HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2006 ITEM VIII-B-6CITY OF U--
N
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4110 "Spencer Place Preliminary Plat,"
Date:
Application No. PLT06-0005.
October 31, 2006
Department: Planning, Building,
Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit List
Budget Impact: N/A
and Community
Administrative Recommendation: City Council to hold a closed record hearing on the Spencer Place
Preliminary Plat at a date to be determined.
Background Summary:
On September 19, 2006 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on a proposed 13 lot preliminary plat
called "Spencer Place". The subject property was annexed into the City of Auburn January 17, 2006,
On October 2, 2006, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision recommending to City Council approval of
the preliminary plat request subject to sixteen (16) conditions. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC)
18.66.150 a request for reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation was filed by staff with regard
to four (4) recommended conditions of approval. The applicant also submitted a request for
reconsideration in response to the City's request.
On October 23, 2006, the Hearing Examiner issued a joint response to the requests for reconsideration
and a revised decision recommending approval of the preliminary plat request subject to fifteen (15)
conditions. Conditions #4 and #13 were revised, condition #15 was deleted, and condition #1 must be
reviewed and decided upon by the City Council.
The following are excerpts from the Examiner's response to the request for reconsideration that address
recommended Condition #1:
"The issue before the City Council is whether City access to wetland buffer tracts is an essential
component of a dedicated wetland buffer. This is a policy decision that is best left up to the Council. The
Hearing Examiner, after considering the perspective of the Applicant and that of the City, continues to
recommend that an access easement be required; that the City be limited to an annual inspection; and
that the City petition the Hearing Examiner if greater access is needed. The existing City ordinances do
not provide guidance on this issue. The City Council may wish to revise this condition, which would
provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner for review of applications in the future if he has erred in the
current recommendation.
03.5 PLT06-0004
L1106-1
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
® Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
® Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance ® Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
® Fire ® Planning
❑ Park Board ❑Public Works
❑ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
® Public Works ❑ Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes [--]No
Council Approval: ❑Yes []No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Davolio
Meeting Date: November 6, 2006 Item Number: VIII.B.6
AUBURN * MODE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4110 Date: November 6, 2006
"Spencer Place Preliminary Plat," Application No. PLT06-0005
The City and the Applicant are in conflict concerning Condition 1 and access to Tract C. The: Hearing
Examiner's recommendation to the City Council is to adopt the language of the initial decision, as
attached. The Hearing Examiner made his best effort to attempt to accommodate the concerns of both
the Applicant and the City by drafting the condition as recommended. However, the Hearing Examiner
did this without guidance from city ordinances as none is provided in them. The Council may choose to
revise the Hearing Examiner's recommendation following a review of the issue involving access to Tract
C. If it chooses to do so, the Hearing Examiner will follow the Council's guidance when reviewing future
applications."
Additionally since the September 19, 2006 public hearing, the applicant has revised the eastern portion of
the plat to accommodate a larger Tract B in accordance with discussion at the public hearing and the
Examiner's recommended condition #4. Staff has reviewed the revised plat layout which is included as
Exhibit #17.
In accordance with ACC 18.66.170, the City Council upon its review of the record, may:
1. Affirm the Hearing Examiner recommendation;
2. Remand the recommendation to the Hearing Examiner; or
3. Schedule a closed record public hearing before the City Council.
In order to address issues of City access to Tract C, the associated recommended condition #1 that the
Examiner deferred to Council, and in the event City Council wishes to modify the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation, a closed record hearing must be held. Staff is recommending a closed record hearing
to address this outstanding matter.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Notice of Application and Vicinity Map, dated 7-31-06**
Exhibit 2 Notice of Public Hearing**
Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Posting**
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Mailing**
Exhibit 5 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice**
Exhibit 6 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7 Final Determination of Non -Significance, dated 8-23-06**
Exhibit 8 Master Land Use Application, dated 6-16-06
Exhibit 9 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers LLC,
received 8-3-06 **
Exhibit 10 Topographical Site Survey, Cascade Land Surveying, dated 6-13-06**
Exhibit 11 Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation, Chad Armour, LLC, dated 6-13-06
Exhibit 12 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Preliminary Level One Downstream Analysis, ESM
Consulting Engineers LLC, dated 6-16-06**
Exhibit 13 Agenda Bill Approval Form (staff report), dated 9-13-06
Exhibit 14 Proposed revised condition #5, submitted by Applicant's representative at public hearing,
dated 9-19-06
Exhibit 15 Hearing Examiner Response to Request for Reconsideration for Spencer Place, dated
10-23-06
Exhibit 16 Hearing Examiner Revised Decision, dated 10-20-06, signed 10-23-06
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4110 Date: November 6, 2006
"Spencer Place Preliminary Plat," Application No. PLT06-0005
Exhibit 17 Revised Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
Revised Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Revised Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers
LLC, received 10-30-06
** = Exhibit is not included in the packet but is available for review upon
request.
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4110
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE
3.47 ACRES INTO THIRTEEN LOTS AND THREE
TRACTS, WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT06-0005, dated June 16, 2006, has been
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by ESM Consulting Engineers LLC,
requesting approval of a preliminary plat application to subdivide 3.47 acres into
13 lots for future residential development known as "Spencer Place" and three
tracts for utilities, access, and a sensitive area, within the City of Auburn,
Washington; and
WHEREAS, said request above was referred to the Hearing Examiner for
study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on September 19, 2006, after which, on October 2, 2006, the Hearing
Examiner made Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations in
which the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the preliminary plat
subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation were filed by the City on October 9, 2006, and ESM Consulting
Engineers LLC on October 11, 2006. The Hearing Examiner issued a response
to the requests for reconsideration and revised Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Recommendations on October 23, 2006; and
----------------------------
Resolution 4110
October 31, 2006
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting of November 6, 2006,
considered and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for preliminary
plat based upon said Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Hearing Examiner's Revised Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations attached hereto as Exhibit "A" incorporated in this Resolution
by this reference, are hereby approved and adopted.
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 3.47
acres into 13 lots for future residential development and three tracts for utilities,
access, and a sensitive area, within the City of Auburn, legally described in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A
(Tract C) shall be staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage
placed on-site by the applicant. Wetland sign content and location shall
be approved by the City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building, and
Community. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten foot wide
access easement on lot 7 to Tract C. The easement shall allow the City
access to Tract C once a year to inspect and ensure that the long-term
preservation and protection of the buffer area is maintained. The City may
petition the Hearing Examiner for access to Tract C if additional
maintenance or repair is required and shall be permitted if good cause is
shown.
2. Proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for a future
Homeowners' Association (if one is to be created) shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City prior to final plat approval.
3. The developer shall construct on-site gravity sanitary sewer lines and off
site gravity sanitary sewer lines. All lines shall be per Auburn Design
Standards.
Resolution 4110
October 31, 2006
Page 2 of 4
4. If the water service is connected to the east, it shall be contained within a
paved access tract meeting city standards of ACC 18.48.130, with a 26
foot wide utility easement dedicated to the City as part of the plat and lots
9 — 12 may have reconfigured access.
5. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall abandon the existing well
per Washington State and King County Health Department regulations
and transfer the water right for said well over to the City of Auburn.
6. Public storm drainage facilities shall be constructed to adequately manage
the storm water quantity and quality impacts from the proposed public
street improvements associated with the project. Storm drainage from the
public street improvements shall not drain onto private properties.
7. A Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to issuance of construction permits.
8. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall dedicate right of way and
construct all roads within the plat to City of Auburn Standards. In addition,
the developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct the required half
street improvement along the property frontage of 116th Avenue
Southeast including necessary transitions to the existing roadway beyond
the property frontage.
9. Sight distance triangles shall be dedicated as public right of way within the
plat or as easement outside the plat.
10.A Haul Route Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to issuance of construction permits. The plan shall identify the
proposed haul route, type of hauling vehicles and their associated axel
loadings, number of loaded and unloaded trips, daily hauling hours, and
schedule for completion. Based on the nature of the plan, the City
Engineer shall require mitigation for hauling impacts to existing roads
along the haul route. Mitigation may include pavement repair or roadway
re -surfacing, and/or weight limit, haul hour, and seasonal restrictions. The
City Engineer may require the applicant to provide a financial security
commensurate with the potential pavement impacts from hauling activities.
11. Street trees shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. A separate
approval block shall be shown on the landscape plans for that purpose.
12.The final plat drawing shall include addresses for each lot as assigned by
the City.
13. Tracts A and C shall be dedicated to the City.
Resolution 4110
October 31, 2006
Page 3 of 4
14.The Applicant/developer shall obtain approval and record the Boundary
Line Adjustment (No. LLA06-0004) depicted on the ESM Consulting
Engineers LLC, existing conditions drawing (Sheet 3 of 3) dated June 9,
2006.
15. Utility and street design issues shall be addressed during the facilities
extension process with the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this day of , 2006.
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Resolution 4110
October 31, 2006
Page 4 of 4
BFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
REVISED
In the Matter of the Application of )
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC )
on behalf of Cary Lang )
For Approval of a Preliminary Plat )
NO. PLT06-0005
EXHiBffV�
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATION
(Revised 10/20/06)
SPENCER PLACE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn recommends to the Auburn City Council that the
Spencer Place preliminary plat with a public internal street and tracts dedicated to the City be
APPROVED, subject to conditions as revised in this recommendation issued following
reconsideration.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
R uest:
Cary Lang, through its agent ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, requests approval of a
preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot residential
subdivision known as "Spencer Place." The subject property is located at 31808 11 f ai Avenue
Southeast in Auburn.
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on
September 19, 2006.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Stacey Borland, Planner, City of Auburn
Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
Joe Walsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
Matt Cyr, ESM Consulting Engineers, Applicant's representative
Eric LaBrie, ESM Consulting Engineers, Applicant's representative
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page I of 11
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
Exhibit 1. Notice of Application and Vicinity Map, dated 7-31-06
Exhibit 2. Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 3. Affidavit of Posting, dated September 8, 2006
Exhibit 4. Affidavit of Mailing, dated September 7, 2006
Exhibit 5. E-mail confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice, dated September 6, 2006
Exhibit 6. Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7. Final Determination of Non -Significance, dated August 23, 2006
Exhibit 8. Master Land Use A, dated June 16, 2006
pplication
Exhibit 9. Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3), received August 3, 2006
Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers
LLC
Exhibit 10. Topographical Site Survey. Cascade Land Surveying, dated June 13, 2006
Exhibit 11. Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation. Chad Armour, LLC, dated June 13,
2006
Exhibit 12. Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Preliminary Level One Downstream Analysis,
ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, dated June 16, 2006
Exhibit 13. Agenda Bill Approval Form (staff report), dated September 13, 2006)
Exhibit 14. Proposed revised condition #5, submitted by Applicant's representative,
September 19, 2006
The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony
and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:
- FINDINGS
1. ESM Consulting Engineers LLC requested approval of a preliminary plat application to
subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot residential subdivision for single family
detached homes. The subject property, known as "Spencer Place," is located at 31808
116'h Avenue Southeast in Auburn.' The City determined that the application was
complete on July 31, 2006. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 2.
2. The City annexed the property on January 17, 20062 and initially zoned it LHR', Single
Family Residential. The City rezoned the property to LHR2, Single Family Residential3
i The site parcel numbers are 0921059065 and 0921059095. A legal description is part of Exhibit 10 (topographical
site survey). Exhibit 10; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 1.
2 Property annexation per Ordinance 5986.
3 The purpose of the R-2 single family residential zone is as follows:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PL T06-0005
Page2of11
on May 11, 2006.4 The Comprehensive Plan designations for the surrounding properties
are all single family residential. The property to the west, within the City of Auburn, is a
single family residential development zoned LHR2, Single Family Residential. The
properties to the north, south, and east are part of unincorporated King County. The
properties to the south are single family homes zoned R-6, Residential 6 du/ac. The
property to the east is a single family residential development zoned R-6, Residential 6
du/ac. The properties to the north include a single family residential development and a
church, zoned R-4, Residential 4 du/ac and LHR2, Single Family Residential. Exhibit 9,
Preliminary Plat Map; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 2.
3. The property is located in the City's Lea Hill zoning district, which is governed in part by
the following provision in the zoning code:
The purpose of the Lea Hill (LH) zoning districts is to provide for
zoning requirements to the Lea Hill area that are effective upon
annexation. The LH zoning districts will be similar to if not the
same as the other zoning districts of the city of Auburn. Some
variations are needed to recognize King County zoning and the
developments permitted using the county zoning.
ACC 18.45.010. Under ACC 18.45.040(B), any further subdivisions and uses must
conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in ACC 18.45.020 and 18.45.030
which are the same as Chapter 18.14 ACC. Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 3; ACC
18.45.010.
4. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed lot
size will average 8,230 square feet with the smallest lot size 6,600 square feet. The
density for the 13 single family lots on the 3.47 acres would be 3.75 du/ac and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan housing goals of maintaining and enhancing the
City's character as a family-oriented community, and emphasizing housing development
at single family densities. Policy LU -14 states that residential densities in areas
designated for single family residential use should be no greater than 6 units; per acre.
2005 Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Policy LU --14, page 3-14; Housing Goals 4
and 7, pages 4-8 and 4-10; Exhibit 13, page 7.
The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of
optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is finther intended to limit
development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the
development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on
each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the
residential environment.
ACC 1& 14.010.
