HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2005 ITEM II-BCITYOF -.
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 PUD04-0001eviewed 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
❑ Information Services
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: ILB
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.
AUBURNPeter B. Lewis, Mayor
WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 98001-4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000
FINAL
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
SEP04-0037
Y
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 improvementsjincluding
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.
7. 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 277th 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 IV). 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.
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 San,
Estates Southeast Corner of the Northeast I Street and South 277 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
Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD, King County,
Washington,' 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 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 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/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' 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.
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 intemal 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 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" 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 9roject, 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).
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 "I" 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 ciearing 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 §ystems
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 bei 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 U13-9, 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 HP -1, 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 occuparfcy 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 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. '
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
future streets in an adjacent development.
require a temporary cul-de-sac.
planned to be extended and connected to
Depending on its length, it may or may not
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
Institute 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,
speck 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 -she 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 2771' 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 277"' 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
wetiand 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 shalt 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, s
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 (ACOE) 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 site 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 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 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 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 "I" 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 "1' Street NE and S 277'" Street. When the
second permanent access route is constructed, the intersection of the Boulevard
approach and S 277ti' 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 277th 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 pfovided to
the plat from S 277*' Street by means of the establishment of emergency accesses a
minimum of 20 feet in width from S 277"' 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 "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 "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 , Washi 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. 2005 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 277" 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 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 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.
19, 2004
dated October 2, 2003 revised June 2
west and along the west property line.
J.S. Jones and Associates Inc.
Engineers, DBM Engineers,
the north -south ditch to the
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 SD1.1 — SD1.5, Lauchlin R. Bethune
Associates, Inc., April 14, 2004
The Riley Group, August 8,
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,
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 ENA 1, 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 comer and a portion of a larger off-site wetland near the southwest comer. 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: Hvdrology 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 project's 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 developmen(s 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 Mao, 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 PR -11, 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 hafted 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 "I" Street alignment and the new 01"
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
277'" Street and the installation of permanent channelization on S 277u' 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 49effil' Street NE extension is
constructed, financially guaranteeing construction of a second access point at the 76'" dwelling
unit will minimize the impacts to a point of non -significance.
The internal street network of the plat will consist of two stacked loop roads with three north -south
internal connections. The intemal 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 will 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 signalization 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
reyardino 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. Unsignaiized 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°i 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. "Itis 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
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 Citys 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 Citys
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 277th 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" Street,
approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped right-of-way of "P' Street NE.i
Procedural Note
Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70B, the requests were consolidated into one hearing and. have
been consolidated into one decision by the Hearing Examiner.
Hearing 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 5.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
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 of Auburn
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 Aubum/Robertson Properties Special Area
Plan, City of Auburn, July 2004
Exhibit 19 Geotechnical Report River Sand 1" Street NE and South 277th Street, Terra
Associates Inc., dated February 4, 2004
Exhibit 20 Wetland Assessment of the Bristol Property S. 277th 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 4 of 44
Exhibit 12 River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet SDI.I — 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.
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.
3. 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 277h
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 corner 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,
18.16040,17.12.250(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 of Auburn
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 pord n 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 of Auburn
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
3,230 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, ]ugh -
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 1, pages 2-6; ACC 1&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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 7 of 44
with an estimated five-year build -out time. Temporary cul-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 11.
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 utillity
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 277h 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
"P" 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 "P' Street farther
west. There is no schedule for the opening of "I" Street NE, and until "I" Street. is
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 8 o)'44
opened at either location, the intersection of "M" Street NE and South 277a' 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 277a' Street its 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"' residence of the PUD. The second permanent access is projected to be along the
east -west alignment of a new 49d'/515t 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`s Street NE and 277`" Street, plus pay for a wire span traffic signal at
the intersection of the new "I" Street and 277h 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; Flat
Exhibit 18; PUD Exhibit 11.
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 277s' Street at the signal. The City of Kent would
require the Applicant to provide this new connection if requested by Mr. Carpimto. 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 277th Street by one or more 20400t wide
emergency access roads. It is unclear from the submitted evidence as to where exactly
the access would connect to South 277'h 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 Examinerfor 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 IL
18. The South 277t'' 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, vnd 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, 49t', 50th, and 51" Streets NE. Two streets,
"N" Street NE, and "P" Street NE, would connect these stacked looped roads. Two
streets ending in cul-de-sacs, 501h Court NE and 49`" 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 51St 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 51 ' 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. 50 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 10 of 44
Lots 72 through 113. 49th Street NE is somewhat shorter than 501' 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 50th 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 277h Street & "Site Access," and South 2771' Street & "I" Street
NE 2 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 11.
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 277th 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 "I" 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 TTA 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
' 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 "I" Street intersection. The TIA also prepared its LOS
analyses assuming that the new "I" Street and 49'hl51" Streets were completed. Plat Exhibit 25, page 2; Plat
Exhibit 25, Figure 2.
' 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.
4 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 IL
5 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.
