat application. Home exterior colors shall be consistent with "Color Palette, Homescapes, Sherwin Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 37 of 44 Williams, 2002," as submitted as part of the preliminary plat application, except that the "Bright and Bold" color scheme shall not be used. 10. The final landscape design shall be generally consistent with the preliminary landscaping plan as submitted by the Applicant as part of the preliminary plat application. The project will also require furniture in the open space areas, and coordinated fencing and entrance signs. Bench furniture and fencing shall be generally consistent with those designs submitted as part of the preliminary plat application. Furniture and fencing shall be of consistent design and material throughout the project. Any entrance signs shall be a low monument style with landscaping accents. The number of signs, their style, placement, and landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to final plat approval. 11. The Applicant has proposed that Lots 1 through 67 shall be accessed only through an alley. The final plat shall include a requirement that Lots 1 though 67 shall be developed as alley -loaded lots unless the Applicant documents and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that market demand for this housing style does not exist. In the event that a lack of market demand is sufficiently demonstrated, a reduced number of alley -loaded lots will be required for Lots 35 through 67 only. 12. Prior to the issuance of clearing and/or grading permits subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, the Applicant shall furnish the City of Auburn City Engineer and appropriate City of Kent staff person with a proposed haul route and schedule for hauling soil material to and/or from the site for review and approval by both entities. If, in the opinion of the city representatives, such hauling will adversely impact the street network, hauling hours may be coordinated and limited to appropriate off-peak hours or alternative routes. The haul route plan shall also include a traffic control plan for approval by the City of Kent and the City of Auburn. The Applicant shall submit a Haul Route Plan prior to Phase I final approvals to avoid any traffic impacts generated by truck trips during the construction and grading phases. 13. The recommendations of the geotechnical report "Geotechnical Report River Sand "I" Street NE and South 277th Street," by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 4, 2004 (attached as Plat Exhibit 19) and/or other subsequent site specific soils or geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into clearing, grading, and other appropriate construction plans subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, as determined by the City Engineer. Special consideration shall be given to the recommendations for storm pond design identified in the geotechnical report. 14. The Applicant's grading plans subsequent to permit NO. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004 shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities giving particular attention to developing a plan to minimize the exposure of on-site soils and address grading and related activities during wet weather. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 38 of 44 15. A licensed geotechnical engineer shall monitor on-site rough/preliminary plat grading activities subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004 to ensure that the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical report and any additional conditions or requirements are implemented. Based on recommendations of the geotechnical report, the geotechnical engineer should review final design and specifications to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the project design. The geotechnical services to be provided during construction are to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and geotechnical report recommendations. 16. Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, a geotechnical engineer shall re- analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are necessary. If warranted, a revised geotechnical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by the City Engineer. 17. Prior to the placement of fill in addition to that authorized by permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, the City Engineer shall approve the source of the imported fill material for all structural fill and other fill activities. Compaction monitoring and testing shall be required for all fill areas, both structural and non-structural for City review. Compaction reports for structural fill shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior to acceptance. 18. Prior to issuance of grading permits subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, a wetland hydroperiod analysis shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The analysis shall include a prc-developed analysis of the existing hydrologic volume tributary to the wetlands, and post -developed volumes from tributary areas directed to the wetlands. A wetland biologist shall be consulted to verify the appropriate hydrologic support necessary to maintain existing wetland's function and value. If augmentation is warranted to reduce or avoid impacts, rooftop drainage or other acceptable means can be directed to the wetlands at a volume approximating existing conditions to maintain hydrologic support of the wetlands. A monitoring plan/program shall also be developed for City review and approval. The Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001) will provide guidance for performing the wetland hydroperiod analysis, information on maximum acceptable hydroperiod alterations, recommendation for reducing development impacts on wetland hydroperiod and water quality, recommendation for flow control and treatment for stormwater discharges to wetlands and recommendation for post -development wetland monitoring. 19. Prior to approval of the grading permit subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, or prior to approval of half -street improvements to South 277th Street unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the half -street improvements will not result in wetland filling, a final wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and Public Works Directors. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the subsequent grading permits or other construction permits. If applicable, the plan shall identify the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 39 of 44 amount of wetland impacts associated with half -street improvements to South 277`h Street and any associated wetland mitigation. The final wetland mitigation plan shall include the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion and sedimentation control features needed, planting plans specifying species, quantities, location, size, spacing, and density; the source of plant materials, propagules and seeds; water and nutrient requirements for plants, and water level maintenance practices. The enhancement of wetland buffers shall mitigate the reduction of wetland functions from the disturbance and increased proximity of development. The plan shall provide for wetland mitigation in general accordance with recommendations identified in the report "Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of the River Sand Property," J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc., January 26, 2005 (attached as Plat Exhibit 20), as modified by the Final Staff Evaluation and MDNS. Major elements of the final wetland mitigation plan shall include: a. A final wetland mitigation plan, report, and monitoring program, maintenance plan, and contingency plan in accordance with the recommendations of the delineation and conceptual mitigation reports, and as modified by MDNS conditions and the Final Staff Evaluation. The plans and supporting hydrologic analysis shall establish goals and objectives to monitor and measure the success of the wetland mitigation program. b. The wetland buffers shall be a minimum of 50 feet for the Category II wetland, and a minimum of 25 feet for the Category IV wetland and incorporate the following characteristics: areas of flattened slopes ranging from 4:1 and 6:1 in gradient adjacent to the wetland edge to provide habitat transition areas, and dense plantings of native northwest vegetation that will provide shade and cover for local wildlife. A maintenance plan for the buffers shall be prepared and submitted concurrently with the final mitigation plan for review and approval by the Planning Director. C. The wetland enhancement areas shall be designed to include elements of water saturation (hydrology) and be vegetated with obligate, facultative wetland plants or facultative (hydrophytic) vegetation native to the Pacific Northwest. Trees and other vegetation designed to provide food and cover for local wildlife shall be included. d. The Applicant shall provide when required the Auburn Building Official with services of an approved biologist with expertise in wetland buffer enhancement, for purposes of inspecting wetland work activities on the City's behalf to confirm adherence to approved plans and specifications. In addition, the biologist shall be retained for a minimum of five years following completion of all wetland work to monitor the progress of the enhanced wetlands, and to oversee the replacement of unsuccessful plant and habitat materials in accordance with the approved plans. The wetlands must be monitored at a minimum of twice yearly, and a report indicating achievement of goals and objectives, and the project status, shall be filed annually with the Planning Department throughout the five-year monitoring program. A final report shall be submitted at the end of the monitoring program. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuhurn River Sand P UD Page 40 of 44 e. Filling and grading of the site and wetlands mitigation work may occur concurrently. The mitigation construction shall be complete prior to final plat approval. f. An appropriate security equivalent to 125% of the cost of all wetlands mitigation work shall be submitted to the Auburn Building Official prior to the issuance of all grading permits, and shall be kept active for a minimum of five years following completion of all wetlands construction in an amount commensurate with the monitoring program and contingency plan. At then end of the monitoring program, the City shall release the security if remedial action is not required. g. Following completion and acceptance of all wetlands mitigation work, no clearing, grading, or building construction shall occur within the wetlands mitigation area, except as authorized by the City of Auburn for protection of public health, safety, and welfare, maintenance purposes, passive recreation improvements, or contingency mitigation work. h. The surveyed wetland area shall be clearly indicated on all construction plans approved by the City, indicating the purpose and any limitations on the use of the area. The boundary of the wetland shall be based on the wetland boundary confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers by letter dated May 22, 2003 (reference: File No. 2002-4-00613) and its buffer shall be staked in 25 -foot intervals. This staked line shall continuously remain in place and serve as clearing and construction limits throughout the project for all construction activities adjacent to the wetlands area, or as required by the City. 20. The purpose and intent of the following condition is to discourage the uncontrolled intrusion of humans into the mitigation area, provide a passive recreation opportunity, and to ensure long term protection. The following information and improvements shall be required by the Applicant: a. Interpretive signs shall be installed and maintained at 150 -foot intervals along the boundary of wetland buffers. The signs shall be constructed of a permanent and durable material and indicate the wetland restrictions related to the use of the area. The sign locations, construction details, and text shall be specified in final mitigation plan. b. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be encumbered by a conservation easement granted to the City of Auburn. The easement shall state that any uses within the easement area shall be approved by the Planning Director. The uses shall be consistent with the purpose of the wetland and stream buffer and be a general benefit to the public. Evidence that the easement has been executed and recorded is required prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the site. 21. Unless a FEMA map amendment is approved to eliminate on-site floodplain, prior to issuance of a grading permit authorizing fill placement in the floodplain the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Flood Compensation Plan. The plan shall demonstrate how Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner far the City of Auburn River Sand P UD Page 41 of 44 compensatory flood storage will be provided for the project concurrently with site filling. The flood storage shall be provided incrementally as the flood stage rises from the seasonal low average, up to and including the 100 -year flood elevation. The compensatory storage shall be provided at a ratio of one to one (displacement to replacement). The flood storage must be designed based on seasonal groundwater elevations with appropriate supporting analysis. The plan must be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit to fill the floodplain. 22. Unless a FEMA map amendment is approved to eliminate on-site floodplain, the area of the compensatory flood storage and associated access shall be encumbered by a drainage easement granted to the City of Auburn. The easement shall state that any uses within this area shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Directors. The easement language shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City and shall convey maintenance and inspection access to the City. Evidence that the easement has been executed and recorded is required to be shown on the final plat. 