4 Rezone of property took place per Ordinance 6027.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 3 of 11
5. The Applicant made a boundary line adjustment (BLA) application to the City for the
subject property at 31808 116'` Avenue Southeast (parcel 0921059065) and the lot to the
north at 31720 116'' Avenue Southeast (parcel 091059095).5 Matt Cyr, the Applicant's
consultant, testified that the BLA had been approved by the City and that the BLA would
be recorded as soon as signatures are obtained. Exhibit 9; Exhibit 13, StaffReport, page
2. Testimony of Mr. Cyr.
6. The proposed project site is relatively flat, with a 10% south -facing slope, and contains
forested vegetation over much of the site, dominated by Douglas -fir and western red
cedar trees. The Applicant/developer would remove an existing older single family
residence and detached garage, and an existing well would be abandoned and the water
right transferred to the City. The proposal does not include dedication of park land.
Exhibit 9, Existing Conditions Map; Exhibit 11, page 3, Exhibit 13, Staff Report, pages 3,
4, and 6.
7. The applicant's consultant, Chad Armour, LLC, prepared a critical areas assessment and
delineation for the Spencer property in 2006. No critical areas were identified on site.
However, the consultant identified an area of less than 500 square feet, with soil saturated
to the surface in May 2005 that may have once been part of a larger wet area, plot ID SP-
1. The consultant's wetland data form sheet did not identify any hydrophytic vegetation
present at this site.6 Therefore, this area was not identified as a wetland. This area would
be filled and paved as part of the proposed Southeast 318'h Court internal street. The
consultant also identified an area, plot ID SP -2, just to the north of the southeastern
boundary with soil saturated to the surface in April 2006. The consultant's wetland data
form sheet identified 50% presence of hydrophytic vegetation; which is less than the
greater than 50% standard required for a wetland determination. The consultant
identified an off-site category IV wetland (Wetland A) adjacent to the southeastern
boundary of the site.7 Under ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1), the minimum buffer for a category
IV wetland is 25 feet. The preliminary plat shows a 25 foot wide sensitive area buffer
identified as Tract C. Exhibit 9, Preliminary Plat, Exhibit 11, pages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and
data forms; ACC 16.10.0990 (E) (1).
8. Pursuant to the City's critical area chapter, long-term protection of a regulated wetland
and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following methods:
s Boundary Line Adjustment file No. LLA06-0004.
6 The Hearing Examiner takes notice that under the WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or the 1987 Corps
Wetland Delineation Manual, wetlands are determined by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. Under the 1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual (page 16), hydrophytic vegetation is
indicated where more than 50 percent of the dominant species are obligate, facultative wetland or facultative.
7 Category IV wetlands" are those wetlands that meet the following criterion: a) Provide low levels of functions,
scoring less than 30 out of 100 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004). ACC16.10.080 (C) (4).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 4 of l l
It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is
prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the
city, a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly
preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to
the city. The location and limitations associated with the wetland
and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat
applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the King or
Pierce County recording department.
ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1) f.
Mr. Cyr and Eric LaBrie, consultant for the Applicant, testified and requested that a 25
foot wide native growth protection easement be used to protect the wetland buffer. Steve
Pilcher, City Planner, testified for the City that the City preferred that a separate tract be
dedicated to the City with a ten foot wide access easement, rather than a native growth
protection easement. Mr. LaBrie testified that a dedication of Tracts A, B and C would
be acceptable, but that a ten foot wide access easement to Tract C across lot 7 could
create problems for the future property owner who would have to keep an easement free
from obstructions. Testimony of Mr. Cyr; Testimony of Mr. LaBrie; Testimony of Mr.
Pilcher; ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1) f.
9. Joe Walsh, City Transportation Engineer,$ testified that City stormwater standards would
need to be met, and that they may impact the wetland area. Mr. LaBrie testified for the
Applicant that proposed lots 7 and 8 would drain toward Wetland A and provide a water
source for the wetland. Exhibit 12, page 1-2, Testimony of Mr. Walsh; Testimony of Mr.
LaBrie.
10. Vehicular access to the site would be from 116th Avenue Southeast. The proposed
internal street, Southeast 318'` Court, would be developed to City standards (including
emergency access) and dedicated as a public street. According to the City, the site would
generate 13 PM peak hour trips. No city traffic impact analysis is required. The
Applicant would provide half street improvements for a residential collector on 116°i
Avenue Southeast which would include adequate right of way dedication. The Applicant
would dedicate Tract B to the City as an access tract for lots 9 through 13. The City's
comprehensive transportation plan identifies Lea Hill as an area in need of sidewalks. To
the extent that sidewalks would be provided, the proposed project is consistent with the
Non -Motorized Transportation portion of the comprehensive transportation plan. The
site is located within the Auburn School District. No comments were received from the
school district on this proposal. Sidewalks along the frontage of the site and within the
plat on the south side of proposed Southeast 318th Court would allow children within the
development to meet school buses on 116th Avenue Southeast. The Applicant would pay
school, fire, and traffic impact fees at the time of building permit applications. Exhibit 9,
s Mr. Walsh testified on behalf of the City Public Works at this hearing.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofrluburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 5 of 11
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan; Exhibit 13, Staff report, pages 3, 4, and 5; 2005
City Comprehensive Transportation Plan, page 3-1; ACC Title 19.
11. The Applicant proposes to connect to the City sanitary and water services. The
Applicant/developer would extend the public sanitary sewer along 116d' Avenue
Southeast through the frontage of the site and then on-site to service all proposed lots.
The Applicant/developer would provide side sewers to any adjacent parcels not currently
serviced. Exhibit 9, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan; Exhibit 13, page 3; Testimony
of Mr. LaBrie.
12. ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, prepared a preliminary level one downstream analysis
for the Applicant. The analysis did not identify any existing or potential problems with
the site. According to the analysis, the proposed project makes sufficient provision for
stormwater detention and treatment in Tract A. The Applicant would dedicate Tracts A,
the storm pond, B, the access tract, and C, the wetland buffer, to the City. The storm
pond would be designed and landscaped to city standards. Exhibit 9, Preliminary
Grading and Utility Plan; Exhibit 12, page 1-3; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 4,
Testimony of Mr. LaBrie.
13. The preliminary plat currently depicts a 15 foot wide water easement extending east and
west along the north side of proposed lot 8. Mr. Walsh testified for the City that
proposed staff condition 5 (now condition 4 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation)
would require a looped water system with a 20 foot wide paved tract which would be
deeded over to the City's water utility.9 Mr. LaBrie testified that the Applicant would tie
into the 116th Avenue Southeast water supply, but expressed concern that easements over
adjacent properties to the east may not be available. He testified that the Applicant may
reconfigure lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and access Tract B if the water easement area to the east is
paved. The City and the Applicant agreed to a modified condition. Exhibit 9
Preliminary Plat, Exhibit 14; Testimony of Mr. Walsh; Testimony of Mr. LaBrie.
14. The City issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) on August 23, 2006.10 No
comments on the DNS were received and no appeals were filed. Exhibit 7; Exhibit 13,
Staff Report, page 3.
9 The City of Auburn requires looping of water supplies for fire fighting wherever feasible to avoid dead -ends.
Provisions shall be made wherever appropriate in any project for looping all dead-end or
temporarily dead-end mains. Construction plans must be approved by the appropriate
water authority prior to the commencement of construction. Where it is not feasible at the
time of approval and installation to loop a water system, in the opinion of the fire
department, the loop requirement may be relaxed if the intent of the code is met and a stub
is provided on the main for future expansion.
ACC 13.16.090.
10 The City reviewed a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
However, the environmental checklist was not submitted as an exhibit. Exhibit 7.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 6 of 11
15. The City provided reasonable notice of the September 19, 2006 public hearing. Notice of
the open record hearing was posted on site on September 8, 2006, mailed to all property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on September 7, 2006, and published
in the September 9, 2006 edition of the King County Journal. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3;
Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear
and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearing Examiner to make
recommendations for approval of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and
17.06.050.
Criteria for Review
Pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, preliminary plats shall only be approved if findings of fact are
drawn to support the following:
A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and
for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies,
sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school grounds;
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the:
comprehensive plan;
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council;
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as
enumerated in ACC 17.02.030;
E. 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 Chapter 18.69
ACC;
F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such
that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality
of the environment;
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public
nuisances.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 7of11
ACC 17.06.070.
In addition, Chapter 18.45 (Lea Hill District) of ACC requires conformance with the permitted
uses and standards referenced in ACC 18.45.020 and .030.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, adequate provisions have been made for the public health, safety
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school
grounds. The street within the proposed plat will be public and will provide adequate
transportation routes for residents and will include sidewalks for pedestrian safety and
school access. The provisions for emergency access to the area are also sufficient.
Schools will be provided for through impact fees at the time of building permit
application. Stormwater from the proposed plat will be detained and treated in an on-site
stormwater facility.. Conditions of approval are necessary, including those 1.0 ensure that
public storm drainage facilities adequately manage storm water quantity and quality and
that stormwater, lot access, and wetland buffer tracts are dedicated to the City. The plat
will be connected to public utilities for water and sanitary wastes. Findings 1, 2, 6, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
2. The proposed project conforms to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's
Comprehensive Plan, Title 17.02 (Subdivisions), and to the general purposes of any
other applicable policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council. The
subdivision would provide single family residential housing and would be consistent with
the purposes and regulations of the subdivision title, substantially consistent with the
City's design and construction standards, consistent with Chapter 18.45 ACC concerning
development within the Lea Hill area, and would be consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the City's comprehensive
transportation plan. Findings 1-1 S.
3. With conditions, the plat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance, Title
18, and any other applicable planning or engineering standard and specifications.
The Applicant's proposal substantially complies with all related City codes and standards
including development standards for the LHR2 single family residential zoning district,
and with Chapter 18.45 ACC concerning development within the Lea Hill area.
Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with sanitary sewer, water
supply, stormwater facilities and right of way and frontage standards. Findings 1-14.
4. With conditions, potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been
mitigated such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon
the quality of the environment. Acting as the lead agency, the City determined that the
proposed plat will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and
issued a determination of nonsignificance. The applicant would protect an off --site
wetland with a 25 foot wide buffer. The stormwater system will protect water quality and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page8ofll
prevent runoff from damaging nearby land. Conditions of approval are necessary to
ensure compliance with sanitary sewer, water supply and stormwater facilities standards.
Conditions of approval are necessary to protect the off-site wetland with an associated
wetland buffer on lot 7. Here, a dedicated tract for a wetland buffer is appropriate for lot
7 with a limited access easement. A limited access easement would allow for City
inspect and maintain of the wetland buffer area without undue restrictions on the use of
the property by the burdened property owner. Findings 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 14.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or
abate public nuisances. Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC
and are addressed directly in Chapter 8.12 ACC. A public nuisance affects public health
and property values by creating visual blight, harboring rodents and/or beasts, or creating
unsafe pedestrian and traffic situations. The proposed plat will not result in any public
nuisances. Connections to public sewer and water will limit potential negative impacts
on public health. Findings 1-14.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner for the City of
Auburn recommends to the Auburn City Council that the request for approval of a preliminary
plat to subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot subdivision with a public internal street
and tracts dedicated to the City be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 11
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A (Tract C) shall be
staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed on-site by the applicant.
Wetland sign content and location shall be approved by the City of Auburn ]Director of
Planning, Building, and Community. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten foot
wide access easement on lot 7 to Tract C. The easement shall allow the City access to
Tract C once a year to inspect and ensure that the long-term preservation and protection
of the buffer area is maintained. The City may petition the Hearing Examiner for access
to Tract C if additional maintenance or repair is required and shall be permitted if good
cause is shown.
2. Proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for a future Homeowners'
Association (if one is to be created) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City prior to final plat approval.
3. The developer shall construct on-site gravity sanitary sewer lines and off site gravity
sanitary sewer lines. All lines shall be per Auburn Design Standards.
" Conditions include both legal requirements applicable to all developments and conditions to mitigate the specific
impacts of this development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 9 of I I
4. If the water service is connected to the east, it shall be contained within a paved access
tract meeting city standards of ACC 18.48.130, with a 26 foot wide utility easement
dedicated to the City as part of the plat and lots 9 —12 may have reconfigured access.
5. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall abandon the existing well per Washington
State and King County Health Department regulations and transfer the water right for
said well over to the City of Auburn.
6. Public storm drainage facilities shall be constructed to adequately manage the storm
water quantity and quality impacts from the proposed public street improvements
associated with the project. Storm drainage from the public street improvements shall not
drain onto private properties.
7. A Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to
issuance of construction permits.
8. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall dedicate right of way and construct all
roads within the plat to City of Auburn Standards. In addition, the developer shall
dedicate right-of-way and construct the required half street improvement along the
property frontage of 116th Avenue Southeast including necessary transitions to the
existing roadway beyond the property frontage.
9. Sight distance triangles shall be dedicated as public right of way within the plat or as
easement outside the plat.
10. A Haul Route Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance
of construction permits. The plan shall identify the proposed haul route, type of hauling
vehicles and their associated axel loadings, number of loaded and unloaded trips, daily
hauling hours, and schedule for completion. Based on the nature of the plan, the City
Engineer shall require mitigation for hauling impacts to existing roads along the haul
route. Mitigation may include pavement repair or roadway re -surfacing, and/or weight
limit, haul hour, and seasonal restrictions. The City Engineer may require the applicant
to provide a financial security commensurate with the potential pavement impacts from
hauling activities.
