HomeMy WebLinkAbout2774 ORIGINAL
! RESOLUTION NO. 2 7 7 4
2
H A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AN ll4-LOT
4 SINGLE-FAMILY/DUPLEX SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF ~W" STREET NW
AND WEST OF THE TERMINUS OF 15TH STREET NW, WITHIN THE CITY OF
5
AUBURN, WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT0002-94, dated March 28,
7
1996, has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by
8
9 ST CORPORATION, requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for
10 an l14-1ot single-family/duplex subdivision located east of
11
~W" Street NW and west of the terminus of 15th Street NW,
12
within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, said request above referred to was referred to
14
15 the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
16 WHEREAS, pursuant to staff review, the Hearing Examiner
]7
conducted a public hearing to consider said petition in the
18
Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall on August 20, 1996 at
19
20 7:00 p.m., at the conclusion of which the Hearing Examiner
~! recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat; and
22 WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the City Council on
September 3, 1996 the City Council scheduled a closed record
24
hearing to be held on September 16, 1996; and
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 1
! WHEREAS, the City Council conducted said closed record
hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of
the Auburn City Hall on September 16, 1996 at 7:30 p.m., at
4
the conclusion of which the City Council recommended approval
5
6 of the Preliminary Plat based upon the following Findings of
7 Fact and Conclusions, to-wit:
8
9
]0 FINDINGS OF FACT
]]
1. The applicant, ST Corporation, has requested approval of a
preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and surface
13 mining permit that would allow for the development of a
single family/duplex subdivision consisting of 114 lots.
]4 73 of the lots would be for single family homes and the
other 41 lots would be for duplexes. The subject property
15
is located easterly of "W" Street NW and westerly of the
16 terminus of 15th Street NW. Surrounding zoning and land
uses in the vicinity include P-l, watershed, to the north;
17 R2/RS, single family, to the south; C3/M1/R2,
vacant/industrial/residential, to the east; and R2, single
]8
family, to the west. The subject site is designated for
19 single family uses in the Comprehensive Plan.
20 2. The proposal is located within an area that was the site
of a previous operating surface mine. Mining activity had
occurred at the site for over 20 years. The mining
22 operation itself was substantially complete in 1990. The
mining site is now in the process of being reclaimed and
23 developed into a residential neighborhood. There have
been two single family subdivisions that have been
completed on the western portion of the mining site.
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 2
!
2 3. There is a substantial amount of history associated with
the property. It has been subject to a number of
approvals and renewals of mining permits. It has also
been subject to a number of approvals regarding subsequent
4 land uses of the mining site. In 1981, the City approved a
5 conditional use permit that allowed for the construction
of 433 multi-family units on the site. The multi-family
units would have been constructed subsequent to the mining
being completed.
7
8 Since the mining had not been completed as anticipated,
the City, in 1986, renewed the mining permit and approved
9 another conditional use permit that allowed for 308
multifamily units. In 1988, a revised conditional use
10 permit that allowed for 302 multifamily units was also
11 approved by the City.
12 4. The 1988 conditional use permit was conditioned such that
it expired 18 months after the completion of mining of the
site. The mining permit expired in 1990. The 18 month
14 period then expired and the City took the position that
conditional use permit had become void in that the
15 requirements of the conditional use permit were not
fulfilled.
5. In 1993, the applicant appealed, to the Hearing Examiner,
the City Planning Director's decision that the conditional
]8 use permit was null and void as well as contested the
Director's decision to require another mining permit to
19
accommodate the excavation of material needed for the
20 latest multi-family project.
2] 6. The Hearing Examiner upheld the Planning Director's
decisions. The Examiner's decision was then appealed to
22
the City Council. The City Council upheld the Examiner's
decision. The case files associated with the appeals are
MIS0004-93 and MIS0009-93.
24
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 3
! 7. In 1993, the applicant filed a "PETITION FOR WRIT OF
2 REVIEW AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES"
in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, where
it has since been pending.
4 8. Since the filing of the writ, the City and the applicant
5 have been working on a resolution that would avoid the
case going to trial. This was recently accomplished by the
6 execution of a settlement agreement.
7 9. The settlement agreement contains provisions that the City
8 would support a project, not related to the legal action,
that consists of a preliminary plat of 114 lots. 73 of
9 the lots would be for single family homes and the other 41
lots would be for duplexes for a total development of 155
10 units. The new project is about one half the size of the
11 previously approved project that is subject to the legal
action. The City would also allow for some modifications
to the platting standards as well as expedite the review
and approval of the project. The modifications are
discussed further in the staff report.
10.The preliminary plat as proposed consists of 114 lots. 73
15 of the lots would be for single family homes and the other
41 lots would be for duplexes for a total development of
16 155 units. Lots 31, 34-69, 71 and 72, 115 and 116 are the
duplex lots and the remainder are the single family lots.
Lots 32 and 33 have been eliminated and are now the park
18 property. The duplex lots must have a lot size of at
least 12,000 square feet and the single family must have a
19 lot size of at least 6,000 square feet.
2O
ll. The property is zoned R-2, single family, and pursuant to
21 Section 18.14.030(C), of the Zoning Ordinance, duplexes
may be allowed in the R-2 zone subject to the issuance of
22
a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit
23 application is being processed concurrently with the plat
and surface mine applications.
