HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-C
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
,< - WASHINGTON
Aaenda Subiect VAR04-0006 Date:
7/12/2005
Department: Planning Attachments: Applicant's Completed Budget Impact: NA
Appeal form, Cover Letter and
Statement of Appeal, HE's Decision,
Plot Plan and Original Staff Report for
VAR04-0006 to Examiner
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision denying the variance< This specific variance
requested a reduction from the PUD setback requirements applicable to detached dwelling units on
single-family lots as required by the PUD zoning district, ACC 1R69<070(B)&(Q
Backaround Summarv:
The Hearing Examiner on August 16, 2005 conducted an open record hearing on the request by Centex
Homes for a variance to reduce certain yard setbacks applicable to detached dwelling units on the
project's single family lots< The variance seeks to reduce the front setback from 20/15 feet to 10 feet for
proposed alley-loaded lots (Lots 1 through 67) and to reduce the front yard setback to 15/10 feet for the
non-alley loaded lots (Lots 68 through 172), to reduce the street side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet and to
reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for proposed alley-loaded lots (Lots 1 through 67) and
10 feet for the non-alley loaded lots (Lots 68 through 172)_ The request is associated with the rezone to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and subdivision for 172 single-family lots, one multiple-family lot
proposed to contain approximately 115 dwelling units and 19 tracts< The project is referred to as "River
Sand<" 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<
Subsequent to the hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a written decision (The Hearing Examiner's
decisions on variances are final unless appealed)< The decision issued on September 22,2005 states
that the variance is denied as the request does not meet the specific criteria as outlined in ACC
18<70<010(N
Another variance request, related to provision of recreational vehicle parking was considered
simultaneously by the Examiner at the same open record hearing (VAR04-0005) but was approved<
vlew~d by (;ounCII &_ L;ommltlees: S: vlewilQoy Uepartmems~_uJvlslons:
Ac. Comm;"" ~""m COMMIITE ";";09 i M&O
Airport Finance I- C<emetery Ma~or
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv< h Fmance Par s
Human Services Planni~ & CD 12: Fire Planning
Park Board Public orks Le al Police
Planning Comm< Other Pu%lic Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: 8Yes8NO
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ~~-
Referred to Until / /
Tabled Until / /_
Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Krauss
MeetinaDate: November 18 2005 i Item Number: ItC
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
OCT - 5 2005
CITY OF AUBURN
("\ l/....,(-;-~:','"",c
APPEAL OF
HEAR~NG EXAMINER'S DECISION
WASHINGTON
Appeal is filed with the City Clerk
Or Deputy City Clerk
THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPL TED BY CITY OF AUBURN
Application No.:
Iv b (/'1-0-00 I, j7~r N-C/oo {;,
rJA-t:.C<!-(!'Oo S- i/yft'j!)((-t/O{)0
Date Filed: /
/tf- ::;c2OV~
Date of City Council Hearina:
'-n~~cHJa~
Deadline For Filina Appeal:
/tJ-/P-.a/GJ S
THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPELLANT
Name of Appellant(sl:
KDb 7UJfser
~ LfoWle&
Appellant Address:
II '2-- L\, t s tde( 4ve N,;;-
~,~f ~ W WA- C{~o~3
/
Phone: 4,'2.5 '2./(;;,- ~'fZ3
Aaent:
E-mail:
Aaent Ad
1K
Phone:
E-mail:
Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
The Appellant must identify clearly and specifically the following:
1, The errors which the Appellant believes were made in the action or decision
which is being appealed, or the procedural irregularities associated with that
action or decision,
2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or
modified,
3, The harm which is expected to be suffered by the Appellant as a result of
the action or decision being appealed. If the Appellant is a group or
organization, the harm to anyone or more members or the group or
organization must be stated.
4. The desired outcome of the appeal.
You may provide your responses here, or preferably, attach a separate typed
response to each of the above.
~teUbe. ~ CLwJ
Page 2 of 3
Signature of Appellant(s):
6ft
Dated: to - Ii - o'S
/
State of uJO.5h 1;"'1 f-" Vl )
)ss
County of (<I ~ )
On this day personally appeared before me kob ?UI'Se-r'
to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and
fore!joing instrument, and acknowledged that he. signed the same as
.J1, I S free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this S* day of oc1oGev
2 ob:>.
/1111/1''-';"""",,-
I'" O\.. A. 0----
\\I....~.<..... 19)0:"""-
,I (J'...;.,SSIC)N ~:" 0 "'-
~ ...;f ".j.'..?' -::.
, : c "0. "T. ^ -0.'1'\....
~ :0 ~ I'-"TY ~~ ~
s : "' ~ ....
~: r:/I;","..<.. ">: ::::
..... ."" .:'Ii
" lJl, "'!.Ji8. Lie ; ,
.....:....\ . J. ~ "
'."..09 ..",
~ ;'>'~'....'<9_0'O ....,0 II'
- ". .':, \
-::. 0 ........ _,c:,. \
---_: WAS.....\\~/III
"""///~IIIIJJ
~A.-'
Notary Public in and for the Sthte 0
Res id i ng inS c::t.m 1'V\Cl-YV1 (.$
~
Do Not Mark Below This Line
Appeal File Number Assigned by the City:
Date Scheduled for Hearing:
Page 3 of 3
CENTEX HOMES
11241 Slater Avenue NE, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
October 5, 2005
Phone: 425 218-3400
Phone: 800 723-6839
Fax: 425 216-3401
www.centexhomes.com
City Clerk
Attn: Jeff Dixon
City Planner
City of Auburn
Auburn, W A
RE: River Sand Appeal
Dear Mr. Dixon,
Please find attached for your review and consideration an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's Consolidated Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for the proposed
River Sand PUD dated September 22, 2005 a copy of which was received at my office on
September 26, 2005. The appeal is specifically related to the variance denial for V AR04-
0006. During the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, 1 requested a correction
of the setback variance request.
For clarification purposes, the required setbacks and the requested setbacks for the single-
family lots are:
ACC 18.69.070
Code Requirements
Applicant's Variance
Requests
Front Yard Setbacks:
15 feet from street to
structure
20 feet from street to garage
Alley-loaded lots 1-67
(have no garage in front):
10 feet from lot line to
structure
Street Side Yard Setbacks:
10 feet from street to
structure
15 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-
l!aral!e Dortion of structure
5 feet from street to
structure
Alley-loaded lots 1-67:
8 feet from alley to
structure
Rear Yard Setbacks:
Non-allev loaded lots 68-
Side Yard Setbacks:
5 feet from side lot line to
structure
172:
10 feet from lot line to
structure
No Variance requested
We welcome any comments related to this request and hereby ask that this appeal be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the earliest possible date. Thank you
for your attention to this matter and we look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
~~
Rob Purser
Director of Land Acquisitions
And Community Development
Enc1: Appeal application
Appeal application fee
Supporting documents
To: City Council of Auburn
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding River Sand PUD setbacks
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,
The proposed River Sand PUD has been a collaborative effort between the City of Auburn and
Centex Homes to achieve a project that is in line with the purpose of a PUD district. That
purpose is expressed in ACC IS<69mo: "to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through
innovative and alternative development standards". From the beginning ofthe conceptual
planning, the City of Auburn has desired a proposal that will provide for a wide range of product
diversity and housing types, This has been accomplished by the introduction of town home units
located on the northern potion of the site adjacent to South 277" Street, alley loaded product in
the central portion of the site and a mix of thirty five foot (35') wide and thirty foot (30') wide
homes around the perimeter of the site. Additionally, the City was looking to River Sand as a
project that will adopt or implement some aspects oflow impact development (LID). LID
components can occur in many ways including reduced impervious areas, In order to provide
the city with the product mixed described above and to reduce the amount of impervious area
related to the PUD for LID consideration, a variance or deviation to some of the right-of-ways
and to the pavement widths required by the road standards was requested, Staff determined that
the road standards could not be modified and the focus was shifted to shrinking the width and
depth of the lots thus creating the need for reduced setbacks.
The strive for diversity based on the road standards and City's desires resulted in the current site
plan that will create lots narrower and shallower than those allowed under current subdivision
standards, This type of relief from the Code is exactly what is contemplated by the PUD
ordinance. In contemplating the lot size variations and road widths during planning, it was the
interpretation that the term "site planning" as used in the Code, specifically allowed the variation
oflot size. However, it was also determined that the issue of setbacks was a grey area and thus,
the variance procedure should be followed.
In doing so, an interesting conundrum is encountered because without the setback variance, the
lot size variation, as based on the type of diversity the City desires, cannot be achieved. Since
the lot size variation, as specifically contemplated by the PUD ordinance and the City, creates
narrow and shallow lots, then the variance should be granted because compliance with the
standard setback requirements creates practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships that
cannot be overcome, while still meeting the desires of the City and the PUD ordinance. For that
reason, the setbacks being requested are typical for PUD's in other jurisdictions and in most
master plan conununities,
Due to the collaborative effort of City staff and the applicant in developing a site plan and land
use concept based on staff's support of the setback variance the variance should be granted.
