HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1
AtfslrrtN
7~-__7 WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Application No. PUD04-0002 & PL T04-0009 January 23, 2006
Department: I Attachments: Budget Impact:
Planninq, Buildinq & Communitv (Please see exhibit list below)
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to approve the rezone request from R2 (Single Family Residential) to PUD with the Hearing
Examiner's recommended conditions and approve the preliminary plat with the Hearing Examiner's
recommended conditions.
Background Summary:
The Hearing Examiner on December 7,2005 conducted an open record hearing on the request of Brian
McCabe of Investco Financial Corporation (applicant) for a planned unit development (PUD) known as
"Auburn Forty". The PUD request consists of rezoning a 38.48-acre site from R2 (Single Family
Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The project also consists of preliminary plat approval
to subdivide the site into 236 single-family lots and 27 tracts. The site is generally west of the Green
River and east of I Street NE, if extended, in the 4200-4300 block. The site is within the SE Y. of Section
31, Township 22 Range 5 East, W.M.
At the public hearing, the Applicant submitted several updated versions of previously submitted
documents, in addition to several new exhibits. The Hearing Examiner allowed the City staff time to
review and respond to these additional exhibits by December 21,2005. The record closed on that date.
The Hearing Examiner's recommendation issued on January 10, 2006 is for approval of the rezone from
R2 (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) with twenty-three (23) conditions and
approval of the preliminary plat with fifteen (15) conditions (The conditions are found at pages 41-56 of
the Hearing Examiner's decision).
No requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in accordance with ACC
18.66.150 were received by the City.
The cases were placed on the agenda of the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2006.
At that meeting, the City Council decided to conduct a closed record hearing on the PUD and Plat
requests. In accordance with ACC 18.66.180, "Upon (conducting) its own closed record hearing, the City
Council may affirm, reject or modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation or take whatever, action it
deems appropriate pursuant to law."
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
o Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: I8J Building o M&O
o Airport o Finance o Cemetery o Mayor
[8J Hearing Examiner o Municipal Servo o Finance I8J Parks
D Human Services o Planning & CD I8J Fire I8J Planning
o Park Board DPublic Works o Legal I8J Police
o Planning Comm. o Other I8J Public Works D Human Resources
D Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: DYes DNa
Council Approval: DYes DNo Call for Public Hearing -'-'-
Referred to Until 1 1
---
Tabled Until _1_1-
Council member: Norman T Staff: Krauss
Meetina Date: Februarv 15, 2006 I Item Number: 11.A.1
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject:
Application PUD04-0002 and PL T04-0009
Date:
January 23, 2006
The City has received written confirmation from the applicant that exceeding the 120-day permit
processing timeframe is acceptable.
Exhibit List:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exh ibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) File No. SEP04-0045
Final Staff Evaluation (supporting document to the Final MDNS)
2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Preliminary Plat Auburn Forty PUD Sheets 1 & 2 of 2, Apex Engineering, final revision
dated November 30, 2005
Letter from Jeffrey Mann of Apex Engineering re: Waiver of Regulatory Timeframes,
dated November 30, 2005
Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I Street NE,
Auburn, WA; L-1 of 1, dated December 7,2005 and Preliminary Landscape Cross
Sections Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I Street NE, Auburn, WA; L-2 of 2,
dated December 7, 2005
Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on the rezone to PUD
and the Preliminary Plat, dated 1-6-06
Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group, dated
March 2005
Auburn Forty- Supplemental Transportation Information, The Transpo Group, dated April
22,2005
Memorandum Auburn Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency, The Transpo Group,
dated December 7, 2005
(Exhibits 1 through 10 were previously provided for the January 17, 2006 City Council meeting)
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Letter from Apex Engineering response to Completeness Letter (environmental checklist
application supplement), dated 3-25-05, including attachments
Figure 1 - Photos of Auburn Marketplace Pond
Figure 2 - Photos of open rail fences
Figure 3- aerial photo of existing site buildings
Letter Drainage Report: Preliminary Plat of Auburn Forty Storm Drainage, from Apex
Engineering, dated June 14, 2005
Final Construction Drawing Plan Set Port of Seattle, Wetland Mitigation Construction
Site, GRA01-0004, Sheets T1, C1-17, TE1-3, & L 1-15, Port of Seattle, dated March 30,
2004
Conceptual Plans and Sections for I Street NE Storm Drainage, Apex Engineering, Inc.,
dated July 1, 2005
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat, ABPB Consulting, LLC, dated July
22,2005
Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco, dated October 17, 2005
Typical Setback and Building Envelopes - Diagrams (4 pages)
Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering,
dated October 27, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering, dated
October 20, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2 of 2,
Apex Engineering, dated October 27, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD, I Street NE Alignment Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated October 17,
2005
Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated
November 30, 2005
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Subject:
Application PU D04-0002 and PL T04-0009
Date:
January 23, 2006
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Exhibit 40
Exh ibit 41
Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated
REVISED Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines,
undated
REVISED The City of Auburn Planned Unit Development Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat
and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Benefits and Open Space
Criteria, dated November 4, 2005
Figure 3 Road Layout and Classification under Preferred Alternative for the NE
Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties
Final EIS, City of Auburn, dated July 2004
REVISED Preliminary Plat Auburn Forty PUD Sheets 1 & 2 of 2, Apex Engineering, final
revision dated November 30,2005
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Auburn North Forty (CC&Rs),
10-28-05
Exhibit B (to CC&Rs) The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural
Guidelines, revised and received 11-30-05
The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines for the
Construction of New Homes, received November 30, 2005
E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting sign detail, dated December 17, 2004
Auburn Forty PUD Rezone Exhibit, Investco Financial, dated October 28,2005
Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parcel 000400-0005
Lakeland Hills PDD Landscape Amenities (Photos)
Auburn Forty PUD and Preliminary Plat; Comparison of Benefits of the PUD
Typical Storm Retention Facilities (Photos)
Pond F - Artist's Perspective
Pond A - Artist's Perspective
Informal Open Space; Lakeland Hills South PUD "Verona"; Intersection of 67'" Street &
Elizabeth Ave SE, dated December 5, 2005 (Photos)
Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's staff
report regarding application nos. PUD04-0001 and PL T04-0009, File #27830/0, dated
December 7, 2005
Polygon Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes)
Oak Ridge Homes Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes)
Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to
the Applicant's updated exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, dated December
21,2005
Other exhibits that were considered by the Hearing Examiner are listed at pages 2-4 of the Hearing
Examiner's written recommendation. These Exhibits are available for review or copies may be
requested by contacting the Planning Department.