24
25
Resolution NO. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 4
! 12.The plat will be provided access by a major arterial that
will connect the valley floor with the west hill of
2
Auburn. The arterial has been planned and approved for
3 this project since 1981. It is also illustrated on the
City's Arterial Street Plan. The arterial will provide
4 for a much needed east/west connection to the west hill
5 area and to Federal Way. The previous mining permits,
that were approved, required the excavation necessary to
6' create the arterial. The actual excavation for the
arterial has occurred and is near final grade. What is
7 left to be completed is the necessary paving, sidewalks,
8 utilities, etc.
9 13.The City and the applicant have, as part of the settlement
agreement, agreed as to what the applicant's
10
responsibility will be with regard to the construction of
l] the arterial. The applicant will dedicate a 60 foot wide
right of way. The applicant will construct the arterial
!2 and provide a 36 foot pavement width, a shoulder or
pedestrian walkway, a closed storm drainage system, and 16
13 street lights. These improvements are adequate for the
14 proposed development and initial use of the arterial The
exact standards are contained within the settlement
15 agreement. The agreement to have the applicant construct
the arterial was a major factor in the City's willingness
16 to consider modifications to some of the development
!? standards.
]8 14.A traffic study, that was done in 1988 for the 302 unit
multi-family project, indicated that project would
]9
generate 1,840 daily vehicle trips and that approximately
20 6,775 daily vehicle trips would result when the arterial
is open to through traffic. A 1994 traffic study for the
21 existing proposal of 155 units indicate that project would
generate 1,208 daily vehicle trips. The study did not
22 update the projection on how much through traffic would
23 use the arterial when open. Off site improvements,
required by previous approvals, have been accomplished.
24 These included improvements to South 316th Street and the
requirement of a signalized intersection at West Valley
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 5
! Highway and 15th Street NW. Since the current proposal is
2 less than previous approvals, no additional off site
traffic improvements are required.
$
15.The lots will be provided access by two residential
4 streets that will intersect with the arterial. The
5 residential streets will be built to a modified City
standard as part of the settlement agreement. The
6 difference is that the applicant will provide a 28 foot
wide pavement section in lieu of a required 34 foot wide
7 pavement section. A 50 foot wide right of way will still
8 be dedicated which is a standard width of a City
residential street.
9
16.As part of the settlement agreement, the applicant will
10 dedicate 1.89 acres of park land. The requirements of the
1! City's Park Plan would require about 2.8 acres. The 1.89
acres will be located next to a watershed that is owned by
12 the City which, if desired, a portion of that could be
used as park.
14 17.As part of the settlement agreement the City will allow
two lots (115 and 116) to be accessed by a private drive.
!5 The Land Division Ordinance normally requires all lots to
have frontage on a public street. These two lots are also
16 in an area that was part of a vegetation mitigation area
!7 for the previous mining use. Some of the trees that were
planted as part of the mitigation requirements will be
18 removed for the construction of the two lots. The
settlement agreement also provides for some replacement of
19 those trees. The grade of the private drive is somewhat
20 steep; it will be between 12 and 15%. Special
considerations, i.e., fire sprinkler systems and fire
21 lanes, may be required to assure adequate emergency
service to these two lots.
22
23 18.Other modifications, not part of the settlement agreement,
are also being proposed. These have to do with the
24 construction of the two interior residential streets, 62nd
and 63rd. The modifications will allow for a less than
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 6
! standard curvature, distance between intersections, and
2 pedestrian accesses. The primary reason these
modifications are needed is that the excavation, that was
3 done as part of the previous mining activity, created
building areas that were planned and appropriate for
4 multi-family development. The multi-family development
5 would have been served by private driveways which are
subject to a lesser standard than a subdivision.
6 Subdivisions typically require dedicated public streets
with 50 foot wide rights of way. The building areas that
7
were left are too narrow to fully accommodate a standard
8 subdivision.
9 19.Pursuant to Chapter 17.18 of the Land Division Ordinance,
modifications to the standards of the Land Division
Ordinance may be approved. The modifications must be due
]] to special circumstances of the property, a reasonable use
of the property would not otherwise occur, the
]2 modification would not be a detriment to the neighborhood
or be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning
Ordinance.
14
The existing grading on the site has been established
15 based upon prior approved grading plans that date back tO
1980. These grading plans were approved prior to the
existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Land
17 Division Ordinance. The prior grading plans were also
approved based upon a multi-family development and not a
18 platted single family/duplex development which requires
different standards. Even if the settlement agreement
19
were not in the picture, modifications would be necessary
20 for the current proposal. Therefor, the modifications are
appropriate in that there are special circumstances
2] associated with the development, the project is less than
half the size of the original approval, and reducing the
22
size of the project further would not be reasonable given
23 the amount of public improvements that are required, the
single family homes and duplexes would not be a detriment
24 to the neighborhood, and there is no evidence that the
Comprehensive Plan would be affected. Additional
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 7
! description and justifications for the modifications are
found within a document entitled "Request for
2
Modifications of Subdivision Standards for the Plat of
3 West Beverly Hill Number 4, Auburn, Washington", prepared
by Guy Spencer and dated July 26, 1996.
4
5 20. According to a geotechnical report prepared by Golder and
Associates, Inc., in April 1992, the 55.58-acre site can
6 generally be characterized topographically into upper and
lower areas separated by relatively flat benches. The
7
upper west portion of the site slopes to the east at about
8 2H:iV (horizontal to vertical), with some areas as steep
as iH to iV slope. This slope flattens about 130 feet to
9 the east to about 5H to 6H:IV slope. These gradual slopes
continue to the east until they become steeper (1.5H:iV)
]0 towards the eastern property boundary.
]!
