HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2002HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002
The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on March 19, 2002 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
STAFF: Lynn Rued, Scan Martin, Tim Carlaw and Patti Zook
Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures for the public hearing and
the appeal hearing and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPLICATION NO. PLT00-0004, PUD00-0001 and SHR00-0004
Hearing Examiner joined the three CamWest cases and opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued
presented the staff report. CamWest Development has requested approval of a preliminary plat and planned unit
development of 117 single family detached on 20.35 acres. They also request approval for a shorelines substantial
development permit to allow the development ofa stormwater infiltration pond and park space. The subject site is
located east of I Street NE in the 3200-3300 block of" I" Street NE (if extended). The site contains two zoning
classifications. The PUD is for single family detached homes; no multi-family is proposed. He explained the PUD
calculations and said the applicant could do 187 units, but is only proposing 117 units. He mentioned the open space and
park requirements. The applicant must dedicate over two acres of park land; however, the applicant proposes to dedicate
just over one acre of park land and provide $137,000 in improvements to the land to make up the difference. Three
additional acres adjacent to the Green River will be dedicated to the City. There will be a temporary storm drainage
facility because the City owns property to the north and plans a regional storm facility and then this project will connect
and the temporary facility will become a park. He mentioned design requirements of the homes and landscaping
requirements. Applicant also submitted signage design and street lighting designs. A traffic analysis was prepared and
staff determined that no adverse impacts will occur and traffic impact fees will be assessed. Applicant is required to
finish length of I Street NE. The site will have a wide entrance to provide for emergency access. The site will not be
accessed from the condominiums or the private streets to the south. Staff recommends approval of the three applications
with conditions outlined in the staff reports.
Hearing Examiner wondered about dedication of property for public use and that applicant is only dedicating one-third of
what is required and paying $137,000. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the dedication required is two acres per
park formula, an appraisal was done, and Zoning Ordinance allows improvements to make up the difference. The
improvements to the park area are adjacent to the river and the City is getting more property and improvements also. .~
Eric Campbell, CamWest Development, testified several years ago in support of the City's PUD ordinance and spoke
about the goals of the ordinance and how their project meets these goals. Using PowerPoint, he showed conceptual
pictures of architectural design of the homes and pointed out difference in modulation/features of the homes. These
differences will create street character. He spoke of the natural amenities of the project since it adjacent to the Green
River. He spoke of the amenities of the park and its design. He showed pictures of a previous project, Kelsey Creek.
The open space area will become the focal point of the project because homes will be oriented to the open space.
Sara Slatten, Project Manager, commented that their project abuts the Green River and described its location and adjacent
land uses. She pointed out various site features. The west portion has landscape to buffer and focal point is the
neighborhood park. Tract B is a combination park/open space and detention facility. The central park will consist of
recreation areas which were described and will be a gathering spot for families. She showed examples of recent parks
that they did in other projects. Tract D will retain its natural state and will be an informal ball field and is combined
storm facility that will be usable in the summer. They propose to do a trail and pointed out its location. She showed
pictures of Winfield in Bellevue which is another project they developed.
Hearing Examiner wanted to know the type of improvements CamWest is doing for $137,000 and Ms. Slatten submitted
a sheet de~iling the improvements. The estimate is based on the conceptual land use plan and landscape improvements,
storm facility improvements, retain natural setting and for the hard surface trail. She commented that Riverpointe meets
PAGE 1
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, develops a sense of community by having pedestrian orientation,
incorporates park recreation for residents, and enhancement of open space tracts, and chicanes. Hearing Examiner asked
about landscaping in the street and was unsure of the size of the landscaping and wanted to know if the islands will be
sprinkled. She is concerned about the landscaping being kept alive. Ms. Slatten pointed out landscape islands in the
pictures which are similar to those they are proposing. Mr. Campbell said the Homeowners Association will be in charge
of the landscaped areas and the islands will probably be sprinkled, but he will have to confmn this with the City.
David Halinen, 10500 NE 8~ Street, Suite 1900, Bellevue, is the proponent's attorney and will address conditions
regarding I Street improvements. He then presented a Memorandum in Opposition to City Staff Recommended
Conditions of Requiring Sidewalk, Illumination and Landscaping Improvements Along the west side of I Street NE. The
applicant is constructing full curb width improvements on I Street and landscaping and improvements on east side of the
property. The plat and PUD staff reports have findings that the applicant must do these additional improvements in
addition to sidewalks and illumination on opposite side of street. The applicant objects to required additional
improvements as stated in their memorandum. The PUD does not specifically deal with improvements along I Street.
Condition 2 is ambiguous and he wants language change there. In the analysis portion of the memorandum, he states the
City Code section dealing with street frontage improvements does not authorize the imposition of condition requiring
sidewalks, illumination and landscaping along the west side of I Street. The street lighting should be on the project side
of the street. The Code does not authorize the requirement of landscaping. There must be an essential nexus between the
problem caused by the development and the City proposed condition to address the problem. He does not see the
necessity of sidewalks, lights and landscaping across the street as meeting this requirement. The Code does not authorize
improvements across the street. He proposed revised language to condition 2 of the plat and condition 2 of the PuD. He
believes the changes are moderate and recommended the Hearing Examiner approve the applications with the revised
conditions.