2, Thor, 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,
The City's PUD provisions address the ability to reduce the minimum lot sizes but fails to address
any adjustment to setbacks. The flexibility in lot dimensions under the PUD places a unique
hardship on house designs if the ACC 18,69,070 setbacks are to be complied with. The other
elements of the PUD goals (i,e. greater residential development scenarios, internal transfers of
density and high quality development) are reasonable to achieve if the PUD flexibitity includes
reduced setbacks, In an attempt to meet the City's desired lot mix and to provide varying plan
offerings, including different width homes, the project is limited in its ability to achieve a
reasonable and hannonious use of the land< ACC 18,69.070 further encourages "efficient and
effective use of land, open space and public facilities that result in lower development costs '" ",
The requested setback variance will allow a reasonable use of the land, help to lower development
costs and provide for a visually interesting streetscape. For these reasons the variance should be
approved,
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,
The Hearing Examiner correctly points out that the development as a whole will have the main
impact on the surrounding properties and the variance would not.
4. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a
result of the actions of the applicant or previous owners,
The Hearing Examiner offers that the Applicant could choose to develop a site that is within the
current extension of utilities and roads but he fails to consider the goal of ACC 18,69,070 that
encourages "efficient and effective use of land, open space andpublicfacilities that result in
lower development costs." ", The City of Auburn's zoning and comprehensive plans have
zoned this properly residential and through the zoning process determined that this is the best and
most reasonable use, It has also been the determination by the City that the application of the
PUD ordinance to this properly and the resulting development flexibility will enable the most
efficient and effective use of the land, Since the PUD requirements are governed by the City,
then the need for the variance is not the result of the applicant. In order to achieve the goals of
the City by providing the product mix etc., shallower, narrower lots are required. Those lots
however, require decreased setbacks.
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,
Staff stated in its Agenda Bill Approvat Form to the Examiner that "While the City has not
received or approved of any such requests since the time the City adopted the PUD code
provisions in 1998, the PUD district allows zero lot line, attached and semi-detached units
whereby applicants can eliminate interior side yard setbacks altogether," This further supports
out request for the variance and is conclusive proof that this type of variance request is exactly
what is contemplated by the PUD ordinance,
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
Again the Agenda Bill supports the approval of the variance as it "would be consistent with the
flexibility mechanisms, high quality design and pedestrian orientation purposes of the PUD
zoning district and the zoning code. "
7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permilled by the
zoning district.
We are in agreement with the Examiner, The PUD provisions allow for a much greater density
than proposed with this application therefore there is not increased density gained by granting the
variance,
8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
We are in agreement with the Examiner. The variance will not 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.
We are in agreement with the Examiner. Multiple-family and single-fumily residential is
permitted in the PUD zoning district.
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,
We are in agreement with the Examiner. No other regulations would be affected by approval of
this variance.
ubmitted,
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Applications of
Rob Purser, Centex Homes
For Approval of a Rezone to PUD,
Two Variances, And a Preliminary Plat.
RCW 58.17.330 requires:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOS. PUD 04-0001
PL T04-0006
V AR04-0005
V AR04-0006
CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIO
Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include
findings and conclusions, based on the record, to support the decision. Each final
decision of a hearing examiner, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by
the applicant and the hearing examiner, shall be rendered within ten working days
following conclusion of all testimony and hearings.
At the request of the Hearing Exa.miner the ftpplicant, through its attorney, David
Halinen, has agreed to an eX1ensio~r the issuance of the recommendations in the above
captioned matter to Tuesday Septem6er 20, 2005. (attachment 1) The recommendations
will be so issued on that date.
This extension order and Mr. Halinen's letter will become part of the record in this
matter.
Dated this 14th day of September
Order issued bye-mail
James M. Driscoll
Auburn Hearing Examiner
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Applications of
Rob Purser, Centex Homes
For Approval of a Rezone to PUD,
Two Variances, And a Preliminary Plat.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOS. PUD 04-0001
PL T04-0006
V AR04-0005
V AR04-0006
CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS.
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDA nONS
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDA nONS
As currently submitted, the Hearing Examinep finds there is not enough information to make a
recommendation on the request for'~.,roval of a rezone to PUD and approval of a preliminary
plat located in the 1200 to 1700 blocks of South 277lh 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 more definite information on a second general access for the proposed
access that complies with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-I 3. 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 II), 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, ifthe City Council approves the PUD rezone and other requested applications,
the conditions listed should be adopted.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Requests
Rob Purser of Cen1ex 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 mul1iple-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 Residllt;l,tial (R2), and approve a binding site plan tor 115 multiple-
family dwelling units and 19 ~cts,
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.1
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, Ci1y of Auburn Planner
2. Rob Purser, Applicant
3. David Halinen, Counsel for Applicant
4. Fred High, Kent School District
I 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 jur the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
raKe 2 of44
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 I 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 Applica~ 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
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit II
Exhibit 12
Preliminary Plat Exhibits ("Plat Exhibits")
Exhibit I Staff Report dated August 11,2005
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Completed Preliminary Plat Applciation
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
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Environmental Checklist Application, revised January 26, 2005
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner jar the Ci(v of Auburn
River Sand PUD
['OKe 3 0/44
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
. Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
,Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Final Staff Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Application
Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, dated June 2. 2005
May 23, 2005 comment letter from Mike Carpinito
June 15,2005 comment letter from King County METRO Waste Water
City response to comments from Mike Carpinito
Figure 3, Road Layout, Final EIS NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area
Plan, City of Auburn, July 2004
Geotechnical Report River Sand I sl Street NE and South 277''' Street, Terra
Associates Inc., dated February 4, 2004
Wetland Assessment ofthe Bristol Property S. 277'h Street and West of the Green
River, Auburn, W A, J.S. Jones Associates, Inc., dated January 31, 2002 and
revised July 30, 2002
Hydrology Precipitation and Termperature Data for December 2002 to February
2003 of the Bristol Property, 1.S. Jones Associates, Inc., dated February 27,2003
Storm Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, dated
March 31,2004
Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, dated September 28, 2004
Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand
PUD, King County, Washington, Entrix, Inc" da1ed August 10. 2004
Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD, Transportation Consulting Northwest,
revised July 27, 2004 and supplemented September 7, 2004
Letter from Gary Gill, City of Kent, to Jeff Dixon, City of Auburn, regarding
temporary access to S. 277th StJ;eet, dated December 15,2004
Shoreline and Shoretill.e Setback Exhibit .
Conceptual Westland r..litigation Plan, J.S. Jones and Associates, dated January
26,2005
Compensatory (flood) storage cross section exhibit
Supplemental Downstream Storm Drainage Analysis for River Sands PUD, DBM
Engineers, da1ed July 25, 2005
Fax from Kent School District explaining district's position on proposed project,
dated September 6, 2005
Faxed letter from Kent School District refining district's position on proposed
project, dated September 14,2005.
RezonelBinding 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
Exhibi16 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 II River Sand PUD Binding Site Plan, DBM Engineers, dated July 5, 2005
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the Cit)' of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page.J ol.J.J
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design, Sheet SD 1.1 - SD 1,5. Lauchiin R,
Bethune Associates, Inc., dated July 12, 2005
Single-Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans, dated March I L 2004
Muliple-Family Housing Elevations and Floor Plans. dated March I L 2004
Letter indicating type oflighting standards from Centex. dated January 2 L 2005
Outdoor bench manufacturer's cut sheet, received January 25, 2005
Fence detail and location diagrams from Centex, received January 31, 2005
Example declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (recorded), and
architectural guidelines for the Laurels, Centex Homes. received January 31. 2005
River Sand Project Submittals da1ed September 14, 2004
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
1. 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 liS multiple-family dwelling units. for a
total of287 housing units. PUD Exhibit 1, page 3; PUD Exhihit 3, page 5; Plat Exhihit
4; Rezone Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr, Purser, Testimony ot'Mr, Dixon.
,
2. The subject parcel was used~ farmland in the past and is currently vacant. It has two
zoning designations: the north~ 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 / I.
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 277'h
S1reet to the north and an unopened righ1-of-way ''I'' Street to the west. Pial Exhihil /,
pages 2, 4: Plal Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 1 I.
4. ACC Section 18.69.060 determines the maximum number of units allowed in a PUD.
The number of units is de1ermined 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 of614 dwelling units. The Applicant
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 5 of44
has proposed 287 dwelling units for the project. PUD Exhibit I, page ],< A('C 18. 69. 060:
Plat Exhibit 4; Rezone Exhibit 11.
5. According to ACC Section 18.18.040, the lot size requirement ofR4 zoning is a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, with minimum lot depths of80 feet and minimum
lot widths of 50 feet. As outlined in ACC Section 18.16.040, the lot size requirement for
R3 zoning is a minimum of 5,000 square feet, with minimum lot depths of 80 feet, and lot
widths of 60 feet. Residential comer lots must be at least five feet wider than required by
the zoning ordinance. Lot size standards may be reduced for PUDs; in the present case
the proposed moderate density minimum lot size would be 3,600 square teet, 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 I, pages 3-4; ACC H' 18.18. 040,
18.16.040, 17.12,250(D); ACC 18. 69. 070(B) & (C); PUD Exhibit 3, page 8.
6. The Applicant has applied for a variance to reduce certain yard setbacks required by the
PUD zoning district for the single-family detached dwelling units (Lots I 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:
,
ACC 18.69.070 Applicant's Variance Requests
Code Requirlilments
Front Yard Setbacks: 15~t 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 101s 68-172
(have garages in front):
15 teet from street to garage
10 teet from street to non-
garage portion of structure
Street Side Yard Setbacks: 10 feet from street to structure 5 teet from street to structure
tor 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 teet from lot line to
structure
The stated purpose of the PUD zoning district is to otTer 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 Examine/for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 6 q(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 Exhihit 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 trom
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, high-
quality design, and pedestrian-orientation purposes of the PUD zoning district and the
zoning code. The City reviewed the Applicant's variance request and determined it
would not likely be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood or properties, Sethack
Variance Exhibit 1, pages 4-7; Setback Variance Exhibit 11,< ACC 18. 69,(JlO: ACC
18. 69, 070.