The geotechnical report, and the March 25, 1994
12 supplement, evaluate and provide preliminary
recommendations about soil suitability for foundations,
]3 grading, slope stability, and storm drainage
14 considerations. The geotechnical study concluded that the
site's soils are suitable for the proposed development if
15 all of the study's recommendations regarding slope
stability, foundation placement, slab on-grade, structural
16 fill and drainage are implemented.
Isolated deposits of fill material were also encountered
18 during field explorations in several areas of the site.
The fill generally consisted of loose sands mixed with
19 wood and concrete debris. It was recognized that yet
20 undiscovered areas of fill material may also exist. The
report identifies that the site's loose fill is not
21 suitable for support of buildings, and removal of the fill
and replacement with structural fill is required to
22
support shallow conventional spread footings.
The report recommends that all permanent fill slopes be
24 properly compacted and left at inclinations of 2H:iV or
flatter. All slopes of native soils may be left at iH:iV
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 8
!
or flatter. Some steeper slopes are suitable; however,
2 shallow sloughing, increased erosion and vegetative
maintenance are likely. Drainage benches should be
3 provided for every 50 feet of elevation gain.
4 The geotechnical report also recommends the buildings be
5 setback from iV:iH slopes; 15 feet in the case of slopes
up to 30 feet in height and setback 30. feet for slopes
6 between 30 and 60 feet in height. Other setback
recommendations are also identified based upon slope
7 angle. It is also recommended that the discharge of
8 surface water over slopes be managed on a temporary and
permanent basis to prevent erosion and slope damage.
9
Additional geotechnical investigation is also recommended
10 for the construction of the project's stormwater detention
]1 facility by the report: ~'Conceptual Drainage Report West
Beverly Hills No. 4" prepared by Dodds Engineers, Inc.,
12 May 1996. Due to the location of the detention facility
on top of a 60-foot high slope, additional investigation
13 is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the proposed
14 storm drainage facility and the site's soil conditions.
15 Given the site's soil characteristics, steep slopes and
the proposal's intent to undertake substantial site
16 regrading, there remains a potential for erosion and
17 sedimentation impacts. Appropriate measures shall be
taken to ensure that proposed filling, grading and
]8 construction operations do not result in erosion and
sedimentation impacts on the site's neighbors or the
19
area's surface water conveyance system. An erosion and
20 sedimentation control plan will be prepared and required
to meet City standards prior to approval.
21
21. Surface water from the majority of the proposed plat's
22
roads, driveways, rooftops, and residential yards will be
23 collected via catch basins and routed through an
underground pipe and directed to a enhanced detention pond
24 or underground detention vault east of the project site.
The detention pond presently exists off-site within the
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 9
!
commercially-zoned plat of West Beverly Hills Division 3.
2 Under the proposal, this pond would be enlarged or an
appropriately-sized underground detention vault would be
$ provided to accommodate the increased volume of runoff.
4 Due to the proposed detention facilities location on a
slope, additional geotechnical evaluation will be
5 required. This detention facility would outlet to an 18-
inch pipe within 15th Street NW and the storm water is
conveyed 1,300 feet to the east where it outlets to an
7 open channel on the east side of West Valley Highway. The
open channel continues east approximately 700 feet at
which point is discharges into Mill Creek.
9 Stormwater runoff from a small portion of the site, near
the southeast corner would be directed to the site's other
10
off-site discharge. Stormwater from this portion of the
1! site will flow to an 18-inch storm drainage line which
continues off-site and continues through the adjacent plat
]2 of Vistara (formerly, Sunning Hills). This conveyance
directs flow through improved rights-of-way easterly to
ultimately discharge to Mill Creek.
14
22. The project will be required to extend 8-inch public
15 water lines on-site to meet the fire flow demands of the
proposed development. The water lines must be looped to
increase reliability of flow and water quality.
17
The project will be provided water from the Lakehaven
18 Water and Sewer District. The project proponent has
19 provided the City with a certificate of water availability
from the Federal Way Water and Sewer District
20 (subsequently changed to Lakehaven Water and Sewer).
According to an existing agreement between the City and
the utility district, the site is divided between
previously agreed upon service areas. However, it is
preferential from a construction and operation perspective
to not have the project's water lines divided between
jurisdictions.
24
25
Resolution NO. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 10
! 23. The proposed plat will connect into an existing sewer
2 system that has adequate capacity to serve the project.
24. Previous approvals, of both mining and conditional use
permits (Ordinances Nos. 4113 and 4309), required the
4 retention of some vegetation areas. These are areas that
5 were either too steep to excavate or were required to
buffer adjacent uses as well as to mitigate for the loss
of vegetation that had covered the entire mining site.
Any future approvals should be consistent with the
7 previous commitments.
8
25. Lot 31 is illustrated on the preliminary plat drawings to
9 be accessed by a separate tract. This needs to be revised
so that a panhandle lot is created which meets ordinance
]0 requirements.
26. The case files, associated with the appeals of previous
]2 projects, MIS0004-93 and MIS0009-93, and the case file and
environmental file of the subject application (PLT0002-94
13 and SEP0008-94R), are hereby incorporated by reference and
]4 made part of the record of this hearing.
15 27. Comprehensive Plan related goals, policies and
objectives:
]7 GOAL 7. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
To emphasize housing development at single family densities,
]8 in order to reestablish a mix of housing types appropriate for
a family oriented community, while recognizing the need and
]9 desire for both rural density and moderate density housing
20 appropriately located to meet the housing needs of all members
of the community.
2]
22 Objective 7.1. To establish a system of residential densities
which accommodates a range of housing choices appropriate for
the city.
24
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 11
1
LU-16 In applying the land use designations of the
2 Comprehensive Plan, first consideration shall be given to
designating an area for single family residential use.