11. Street trees shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. A separate approval block
shall be shown on the landscape plans for that purpose.
12. The final plat drawing shall include addresses for each lot as assigned by the: City.
13. Tracts A, and C shall be dedicated to the City.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 10 of 11
14. The Applicant/developer shall obtain approval and record the Boundary Line Adjustment
(No. LLA06-0004) depicted on the ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, existing conditions
drawing (Sheet 3 of 3) dated June 9, 2006.
15. Utility and street design issues shall be addressed during the facilities extension process
with the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Decided this Vday of October 2006
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 11 of.11
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OF THE SOUTHWEST,
QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.,
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 6 ACRES THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 97 FEET OF THE REMAINDER THEREOF;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERLY 200 FEET OF THE.
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION;
THENCE NORTH 8804116" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF A
DISTANCE OF 216.06 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0101874" EAST A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHERLY 200 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88041136" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF
215.96 FEES' TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHERLY 200.00 ]FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01*16'38" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF A
DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD.
CITYO.;
F " ' .�
Exhibit
�,�•
Number of Pages 3
WASHIW
Iyal ►►ink 81W#ding, tinct Ceimmalwity aa7tmeal
A2'ffk x,4MD&WMruC!?yON..,py.,�vNnvo.u►pLrc4rloxS
1'rOWNatpe SPenner Place
Date
Pant No(:) 092105-9065
Ind DwriptwN (wed xpwme elect ilaisemnry) Sen attached
Apps"Xt
NaM- Cary Zang COtstraation/Cary ZU
Marg Addm: 29815 24 tD ,,vc. asF g
T osa aad'tax: 206-423-5055 edaral w#y WA 98023
hotwail.,con VAMC: 253-661-7046
s�bu=
Owmr Q(tv f,a than eae atm ~'
NMM
tiggA M&rylI SP=cex
w.
Talophaft aAdNaac;
st
Ajn
rlarna HSM Coasv].tIII
ing 91neers Lte/Eric X.
Maf?irytAddrr>,: 339aBzir
13 tat Way So, Suite 200, Federal Way WA
iTObphonc and PaL, 253-838-6113 RMI 253--838-7104 98009
TA- IE!e•labrle8em&-1vi2.C44
DC404l6ofF00°� 8as1 of t
Property into rt total of 13 new lata the project is to subdivide the
Proaecs. This w"Ou d areata !3 neN lots�� the Cit3►'a aubdllrieioa
-"'gra fROt, Plus#e s� X08 in siR* from 6600 to 9524
cover letter For map& �..�_`_�,
AdmInU d" Use permit
,., Anwxation
ft0 ditY L� �uttxt
nt
CONM01W Lw F=**
f1'o
G�tical Agee: y��
Vital RevO
1'Lgl Plat
�., Prel66wy Platt
PUt) Silo Plan
.. ltawnc (site ,n�a
.&
PMc 102
SPOcial Rome 0".tion Peaoap
subsba l SIWOMN DevelopasM+
surboe MialmB rem**
v the Pem�r
+Please Roto dWpablk not fteon is
tnrn ami A cod io o,�
m SIM but
11PPbcant�RWw Ir.14. U,4,.
AUjRukN* MORE THAN YOU wAawn)
A. VJ
y i
ClT Y Cir
AV V RL �{
WASHINGTON .l,Ifl"Id/t 1 Building, �,, and CnnlrrlUItiOlDPparMierrt
LETTER FROM PROPERT OWNER GRANUNG AXITHORIZATION TO ACT
(A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved)
I, Maryllyn Spencer
(PROPERTY OWNER)
Involved in the applioation.
being duly sworn declare that l am the owner of the property
I horeby grant Cary Lang
of Cary Lang Construction to act on my behalf. I further declare that all
Mtements, answers, and information herein submitted is in all respects true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
D
Signat a nate
31808 116th Ave SE"
Auburn WA 98092
Address
Subscribed and sworn to before me this �Lr% day of
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
Residing at G(/,
Pabc 2 of 2
1 NOT,
. y "c
tA� .
�BLIG i
s �?
0� WAS1 !
t `'
A,UBUR.N * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
JUN 13 2006 12:07 PAGE.03
Proposed Legal Description
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.,
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 6 ACRES THEREOF; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 97 FEET OF THE REMAINDER THEREOF;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERLY 200 FEET OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION;
THENCE NORTH 88°41'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF A
DISTANCE OF 216.06 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0101824" EAST A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHERLY 200 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88°41'36" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF
215.96 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHERLY 200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01°1638" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF A
DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD.
CHAD ARMOUR, LLC
June 13, 2006
Job Number 06-016
Lang Construction
29815 24"' Avenue SW
Federal Way, Washington 98023
Attn: Cary Lang
Subject: Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation
Spencer Property
Auburn, Washington
Dear Mr. Lang:
6500126"' Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98006-3941
(425) 641-9743 (425) 643-3499 (fax)
chad@chadarmour.com
Exhibit I 1
Number of Pages 3 �1
We are pleased to present the results of our critical areas assessment and delineation
for the above -referenced property located in Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The work
was accomplished in accordance with Chad Armour LLC proposal No. 199 dated April 6,
2006. The purpose of the work is to identify the location and class of wetlands present
on or near the site.
The report is organized in sections and includes:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS that presents a synopsis of the pertinent issues and
recommendations related to critical areas;
SITE DESCRIPTION of the subject property (site) and adjacent properties;
BACKGROUND INFORMATION that presents existing information about the
site and surrounding area;
EXISTING CONDITIONS that describes wetlands and uplands on and near the
site;
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS that describes the applicable regulations
associated with wetlands;
CONCLUSIONS that summarize the results of the critical area assessment and
delineation; and
LIMITATIONS of this project.
References, tables, figures, and appendices follow the text. Table 1 is a list of the plant
species we observed on the site. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map showing the location of the
site. Figure 2 is a Site Plan that shows the location of sampling points and other
important features. The soil type mapped for the site is shown on Figure 3. Critical
areas assessment methods and the field data forms are presented in Appendix A.
Appendix B contains wetland functional assessment forms.
C:/Jobs/Spencer/Delineaiion Report.doc 1 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC —
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
No wetlands appear to be present on the site.
The edge of what appears to be a Category IV wetland is located adjacent to the
southern site boundary. If this area is a wetland, then a portion of the 25 -foot -wide
buffer projects onto the site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Spencer site is located in Section 9, Township 21 N, Range 5 E east of 116"' Avenue
SE and north of SE 320"' Street in Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). One parcel (No.
092105-9065) is the location of a single-family home. This parcel is dominated by forest.
A church is located on the other parcel (No.092105-9095). This parcel is open and
supports widely -scattered trees.
The site is located in a rapidly growing area. An older single-family residential
community is located to the east. A newer single-family residential community is located
west of the site. Single-family homes on larger parcels are located north and south of
the site.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following sections of the report present known available information about the
planned development, critical areas, and soils.
Planned Development
We understand that you are considering constructing single-family homes on the site.
We also understand that the preferred location of the stormwater facility is the southeast
comer of the site.
Critical Areas
We reviewed existing available maps to assess the potential for wetlands to be present
on or adjacent to the site. The King County (County) Parcel Report indicates.that the
site is located in the Duwamish-Green River watershed and Middle Green River
drainage basin (King County, 2006).
Wetlands
No wetlands are mapped on or near the site (FWS, 2006 and King County, 2006).
Soils
There is one soil type mapped on the site; Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 6 to 15
percent slopes (Figure 3).
Alderwood Series
Alderwood soils are made up of moderately well drained soils underlain by a dense till
layer typically two to 3.5 feet below the surface. Alderwood soils formed in glacial
deposits under conifer trees (Snyder et al., 1973). Till is a barrier that retards the
udiods/bpencer/DeNneation Report.doc 2 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
downward percolation of the rain that falls on the soil. When the soil above the till layer
becomes saturated, water that accumulates on the till surface will pool in depressions or
flow in the direction of the gradient. The general subsurface flow is ultimately
concentrated in depressions or streams. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is not a listed
hydric soil (NRCS, 1996).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
We visited the site on May 11, 2005 and April 21, 2006 to check for the presence of
wetlands on and adjacent to the site.
On -Site Conditions
Most of the site is uplands dominated by forest and a mowed lawn.
Forest Plant Community
The forested plant community is typically dominated by Douglas -fir and western red
cedar trees. Growing beneath the trees are big -leaf maple saplings, hazelnut, and
trailing blackberry (Table 1). These and other plant species are rooted in 7 inches of
very dark brown (10YR 2/2) over more than 10 inches of dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) gravelly
sandy loam (Appendix A; Plot ID SP -3). This slice of the forest is located on a gently -
sloping (10%), well -drained, south -facing slope.
A spot that once may have been a part of a larger'wet' area is located on the home
parcel adjacent to the church parking lot. We estimate that it covers less than 500
square feet (so. It is dominated exclusively by Japanese knotweed. This upland plant
species was rooted in 11 inches of black (10YR 2/1) over more than 6 inches of very
dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. We observed common, medium,
faint mottles in the B horizon. In May 2005 the soil was saturated to the surface (Plot ID
SP -1).
Non -forested Plant Community
The Non -forested plant community is represented by widely scattered trees rooted in
mowed grass. Also present are small clumps of shrubs, typically growing along fence
lines. At one location, in addition to the mowed grass, this plant community is dominated
by creeping buttercup. These and other plant species are rooted in imported fill material
(Plot ID SP -4). The fill is likely waste product from the residential development to the
east that ended up being spread out on this comer of the site.
Wetlands
What appears to be a wetland abuts the southern site boundary (Figure 2).
As seen from the edge, this narrow 5,000 sf shallow, depression is dominated by red
alder trees about 4 to 8 inches in diameter and about 80 feet tall, with a fringe of western
red cedar trees. The understory is sparsely vegetated, where leaf litter and the
occasional creeping buttercup grow in the bare soil. We observed standing water
covering about 25% of this depression in April 2006.
ClJobs/Spencer/Delineation Report.doc 3 ���
Chad Armour, LLC
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
The edge of the wet area appears to straddle the southern site boundary (Figure 2). The
plant community north of this line is upland. Here the forest is dominated by big -leaf
maple, red alder, and western red cedar trees. The most common understory plant
species is sword fern. These and other plant species are rooted in what appears to be a
hydric soil. The soil was saturated to the surface in April 2006 (Plot ID SP -2).
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The wet area to the south appears to be a wetland. If it is a wetland, it has
characteristics typical of Category IV wetlands (Appendix B). Category IV wetlands
function at the low range of ecological value. This wet area has moderate water quality
and low hydrologic and habitat functional values. The standard buffer for Category IV
wetlands is 25 feet (AMC 16.10.090E1).
CONCLUSIONS
It appears that the entire site is upland. The buffer of a wet area to the south could
affect site development. City code does not specifically address development in buffers.
Assuming that it is allowed, then expect some kind of compensatory mitigation.
LIMITATIONS
Work for this project was performed, and this letter report prepared, in accordance with
generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work
completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is
intended for the exclusive use of Lang Construction and their assigns for specific
application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal
opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
It should be noted that Chad Armour relied on information provided by others indicated
previously. Chad Armour can only relay this information and cannot be responsible for
its accuracy or completeness. Also note that delineating critical areas and assessing
functions and values are inexact sciences. Biological professionals may disagree on the
precise location of critical area boundaries, their functions, and classification. The final
determination of these characteristics is the responsibility of the permitting authority.
Accordingly, the critical areas assessment and delineation performed for this study, as
well as the conclusions drawn in this report, should be reviewed by the appropriate
permitting authority prior to committing to detailed planning and design activities.
t,:/ioos/bpencerwetuneation Report.doc 4 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
Any questions regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information,
and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
Chad Armour, LLC
Chad Armour
Principal
Attachments:
References
Table 1 — Plants identified on the Spencer site
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan
Figure 3 — Soils Map
Appendix A Assessment Methods and Wetland Field Data Forms
Appendix B — Wetland Rating Form Western Washington
op- lu riuenneauon Keport.aoc 5 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
REFERENCES
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
REFERENCES
Auburn, City of. 2005. Chapter 16.10 - Critical Areas regulations.
Cooke, S. S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington and Northwestern Oregon. University of Washington Press.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. 88 pages plus
appendices.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Way, City of. 2001. Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Federal Way. 2006. Zoning and Wetland Atlas. Zoning Map 96, SW 30-21-04, SW
QTR of Kroll 743.
FWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands
Mapper, Lower 48 States. http:/twetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/viewer.htm.
Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press.
King County. 2006. Parcel Report, Districts and Development Conditions. Parcel
number 2922059211.
NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1996.
County Hydric Soils Lists.
http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technicaVsoils/county_hydric lists.html
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report
88(26.9). 89 pages.
Snyder, D. E., P. S. Gale, and R. F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area,
Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station. 100+ pages plus maps.
u-ijuusropencerweuneaaon Keport.doc 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
TABLES
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
Table 1. Plants identified on the Spencer site
baldhip rose
Rosa gymnocarpa
FACU
big -leaf maple
Acer macrophyllum
FACU
creeping buttercup
Ranunculus repens
FACW
Dewey's sedge
Carex deweyana
FACU
Douglas -fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
FACU
grass
—
hazelnut
Corylus comuta
FACU
Himalayan blackberry
Rubus discolor
FACU
Indian plum
Oemlena cerasiforrnis
FACU
Japanese knotweed
Polygonum cuspidatum
FACU
large -leaved avens
Geum macrophyllum
FACW
red alder
Alnus rubra
FAC
salal
Gaultheria shallon
FACU
salmonberry
Rubus spectabilis
FAC+
soft rush
Juncus effusus
FACW
sword fern
Polystichum munitum
FACU
trailing blackberry
Rubus ursinus
FACU
vine maple
Acer circinatum
FAC -
virgin's -bower
Clematis sp.