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit subsequent to permit number GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004 that includes excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation, the Applicant shall prepare a historic/cultural resources monitoring plan as recommended by the report "Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD, King County, Washington," (Plat Exhibit 24). The monitoring plan shall establish a protocol for the inadvertent discovery of human remains. The monitoring plan shall also detail what cultural materials may be expected on-site, qualifications of the on-site monitor, the authority of the on-site monitor to halt excavation/construction activities, a protocol for assigning significance to identified materials, and safety requirements for the monitor's activities. A copy of the report shall be provided to OAHP, the City of Auburn, and the Muckleshoot Tribe upon its completion. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Auburn that the monitoring report recommendations have been addressed prior to commencement of any permitted excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation. Also, in accordance with the report's recommendations, an on-site monitor shall be present during excavation or disturbance of the existing ground surface elevation. 24. The intersection of "M" Street NE and South 277`h Street shall include a temporary traffic signal. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 76th housing unit within the plat, the Applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second permanent access route consisting of the construction of a 24 -foot wide paved roadway with adequate shoulder and storm drainage provisions along the east -west alignment of a new 49`h/51 s` Street NE between "M" Street NE and the new "I" Street NE alignment. The Applicant shall also financially secure completion of the new "I" Street NE between 491h Street NE and South 277`h Street, plus a wire span traffic signal at the intersection of the new "I" Street NE and South 277th Street. When the second permanent access is constructed, the temporary traffic signal at "M" Street NE and South 277`h Street shall be removed and permanent channelization to City of Kent standards shall be installed in its place. The Applicant shall pay the City $495,000, which in addition to the development's normal traffic impact fees, provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent access Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 42 of 44 route improvements and related improvements. In the event the City's traffic impact fees are increased prior to payment of the $495,000, the mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. 25. Notice of the future second permanent access route and the future intersection modifications shall be recorded on the face of the final plat and on each individual property title within the plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future traffic improvements shall be provided as directed by the City. 26. At the time of plat construction, secondary emergency access shall also be provided to the plat from South 277`h Street by means of the establishment of emergency accesses a minimum of 20 feet in width from South 277'1' Street. These traffic accesses shall prohibit general traffic use through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Fire lanes shall be posted in accordance with the Auburn City Code. Notice signs shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary by the homeowners' association to provide adequate visibility. 27. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall financially secure the completion of a 12 - inch of -site waterline for completion of the looping of waterlines to meet the Water Comprehensive Plan Level of Service criteria. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements would consist of approximately 1,200 linear feet of 12 -inch waterline along the proposed extension of "I" Street NE from 45`h Street NE to 491h Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear feet of 12 -inch waterline along an east -west alignment of a new 49`h/5l't Street NE between the proposed new "I" Street NE alignment and the River Sands Development west property line. The Applicant shall pay to the City $82,000, which combined with the development's normal System Development Charges, provides adequate funding to secure the water system improvements. In the event the City's Water System Development charges are increased prior to payment of the $82,000, this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased. 28. The Applicant's design and construction of the proposed project's roadway access, signalizations of "M" and "I" Streets, and frontage improvements including trails, sidewalks, and drainage shall require approval from the City of Kent prior to final plat approval. The City of Kent shall also approve the preliminary plat plans before final approval to ensure the plat does not interfere with the future widening of South 277`h Street. The Applicant would be responsible for any improvements associated with the future widening of South 277`h Street as required by the City of Kent. The Applicant shall reconfigure the driveway of the property owner to the north, Mr. Mike Carpinito, to align it with the new signalization at "I" Street NE if required by the City of Kent. 29. The Applicant shall pay school impact fees to the Kent School District as dictated by the City of Auburn and the Kent School District's school impact fee agreement. The Applicant, the Cities, and the District shall agree on a method of providing safe bus stops prior to final plat approval, and the approved method shall be noted on the final plat map. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn River Sand PUD Page 43 of 44 30. The project shall not at any time disturb or encroach upon the 200 -foot shoreline buffer ofthe Green River. 31. The approval of the PUD is only valid upon the approval and execution by the Auburn City Council of the associated preliminary plat, File No. PLT04-0006. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING VARIANCE CONDITIONS If the City Council approves the recreational vehicle parking variance, the Hearing Examiner recommends the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall establish Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions that prohibit on- site parking of recreational vehicles. The language shall be reviewed and approved by the Auburn city attorney prior to recording. This language shall be contained on the PUD final plat. 2. The variance shall be specific to the requested rezoning to PUD, Auburn City File No. PUD04-0001, and the preliminary plat proposal, Auburn City File No. PLT04-0006. If the rezoning and preliminary plat are not approved, the variance shall be null and void. DECIDED this 22"d day of September, 2005. DRISCOLL & HUNTER Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn By: James M. Driscoll Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn River Sand PUD Page 44 of 44 i � I r r I W I J W i �z to LL 0 F Q: I a W is } I o.o W3 COLw a: ::o: coo Lavlo ... . — === ��\\\ 0111 '.O.'.•.•.� p1g�y, \\\\ JLLZ 1� �p ,fr,,, ( 3N 133l11SL 1 rGy r ff��j��j pW Za LSIFI ���i � r � r f �Wy (133g, 7euj o 3N Iaa,IsO U Z J LL l w Q a F I �} z a OZ 3 w �< �w 30 0 LU 13 ca zUS ?i d u �a W hcr a O� 0 ' W Ve i oa Idm. I�I�r ,m.b+.nao�,ss,�w¢arraowacmu" aavaoo WIOAao� �a+.nar� W+,ca,mwa'a �r �..wa c,u tea+ oaomvaewwaaa rwa RIVER SAND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 River Sand is approximately 41 acres in size and is located at South 277x' Street and the unopened right-of-way of `I' Street NE. The applicant is submitting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal for the property utilizing a High Density Residential zone on the northern portion of the site (approximately 21.5 acres) and a Moderate Density Residential zone on the southern portion of the site (approximately 19.5 acres). This is consistent with the outright zonings of R-4 (high density) and R-3 (moderate density), which is also consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The proposal consists of up to 294 residential attached and detached units on the project. The project consists of 175 single family residential lots and approximately 119 multi-family/townhouse attached residential units. Lots 1 through 36 are alley loaded lots that will be developed with single family homes. Lots 37 through 69 are proposed to be developed with single family homes with front loaded or rear loaded garages, or a mix of both products. The remaining single family lots will contain detached homes with garages. The multifamily component will have 24 buildings, each housing four or five units. The project is proposed to be completed in three phases with grading/initial engineering/road work being the first phase, followed by development of the western portion of the site, and the third phase would be construction of the eastern portion of the property. Construction is estimated to begin during the spring of 2005 with an estimated five year build out time. Along with the PUD application, two variances and two deviations are proposed. A variance for reduced building setbacks is attached, a variance to exempt the requirement of recreational vehicle parking in the multi -family area is enclosed, a deviation for reduced internal road widths is requested, and a deviation for a dead end water line system is attached. Approximately 8.3 acres of park/open space area is proposed for the subdivision. As part of the open space, tracts have been created for the use of street trees along the main internal road for aesthetic purposes. The one pond area proposed on the western portion of the property will be maintained and enhanced for aesthetic character. The pond area has been calculated as developed park area excluding the pond bottom. Bimr Sand PUD—Auburn, Wlarbington Job No. 01133 DBM Consulting Engineers Page 1 The City of Auburn Code 18.69.101 outlines the standards by which a PUD district is developed. The purpose of the following description is to outline in detail how the River Sand PUD addresses and satisfies each criteria as outlined in the City code. These criteria ate as follows: A. Preservation of Natural Amenities. Preservation of desirable site characteristics such as open spaces an a pxotecnon o senstnve environmental eatures inclu ' g steep slopes, mature trees, rivers, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. RESPONSE: This project proposes to preserve natural amenities located on and adjacent to the 41 acre site as follows: 1. Green River preservation. Green River frontage located adjacent to or near the easterly 1,000 lineal feet of the project. The King County Parks Department owns approximately 700 lineal feet by 200 foot wide property located between the easterly property line of the site and the Green River to South 277' Street. Approximately 300 feet of the project fronts directly on the Green River. The construction of pathways and/or the preservation of natural amenities on or adjacent to this property will be consistent with the King County trail system plan. 2. The PUD proposes the dedication, donation, and construction of approximately 8.3 acres of open space/park area, approximately three acres being adjacent to the Green River along its easterly property line. The proposal will provide one pedestrian access point. A 200 foot shoreline setback area from the River will be part of the park area and will be left in its natural state and be dedicated as open space. The remainder of the park will provide open space to the immediate community and community at large by providing linkage to the proposed King County trail system. This park/open space will provide substantial visual access of the Green River as well as pedestrian access in accordance with the attached plan. In addition, traffic driving along South 277h Street will be able to look down and into the park/open space from the South 277`" Street/Green River Bridge. 3. Additionally, the Port of Seattle will be constructing 72+ acres of wetlands to the south and west of the subject property on 107 acres of land owned by the Port. This property will be developed as wetland/open pond areas in accordance with the approved plans on file with the City of Auburn. Although no formal pedestrian access/paths are being proposed within this wetland area, this natural area will provide additional passive outlooks. River Sand PUD —Auburn, Washington Job No. 01133 DBM Consuking Engineers Page 2 B. Pedestrian Oriented Communities. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce traffic congestion and increase the potential use of alternative modes of travel such as mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. RESPONSE: One of the defining characteristics of the River Sand PUD will be the construction and preservation of pedestrian oriented walkways and facilities. These pedestrian facilities, which will be enhanced and/or constructed as part of this project, are outlined as follows: 1. King County Parks owns an approximate 200 foot wide section of land between the site's easterly property line and the Green River. King County has developed a plan for development of a King County parks system in this area. This project will cooperate fully with King County's ability to develop their site. In addition, all new facilities that are developed at River Sand will be compatible with the King County Parks Plan. 2. A three acre open space/park is proposed to be developed as part of the PUD, generally along the site's easterly property line. 3. Anexisting 12 foot wide concrete sidewalk is located along the south right-of-way of South 2771i Street fronting this project. That trail system will eventually connect to the Interurban Trail system in an east — west direction as future development occurs by other properties. 