LU-18 Residential development should be related to
4
topography, circulation, and other amenities, as guided
5 by policies of this Plan.
6 LU-21 The development of residential areas should
recognize the importance of community and public
7
facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and
8 community.
9 LU-23 Emphasis shall be placed upon the manner in which
the recreational needs of the residents shall be met in
10
the approval of any residential development.
11
LU-25 Areas abutting major arterials should be carefully
12 planned to avoid potential conflict between the
development of the arterial and single family uses.
Single family uses in such areas should be platted in a
14 manner which orients the units away from the arterial,
however, non-motorized access between the residential
15 area and the arterial should be provided. Where such
orientation is not possible, a transition area should be
zoned for moderate density uses. In areas with existing
17 single family developments, substantial flexibility can
be permitted for street front buffering.
18
LU-26 Development design should utilize and preserve
natural features, including, but not limited to,
20 topography and stands of trees, to separate incompatible
land uses and densities.
21
LU-27 Development design should use open spaces, including
22
parks, to separate incompatible uses.
23
LU-28 Development codes shall be modified to allow the
24 City to require that landscaped buffers, natural area
25 preservation or other measures are utilized to separate
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 12
! new residential developments from incompatible uses and
2 major streets. These buffers should permit access
between the residential area and the major street by
3 pedestrians and bicyclists.
4 LU-34 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged
5 as a buffer between single family areas and more intense
uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials where
6 existing platting prevents effective lot layout for
single family units. Also, such buffering is
7 appropriate between single family areas and commercial
and industrial uses. Where there are established single
8
family areas, the design and siting of moderate density
9 units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts
and to ensure buffering of uses. Higher density units
10 are not to be considered such a buffer.
1!
GOAL 16 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
!2 Auburn will plan, expand, and improve its transportation
system in cooperation and coordination with adjacent and
!3 regional jurisdictions to ensure concurrency compliance with
the Growth Management Act, and to provide a safe and efficient
!4
multimodal system that meets the community needs and
!5 facilitates the land use plan.
!6 TR-13An efficient collector system seeks to spread the
opportunity for movement over alternative routes rather
17
than directing traffic to a few collectors. Also, ample
!8 alternatives should exist for emergency vehicles to
access areas (in case of a blockage on a street) and to
19 facilitate movement of police patrols. All developed
areas shall be served by at least two accesses.
20
A. Access in new development:
1. Cul-de-sacs (or other streets, public or private,
22 that provide only one outlet to the collector system)
shall not be more than 600 feet long, unless the added
23
length is caused by environmental constraints or
24 parcelization issues. Examples of environmental
constraints or development patterns may include, but
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 13
!
not be limited to, a narrow peninsula of land or a
site surrounded by existing development with no
alternative access. Non-motorized paths shall be
provided (when the City determines it to be
4 necessary), at the end of the cul-de-sac to shorten
walking distances to an adjacent arterial or public
5 facilities including, but not limited to, schools or
parkst
2. Residential developments with fewer than 75 units
7 and under a common management (apartment complexes and
8 mobile home courts) may limit ~eneral access to one
route, provided that additional access routes are made
9 available for emergency vehicles.
B. Access to existing areas:
]!
1. Existing dead end streets should be linked to
12 other streets whenever the opportunity arises, unless
it can be demonstrated that such connections would
13 lead to a substantial reroutin~ of through traffic
14 onto the street. Such dead-end streets shall not be
allowed to serve substantial new development unless
15 linked to other streets. Where such linkage would
substantially reroute through traffic onto the street,
16 the new development may be denied.
17
Objective 16.4. To accommodate through-traffic in the City
18 as efficiently as possible, with a minimum of disruption to
the local community.
20 PR-2 New developments shall contribute to the development of
new parks at a level commensurate with their share of new
2! facility needs as established by the Park and Recreation
Plan. If the City determines that the development does
22 not contain an acceptable park site, the City shall
require the payment of cash in lieu of land. The funds
shall be used to acquire land and/or develop recreational
24 facilities at a location deemed appropriate by the City.
Criteria for site acceptability and appropriateness shall
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 14
! be environmental limitations, accessibility, maintenance
2 costs, consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and
the ability to meet more of the Community's recreational
3 needs by the coordinated development of parks located
elsewhere.
4
5 PR-4 The City shall evaluate the impacts of new development on
parks and recreational resources through the SEPA
6 environmental review process, and shall take appropriate
steps to mitigate significant adverse impacts.
7
8 PR-7 The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas
having a unique combination of open space values,
9 including: separation or buffering between incompatible
land uses; visual delineation of the City or a distinct
]0
area or neighborhood of the City; unusually productive
11 wildlife habitat; wetlands; floodwater or stormwater
storage; stormwater purification; recreational value;
12 historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and
educational value.
13
14 PR-8 The City shall seek to retain as open space areas where
the soils have been identified as having severe or very
15 severe erosion potential, landslide hazard or seismic
hazard.
17 28. At the time of the Hearing Examiner's public hearing, the
City and the applicant expressed some disagreement over
]8 proposed conditions to the staff report relating to
conditions 3B, 3D and condition 18 concerning the removal
]9 of trees. The Hearing Examiner heard the testimony of
20 both sides and the argument of the applicant's attorney.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22
23
1. The preliminary plat should be approved, if properly
24 conditioned, in that it is consistent with the applicable
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 15
! criteria to approve a preliminary plat as set forth
2 Section 17.06.070 of the Land Division Ordinance.
3 2. Adequate provisions are made for the public health,
safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage
4
ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies,
5 sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and sites for schools
and school grounds.