FAC -
western red cedar
Thuja plicata
FAC
Refer to Appendix A for an explanation of Indicator Status.
CJJobs/Spencer/Delineaaon Report.doc 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC
Spencer Preliminary Plat 6500 126" Avenue SE
Auburn, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006
,r' `-' •: - 4 +rte . ,..1 Z5t
SE MIN i k Z`AM'
b '- SSE 39Ji10 $. 242�q Sr
SF
�� z ..� � � a �.1 iy SE 2y0TM � cE
_•
-M� sT
rt— 4 3 SE
SE F.
_ i97IM iT (
r
M1w $I
ol ". ....v
L 1.
xiwt. k SE 3D27V0 ML
l„SE i 38$n sr
i
A se ni
_
t`_.. w S k�iTti�x `I V. V`
._, SE .SOB'M 3a7 �+, .a _
� lU
�Rg�
46iFkJ3 .
Sim ST i`
SE s i St312TH ST
�^ • b: tit.
P r�'
SITE
K <€ TMJ ~.ya`
Citkf
_
f
q • -,may.:' -
(
k • N.,) 'r .� i
Ai
r 1AKEf. _ HDV'ij v
all-
ej
Source: The Thomas Guide, King and Snohomish Counties, Page 746,
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP Chad Armour, LLC
Spencer Preliminary Plat 6500 126" Avenue SE
Auburn, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006
DATE: 06VIV06 1:19pm
0 oiect\Clients\ormour\SPeneer\spenool.dw9
13
VYINDSOR PLACE
O/w VOL 159, PG(S) 15-17
J_j
CAN
SP -40
CMMH/sc WRONG 127.995*8.F. "
♦2.00ACRES
GRAM ORM AND 1`�APM 092103-9093
PARKING ARO
4j,
ylU Ao N
Tali
L...... ..... A .
... . . .....
*M -Muse - , --d-
4_1
2.47* ACRES
AIN Q92f03_9093
. . ....... . .....
0 SP -3
..... .. ......
.. ....... .... ... ... .. ..
. . .... .........
-_�P-2
14,
MPLA"M
. k AM
♦
. ..... . ... . . . .......
0 1 OC) . ......... . ....... . ........ . ......... . ..... . . ..... . .... ...... . .. .............
200 0 SP -1 Sample Number and Location
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Spencer Preliminary Plat
Auburn, Washington
F M"
Wet Area
a
..... . . . ....... .. ....... . ..
SITE
LEA HILL VILLAGE DfV, 2
VOL. 92, PG(S) 24-25
LEA HILL VILLAGE ow i
A, VOL. 87, PG(S) 39-41
CONN. AREA 0'
•
I
Chad Armour, LLC
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98006
%
10
8
9
CAN
SP -40
CMMH/sc WRONG 127.995*8.F. "
♦2.00ACRES
GRAM ORM AND 1`�APM 092103-9093
PARKING ARO
4j,
ylU Ao N
Tali
L...... ..... A .
... . . .....
*M -Muse - , --d-
4_1
2.47* ACRES
AIN Q92f03_9093
. . ....... . .....
0 SP -3
..... .. ......
.. ....... .... ... ... .. ..
. . .... .........
-_�P-2
14,
MPLA"M
. k AM
♦
. ..... . ... . . . .......
0 1 OC) . ......... . ....... . ........ . ......... . ..... . . ..... . .... ...... . .. .............
200 0 SP -1 Sample Number and Location
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Spencer Preliminary Plat
Auburn, Washington
F M"
Wet Area
a
..... . . . ....... .. ....... . ..
SITE
LEA HILL VILLAGE DfV, 2
VOL. 92, PG(S) 24-25
LEA HILL VILLAGE ow i
A, VOL. 87, PG(S) 39-41
CONN. AREA 0'
•
I
Chad Armour, LLC
6500 126th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98006
AgC - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 16 to 15 percent slopes
Source: http://www.or.nres.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.htmi
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP Chad Armour, LLC
Spencer Preliminary Plat 6500 126'" Avenue SE
Auburn, Washington Bellevue, Washington 98006
APPENDIX A
Assessment Methods and
Wetlands Rating Field Data Forms
Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Lang Construction
Auburn, Washington
ASSESSMENT METHODS
Chad Armour reviewed -maps for the site and surrounding area to identify critical areas
(e.g., wetlands, streams, etc.) on or near the site. After we arrived at the site, we
traversed the area in and around the proposed development to look for indicators of on
site and nearby wetlands.
We used the Routine On-site Determination method detailed in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997). We
identified plant species using the Flora of the Pack Northwest (Hitchcock and
Cronquist, 1973) and A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington and Northwestem Oregon (Cooke, 1997). The associated indicator status
for each plant species was determined using the National- List of. Plant Species That
Occur in Wetlands: Northwest fRegion 91 (Reed 1988, updated in 1993).
We reviewed City of Auburn critical areas regulations to assess applicable issues
associated with wetlands (Auburn, 2005). Soils were identified using the Soil Survey of
King County Area. Washington (Snyder et. al, 1973).
We marked the location of wetland boundaries and sampling points with a unique
identifying number on pink -colored flagging. Following our site visit, ESM Consulting
Engineers had the flagged sampling points surveyed. Brick Tudor Studios produced the
figures. The location of the sampling points is shown on Figure 2.
Wetland determination and wetland rating forms completed by Chad Armour are
presented at the end of this appendix. Indicator categories shown on the field data
forms are defined as follows:
OBL (obligate)
>99%
FACW (facultative wetland)
67%-99%
FAC (facultative)
34%-66%
FACU (facultative upland)
1%-33%
UPL (upland)
<1%
NI
No Indicator
A positive or negative sign more specifically defines the regional frequency of
occurrence for FACW, FAC, or FACU species. A positive sign (+) indicates a frequency
toward the higher end of the category. Conversely, a negative sign (-) indicates a
frequency toward the lower end of the category.
C:/Jobs/Spencer/Delineation Report.doc 06/13/06
Chad Armour, LLC
I
DATA FORM 1(Revised)
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
�.N4Vll l�ls•1lLLQl
Project/Site: hc.-� j
Applicant/owner: 1 ,a" _ tip v, g fried ..,
-Investigator(s): Q r+uou L
Date:
County:
State:
S/T/R:
Do -Normal Circumstances exist on the site? <Zes) no
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes
Explanation of atypical or Problem area:
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: P t
VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant Spe6es Stratum % cover Indicator . Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator
14
11 DWI L'
HYDROPHMC VEGETATION INDICATORS: �DM
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 0 %1P
Check all indicator; that apply & explain below:
Visual observation of plant species growing in
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation
Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no
Based on: /oil temp (record temD
other (explain)
Dept. of inundation: inches
Depth to free water in pit: t 3 inches
Depth to saturated soil: O inches
Check all that apply & explain below:
Stream, Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: C
Wetland hydrology present? yas
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Physiological/reproductive adaptations
Wetland plant database
Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
Other (explain)
no
Water Marks: yesno
on
Drift Lines: yes no
Oxidized Root (li Dots)
Channels <12 in no
FAC Neutral: yes no
Other (explain):
Sediment Deposits: yeCno)
Drainage Patterns: ye no:)
Local Soil Survey: yesno
Water -stained Leaves yes no
T>>Q T;71 -v_
SOILS
Map Unit Name � c�clwaca� ."A4J54,4 /
(Series & Phase) /pQ w) *' 474 s l.
Taxonomv (subgroun) ff��fw-- ���oc�✓cA�'S
Profile Description
cJ r 1
Drainage Class
Field observations confirm Yes No
_ mapped type?
Depth
Horizon
Matrix color "
Mottle colors
Mottle abundance
Texture, concretions,
Drawing of soil
(inches)
(Munsell
(Munsell
size & contrast
structure, etc.
profile
moist)
moist)
(match description)
4 -44 /
000
Ajdrie Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
/
Histosol
—ZMatrix chroma 5 2 with mottles
Histic Epipedon
Mg or Fe Concretions
Sulfidic Odor
High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Reducing Conditions
Listed on National/Local Hydric
Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix
Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present?y
no
Rationale for decision/Remar
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soils present?
yes no
yes no
Is the sampling point
yes no
Wetland h droloresent?
es no
within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES: V •C ".4-
I
.T'
At kv?fib(
Revised 4/97
DATA FORM 1(Revised)
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 f nrnc WoNond ileli.,o..ti.... A,i.... -i't
Project/Site: ,r
-e Nor
1"
Date:
Applicant/owner: L �+� �,.i5 f 7o 1%
County: K _
� hs
-Investigator(s): C ex f v"ov r L/ J
State: W
S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?es no
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes
Transect ID:
Tho
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes
Plot ID:
Explanation of atypical or problem area:
�— Z
VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant S ies Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator
IM U. e- e 1 + 4-4-fo.
T"
2.�
F,� �.AhLLe,
KJ,,,6 fit
T�
{-3
F-1
1 11 w
-'ice
O
rLiHa-hl
S—
0 ++� 1 C ria! Gera
Su
�v r ► 1 tc- N1 �c n
HYD OPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:}; -
7—
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC �'-
Check all indicators that apply & explain below: N D►ILv—
Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database
Morphological adaptations Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
Technical Literature Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes n
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no Water Marks: yes Qno Sediment Deposits: yes no
on
Based on: soil temp (record temp Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: <&no
other (explain) -e
Dept of inundation: ALa inches
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: yes nq
Depth to free water in pit:inches .
Channels <12 in. yes no
FAC Neutral: yes no
Water -stained Leaves y no
Depth to saturated soil: —Q inches
_
Check all that apply &explain below:
Stream, Lake
Other (explain):
or gage data: /S
Aerial
df- 1110—
1`Q—
photographs: Other: V
'Wetland
'Wetland hydrology present? eyes_j no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
— 4
—fr.c
(rSoms
Map Unit Name��'/�
(Series & Phase) /o kv41
�iL �[.t.lbCrlf.Q
Profile Description
c7 r C�
Drainage Class -d144 `r4 ►,1 eelj
Field observations confirm es No
manrk-A tvnP?
Depth
Horizon
Matrix color .
Mottle colors
Mottle abundance
Texture, concretions,
Drawing of soil
(inches)
(Munsell
(Munsell
size & contrast
structure; etc.
profile
moist)
moist)
(match description)
V\/ c' r
Al
Hydrie Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol
v Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles
Histic Epipedon
Mg or Fe Concretions
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1 matrix
. Listed on NationaULocal Hydric Soils List
Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric SOUS presentseS � � c "ot-i � rL-e cd �' o 4SWVV G
Rationale for decision/Remark ( .10 _
Is dim. �✓ 2/l0(� - 0 SGr e.A I.� hw.�r a- pe -w
c+ LL 1,
vyl
Wetland Determinate n (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes, o
Hydric soils present? es ,;
Wetland hydrology present? a no
Is the sampling point yes no
within a wetland?
Radonale/Remarks:
NOTES. �- `W �� ��ec f S %,� f �,rQ a �, ' f 4.
e 4 W1 Veel I)V-& ARWee"Ovel V e 7�t- r —rt4 ee-
A Revised 4/97
W � a, ✓ � �" Qi5 � w w.-}'..�� �ti �„@„ �..Yl 6nJ! ' �, c� / f � � ! � 1 4J �
DATA FORM I (Revised)
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Date:
Project/Site: l t D�
Z
Applicant/owner: G.�r�� �� 4T 7'o County:
State: t --)v4 -
Investigator(s): OL,4 I Sfj,/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es no Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes n
o:> Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yesCO-)Plot ID:P_3
Ex lanation of a ical or roMem area
VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC
Check all indicators that apply & explain below: AJD yta-
-r �. y,����
Visual observation of plant species growing in
.moo
���
,�,�� �-,s
V,
w'� �� ��h���
�
c��V
[ • '��
'f d �� K1n� Wl
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no
4c 1e-4,, 5"16
ZS
l0
ri0e4A
PoSa
HYDROLOGY
HYDROLOGY
� ws /� �s � � c�.-S
5
`�
�i�•�t-{..
%�"Gt✓' c ► rc� �. n,�..
J
�►�►�IC�i� GE''r�c3
S
�
�i'QLt{
�,✓� e a..
�!