4. The project's pedestrian facilities will provide linkage to the existing trail that extends to the existing Green River pedestrian bridge located at the northeast comer of the property by an access route through Tract H of the proposal. This bridge provides pedestrian access across the Green River to the Green River Road. This walkway continues east along the South 277`' Street corridor up the hill and provides hiking and/or walking opportunities for pedestrians. 5. An additional section of approximately 250 feet of new 12 foot wide concrete sidewalk will be developed to the west property line, near the northwest corner of the site. 6. In addition, an internal walkway/pedestrian access will be provided in accordance with the attached site plan. This includes sidewalks located along the public streets as well as a corridor between lots to allow and facilitate pedestrian access to the Green River trail system as well as the South 277" Street interurban connection and the on site open space. 7. Specific points of pedestrian access both in a north — south and east — west direction are shown on the plans, which will facilitate interconnection between the public road facilities/sidewalks and the trail systems along the Green River and South 277" Street, Therefore, the proposed plan is consistent with providing a significant and complex internal trail system. River Sand PUD —Auburn, Washington Job No. 01133 DBM Consuiting Engineers Page 3 We consider the pedestrian access to all of these trail systems as well as the bridge crossing to the Green River to be a substantial improvement over a standard subdivision plan which would otherwise be submitted A portion of the lots will be alley loaded with no driveways interrupting pedestrian access along the main roadway (51" Street NE). Other resources that will alleviate traffic congestion will be the use of bus transportation and the Sounder Train. Metro Route 150 provides service to the project and there are three stops located neat the site (the closest stop is within '/a mile of the site): a. Auburn Way North and South 277' Street b. Auburn Way North and 49' Street Northeast c. Auburn Way North and 45`° Street Northeast The Sounder Train also services the area with their Auburn Station located along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks between `A' and `C' Streets and from Main Street South to 3`d Street at the west end of downtown Auburn. This station is located approximately four miles from the project site. C. Land Use Efficiencies. Provide efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities that result in lower development cost and make housing more affordable. RESPONSE: The proposed site plan indicates a maximum unit count on this property of approximately 294 units. Due to the site's constraints (i.e. wetlands, shoreline, and floodplain) the configuration of the single family residential lots are smaller than allowed under the current code. A PUD submittal is being proposed on this site to provide greater flexibility in lot design. A narrower street/right-of-way is proposed to allow for sidewalks to be placed within open space tracts in some locations to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces. This reduction translates into low impact development (LID), a feature that reduces stormwater runoff and concerns about the effects it may have on salmon in the Green River. The land use efficiencies on this proposal are derived in two ways. First, the smaller than otherwise allowed under the zoning code lot sizes conform generally with the GMA policies of providing higher densities and more efficient land use for single family detached development, and the multi-family/townhouse component of the project is consistent with the higher densities as well as a gradation of densities. Since GMA was passed in 1990, smaller more compact and efficient single family residential lots have become more accepted in this community and are therefore proposed on this project. The overall density meets with the underlying zoning. River Sand PUD — Auburn, Warhington Job No. 01133 DBM Conmlkng Engweeer Page 4 D. Improved Transitional Areas. Improve the sensitive development of transitional areas located between different land uses, environmentally sensitive areas, and along significant corridors within the city. RESPONSE: Generally, the zoning code specifies a higher land use density along the northerly property line and a gradual transition to lower land use densities along the southerly property line. The project will be transitional from Auburn Way's business/industrial land to the west and the passive King County trail system to the east The proposed PUD is consistent with these goals and objectives. The density of the housing provided along the northerly property line approaches 14 dwelling units per acre. The densities of single family residential lots along the southerly property line is approximately six to eight units per acre. The intervening lots approach the density of eight to ten units per acre. Therefore, a gradation of densities and improved transitional areas will result In addition, this gradation of densities will provide logical, meaningful, and aesthetically pleasing character between the development and the adjacent sensitive areas located to the west, south, and east of the project E. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Provide development that is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. PUDs may also allow for a small amount of development from other comprehensive plan designations if determined to be appropriate for the PUD and its surroundings. RESPONSE: The development is consistent with the following goals and policies of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Goal 2. Flexibility Ta provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources and critical lands in overall compliance with this comprehensive plan." Response: The proposal will provide a finished residential development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The development will be designed and constructed in compliance with the City of Auburn's performance standards other than where deviations and/or variances have been requested and will protect and enhance natural resources and critical lands. This will be accomplished by a series of onsite and as well as park area/open space on the eastern side of the site along the Green River and adjacent to the shallow detention pond on the west side. The primary park area will be a public facility while protecting the shoreline area and enhancing the aesthetics of the River. River Sand PUD —Auburn, Wasbington Job No. 01133 DBM Consutung Engineers Page 5 04&gjve 2.4 — GP -18 `Flexible land development techniques including, but not limited to, clustering and planned unit developments (PUDs) for the development of residential, commercial, and industrial praperiies shall be considered to implement this comprehensive plan. " Response: The proposed development will be processed as a PUD. The project will allow for a residential mix of single family detached development and multi-family/townhouse development. The proposed clustering of the project variation in lot width and product width together with front and alley loaded homes and the townhomes will allow more flexibility in allowing for trails/walkways and park area/open space to increase the unique development character. GP -29 `Auburn's character as a `family"community will be a priority consideration in the City's land use management decisions. Tbis priority must be balanced however with thefollowing.- a. City policy will address nanous related community needs. This includes nurturing and managing the other roles necessary far both maintaining a healthy community and responding to regional needs. Such roles include ensuring the expansion of employment opportunities, providing a full range of commensal, retail and service opportunities, providing recreational and cultural opportunities, managing traffic and maintaining a balance with the natural environment. " Response: The proposed project will contribute to Auburn's "family" community. The project proposes to develop a mix of single family, multi-family/townhouse development. These uses will be surrounded by nearby employment opportunities, commercial, retail, and service opportunities. The subject site will provide recreational opportunities to the residents. We have held preliminary discussions with Auburn's Parks and Recreation Director, Daryl Faber, and believe that we will provide a park plan that meets both the City's needs and that of the PUD. Traffic will be carefully managed by a strategically planned road system that will integrate connectivity in the overall area. All of these amenities will be balanced with the preservation of the Green River and the existing trail systems. LU -21 `The development of residential areas should ircogniZe the importance of community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and community. " Response: The River Sand development will be an attribute to the Auburn community in providing quality housing to residents. The importance of community and public facilities has been taken into full account in providing an ultimate development that has a sense of neighborhood and community through the unique design and character of the property. The site will allow for internal recreational needs and open space that adds to the overall natural atmosphere. This transitional area will ultimately provide additional shopping and employment opportunities once the area to the west of River Sand develops. River Sand PUD —Auburn, Washington Job No. 01133 DBM Consulting Engineers Page 6 LU-31 [Ylultlple family developments should be located functionally convenient to the necessary supporting facilities including uhh'hes, arterials, parks, transit service, etc. " Response: The multiple-family component of the proposed project is located functionally convenient to the necessary supporting facilities. There is park area/open space immediately to the east and along the Green River and Green River trail system. The site is in close proximity to transit service, arterials and freeways that will be a major component of the development. TR-37 `Encourage pedestrian-oriented design features in all development. " Response: Pedestrian oriented design features are a major design element of the proposal. There will be internal trails/walkways, a trail through the proposed park/open space combined with the trail along the frontage of the property (along South 277h Street). Alley product offers up to 1,500 lineal feet of driveway free pedestrian access. TR-43 "Sidewalks, trails, and other walking facilities should be extended tbrougbout the City to allow for more convenient and ecientpedestrian movement." Response: Sidewalks, trails, and other walking facilities are a component of the proposed development. The internal walkways/sidewalks, and trails through the proposed park to the Green River are all proposed for more convenient and efficient pedestrian movement The internal walking system will provide for further connection to the adjacent properties where commercial/retail development is proposed to allow a smooth transition for residents. EN-7 "Uses along the Green and White Rivers should be limited to residential, agricultural, open space, recreational, mineral resource extraction and public and quasipubhe uses. Commercial development shall only be allowed on the rivers, if such development adds new public access to the shoreline area and is constructed in a manner that will protect the shoreline and water quality of the rivers through the use of Best Management Practices. " Response: The proposed development is located immediately west of the Green River. The development has been limited mainly to residential development, which includes single family detached and multi-family/townhouse units. The project provides new access to King County owned property adjacent to the Green River. This development will be constructed in a manner that protects the shoreline and water quality of the Green River through the use of Best Management Practices. PR-5 `The City recognizes the important recreational and transportation roles played by local and regional trail systems. The City shall continue to develop a system of separated trail facilities to move residents through our community and to ad'oimng communities The local system should be designed to link up with regional trails and designated bicycle routes on mads. Safe routes alone exiatine and brobosed roadways should be improved and marked for River Sand PUD —Auburn, Washington Job No. 01133 DBM Consulting Enineerr Page 7 cyclists The City should continue to work with King County and otherjwisdutions to maintain existing facilities and impmve non -motorized transportation links. " Response: The proposed development will provide a trail system for residents that allow them to move throughout the community. These facilities will also be extended in and around the proposed park area adjacent to the future King County Green River Trail as well as through the development allowing pedestrian movement to the adjacent properties. UD4 "The design of new development along the Green and Stuck Elvers shall be sensitive to the unique character of each as a visual resource of the entire community. " Response: The proposal has taken into account the unique character of the Green River as a visual resource of the entire community. We anticipate the project being an amenity to the community and the goal of the project is to add aesthetically pleasing development that transitions from the rural character of the Green River to the residential densities proposed with the PUD. F. Enhanced Design Features. Provide building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their environment. Design standards should reflect quality site planning, landscaping and building architecture. RESPONSE: There will