Even with the settlement agreement, which allows for
7 reduced standards, the proposed plat does not jeopardize
8 the public health, safety and general welfare of the
public. Adequate streets, utilities, parks and open space
9 are being provided for. Since the project density is less
than half the size of the original it will have a lesser
]0 affect upon the schools than what they have been
11 anticipating since 1981.
12 3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general
purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
14 The proposal is consistent with the purposes and intent
of the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive
15 Plan as are enumerated in finding of fact #27.
16 4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general
17 purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which
have been adopted by the City Council.
The proposal is consistent with all applicable plans and
19 policies of the City. The plat provides for all public
20 health, life and safety requirements.
21 5. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general
purposes of the Land Division Ordinance as enumerated in
22
Section 17.02.030.
The plat is consistent with the purposes of the Land
24 Division Ordinance in that the plat promotes convenient
travel on public streets, promotes the effective use of
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 16
] land, provides for proper utilities and parks, provides
2 proper ingress and egress, provides adequate housing and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn
4 Zoning Ordinance and any other applicable planning or
5 engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the
City.
The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
7 with the City's Engineering standards with regard to
8 streets and utilities.
9 7. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed
subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat
10 will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the
11 quality of the environment.
12 Over the years this site has received a significant amount
of environmental review including the preparation of
13 previous Environmental Impact Statements. Each proposal,
14 subsequent to the issuance of the original EIS, has also
gone through additional environmental review and analysis.
15 Any adverse impacts have been addressed and appropriately
mitigated as part of the plat approval.
17 8. It is concluded that the language proposed by the
applicant for conditions 3B and 3D is acceptable.
18 However, the language proposed by the City for condition
18 will give the City a review process over the issue of
19
tree removal.
20
21 For each of the above stated reasons, the recommendation
22
of the Hearing Examiner to the Auburn City Council on the
23
application is conditional approval, subject to the following
24
for a Preliminary Plat.
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 17
! NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH
RESOLVES THAT:
4
5 ~ The above cited Hearing Examiner's Findings
6 and Conclusions are herewith approved and incorporated in this
7 Resolution.
8
~ The Preliminary Plat of an l14-1ot single-
9
family/duplex subdivision located east of ~'W" Street NW and
]0
11 west of the terminus of 15th Street NW, and legally described
12 on attached Exhibit "A" is hereby approved subject to the
13 following conditions:
14
15 1. The modifications to the Land Division Ordinance standards
are approved. The modifications include items 1-7 that are
16 contained within the document entitled "Request for
17 Modifications of Subdivision Standards for the Plat of West
Beverly Hill Number 4, Auburn, Washington", prepared by Guy
18 Spencer and dated July 26, 1996.
2. A. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Auburn the
20 arterial street, identified as Terrace Drive, as
illustrated on the preliminary plat drawings, sheet 1 of
2] 12, dated January 1995 as prepared by Dodds Engineering,
Inc. and entitled "West Beverly Hill No. 4, Preliminary
Plat"
23
B. The arterial street shall be dedicated from the
24 existing terminus of Terrace Drive, at the west property
boundary, to the existing terminus of 15th Street NW at the
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 18
!
east property boundary of subject plat. The width of the
2 right of way to be dedicated shall be 60 feet except at the
northeast corner of the subject property where the width is
3 reduced as illustrated on the aforementioned preliminary
plat. The City shall dedicate the balance needed for the
4
60 foot right of way.
5
C. The applicant shall construct Terrace Drive. The
6 pavement width of the arterial shall be 36 feet. The
arterial shall be constructed with 3 inches of asphalt
7
concrete over a 4 inch base course, with an 8 inch subbase
8 where needed and determined by the City Engineer. There
shall be City standard concrete curb and gutter, on one
9 side of the arterial. On the other side shall be a gravel
shoulder/pedestrian facility. An underground storm
10 drainage conveyance system shall also be provided. The
11 details of this construction is also illustrated as Exhibit
1 and iA of the settlement agreement.
12
D. At the intersections with each of the two residential
13
streets, 62nd and 63rd, there shall be provided turn out
14 access. The design and construction of each of these
intersections, including sight distance issues, shall be
15 approved by the City Engineer.
16 E. The appiicant shall provide traffic buttons and/or
17 stripe, i.e., paint, and sign the arterial as determined by
the City Engineer.
18
F. A total of 16 standard City street lights shall be
19 provided. The lights will be provided along the arterial
20 from a point east of the northeast corner of lot 58 uphill
to the existing terminus of Terrace Drive. The exact
21 location of the lights shall be determined by the City
Engineer.
22
23 3. A. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the two
residential streets, 62nd and 63rd, as illustrated on the
24 aforementioned preliminary plat drawing. The width of the
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 19
] right of way shall be 50 feet. The width of the pavement
2 to be provided is 28 feet.
3 B. The parking shall be allowed only on one side of the
street as determined by the City Engineer. The street side
4 yielding the greatest number of legal parking spaces shall
5 be designated unless, in the opinion of the City Engineer,
safety or traffic flow considerations dictate otherwise.
6 The applicant shall be responsible for erecting "no
parking" signs as instructed by the City Engineer.
?
8 C. The number of parking spaces, as required by Chapter
18.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be supplemented by
9 providing additional paved parking on each lot such that a
minimum of four parking spaces will be provided for each
10 dwelling unit on each lot. The additional paved parking
11 spaces may occur within the front yard setback.