8. The Applicant also seeks a variance 10 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 wouJd result in a requirement of 12 screened RV
parking spaces. The AubunN;omprehensive Plan does not mention a policy regarding
RV parking spaces, and there ate no other written policies regarding RV parking. The
Applicant contends that South 277'h Street's elevation above the multi-family portion of
the project would make it difficult to provide screened R V 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 R V
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 /8.52,020(A)(3),
9. The proposed project would be completed in three phases. According to ACC
18.69.l10(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
I 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 Examinerfor Ihe Cil)' of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Puge 70(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 ofAfr, Purser: Pial Exhibil /,
page 3: Plat Exhibil 4; ACC /8.69.110(C): PUD Exhibit/I.
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 soi I
would have to be imported to fill the site to an equal grade with adjacent rights-ot~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 till would be
necessary. The truck trips generated by hauling 1his soil would likely cause adverse
traffic impacts and would require a haul route plan designed to avoid tratlic impacts
generated by truck trips. Plat Exhibit /, page 2: Pial Exhibit I-/. page 2.
II. The preliminary geotechnical report completed by the Applicant indicates that the soils
on-site are suitable for the proposed development of single- and multi-fami Iy residences,
Soil condi1ions 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 ~struction. To avoid problems with settling, erosion. or
runoff, the geotechnical report'uggested that the mass grading activity and utility
construction should occur during the normally dry summer and early fall months. Plat
Exhibit/, page 2: Plat Exhibit 14, page 2: Plat Exhibit/9, pages 2-3; Pial Exhibit 13,
page -I.
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 Practics should be used to mitigate potential impacts to
construction storm water runoff. Plat Exhibit 19. pages 2--/.
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 277th 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-ot~
way "I" Street NE is not feasible at this time due to intervening land ownership, While
"I" Street is contempla1ed to be opened as a public right-of-way in the future, there are
two different road plans: one plan places "I" Street at its current location near the western
boundary of the proposed project site, and the "preferred plan" places ''I'' Street farther
west. There is no schedule for the opening of'T' Street NE, and until "'I" Street is
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City a/Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 8 (?l-14
opened at either location, the intersection of"M" Street NE and South 277th Street would
be signalized for safe ingress and egress from the proposed project. When 'T 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 27th Street is Kent City
Limits. PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7: Teslimony of Mr. Purser: Testimony ofMr, Welch,<
Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Plat Exhibit 1, page 5: Plat Exhibit 4: Plat Exhibitlg
14. The initial building phase of the proposed project would include lIS 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 oftwo 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 76th residence of the PUD. The second permanent access is projected to be along the
east-west alignment of a new 49th/51 st Street NE between proposed "M" Street and the
new "I" Street, in either of "I" Street's proposed loca1ions. 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 a1 this time. Pial
Exhibit 13, pages 16-17; Testimony ofMr, Dixon: Testimony of Mr. Welch.< Testimony of
Mr, Purser: PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7: Plat Exhibit 1, page 5. Plat Exhihil 4: Pial
Exhibit 18: PUD Exhibit 11; Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13,
.
15. The City requested that the'A:R}ilican1 financially secure construction of the new "1"
Street between 49th Street NE and 27th Street, plus pay for a wire span traffic signal at
the intersection of the new "I" Street and 277th Street. The Applicant would pay
$495,000 to the City of Auburn, which in addition to the developmenfs normal tramc
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 ofMr, Welch: Testimony of
Mr, Purser: PUD Exhibit 1, pages 6-7: Plat Exhibit 1, page 5: Plat Exhihit 4: PIal
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 curren1 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 277'h Street at the signal. The City of Kent would
require the Applicant to provide this new connection if requested by Mr. Carpinito, Plat
Exhibit 26, page 1.
17. Until another general access is built to serve the proposed project, secondary emergency
access would be provided to the plat from South 277'h Street by one or more 20-foot wide
emergency access roads. It is unclear from the submitted evidence as to where exactly
the access would connect to South 277th Street, and the location is not provided for on the
binding site plan. These secondary emergency accesses would prohibit general traffic
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
fage 90/44
flow through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City
Engineer. PUD Exhibit 1, page 7; Testimony ofMr< Dixon: Plat Exhibit I, page 5:
Testimony of Mr, Welch; PUD Exhibit 11.
18. The South 277th Street right-of-way is located in the City of Kent, and Kent plans to
widen this road between Auburn Way North and 'r Street NE. The final street would
include two lanes westbound, three lanes eastbound, a left-turn pocket, and an eight-foot
wide shoulder on the north side of the street. Because of a ditch, a wetland, and tarm
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-ot: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 Exhibil 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, 49th, 50th, and 51 st Streets NE. Two streets.
"N" Street NE, and "P" Street NE, wowd connect these stacked looped roads. Two
streets ending in cul-de-sacs~~oth Court NE and 49th Court NE, would provide access to
lots 77 through 86, and 144 thr'augh 155, respectively. In addition, an 18-foot wide
paved alley would run between Lots I through 67 and would serve as access for those
alley-loaded lots. These roads and alleys would all be dedicated as public rights-ot:way,
Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhibit 11; PUD Exhibit 1, pages 4 & 7: Plat Exhihit I, 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 st S1reet NE, The looped private
drive would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association, Two private
access drives would provide access to Lots 141 through 143, and 167 through 169 in the
east and south portions of the plat. The internal roads would be constructed to the City of
Auburn's "Local Residential" street standards except where deviations were determined
appropriate by the City Engineer. Sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of the
internal streets and would generally be separated from the curb by a landscape strip,
Sidewalks along "Local Residential" streets would be five feet wide; it is unclear how
wide the meandering sidewalks would be along "M" Street NE and 51 st Street NE. PUD
Exhibit 1, pages 4 & 7; Plat Exhibit 1. page 6, Plat Exhibit 4; PUD Exhihit 11;
Testimony (jf Mr. Welch; Testimony of Mr, Dixon.
21. To promote safe vehicle speeds on the internal 51 st Street NE, the City of Auburn would
require trallic calming devices including, but not limited to, traffic circles or stop signs as
determined by the City Engineer at the time of roadway design. 50th Street NE is
approximately the same length as 51 st Street, and would serve as the primary access lor
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner fi>r the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page /() of 44
Lots 72 through 113. 49th Street NE is somewhat shorter than 50th and 51" Streets N E.
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: PIal Exhibit
1, page 9. Plat Exhibit 13, page 17: Plat Exhibit 4: PUD Exhibit 11: Comprehensil'e
Plan Policy TR-13.
22. The Traftic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in July 2004 and supplemented in
September 2004. The TIA conducted a year 2005 level of service (LOS) analysis for two
intersections, South 277th Street & "Site Access," and South 27th Street & 'r 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."} Plat Exhibit 25, pages 1-3: Plat Exhibit 25< Figure 2: PUD Exhibir I r
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 trips4 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"!,' 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 Exhibir 25, pages 2, 3, 5.
7, 9, 12; Plat Exhibit 25, Figure 2; Plat Exhibit 25, Tables 3. 5, 7, 8; PUD Exhibit I r
.
24.
The TIA also studied 26 key-s4gnalized intersections for PM peak hour Level of Service
(LOS) operating standards in tlfe 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 277'h Street
and "B" Street NW, would have an LOS grade downward change, Six other intersections
would operate in 2020 at a subs1andard LOS; however, these intersections would operate
at a substandard LOS without the traffic generated from 1he proposed project. The
2 The site plan attached to the TIA (Plat Exhibit 25. Figure 2) shows site accesses to South 277'" Street in a ditlerent
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 49th/51" Streets were completed, Plat Exhibit 25< page 2.< Pial
Exhibit 25, Figure 2,
3 As a result, there was no data submitted regarding the current (2005) LOS in the intersections and corridors
surrounding the proposed project. Only the two proposed accesses, "M" Street NE & South 277'" Street, and "I"
Street NE & South 277" Street, were studied at 2005 levels.
4 The number of housing units used in the TlA 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 Exhihit 25, pages 2 & 5:
PUD Exhibit 11.
'This access was assumed to be unsignalized but allow right-in, right-out turns only, Plat Exhihit 25, pages], 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, Tahles 5 & 8,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the Cily of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Paxe II of44
proposed project would slightly increase waiting time at some intersections. Plar b:hihir
13, page 16; Plar 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 27th Street corridor would be primarily impacted by the proposed
project and would operate at a LOS E standard by 2020. The TlA found that "severe
queuing (on the 27th 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 1urns at the 277th Street and 'T' Street intersection would be
required by virtue of the traffic demand created by the completion of'T' 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
o1her available traffic studies," The traffic analysis concluded that the tratlic mitigation
fee required by the proposed project wQuld be $169,475.32. Plat Exhibit 1], page /6;
Plat Exhibit 25, pages 9-12,<,
'9
26. ACC Section 18,69.101(B) requires that PUDs be pedestrian-oriented communities that
use traffic management and design techniques to reduce traffic congestion and increase
the potential use of alternate modes of travel such as mass transit, walking. and biking.