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
Local Soil Survey: ye no
Depth to free water in pit:-217inches
Channels <12 in. yes no
FAC Neutral: yes no
% cover Indicator
/0
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC
Check all indicators that apply & explain below: AJD yta-
Visual observation of plant species growing in
Physiological/reproductive adaptations
r�C 1.-
Wetland plant database
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC
Check all indicators that apply & explain below: AJD yta-
Visual observation of plant species growing in
Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation
Wetland plant database
Morphological adaptations
Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
Technical Literature
Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
_5
HYDROLOGY
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no
Water Marks: yes no
Sediment Deposits: yes
Based on: soil temp (record temp �)
on
Drift Lines: yes no
Drainage Patterns: yes o
other (explain) af
Dept. of inundation: nches
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: ye no
Depth to free water in pit:-217inches
Channels <12 in. yes no
FAC Neutral: yes no
Water -stained Leaves ye no
Depth to saturated soil:40 inches
Check all that apply & explain below:
Stream, Lake
Other (explain):
k �3 c� /,,, �s
or gage data:
/
Aerial photographs: Other:
'Wetland hydrology present? yes
no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name �1 do-,- VJoD X e'- -1) k. ,, ,1 111 d.. i
(Series & Phase) 4, -fa /5'pe e -e w 5%pGs
Taxonomv (subgroun)C-
Du roc l•��D�s
Profile Description
Drainage Class NC4,
Field observations confirm Yes No
i
Depth
(inches)
Horizon
Matrix color
(Munsell
moist)
Mottle colors
(Munsell
moist)
Mottle abundance
size & contrast
Texture, concretions,
structure, etc.
Drawing of soil
profile
(match description)
K.3
Hvdric Soil
Indicators: (check all that annly) 1J
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix
Hydric soils present? yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes
Hydric soils present? yes
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
Matrix chrorria <_ 2 with mottles
Mg or Fe Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
Other (explain in remarks)
Is the sampling point
within a wetland?
yes
Revised 4/97
DATA FORM 1(Revised)
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Pe rc e
Applicant/owner:
-Investigator(s): a e ,k
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? no
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes- ?noIs the area a potential Problem Area? yes
Explanation of atypical or problem area:
VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine)
Dominant Plant S ies. Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species
l`iv"bk,'s p�isr.'v)Df S /C� rcr4�k
F46uJ
IA -
Date:
County:
State:
� -
W A
Sfr/R:
Sediment Deposits: ye no
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
�j P -
Stratum % cover I Indicator
I HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC
Check all indicators that apply & explain below:
Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database
Morphological adaptations Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
Technical Literature Other (explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:S�'�
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no
Water Marks: yes Q
Sediment Deposits: ye no
on
Based on:il temp (record temp
�ther
Drift Lines: yes no
Drainage Patterns: ye no
(explain) .�
Dept. of inundation: A7ff inches
Oxidized Root (live roots)
Local Soil Survey: ye no
'�
Depth to free water in pit: inches .
[
Channels <12 in. es o
FAC Neutral: yes
Water -stained Leaves ye no
Depth to saturated soil: _�Z inches
Check all that apply & explain below:
Other (explain): GrSD
k owl c
Stream, Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: Other: _Z
'Wetland hydrology present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name Aot-lw—J- 4 --j �Jq /0.0
f
(Series & Phase) -v /S
subgroup) C—+-"
Pefile Description
clre_a `ro
Drainage Class 1404. de -11- Jvo,
Field observations confirm Yes No
manned tvne?
Depth
(inches)
Horizon
Matrix color
(Munsell
moist)
Mottle colors
(Munsell
moist)
Mottle abundance
size & contrast
Texture, concretions,
structure, etc.
Drawing of soil
profile
(match description)
rill
Hydric Soil
Indicators: (check all that apply) A i D H (2
Histosol - v Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles
Histic Epipedon Mg or Fe Concretions
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Reducing Conditions Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix Other (ex lain in remarks)
Hydric soils present?
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
yes ° bio ,)Ivy
-rrplh- Yt►'iL rpwIC Ga Ns+e%�liIkvN.
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
Hydric soils present?
Wetland hydrology present?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
yes
yes
Is the sampling point
within a wetland?
yes no
Revised 4/97
APPENDIX B
Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington
WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON
Name of wetland (if known):
Zl Rl
Location: SEC: '? TWNSHP: _ RNGE: (attach map with outline of wetland to rating form)
Person(s) Rating Wetland: 74fN^cs- f Affiliation: Date of site visit: 12J/.0/0
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland
I II III IV
Score for Water Quality Functions 2
Category I =Score >=70
Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions
Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions {�
Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for functions
Category based on SPECIAL CHARA ERISTICS of wetland
I H Does not Apply
Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Ea
Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated.
Estuarine
De ressional
Natural Heritage Wetland
Riverine
Bog
Lake -fringe
Mature Forest
Slope
Old Growth Forest
Flats
Coastal Lagoon
Freshwater Tidal
Interdunal
None of the above
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004
Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below?
If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland
according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.
To complete the next Dart of the data sheet you will need to determine the
&drogeomoWhic Class of the wetland being rated
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This
simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic
Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions
on classifying wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form — westem Washington 2 August 2004
SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed
Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state or federal database.
SP2. Has the wetland been documented as habitatfor any State listed Threatened or
Endangered plant or animal species?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state database.
SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW
for the state?
SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For
example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program,
the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having
special significance.
To complete the next Dart of the data sheet you will need to determine the
&drogeomoWhic Class of the wetland being rated
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This
simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic
Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions
on classifying wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form — westem Washington 2 August 2004
Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington
Wetland Name:
Date:
1.9 water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)?
NO go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe
If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per
thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine
wetlands. ff it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that
were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt
Water Tidal. Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were
categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this
revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept.
Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine
wetlands have changed (see p. ).
2. Iopography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it.
O go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional
wetlands.
3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria?
_The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any
vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated
(ponded or flooded);
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)?
NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria?
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually
comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct
banks.
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded?
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in
very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks( depressions are usually
<3ft diameter and less than I foot deep).
NO go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope
5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from
that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to
answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is
oding.
"0- o to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004
6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the
wetland.
NO —go to 7YES The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the wetland loca n a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river
running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may
grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of
flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic
classes within one wetland boundary. Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to
use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE:
Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more
of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify
the wetland using the first class.
If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for
the rating.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake -fringe
Lake -fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary
Depressional
Depress ional + Lake -fringe .
Depressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater
wetland
Treat as ESTUARINE under
wetlands with special
characteristics
If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for
the rating.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004
D D 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p. 38)
D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:
D
Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = I
Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a ditch points = 1
D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic
D
(hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs).
YES ,sI points = 4
NO points = 0
D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class):
D'
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0
DIA Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation.
D
This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out
sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded:
Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs.
Area seasonally ponded is > '/z total area of wetland points = 4
Z
Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is <'/< total area of wetland points = 0
NOTE: See text or indicators of seasonal andpermanent inundation..
D
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
6
D
D 2. Does the wetland have the mmortunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44)
Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface
water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in
streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the
following conditions provide the sources of pollutants.
— Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft
— Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
— Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland
— A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas,
(residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging
— Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland
multiplier
— Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen
2
Other
YE ulti lier is 2 NO multiplier is 1
D
TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2
t Z -
Add score to table on p. 1
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004
D 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
see .46
D
D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland
Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 2
t�
Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet and/or outlet is a small ditch points = I
Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet points = 0
D
D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods
Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface points = 7
The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface points := 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface points =3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = l
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0
D
D 3.3 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed
Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the
wetland to the area of the wetland itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland points = 0
Wetland is in the FLATS class basin = the wetland by definitionpoints = 5
D
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
!�
D
D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion?
(see p. 49)
Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood
storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream
property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows.
Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such
as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than
90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater.
Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply.
— Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems
— Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems
multiplier
— Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might
otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems
— Other
YES multiplier is 2 NO —multiplier is 1
D
TOTAL - Hydro� logic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by I) 4
Add score to table on p. I
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004
H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for Ries?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72)
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class
covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or % acre.
_/Aquatic bed
✓ Emergent plants
--/Forested
Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover)
✓ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover)
Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover)
Add the number of vegetation types that quay. Ifyou have: y
4 types or more points == 4
3 types points == 2
2 types points = 1
1 type points == 0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73)
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The
water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text
for descriptions of hydroperiods)
permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3
easonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2
occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1
Saturated only
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake fringe wetland = 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75)
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ff2. (different
patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold)
You do not have to name the species.
Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian
Thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76)
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation
(described in H 1. 1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open
water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none.
None = 0 points Low = l point Moderate = 2 points
a
[riparian braided channels]
High = 3 points
NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types
and open water the rating is always "high".
H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77)
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is
the number of points you put into the next column.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation
extends at least 3.3 ft (I m) over a stream for at least 33 ft (1 Om)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for
denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present
At least V4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present
in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by
amphibians)
J In plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat
J
Add the scores in the column above
omments
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004
H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?
H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) 17
Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest
scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for
definition of "undisturbed. "
— 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
>95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer.
(relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing) Points =: 5
— 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 50% circumference. Points =1 4
— 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
>95% circumference. Points = 4
— 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 25% circumference, . Points = 3
— 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
for > 50% circumference. Points = 3
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above
— No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland >
95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2
— No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference.
Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2
— Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1
— Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference
(e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0.
— Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = l
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated
corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover
of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other
wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian
corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the
corridor).
YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO go to H 2.2.2
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistu d unbroken vegetated
corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of
shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands
that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it'does not have an
undisturbed corridor as in the question above?
YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3)H 2.2.3
H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: �PO
within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR
within 1 mi of greater than 20 acres?
IYES,,je 1 point NO = 0 points
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004
H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82)
Which of the following priority habitats are within 3308 (I 00m) of the wetland?
(see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats)
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains
elements of.both,aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres).
Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree
species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings;. with at
least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age.
Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown
cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay,
decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally
less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants)
where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.l 5 - 2.0 m (0.5 -
6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap
slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected
passages
Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations
where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%.
Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the
open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space
functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that
would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural
habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development.
Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually
semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the
open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater
runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the
open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable:
dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where
ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual
low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons.
Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones
of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the
terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are
important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline
function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control).
If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points
If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points
If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 Doints
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the
wetland that best fits) (seep. 84)
There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, and the connections between them
are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with
some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields,
or other development. points == 5
The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -
fringe wetlands within %2 mile points =: 5
There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, BUT the connections between them
are disturbed points = 3
The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -
fringe wetland within % mile points = 3
There is at least I wetland within %2 mile. points = 2
There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points =: 0
H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat
Add the scores in the column above
Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on
D. 1 / t�
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the
appropriate answers and Category.
SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86)
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
— The dominant water regime is tidal,
— Vegetated, and
— With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO
SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,
National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational,
Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the
following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II
— The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant
species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover
more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual
rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the
relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a
Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in
determining the size threshold of 1 acre.
— At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland.
— The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels,
depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004
Cat. I
Cat. I
Cat. II
Dual
rating
UII
SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87)
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage: Cat. I
Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support
state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a
Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites
before you need to contact 4",N /DNR)
S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site
YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as
or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? /
YES = Category I NO
SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87)
Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and
vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to idents if the wetland is a bog. If you
answer yes you will stUl need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
1. Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil),
either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches
of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic
soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2
2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than
16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or
volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond?
Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating
.3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level,
AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3
as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total
shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)?
Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory
you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that
seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
"bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog.
3. Is the wetland forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen,
Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or
combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a
significant component of the ground co71sn
% coverage of the total
shrub/herbaceous cover)?
4. YES = Category I Noot a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 200.4
SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) oil 11MMI
Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the
Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Ifyou answer yes you
will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
— Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8
trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a
diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more.
NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests.
Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh
because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "Olt"
so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter.
— Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are
80 – 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches
(53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found
in old-growth.
YES= Category I NO Cat. I
SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91)
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
— The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly
or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks,
shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
— The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is
saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most a year in at least a portion
of the lagoon (needs to be measuredn 6r the bottom)
YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions?
— The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant
species (see list of invasive species on p. 74).
— At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I
— The wetland is larger than I/10 acre (4350 square feet)
YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004
SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93)
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the estern Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)?
YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _ not an interdunal wetland for rating
If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its
functions
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
• Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103
• Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105
• Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is
once acre or larger?
YES = Category Il NO — go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2 is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that Cat. II
is between 0.1 and 1 acre?
YES = Category III
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004
Cat. III
N�
CITY OF r goj�4
WASHINGTON
FxtiiaIr (3 cam.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subiect: Public Hearing Application No. PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
Department: Planning
Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit
Budget Impact: NA
Building and Community
List
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat, based upon the
Findings of Facts, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined below.
Background Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC on behalf of Cary Lang Construction
REQUEST: Application for preliminary plat approval for a 13 lot residential subdivision
known as "Spencer Place". The smallest lot size will be 6,601) square feet.
The plat includes an internal street that will be public and one storm
drainage tract which will also be dedicated to the city.
SIZE: Approximately 3.47 acres
LOCATION: The project will occur at 31808110h Avenue SE. The site is within the
southwest quarter of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian. The site parcel numbers are 0921059065 and
0921059095.
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (LHR2)
EXISTING LAND USE Single family home and detached garage (to be removed)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
SEPA STATUS: A Final DNS was issued on August 23, 2006.
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
® Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑Finance
[]'Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑Finance ® Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
❑ Park Board []Public Works
® Fire ® Planning
❑ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
® Public Works ❑Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes []No
Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until
Tabled Unfit ! /
Councilmember: Norman
Staff: Borland
Meeting Date: September 19, 2006
Item Number:
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subiect: PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land use of the surrounding properties are:
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Notice of Application and Vicinity Map, dated 7-31-06
Exhibit 2 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Posting
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Mailing
Exhibit 5 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Exhibit 6 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7 Final Determination of Non -Significance, dated 8-23-06
Exhibit 8 Master Land Use Application, dated 6-16-06
Exhibit 9 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers LLC,
received 8-3-06
Exhibit 10 Topographical Site Survey, Cascade Land Surveying, dated 6-13-06
Exhibit 11 Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation, Chad Armour, LLC, dated 6-13-•06
Exhibit 12 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Preliminary Level One Downstream Analysis, ESM
Consulting Engineers LLC, dated 6-16-06
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC on behalf of Cary Lang Construction, has
requested preliminary plat approval for Spencer Place. Spencer Place is a proposed' 13 lot
residential subdivision of an approximately 3.47 acre site located at 31808116"' Avenue SE.