12 D. The preliminary plat drawings illustrate a cross
section for 62nd and 63rd streets that indicate a 5.5 foot
]3 wide planter area between the curb and sidewalk. If
]4 feasible, the planter area shall be moved to the property
side of the sidewalk and be planted with deciduous trees, 1
15 and 1/2 inches in caliper, and spaced an average of 30 feet
apart. The other side of the street shall have the planter
area adjacent to the curb and planted as previously
]7 described. The Planning Director shall approve of the type
of deciduous trees. The trees shall be planted prior to
]8 final plat approval or a bond, or similar financial
security, posted, on a lot by lot basis, at the time of
19 applying for a building permit. The amount of the bond is
20 only for the trees adjacent to each lot and the trees must
be planted prior to occupancy of a dwelling unit on the
21 lot. The applicant shall, however, post one maintenance
bond for all the site's trees in accordance with Section
22
18.50.060(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. The bond shall be
23 posted prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit.
24 The Planning Director shall approve of the type of
deciduous trees. The trees shall be planted prior to final
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 20
] plat approval or a bond posted to allow construction of the
2 homes prior to planting of the trees.
3 4. The recommendations of the geotechnical report
"Geotechnical Engineering Study Nakiska Apartments"
4 prepared by Golder Associates, Inc., April 24, 1992 and as
5 supplemented on March 1994 and/or other subsequent site
specific soils or geotechnical reports shall be
6 incorporated into mining, grading and other appropriate
construction plans, as determined by the Public Works
7 Director. Specific recommendations of the report include:
8 observance of minimum 15-foot building setbacks from slopes
greater than 2H:iV (Horizontal to vertical) and 30 feet
9 from slopes steeper than 1.5H:iV., and the preparation of
individual lot specific geotechnical evaluations to
10 determine building setbacks, site preparation, and building
11 foundation support alternatives.
12 5. A. The March 25, 1994 supplement to the geotechnical
report prepared by Golder Associates, acknowledged that
13 slopes above Terrace Drive will experience surface
14 sloughing failures in the future. Therefor, as part of the
design submittal, for the construction plans of the Terrace
15 Drive Arterial, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical
evaluation of all soils on both shoulders of the arterial
16 where final slopes will exceed 1:1. The following shall be
17 provided:
18 1. A soils report indicating variations in existing soil
material and the presence of ground water including
19 springs that may influence slope drainage and stability.
20 2. Specific guidance on unsuitable materials that require
removal prior to placement of any fill slopes, the types
21 of select fill and compaction specifications to assure
stability and the management of subsurface flows.
22
3. Detailed construction sequencing plan that protects
23 slopes from erosion during and after construction, with
sufficient measures to allow maturation of the
24 vegetation.
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 21
! 4. These plans and specifications shall be stamped by a
2 geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of
Washington.
$
B. Prior to construction of the arterial street, Terrace
4 Drive, the applicant shall engage the services of the
5 geotechnical engineer that provided the supporting
geotechnical information for the arterial street
6 construction plans. This geotechnical engineer shall be
responsible to perform the quality control construction
7 inspection and management. At the conclusion of
8 construction, of the arterial, the geotechnical engineer
shall stamp the record construction plans, prior to
9 dedication of the arterial to the City. Prior to beginning
construction of the arterial, the City Engineer shall
10 receive confirmation, from the applicant, that the
11 geotechnical engineer is under contract and the scope of
work is reflective of this condition.
12
C. Prior to dedication of the public streets, including
13 the arterial and 62nd and 63rd, the applicant will provide,
14 to the City, a maintenance bond for a period to extend
through two years including at least two consecutive
15 winter/spring seasons. The amount of the bond and the
determination of justification of a possible early release
16 will be made by the City Engineer. The purpose of the bond
17 is to assure that any finished slopes, 2H to IV or steeper,
will remain stable and not impact the public streets.
]8
D. Prior to issuance of the plat grading permit, the
19 applicant shall establish an open space protection and
20 restoration bond, naming the City, in the amount to be
determined by the City Engineer. The purpose of the bond
2! is to assure that any erosion disturbances or impacts that
may result from the open space tract, that abuts lots 34-61
22 shown on sheet 1 of 12, the Preliminary Site Plan, prepared
23 by Dodds Engineering Inc. dated January 1, 1995, will be
remedied. This bond will be maintained for a period of two
24 years after final plat approval. The bonding period will
include at least two consecutive growing seasons and two
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 22
1 consecutive winter/spring seasons. It is understood that
2 during construction of the plat and associated
infrastructure, it is the proponent's duty to prevent down-
$ slope impacts to public or private properties. The City
Engineer may execute the bond at any time if the proponent
4
or their representatives fail to maintain the area free of
5 impacts.
6 6. As recommended by the report: "Conceptual Drainage Report
West Beverly Hill No. 4" prepared by Dodds Engineers, Inc.,
7 dated May 1996, additional geotechnical and structural
8 evaluation is required for the construction of the
project's storm water detention system. As the detention
9 is proposed to be located at the top of a sixty foot high
steep slope, the additional geotechnical analysis shall
10 evaluate the saturated soil strength of the slope and the
11 stability in relation to the design and construction of the
storm system to ensure proper functioning and safety. The
12 analysis shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of any construction
13 permits.
14
7. The proposed development cuts into a hillside intercepting
15 existing surface and subsurface drainage patterns.
Measures to address these flows shall be incorporated into
16 the site storm drainage system design and shown on approved
17 construction plans as directed by the City Engineer.