Ike Ikered, 3028 M Drive NE, River Park Estates, lives adjacent to the project. CamWest has been cooperative with them
in explaining their intent. He sees a problem in dealing with CamWest's access to their private streets to connect to City
water. I Street corridor is used as a transit route and completion of the street will make it very difficult for River Park
Estate residents to ingress/egress their development. He thinks it is necessary for CamWest to mitigate traffic effects on
River Park.
Vern Needham, 3107 L Street NE, is concerned about what will happen to mice, rats and skunks living in the field when
the field is cleared. He wanted to know who is going to take care of this because he does not want these animals moving
into his area.
David Bean, 3408 1 Street NE, L104, wanted to know why the Association is charging dues. He is against any more
houses being built in the State of Washington. The developer should build an athletic field or hatchery on the site. The
size of the lots are too small. He agrees with Mr. Needham's comments about the mice.
Nancy Ingrain, 1221 31't Street NE, is concerned about the power lines close to the project. She has read literature about
magnetic fields from power lines. She is being irradiated by her Gateway computer. Electric magnetic fields damage the
unborn. The location is an inappropriate place for the subdivision.
City Rebuttal:
Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that City has just received the eight page Memorandum from CamWest's
attorney. He requested that the Hearing Examiner hold the record open for 10 days to allow staffand the City Attorney
to review the Memorandum and to speak with the City Engineers. He also wants to speak with the City Traffic Engineer
regarding Mr. Ikered's concerns. He is unsure how to deal with vermin leaving the site during land clearing. Regarding
Mrs. Ingram's comments, there has been literature about effects from power lines, but there has not been a conclusive
determination. The power lines will be far from the homes. Regarding Mr. Dean's comments, the PUD ordinance
requires the Homeowners Association to maintain the private open space tracts and to have an approved budget to make
sure landscaping is maintained.
PAGE 2
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002
Because the City received the eight page legal memorandum this evening, it is fair for the City to have the Opportunity to
respond. Hearing Examiner will leave the record open to March 29 for the City's response. The 10 days review begins
from March 29 with her decision by April 9, 2002. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing.
APPEAL HEARING:
Hearing Examiner announced that the burden is on the Appellant to explain why the Planning Director decision is
incorrect. The Appellant will go first, City will rebut. No public testimony is allowed.
1. CASE NO. HAP02-0001
Hearing Examiner opened the appeal hearing. An appeal was filed by Puget Sound Energy appealing the Planning
Director's decision that outdoor lighting poles on private property be considered a structure and must meet setback and
height requirements.
Mary Ausburn, Puget Sound Energy, provided background on the situation and correspondence with the City. They
found in the City examples of lighting poles that did not meet setback requirements. She has not found other cities that
administer the code the way Auburn does. The other cities do not regulate lighting requirements and setbacks are only
for buildings. Structures are not required to meet setbacks. She could not fred any cities that regulated light fixtures this
way. She presented photos of different sites in Auburn that do not meet setback requirements. PSE will own and
maintain the lights. It is not appropriate to regulate light standards. She believes the code refers to building setbacks.
The lights are not functional if setback 30 feet. It is prudent for them to relocate the poles and poles will be shielded so
no glare will be on adjacent property. The City is not administering the Code in the same manner as it is attempting to
administer the code in this case.
Sheri Clarke, PSE account manager, said the lights will be the same as those already there which is directional flood
lighting. All light is directed into the yard for safety and so that company can operate after 5 p.m. The lighting seen in
town was often not directional.
Bill Seth, Huttig Building Products, said they have a fenced yard and all lights are inside the yard. Outside the fence are
tall evergreens and will be the same size as poles to shield any directional light from streets. No glare is directed to
adjacent properties. Some of the products they have now are 60 feet long and this poses problems with maneuvering
around the site. The light poles are in the way and need to be moved back onto property inside the fence.
City Rebuttal:
Assistant Planning Director Rued commented that the Zoning Code is not all inclusive. This is a City-wide appeal and not
isolated to one property. If light poles are not treated as structures, how should they be treated related to size, height and
location. If light poles are not considered a structure, a person could install light pole of any size or height in a front yard
of any zone. The City considers light poles to be structures and they need to meet setback requirements.
Hearing Examiner wondered if any applications or site plans were submitted for this. Assistant Planning Director Rued
said no site plan approval through land use planning for this and it is SEPA exempt. He is unsure how the matter came to
the Public Works Department. Hearing Examiner wanted to see something on paper to better understand the situation.
She received a site plan from Ms. Ausburn showing yellow as proposed lighting and green as proposed to be removed. A
copy was not provided for staff.
Hearing Examiner closed the hearing and will issue the written decision within 10 days or March 26.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
HEkAGND~I1N03.2002
PAGE 3