The proposed project would have a system of sidewalks along the internal streets both
within the rights-of-way. It would have a sidewalk within the linear Tracts A through G,
also proposed as public park, along 51st Street NE. The public sidewalks on each side of
"M" Street NE are proposed to meander within public Tracts N and Q that include the
project's storm water ponds.? Tracts 0 and P, which would be dedicated to the City.
provide room for pedestrian connections to the future construction of the Green River
Trail on the west side of the Green River. Although the public would be able to access
the trail through the proposed project, neither the City nor the Applicant contemplated
that any public parking would be necessary as people would most likely park in different
locations. Improvemen1s made to South 277th Street would help connect the east-west
Interurban Trail. PUD Exhibit 1, page 6; PUD Exhibit ], page 7; Plat Exhihit4; Rezone
Exhibit 1/; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Testimony ofMr, Dixon,< Testimony a/AIr. Welch.
7 It is unclear how wide the sidewalks through the park would be; this infonnation was not provided in the submitted
evidence, Sidewalk standards on "Local Residential" roads would have to be five feet wide, Pial ExhihiI4,< PI/D
Exhibit ,I.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the CityafAuburn
River Sand PUD
Page /2 q(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 loca1ed near the site at Auburn Way North and South 277'h
Street, Auburn Way North and 49'h Street NE, and Auburn Way North and 45'h Street
NE, The closest bus stop is within one-fourth ofa mile of the proposed project. PUf)
Exhibit 3, page 8,
28. ACC 18.69, I 0 I (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,x
PUD Exhibit 3, page 13.
29. The City of Auburn would provide police and fire service with response times being
around eight to ten minutes. The City of Kent services would have a faster response time
to the proposed project until the new north Auburn Fire Station is completed at 30'h Street
NE and "I" S1reet 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 I, 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 viciniNrior to final plat approval, the Applicant must financially
secure construction ofa new I'-inch-minimum pipeline along South 277'h Street from
Auburn Way North to a point along the north property boundary sufficient for
construction of a looped water system in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Water Plan. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements would consist of
approximately 1,200 linear-feet of 12-inch waterline along the proposed extension 01'''1''
Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49'h Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear feet of
12-inch waterline along an east-west alignment of a new 49'h/51 s, NE between the
proposed new "I" Street NE alignment and the subject property's west property line, The
Applicant would pay a $82,000 fee to the City of Auburn, which in combination with the
development's normal System Development Charges would provide adequate funding to
secure the second permanent water system improvements. Plat Exhibit 1. page 6,< Plat
Exhibit 25, page 3; Plat Exhibit 14, page 7; Yard Variance Exhibit 1, page 4<
31. The proposed project would result in approximately 50 percent of the site being covered
with impervious surfaces. The removal of vegetation and the fill, grading, and paving
operations would increase the site's storm water runoff. Per Policy EN-55 of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan, the peak storm water discharge rates during 10 and I OO-year stonn
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 of44
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
1he current undeveloped condition of the proposed project site, Plat Exhibit f 3. page 9;
Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F, page I; Plat Exhibit 22, page f; Plat Exhibit -I; Plat
Exhibit 30, page -I,
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 tigh1-line system to
convey the water to the proposed detention facility, located on Tract Q in the northwest
comer of the property. From this point, the water would be discharged into an existing
four-foot deep ditch at the northwest property comer and flow in a westerly direction
along the south side of South 27th Street and into a series of culverts running underneath
South 277'h Street to the north. The existing ditches on the north and south sides of South
27th Street are capable of carrying all of the proposed development's runotf 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 -I: Rezone
Exhibit 11.
33. A review of the culvert sys1em for the PUD has been made. All flows from the proposed
project running along South 277'h Street would eventually intersect at culvert No.4 (7.2
cfs capacity), on the north side of South 277'h Street, which conveys water underneath
86th Avenue South. From culvert No.4, drainage would continue through culverts No, 3
(87 cfs capacity), 2 (19 cfs capacity) and I (390 cfs capacity) which completes the
downstream storm water COfnQor 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 runofffrom the proposed project and must be either upsized or
reins1alled with a greater slope. Plat Exhibit 30, page 5: Plat Exhibit 1, page 13.
34. During a 100-year storm event, storm water would be discharged from the proposed
project at a rate at or lower than the pre-developed 100-year flows, calculated at 8.5 cubic
feet per second. The size of the storm water detention tacility for the proposed project is
such that the I OO-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 I OO-year flows for the post-developed site, The proposed project would not increase
runoffto the do\>mstream storm drain corridor. Plat Exhibit 30, Attachment F page r
Plat Exhibit 22, page 1; Plat Exhibit 4: Plat Exhibit 30 page -I.
35. The neighboring property owner to the north of the subject parcel, Mr. Mike Carpinito,
submitted a comment letter in response to the SEP A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance issued by the City of Auburn for the proposed project. Mr. Carpinito
questioned the downstream drainage study for the proposed project and indicated that the
do\>mstream 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 t(lf 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 tact
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City '-?f Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 1-1 of-l-l
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 tilling 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 ifit may not solve Mr, Carpinito's
flooding issues, Plat Exhibit 15; Plat Exhibit 30. page 4: Plat Exhibit 30, Attachmenl F,
Exhibit C, page I. 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. paKe 12:
Plat Exhibit 13. page 9.
37, An existing METRO 54-fo01 sewer line runs underneath South 27th 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 ofthe single-family homes that cannot be served by gravity
alone. The King County Wastewater Treatment Division reviewed the Proposed
Mitigated Determination of Non-Signif.icance issued for the proposed project and
requested that the City of A~ submit sewer plans and modifications for the project to
King County. Plat Exhibit 12, '}age 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 oftime 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 mi1igate the effect of the
proposed project on local schools. Plat Exhibit 1, page 6: ACe 19.02,011: Testimony of
Mr. High; Testimony of Mr. Purser; Testimony of Mr, Dixon: Testimony ofMr, Hillen:
Plat Exhibit 14a; Plat Exhibit 31.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City 0/ Auburn
River Sand PUD
Puge 15 ol44
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 mitiga1e capacity issues, and requiring a site
dedication within the development would not be practical because the development is
relatively isolated from the balance of undeveloped property that would eventually yield
additional children. The City has indicated a willingness to work with the District to fInd
an appropriate place to send the 600-700 children who would eventually reside at the
proposed project and in the surrounding areas to be developed, Plat Exhibit 31.
40. The Kent School District, which would bus children from the PUD to schools, would
prefer not to enter the proposed project site. The District initially requested the Applicant
install a "Metro-style" bus pull-off near the intersection of "M" Street and South 277lh
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 277th Street. After subsequent communication with the cities
of Auburn and Kent, who oppose a bus pull-out, the District submitted that while a pull-
out is a viable solution, other solutions, such as a bus turn-around in the proposed project,
may be viable. According to the District, the District, the Cities, and the Applicant should
agree on the method of providing safe bus stops. The parties have not yet agreed on a
method of providing a safe bus stop location; a bus turn-around is n01 shown on the site
plan. Plat Exhibit 26, page 2; Plat Exhibit 31; Plat Exhibit 32: PUD Exhibit II.
"
41. ACC Section 18.69.080 requirls 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 ofthe proposed project is anticipated to be 2.8 persons; theretore
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 of1wo, 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 I through 34 and along the multi-family buildings 1 through 7 and
front 5151 Street NE; and public park (Tracts 0 & 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 of2.77 acres of park land. PUD Exhibit 1, page-l:
PUD Exhibit -I; 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-Iieu of the required dedication and/orimprovements to the
four acres of dedicated park land. The City evaluated the proposal for less park land and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/of the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Puge 160(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 res1rict the Applicant from dedicating thc rcquired
amount of park land. PUD Exhibit 1, page 4: PUD Exhibit 4: ACC Ifi. 69. 080(A}(2J.
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 PUO sct 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 dedica1ed park land discussed above. The Applicant proposes Tracts A through Q as
open space/park land. Tracts A through G are seven homeowners' association-
maintained open space tracts proposed as linear park and sidewalk space paralleling 51 st
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. Trac1s Nand Q are two publicly-owned tracts that
would contain storm drainage facilities, a wetland, and a wetland buffer. Tracts 0 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 withm.,the multiple-family portion of the site. Multiple-family
portions of the open space wou?'d 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 Exhihill. page 5:
PUD Exhihit 4: ACC 18.69,080; Plat Exhibit 4: Rezone Exhibit 11.
44. ACC Section 18.69.808(0) 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 101 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 PUO 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 of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 17 orn
street trees are made, the Planning Director would review and approve the tinallandscape
plan that would include street trees. PUD Exhibit I, page 6: PlJD Exhihit 12: PIal
Exhibit 13, page !O.
46. The subject site contains two wetlands including a Category II 0.43 acre wetland in the
southwest corner of the property, and a Category IV 0.3 acre wetland in the northwest
corner ofthe 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 ofthis 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 I, 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 butTer 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 ease~nt 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 1ributary 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 rimes 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 tloodplains
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/or the City 0.( Auburn
River Sand PLIO
['a}!,.: IlIof-t-t
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 di1ch 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'h 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 JARP A 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 ofthe 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 alon~ the northern border of the property to
coincide with improvements to South 277' Stree1. The Applicant has represented to the
City of Auburn that the on-site ditch is not wetlands and do not necessitate mitigation or
that mitigation has already been completed by the City of Kent as part of their South
277'h 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, paglls 8-9; Plat Exhibit 28, pages 1-2.< Pial Exhihit13,
page 6; Plat Exhibit 1, page"l;.PUD Exhibilll.
..