L0215-1
03.5 PLT04-0009, 03.6 PUD04-0002
Page 3 of 3
March 25, 2005
R~r!
Mr. Jeff Dixon
City of Auburn
Departmeut of Community Development
25 West Main Street
AubUrn, Washington 98001-4998
RECEWED
MAR 2 5 2005
PlANNING DEPAR) MENT
Reference:
Auburn 40 Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD04-0002),
Preliminary Plat (PLT04-0009), Shoreline Permit (SHR04-0ool),
and Environmental Checklist (FileNo. SEP04-(045) - .
Response to Completeness Letter of Janqary 12, 2005
File #27830/1
Dear Mr. Dixon:
Thank you very much for your letter of January 12, 2005. This letter is already revisions or additional
information that we have provided in response to . each of the items in your letter. Our response will
follow the same format and sequence as the January 12,2005 letter.
Some of the modifications are reflected on the site plan and shoreline site plan for the project,
. specifically, Such changes as the movement of the park area to the easterly end of the site adjacent to the ;
Green River and the modification of the product mix to include a significantly increased number of alley
products. Other changes that are not reflecteQ directly on the site plans include agreements and
directions regarding the off-site road improvements, particularly the 'T' Street.corridor.
,PrelimiDarv Plat ADDlicatioR
The preliminary plat does not include the elements required.to be shown on the drawing. Please review
Auburn City Code Section 17.06.020(D) for the information to be included. Missinginformation
includes:
3. Existing Geographic Features
General:. Provide specification of the date of the shoreline ordinary high water matk determination.
Setback must be measured from the ordinaryIligh water elevation, as it currently exists; The plat
shows a line 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark that is labeled "Shoreline Jurisdiction."
However, the area of shoreline jurisdiction also includes the l00-year floodplain that e){tends within
the eastern portion of the site.
Response: The ordinary high water mark was located on December 14, 1004. The ordinary high
water mark was located in the field at the edge of vegetation change along the Green River
shoreline. . The site plan reflects the 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, as located in the
field. The site plan has been modified to show. the portion of the site in the southeast comer,
adjacent to the Green River, where the 100-year flood plain extends across a small portion of the
site.
Exhibit 11
260 I South 35th, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98409
{253} 473-4494
Fax: (253) 473.0599
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
. File #2783011
Page 2
f. The location of municipal boundary lines lying within or adjacent to the plat.
Response: There are no municipal boundaries located in proximity to our site that would be
displayed on our exhibits at the current scale.
g. Please indicate location of well, if applicable.
Response: There is one existing well in the area of the existing farm buildings in the southwest
comer of the site per DOE mapping.
j. Show the location ofFEMA flood plain and elevation. The floodplain appears to extend within the
eastern portion of the site.
Response: Note the site plan has been amended and, as noted in the response to the general section
above, the site plan has been modified to show the 100-year flood plain in connection with the Green
River.
4. Proposed Geographic Features
General: The checklist refers to the plat being developed in phases. To ensure coordination among
phases the phases must be shown on the face of the plat.
Response: We do not have plans to phase the plat development today. It is our intention to submit
for and construct the plat infrastruCture under a single application process upon acceptance of the
plat/P UD application and autharization to proceed with construCtion, respectjUlly.
We recognize the size of the project and the current uncertainty related to. off-site road connections
of "I" Street NE to 45th Street NE, which serves as the project's second access to the transportation
system, mayresult in phasing of finished lots such that more than one final plat process is needed. It
is not possible to define the specific phase line at this time, but potentially, project phasing could
occur as follows:
· That portion of the "]" Street NE corridor required to be completed as a result of our
application, north of the project site to a terminus with 45th Street NE, may be designed and
permitted separate from that portion of the "]" Street NE corridor from our northern limits to
the intersection at 4r1' Street. NE. Although a dedicated corridor exists to complete this
improvement, we appreciate the direction of the city that an altemative alignment may be
defined. This subsequent phase would also include phasing of the ancillary issues to the rood
. design itself, such as applicable half street improvements and drainage. However, there is also
the potential that this alignmentshift could occur such that all components of the "]" Street NE
corridor required of this application could occur under a single application such that phasing
may not be necessary.
· Related to this potential phase, shauld it become necessary, the applicant anticipates the city
will seek to limit the number of lots capable of belng platted (Final Plat) to less than the
current proposal of133; The applicant understands the city's policy guidance sets this limit at
75 lots, but also understood from a meeting with city staff on November 30, that some
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473.0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 3
consideration may be given to increase that limit based on the traffic analysis. Our study
concluded that projected trips could be accommodated with only the southem approach
constructed. 1f the city defines a limit, we will be capable of defining which lots are likely to be
constructed and platted initially.
· Economic conditions may dictate the need to introduce smaller groups of homesllots into the
market place at intervals instead of a single offering. There is the potential that final plat
phases could occur as a result of this potential condition, but this cannot be planned for or
assumed in adVance. Should this become necessary, phasing of the final plat would be sought
to accommodate market conditions influencing home builders and homebuyers at that time.
As noted in our original checklist application, because we acknowledge these unknown variables
may require or compel phasing on our part, we are requesting acknowledgement from the city that
the potential for phasilJg exists. Phasing will not alter project design, and if it does, the applicant
understands the limits and implications of minor and major amendments and will be prepared to
follow the city's directed procedure shauld one ofthaseformal amendments be required. However,
the applicant believes this request for acknowledgement can be as straight forward as a condition of
development associated with the preliminary plat or PUD approval thot should phasing occur, each
phase will be required to provide the commensurate level of improvements related to said phase.
b. The proposed street names must be provided on the plat.. Show adequate horizontal and vertical
street geometrics to ensure compliance with City standards.
Response: Street names defined by the City have not yet been assigned. Horizontal and vertical
information for on-site streets are shown on the preliminary plat site plan and on the grading plan
for the preliminary plat
C. Show proposed location, size and purpose of all proposed easements. While not shoWll, easements
would be required for public utilities provided within streets and need to be shown. Indicate if public
or private.
Response: Applicant proposes public streets; therefore, utility easements would not berequired.
e. Label the purpose of the publicly dedicated tracts on the plat, i.e. please distinguish which tracts will
be publicly dedicated. Indicate any conditions of dedication, if any.
Response: Public and private tracts are noted on the face of the preliminary plat, and also in the
plat data.
f. Show fmal contour lines. Currently only existing contours are shown.
Response: Final contours are shown on the grading plan for the preliminary plat.
The report: "Preliminary Wet Pond Analysis/Sizing Report" shows Tract A as a storm drainage
facility. The Preliminary Plat & POD submittals show this tract with parking available for trail use.
