Loading...
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