,_ 51. The southwestern portion of the site contains approximately 12,000 cubic feet of 1 00-
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
southwestern property comer 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 comer 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 -I; 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 txhihit 4; Plat Exhihil 1-1, page -I;
Pial Exhibit 12. page 9.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner jhr the Cit)' qfAuburn
River Sand PUD
Page 19 qf 44
53. The Applicant prepared a report 10 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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,< PIal
Exhibits 6 through 10; PUD Exhibits 5 through 9.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdic1ion
The Hearing Examiner is granted allthority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City
Council on a PUD and preliminary]J~ pursuant to RCW 35.63.170 and ACC Sections
18.69. I 40 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 1his 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-ot:way widths,
whether stree1s are public or private, the amount, type, and location of open space and park land,
phasing plans if any, and the responsibili1ies of the owner/developer. An application for rezone
approval shall be in accordance with ACC 18.69. I 10,
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. Prelimi nary
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City ()f Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 20 of 44
platlbinding site plan approval must be concurrent if a PUD requires both approvals,
Preliminary platlbinding site plan applications may be tor all or a portion of1he 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 tor
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 tor
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 devooopment ofPUDs by providing an improvement in
the quality, character, architeetural and site design, housing choice and/or open space
protection over what would otlrerwise 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 POO 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 ofa PUD district, which is "to offer enhanced t1exibility 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 t1exibility, the city will require the PUD
to result in a significantly higher quality development, generate more public beneliL and be a
more sensi1ive proposal than would have been the case wi1h the use of standard zoning or
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the Cit)' of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 2/ of4-1
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. Pedes1rian Oriented Communities. Use of traffic management and design technigucs 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 ofland, 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. '~vide 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,
S1eo Two Criteria for Review-Preliminarv Plat & Binding Site Plan Aoproval
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 off act 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 tor
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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner!i" the City oj Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 22 of44
3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by city council;
4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision 10 the general purposes of this title, as
emnnerated 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 ofthe proposed subdivision are mitigated such that
the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment;
7. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public
nuisances.
Criteria for Review-Plat Modifications
The Applicant seeks to modify the amount of park land dedication required by the PUD zoning
code. Under ACC 17.18.010 and .030, the hearing examiner may recommend approval ofa plat
modification if the following crite~a are found. to be met:
......
''"
A, Such modification is necessary\ecause 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 ofthe property.
C. That the modification, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be
detrimen1a1 to surrounding properties in which the property is located.
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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page J3 of N
portion of the PUD, To be approved, a variance application must comply with all of the
following criteria listed in ACC l8.70.010(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 if1he 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 ofrights
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 vai"k\nce will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
9. The variance shall not allow a rand 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 permi1s, or contract rezones authorized by the city council.
Conclusions Based on Findings
Preliminarv Plat. PUD. Binding Site Plan. and Plat Modification Conclusions
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 afFacl 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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the Cily qf Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page]4 ql44
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 51 st Street NE as suggested by the City of Auburn. and
on 50th and 49th Streets NE as they are of similar lengths as 51 It 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 ofa 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 277m 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 ~t would be generated by the proposed project. The
City of Auburn and the district~ave 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 ofthe City of
Auburn that are adequately addressed by the proposal. However, not all City
requirements are satisfied.
Access to the proposed project has not been adequately addressed. Initially
the development would only have one general signalized access to South 277th Street
through a single-bouJevard-type s1reet ("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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the Cify of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 25 (!l-l..f
access would be built. Until the second access is built, emergency access could be
provided through one or more emergency access roads from South 277'h Street.
However, the placement of this emergency access is not depicted on the binding site
plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 13 through 15; 17.
The City of Kent also plans to widen South 27th 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 277th 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 ofa
20-foot strip of linear park containing a sidewalk running along 51st Street NE, Other
sidewalks in the proposed project are five feet wide; there was no evidence submitted
as to how wide the sidewalks in 1he 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 bjlssed from the proposed project 10 Kent schools, The
school district would prefer a~etro-style" bus pull-out on South 277'h Street, but
the Cities of Auburn and Kent object to this idea. The district has indicated it would
accept a school bus turn-around within the profosed 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. -/0..
2. While some of the proposal is consistent with t he goals, policies, and objectives of
the comprehensive plan, some of thc facts of the proposal do not prove the
proposed PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
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, & -/; 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 lOa-year storm events after
development shall not exceed the peak discharge rates during 10- and lOa-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,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Paye 16 qf 4../
49th/51 st 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 'T Street
could be completed, the proposed project does not comply with comprehensive policy
TR-I3. Findings of Fact Nos< 13 through 15: Comprehensive Plan PolhT TR-13,
There is not enough information contained in the submitted application to
determine if the proposed project complies with comprehensive plan policies TR-17 and
TR-18. Comprehensive plan policy TR-17 states, "new development shall not be allowed
if an LOS is below the LOS standard before development or when the impacts of the new
development on the transportation system degrades the LOS to below the LOS standard,
unless the condition is remedied concurrent with development as described in Chapter
Six of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan." Policy TR-18 states that "below the
level of service standard" applies 10 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 proj ected to the year
2020. Only one intersection would have an LOS downgrade and some intersections-
waiting 1imes would be negatively affected by the proposed project's generated tramc 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-IS', the LOS must not be substandard before the
project is built. However, th~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,/7 and TR-1S
The current park land configuration does not fulfill the goals and policies of the
Auburn Park Plan. Chapter 4, GoalS of the plan states that parks should "enhance city
identity by ensuring a quality visual environment. Parks are an effective tool in
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 51st
Street NE. The "park" would remain unknovm 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,
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner fi)t the City of Auburn
River Sand pun
Page l7 (~I-l4
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 quali!)', 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 vvithin 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 con&,estion may be a problem as four out of six road corridors
impacted by the proposed pro):.t 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 ofland, 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. Finding\ o{Fact Nos. 1,
2, 4, 5, 7, 28,
More 1han 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 Facl Nos< 1. l .l 7, 2R. 30,
With compliance of City standards and conditions of approval, the proposed
projec1 may facilitate the sensitive development of transitional areas between wetlands to
the south, timnland 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 27711.
Street and would place single-family housing in the southern portion of the site, which
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Exam;ner./br the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Paxe 28 (!l44
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 ofFuct 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 o/Facl 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 o/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 pun wow1\d 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 pun is located in. The pun is consistent
with the existing and planned character ofthe neighborhood including existing
zoning and comprehensive plan map designations.
The site is currently split-zoned R4 (multiple-family residential) and R3 (duplex
residen1ial). The comprehensive plan map designations are similarly divided on-site,
with the northern portion of the site designated High Density Residen1ial and the southern
portion designated Moderate Density Residential. The Applicant proposes to develop the
si1e 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,
7. 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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Pa?,e 29 0/44
code, however. The standards not satisfied have been identitied through this
recommendation. Findings of Fact Nos, 2, 4 through 7.
8. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project could bc mitigated
with adherence to conditions such that there would not be an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality ofthe environment.
There are two agricultural ditches on the property, one in the western portion of
the property and one along the northern border of the property. The Applicant has not
received a JARPA permit to relocate the western agricultural ditch on the property. but
intends to do so. The Applicant also seeks to fill and eliminate the eastern portion of the
northern ditch to coincide with improvements to South 277'h 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 27th 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 tilling
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 trom the ditches, the Applicant has adequately addressed environmental
concerns. To avoid problems with settling, erosion, or runoff; mass grading activities and
utility construction would n~ to occur during the normally dry summer and early fall
months, The proposed project ""ould not increase storm water runoff to the downstream
storm drain corridor as it would utilize a storm water detention facility designed to hold
the appropriate amounts of water. Adequate open space would be set aside. The
proposed project would be a pedestrian-oriented community with many sidewalks and
possible connections to the Green River trail system. The proposed excavation,
modification of ground surface, and impervious surface construction near the on-site
wetlands could result in disruption to their functions and values by altering hydrologic
support. An analysis of the potential hydrologic changes and implementation of
enhancement recommendations would be necessary to reduce and avoid wetland impacts,
The proposed project would observe and enhance appropriate wetland butfers. Flood
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 ()f
Fact Nos. 10 through 12,26,31 through 36,43.45 through -17.51 through 53.
9. Adequate provisions are made so the proposed project would prevent or abate
public nuisances. Public nuisances are addressed generally throughout the Auburn City
Code and are addressed directly in ACC Chapter 8.12. A public nuisance affects public
health and property values by creating visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests. or
creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic situations. Compliance with city design standards
for road safety (width, sidewalks, and visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and tratIic
access within the proposed project. The proposed project would adhere to PUD design
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
/'ageJOoj.:f-l
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 ofthe 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, I, 3, 41, 42,
.