While the uses are not necessarily incompatible the parking lot will have a siguificant impact the
pond's storage capacity.
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473.4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
J'm
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 4
Response: Tract A is sized to handle the volume of contributing runoff and sufficient area to provide
a trailhead feature. For clarity, the parking lot layout has been removed from the exhibit, even with
the proposed parking area in the tract
d. Show the dimensions and area of all public, common, open space and park areas. Some tracts are
identified as multiple functions such as storm facilities and open space. The ability to utilize storm
facilitieS .to offset Pun open space requirements will be dependent on the design of such facilities.
Response: The dimensions and.area of all public common open space and park areas is shawn on
the face of the preliminary plat. . The determination of whether tracts are public or private is
indicated. All storm drainage facilities are proposed to be enhanced in order to offset PUD open
space requirements. Please see Figure 1, which shows a concept of how these parks will be
enhanced in order to have them be used as open spoce areas.
5.. Additional Information
c. . (see sewer utility comments under environmental checklist application.)
Response:
e. (see stormwater utility comments under environmental checklist application.)
Response:
f. For preliminary plats related to a Pun the following additional information is required:
ii. The location of perimeter walls and fences, height and materials. Fence locations are not clear
from the plat provided.
Response: A split rqil fence will be utilized along the northerly boundary, and a 6-foot wooden
fence will be constructed around the remainder of the perimeter of the Planned Unit
Development. The split rail fence will be approximately 42 inches high See Figure 2.
Ill. The size of any entrance signs. The sign information e-mailed December 17, 2004 indicates
overall structure size but it does not indicate sign face size.
Response: The location of entrance signs is indicated on the face of the preliminary plat. The
letter sizing will be 12 1nches in height, in a monument format as previously forwarded to you by
Mr. Sean Martin.
iv. A landscaping plan
Response: A landscape plan is provided as part of the resubmittal.
v. Any covenants not previously approved.
Response: A draft copy of the CC&R's is provided for your reference.
2601 South 35th. Suite 200, Tacoma.Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 fax; (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 5
Other
The individual lots of the proposed subdivision have not been reviewed for conformance with City
standards related to lot requirements since the plat layout is likely to change with future resubmittals.
Subsequent preliminary plat (drawings) received by the City will be reviewed for conformance with lot
standards.
Response: Pursuani to revisions in the location of open space parks and circulation, the preliminary
plat has been significantly modified, with added alley product, in conformance with the City of
Auburn zoning and Planned Unit Development requirements.
A proposal to dedicate less than land than prescribed by the Parks and Recreation Plan requires a
modification to plat standards of ACC 17.18 to accompany the plat application.
Response: The applicant and representatives have met With the City of Auburn Parks Department
and are now providing open space in conformance with Auburn City. Code 17.12.
Renumber the lots so the out-of-order lots #175, 176 & 177 are in the proper sequence.
Response: The entire plat has been modified and renumbered.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ADDlication
The City requires additional information to regard your submittal as "complete" with the defmed
standards of the PUD requirements, Auburn City Code (ACe) 18.69. According to this section "It is the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the proposed PUD achieves or in
consistent with the. following desired public benefits and expectations."
Consistencv with PUD Puroose - ACC 18.69.010
Item A - Preservation of Natural Amenities
· The development configuration provides. areas where property proposed as open space is
adjacent to project roadways. Confignration could take better advantage of view corridors to the
river along project streets.
· The project takes advantage of the substantial adjacent wetland area by the Port of Seattle
through proposed adjacent open space areas, Tracts B and F. .
Response: Of the nine elements described in the Code, eight are applicable to the site and the
current design is sensitive to each of them. Altering the site design to take better advantage of
the river was considered, but the project is not contiguous to the river and the view to the river is
precluded by existing vegetation on the KC parcel to our east and within the riverbank itself
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 6
Item B - Pedestrian Oriented Communities
· Coordination with King County Parks for a regional trail system is cited. However, King County
has been exploring options to relocate the trail further from the River and providing intervening
gradual slopes and native vegetation. Locations for multiple trail aCees~ point between the
development and the future Green River Trail are valuable.
'. Pedestrian circulation would benefit from the maximum number of alley-loaded units.
Investigate coordination with pedestrian routes.
Response: The subject trail will be located at the County's in City's direction in the future.. Our
commitment is to provide a trailhead at "/" Street and a trail access to the river, and connect to
the County's trail system.
The number of alley loaded units within the subdivision has been dramatically increased, thus
providingfor additional pedestrian circulation. It should also be noted that the sidewalks along
the intemal roadway system have connections to the proposed trail along the northerly
boundary, providing additional pedestrian circulation and walking paths.
C. Land Use Efficiencies
· The proposed irregqlar shape and disconnectedness of open spaces and storm facilities is not
consistent with goals ofland use efficiencies.
Response: The relocation of the park area to the easterly end of the plat, and the consolidation
of the park area, enhanced open space, storm draindge tracts, and the open space area along the
Green River, significantly increase the connectiveness of the open spaces in the project.
The preliminary plat a/'Id PUD have been designed to meet the County's zoning and density
requirements. Therefore, it provides significant efficiency in terms of the number of lots located
within the project, so that it will meet the City's density requirements. It should be noted again
that the number of alley loaded lots has been increased, providing for maximum land use
efficiency, as well as circulation, and provision of multiple hausing types.
D. Improved Transitional Areas
· Reorienting lots to take advantage of view to adjacent natural ateas rather than against back yard
and side yard areas could provide better transitions to natural area.
Response: The consolidation of the park and open space in the easterly end of the project with
single loaded lots facing the park area provides for additional enjoyment of the view of the
natural area and the river for hames within the subdivision, as well as thase utilizing the street
that posses through this area.
2601 South 35th, Suite 200. Tacoma,Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax; (253) 473-0599
Jlm
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 7
E. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
. Proposed road classifications and construction needs to be coordinated with off-site areas and
future development.
Response: The plat has provided 3 connecting roads to the south to provide for future
circulation within this area. 1n addition, the first connecting rood on the westerly portion of the
site has been determined to be a residential collector, with 56 feet of right-of-way, to provide for
a number of trips that may use this corridor from the project and from adjacent development.
The design decisions south to maximize the benefit all PUD elements and altemate designs to
address whether this one element would reduce the PUD 's compliance with all other elements.
F. Enhanced Design Features
· Storm ponds need to be designed .to serve as an amenity. Additional area around the perimeter is
needed to qualify as an open space benefit.
Response: As noted previously, the storm ponds will be enhanced pursuant to Figure 1, to serve
as an amenity for open space. As noted in thefencingsection, the perimeter of the site will be
fenced with split rail fence and board fence. In addition, the access tract between "/" Street and
the Green River has been widened to 15 feet, to provide for a wider trail and additional
landscaping along this area.
