Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2000HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on October 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek C 0~V~ '"0 ~000 STAFF: Lynn Rued, Dennis Dowdy, Tim Carlaw, Evelyn Choe, and Patti Zook ~[ ~ ~t. ~ J~l~. Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION NO. REZ00-0006 Hearing Examiner opened the public he~ring. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The City of Auburn has requested to rezone property from an existing zoning classification of R-2, Single Family to a proposed "1", Institutional zone. The property is located on the south side of 8th Street NE just south of the intersection of 8th and "K" Streets NE. The property is 2.14 acres in size. The site will be used for storm drain-age and public water supply. The City plans to build a corrosion control treatment facility to help with water quality issues. Staff recommends approval with no conditions. He introduced Evelyn Choe, Project Engineer. Project Engineer Choe showed a site plan and pointed out location of the facility near Fulmer Field. She also showed an elevation drawing. Dee Sanders, 3011 M Drive NE, asked about the facility. There was no further public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Project Engineer Choe showed the elevation drawing again. She explained the water treatment process of this facility. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw then clarified the use of the property. The City intends to construct a corrosion control treatment facility to improve the quality of drinking water. The proposal is to rezone now for City's future use. He then spoke about the project's timeframe. Hearing Examiner wondered what portion of the site will be used for storm water retention. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw remarked that the area south will be used for the corrosion control treatment facility. The facility will be adjacent to 8t" Street. Hearing Examiner indicated the written decision will be issued within 10 days. 2. APPLICATION NO. SHR00-0002 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The City of Auburn has filed an application for a shorelines management permit to allow for the construction of 120 lineal feet of a 6-inch stormwater pipeline and a sediment vault. The purpose of the project is to improve the functions of an existing City owned and operated storm drainage facility that is located within the City's Brannan Park. The City wants to correct the situation at northern end of the Park and address neighbors' concerns. The parcel was deeded to the City 20 years ago. The City intends to have a dual purpose facility which will allow the site to be used as a developed park in the future. Necessary improvements to correct the situation requires a shoreline management permit. PAGE 1 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 Staff recommends approval with no conditions. He mentioned a note received from Mrs. Moore just prior to meeting. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw will address her questions. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw began by providing some background on the project and explained problems experienced at the site. Construction to date has tried to alleviate the problems. He spoke about the two components of the project which are to correct existing problems with the bioswale. In 1995, the City did shoreline process for the construction of bioswale and pump station. The swale is a work in progress, but the City underestimated the capacity of the flow. The swale is now inundated with water 10 months of the year. Two projects are proposed to correct existing problems with the bioswale. There will be a connection to the metro sanitary sewer system to allow work in the summer on the bioswale. He then submitted a letter received from King County Wastewater Treatment Division which approved the proposed Brannan Park bypass design. Hearing Examiner indicated the case file and environmental file are Exhibits #1. The letter from King County_is marked as Exhibit 2. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw then showed an overhead of the project. King County states they will be able to handle the amount of treatment from the City's system. He then provided some detail on the project. The City wanted to insure that summer rains can be discharged to the metro sewer system. Hearing Ex§miner wanted to clarify that the problem was Iow flow being constant with one pump always running in the summer. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said the City estimated the flow and designed flow channel within the bioswale to be planted with plantings that can tolerate water. The slope will be slanted away from houses for positive drain and to keep water away from residences. All this should clean up the mess experienced previously. Hearing Examiner had the impression that one phase had to do with the current vault. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw then explained use of the vault. The vault's design is to concentrate water and flow freely so that it will not stagnate. The vault is covered with grating. Hearing Examiner inquired how often the City will clean out the sediment in vault. Storm Drainage Engineer Cartaw said that was not yet determined, but he believes a couple times per year. He then explained how the vault is cleaned. The project will require a small amount of pavement for the truck which is used to clean the vault. Hearing Examiner wanted a clarification of the required pavement. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said it is likely an area will be paved to accommodate the trucks. Hearing Examiner wondered if the impervious surface will affect runoff. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said that within the existing drainage requirements 130 feet is exempt from water quality control. If the pavement is under 2,600 square feet, it should not affect runoff. Hearing Examiner asked Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw if he had responded to Mrs. Moore's letter. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said that Mrs. Moore submitted the letter to staff just prior to start of the meeting. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw then read the first question. The City did not anticipate that so much Iow flow water would occur. Plantings were put in and it was hoped that the site would function as a park in the summer. Regarding the second question about the engineer who designed the swale, the City did not fully anticipate the amount of Iow flow water to the site and that the site would not work as intended. This was not a gross design fault. Regarding the third question about Riverpark Estates and the flooding problem, flow will be to the sanitary sewer not the storm pipe. Hearing Examiner wanted to know what is meant by signs that are in place. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw commented that the signs direct people not to drive through flood waters which create more problems due to the movement of the water when cars go through. Hearing Examiner acknowledged written comments received from an attorney in Sumner and marked this as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is letter from Delia Saunders. Exhibit 5 is note from Mrs. Moore. Exhibit 6 is Severson's letter. PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 Brock Borlando, 1218 30th Street NE, is president of Riverpark Estates, and one of the most affected homeowners. The City plans to dig through his landscaping, but the City could go through blacktop adjacent to property instead of through his yard. The site is a toxic nightmare with black gooey sludge. Originally the site was beautiful and over time the water drains and gunk ends up somewhere. The standing water brings in geese which leave droppings. He spoke about extensive flooding problems. If the project was a correct design, then it was either a bad design or bad construction. The City said it will plant grass, but flooding continues. He is concerned about children playing in the water which is 6 inches of tar. Irrigation pipes were put in, but pipes were placed in wrong direction and water backs up. He wondered if the pipes will be dug up and replaced correctly. He asked if the correct type of grass will be planted. He then spoke about dump trucks coming in and scraping up sludge. The yards get saturated with water from the bioswale. He submitted a handout of Riverpark Estates which Hearing Examiner marked as Exhibit #7. He referred to page 2 of his handout and complained about the notification process. He wanted to know how water is transmi_tted off site and if site will be turned into a park at future date. He asked if the City is sure the proposal will fix the problems. He then spoke about depreciation of home values. He has a problem with the amount of concrete proposed for the project. Sara Borlando, 1218 30th Street NE, said the homeowners are frustrated about lack of communication and the design of the project. She wants documentation about idea of hooking into sewer Ifnes or if tap into sewer lines, what happens if backlog and how this will affect pipes in their neighborhood. She is concerned about street being dug up to repair sewer lines. Their home is adjacent to this project and she wants to know where line will be connected. If their property is torn up, how will City put property back the way it is supposed to be. If a person comes on their property and they were told that person will not, what is her course of action. Delia Saunders, 3011 M Drive NE, asked about concessions for pipe and flow of water from Kent East Hill and hooking into lines here. There are big pipes across the river to carry their water and she believes this has affected them. City Rebuttal: Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw regret that there appears tb be a level of mistrust of the homeowners toward the City. It is not the City's intention to do project without consultation of homeowners. He has had numerous contacts with Mrs. Saunders and Mrs. Severson in the past. Regarding the placement of the sanitary sewer, the City has a recorded easement across the Borlando lot so the City wanted to take advantage of crossing easement where City has the right. They would be amenable to doing in another place, but would need a temporary easement across property. If the City goes through the Borlando property, the City will replace landscaping. The project will encompass earthwork. The City is trying to solve problems and will have to move earth at some point on someone's property. He can work with homeowners to gain a more likable path of the project. Regarding pipes facing the wrong direction, he is not sure to what Mr. Borlando was referring. Mr. Borlando said pvc pipe was to be buried, but pipes are going diagonally and pipes act like a dam and water backs up. Regarding the pvc pipe, Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said only pipes in the bioswale are pvc pipes for irrigation purposes. A previous solution talked about underpinings to take away saturated soil, but this was not pursued. There are no underdrain pipes, only irrigation pipes. Regarding any additional connection to metro pipe and any problems, an analysis was done of capacity of sewer network and submitted with permit application to King County. This was reviewed and King County substantiated. Hearing Examiner commented that Mrs. Saunders believes that water from East Hill is flowing to this site and causes problems. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw said that the drainage basin for PAGE 3 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 this site does not encompass east hill. He then described the boundaries of the drainage basin for this site. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to Mrs. Saunders' comments and clarified that the lines from east hill are water lines not storm/sewer lines. City Engineer Dowdy clarified further that the sewer line from Cobble Creek does not tap into the line at Riverpark. The line goes directly to metro sanitary sewer system. Hearing Examiner inquired about a formal landscape plan. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw advised that the City sodded the facility last year with rye grass, but this was not the appropriate grass for this site. It was then reseeded with grass more tolerant to water. It is proposed that the Iow flow channel be planted with wetland plants that grow in standing water and remainder of area would be middle ground grass. The first 200 to 300 feet of bioswale is fiat that can impede drain. He is unaware of water backing up in houses. The swale appears to be lower contour toward houses. Regarding the amount of impervious area, which was to accommodate the trail and was under the previous application. Mrs. Borlando asked about process of moving line or shifting the line and how deep sewer lines are to be dug. She wants it in writing that if the City is on their property digging up their property, that their property is put back in order and how City will repair/replace their property and put property back in its current condition. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw remarked that typically lines are placed at a minimum of three feet underground: Regarding the replacement of plants, etc., the City has a preconstruction review process which he explained. Mrs. Saunders referred to the 10 foot walkway easement and inquired why the line could not go there. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw explained that the City wanted to utilize the easement that is in place and available. There was no further public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Hearing Examiner indicated that she will review the exhibits and should have the written decision within 10 days. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. HE~AGND\MIN 10-2000 PAGE 4