II, A modification to the park'lII,pd dedication would not alter the character of the
neighborhood, or be detrime:tal 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 ofthe comprehensive land use,
circulation, and utility plans ofthe City. The City determined that the Applicant's
proposal would not have a detrimental effect on any City plans. Finding of Fact N,r 42,
13. Literal interpretation ofthe 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 sensiti ve
development that would generate greater public benefit." Finding of Foci No, 42: ACe
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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfi)r the City (if Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 31 0/44
physical location of the project site, in the northeast corner of the City bcyond current
extension of utilities and roads, should justify the yard setback variancc. The Applicant
contends that allowing smaller yard setbacks would allow the Applicant to build morc
single-family homes, financially justifying the extension of water lines and roads to the
site. However, building homes on a site in the northwest corner of the City is the
Applicant's choice. The fact that the site lies in the northwest corner is not a physical
condition that would create a physical difficulty developing the lot. Findings of FOCI 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 1hat 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 Pact 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, The character
of the neighborhood is currently open land. wetlands, and farmland, but the property is
zoned high-density and med'illw-density residential. The development as a whole would
have the main impact on surro~ding properties, but the variance would not have a major
impact. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3. 6, 7,
4. The special circumstances aud 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,
5. Literal interpretation ofthe 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 tor
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 statedpurpose of the PUD is
to allow enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the Ci~v of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Pa)!.e 32 of 44
development standards. Allowing smaller yard setbacks would allow staggered
placement of homes, an innovative development. PUOs also offer increased densities in
exchange for public benefits; reducing the yard setback would ofTer an increased density,
The design guidelines at ACC 18.69.080(0)(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 PUO zoning district. Findings ofFuct
Nos. 6 & 7, ACC 18.69,010; ACC 1869.080(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 PUO, 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 PUO zoning district requirements. Findings of Facl ;Yos, l 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'
Facl 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 PUO zoning district! Findings of'Facl Nos, 2, 6. 7; ACC 18.69.
-', '
10. The variance shall not chang: 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 ()f'Fact 6 & 7.
Recreational Vehicle Parking Variance Conclusions
I. ,Unique physical conditions are present that create practical difficulties and/or
hardships in developing this particular lot. ACC 18.52.020 requires multiple-family
developments of more than 50 units to include screened recreational vehicle (RV)
parking spots, ACC 18.69.080(0)(5) requires PUOs to screen "parking areas adjacent to
right-of-way or adjoining properties... with landscaping, a berm, screen wall or any
combination, in order to improve the visual appearance of the streetscape." South 277'h
Street rises in elevation to the east beginning near the east-west midpoint of the lot. Oue
to the site's location along a heavily-traveled elevated road at the City boundary, the high
view angle of 277'h Street would result in a practical difficulty in effectively screening
RVs parked on-site from view by those traveling on South 277'h Street. Findings of Fact
No, 8; Ace 18.52,020, ACC 18. 69. 080(D)(5).
2, Because of physical difficulties, development of the lot in strict conformity with the
Auburn City Code would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. To
maximize the aesthetic appearance of the multiple-family development, the Applicant has
proposed a considerable amount oflandscaped open space. To maximize views of the
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Er:aminerjor the Ci(l' of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 33 of44
open space, the Applicant plans to develop the multiple-family portion of the
development with attached, enclosed garages for au10mobile 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, 4I
3. The variance, if approved, wonld not alter the character ofthe 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. Finding, of Fact Nos, 3
& 8; Condition of RV Parking Variance Approvall.
4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a
result of the actions of the Applicant. The configuration of South 277lh Street is not the
fault of the Applicant. Finding of Fact No 8; 18.
5. Literal interpretation ofthe provisions of this title would deprive the Applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. There are
only two 01her 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 multi {lIe-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,
8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan.
Findings (jf 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,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
I'oge 34 of 44
PUD REZONE and PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDA nON
As currently submitted, the Hearing Examiner finds there is not enough information to make a
recommendation on the request for approval of a rezone to PUD and approval of a preliminary
plat located in the 1200 to 1700 blocks of South 277'h Street in Auburn, Washington. For this
reason, based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends
that the requests be REMANDED to the Planning and Community Development Department to
allow the Applicant to submit a the following information:
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 II), 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 unabie 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 App]ication 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 de1ached 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.]8.010, 17.18.030, and 18.70.01O(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:
I. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall secure JARP A approval fi'om the Army
Corps of Engineers to relocate the north-south drainage ditch and associated easement
located ",ithin the western one-1hird 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
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City <?f Auburn
River Sand PUD
PUKe 35 0(44
other communally-owned facilities. No such instrument shall be acceptable until
approved by the city attorney as to its legal fonn 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 Aubum standards.
3. Prior to final plat approval, traffic calming devices shall be financially guaranteed for
installation on 50th and 5 I 51 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 wi1hin 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, stonn drainage tracts, and open space tracts
confonn to City standards. The plan must demonstrate conformance with standards for
acceptable tree types and rooNlarriers, etc., and must also show coordination with utility
and road improvements. The p'an 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 1rees do not contribute to pavement deterioration. Care should be taken
by the Applicant 10 account for individual lots' ingress and egress when detining 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 tinal
plat approval.
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 0 and P as identified on the Binding Site Plan, and in a configuration
acceptable to the City Parks Director.
7. To address the impacts from the project's new impervious surfaces, the Applicant shall
comply \'<ith one of the following prior to tinal plat approval:
a. Stonn drainage facilities shall be constructed on-site to limit the on~site discharge
for the post-developed 1 DO-year flow to less than 7.2 cubic feet per second (cIs).
7.2 cfs is the capacity of downstream culvert number four that would be
overwhelmed from the s10nn water generated by the project in the event of a 100-
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City afAuburn
River Sand PUD
rage 36 (1'44
year storm and saturated ground. Culvert number four is a 24-inch storm drainage
culvert located within the King County right-of-way of 86'h Avenue South
approximately 800 feet north of 86'h A venue South's intersection with South 277'h
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 of86'h Avenue South a~proximately 800 feet north of 86'h Avenue South's
intersection with South 277' Stree1.
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 I DO-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 etTects.
8, Pedestrian/ornamental street lights shall be installed by the Applicant along the interior
s1reets 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 posHop fixture" as submitted in the preliminary
plat application. The City Ehg!neer shall review the spacing and location of the lights to
ensure that adequate lighting is"rovided 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 submi1ted as part of the preliminary plat application,
Home exterior colors shall be consistent with "Color Palette, Homescapes, Sherwin
Williams, 2002," as submitted as part of the preliminary plat application, except that the
"Bright and Bold" color scheme shall n01 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 ofthe preliminary plat application, Furniture and tencing 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 tinal plat
approval.
II. The Applicant has proposed that Lots I through 67 shall be accessed only through an
alley. The final plat shall include a requirement that Lots I though 67 shall be developed
Findings. Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City qf Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page]'7 (~f 4-1
as alley-loaded lots unless the Applicant documents and demonstrates to the satisfaction
ofthe 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 ofthe city representatives, such hauling will adversely impact
the street network, hauling hours may be coordinated and limited to appropriate oft~peak
hours or alternative routes. The haul route plan shall also include a traffic control plan
for approval by the City of Kent and the City of Auburn. The Applicant shall submit a
Haul Route Plan prior to Phase I final approvals to avoid any traffic impacts generated by
truck trips during the construction and grading phases.
13. The recommendations of the geotechnical report "Geotechnical Report River Sand "'I"
Street NE and South 277th Street," by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 4, 2004
(attached as Plat Exhibit 19) and/or other subsequent site specific soils or geotechnical
reports shall be incorporated into clearing, grading, and other appropriate construction
plans subsequent to permit No. GRA04-0025 issued August 27, 2004, as determined by
the City Engineer. Special consideration shall be given to the recommendations for storm
pond design identified in the geotechnical report.
""
14. The Applicant's grading plans tubsequent 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 10 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.
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 founda1ion recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the project design. The geotechnical services to
be provided during construction are to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications, and geotechnical report recommendations.
16, Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, a geotechnical engineer shall re-
analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are necessary. If
warranted, a revised geotechnical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Ex:am;ner jbr the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 38 qf 44
17. Prior to the placement offill in addition to that authorized by permit No. GRA04-0025
issued August 27,2004, the City Engineer shall approve the source of the imported fill
material for all structural fill and other fill activities. Compaction monitoring and testing
shall be required for all fill areas, both structural and non-structural for City review.
Compaction reports for s1ructural 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 10 the City tor review
and approval. The analysis shall include a pre-developed analysis ofthe 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 verity the
appropriate hydrologic support necessary to maintain existing wetland's function and
value. If augmentation is warranted to reduce or avoid impacts, rooftop drainage or other
acceptable means can be directed to the wetlands at a volume approximating existing
conditions to maintain hydrologic support of the wetlands. A monitoring plan/program
shall also be developed for City review and approval. The Department of Ecology's
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001) will provide guidance
for performing the wetland hydroperiod analysis, information on maximum acceptable
hydroperiod alterations, recommendation for reducing development impacts on wetland
hydroperiod and water quality, recommendation for flow control and treatment for
stormwater discharges to wetlands and recommdnation for post-development wetland
monitoring. .