18 8. Prior to issuance of any permits which allow excavation
activities, a temporary grading, drainage, erosion and
19 sedimentation control plan is required to be approved by
20 the City Engineer. This plan shall show quantities and
locations of excavations, and embankments, the design of
21 storm drainage retention/detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from
22 impacting adjacent properties, natural and public storm
23 drainage systems. The measures shall be implemented prior
to beginning on-site filling, grading or construction
24 activities. In addition, the plan shall include a
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 23
! construction sequence element which clearly identifies the
2 timing and methodology required to:
3 · Contain areas of active earthwork to prevent uncontrolled
4 discharge of storm water,
· Minimize the extent and time soils are exposed on-site;
5 and,
· Address seasonal variations in weather conditions (the
6 period of greatest concern is October 1 through April 1).
7
All temporary storm drainage facilities shall be designed
8 to accommodate the 24-hour, 25-year post-developed storm
event. Temporary detention systems shall be limited to a
9 5-year pre-developed release rate as previously determined
10 to be 2.51 cubic feet per second (CFS).
]! 9. The project's increased runoff volume will be required to
be managed through provision of an on-site detention system
12 with a controlled release off-site to the City storm
13 drainage system. The detention system should be designed
using a hydrograph method of calculation for this project.
14 The detention shall be designed to reduce peak 25-year
post-development flow rates to the 5-year pre-development
rate as previously determined to be 2.51 cubic feet per
16 second (CFS). Tightline overflow for the 100-year post-
developed flow shall be provided to the 15th Street NW
17 storm system. The detention shall be defined as the active
storage available a minimum of one foot (1'). above the
18 seasonal high groundwater line except that if seasonal high
19 groundwater levels are controlled by perimeter drains, the
detention shall be defined as the active storage available
20 above the elevation at which seasonal high groundwater is
controlled. In such case, the discharge from the detention
facility shall be defined as the discharge from the
22 perimeter drains plus the discharge from the detention pond
to the 5-year predevelopment rate as previously determined
23 to be 2.51 cubic feet per second (CFS). No individual
residential drywells are allowed. The detention facility
24
shall be located as proposed in the "Preliminary Site Plan
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 24
1 West Beverly Hill No. 4, Sheet 1 of 12", prepared by Dodds
2 Engineering, Inc., and dated January 1995.
3 Water quantity control of storm water from the improved
streets shall be incorporated into the drainage systems as
4 proposed within the drainage report entitled Conceptual
5 Drainage Report West Beverly Hill No. 4, prepared by Dodds
Engineering, dated May 1996.
The conveyance system shall be designed per the
7 methodologies described in the Conceptual Drainage Report
8 West Beverly Hill No. 4, prepared by Dodds Engineering,
dated May, 1996. All conveyance shall be designed for the
9 100-year post-developed flow, with appropriate energy
dissipation.
10
11 10. Coinciding with submittal of plans for the project's
temporary erosion control facilities, the applicant shall
12 submit documentation outlining proposed pollution
prevention and stormwater treatment Best Management
13 Practices (BMP's) to the City Public Works Department for
14 review and approval. Temporary erosion design and
construction shall be in accordance with criteria outlined
15 in the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (1992).
17 11. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high
standards of design to enhance the appearance of the site
]8 and surrounding area. Wherever possible, public stormwater
facilities should be designed to preclude the need for
19 security fencing.
20
12. If the project's storm drainage facilities will remain in
21 private ownership, at the time plans are submitted for the
project's permanent storm drainage facilities, an operation
22
and maintenance schedule for all storm water facilities and
23 the implementation of BMPs, including the responsible
party, shall be provided. Approval of the schedule is
24 required prior to issuance of building permits. Pollution
prevention BMPs shall be in accordance with criteria
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 25
! outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology
2 Storm water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin
(1992) .
13. The Contractor shall be required to water the site, as
4
necessary, to reduce the dust emissions as a result of
5 construction activity. The Contractor shall also sweep all
affected public roads as necessary, to remove mud/dirt
6 deposited as a result of project construction activity.
These actions will be governed and directed by the Building
7 Official.
8
14. The project will be required to extend 8-inch public
9 water lines on-site to meet the fire flow demands of the
proposed development. The water lines must be looped to
10 increase reliability of flow and water quality. Where dead
11 end lines cannot be avoided, a hydrant or blow off must be
provided at the end of the line.
12
15. A. Lots 115 and 116 shall be allowed to be accessed by a
13 private drive. The private drive shall be paved to a width
14 of 20 feet. There shall be provided a minimum 2 inches of
asphalt concrete over a base as determined by the City
15 Engineer. A joint use easement shall be recorded on face
of the Final Plat. The interface of the private drive with
]6 the arterial street shall be approved by the City Engineer
17 and shall address any sight distance issues.
18 B. A paved 65 foot diameter turn around shall also be
provided at end of the private drive. The exact location to
19 be determined by the City Fire Marshal.
20
C. The applicant shall provide, as required by the City
2] Fire Marshal, pavement marking and posting of signs that
indicate the private drive and turn around to be a Fire
22
Lane. The number of signs, wording and location of signs
23 and pavement marking to be approved by the City Fire
Marshal.
24
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 26
! D. The private drive shall be no steeper than a 12%
2 grade. The grade may be up to 15% if each dwelling unit is
equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system approved
3 by the City Fire Marshal.
4 E. Trees that are removed to accommodate the
5 construction of lots 115 and 116 shall be mitigated by
replacing each conifer tree removed that is over ten feet
6 in height with a native conifer that is 10 -12 feet in
height. For each deciduous tree that is removed that is
7
over four inches in caliper, except for Alder, Cottonwood,
8 or Willow, shall be replaced with a native deciduous tree
at least 2 and 1/2 inches in caliper. Prior to any
9 excavation occurring for these two lots the applicant shall
prepare a landscape plan that shows where, what kind and
10 the size of the trees that are to be removed. The plan
11 shall also show the location of the trees to be planted in
accordance with this condition. The plan shall be approved
12 by the Planning Director prior to excavation occurring on
these two lots. The trees shall be planted prior to
occupancy of an unit.