be four housing types proposed. Diversity in architectural aesthetics will be a main design element, and the overall proposal will complement the surrounding land uses. Attached are some of the plans of the proposed housing unit types for the project. Enclosed photographs indicate the general elevation, and textural elements of buildings for the multi -family and single family components of the project. In addition, we are providing floor plans for the single family areas of the site. The architectural elements incorporated into each building will provide an aesthetically pleasing and modulated building type for each of the four proposed building component types. This will create an interesting and architecturally complex environment throughout the entire property. G. Creation of Public Amenities. Enhance parks and open spaces consistent with the comprehensive park plan and nontnotorized plan. RESPONSE: The proposed trails, parks, and open space will be public amenities that will complement and enhance the proposed project The following amenities will be provided: 1. King County Parks owns the property between the site's easterly property line and the Green River. King County has developed a plan for development of a King County parks system in this area. This project will cooperate fully with King County's ability to develop their site. In addition all new facilities which will be developed as a portion of this development, should be consistent with the King County parks plan. River Sand PUD —Auburn, Washington Job No. 01133 DBM Consniting Engineers Page 8 2. An existing 12 foot wide concrete sidewalk is located along the south tight -of -way of South 277'h Street fronting this project will be extended to the westerly property boundary. I A three acre open space/park is proposed to be developed as part of the PUD, generally along the site's easterly property line. 4. An internal walkway/pedestrian access will be provided in accordance with the attached site plan. This includes sidewalks located along the public streets/access as well as corridors between lots to allow and facilitate pedestrian access to the Green River trail system as well as the South 277h Street connection. Specific points of pedestrian access both in a north — south and east — west direction are shown on the plans, which will facilitate interconnection between the public road facilities/sidewalks and the trail systems along the Green River and South 277'' Street. Therefore, the proposed plan is consistent with providing a significant and complex internal trail system, which also connects to the north — south Green River trail system as well as the east — west South 27Th Street system. H. Affordable Housing. Provide affordable housing options in accordance with the targets established by the King County countered planning policies and Auburn's comprehensive plan. RESPONSE: The proposed PUD anticipates townhomes, alley loaded single family and conventional front loaded homes of varying widths. By offering this many housing options, we anticipate serving many income levels within one community. BiaerSand PUD—Auburn, Wasbington Job No. 01133 DBM Consulting Engineers Page 9 1607 E. Main St Auburn, WA 98002 AUG 0 5 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ph (253) 931-0506 Fax tmillerQtcninc.com www,tcninc.com Revised Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD Auburn, Washington Prepared For: Centex Homes At the Renest of: G. M/4� City of Auburn WASy7� any Prepared by: °=i �z Timothy Miller, PE %.— Washington #27048 Member, ITE #11026 July 27, 2004 �aN'tt //moi EXPIFL:S2%I9% a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figures................................................................................................. 15 Appendix....................................................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Introduction........................................................................................... 2 I. Project Identification, Street Inventory .............................................. 3 II. Trip Generation..................................................................................... 4 III. Traffic Assignment............................................................................... 6 IV, 2020 Level of Service.......................................................................... 6 V. 2020 Traffic Simulation of 277`h Corridor ........................................... 10 VI. 2005 Level of Service........................................................................... 11 VII. Mitigation Fee.........................................................1.............................. 12 VIII. Design Considerations........................................................................... 13 Figures................................................................................................. 15 Appendix....................................................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation........................................................ 5 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ........................ 17 Table 3: 2020 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ............ 7 Table 4: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................. 8 Table 5: 2020 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ................ 9 Table 6: 2020 Corridor Level of Service Summary ..................................... 10 Table 7: 2005 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ........... 12 Table 8: 2005 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary .............. 12 Figure 1: Project Vicinity ............................................................................. 16 Figure2: Site Plan ..................................................................... 17 Figure 3: 2020 PM Peak Hour Volumes w/o Project ............................... 18 Figure 3a: 2020 PM Peak Hour Volumes w/o Project - "P' Street ................. 19 Figure 4: Site Generated Trips ...................................................... 20 Figure 4a: Net Site Generated Trips ................................................... 21 Figure 4b: Site Generated Trips - 'T' Street .......................................... 22 Figure 4c: Net Site Generated Trips - `T' Street ...................................... 23 Figure 5: 2020 PM Peak Hour w/ Project ............................................ 24 Figure 5a: 2020 PM Peak Hour w/ Project - "I" Street .............................. 25 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page ] River Sand PUD TIA Introduction July 27, 2004 This traffic impact analysis evaluates the traffic impact of the River Sand PUD proposed by Centex. The site is located on the SE corner of S 277"i Street & the existing "I" Street NE right of way in Auburn, WA. . The development consists of 172 Single Family homes and 120 Townhomes. Access to the site will initially be provided via two intersections onto S 277x' Street. The western access will be via either the existing 'T' Street NE right of way, or a temporary parallel street located within the development property and along its westem edge. This intersection will be provided with a temporary span wire traffic signal and will feature "seagull" channelization to eliminate the need for WB through traffic to stop. The second access will be located some 900 feet east of the "I" Street intersection and will be permanently restricted to right-in/right-out operation. The project will likely be constructed in two phases of approximately equal size although at this point the analysis is based on full buildout in 2005. This analysis examined the feasibility of the concept of development and access points for two horizon years: 2005 & 2020. The reason for this approach is that site access will change fundamentally at each time frame and both scenarios will have to work at build out. For the 2005 horizon the analysis was based on the City's 2005 transportation model volumes and roadway links. The major LOS analysis work however is based upon 2020 to ensure that the long term transportation network viability will be maintained. For the 2020 condition we utilized the previously developed analysis from the Robertson Properties DEIS with the maximum development, Alternative 1, comprised of 1.6 MSF of office space with 200 KSF of retail space (worst case). Study Area A level of service (LOS) analysis was provided for the following 2 intersections: • S 277' Street & Site Access • S 277`s Street & "I" Street ROW The Synchro 5 computer software program was used to perform the LOS analyses. Existing Conditions without Project An inventory of the street and intersection characteristics in the project vicinity was conducted and is summarized in the report. 2005 Conditions without Project PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analyses at the study area intersections were completed for the 2005 without project condition. 2020 Conditions with Project The following items were evaluated: • Trip generation, distribution and assignment were developed. • LOS analyses at the study area intersections were calculated. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 2 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 • Queue analyses at the site driveways were calculated for entering and exiting traffic. • Site access requirements and improvement needs were analyzed. • Measures to mitigate the development's impact on the transportation facilities in the study area were developed. I. Project Identification, Street Inventory Project Identification This traffic impact analysis evaluates the traffic impact of the River Sand PUD proposed by Centex. The site is located on the SE corner of S 277"' Street & the existing "P' Street NE right of way in Auburn, WA. The development consists of 172 Single Family homes and 120 Townhomes. Access to the site will be via two intersections onto S 277`h Street. The western access will be via either the existing 'T' Street NE right of way, or a temporary parallel street located within the development property and along its western edge. This intersection will be provided with a temporary span wire traffic signal and will feature "seagull" channelization to eliminate the need for WB through traffic to stop. Examples of seagull channelization are shown in three photographs at the end of the Figures section of the report. The second access will be located some 900 feet east of the' P' Street intersection and will be permanently restricted to right-in/right-out operation. The project will likely be constructed in two phases of approximately equal size although at this point the analysis is based on full buildout in 2005. Of particular note is the fact the 277`h Street ROW in the project vicinity is owned by the City of Kent. Access permits will need to be gained from Kent as part of the development approval process. This will be pursued by the proponent separately from the SEPA review process with the City of Auburn. The development is located in Auburn as shown in Figure 1, Site Vicinity. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. When originally conceived, City staff expressed some concern that the two access points onto S 277`h Street did not meet the requirement to have two access points. This was due to concern with delivery of emergency services. Special analysis was then provided by TCN that shows the site can be served by both Auburn and Kent from opposite directions on S 277`h Street. In fact, Kent response time will be faster than Auburn response time, at least until the new north Auburn Fire Station is completed. This analysis is available from the project file at the City. As soon as development to the west of the site occurs, 49`h Street will be extended through from River Sand to the new "I" Street. This will ultimately provide a more diverse method of providing emergency services. Thus the project will have adequate emergency access routes available both in the interim, and with the final street configuration. Currently the projected start of home construction would be September, 2006. The first closings will probably be in April, 2007. That date is within the 800 day Northwest Contractors' time limit to complete their grading and restoration work on the adjacent Port of Seattle site. This means the early construction work (utilities and infrastructure) for the River Sand development could have to contend with the fact the Port of Seattle traffic signal may still be in operation until TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 3 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 8/06. Centex is planning on 100 units per year absorption, or 8 units per month. Gravel and concrete trucks would need to start with underground utilities work starting in June, 2005. Street Inventory Auburn Way N is a N -S Major Arterial with five lanes and curbs and gutters. It is provided with sidewalks and has a posted speed limit of 40 mph north of 15th Street NE and 35 mph south of that point. It provides access through the site vicinity and links Kent and Auburn and provides access to the SR 18 freeway to the south. South of SR 18 Auburn Way South becomes SR 164 linking Auburn to Enumclaw. S 277`4 Street is a 3 to 5 -lane E -W arterial. West of West Valley Highway it is 4 lanes wide. East of that point and through the interchange area it is 3 lanes wide. East of the interchange the roadway widens to 5 lanes, but narrows just east of Auburn Way N to 3 lanes. East of the site access the roadway widens again to 2 westbound and 3 eastbound lanes. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph west of West Valley Highway and 35 mph east of that point, eventually increasing to 50 mph in the site vicinity and eastward. It links the site to Auburn Way, SR 167 and I-5 to the west, and Kent east hill to the east. "I" Street NE is an unconstructed right of way at present. Originally envisioned as an arterial linking to the existing 'T' Street a mile distant to the south, this right of way will likely be modified to serve only this site and future potential developments along 277th. A new replacement "r' Street right of way is proposed to the west of this site through the Robertson site. The existing "r' Street location is proposed as a temporary secondary access to the site. However, there currently is a 20' strip of property that separates the project site from the existing -r, Street NE ROW. The proponent has established a course of action designed to provide this right of access. If his efforts are not successful, the secondary access will be constructed within the site proper somewhat east of the current ROW location. Understanding of this level of detail regarding the secondary access should be sufficient to allow evaluation of the proposal for SEPA purposes. During the design process the exact details of this access will be determined. 49th Street NE is currently an east -west two lane local roadway running from "D" Street NE to "B" Street NE. It is underdeveloped at present with no sidewalks, turn lanes or illumination. Future Roadway Network Issues Land development proposals in the area envision 49th Street NW being extended eastward through the Robertson site, the Port of Seattle site and linking up to the River Sand development. When this route connects to the River Sand development, the western River Sand access onto S 277th Street will be abandoned. This route will eventually provide linkage from the River Sand development to three N -S arterials: `B" Street NW, Auburn Way N and "r' Street NE. II. Trip Generation Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the sixth edition of Trip Generation. This report is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiling measured trip generation data from different land use types from locations across the US. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 4 River Sand PUD TSA July 27, 2004 ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Home) and ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) using dwelling units as the independent variable were selected as the appropriate method of determining the trip generation for the entire site. A copy of the relevant pages from Trip Generation is included in the Appendix. To be conservative, the proponent indicates there is still some uncertainty as to the exact unit count for the development. In order to accommodate a slight increase in the number of dwelling units, the proponent desired this analysis to be conducted with 10 extra single family units and 10 extra multi -family units. As shown in Table 1, this site with the slightly increased number of DUs will generate 254 PM peak hour trips, 165 entering and 89 exiting trips. However, the City's transportation model for this TAZ had 60 total trips expected to be generated, 39 entering and 21 exiting. Subtracting these "planned" trips from the gross trip generation numbers reveals there will be 194 net new trips, 126 net new entering trips and 68 net new exiting trips. This data is summarized in Table 1 below. h cam' i fes" Use; 254 165 89 Dist 100% Use: 194 126 68, 1 11' A spreadsheet computing the new site generated entering, exiting and total trips for percentages of trip generation from 1% to 100% was prepared and is included in the Appendix. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 5 River Sand PUD TIA III. Traffic Traffic Volume Data July 27, 2004 At the City's request, for this analysis the horizon years will be 2020. The 2020 volumes are used to show the performance of the entire network while the 2005 volumes are used to evaluate the proposed site driveways performance at the opening of the site. The reason for this approach is that site access will change fundamentally at each time frame and both scenarios will have to work at build out. For the 2005 horizon the analysis was based on the City's 2005 transportation model volumes and roadway links. The major LOS analysis work however is based upon 2020 to ensure that the long term transportation network viability will be maintained. For the 2020 condition we utilized the previously developed analysis from the Robertson Properties DEIS with the maximum development, Alternative 1, comprised of 1.6 MSF of office space with 200 KSF of retail space (worst case). Figure 3 shows the model 2020 PM Peak Hour turning movements w/o project at the study intersections. New trips generated by the site were distributed in accordance with the future street system configuration as well as information gathered from the City's transportation model runs performed for the nearby Robertson Properties site. A copy of the residential trip distribution from that report is included in the Appendix for reference. The new site generated trip % assignments are shown in Figure 4 along with PM peak hour site generated trip assignments. Figure 4a shows the net site generated trips. Finally the new site generated trips were added to the 2020 w/o project volumes to establish the 2020 PM Peak Hour w/ project data shown in Figure 5. I IV. 2020 Level of Service I Capacity computations of the signalized study intersection were performed using the Synchro 5.0 software package. This computer program was developed by TrafficWare as an accurate representation of the Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual" methodology. Outputs from the program are included in the Appendix. Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for the study area intersections noted above. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 6 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 Unsignalized Intersections For the case of unsignalized intersections, the LOS of the driveway exiting movements and entering left turn movements are calculated. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 2. The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 3. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 7 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 Signalized Intersections For the case of signalized intersections the LOS of each movement, and the intersection as a whole, is computed in seconds of delay per vehicle. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 4. � s S Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle A 5 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.0 A summary of the capacity calculations performed for this study is contained in Table 5. Synchro computer output sheets for each signalized intersection LOS calculation are included in the Appendix. Most of the values for 2020 without Project condition are taken directly from the DEIS for the Robertson Properties development prepared by Heffron & Associates. However, that DEIS did not evaluate the 49a' Street corridor, so TCN provided the analysis of those intersections for the without Project condition using the volume data from the DEIS. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 8 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 all Intersection 2020 w/o Pro ect LOS Delay A - Sec. 2020 w/ Project LOS Delay A - Sec. A Delay Sec A Delay % 1.S 277th Street & West Valley Highway F 149.8 F 150.4 0.6 0.4% 2.S 277th Street & SR 167 SB Off -Rant/ C 24.7 C 25.6 0.9 3.6% 3.S 277th Street & SR 167 NB Off-RaW C 22.8 C 31.5 8.7 38.2% 4.S 277th Street & Frontage Road C 29.0 C 2931 0.7 2.40/a 5.S 277th Street & D Street NW' E 78.9 E 76.8 -2.1 -2.7% 63 277th Street & B Street NW A 9.8 B 10.1 0.3 3.1% 7.S 277th Street & Auburn Way N' F 111.5 F 108.4 -3.1 -2.8% 8.S 277th Street & New "I" Street E 76.2 E 57.2 -19.0 -24.9% 10. 49th Street NE & Auburn Way N2 C 20.61 C 34.2 13.6 66,0% 11.37th Street NE & Auburn Way N F 90.01 F 98.0 8.0 8.9% 12.30th Street NE & Aubum Way N B 14.8 B 19.2 4.4 29.70/D 13.22nd Street NE & Auburn Way C 24.1 C 26.2 2.1 8.7% 14.15th Street NE & Aubum Way N E 62.9 E 69,61 6.7 10.7% 15.8th Street NE & Aubum Way N F 123.3 . F 123.4 0.1 0.1% 16.4th Street NE & Auburn Way N E 56.6 E 56.7 0.1 0.2% 17. 1 st Street NE & Aubum Way N C 21.2 C 21.2 0.0 0.0% 18.E Main Street & Auburn Way B 11.4 B 11.4 0.0 0.00/0 19.37th Street NE & West Valley Highway D 44.5 D 45.3 0.8 1.8% 20.37th Street NE & D Street NW D 45.41 D 46.1 0.7 1.5% 21.3 7th Street NE & B Street NW D 48.8 D 49.9 1.1 2.3% 22. 49th Street NE & "I" Street NE 2 D 36.6 D 45.2 8.6 23.5% 23. 37th Street NE & "I" Street NE A 9.3 A 8.8 -0,5 -5.4% 24. 30th Street NE & "I" Street NE A 5.7 A 9.61 3.9 68.4% 25. 22nd Street NE & "I" Street NE' B 14.5 B 1 12.5 -2.0 -13.80/c 26. Harvey Road NE & "I" Street NE D 47.4 D 1 54.31 6.9 1 14.6% ' - Four intersections have slight delay improvements with the addition of this project This can happen when trips are added to non-critical phases (that have additional "unused" time) so the buicrsection handles mote trips in the same time. Thus the overall delay per vhicle is reduced slightly. r - These two intersections have their without project IAS taken from the Robertson Final EIS. All other intersections without project LOS are from the Robertson Draft EIS. Note that the large decrease in delay for S 277`' Street &,,r, Street is caused by adding an EB through lane. Note that only one intersection had a LOS grade change. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 9 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 A 2020 corridor PM peak hour LOS analysis was performed for the six corridors impacted by this project. This was accomplished using Synchro version 6 Arterial Level of Service report. This report contains information about the speed and travel time for an arterial. This report mirrors the reports used in the Arterial section of the HCM, Chapter 15. LOS determinations are made by various travel speed ranges for each of four classes of roadways, per Exhibit 15-2 in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (copy in appendix). TCN had to make assumptions as to which intersections will be signalized in 2020, and what the likely lane configuration and signal phasing would be. The expected conditions for each intersection can be determined by inspecting the individual Synchro signalized intersection LOS reports provided in the appendix. The results of the corridor analysis using the average of the two directions of travel are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, corridor LOS is below the City's current LOS D standard for four of the six corridors. However in the case of at least one corridor, city staff indicate that a LOS F standard is being considered for 2770' Street, although that decision is yet to be formalized, and no low speed threshold has been determined. We expect the City will likely adjust their corridor LOS standard downward by 2020. Finally, if comparisons are done to corridor LOS from the Robertson DEIS, please note that report used a different method of evaluating corridor LOS, namely intersection LOS averaging. V. 2020 Traffic Simulation of 277th Corridor TCN further performed SimTraffic analysis of the 277" Corridor and found that severe queuing would cause spillback leading to gridlock in 2020 unless certain network changes were made. These included the following findings: 1. Even without Robertson and River Sand, by 2020 the 277th Corridor has significant delays at two key intersections, Auburn Way N and West Valley Highway. Both intersections are LOS F. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 10 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 2. At the Auburn Way North intersection, dual left turns are required for both the EB and WB directions. Of these two movements, the EB is more critical. However, a dual left turn for the WB movements is strongly recommended. With these improvements, the intersections still operates at LOS F with 102.1 seconds of delay, down from 108.9 seconds of delay without the dual left tum lanes. The southbound through queue is extremely long at 2,700'. The Auburn Way North intersection failure is a system failure unrelated to demands of local development. We recommend the City plan for this in their upcoming project to widen 277"' from Auburn Way N to the Green River. This can be technically accomplished by widening only on the south side of 277`h. 3. Even with the dual left tum lanes described in 2 above, we recommend the system failure should be more closely evaluated. One potential solution would be to grade separate the intersection using a single point urban interchange (SPUI) design. A logical implementation would be to elevate 277"' over Auburn Way North since the west leg of the intersection is already elevated due to the railroad overpass. There appears to be sufficient space to allow 277"' to touch down prior to "D" Street NE. We performed a Synchro and SimTraffic analysis of this alternative and found the signalized SPUI intersection would operate at LOS B with 16 seconds of delay. The southbound through queue dropped from 2,700' to 775', a 71% improvement. Dual left turn lanes for WB LT at the T, Street intersection are required by virtue of the traffic demand created by the completion of "r' Street, irrespective of the Robertson or River Sand development. The signal at "r' Street can be timed so the WB left turn queue will be in the 550' range. If the western`T' Street alignment is selected, there will be sufficient space between the River Sand intersection and the back of the queue to allow left turns out of the River Sand intersection. 4. With a SPUI option, the queue for EB through at "r' Street was in the range of 900'. Modifying this option to include 3 lanes eastbound, east of Auburn Way N drops the queue to 450'. The 3 through lanes would match the 3 lanes for the hill climb, just east of River Sand access. A layout of the channelization that would accomplish this was developed. 5. The West Valley Highway intersection LOS F also represents system failure unrelated to the Robertson or River Sand developments. The City should lobby King County for widening West Valley highway appropriately in their long range planning for this area which is in an agricultural production district, not within the City's UGA. We trust the preceding 2020 SimTraffic work will assist the City in making long range system design decisions for this corridor. V1. 