.,
19. Prior to approval ofthe 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-s1reet
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 permi1s or other construction permits, If applicable, the plan shall identify the
amount of wetland impacts associated with half-stree1 improvements to South 277'h Street
and any associated wetland mitigation. The final wetland mitigation plan shall include
the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion and
sedimentation control features needed, planting plans specifying species, quantities.
location, size, spacing, and density; the source of plant materials, propagules and seeds;
water and nutrient requirements for plants, and water level maintenance practices. The
enhancement of wetland buffers shall mitigate the reduction of wetland functions from
the disturbance and increased proximity of development. The plan shall provide tor
wetland mitigation in general accordance with recommendations identitied in the report
"Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of the River Sand Property," 1.S, Jones and
Associates, Inc., January 26, 2005 (attached as Plat Exhibit 20), as moditied by the Final
Staff Evaluation and MONS. 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
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page 39 a[-I-I
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 I I
wetland, and a minimum of 25 feet for the Category IV wetland and
incorporate the following characteristics: areas of flattened slopes ranging
from 4: I and 6: I 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 faculta1ive (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 Otlicial
with services of an approved biologist with expertise in wetland bufler
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 coilINetion of all wetland work to monitor the progress of the
enhanced wetlan~s, and to oversee the replacement of unsuccessful plant
and habitat materials in accordance v,ith 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 tiled
annually with the Planning Department throughout the five-year
monitoring program. A final report shall be submitted 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 final
plat approval.
f. An appropriate security equivalent to 125% of the cost of all wetlands
mitigation work shall be submi1ted to the Auburn Building Official prior
to 1he issuance of all grading permits, and shall be kept active for a
minimum of five years following completion of all wetlands construction
in an amount commensurate with the monitoring program and contingency
plan. At then end of the monitoring program, the City shall release the
security if remedial action is not required.
g. Following completion and acceptance of all wetlands mitigation work. no
clearing, grading, or building construction shall occur within the wetlands
mitigation area, except as authorized by the City of Auburn for protection
of public health, safety, and welfare, maintenance purposes, passive
recreation improvements, or contingency mitigation work.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the eil}' of Auburn
River Sand PUD
/'axe-lOof-l-l
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 s1aked 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 easemeni area shall be approved by the Planning Director.
The uses shal1~ consistent with the purpose of the wetland and stream
buffer and be a i!'eneral 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
compensatory flood storage will be provided for the project concurrently with site tilling.
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
easemen1 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.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfor the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
rage -II of-I-I
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 ofthe 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" S1reet NE and South 277th Street shall include a temporary tramc
signal. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 76th housing unit within the
plat, the Applicant shall financially secure the completion of a second permanent access
route consisting of the construction of a 24-foot wide paved roadway with adequate
shoulder and storm drainage provisions-along the east-west alignment of a new 491h/51 51
Street NE between "M" Stre~E and the new "I" Street NE alignment. The Applicant
shall also financially secure co:tpletion ofthe new "I" Street NE between 49th Street NE
and South 27th Street, plus a wire span traffic signal at the intersection of the new 'r
Street NE and South 277m Street. When the second permanent access is constructed. the
temporary traffic signal at "M" Street NE and South 277lh Street shall be removed and
permanent channelization to Ci1y of Ken1 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
route improvements and related improvements, In the event the City's traffic impact fees
are increased prior to payment ofthe $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 10 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 277th Street by means of the establishment of emergency accesses a
minimnm of20 feet in width from South 277lh 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.
N01ice signs shall be main1ained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.Hearing Examinerfor the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page.:/20/.:I4
replaced or repaired when necessary by the homeowners' association to provide adequate
visibili1y.
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''!'' Street NE from 45'h Street NE to 49'h Street NE and
approximately 1,300 linear feet of 12-inch waterline along an east-west alignment ofa
new 49,h/51st Street NE between the proposed new"!,' Street NE alignment and the River
Sands Development west property line. The Applicant shall pay to the City $82,000.
which combined with the development's normal System Development Charges, provides
adequate funding to secure the water system improvements. In the event the City's
Water System Development charges are increased prior to payment of the $82,000, this
mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased.
28. The Applicant's design and construction of the proposed project's roadway access.
signalizations of"M" and "I" Streets, and frontage improvements including trails,
sidewalks, and drainage shall require approval from the City of Kent prior to final plat
approval. The City of Kent shall also approve the preliminary plat plans before final
approval to ensure the plat does not interfere with the future widening of South 277'h
Street. The Applicant would be responsible for any improvements associated with the
future widening of South 277tlt Street ai> required by the City of Kent. The Applicant
shall reconfigure the drivewd"-2f the property owner to the north, Mr. Mike Carpinito, to
align it with the new signalizatmn 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.
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. PL T04-0006,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING VARIANCE CONDITIONS
If the City Council approves the recreational vehicle parking variance, the Hearing Examiner
recommends the following conditions:
I. The Applicant shall es1ablish 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.
Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner/or the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
/'uge -JJ (!f II
2. The variance shall be specific to the requested rezoning to PUD, Auburn City Filc No,
PUD04-000 I, and the preliminary plat proposal, Auburn City File No, PL T04-0006, If
the rezoning and preliminary plat are not approved, the variance shall be null and void.
DECIDED this 220d day of September, 2005.
DRISCOLL & HUNTER
Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn
By:
.
"
.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examinerfol'the City of Auburn
River Sand PUD
Page -N (?( 44
~*,f
.m:~
./'.~ASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
AClenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No, VAR04-0006 Date:
7/12/2005
Department: Pia nn ing I Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit List Budget Impact: NA
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to approve the Variance from the PUD setback requirements as requested based upon
the Findinas of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined,
BackClround Summarv:
OWNER/APPLlCANT: Rob Purser, Centex Homes
REQUEST: Variance request to reduce certain yard setbacks for detached dwelling
units on single family lots as required by the PUD zoning district, ACC
18.69,070(B)&(C). The request seeks to reduce the front setback from
20/15 feet to 10 feet, the street side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet and the rear
yard from 15 feet to 8 feet for proposed alley-loaded lots (Lots 1 through
67) and to 10 feetfor the other single family lots (Lots 68 through 172).
The request is associated with the rezone, subdivision and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for 172 single-family lots, one multiple.family lot
proposed to contain approximately 115 dwelling units and 19 tracts. The
project is referred to as "River Sand."
.
LOCATION: The parCef~ated on the south side of the 1200-1700 block of South
277th Street, proximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped right-of-way of
"I" Street NE.
EXISTING ZONING: R-4 Multiple Family Residential (northern) & R.3 Two-Family Residential
(southern)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: High Density Residential (northern) and Moderate Density Residential
(southern )
SEPA STATUS: Final MONS for development proposal issued 6-2-05
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
~ A" C~""" COU"C" COMMm'8 r"~ ro
Airport ~ Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv, Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: BYeS BNO
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing --.i_I_
Referred to Until I I
Tabled Until I I
Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Dixon
Meetino Date: Auaust 16, 2005 I Item Number:
EXHIBIT 1
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-{)006
Date:
7/12/2005
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties
are:
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
en ace
Ig ommercla
and High Density
Residential
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Completed Application Form
Typical Lot Diagram
River Sand PUD Preliminary Plat (Map), DBM Engineers, June 28, 2005 (11 x17)
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
''h
Affidavit of Mailing ..
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Centex Homes has applied for a variance to reduce certain yard setbacks as required by the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) zoning district (ACC 18.69.070(B)&(C)) for a portion of the development.
Specifically, a reduction is requested for certain setbacks for the detached dwelling units on single-
family lots, The request seeks to reduce the front setback from 20 feet for garages and 15 feet for
other portions of the structure to 10 feet, the street side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet and the rear yard
from 15 feet to 8 feet. The request is associated with a rezone, preliminary plat and Planned Unit
Development (PUD),
2. The PUD project is proposed to consist of 172 single-family residential lots, one multiple family
residential lot containing approximately 115 dwelling units and 19 tracts. Since the project is
proposed as a PUD, smaller lot sizes than typical zoning standards are allowed < The standards for
the lots are contained in Section 18.69,070 of the PUD chapter of the Zoning Code, The setback
requirements vary based upon the "Lot Type".
3. PUDs are allowed pursuant to Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code. Section 18.69,040 allows PUDs in
any residential-designated area of the Comprehensive Plan and the site must have at least 10 acres
in order to qualify for a PUD. The subject project is 40.9 acres in size.
4, The PUD process is a multi-step process. The first step is to rezone the property to a PUD
classification. The rezone is a contract rezone that defines among other things the land use, density,
Page 2 of 7
Aaenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-0006
Date:
7/12/2005
number and types of dwelling units, amount and type of open space, and the responsibilities of the
applicant. In the subject case a preliminary plat for a single-family development and a binding site
plan for the multiple family portion is also being processed simultaneously, therefore subsequent
steps will include the administrative approval of plans for infrastructure, construction of the
infrastructure and subsequent City council authorization of final plats.
5, The PUD zoning provisions at Section 18.69,030 allows four "Lot Types" within PUDs. These consist
of:
. Detached Lots
. Zero Setback Lots
. Semi Detached Lots
. Attached Lots
"Detached Lots" are defined as: "...Iots (in) which the structure on the lot is set back from all the lots
lines," The other lot types ailow the structure to observe no side yard setback in various
configurations.
6, The setback standards for detached lot types in both the "High Density Residential" and "Moderate
Density Residential" comprehensive plan designations of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning district are the same< The required setback and the requested variance to the setbacks for the
single.family lots are:
Front Yard setback
Side (interior) yard setback
Side (street) yard setback
Rear yard setback
Requested
10'
5'
5'
.
8' for L:ets 1-67
10' for Lo",- 68-172
Allowed oer PUD IACC 18,69,070\
20' to garage /15' to house
5'
10'
15'
7, The internal street network of the plat will consist of two stacked loop roads with three north-south
internal connections and will be dedicated as public right-of-way. North of these stacked loops,
approximately 8,26 acres of the 40,9-acre site is to be developed with twenty.three, five-plexes.
8, Approximately 24.3 acres of the site is proposed for single-family residential deveiopment. The
northern tier of single-family lots is proposed to consist of lots whose vehicle access is via a public
alley (alley-loaded lots), These are Lots1 through 67,
9, The PUD zoning district encourages the use of alley-loaded lots to meet the pedestrian orientation
goals of the PUD, In ACC 18,69.010(B) pedestrian-oriented communities are encouraged through
the 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,
The design guidelines of the PUD at ACC 18.69.080 state:
"D. Design Guidelines, The following design guideiines are intended to assist PUDs in
meeting the purpose of this chapter as discussed in ACC 18.69,010 and not to restrict
innovation, imagination or variety, PUDs will however be reviewed and either approved,
approved with conditions or denied based upon consistency with the following guideiines.