G. Creation of Public Amenities
· (See previous comments )
Response: Please see previous comments regarding consolidation of open space and parks,
pedestrian access to the trail system, enhancement of storm drainage facilities, and trail corridor
. design.
Desil!ll Requirements. ACe 18.69.080
A.2. The narrative document, "AubUrn Forty Preliminary Plat and POD - Conceptual Design
Guidelines" indicates tlJat Tract 1 is intended to be privately owned recreation space and to offset
park land dedication requirements. The Parks Director is not desirous of accepting Tfl!ct I in lieu
of dedication or other offsets. . .
Response: The overall arrangement and agreement to park areas and locations has been re-
established through meetings with the City of Auburn Parks Department.
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253} 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473.j)599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 8
A.3. CCR's must provide for the permanent establishment and maintenance of private open spaces to
the benefit of PUD residents and other nearby residents. The information provided does not
indicate how this would be achieved so that it could not be extinguished by the homeowner's
organization in the future.
Response: The CCRs will be established as part of the final plat, and will incorporate the
permanent establishment and maintenance of the private open spoces and park areas for the
benefit ofPUD residents and other nearby residents.
D. I.d . Indicate by proportion or per lot basis, the lots that would be alley-loaded to achieve the goal of
minimizing the appearance of garages.
Response: The number of alley loaded lots is indicated on the face of the preliminary plat, as
well as the percentage of alley loaded lots in comparison to the whale project.
D.2.e. No information on how accessory structures such as street furniture will be coordinated with
architectural concept of the POD.
D.4.a. No information on how site signage and sign lighting will be coordinated with architectural
concept of the PUD.
D.5. Parking areas adjacent to ROW should be screened by landscaping berm, or screen wall. This is
applicable to Tract A. Five feet landscape width as proposed does not appear sufficient to meet
the intended screening.
D.6.e. No information on how landscaping will be coordinated with architectural concept ofthePUD.
D.6.f. No information on how site lighting will be coordinated with architectural concept of the PUD.
Modifications Were mode to the draft architectural guidelines to further dtifjne tho1$e predictable
details the applicant seeks to ensUT'e compliance with regardless of the ftiure builder. The
applicant still has somewhot of a disconnect between the Code requirements ,to define the
architectural character of the project and the subsequent design features to align with that
character prior to making a commitment to any specific builder(s). In light of the design
features to align with that character prior to making a commitment to any specific builder(s). IN
light of the fact that an overall architectural theme is a Code requirement, the applicant requests
the consideration of a condition of development that would permit the project to proceed at this
time, based on the level of detail currently provided, but obligate the applicant to produce and
submit for the review and approval of the City, a ftnaldesign plan to addres1$ thase elements that
are better served by coordinating with the builder(s). In the event that multiple builders are
selected, the applicant shall retain the responsibility of ensuring the guidelines are adopted as a
single goveming tool applicable to all lots within the subdivisioTl as opposed to allowing each
builder to create their own set of guidelines. Regardless of the number of builders chosen; the
condition could require the acceptance of the guidelines_by the City prior to the acceptance of a
final plat application. The plan would include the overall architectural and landscape
architectural themes and the incorporation of the site lighting, project signage and accessory
furniture or structures located in common or public areas.
260 I South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409, (253) 473-4494 Fax; (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 9
Light fIXture and poles will also be selected from the attached product list, in coordination with
the architectural theme. A preference has not been defined until actual building designs are
considered.
We have. also provided a widened buffer along I Street adjacent to the proposed
parking/trailhead.
Application for Approval of the Pun - ACC 18.69.100
Additionally, more information is required to demonstrate compliance with the following Pun design
gnidelines:
Please submit additional information related ACC I 8.69. I 00(B)(1 Xd), regarding the number and types of
dwelling units. The plat (map indicates zero lot line units will be used). While it is tinderstood that 233
units please provide a more specific breakdown of the percentages of each type that will be constrncted.
Response: Please see the face of the preliminary plat, which shows the breakdown of percentages of
eachtype of unit within the project.
As requested by ACC 18.69.IOO(BXIXI), please provide the perpetual maintenance plan of private
spaces (to include landscaped tracts).
Response: A concept maintenance plan is idelltified in the drqft CC&R's. The perpetual
maintenance agreement wl7l be recorded as part of the final plat.
The site planueeds to be revised or amended to include the following elements:
· The location of all trees greater than 6-inches in diameter measured five feet above ground [ACC
18.69.IOO(BX 4X c XiiX3],
Response: Please find attached Figure 3, which shows the existing trees in the farmhouse area
in the southwest portion of the site. The preliminary plat site plan shows the edge of vegetation
fOr the treed area along the easterly portion of the site.
· The general distribution of lot types and distribution of housing styles.
I 8.69. lOO(BX 4X cXiiiX2)],
[ACC
Response: Please see the preliminary plat for a breakdown of percentages of each type of lot
and housing style.
· The identification of all areas proposed to be dedicated to the public [ACe
18.69.1 OO(BX 4)( c XiiiX 4),
Response: As noted previously, the tracts are indicated as public or private.
· The treatment for the proposed periphery of the site [ACCI8.69.1OO (BX4XcXiii)(6). Please
defme the treatment of proposed periphery of the site including setbacks, fencing (including
type), and the approximate amount, location and type of landscaping.
260 I South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 faJt (253) 473.0599
!lDi!
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 10
Response: As noted previously, a split rail fence will be located along the northerly boundary of
the site, and a 6-foot board fence will be utilized for the remaining perimeter of the site, except
for the park area adjacent to the Green River.
Please indicate the location of the comprehensive plan boundary between High density residential and
single family residential.
Response: The boundary between the high-density residential and single-family residential is
indicated on the preliminary plat.
Shoreline ADDlication
Application indicates Investco is the property owner. However, other documents provided to 'the City
indicate that Investco Finance Corporation is only the contract purchaser.
Response: We have provided the City with the owner authorization document. The preliminary plat
shows only that the client for the preliminary plat is Investco Financial Corporation.
Need to shown proposed ground surface elevation and any construction within the shoreline area in the
cross section.
Response: The cross-section on the shareline exhibit has been modified to reflect the location of the .
proposed storm drainage ponds and the northeast comer of the plat is located outside of the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction.
The shoreline exhibit must identij'y the location of municipal boundary lines lying within or adjacent to
the plat
Response: There are no municipal lines lying within or adjacent to the plat.