2005 Level of Service J To ensure the interim access scenario will operate acceptably, we analyzed the 2005 year assuming (a very aggressive) buildout of the project in that year. Traffic volumes were taken from the City's 2005 model. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 11 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 7. Signalized Intersections A summary of the capacity calculations performed for this study is contained in Table 8. Synchro computer output sheets for each signalized intersection LOS calculation are included in the Appendix. This analysis shows the key site access intersections onto S 277`h Street will operate with very good level of service upon opening. As mentioned earlier, this temporary intersection will eventually be eliminated when 49`h Street is extended to the west. I VII. Mitigation Fee I To compute the mitigation fee two land use types were chosen under the City of Auburn's Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule. The first was SF Residential with a fee rate of $677.71/DU when multiplied by 172 units totals $116,566.12. The other land use type is MF Residential with a fee rate of $440.91 per DU when multiplied by 120 units totals $52,909.20. Thus the total mitigation fee will be $169,475.32. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 12 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 VIII. Design Considerations Special evaluation of various design issues was undertaken to ensure the proposed site access points onto S 277"' Street can meet applicable design standards and can therefore be expected to operate safely. Existing "P' Street Intersection - As stated earlier in the report, this intersection will be a temporary access point until such time as 49`h Street is constructed linking the site to the new "T' Street which is planned as part of the Robertson development. For purposes of this analysis the roadway may either be constructed within the existing `T' street ROW, or be located immediately east of this ROW, but within the River Sand property, This access point is proposed to initially be signalized at such time as the first units are sold. A temporary span wire traffic signal system is proposed since this signal will be removed when 49`h Street is constructed. If negotiations are successful, the proponent may be able to secure temporary access to the proposed temporary signal that the Port of Seattle will install to facilitate construction of their project located immediately west and south of the River Sand site. If this is so, the existing "T' Street intersection will not be used until such time as the Port of Seattle access road is retired or reduced in scope to the point that the traffic signal is no longer in operation. At that point, the River Sand access will be established at the existing "T' Street (or equivalent) intersection mentioned above. When the signal at the Port of Seattle access point is removed, a temporary span wire traffic signal will be constructed at the existing "T' Street (or equivalent) intersection. The intent of this is that there will only be one temporary traffic signal at any given time on S 277`h Street. If permission to use the Port of Seattle access is not secured, then the existing "T' Street (or equivalent) intersection will be operated as right -in / right -out only until such time as the Port of Seattle signal is retired, at which point the existing "I" Street (or equivalent) intersection will be signalized and then full access will be allowed. To determine if a deceleration lane was required we consulted both the WSDOT design standards and the Colorado DOT access standards that have been previously preferred by City staff. For the analysis year of 2020 the through volume will be 3,218 and the amount of right turns into the site will be 20. Using WSDOT design standards it is recommended that a right -tum pocket or taper be considered. WSDOT standards would not consider a right -turn lane until there is a minimum of 40 vehicles turning right into the site. Using the Colorado DOT access standards any right turn volume greater than 25 vph a right tum deceleration lane and taper is required. Since that volume is not met, no right turn lane is required. Copies of the relevant sections from these two sources are included in the appendix. In the case of the existing -r, Street intersection we project 20 PM peak hour right turns. This intersection will permanently be channelized as right -in / right -out until such time as it is signalized. This intersection is also temporary. It will be removed once 49`h Street is extended to the west. Because of the temporary nature of this intersection, we recommend the City consider allowing the design to incorporate a right tum taper as suggested by WSDOT standards. However, this is a TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 13 River Sand PUD TIA July 27, 2004 detail that does not need to be determined as part of the SEPA process, and can better be decided during the detailed design phase. City staff has indicated some concern with the potential of future queuing from the new -r, Street intersection impacting the operation of this intersection. However, the phasing proposed for this intersection will be to convert it to right -in / right -out operation upon the opening of the new -r, Street signal, and elimination of the intersection entirely when 49`h Street is extended westward. Hence there will be no queuing issue on 277`h Street to contend with. We understand the information provided at this point is not sufficient to guarantee that either the City of Kent or Auburn will approve this access point. Preliminary engineering design will be needed to confirm there is sufficient deceleration distance for WB traffic to safely change lanes into the WB left turn lane and decelerate to stop at the left turn signal. Also, preliminary design needs to determine that safe intersection entering sight distance is provided (i.e. landscaping and fencing materials do not block view). These issues will be clarified when engineering drawings are prepared for approval by Auburn and Kent. River Sand Road Intersection - This intersection will be a permanent access into the development. It will be unsignalized, and will be limited to right -in / right -out access only. To determine if a deceleration lane was required we consulted both the WSDOT design standards and the Colorado DOT access standards that have been previously preferred by City staff. For the analysis year of 2020 the through volume will be 3,191 and the amount of right turns into the site will be 29. Using WSDOT design standards it is recommended that a right -turn pocket or taper be considered. WSDOT standards would not consider a right -turn lane until there is a minimum of 40 vehicles turning right into the site. Using the Colorado DOT access standards any right turn volume greater than 25 vph a right turn deceleration lane and taper is required. Copies of the relevant sections from these two sources are included in the appendix. In the case of the River Sand Road intersection we project 29 PM peak hour right turns. This intersection will permanently be channelized as right -in / right -out. At this point 277th Street already has 3 eastbound lanes, making the through volume in the curb lane proportionately less than for a two eastbound lane street. Because of the availability of 3 eastbound lanes, and the channelization that eliminates any possibility of left turns that could otherwise be a factor of concern for traffic approaching this intersection, we recommend the City consider allowing the design to incorporate a right turn taper as suggested by WSDOT standards. This will also minimize the amount to existing infrastructure that needs to be removed and replaced. The temporary site accesses will be located at the future roadway connections to S 277`h Street. Construction traffic is likely to be less than when the site is occupied. Accordingly the impacts identified for the 2005 scenario will be conservative for the period during construction. Additionally, the proponent is anticipating coordinating efforts with the Port of Seattle contractor to further reduce construction traffic by bringing fill onto the site directly from their adjacent site without the need for using public streets. If successful, this will be a great benefit to the traveling public and the City by reducing impacts to traffic flow and roadway wear. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 14 FIGURES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 15 SITE �lwllli L N N N r < N 310 d04 452 9990 20 43719 1214 12109 13561 dII4 475 450043275 10504 15 0240 4QP N N N GimtO / I, � 1 ♦ Obib . Q% n1413��(�, 4357 95 4,1�'J��284A dUb 5 18910 431489% n324bo n68,�,O 157050 0 x1 4 dOq 4257 3154 d 1474QP • r • -- 0 4QP 2050 0� - Sul b 15394- 1 4-1614 v m n N N N r < N 310 d04 452 9990 20 43719 1214 12109 13561 dII4 475 450043275 10504 15 0240 4QP N N N GimtO / I, � 1 ♦ b' . Q% 461 = 514� 5 ry r11 ®1 dOq 4257 i • r • -- 0 2050 9 Uj - Sul 15394- 1 4-1614 5% 4% 32% $ 4-1241 3014 d 93 165 10 TRANSPORTATION 13% 1474 d 853 b° 'n a` 2% i Figure 3 � R A 2020 PM Peak Hour w/o Project River Sand PUD , ` o b N N N mer 40/ 6` � b dIIb R 100. 14% t BOA 19870 4 x1768 ovbi� 704 d 10 Jj wo d84 4322 4 Q61 ° %/o 128A ��� �. 600d04 4270 OP dII0 40 2744 19 w4- 4-60 4-2094 dazes 8% 10 31890 9 20% sob d 130 04 d 0 (% 4461 44A A ebbe M � 000 Na°N 000 2% N N N r < N 310 d04 452 9990 20 43719 1214 12109 13561 dII4 475 450043275 10504 15 0240 4QP N N N GimtO / I, 'ZO BOdII 105 670 ♦ d4 461 = 514� 5 492* 8 r11 ®1 I1{tj\\ 122b 0 206 b 9 Uj Sul A N � r 3890 dot 0 Be 14904-98 234 b 11 d 40 nma b s 900 aII4 492 1850 12 43216 1374 d 76 4QA b N O Y b . b Bras. 'ZO BOdII 105 670 4 q3 8001 d4 '30 2065* 130 5 492* 8 3AhO4-g1dII 34 s; 122b 206 b 9 Uj TRANSPORTATION r� Figure 3 N 0 a® 2020 PM Peak Hour w/o Project River Sand PUD All N �AT IOti ���ORnow Tµw�gi Figuxe 3aak aow „r, gy�eet 2020 ?A pe w10 giver Sand PIJD A OOb db❑ oA 4 3 OOO d84 q 0 OON A, d04 414 N 063 06' 217a 10❑ 06 3 170 4'9 5 i8b `10 23U <'102 d0 o4 di 04 d2 04 d0 4pA 4pA R A 4pA O O O o o N O o O O O I I 1 r� 17% I 1. dllb 4 0 00 1 p C'26 ob d2d8b - p 04 d 0 Don 2% 4 P 0 0 _ 0A R 41% 17b 4 09 04 d 0 0 0 0 d84 q qQA e a o 7% 4b 06, 0 T 049 d1Sb q 0 04, L? 4 0 Oq 19 g% ab 10 4.0 9 02 d 34 484 o20 o 6% 44P 4QP 0 n COIF N O' 2% err = a 5% ■ I CHR S ER O O N C O N t2 d84 q � dU4 41 OP 0tl d 84 40 1p4 20 d 4.E �. 1a4 21 d 1 3a T Ob b0 11 o4 da 4pA _ 4p0 _ 4Q0 O N O m p0/° 8% i 5% 7 -tar 1% _ a s 13% ono d84 5 0,P p0 -'5% r t d84 40 oq 15 do - - - - 00 9a 12 a0 4QA 3% 04 d o ONO a, 4 P Q 60 01899 Thor4s Bros. O N O- 0A 00b 4 0 06, ONO d84 R 0 ONO d84 q 0 n 0 O O 4114 140 d84 "o 00 200 00 04 16 0 0 0q 17 12 0b 18 t2 0 04 14 a o 13 * 0 0ti 4QP 4QP 44P 4QP RpP O v10 OI'!O ot00 ONO ONO r n puffl® Figure 4 �' N O R T H W E S T Site Generated Trips River Sand PUD O O N 044 0P 4 3 O O O 06, 08CSY q 0 O O N A' L?44 4 11 N 04 ` 00 13a '3 G4 104 5 c 104 6 0p ip4 7 t?1 12 0010 44P 44P 4 P 44P 00o eon o n o00 75 O 1 l7% o4a 1 - 5% 4% ..' 32% "-- 37a $ a20 - r' ' 13% 04 d 0 41jP 4 P 0 0 N 2% T` O o _ d84 q14% ti 13a 4 av 41% 0 04 0 j�'� 00 CO. a44 40 44P 000 • i% H.© oee o00 d44 40 d44 R. 0P 0P u4 19 01 8% oa 10 po 0a 9 430 2U% 3 04 o26 494 d 20 o 6% 44P 4Q0 e N _ oor n e.- ^ 5% r CH IED Thomas dot, q 1 044 41 ;4 .h4 00 OP 23Pi?40 4a 04 20 d+ 1 164 21 d 1 11 d00 04 0 44P z - 1 I 4QP 4QP OON 00� 504 O V O 8% t?44 4 0P p Outs 4 0 o4 15 n o - -- - ' 0a 12 `0 4QP ',. i-.: <.. 3%.. o4 00 4QP 6% o�o r `l , V I ®1999Tharlkaa Oros. OP oe-O d44 4 0 OHO e?44 4 0 OeO d44 4 0 qN0 OHO p44 q d44 4 OP OP 15P 0 OP 0 04 16 � 0 04 17 04 18 a 0 04 14 4-0 04 1 s o 0 t9 44P 44P44P 4QP 44P ora ore ono owo oae N TRANSPORTATIONFigure 4a Generated N o R® Net Site Trips River Sand PUD 325 A N I/ 24 �I O I oma$ Bros. 0 "o o v Up I? 14 Up oa4 48 ob 26 PU 04 25 0o 4QL+ o .00 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4b N 0 R T® 'T' Street Site Generated Trips River Sand PUD ad.44rf'nA:4ra 715 A N oma oP Ou4 R o ao pqoa 23 00 ego Dun 00 084 R 6 oa 24 ao pq 0 0 44P 000 ew own' pP 0 4 rg 3 pP 084 R 6 oa 26 ap uq 25 no 4QP o w o TRANSPORTATION Figure 4c N O R T H W E S T "I" Street Net Site Generated Trips River Sand PUD Qo aD4 b 1540 1421 2 a 621 5044 m < • ryF� aD4 4 257 2050 b164 1545? 