2. The preliminary plat reflects a Boundary Line Adjustment (see Exhibit 9, Sheet 3) between the
subject property at 31808 116"' Avenue SE (parcel no. 0921059065) and the lot to the north
31720116th Avenue SE (parcel no. 0921059095). This application has been submitted to the
City and assigned file no. LLA06-0004. The application is under review by the City of Auburn and
at this time a final decision has not been issued.
3. The property was annexed into the City of Auburn upon passage of Ordinance 5986 on January
17, 2006 and initially zoned LHR1, Single Family Residential. A rezone for the site from LHR1 to
LHR2, Single Family Residential was approved via Ordinance No. 6027 on May 11, 2006.
Page 2 of 6
Comprehensive `
Zoning '
Lanfd Use
Plan
North
Single Family
Unincorporated King County, R-4
Single family
Residential
Residential 4 du/ac and LHR2,
residential
Single Family Residential
development and a
church and associated
buildings
South
Single Family
Unincorporated King County, R-6-
Single family home
Residential
Residential 6 du/ac
East
Single Family
Unincorporated King County, R-6-
Single: family
Residential
Residential 6 du/ac
residential
development
West
Single Family
LHR2, Single Family Residential
Single: family
Residential
residential
develo ment
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Notice of Application and Vicinity Map, dated 7-31-06
Exhibit 2 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Posting
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Mailing
Exhibit 5 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Exhibit 6 Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7 Final Determination of Non -Significance, dated 8-23-06
Exhibit 8 Master Land Use Application, dated 6-16-06
Exhibit 9 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers LLC,
received 8-3-06
Exhibit 10 Topographical Site Survey, Cascade Land Surveying, dated 6-13-06
Exhibit 11 Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation, Chad Armour, LLC, dated 6-13-•06
Exhibit 12 Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Preliminary Level One Downstream Analysis, ESM
Consulting Engineers LLC, dated 6-16-06
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC on behalf of Cary Lang Construction, has
requested preliminary plat approval for Spencer Place. Spencer Place is a proposed' 13 lot
residential subdivision of an approximately 3.47 acre site located at 31808116"' Avenue SE.
2. The preliminary plat reflects a Boundary Line Adjustment (see Exhibit 9, Sheet 3) between the
subject property at 31808 116"' Avenue SE (parcel no. 0921059065) and the lot to the north
31720116th Avenue SE (parcel no. 0921059095). This application has been submitted to the
City and assigned file no. LLA06-0004. The application is under review by the City of Auburn and
at this time a final decision has not been issued.
3. The property was annexed into the City of Auburn upon passage of Ordinance 5986 on January
17, 2006 and initially zoned LHR1, Single Family Residential. A rezone for the site from LHR1 to
LHR2, Single Family Residential was approved via Ordinance No. 6027 on May 11, 2006.
Page 2 of 6
Agenda Subiect: PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
4. Chapter 18.45 (Lea Hill District) of ACC contains a provision that addresses subsequent
development of parcels within the Lea Hill area. Section 18.45.040(6) is as follows:
"B. Any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the
permitted uses and standards referenced in ACC 18.45.020 and 18.45.030, with the
exception of farm animals, then ACC 18.45.070 shall apply."
For the LHR2 designation, the R2 requirements as contained in Chapter 18.14 (R-2' Single Family
Residential District) apply.
5. Zoning development standards including setbacks and lot requirements are contained in Auburn
City Code (ACC) Section 18.14.040. The submitted preliminary plat meets the requirements for
lot width, depth, and area. Setbacks and lot coverage will be reviewed upon building permit
application for each individual lot.
6. The site is accessed off of 116th Avenue SE via a gravel driveway. Existing structures include an
older single family residence and detached garage which will be removed in order to
accommodate development of the subdivision. The site is fairly flat and contains forested
vegetation cover on the majority of the property including a mix of maple, cedar, and Douglas fir
trees.
7. The 13 lots will be used for single family detached homes. Lot sizes will average 8,230 sq. ft. in
size. The smallest lot size will be 6,600 square feet. The density for 13 single family, lots on 3.47
acres is 3.75 du/ac. This density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Single
Family Residential.
8. The project includes three tracts; Tract A (12,693 sq. ft. in size) for storm drainage, Tract B (3,015
sq. ft.) is an access tract for lots 9-12, and Tract C (3,382 sq. ft.) is a wetland buffer for an off site
wetland located on property south of the site.
9. The internal street within the project (SE 31e Court) will be developed to City of Auburn
standards for a local residential street and dedicated as a public street.
10. Per ACC Ch. 12.64, half street improvements are required to city standards for a residential
collector on 116th Avenue SE, including adequate right of way dedication.
11. No traffic study is required for this development, as the site will only generate 13 PM peak hour
trips which would not trigger the need for a study per city traffic impact analysis guidelines.
Future haul routes associated with site development will need to be approved by the City of
Auburn.
12. A copy of the preliminary plat and SEPA environmental checklist were sent to King County for
review with regard to the proximity of the plat to King County roads. No comments were received
from the county or any other agency or individual during the Notice of Application comment
period.
13. City of Auburn sewer service will be provided. Development of this plat will require the developer
to extend public sanitary sewer along 116th Avenue SE through the frontage of the site and
extension on-site to service all proposed lots. The developer must also provide side sewers to
any adjacent parcels not currently serviced.
14. City of Auburn water service will be provided. The existing well must be abandoned per
Washington State Department of Ecology and King County Health Department requirements as
detailed in WAC 173-160-381. The water right for said well must be transferred to the City of
Page 3 Ot 6
Agenda Subject: PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
Auburn per ACC 13.06.150.C, passed by Auburn City Council Ordinance No. 5974 on January
19, 2006.
15. The 15' water line easement located in proposed lot 8 (outside of the public right of way) shall be
placed upon a 20' paved tract which shall be deeded over to the City's Water Utility.
16. Stormwater will be collected on—site and then directed to a storm pond to be constructed adjacent
to 116"' Avenue SE in Tract A. The storm pond will become a public facility and will be designed
and landscaped to city standards.
17. Utility and street design issues will be addressed during the facilities extension process (FAC)
with the city.
18. The developer must provide fire hydrants so that no structure is greater than 150 feet from a
hydrant in accordance with ACC 15.36A.031(I). Fire hydrants and mains capable of providing the
required fire flow shall be provided in accordance with the City of Auburn Design Standards. Fire
hydrant location shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
19. Per Table 10.02 Street Design Requirements, City of Auburn Construction Standard, local
residential streets are required to be a minimum of 28 feet between the curbs, and parking is
allowed on one side of the street only. "No Parking this side" signs, in accordance with City of
Auburn standard details, shall be installed prior to occupancy of structures on the site.
20. On-site tree removal may require a Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest
Practice permit. A Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice permit is required prior to
land clearing activities commencing on site.
21. A Department of Ecology Construction Stormwater General Permit is required prior to site work
commencing.
22. Asbestos containing material must be removed prior to demolition of on-site structures and
disposed in accordance with the requirements of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries, and the King County Health Department.
23. The City of Auburn is responsible for assigning individual lot addresses for new subdivisions.
Pursuant to Ordinance 6038 (adopted August 21, 2006), King County street naming and
addressing standards are used within the Lea Hill area. Assigned lot addresses shall be depicted
on the final plat.
24. The site is located within the Auburn School District. Sidewalks within the development will allow
school children to walk out to 116th Avenue SE to catch school buses. The district has not
commented on this proposal.
Preliminary Plat Criteria
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school grounds.
Adequate provisions have been or can be provided to serve the plat. Public utilities, public schools,
and a new public street will serve the proposed plat. The 13 lot plat falls below the threshold,
therefore no dedication of park land is required. The City of Auburn collects school, fire, and traffic
impact fees at the time of building permit applications. Sidewalks will be constructed on the east side
rage 4 of b
Agenda Subiect: PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
of 116th Avenue SE along the frontage of the site and within the plat on the south side of the SE 318th
Court.
2. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Lea Hill Task Force Principles for Annexation Report to the City of Auburn City Council was
adopted on December 15, 1997, as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This document
addresses appropriate future zoning designations for properties in the Lea Hill area. The site is
designated for R-2 (Single Family Residential) in the Report. The preliminary plat of Spencer Place
consists of single family lots which are consistent with this Comprehensive plan policy provision.
3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans that have been adopted by the City Council.
The project is consistent with the Non Motorized portion of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Safe walking conditions will be created through the construction of sidewalks.
The proposal can be considered to be consistent with the City's Sanitary Sewer and Water Utilities
Plans.
4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Land Division
Ordinance as enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030.
The plat is consistent with the broad purpose statements of the Land Division Ordinance; as
enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030. The plat has been processed in accordance with the
regulations of the Auburn City Code, other city plans, policies and land use controls, and RCW
Chapter 58.17.
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.
The plat has been or is capable of being designed in accordance with applicable City standards
including the Auburn Zoning Ordinance and the City's Design and Construction Standards Manuals.
6. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the
preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
For this project, a Final Determination of Non -Significance was issued on August 23, 2006. No
appeals were filed. A wetland report has been prepared; "Critical Areas Assessment and
Delineation", prepared by Chad Armour, LLC, dated June 13, 2006. The report notes that no
wetlands are present on site; however a Category IV wetland, Wetland "A" is located on the property
to the south. This offsite wetland abuts the southern boundary of the site, but does not dross over the
boundary onto the site. A portion of the wetland buffer projects onto the plat site. Staff has
determined that the wetland report is adequate in accordance with Critical Areas Ordinance ACC
Chapter 16.10. The wetland buffer proposed meets the minimum requirement of 25' fora Category
IV wetland.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Facts, Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the Hearing
Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat, with the following conditions:
Page 5 of 6
Agenda Subiect: PLT06-0005
Date:
9/13/2006
1. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for Wetland "A" (Tract C) :shall be staked,
flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed on-site by the applicant. Wetland sign content
and location shall be approved by the City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building, and
Community.
2. Proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Homeowners'
Association (if one is to be created) shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to
final plat approval.
3. All tracts not dedicated to the City of Auburn shall be maintained by the future Homeowners'
Association and identified in the CC&Rs.
4. The developer shall construct on-site gravity sanitary sewer lines and off site gravity sanitary
sewer lines. All lines shall be per Auburn Design Standards.
5. The 15' water line easement located in proposed lot 8 (outside of the public right of way) shall be
replaced with a 20' paved tract which shall be deeded over to the City's Water Utility.
6. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall abandon the existing well per Washington State
and King County Health Department regulations and transfer the water right for said well over to
the City of Auburn.
7. Public storm drainage facilities shall be constructed to adequately manage the storm water
quantity and quality impacts from the proposed public street improvements associated with the
project. Storm drainage from the public street improvements shall not drain onto private
properties.
8. A Dust control Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of
construction permits.
9. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall dedicate right of way and construct all roads within
the plat to City of Auburn Standards. In addition, the developer shall dedicate right-of-way and
construct the required half street improvement along the property frontage of 116th Avenue SE
including necessary transitions to the existing roadway beyond the property frontage.
10. Sight distance triangles shall be dedicated as public right of way within the plat or as easement
outside the plat.
11. A Haul Route Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of
construction permits. (The plan shall identify the proposed haul route, type of hauling vehicles
and their associated axel loadings, number of loaded and unloaded trips, daily hauling hours, and
schedule for completion.) Based on the nature of the plan, the City Engineer shall require
mitigation for hauling impacts to existing roads along the haul route. (Mitigation may include
pavement repair or roadway re -surfacing, and/or weight limit, haul hour, and seasonal
restrictions.) The City Engineer may require the applicant to provide a financial security
commensurate with the potential pavement impacts from hauling activities.
12. Street trees shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. A separate approval block shall be
shown on the landscape plans for that purpose.
13. The final plat drawing shall include addresses for each lot as assigned by the City.
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.
Page 6 of 6
Federal Way (800) 345 5694
Bothell (415) 415 6144
Cle Slum (509) 6741905
www esmcivilcom
JOB NO. SHEET OF
JOB NAME
COMP BY
CONTENTS
CHK BY
DATE /_
S E 1 } €
i
If
.f......._4.-{,--.._.4__-•--_.-p.-.-...i�:_.._.�..-_..,.,�..._[__.v..�_.--.
ii t 3 I
_ .__ ! _
-4—
..,-..� ...�_ ...,.�...._. E ..i._._...-�-.._... .....ql_.,�.,.�, �
i tl
a..», t -
i
�..
f # i x � . 1 E ; � � f. 4
i _ _• i _. — ... _
b
{
...„„»...."..} 3 ...#—._....,_..� ...... r..., -....j..., .E'" .^.vs -'--.,M-• _i.-, .......�._.._ ,i...._ --..,{t...._
N
a _. _._�- . 4 ,.