1, Building Orientation/Placement
Page 3 of 7
Aaenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-0006
Date:
7/12/2005
d, In order to promote a pedestrian oriented development, building designs should minimize
the visual impact of residential garages upon the streetscape, For instance, placing garages
in the rear yards such that the garage is accessed from an alley or similar access provision
enhances the pedestrian orientation of the streetscape:
10, Other City departments and divisions have reviewed the variance application, With implementation of
the proposed condition related to sight distance, no concerns were disclosed by other
departmentsldivisions based on their review of the proposal.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has concluded that the requested variance should be approved as the applicant has met the burden
of proof in demonstrating that they are consistent with all of the following criteria necessary to grant a
variance as outlined in Section 18,70,010 (A)(1-10) of the Zoning Ordinance< An analysis of the
application supporting the variance criteria follows,
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 the Zoning
Ordinance.
While the site is unique in its location at the northern boundary of the City and proximity to an
elevated principai arterial street, these features indirectly contribute to the need for reduced setback
standards than allowed by the code,
The applicant cites the allowed resiq\!ntial denshies of 18 units per acre for the portion of the site
designated: 'High Density Residentia~..nd 12 units per acre for the portion of the site designated
"Moderate Density Residential" and the goal of achieving these desired densities while allowing for a
greater proportion of s~e to be developed as single family units than multiple family units in support
of the variance request. The site is unique in that it is located at the extreme northwest corner of the
City beyond the current ex1ension of public utilities and the road network, Being able to achieve
higher residential density through rezoning to PUD provides an opportunity to develop the number of
single-family dweiling units that can assist in financially justifying the project's ex1ension of water and
sewer services and roads to serve the site<
The applicant also cites that the proposed lots are larger than required by the PUD, The PUD
requires a minimum lot width of 30 feet and does not specify a minimum lot depth for detached
dwelling units (ACC 18,69,070(C). The applicant proposes lots ranging from 38 feet to 50 feet in
width. The PUD specifies a minimum lot area of 3,600 square feet for the portion designated
"Moderate Density Residential" (ACC 18.69.070(B) and a minimum lot area of 2,400 square feet for
detached dwelling units within the portion designated, 'High Density Residential" (ACC
18,69,070(C). The proposed lot sizes range from 3,230 square feet to 7,922 square feet. These
larger-than-required lots along with the reduced setbacks would allow larger, aesthetically pleasing
homes with more private yard area within the lots. The target population for the lots is young
families and individuals. These larger than required dwelling units assist in financially justifying the
project's ex1ension of water and sewer services and roads to serve the site.
The reduced front, street side and rear yard setbacks will also allow for modulation of the homes so
that all homes can be staggered in their placement on the lots. The PUD encourages staggered
home placement. The design guidelines of the PUD at ACC 18.69.080 state:
Page 4 of 7
Aaenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-0006
Date:
7/12/2005
"d. Design Guidelines, The following design guidelines are intended to assist PUDs in
meeting the purpose of this chapter as discussed in ACC 18.69,010 and not to restrict innovation,
imagination or variety, PUDs will however be reviewed and either approved, approved with
conditions or denied based upon consistency with the following guidelines,
1. Building Orientation/Placement.
b, Building facades should vary in articulation to provide visually interesting streetscape to
pedestrians, Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bays, and
balconies are encouraged,
d. In order to promote a pedestrian oriented development, building designs should minimize
the visual impact of residential garages upon the streetscape. For instance, placing garages in
the rear yards such that the garage is accessed from an alley or similar access provision
enhances the pedestrian orientation of the streetscape."
2. That, because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict confonnity with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of
such lot.
Because of the project's emphasis on demographics and aesthetics, development of the lots of the
subdivision in strict conformity with the zoning code will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use,
Strict adherence to the setback requirements of the PUD would constrain the home size, result in
less private area within the lots and would reduce the ability to achieve staggered placement of
homes on the lots,
The setbacks in strict conformity with the zoning"code would also result in longer driveways and
walkways between the street and th~tructures and a corresponding increase in impervious surface,
Greater setbacks also increase the leriWh of utility lines, The purpose of the PUD as stated at ACC
18.69.010 encourages provision of efficient and effective use of land, open space and public
facilities that result in lower development costs and make housing more affordable,
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.
Staff concurs that the variance, if granted, will not likely be detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood or properties, The single-family lots subject to the variance will be surrounded by
multiple-family development within the same PUD development and constructed wetland mitigation,
farmland, riparian and undeveloped areas off-site,
The reduced front, street side and rear yard setbacks will also allow larger homes and for modulation
of the homes so that all homes can be staggered in their placement on the lots, The variance is
sought to improve the visual quality of the development.
The interior side yard setbacks are not proposed to be reduced, so the side-to-side distances
between homes will not be affected,
4. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result
of the actions of the applicant or previous owners.
The site is unique in that it is located at the extreme northwest corner of the City beyond the current
extension of public utilities and the road network, Being able to achieve higher residential density
Page 5 of 7
Aaenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-0006
Date:
7/12/2005
through rezoning to PUD provides an opportunity to develop the number of dwelling units that can
assist in financially justifying the project's ex1ension of water and sewer services and roads to serve
the site, The variance, if approved will allow larger, aesthetically pleasing homes with more private
yard area within the lots, These larger dwelling units will also assist in financially justifying the
project's extension of water and sewer services and roads to serve the site.
The current City limit boundaries in the vicinity were established when the property was annexed to
the City of Auburn in 1970 by Ordinance No. 2511, The current location of public utilities and roads
in relation to the project site is not the result of the applicant or previous property owner.
5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district.
There are no other zoning districts that allow the minimal setbacks that can be authorized under the
PUD zoning district. And only two other projects have received PUD approval in the City, so there
are few instances of these same rights being enjoyed by others.
While the City has not received or approved of any such requests since the time the City adopted
the PUD code provisions in 1998, the PUD district allows zero lot line, attached and semi-detached
units whereby applicants can eliminate interior side yard setbacks altogether.
6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Code and the
zoning district in which the property is located.
The stated purpose of the PUD zoning district
"", is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop.a site through innovative and alternative
development standards. A PUD-Q,istrict also ailow for a greater range of residential development
scenarios, provides for internal traneters of density and may resuit in more dwelling units that may
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 more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of
standard zoning or subdivision procedures" (ACC 18,69.010),
The design guidelines of the PUD at 18,69,080(0)(1) state:
"a, 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."
The approval of the variance would be consistent with the flexibility mechanisms, high quality design
and pedestrian orientation purposes of the PUD zoning district and the zoning code.
7. The variance will not allow an increase In the number of dwelling units permitted by the
zoning district.
Not applicable,
8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan will not be adversely affected by this variance request.
9. The variance shall not allow a land use that is not permitted under the zoning district in
which the property is located.
Page 6 of 7
Aaenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR04-0006
Date:
711212005
The variance does not affect the allowed uses.
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 regulations or conditions that apply.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the applicant's submittal and on the Facts, Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff
recommends that the variance requests for reduction in the setback provisions be approved with the
following conditions,
1.
The reduced 10-foot front, 5-foot street side, and a.foot rear yard setbacks authorized by this
variance shall only apply to those Lots 1 through 67 of the plat that are developed as alley-loaded
lots, I.e. the vehicle access is only by way of the alley, The reduced 10-foot front, 5-foot street side,
and 10-foot rear yard setbacks authorized by this variance shall only apply to Lots 68 through 172 of
the plat.
2.
Prior to the 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 ail intersections and corners, The plan shall also define measures to ensure
maintenance of sight distance within sight distance triangles within the lots and tracts, Such
measures may include easements or other provisions as necessary to protect sight distances along
roadways. The measures may also result in minor changes to the design to provide proper sight
distance and ensure that all applicable requirements are satisfied.
3,
.
The variance shall be specific to th~quested rezoning to PUD, City File No. PUD04-0001, and the
subdivision proposal, City File No, PL 1'i4-0006. If the rezoning and preliminary plat are not
approved, the variance shail not be null and void.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and Information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report.
HEIAPP\STRVQ4-6 REVISED
Page? of?
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
HOUSE XXXX SF
DRIVEWA Y XXX SF
TOTAL XXXX SF
EROSION CONTROL
ALL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES TO REMAIN
FOR THE DURATION
OF CONSTRUCTION
ALLEY
38,00'
ElSElL
'oS. .. "" <l ".'", ~ ~P)
I f-',- ~ -'-- :< -'-
e' REA.R y~ RD
.-4." ... .
4 -. '. .
I ..... I
. .
4<
I
GARAGE ~
. ,<cr
'i=2
Cl -<(-
Il" IL
0 <( Cl
)- 0
"" I~ ""
'" IU '"
00 Cl 00
in ALLEY LOAD IU
in HOUSE PLAN I~
I/)
I
r < PORCH ~<-. I
- . <
10' FRONT jY, RD
<4
.
38,00'
$ STREET
1"=20'
6/06/05
EXHIBIT 4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: C.NTIIX HaM..
LOT#XX, RIVERSAND PLOT PLAN 11241 SLATER AVE NE
ADDRESS KIRKLAND, WA. 98033
AUBURN, WASHINGTON (425) 216-3400