1 a 9d 3014 qqP r m M T r / 14360 264P p 1493 1704c5 R40 F o � m gYD i Id a 114 4 322 A-460 b 390 295` 19 (t 267 744 qqP »off r aD4 q 100 800 p 1775 20004' 4 a 10 H r � err• aa4 aso m » n 740 a 621 640,5 21 0 12 aD4 4 59 4474 r„qP 310 hh p724 Jm 708,5 2V a 110 1214 qQP 4604' 15 Q 24'0 1o5o4 L�4 1056100 c p130 205,5 16a130 �ANS44RT AZidN NOAT�wEs� b 1677 19294' 6 7195 684 a P n n yrs iJ aD4 4185 2550 a 1161 158,10 a 147 3154 DqD tl, m m n test 1888b a 8T3 1474 D A a N t / a 114 4 43 P d92b 18 a to 1224 q4P ohm N F O aD4 D 344 stagy 14 a S6 2064 qqP F mm O 1ge 5 Project 2020 PM Peak Hour ani M m mmr Nr ado 488 1 11 a 40 1494 49 2344 qpP �o aD4 492 P n 1854 12 cis 1374 qqP mma m m H �Yr ,?a lb a 93 860 b40 799• 13 a 192 54 qqA N N omy i giver Sandp� ,00 c aD4 b 0 m $i Y r O P p 2094 6D4 4 210 3199,5 9 a 20 600 b60 50,5 1 O a 156 494 qQP 604 qQA FNor- ` a 114 4 43 P d92b 18 a to 1224 q4P ohm N F O aD4 D 344 stagy 14 a S6 2064 qqP F mm O 1ge 5 Project 2020 PM Peak Hour ani M m mmr Nr ado 488 1 11 a 40 1494 49 2344 qpP �o aD4 492 P n 1854 12 cis 1374 qqP mma m m H �Yr ,?a lb a 93 860 b40 799• 13 a 192 54 qqA N N omy i giver Sandp� 7'. A N -Figure 5a y' Siseet 2020 PM peakHour 1thpro}eco FdVer Sand131JD A N R Ave This is an aerial photo of Seagull Channelization In Anscortes at the intersection of SR 20 & R Ave. Traffic heading eastbound on SR 20 benefits from the Seagull Channelization Island. The island separates this traffic movement allowing it to always have a green light. I TRANSPORTATION ® NORTHWEST Seagull Channelization G°Always Green Signal River Sand Estates A N This is an aerial photo of Seagull Channelization on the South Hill of Puyallup at the intersection of S Meridian & SR 161. Traffic leaving the SR 512 interchange entering the South Hill business districts benefits from the Seagull Channelization Island. The island separates this traffic movement allowing it to always have a green light. TRANSPORTATION Seagull Channelization River Sand Estates N O R T H W E S T "Always Green Signal This is a photo of the signal displays for traffic leaving the SR 512 interchange and entering the South Hill business district. Note the signals for the two through lanes only have green arrow displays as they are always green. For the proposed "E" Street intersection with S 277th the westbound S 277th traffic flow would always be green. TRANSPORTATION � Seagull Channelization P NORTHWEST cc River Sand Estates Always Green Signal" APPENDIX TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 29 Single -Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 294 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 216 Directional Distribution: 64% entering, 36% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Data Plot ano 3,000 T on E31 F 1,000 0 1000 2000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.901 Ln(X) + 0.527 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 3000 1 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.91 265 Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Condom inium/Townhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday,' Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 57 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 199 Directional Distribution: 67% entering, 33% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.54 0.18 - 1.24 0.76 Data Plot ana 700 T 600 600 m 9 Wu a F- 400 d U t d 7 Q1 300 Q F- 200 10c K. .. ... .......................... . X x :.....:..................•. ....•......•......•......:..... 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.827 Ln(X) + 0.309 R2 = 0.79 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 363 Institute of Transportation Engineers Percentages Page 2 River Sand Estates Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation by Percentage -- 239 Tri s Enter I Exit I Total %, Enter Exit Total 1 65%135%1100% 2 1 2 51 65% 35% 79 43 100% 122 2 3 2 5 52 80 44 124 3 5 3 7 53 82 44 126 4 6 3 10 54 83 45 129 5 8 4 12 55 85 46 131 6 9 5 14 56 87 47 134 7 11 6 17 57 88 48 136 81 121 71 19 58 90 49 138 91 141 81 21 59 91 50 141 101 151 81 24 60 93 50j 143 11 171 91 26 61 94 51 145 12 19 101 29 62 96 52 148 13 20 111 31 63 97 53 150 14 22 121 33 641 99 54 153 15 23 131 36 65 100 55 155 16 25 131 38 66 102 55 157 17 26 141 41 67 104 56 160 18 28 15 43 68 105 57 162 19 29 16 45 69 107 58 165 20 31 17 48 70 108. 59 167 21 32 18 50 71 110 60 169 22 34 18 52 72 111 60 172 23 36 19 55 73j 113 61 174 24 37 20 57 74 114 62 177 25 39 21 60 75 116 63 179 261 401 221 62 76 117 64 181 27 42 231 64 77 119 65 184 28 43 231 67 78 121 65 186 29 45 241 69 79 122 66 188 30 46 25T 72 80 124 67 191 31 48 261 74 81 125 68 193 32 49 271 76 82 127 69 196 33 51 28 79 83 128 70 198 34 53 291 81 84 130 70 200 351 541 291 83 85 131 71 203 3656 30 86 86 133 72 205 37 57 31 88 87 134 73 208 38 59 32 91 88 136 74 210 39 60 33 93 89 138 75 212 401 621 341 95 90 139 76 215 411 631 341 98 91 141 76 217 421 651 351 100 92 142 77 219 43 66 361 103 93 144 78 222 44 68 371 105 94 145 79 224 45 70 38 107 95 147 80 227 46 71. 39 110 96 148 81 229 47 73 39 112 97 150 81 231 48 74 40 114 98 152 82 234 49 76 41 117 99 153 83 236 50 77 42 1191 100 155 84 239 Page 2 Net Percentages Page 3 River Sand Estates Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip,Generation by Percentage --j 179 Tri s % Enter Exit Total % Enter Exit Total Ommm 1 65% 1 35% 1 100% Mm 2 51 65% 35°!° 100% 59 32 91 2 2 1 4 52 60 33 93 3 3 2 5 53 61 33 95 4 5 31 7 54 62 34 96 5 6 3 j 9 551 64 35 98 6 7 41 11 561 65 35 100 7 8 41 12 57 66 36 102 8 9 51 14 58 67 36 104 9 10 61 16 59 68 37 105 10 12 61 18 60 69 38 107 11 13 71 20 61 71 38 109 12 14 81 21 62 72 39 111 13 15 8 23 63 73 40 112 14 16 9 25 64 74 40 114 15 17 9 27 65 75 41 116 16 19 10 29 66 76 41 118 17 20 11 30 671 78 42 120 18 21 11 32 681 79 43 121 19 22 12 34 69 80 43 123 20 23 13 36 70 81 44 125 21 24 131 37 71 82 45 127 22 25 14 39 72 83 45 129 23 27 14 41 73 84 46 130 24 28 15 43 74 86 46 132 25 29 16 45 75 87 47 134 26 30 16 46 76 88 48 136 27 31 17 48 771 89 48 137 28 32 18 50 781 90 49 139 29 34 18 52 791 91 50 141 30 35 191 54 80 93 50 143 31 36 191 55 81 94 51 145 32 37 201 57 82 95 52 145 33 38 211 59 83 96 52 148 34 39 211 61 84 97 53 150 35 40 22 62 85 98 53 152 36 42 23 64 86 100 541 154 37 43 23 66 87 101 551 155 38 44 24 68 88 102 55 157 39 45 24 70 89 103 56 159 40 46 25 71 90 104 57 161 41 47 26 73 91 105 57 162 42 49 26 75 92 106 58 164 43 50 27 77 93 108 58 166 44 51 28 79 94 109 59 168 45 52 28 80 95 110 60 170 46 53 29 82 96 111 60 171 47 54 30 84 97 112 61 173 48 56 30 86 98 113 62 175 49 57 31 87 99 115 62 177 50 58 31 89 100 116 63 179 Page 3 t N NORiHEV AUBURN SPECIAL AREA PLAN Appendix I-3 RESIDENTIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION trans ortaton fnc. September 7, 2004 Rob Purser Centex Homes 2320 130th Ave NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Rob: RE: River Sand P.U.D. Access Issues Several access issues have arisen in the finalization of the River Sand P.U.D. project. The purpose of this report is to assess the possibility of the River Sand P.U.D. to provide an east west collector from its western property line to Auburn way as requested by the City: • Site school bus access • Design adequacy of the proposed western access onto 277`h • Extension of 49`h Street from Auburn Way to the site • Fire Access School Bus Access The River Sand P.U.D. is located within the boundaries of the Kent School District. I contacted Don Walkup at the Kent School District Transportation Office to determine the routing that school buses will take to access the site. We discussed the fact that the subdivision will not have signalized access on 277`h until such time as the Port of Seattle has completed its project, or unless provisions are made to allow the site to access via the Port of Seattle traffic signal. (The traffic signal has recently been placed into operation.) We discussed the fact that school buses will be always able to access the site in a right -in / right -out manner via the western and eastern site intersections onto 277`h. Mr. Walkup added that they would prefer to not enter the site, but to have a bus stop on 277h. Entering subdivisions is not as efficient of an operation for them. When we discussed this further, he indicated they would be able to use a near side bus stop pullout that could be incorporated as the western portion of a lengthened right turn lane. Of the two locations, the eastern access point would be the best choice as it is more centrally located to the development, minimizing pedestrian walk distances. It is likely that this same bus pullout could be used as a Metro bus stop, further increasing its utility. 2004 We also discussed the possibility that the western site access may at some point be signalized. If so, they MAY elect to enter the site if that is advantageous to their overall bus routing (i.e. the inefficiency of entering the development may be offset by reduced travel distance.) When asked if this intersection were signalized and he elected to utilize the WB left tum lane if he had any concerns with the buses being able to decelerate within the provided 680 feet, Mr. Walkup indicated he had no concerns. Mr. Walkup further indicated it is too early to determine the school bus routing that will be selected. In fact, new schools are being planned that would likely change the school attendance boundaries for this development. However, he indicated there would be three bus routes: High School, Middle School and Elementary School, and they could route them safely using the accesses proposed, whether or not signalization was provided. Design Adequacy of Western 277th Access The City of Kent requested evaluation of the WB left tum movement into the western site access onto 277th to insure it is designed to accommodate school bus traffic in terms of deceleration and storage. The attached plot was prepared by DBM Engineers according to my direction with the design parameters to include a 100' storage pocket, a deceleration distance of 680' and a 150' taper. According to AASHTO the taper can be included within the deceleration distance. The deceleration distance was based upon a 55 mph design speed, which was approved by the City of Auburn. See attached copy of page from AASHTO for more information. As to the adequacy of the 100' storage distance provided, our SimTraffic analysis shows that the maximum queue for an unsignalized condition (the most conservative situation) at buildout is 44'. A standard school bus is 40 feet long. Therefore a bus vehicle could be added to the maximum queue and still not exceed the provided 100' storage length. Hence the proposed design is adequate to accommodate school bus traffic. Extension of 491h into the Site The City has indicated a desire to extend 49'h Street into the site as part of the initial development. You have indicated Centex is ready to participate in the cost of this street extension, but does not have the ability to create this street extension because it would require the cooperation of 10 other property owners over which the Centex has no control, or ability to condemn ROW. The attached map shows the properties involved in the extension of 49th. The numbers on the map refer to the owners who are listed below. A discussion of the various properties follows. 1. River Sand 2. Port of Seattle 3. Ron Stein 4. Robertson (Auburn Properties) 5. Janice McKee (also owns prop on SW comer of 277th & "D", and on NE comer of AWN & "D".) 6. Frank Allen 7. Evangeline G Law Rob Purser September 7, 2004 8. Estep Development 9. Nina W. Moore 10. Robert C. McDougal 11. Tullis Investments Property 2 is owned by the Port of Seattle. Discussions regarding the road extension have not been able to be scheduled because we suspect this is not in their interest at present. We estimate within approximately a decade they may be more interested in the roadway extension at such time as they desire to develop and/or sell their excess parcels. Property 3 is owned by Ron Stein. This small parcel has wetlands which have recently been expanded in size likely potentially making him less interested in dedicating ROW for a street extension. Timing of his development is unclear. Property 4 is the Robertson site. This area is planned for major development in the next several years and has recently completed an EIS. This property owner will likely dedicate ROW for the street extension as part of his development; however, the exact alignment for this has not been established. The exact development scenario has not been determined. It is unlikely the developer will commit to a particular street alignment until such time as the market conditions and/or a buyer/developer comes forward allowing Robertson to solidify his development plans sufficiently to determine the exact location of the street extension. Westerly from the Robertson property is several smaller parcels along the narrow existing 49th ROW. All told, there will be 10 other property owners to deal with to get dedication of the required ROW to construct the street extension to City of Auburn standards. Properties 6 - 11 would be impacted by the street extension by virtue of the wider ROW needed to upgrade 491h to city standards The. current ROW in this area is only 40' but the City's non- residential collector standard calls for a 65' ROW. Development plans for these parcels have not been investigated. It is likely they will have increased development pressure when the Robertson site begins to develop. You have indicated Centex supports the concept of the street extension and is eager to see it constructed. In fact you have indicated Centex is willing to pay their portion of the costs of the street extension. Strong support from the City of Auburn will be needed to accelerate the street extension process. Formation of a LID for this purpose is one avenue that could be considered by the City. The City has the ability to condemn ROW for road purposes while the developer has no such option. Emergency Services Access Emergency service access has been evaluated in detail previously (see October 27, 2003 to letter to Sean Martin.) However, there has been some question by the City of Auburn staff as to the adequacy of providing the two accesses onto 277`h Street. Comprehensive Plan policy TR -13 gives the following guidance: B. Access in new development: 4. Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the number of local street accesses to arterials and collector -arterials. Residential developments with greater than 75 dwelling units, including single family Rob Purser KIM] developments, multi -family developments or any combination thereof, shall have a minimum of two accesses to either a collector -arterial or an arterial. (emphasis mine) Simple reading of this policy shows that two accesses are required for the proposed development, and that these accesses shall be onto either a collector -arterial or an arterial. 