The shoreline environment' designation according to the City's Shoreline Management Program is
"Conservancy". The stated purpose of this designation is to " ...maintain the existing character and
provide open space, pastoral and reCreation uses." The use regulations of this designation state:
subdivisions and planned unit developments should be prohibited in the conservancy enviroument". The
project's proposed storm drainage facility construction within the shoreline area is not consistent with
these use regulations.. .
Response: The storm drainagefacility has been located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction area.
Please provide specification of the date of the shoreline ordinary high water mark determination and
whether this was established by recent survey. The setback must be measured from the ordinary high
water elevation, as it currently exists. The plat shows a line 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark
that is labeled "Shoreline Jurisdiction." However, the area of shoreline jurisdiction also includes the
100-year floodplain that extends within the eastern portion of the site.
Response: The ordinary high water mark was located by field survey on December 14, 2004. The
shoreline jurisdiction of 200 feet has been measured from that point. The map has been modified to
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax; (253) 473-0599
JlE
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #278301l
Page II
label this area "Sharelitie Jurisdiction, " and the lOO-year flood plain area has been added where it
crosses the southeast comer of the site.
Environmental Checklist Application
The City has reviewed the environmental checklist application that was submitted for the above-
referenced project and has determined that additional infonnation is needed to adequately evaluate
impacts associated with the proposal. For your convenience, the following comments correspond to the
appropriate section of the environmental checklist application.
A. Background
Item 6. Please indicate phasing on preliminaty plat.
Response: Please see previous discussion on phasing.
Item 10. In addition to the approvals noted, the project appears to require a modification to plat
standards in order to dedicate less land than prescribed by the subdivision code. Also, a flood
zone control permit is required for work within and modification of the loo-year floodplain.
Approvals may be required to abandon on-site wells or septic systems, if applicable.
Response: Permit approvals have been modified to reflect this comment.
Item II. For informational purposes, the project includes 15 tracts rather than II. The updated tract
total is reflected on the face of the preliminary plat.
B. Environmental Elements
3. Water: A. Surface Water.
Item L The City's wetland inveptory shows a wetland surround by croplands (Wetland GR 58) near the
central portion of the site.
Response: This comment is acknowledged.
The following comments are based on a review of the report: "Sensitive Area Report for the Kawasaki
Site, Auburn Washington" prepared by Watershed Dynamics and dated July 12,2004 (Revised March
24, 2005).
Pagel, Paragraph 1- Purpose - The report notes that it evaluates site conditions imJnediately
surrounding the project site. flowever, subsequently the report does not address off-site areas
and specifically it does not address wetlands located off-site that may be affected by road
construction (l Street NE) need to provide adequate access to the project.
Page I, Paragraph 2, Project Location - The site is adjacentto 1 StreetNE not I" StreetNE.
260 I South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 413.4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 12
Page I, Paragraph 3, Proposed ProjectlLand Use Action - The project is described as observing a
"IOO-foot native growth protection easement between the Ordinary High Water Line on the west
side of the Green River." This is not consistent with features of the plat which show construction
of a trail system within the 100 -foot area.
Page 2, Paragraph 2, Project Site Description - An area of existing native vegetation is called out
along the west bank of the river it is not clear if this located on the subject property or the
adjacent King County property.
Page 5, Paragraph 2, Background Data Collection - The background investigation should have
also included review of City wetland inventory and other critical area maps.
Page 6, Paragraph 2, Field Data Collection - The report indicates that the Routine Determination
methodol~gy from the "1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" . and the "1997
Washington State WetIand Identification and Delineation Manual" was used. In light of the site
disturbance associated with ongoing agricultural activities, please indicate why the "Atypical
Situation Methodology" was not used.
Page 7, Paragraph 1, Results - The reports indicates that the City's inventory does not identify
any wetlands on-site. The City's 2003 wetland inventory shows a wetland surround by croplands
(Wetland OR 58) near the central portion of the site.
Page 7, Paragraph 2, Description of Critical Areas - Figure 2 does not show transects or how test
pit locations were determined in order that reader may follow field methodology as indicated by
report.
Page 8, Paragraph,3, Description of Critical Areas - The report notes there is a stormwater ditch
along the west edge of the subject property. Elsewhere in the report this surface water feature is
characterized as a ditch/pond. The repOrt notes that this surface water feature was constructed in
uplands. However, it is likely located in an area identified as Briscot silt loam or Oridia silt
loam, according to the NRCS maps. Both soils are indicated as hydric soils; Please explain how
the determination of upland was made.
The City's wetland inventory also identifies several wetlands located off-site to the north that have the
potential to be adversely affected by road construction to provide the necessary vehicle access to the
project. These are identified as Wetlands GR 56, GR 59 and GR 60 and wetlands within the Port of
Seattle Wetland mitigation site. Additional information is needed regarding the location of these
wetlands and potential impacts resulting from construction associated with this project. This information
is needed to adequately identify impacts.
Response: Responses to this section are found in the revised Watershed Dynamics wetland report
dated July 12, 2004 (Revised March 24, 2005). .
Item 2 and 3 Additional information is needed regarding the location of off-site wetlands and potential
impacts resulting from 1 Street NE construction associated with this project. This information is needed
to adequately identify impacts. If impacted, a conceptual wetland plan is required to be provided with
the checklist application. The conceptual mitigation must identify the impacts and how the construction
260 I South 35th, So~e 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253} 473+194 Fax: (253) 473.0599
!lili!
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 13
will be managed to reduce or avoid impacts to these sensitive areas. In particular, mitigation must also
address reduction in wetland buffer that is proposed and take into account the height and resulting side
slope impacts of the proposed fill placement. As requested by this checklist question, please describe the
earthwork that would occur within surfuce waters including wetlands.
The project proposed stormwater discharge to the Port of Seattle Wetland mitigation site. The proposed
contribution has the potential to result in adverse impacts by changing hydrologic support fQr the
wetlands. Hydraulic changes associated with this project could have detrimental impacts to the success
of this man-made wetland, especially if you are suggesting that regnlated flows will find their way into it.
Additional infonnation is needed to demonstrate that the area would not be adversely affected by the
development throughout a full typical annual cycle, as well as during reasonably foreseeable drought and
storm periods. If the hydroperiod analysis predicts reductions in wetland water levels, some stormwater
runoff could be routed to the affected wetIarlds after appropriate flow control and water quality
treatment. The Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(Ecology 2001) provides guidance for performing the wetlarld hydroperiod ailalysis, information on
maximum acceptable hydroperiod alterations, recommendations for reducing development impacts on
wetland hydroperiod and water quality, recommendations for flow control and treatment for stonnwater
discharges to wetlands, and recommendations for post development wetland monitoring.