_ . '- �'
E
Gvil Engineering Land Surveying
Project Management
Land PlanningI Landscapx Architecptre
61S
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of } NO. PLT06-0005
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC ) RESPONSE TO
on behalf of Cary Lang ) REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
For approval of a Preliminary Plat )
SPENCER PLACE
BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT -1-5 S 5
ESM Consulting Engineers, on behalf of Cary Lang Construction (Applicant) requested approval
of a preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot residential
subdivision known as "Spencer Place." The subject property is located at 31808 116" Avenue
Southeast in Auburn. An open record hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City
of Auburn on September 19, 2000
The Hearing Examiner's decision was made available to the public on October 2, 2006. Pursuant
to ACC 18.66.150,2 the Hearing Examiner received a request for reconsideration from the City
on October 9, 2006. The Interim Planning Director Mr. David Osaki asserted that -the Hearing
Examiner made an error in judgement in regards to Conditions 1, 4, 13 and 15. On October 11,
2006, the Applicant responded to the City's Request for Reconsideration. This Response to the
Five individuals testified at that hearing and 14 exhibits were admitted. No public testimony was offered, as each
witness testified on behalf of either the City or the Applicant. Following a review of the testimony and exhibits, the
Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the preliminary plat application with sixteen conditions.
2 ACC 18.66.150 provides: "The planning director or an interested party affected by the final decision or
recommendation of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation or decision on an
erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be
reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the examiner within seven
calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the examiner may, after review of the record, take further
action as the examiner deems proper..."
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PL706--0005
Page I of 5
Request for Reconsideration details each City request, the Applicant's response to, each request,
and decision of the Hearing Examiner on each request having considered both positions.
REQUEST, RESPONSE & DECISION
Condition 1:
Condition 1 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner reads:
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A
(Tract C) shall be staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed
on-site by the applicant. Wetland sign content and location shall be
approved by the City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building, and
Community. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten foot wide
access easement on lot 7 to Tract C. The easement shall allow the City
access to Tract C once a year to inspect and ensure that the long-term
preservation and protection of the buffer area is maintained The City
may petition the Hearing Examiner for access to Tract C if additional
maintenance or repair is required and shall be permitted if good cause is
shown. (Italics added to highlight disputed portion of condition).
The City requests that Condition 1 be revised. At the September 19, 2006 hearing, the Applicant
agreed to dedicate Tract C as a buffer for an adjacent off-site wetland, but did not support
granting the City an access easement across Lot 7 for maintenance of the buffer? The City's
position is that an access easement is necessary to ensure the long-term preservation .and
protection of the buffer area. Under the Hearing Examiner's present condition, the Applicant
would dedicate to the City a ten foot wide access easement on Lot 7 to Tract C for a once -a -year
inspection. If the City observed maintenance or compliance issues on its annual visit, the
condition would allow the City to petition the Hearing Examiner for additional access
maintenance or repair is required.
The City contends that restrictions on access to Tract C are an undue burden on the City and has
proposed that Condition 1 be amended as follows:
9 Under the City Code:
Long-term protection of a regulated wetland and its associated buffer shall be provided by
one of the following methods. It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development
is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation
organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective
mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations associated with the
wetland and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the
property and shall be recorded with the King or Pierce County recording department.
ACC 16.10.090.E.I.f.
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 2 of 5
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A
(Tract C) shall be staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed
on-site by the applicant. Wetland sign content and location shall be
approved by the City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building, and
Community. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten foot wide
access easement on lot 7 to Tract C. The easement shall allow the City
access to Tract C to inspect and ensure that the long-term preservation
and protection of the buffer area is maintained. (Italics added to highlight
disputed portion of condition).
The Applicant contends that ACC 16.10.090.E.1.f, regarding protection of wetlands and buffers,
does not state that access to the tract is required and has proposed that Condition 1 bel amended
as follows:
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A
(Tract C) shall be staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed
on-site by the applicant. Wetland sign content and location shall be
approved by the City of Auburn Director of Planning, Building, and
Community.
Thus, the Applicant would strike in its entirely all reference to access to the tract by the City
The issue before the City Council is whether City access to wetland buffer tracts is an essential
component of a dedicated wetland buffer. This is a policy decision that is best left up to the
Council. The Hearing Examiner, after considering the perspective of the Applicant and that of
the City, continues to recommend that an access easement be required; that the City be: limited to
an annual inspection; and that the City petition the Hearing Examiner if greater access is needed.
The existing City ordinances do not provide guidance on this issue. The City Council may wish
to revise this condition, which would provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner for review of
applications in the future if he has erred in the current recommendation.
Condition 4:
Condition 4 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner reads:
The City requests that Condition 4 be revised to clarify that Tract B serves as a driveway access
to Lots 9-12 and that if a waterline is placed within such an access tract, the City (consistent with
their requested change to Condition 13) requests an easement rather than a dedicated tract as set
out in ACC 18.48.130.B.2. The Applicant agreed to these revisions. Therefore, Condition 4 is
revised to read:
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 3 of 5
If the water service is connected to the east, it shall be contained within a
paved access tract meeting the city standards of ACC 18.48.130, with a
26' wide utility easement dedicated to the City as part of the plat and lots
9-12 may have reconfigured access.
Condition 13:
Condition 13 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner reads:
Tracts A, B and C shall be dedicated to the City. If a wetland delineation
demonstrating that Wetland A is no longer a wetland is submitted and
approved by the City, plat alternations to the wetland buffer, Tract C, may
be applied for and approved by the City.
The City requests that Condition 13 be revised to delete the dedication of Tract B to the City. The
City also requests the removal of language regarding plat alternations related to Tract C because
a removal process is already provided for per Chapter 17.22 ACC. The Applicant agreed to these
changes. Therefore, Condition 13 is revised to read that "Tracts A and C shall be dedicated to
the City."
Condition 15:
Condition 15 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner reads:
A Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice permit is required
prior to land clearing or grading activities occurring on the site.
The City requests that Condition 15 be deleted because the City is not a regulatory authority with
regard to the Forest Practices permit. Although Preliminary Plat conditions typically :include
conditions to mitigate for adverse impacts as well as courtesy reminders about compliance with
existing laws and codes,' the Applicant agreed to this change. Therefore, Condition 15 is
4 The City Council has approved preliminary plats requiring forest practice compliance in the past. For example,
Lakeland East PLT05-0006 included the following `courtesy condition':
Any required Washington State Forest Practices approval shall be obtained prior to site
clearing, grading, or logging. Verification of meeting Washington State Department of
Natural Resources Forest Practices requirements shall be provided to the City prior to the
issuance of any grading permits.
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 4 of 5
deleted.
DECISION
In its Request for Reconsideration, the City requests revisions to Conditions 1, 4, 13 & 15. In its
response, the Applicant accepted the requested changes except for those to Condition 1. In the
attached revised Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation, the Hearing Examiner has revised
Conditions 4, 13 & 15 as agreed to between the City and Applicant.
The City and the Applicant are in conflict concerning Condition 1 and access to Tract C. The
Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council is to adopt the language of the initial
decision, as attached. The Hearing Examiner made his best effort to attempt to accommodate
the concerns of both the Applicant and the City by drafting the condition as recommended.
However, the Hearing Examiner did this without guidance from city ordinances as none is
provided in them. The Council may choose to revise the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
following a review of the issue involving access to Tract C. If it chooses to do so, the Hearing
Examiner will follow the Council's guidance when reviewing future applications.
YJ
Decided this 23 of October 2006.
<-� �Jgz�-
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 5 of 5
BFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
REVISED
In the Matter of the Application of )
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC )
on behalf of Cary Lang )
For Approval of a Preliminary Plat )
NO. PLT06-0005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATION
(Revised 10/20/06)
SPENCER PLACE
EXHIBIT ) �p� I l
'J
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn recommends to the Auburn City Council that the
Spencer Place preliminary plat with a public internal street and tracts dedicated to the City be
APPROVED, subject to conditions as revised in this recommendation issued following
reconsideration.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Cary Lang, through its agent ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, requests approval of a
preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot residential
subdivision known as "Spencer Place." The subject property is located at 31808 116' Avenue
Southeast in Auburn.
Hearin Date:
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on
September 19, 2006.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Stacey Borland, Planner, City of Auburn
Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
Joe Walsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
Matt Cyr, ESM Consulting Engineers, Applicant's representative
Eric LaBrie, ESM Consulting Engineers, Applicant's representative
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 1 of 11
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
Exhibit 1. Notice of Application and Vicinity Map, dated 7-31-06
Exhibit 2. Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 3. Affidavit of Posting, dated September 8, 2006
Exhibit 4. Affidavit of Mailing, dated September 7, 2006
Exhibit 5. E-mail confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice, dated September 6, 2006
Exhibit 6. Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 7. Final Determination of Non-Sipiificance, dated August 23, 2006
Exhibit 8. Master Land Use Application, dated June 16, 2006
Exhibit 9. Spencer Place Preliminary Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 3), received August 3, 2006
Spencer Place Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3)
Spencer Place Existing Conditions (Sheet 3 of 3), ESM Consulting Engineers
LLC
Exhibit 10. Topographical Site Survey, Cascade Land Surveying, dated June 13, 2006
Exhibit 11. Critical Areas Assessment and Delineation Chad Armour, LLC, dated June 13,
2006
Exhibit 12. Spencer Place PreliMinM Plat Preliminary Level One Downstream Analysis,
ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, dated June 16, 2006
Exhibit 13. Agenda Bill Approval Form (staff report), dated September 13, 2006
Exhibit 14. Proposed revised condition #5, submitted by AppIicant's representative,
September 19, 2006
The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the: testimony
and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:
-FINDINGS
1. ESM Consulting Engineers LLC requested approval of a preliminary plat application to
subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot residential subdivision for single family
detached homes. The subject property, known as "Spencer Place," is located at 31808
116"' Avenue Southeast in Auburn.' The City determined that the application was
complete on July 31, 2006. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 8, Exhibit 13, Staff'Report, page 2.
2. The City annexed the property on January 17, 20062 and initially zoned it LHRI, Single
Family Residential. The City rezoned the property to LHR2, Single Family Residential3
' The site parcel numbers are 0921059065 and 0921059095. A legal description is part of Exhibit 10 (topographical
site survey). Exhibit 10; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 1.
Z Property annexation per Ordinance 5986.
3 The purpose of the R-2 single family residential zone is as follows:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLYV6--0005
Page 2 of 11
on May 11, 2006.4 The Comprehensive Plan designations for the surrounding properties
are all single family residential. The property to the west, within the City of Auburn, is a
single family residential development zoned LHR2, Single Family Residential. The
properties to the north, south, and east are part of unincorporated King County. The
properties to the south are single family homes zoned R-6, Residential 6 du/ac. The
property to the east is a single family residential development zoned R-6, Residential 6
du/ac. The properties to the north include a single family residential development and a
church, zoned R-4, Residential 4 du/ac and LHR2, Single Family Residential. Exhibit 9,
Preliminary Plat Map; Exhibit 13, StaffReport, page 2.
3. The property is located in the City's Lea Hill zoning district, which is governed in part by
the following provision in the zoning code:
The purpose of the Lea Hill (LH) zoning districts is to provide for
zoning requirements to the Lea. Hill area that are effective upon
annexation. The LH zoning districts will be similar to if not the
same as the other zoning districts of the city of Auburn. Some
variations are needed to recognize King County zoning and the
developments permitted using the county zoning.
ACC 18.45.010. Under ACC 18.45.040(B), any further subdivisions and users must
conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in ACC 18.45.020 and 18.45.030
which are the same as Chapter 18.14 ACC. Exhibit 13, Stafj''Report, page 3; ACC
18.45.010.
4. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed lot
size will average 8,230 square feet with the smallest lot size 6,600 square feel- The
density for the 13 single family lots on the 3.47 acres would be 3.75 du/ac and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan housing goals of maintaining and enhancing the
City's character as a family-oriented community, and emphasizing housing development
at single family densities. Policy LU -14 states that residential densities in areas
designated for single family residential use should be no greater than 6 units per acre.
2005 Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Policy LU -14, page 3-14, Housing Goals 4
and 7, pages 4-8 and 4-10, Exhibit 13, page 7.
The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of
optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit
development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the
development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on
each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the
residential environment.
ACC 1& 14.010.
4 Rezone of property took place per Ordinance 6027.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PL706-0005
Page 3 of I I
5. The Applicant made a boundary line adjustment (BLA) application to the City for the
subject property at 31808 116th Avenue Southeast (parcel 0921059065) and the lot to the
north at 31720 116th Avenue Southeast (parcel 091059095).5 Matt Cyr, the Applicant's
consultant, testified that the BLA had been approved by the City and that the BLA would
be recorded as soon as signatures are obtained. Exhibit 9; Exhibit 13, StaffReport, page
2. Testimony of Mr. Cyr.
6. The proposed project site is relatively flat, with a 10% south -facing slope, and contains
forested vegetation over much of the site, dominated by Douglas -fir and western red
cedar trees. The Applicant/developer would remove an existing older single family
residence and detached garage, and an existing well would be abandoned and the water
right transferred to the City. The proposal does not include dedication of park land.
Exhibit 9, Existing Conditions Map, Exhibit 11, page 3; Exhibit 13, Staff'Report, pages 3,
4, and 6.
7. The applicant's consultant, Chad Armour, LLC, prepared a critical areas assessment and
delineation for the Spencer property in 2006. No critical areas were identified on site.