277th is an arterial, so this requirement is met. There is no requirement that the accesses are to be onto different collector -arterials or arterials. If 277`h were to be blocked between River Sand and "D" Street, quick emergency response would still be available from Kent. There is an existing 1988 Countywide Mutual Aid agreement to which Auburn and Kent are signatory. This agreement is still in effect (no sunset clause) per John Fallstrom, Deputy Chief of Eastside Fire and Rescue who has a copy of the agreement. This report shows how school bus access issues are addressed, how the design standards are met, and how the street extension of 49`h can progress with the City's help. Due to the number of individual property owners which would need to be involved in and agree to the final alignment of 49`h Street, it is highly unlikely that a single private sponsor (River Sand P.U. D.) could offer the parties sufficient inducement in a timely manner to agree. The City could possibly assist with and LID proposal which would provide a strong incentive for all parties to agree. Finally, this analysis shows the proposed two access points onto 277`h are sufficient to meet the City's Comprehensive Plan policy and how existing mutual aid agreements ensure adequate emergency response in case of blockage on 277`h. Please feel free to call me at 253-931-0506 to discuss. Sincerely, TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST <` 1 Timothy Miller, PE Principal C: Don Walkup, Kent School District Transportation Office. Rob Purser E-,Pm—21' 119/mak, fa r - + z , y L f✓ / 4C I �j2�41�y¢ Q b E-,Pm—21' 119/mak, M r r N d' LO y AASHTO—Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Auxiliary lanes should be at least 3 in [10 ft] wide and desirably should equal that of the through lanes. Where curbing is to be used adjacent to the auxiliary lane, an appropriate curb offset should be provided. The length of the auxiliary lanes for turning vehicles consists of three components: (1) entering taper, (2) deceleration length, and (3) storage length. Desirably, the total length of the auxiliary lane should be the sum of the length for these three components. Common practice, however, is to accept a moderate amount of deceleration within the through lanes and to consider the taper length as a part of the deceleration within the through lanes. Each component of the auxiliary length is discussed in the following section. Deceleration Length Provision for deceleration clear of the through -traffic lanes is a desirable objective on arterial roads and streets and should be incorporated into design, whenever practical. The approximate total lengths needed for a comfortable deceleration to a stop from the full design speed of the highway are as follows: for design speeds of 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 km/h [30, 40, 45, 50, and 55 mph], the desirable deceleration lengths of the auxiliary lane are 70, 100, 130, 165, and 205 in [230, 330, 430, 550, and 68� 0 ftl, respectively (15). These approximate lengths are based on grades of less than 3 percent. On many urban facilities, it is not practical to provide full length of auxiliary lane for deceleration and, in many cases, the storage length overrides the deceleration length. In such cases, at least part of the deceleration must be accomplished before entering the auxiliary lane. Inclusion of the taper length as part of the deceleration distance for an auxiliary lane assumes that an approaching turning vehicle can decelerate comfortably up to 15 km/h [10 mph] in a through lane before entering the auxiliary lane. Shorter auxiliary lane lengths will increase the speed differential between turning vehicles and through traffic. A 15 km/h [10 mph] differential is commonly considered acceptable on arterial roadways. Higher speed differentials may be acceptable on collector highways and streets due to higher levels of driver tolerance for vehicles leaving or entering the roadway due to slow speeds or high volumes. Therefore, the lengths given above should be accepted as a desirable goal and should be provided where practical. The deceleration lengths stated above are applicable to both left- and right -turning lanes, but the approach speed is usually lower in the right lane than in the left lane. Storage Length The auxiliary lane should be sufficiently long to store the number of vehicles likely to accumulate during a critical period. The storage length should be sufficient to avoid the possibility of left -turning vehicles stopping in the through lanes waiting for a signal change or for a gap in the opposing traffic flow. At unsignalized intersections, the storage length, exclusive of taper, may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average two -minute period within the peak hour. Space for at least two passenger cars should be provided; with over 10 percent truck traffic, 718 December 15, 2004 • K E N T WASHINOTON Mr. Jeff Dixon City of Auburn Planning Dept. FD 25 West Main Street OEC 1 PUBLIC WORKS Auburn, WA 98001-4998 7 2©Q� Larry R. Blanchard kcting Public Works Director P "NG Re: Centex Homes Grade and Fill SEPA DEPART MEWT 220 Fourth Ave. S. Auburn File Number AEP04-0016 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Riversand PUD Project Phone: 253-856-5500. Fax: 253 856-6500 £. Dear Mr. Dixon: a The purpose of this letter is to clarify our letter dated October 13, 2004 (attached) with regard i to the City of Kent's position concerning access to the Riversand PUD Project. The proposed right-in/right-out only access road onto S. 277'' St. at the midway point of the site (approx. 277" Station 47+00) is acceptable provided that either "C" curb or an extension of the Jersey barrier to the west is constructed to physically prohibit left -tum r movements at this intersection. The proposed Riversand PUD shows a signalized intersection with left -tum access from westbound S. 277" St_ at the existing "I" St. right-of-way at Station 39+00. This intersection location has previously been agreed to by the cities of Kent and Auburn. Although there has been some discussion about moving "I" St. to the west at some future date, the actual location and timing is uncertain. We understand that in order to allow Riversand PUD to develop at this time, it is necessary that "I" St. be allowed at the existing R/W location. If future development of property (to the west) requires a signalized intersection at a location west of the current "I" St. location, the City of Kent will require that the current "I" St. signal and intersection be eliminated. The Riversand PUD development would then need to connect its roadway to the new development and utilize the new signal and intersection constructed by that development for left -turn access to and from S. 277" Street. As previously agreed upon with Auburn, the City of Kent will not allow a second signalized intersection between Auburn Way North and the Green River. Therefore, we request that the following condition be placed on the Riversand PUD and/or SEPA and included on the final plat and title of all Riversand PUD lots: ' "In the event that another intersection is constructed between the current approved "I" Street location and "D" St., then concurrent with activation of the new intersection, the current signal will be removed and the current intersection will be permanently closed. The internal east -west street within the Riversand PUD, lying south of S. 277" St., shall be connected with the east -west street within the new development, lying west of Riversand PUD, and left -turning access to/from S. 277" St. shall be through the new intersection." Currently, Mr. Mike Carpinito, the property owner to the north of Riversand PUD, has a driveway across from the current "I" Street right-of-way. The installation of the proposed signal, will require that this driveway be configured to connect to S. 277" Street at the signal. The Riversand PUD developer shall be required to provide this new connection if requested by Mr. Carpinito. Future ingress/egress will need to be addressed by the City of Auburn in the event the intersection is relocated westerly, as discussed above. Prior to any approval by the City of Auburn, the City of Kent will need to review the Riversand PUD construction plans for consistency with our standards for channelization, signal design, storm drainage and other features. The preliminary channelization plans that we saw last week showed S. 277" St. tapering to one lane westbound in the final configuration. Please be aware that this configuration is only temporary until the 277`" widening between Auburn Way N. and "I" St. is completed. The final street width should include two lanes westbound, 3 lanes eastbound, a left -turn pocket, and an 8' wide shoulder on the north. All widening will need to be done to the south due to ditch, wetlands and farmland limitations to the north. This will require that some of the curb, gutter and pedestrian trail already constructed by the City of Kent on the south side of the roadway to be reconstructed. Please contact Ken Langholz at 253-856-5516 if you have any questions Sincerely, Gary Gill ✓.! City Engineer Cc: Paul Kraus, Auburn Planning Director Steve Mullen, Traffic Engineering Manager Tim LaPorte, Design Engineering Manager Ken Langholz, Engineering Supervisor CITY OF - AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM WASHINGTON Agenda Subject: Application No. PLT04-0006 Date: November 2, 2005 Department: Planning Attachments: Please See Exhibit Budget Impact: List Provided with PUD04-0001 Administrative Recommendation: City Council to not adopt Hearing Examiner's recommendation of either remanding the case to staff for additional information or denying the preliminary plat and associated plat modification request. City Council to approve the preliminary plat and associated plat modification with Hearing Examiner's recommended conditions (pages 35-43 of Hearing Examiner's decision) with the following changes: • Eliminate Condition No. 6 related to the plat modification and amount of park land dedication and instead substitute staff recommended conditions PLT04-0006 Condition No. 8, 9, and 10 and PUD04-0001 Condition No. 2. • Eliminate Condition No. 28 related to securing access approvals from Kent since it is redundant. • Substitute Hearing Examiner's recommended Condition No. 19 with Condition No. 9 from the Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) to allow averaging of wetland buffer around the on-site Category IV wetland. • And staff recommends that PLT04-0006 Condition No. 4 that was omitted by the Examiner be added to require planter strips to intervene between the sidewalk and curb on both sides of internal local residential streets. Please see Exhibit List provided with PUD04-0001. The complete list of exhibits that were considered by the Hearing Examiner are listed at pages 3 through 5 of the Hearing Examiner's written recommendation. These exhibits are available for review or maybe requested by contacting the Planning Department. L1107-5 03.5 PLT04-0006, 03.6 PUD04-0001 F eviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ® Building ® M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ® Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ® Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD ® Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board []Public Works ❑ Legal El Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: November 18, 2005 Item Number: II.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Date: PLT04-0006 November 2. 2005 Background Summary: The Hearing Examiner on August 16, 2005 conducted an open record hearing on the request of Centex Homes for a preliminary plat known as "River Sand". The preliminary plat request consists of the subdivision of a 40.9 -acre site into 172 single-family lots, one multiple family lot containing 115 dwelling units and 19 tracts associated with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The request also includes a modification to plat standards related to park dedication. The subject property is located on the south side of the 1200-1700 block of South 277th Street, approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped right-of-way of "I" Street NE, and is designated "High Density Residential" (northern approximately 20 acres) and "Moderate Density Residential" (southern approximately 20 acres) on the Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, The Hearing Examiner's recommendation issued on September 22, 2005 states that there is not enough information to make a written recommendation on the request for approval of the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary plat. For this reason, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests be remanded to the Planning and Community Development Department to allow the Applicant to submit and address the following additional information: 1. A plan to provide more definite information on a second general access for the proposed access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR -13. The plan should be more certain than the plan presently submitted by the Applicant. 2. A traffic impact analysis that addresses the binding site plan (PUD Exhibit 11), and addresses the different access scenarios that could occur. 3. Current traffic level of service information to ensure the proposed project complies with Comprehensive Plan Policies TR -17 and TR -18. 4. A reconfiguration of dedicated park land such that Tracts A through G are not considered dedicated park land. Please refer to the Agenda Bill for the associated rezoning to PUD04-0001 for a response to these issues raised by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner decision also states that if the information is submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner will re -hear those portions of the application. If the Applicant is unable to submit the information to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests for plat and PUD be denied. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation also specifies that the plat modification that is requested pursuant to Auburn City Code Section 17.18.010, to dedicate less than the required amount of park land and provide fees in -lieu and/or improvements be denied. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the plat modification be denied since the request does not meet the specific criteria as outlined in ACC 17.18.010 and 17.18.030. 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. The City has received written confirmation from the applicant that exceeding the 120 -day permit processing timeframe is acceptable. Page 2 of 2