Response: The plat developer intends to negotiate with the Port of Seattle for the construction of a
detention/retention pond on their property that is i1iljacent to but not inclusive of the Port's wetland
mitigation parcel, This property is located at.ijacent to Tract A of the plat between the existing I
Street NE right-of-way and the wetland mitigation parcel. The pond would be sized for the westem
third of the plat and the I Street NE rood impravements from 4rf' Street NE to the northwest comer
of the plat. If negotiations are successful, then Tract A could be designated for open space or some
other use. If the plat develOPer is not able to negotiate the construCtion of the . pond on Port
property, then Tract A, as shown on the revised preliminary plat plan, will have sufficient area for
the detention/retention pond.
The issue of off-site impacts resulting from "/" Street remain to be determined in light of the fact
that the alignment and proposed improvements that will be required by the plat have yet to be
determined. Once these are determined by the City and the applicant, subsequent wetland analysis
may be conducted.
Apex Engineering has had discussions with the Port of Seattle regarding the relationship of
stormwater releases from this project and the Port's wetland mitigation site to the north The
proposed plat will be allowed to provide hydrology only for the existing wetlands on the Port of
Seattle wetland mitigation parceltomimic the runoff that occurs during the pre-developed condition.
Tract F as shawn on the revised preliminary plat plan has sufficient area to provide onsite water
quality treatment and retention of the eastem two-thirds of the proposed plat for the post-developed
condition. Pre-developed stormwater runoff from properties south of the plat as shown on the City's
current 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan have been included in the hydraulic model for the
existing wetlands on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site; this runoff will be directed through
the proposed plat to the existing wetland via a bypass outlet constructed as part of the plat.
In summary, control of stormwater runoff from the proposed plat will not adversely impact the man-
made wetlands because only the release of pre-developed stormwater runoff will be directed to the
260 1 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma. Washington 984(J9 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 14
existing wetlands on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation property and only after the runoff has
received water quality treatment onsite.
Item 5. No floodplain is identified. However, FEMA appear to show floodplain extending on-site from
the east. Please verifY floodplain elevation and site elevations.
Response: The floodplain has been shawn on the preliminary plat and on the shoreline exhibit.
Item 6. See comment under 2 & 3 above.
Response: See comment under Items 2 and 3 above.
B. Groundwater
Item I. IdentifY existing well and septic systems, if applicable.
Response: The existing well and septic system are located in the farm housing area on the site. They
will be located and decommissioned per State requirements as part of site development.
C. Water Runoff
Item 1. The SEPA checklist indicates that the "on"sitestormwater runoff from public sources will be
collected and discharged to an existing wetland area to the north". This is not an approved discharge.
Therefore additional information is required to adequately evaluate the storm dtainage impacts associated
with this propOsal. Prior to a threshold determination being. made, the City is requesting that a
downstream drainage analysis be provided to the City for review and approval. In addition, as the
proposed discharge is toward a constructed wetland. mitigation site, approval must be obtained from the
adjacent property owner, the Port of Seattle. Please note that this facility is currently unoor construction,
and may not be available for several years. For detail requirements and questions concerning the
analysis, contact Tim Carlaw (City Storm Drainage Engineer) at (253) 804-5060. -
Response: Upstream and downstream analyses have been conducted by Apex Engineering, in
concert with discussions with the Port of Seattle regarding discharge of surface water toward the
mitigation site to the north
For informational purposes, the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan (plan) identifies the site as
containing a regional detentionlwater quality facility, serving both this project site and properties to the
south, The Plan recognizes that is possible that the regional facilities may never be developed; therefore
individual on-site storm water facilities are an acceptable alternative. It would be preferential to site
storm facilities near the perimeter of the site where they could be expanded off-site in the future. Also,
due to the regional nature of storm management this project must anticipate that existing discharge from
properties to the south lllUst be maintained after development. Therefore bypass flows from the south
must be included in any future on-site design.
Response: As part of the upstream analysis on the site and storm drainage review, we have
identified those areas that contribute to the stormwater from properties to the south Provision is
made in the proposed plat for the bypass offlows from the south
2601 South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
JlRi!
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 15
For your informational purposeS, the preliminary site plan for the project identifies three (3) proposed on-
site stormwater facilities. The project should seek to minimize the number of these facilities.
Response: Due to the lack of slope on the property, three storm drainage facilities are required in
order to allow for the flow of water from the property into the storm drainage facilities.
For your information, it's suggested by the plan set that was submitted by the applicant that a water
quality feature would be located near tract "C." Please identify what this is asa wet pond scenario is
described as the means for improved water quality leaving the site.-
Response: With the mOdification of the plat design, this feature has been eliminated.
For your informational purposes, the City has changed its design standards for open water ponds so that
they look and feel more natural to the surrounding environment. "Box" like designs shall be avoided and
more plantings installed to give more of a park feel.
Response: As part of enhancing the storm drainage facilities to provide for open space amenity, the
recommendations of this paragraph will be incorporated.
The report: "Preliminary Wet Pond Ai1alysislSizing Report" shows Tract A as a storm drainage facility.
The Preliminary Plat & PUD submittals show this tract with parking available for trail use. While the
uses are not necessarily incompatible the. parking . lot will have a significant impact the pond's storage
capacity. Concur with the Storm Utility comments on this proposal.
Response: The storm drainage facility will be sized to accommodate the area that contributes to this
pond by leaving the remaining area for the proposed trailhead andparkingfor the river trail access
trail.
4. Plants.
Item B. As requested please idelltify the amount and type of vegetation remove,d.
7. Environmental Health
- Item B. Depending on timing, noise from project construction could adversely impact habitat associated
with adjacent constructed wetland mitigation areas. The plat is proposed to take five years to complete.
The Port of Seattle Wetland Mitigation Construction is intended to be completed ill 2007. Other off-site
wetlands could also be similarly affected.
Response: Noise impacts from construction activities will be short-term. Following construction
activity, the single-family residential land use will have relatively low noise impacts to surrounding
areas.
10. Aesthetics
Item A. Additional specification of the design features is required for the PUD.
260 I South 35th, Suite 200. Tacoma, WashingtOll 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473.0599
~
Mr. JeffOixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 16
Response: Please see comments in the PUD section.
12. Recreation
Item C. The Parks Department would prefer to have Tract E area incorporated into the parks area at the
east end in Tract B so as to work with the Tract K storm facility. Placing Tract B and K together would
assist in achieving the City of Auburn goal of creating better looking storm facilities and keep the
maintenance of parks space within a larger area.
Response: The preliminary plat and PUD have been redesigned to incorporate City of Auburn Parks
Department comments for. the incorporation of the parks into the east end of the plat.