6 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 277th 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 51n 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 O 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 277th 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 of Auburn
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 277th
Street, Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE, and Auburn Way North and 45`4 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 30th 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 277th 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/51St 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-ye:ar storm
8 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 of Auburn
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 2770' Street and into a series of culverts running underneath
South 2770' Street to the north. The existing ditches on the north and south sides of South
27701 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 H.
33. A review of the culvert system for the PUD has been made. All flows from the proposed
project running along South 27701 Street would eventually intersect at culvert No. 4 (7.2
cfs capacity), on the north side of South 27701 Street, which conveys water undemeath
8601 Avenue South. From culvert No. 41 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 1.3.
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 r, 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. Caapinito
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 of Auburn
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 277"' 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 ofAuburn
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 3l.
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 277th
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`" 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 tum -around is not shown on the site
plan. Plat Exhibit 26, page 2; Plat 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 51St 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 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;
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 5l't
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, comer 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 IL
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 corner 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 II 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, coho, 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
277th 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 1, page 7; PUD Exhibit 11.
51. The southwestern 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 Examiner for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 19 o,(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 RC W 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 platibinding 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."
Step 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 fler;ibility 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 Examinerfor the City oJAuhurn
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 Examiner for the City of Auburn
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 othcr 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;
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 Examinerfor the City ofAuburn
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 5I't Street NE as suggested by the City of Auburn, and
on 50`h and 49tb Streets NE as they are of similar lengths as 51u 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 Examiner for 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 2771i 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 27711 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 277" 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 5151 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 277h 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 pro�osed 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 26 of 14
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'a'/51St 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 -l7 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 -l7 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"
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.
3. 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 of Auburn
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 277h
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.
5. 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 for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 29 o,('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 277th 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`h 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. However, 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 wetlandf impacts.
The proposed project would observe and enhance appropriate wetland buffers. Flood
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
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 5.3.
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 ofAuburn
River Sand PUD
Page 31 of44
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 comer is not a physical
condition that would create a physical difficulty developing the lot. Findings of Fact 2,
3,5,6,7,30.
2. 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.
3. 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. Thee 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
5. 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; 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 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 (R`✓)
parking spots. ACC 18.69.080(D)(5) requires PUDs to screen "parking areas adjacent to
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City ofAuhurn
Rtver Sand PUD
Page 33 oJ'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 277th
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 277th Street would result in a practical difficulty in effectively screening
RVs parked on-site from view by those traveling on South 277th Street. Findings of Fact
No. 8; ACC 18.52.020, ACC l&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 277th 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 34 o)'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 277d' 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:
I. 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 of Auburn
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 50'h 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 of Auburn
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 (cfs).
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 86th Avenue South
approximately 800 feet north of 86th 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 of Auburn
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 277`h 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 geotechnicalservices 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. GRA.04-0025
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 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 (200 1) 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 277`h 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 27711 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 40 oj'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 far 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 for the City ofAuburn
River Sand PUD
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`" Street shall include a temporary traffic
signal. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 76`h 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 49h/5 Is'
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 49`h Street NE
and South 277th 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 277th 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 42 0,(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 2776' Street by means of the establishment of emergency accesses a
minimum of 20 feet in width from South 277`h 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 45th Street NE to 491h Street NE and
approximately 1,300 linear feet of 12 -inch waterline along an east -west alignment of a
new 49th/51St 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 277th
Street. The Applicant would be responsible for any improvements associated with the
future widening of South 277th 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 ofAuhurn
River Sand PUD
Page 43 of44
30. The project shall not at any time disturb or encroach upon the 200 -foot shoreline buffer
of the 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 jar the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 44 0'44
�0.^PigafAlRvaOYlolao iYa1s F43 pbtalt.Y21, 2004@:1GStf�1 Gour.prmlt
Ww -, 1� J> MWJ
I
w
� m 0�� cm
S2IZZr 0 <ca �m
Z z D
m
V l
v r
�- ZO
m Z
< O T j O
r
m (OENEO)E
WI
(LOCAL STREET)
m I
✓� � I N
1 \.
I1 • • ! �2
1 � m I ya
$ o D I STREET NE I ^�
- ; ARTERIAJL
0910
W.
/ T Q
m o
�p'_ x
o
------sem---- '--��-------- _-_-_ ---------
z � - m X._I
< o
Dm I
co
ch
{� m
I'•:•: m 2
-Zi <
O m 1
X 1
m
Zm ;
(a I
m
I
J '
i
I
o I
OREEH �WR
f• �Z
z
m
u
io
(m DO Crn
>�rn
q
Z c;
z �m <czgm
m z� jo
z y z 0)
a _T m
r
Z n DSTREET ME
N -' --_MlDENED) --.--I
(L a STREET)
,
I STREET PIE i
�` Ee 3iS
0>
TZ -nm Q
m ----
- .
0 c
Ao°v I
m . :•:•:• I r y O ,
< v rn
O
••••••.• i z i
1
O I »
m
zJ I
o I j