However, the consultant identified an area of less than 500 square feet, with s oil saturated
to the surface in May 2005 that may have once been part of a larger wet area, plot ID SP-
1. The consultant's wetland data form sheet did not identify any hydrophytic vegetation
present at this site.6 Therefore, this area was not identified as a wetland. This area would
be filled and paved as part of the proposed Southeast 318th Court internal street. The
consultant also identified an area, plot ID SP -2, just to the north of the southeastern
boundary with soil saturated to the surface in April 2006. The consultant's wetland data
form sheet identified 50% presence of hydrophytic vegetation; which is less than the
greater than 50% standard required for a wetland determination. The consultant
identified an off-site category IV wetland (Wetland A) adjacent to the southeastern
boundary of the site. Under ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1), the minimum buffer for a category
IV wetland is 25 feet. The preliminary plat shows a 25 foot wide sensitive area buffer
identified as Tract C. Exhibit 9, Preliminary Plat; Exhibit 11, pages 1, 2, 3, and 4, and
data forms; ACC 16.10.0990 (E) (1).
8. Pursuant to the City's critical area chapter, long-term protection of a regulated. wetland
and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following methods:
3 Boundary Line Adjustment file No. LLA06-0004
6 The Hearing Examiner takes notice that under the WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or the 1987 Corps
Wetland Delineation Manual, wetlands are determined by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. Under the 1997 WA State Wetland Delineation Manual (page 16), hydrophytic vegetation is
indicated where more than 50 percent of the dominant species are obligate, facultative wetland or facultative.
7 Category IV wetlands" are those wetlands that meet the following criterion: a) Provide low levels of fractions,
scoring less than 30 out of 100 points (DOE Wetlands Rating System, 2004). ACC16.10.080 (C) (4).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PL T06-0005
Page 4 of 11
It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is
prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the
city, a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly
preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to
the city. The location and limitations associated with the wetland
and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat
applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the King or
Pierce County recording department.
ACC 16.10.090 (E) (I) f
Mr. Cyr and Eric LaBrie, consultant for the Applicant, testified and requested that a 25
foot wide native growth protection easement be used to protect the wetland buffer. Steve
Pilcher, City Planner, testified for the City that the City preferred that a separate tract be
dedicated to the City with a ten foot wide access easement, rather than a native growth
protection easement. Mr. LaBrie testified that a dedication of Tracts A, B and. C would
be acceptable, but that a ten foot wide access easement to Tract C across lot 7 could
create problems for the future property owner who would have to keep an easement free
from obstructions. Testimony of Mr. Cyr, Testimony of Mr. LaBrie; Testimony of Mr.
Pilcher; ACC 16.10.090 (E) (1) f.
9. Joe Walsh, City Transportation Engineer,$ testified that City stormwater standards would
need to be met, and that they may impact the wetland area. Mr. LaBrie testified for the
Applicant that proposed lots 7 and 8 would drain toward Wetland A and provide a water
source for the wetland. Exhibit 12, page 1-2, Testimony of Mr. Walsh; Testimony of Mr.
LaBrie.
10. Vehicular access to the site would be from 116'x' Avenue Southeast. The proposed
internal street, Southeast 318n' Court, would be developed to City standards (including
emergency access) and dedicated as a public street. According to the City, the site would
generate 13 PM peak hour trips. No city traffic impact analysis is required. The
Applicant would provide half street improvements for a residential collector on 116''
Avenue Southeast which would include adequate right of way dedication. The Applicant
would dedicate Tract B to the City as an access tract for lots 9 through 13. The City's
comprehensive transportation plan identifies Lea Hill as an area in need of sidewalks. To
the extent that sidewalks would be provided, the proposed project is consistent with the
Non -Motorized Transportation portion of the comprehensive transportation plan. The
site is located within the Auburn School District. No comments were received from the
school district on this proposal. Sidewalks along the frontage of the site and within the
plat on the south side of proposed Southeast 318a' Court would allow children within the
development to meet school buses on I I e Avenue Southeast. The Applicant would pay
school, fire, and traffic impact fees at the time of building permit applications. Exhibit 9,
$ Mr. Walsh testified on behalf of the City Public Works at this hearing.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 5 of 11
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan; Exhibit 13, Staff report, pages 3, 4, and 5, 2005
City Comprehensive Transportation Plan, page 3-1; ACC Title 19.
11. The Applicant proposes to connect to the City sanitary and water services. ]"he
Applicant/developer would extend the public sanitary sewer along 11601 Avenue
Southeast through the frontage of the site and then on-site to service all proposed lots.
The Applicant/developer would provide side sewers to any adjacent parcels not currently
serviced. Exhibit 9, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan; Exhibit 13, page 3; Testimony
of Mr. LaBrie.
12. ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, prepared a preliminary level one downstream analysis
for the Applicant. The analysis did not identify any existing or potential problems with
the site. According to the analysis, the proposed project makes sufficient provision for
stormwater detention and treatment in Tract A. The Applicant would dedicate Tracts A,
the storm pond, B, the access tract, and C, the wetland buffer, to the City. The stone
pond would be designed and landscaped to city standards. Exhibit 9, Preliminary
Grading and Utility Plan, Exhibit 12, page 1-3; Exhibit 13, Staff Report, page 4;
Testimony of Mr. LaBrie.
13. The preliminary plat currently depicts a 15 foot wide water easement extending east and
west along the north side of proposed lot 8. Mr. Walsh testified for the City that
proposed staff condition 5 (now condition 4 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation)
would require a looped water system with a 20 foot wide paved tract which would be
deeded over to the City's water utility.9 Mr. LaBrie testified that the Applicant would tie
into the 11601 Avenue Southeast water supply, but expressed concern that easements over
adjacent properties to the east may not be available. He testified that the Applicant may
reconfigure lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and access Tract B if the water easement area to the east is
paved. The City and the Applicant agreed to a modified condition. Exhibit 9
Preliminary Plat, Exhibit 14; Testimony of Mr. Walsh, Testimony of Mr. LaBrie.
14. The City issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) on August 23, 2006.10 No
comments on the DNS were received and no appeals were filed. Exhibit 7; E-rhibit 13,
Staff Report, page 3.
9 The City of Auburn requires looping of water supplies for fire fighting wherever feasible to avoid dead -ends.
Provisions shall be made wherever appropriate in any project for looping all dead-end or
temporarily dead-end mains. Construction plans must be approved by the appropriate
water authority prior to the commencement of construction. Where it is not feasible at the
time of approval and installation to loop a water system, in the opinion of the fire
department, the loop requirement may be relaxed if the intent of the code is met and a stub
is provided on the main for future expansion.
ACC 13.16.090.
10 The City reviewed a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
However, the environmental checklist was not submitted as an exhibit. Exhibit 7.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 6of11
15. The City provided reasonable notice of the September 19, 2006 public hearing. Notice of
the open record hearing was posted on site on September 8, 2006, mailed to all property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on September 7, 2006, and published
in the September 9, 2006 edition of the King County Journal. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3;
Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear
and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearing Examiner to make
recommendations for approval of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and
17.06.050.
Criteria for Review
Pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, preliminary plats shall only be approved if findings of fact are
drawn to support the following:
A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and
for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies,
sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school grounds;
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the
comprehensive plan;
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council;
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as
enumerated in ACC 17.02.030;
E. 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 Chapter 18.69
ACC;
F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such
that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality
of the environment;
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public
nuisances.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 7 of I 1
ACC 17 06.070.
In addition, Chapter 18.45 (Lea Hill District) of ACC requires conformance with the permitted
uses and standards referenced in ACC 18.45.020 and .030.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, adequate provisions have been made for the public health, safety
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school
grounds. The street within the proposed plat will be public and will provide adequate
transportation routes for residents and will include sidewalks for pedestrian safety and
school access. The provisions for emergency access to the area are also sufficient.
Schools will be provided for through impact fees at the time of building permit
application. Stormwater from the proposed plat will be detained and treated in an on-site
stormwater facility.. Conditions of approval are necessary, including those to ensure that
public storm drainage facilities adequately manage storm water quantity and quality and
that stormwater, lot access, and wetland buffer tracts are dedicated to the City. The plat
will be connected to public utilities for water and sanitary wastes. Findings 1, 2, 6, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
2. The proposed project conforms to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's
Comprehensive Plan, Title 17.02 (Subdivisions), and to the general purposes of any
other applicable policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council. The
subdivision would provide single family residential housing and would be consistent with
the purposes and regulations of the subdivision title, substantially consistent with the
City's design and construction standards, consistent with Chapter 18.45 ACC concerning
development within the Lea Hill area, and would be consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the City's comprehensive
transportation plan. Findings 1-1 S.
3. With conditions, the plat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance, Title
18, and any other applicable planning or engineering standard and specifications.
The Applicant's proposal substantially complies with all related City codes and standards
including development standards for the LHR2 single family residential zoning district,
and with Chapter 18.45 ACC concerning development within the Lea Hill area.
Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with sanitary sewer, water
supply, stormwater facilities and right of way and frontage standards. Findings 1-14.
4. With conditions, potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been
mitigated such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon
the quality of the environment. Acting as the lead agency, the City determined that the
proposed plat will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and
issued a determination of nonsignificance. The applicant would protect an off-site
wetland with a 25 foot wide buffer. The stormwater system will protect water quality and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Exam inerfor the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 8 of 11
prevent runoff from damaging nearby land. Conditions of approval are necessary to
ensure compliance with sanitary sewer, water supply and stormwater facilities standards.
Conditions of approval are necessary to protect the off-site wetland with an associated
wetland buffer on lot 7. Here, a dedicated tract for a wetland buffer is appropriate for lot
7 with a limited access easement. A limited access easement would allow for City
inspect and maintain of the wetland buffer area without undue restrictions on the use of
the property by the burdened property owner. Findings 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 14.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or
abate public nuisances. Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC
and are addressed directly in Chapter 8.12 ACC. A public nuisance affects public health
and property values by creating visual blight, harboring rodents and/or beasts;, or creating
unsafe pedestrian and traffic situations. The proposed plat will not result in any public
nuisances. Connections to public sewer and water will limit potential negative impacts
on public health. Findings 1-14.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner for the City of
Auburn recommends to the Auburn City Council that the request for approval of a preliminary
plat to subdivide approximately 3.47 acres into a 13 lot subdivision with a public internal street
and tracts dedicated to the City be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:"
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the buffer for wetland A (Tract C) shall be
staked, flagged, silt fencing installed, and signage placed on-site by the applicant.
Wetland sign content and location shall be approved by the City of Auburn Director of
Planning, Building, and Community. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten foot
wide access easement on lot 7 to Tract C. The easement shall allow the City access to
Tract C once a year to inspect and ensure that the long -tern preservation and protection
of the buffer area is maintained. The City may petition the Hearing Examiner for access
to Tract C if additional maintenance or repair is required and shall be permitted if good
cause is shown.
2. Proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for a future Homa:)wners'
Association (if one is to be created) shall be submitted for review and approval. by the
City prior to final plat approval.
3. The developer shall construct on-site gravity sanitary sewer lines and off site gravity
sanitary sewer lines. All lines shall be per Auburn Design Standards.
11 Conditions include both legal requirements applicable to all developments and conditions to mitigate the specific
impacts of this development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 9 of I I
4. If the water service is connected to the east, it shall be contained within a paved access
tract meeting city standards of ACC 18.48.130, with a 26 foot wide utility easement
dedicated to the City as part of the plat and lots 9 —12 may have reconfigured access.
5. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall abandon the existing well per Washington
State and King County Health Department regulations and transfer the water right for
said well over to the City of Auburn.
6. Public storm drainage facilities shall be constructed to adequately manage the storm
water quantity and quality impacts from the proposed public street improvements
associated with the project. Storm drainage from the public street improvements shall not
drain onto private properties.
7. A Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to
issuance of construction permits.
8. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall dedicate right of way and construct all
roads within the plat to City of Auburn Standards. In addition, the developer shall
dedicate right-of-way and construct the required half street improvement along the
property frontage of I I6a` Avenue Southeast including necessary transitions to the
existing roadway beyond the property frontage.
9. Sight distance triangles shall be dedicated as public right of way within the plat or as
easement outside the plat.
10. A Haul Route Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance
of construction permits. The plan shall identify the proposed haul route, type of hauling
vehicles and their associated axel loadings, number of loaded and unloaded trips, daily
hauling hours, and schedule for completion. Based on the nature of the plan, the City
Engineer shall require mitigation for hauling impacts to existing roads along the haul
route. Mitigation may include pavement repair or roadway re -surfacing, and/or weight
limit, haul hour, and seasonal restrictions. The City Engineer may require the applicant
to provide a financial security commensurate with the potential pavement impacts from
hauling activities.
11. Street trees shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. A separate approval block
shall be shown on the landscape plans for that purpose.
12. The final plat drawing shall include addresses for each lot as assigned by the City.
13. Tracts A, and C shall be dedicated to the City.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06 0005
Page 10 of 11
14. The Applicant/developer shall obtain approval and record the Boundary Line Adjustment
(No. LLA06-0004) depicted on the ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, existing; conditions
drawing (Sheet 3 of 3) dated June 9, 2006.
15. Utility and street design issues shall be addressed during the facilities extension process
with the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Decided this � day of October 2006
- - � - —IK: e= � �V =�O�k�4 6, - -
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Spencer Place Preliminary Plat PLT06-0005
Page 11 of 11