Accommodation of storm facilities in connection with these park areas, in order to have better
looking storm facilities and keep the maintenance of park space within a larger area.
Calculations for park space of 3.93 acres could be located next the Green River Trail and meet park
dedication requirements. Please contact Dan Scamporlina, Parks Planning and Development Manager at
253~931-5106 for additional information.
Response: Meetings with the City of Auburn Parks Department have resulted in a park plan for the
site that would meet park requirements.
13. Historic and Cultural Resources
Item C. The State OAHP and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe should be contacted to address this question.
Due tu proximity to the Green River thereis a likelihood of cultural resources, the Tribe and State should
be consulted.
Response: While not a requirement for completion, we have contacted the State OAHP and the
Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe regarding potential archaeological impacts.
14. Transportation
Item F. The City has reviewed the report: "Traffic Impact Analysis - Auburn Forty PUD", Transpo
Group, December 2004. Based on this review the traffic study is incomplete for the following reasons:
The traffic study does not include as background any traffic from the Northeast AuburnlRobertson
Properties Group Special Area EIS (NEAIRPG). Other developments in the area have been asked to
include that traffic and the City did not approve its exclusion for purposes of this report.
While the NEAIRPG EIS studies the build out scenario of2020 for traffic impacts and that could explain.
the Confusion, the NEA EISalso identifies that some level of development will occur by 2008~ Appendix
B of the Draft EIS could be used to identifY the level of development appropriate for inclusion in this
report. Please be aware that the EIS identifies three alternatives, without identifYing a preferred
alternative. The worst case of the three alternatives should be used. The three alternatives are:
· over 350,000 sf of retail, or
· 104,000 sf of retaill228,OOO of Office or
260 I South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #2783011
Page 17
. 267,000 sf of retail and 125 SF dwelling units could be constructed by 2008.
At a minimum, this level of impacts should be included and studied in the Auburn 40 study.
The report assumes that S 277th Street corridor would opetate at LOS E in 2008' the year of project
opening.
6 Year TIP Project # 13 has defined planned improvements to the S 277th corridor (east of Auburn Way
North) which will enhance the function of S 277th and may improve WS on the corridor but the
improvements are not planned to begin until 2008 and it is not clear yet exactly if or how much those
improvements will improve LOS in the S 277th corridor or what improvements would have the greatest,
positive impact. This study helps strengthen the conclusion that capacity improvements to the
intersection ofS 277th and Auburn Way North should be added to project # 13. S 277th Street is
currently ROW belonging to the City of Kent.
As it relates to "nexus", it is important to note that while this development distnbutes enough traffic on S
277th Street to require the corridor to be studied by this applicant, the level of service problem on S
277th is not priffiarily due to the traffic generated by the development proposal but rather is due to high
levels of background traffic using the available capacity on S 277th Street.
In summary, per Comprehensive Plan Policy TR 17, the development cannot OcCur until improvenients
are added to the S 277th corridor, which will bring the corridor LOS within the City standard of LOS
"D". These potential improvements should be immediately investigated as part of the City's
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and programmed in the next Transportation Improvement
Program. Alternatively, the City could choose to modify their LOS standards to accept a lower level of
functioning; The project could not. authorized until the standard is changed. .
The traffic study does not evaluate internal site traffic volumes. This information was specifically
requested to allow both the City and the applicant to better understand the proper classification of roads
within the development. That classification (i.e. if a collector road design is determined to be needed)
could have significant ramifications for the SEPA, the Plat and the PUD. Revision of the layout would
be necessary.
Response: A revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared in response to the City of
Auburn's comments. Please see the attached TIA - Auburn 40PUD Transportation Group, dated
March 2005.
15. Public Services
Item B. The fifty-foot ROW with 28-foot roadways throughout the project will be posted as fire lanes on
one side in accordance with Auburn City Code 10.36.175, thus maintaining the 20-foot unobstructed
width required by the International Fire Code 503.2.1
Response: We concur with the note regarding roadway widths and the postingfor fire lanes.
2601 South 35th, Su~e 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~!
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
Fi]e #27830/]
Page 18
16. Utilities
Item B.
Stormwater - For ponds to count as open space they need to be designed to look more natural with flatter
slopes, water features (i.e. fountains etc.) walking trails and picnic areas only. Only the county area is
above the 25~year storm elevation should be considered for the open space calculation.
Response: The proposed storm drainage facilities will be enhanced in order to qualify for open
space enhancement.
Sanipu-v Sewer - The proposed sanitary sewer pump station as shown is part of TRACT "K", a Storm
Facility!Enhanced Open Space Tract. The pump station shall be located on its own Tract and dedicated
to the City.
Response: The revisedpreliminary plat site plan shows the pump station on its separate tract.
Extend gravity sewer service to your property from the existing public sanitary sewer system. Extend
gravity sewer service through your property t<;> service proposed parcels. Stubs should be placed to
extend service to the south parcel where appropriate. Avoid public pump stations. It is the City's policy
to transport sewage by gravity as the most cost-effective method. Alternative pressure systems should be
permitted ouly in those circumstances when a gravity system would be impractical, unreasonably
expensive, environmentally destructive or otherwise infeasible.
Response: A letter dated January 25, 2005 has been submitted to the City of Auburn requesting the
approval of the use of a pump station system, given the lack of slope on the property and the
potential impacts offilling the site in order to providefor gravity flow.
Please review the City sewer comp plan and submit information as to why you would not folloW the
outlined course for a gravity sewer extension.
Response: See previous comment regarding gravity sewer service.
Water - The extension of approximately 1,250 linear-feet of 12-inch waterline in the "]" Street NE
alignment is needed from 40th Street NE to and across the full width of the property served with water.
This is required pursuant to ACe 13.08.020 which states: "All extensions shall extend to and across the
full width of the property .served with water. No property shall be served with City water unless the water
main is extended to the extreme boundary limit of the property line extending the full length of the front
footage of the property."
Response: A water main extension will be made across the full width of the property.
2601 South 35th. Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599
~
Mr. Jeff Dixon
March 25, 2005
File #27830/1
Page 19
We trust that the information provided in this letter and the revisions made to the preliminary plat, POD,
grading plan and drainage report will satisfy the request of the January 12, 2005 letter, and that
completeness can be issued for the Auburn 40 project. Please call me if there is any additional
information or questions regarding this material.
Sincerely,
{\JiC)J
~;~~ann
Project Manager
JDMljlg
Attachments
c: Mr. Brian McCabe
Investco
Attn: Mr. Sean Martin
l/27830/docs-rptsldoos-.idm032S0S
260 I South 35th, Suite 200. Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473.4494 fax; (253) 473-0599
~
,
,
J,
,<S
"""",
"""~~
,j~
I
".
.
~.
4,
'!f:
I
~
w
0::
::)
C)
-
LL
N
W
0:=
::)
C!)
-
LL
-
ftS
...
C
2a.
.- 0
1.....
o
:cC
d'J~
_0
ftS.c
.~ .,
... .-
I.. ~
IV
>..!:!!
IV IV
...C
ftS ftS
CCL
I..
IV
...
-
oil(
~
"
~
"
s
'"
:.a
'"
"
-8
.5
-q
N
,....;
~
..9 ~
~ ~
~ .~
~ ~
'" ~
'"
'"
~
'"
00
~
~
.\0 1:!
i:>::
..>4
g
iii
]
.,
00
,....;
,
N
00
1;;
~ \0 "E
, '"
N '"
, \0
,....;
C'?
W
~
::)
C>
-
LL
,.... ,.... N tr:l
~ 0 ...... -<
'"'"~~
:i1g."'OC/
@ ~ r:t to;
..... ('I>
~ ~ ('I>
0'1 \~ ::s ::s
,..!... 0'1 '"0 ~
::s ,..!... S' 00
g. ~ ('I> ,..!...
::s-~::s
\~ g.
,.... ('I>
00 '"
I
.....
::s
g.
('I>
~
::s-
......W............VltJ
QnO'l~~('I>
::s ~ ~ ~ ~ D.
...... ~t::'O'e 0...
o '" ..... - - ~
..... (") ....... ('I> ('I> 0
[d@@@~
"r1:i1~t;::?O'IN
..... ~ ..... I 00
=: ....e::: tt:::.\ I I_'h
l....I =.: \tV ~~ = tv
('I> - ::s (") ·
..... 0 ...... (") ..........
.......~.j::>.::s-.....::s
June 14,2005
R~r!
Mr. Tim Carlaw, P.E.
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98002
Reference:
Preliminary Plat of Auburn Forty
Storm Drainage
File #27830/7
RFF~
JUN 1 5 uns
p~I'\\~G \)'8'F>-lri;MtNi
Dear Tim:
As a follow up to our preliminary plat submittal, SEP A checklist submittal and the meeting with
the City of Auburn on April 26, 2005, the purpose of this letter is to provide additional
information regarding the storm. drainage for the Auburn 40 plat. Our intent as part of the
development of the plat is to provide collection, treatment and detention of the project storm
drainage onsite with release to the existing wetlands north of the plat and to an existing channel
northwest of the plat in conformance with the City of Auburn's 2002 Comprehensive Drainage
Plan.
Storm runoff for the Auburn 40 plat and the improved portion of I Street NE from 40th Street NE
to the northwest corner of the plat will be conveyed, collected and treated at two (2) storm
drainage ponds located atTracts A and Fwhich are located at the northwest corner and north
center of the plat, respectively. These storm ponds will be dedicated to the city and enhanced to
provide additional open space benefit and physical amenities to the project.
The storm pond in Tract F will collect and treat runoff from the eastern two-thirds of the plat;
this area is included as part of sub-basin 12V of the City of Auburn's 2002 Comprehensive
Drainage Plan (CDP). Tract F will be in a natural depressed area of the plat and is immediately
south of the existing wetland located on the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation parcel. Based
on our discussions with Mr. Jim Kelley, PhD ofParametrix, the Port's wetland consultant, their
design of the wetland rnitigation project accounted for the hydrology of their existing wetland to
be recharged with pre-developed runoff from the properties to the south, including the Auburn
40 plat and the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped property south of the plat; Mr. Kelley
acknowledged that the natural surface drainage course for a significant portion of the area south
of the Port's property was directed to their existing wetland. Therefore, our intent is to convey
storm runoff from the eastern two-thirds of the plat, treat the runoff using water quality BMP's,
provide post-detention within the Tract F pond and discharge the water at the pre-developed rate
to the Port's existing wetland using level spreaders or other acceptable means to rnimic natural
sheet flow across the depressed area. In addition, we intend to install a bypass storm conveyance
pipe from the south end of the plat to the level spreaders of the Tract F pond for the conveyance
of water from the south 80 acres to the Port's existing wetland.
Exhibit 12
2601 South 35th, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98409
(253) 473.4494
Fax: (253) 473.0599
Mr. Tim Carlaw, P.E.
June 14,2005
File #27830/7
Page 2
The storm pond in Tract A will collect and treat runoff from the western third of the plat and the
improved portion of I Street NE from 40th Street NE to the northwest corner of the plat. This
"sub-basin" area corresponds to the portion of the sub-basin area 9A V of the City's CDP that lies
within the project lirnits. The plat developer is continuing to negotiate with the Port of Seattle
for the construction of the storm pond on their property that is adjacent to but not inclusive of the
Port's wetland mitigation parcel. This property is located immediately north of Tract A. If
negotiations are not successful for the construction of the pond on Port property, then the pond
will remain in Tract A which has been sized to adequately collect and treat the post-developed
runoff volume for the sub-basin area. It is our intent to convey the water from the Tract A pond
to a future 950-foot open channel that was described in the City's CDP. The open channel, as
depicted in Figure VIHV-7 of the CDP, extends along the proposed I Street NE alignmentthat
the City has committed to negotiate with the Port of Seattle. You had expressed concerns
regarding the timing of the construction of the plat's storm facilities, including the downstream
conveyance, and the availability of the proposed I Street NE alignment. The fact is that the
construction of I Street NE north of the plat to 45th Street NE must occur as a condition of
providing a second access to the plat once the number of lots developed within the plat exceeds
75 units. If the alignrnent of I Street NE north of the plat has not been resolved by the time the
first 75 lots are ready for development, the storm drainage for the 75 lots and the I Street NE
irnprovernents north of 40th Street NE to the plat will drain to the Tract F pond, either by direct
conveyance or through an interim by-pass line from Tract A; the runoff will be treated and water
from the pond will be released to the existing wetlands at the pre-developed rate. However,
since the plat developer intends to ultimately develop more than 75 lots, the improvements along
I Street NE north of the plat, induding storm drainage conveyance, will have to be constructed
before additional development can continue.
We would appreciate a review of this request concurrent with the review of the preliminary plat
application. If you have questions, please call me or Mr. Tony Ching at (253) 473-4494.
Sincerely,
~A ~'k'fi' d,PE
Project Manager
JAW tTKC/jlg
c: Investco Financial
Attn: Mr. Sean Martin
Mr. Dennis Hanberg
Mr. Jeff Mann
Mr. Tony Ching
260 I South 35th, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599