16. The applicant shall dedicate 1.89 acres of park land in
]5 the area as illustrated on the aforementioned preliminary
plat drawings.
]7 17. The access to lot 31 shall be provided by a panhandle and
meet the requirements of a panhandle lot as defined by
18 section 18.04.590(D) of the Zoning Ordinance.
19 18. The open space tracts as illustrated on the
20 aforementioned preliminary plat drawings shall be
encumbered by a vegetation protection and view enhancement
21 and maintenance easement. The easement shall be recorded
on the face of the Final Plat and contain language that
22 provides for the preservation of the vegetation for
23 purposes that benefit the public health, safety, and
welfare, including control of surface water and erosion,
24 maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering,
protection of plant and animal habitat, and enhancement and
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 27
1 maintenance of views. A copy of the easement language is
attached as Exhibit 1.
2
3 Prior to submittal of the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit to the Planning Director for approval, exhibits
4 which establish view corridors within the easement areas.
5 The corridors shall primarily be oriented to Mt. Rainier
and the Cascades. The exhibits shall establish what areas,
6 within which, trees may be removed and what areas will not
be disturbed. It is not the intent of this easement to
7 create totally unobstructed view corridors for every
dwelling unit on the property. The exhibits shall also
8
provide standards regarding maintenance of the view
9 corridors such that future decisions are made based upon
established criteria and not the arbitrary or subjective
10 opinion of the future property owners. Trees that are to
be removed for the initial establishment of the view
11
corridors shall occur prior to occupancy of any dwelling
12 unit.
13 The trees and vegetation within the easement shall be
left undisturbed and may not be cut, pruned, covered by
14
fill, removed or damaged without the express written
15 permission from the Auburn Planning Director and only for
the purposes of establishing or maintaining the view
16 corridors, consistent with the easement provisions, or for
]7 public safety or health reasons as determined by the Auburn
Public Works Director.
18
Trees, except for Alders, Cottonwoods or Willows, that
19
are removed to accommodate view corridors shall be
20 mitigated by replacing them according to the provisions of
a planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect
21 and reviewed and approved by the Auburn Planning Director.
The plan shall be designed to accomplish the following
22
purposes and shall be reviewed to ensure that it addresses
23 and accomplishes the following: 1) maintaining slope
stability and minimizing erosion by ensuring a healthy
24 vegetative cover within the easement area; 2) maintaining
an attractive visual setting; 3) specifying the size, type,
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 28
! species, method and time of plantin9 that will result in
2 the best prospects for survival of healthy trees and
providing measures designed to ensure an appropriate
3 survival rate of replacement trees to accomplish the
purposes of the plan and the easement; and 4) where
4 practical, selecting species and types of trees that will
5 reduce or eliminate the need for future trimming or removal
to protect view corridors (e.g., by selecting types of
6 trees that are slow growing or that would not require
trimming because their typical mature height would not
7 exceed the height limits established in the vegetation
8 protection easement.) All tree removals shall be
undertaken consistent with a plan approved pursuant to the
9 vegetation protection and view enhancement and maintenance
easement.
10
11
~ The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
12
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
]4 out the directives of this legislation.
]5 DATED and SIGNED this /<~ day of~~c~/~1996.
17 CITY OF AUBURN
18
20 CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
22
24
25
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 29
1
ATTEST:
4
6 Rob±n Wohlhueter,
City Clerk
7
8
9 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
10
11 , ~
12 '
13 City Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Resolution No. 2774
October 22, 1996
Page 30
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21 NORT}I,
P3tNGE 4 EAST W.M.,;
EXCEPT THE PLAT OF WEST BEVERLY HILL DIVISION I, AS PER PLAT RECORDED
IN VOLUME 140 OF PLATS, PAGES 97 THROUGH 100, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY;
AND EXCEPT THE PLAT OF WEST BEVERLY HILL DIVISION II, AS PER PLAT
RECORDED IN VOLUME 153 OF PLATS, PAGES i THROUGH 3, RECORDS OF KING
COUNTY;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 ~F
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M., MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST COR~ER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4
OF SECTION 11;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4, 167.57 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH AN ARC
OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 29
DEGREES 32 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST, 230.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 237.92 FEET TO A
POINT OF TANGENCY, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59 DEGREES 16
MINUTES 07 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 28 SECONDS WEST, 625.11 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVATURE, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID CURVE BEARS.NORTH 88
DEGREES 48 MINUTES 32 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 320.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.30 FEET, SAID
CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 30 SECONDS ~D A
RADIUS OF 320.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST ALONG A RADIAL LI~IE
OF SAID cURVE, 60.00 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 221.70 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 11;
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST ALOHG SAID EAST
-- LINE 862.07 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
_. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Exhibit .A.
Resolution No. 2774
~fo be shown on the face of the Final Iqat]
EXFIIBIT 1
VEGETATION PROTECTION AND
VrEW ENI~A~CEiVIENT AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
PRELIFIINARY PLAT OF WEST BEVERLY HILL
The following provisions are provided for the preservation and maintenance of
vegetation within designated areas of the Plat of West Beverly Hill No. 4 to preserve the
public health, safety and welfare by, among other things, controlling surface water runoff
and erosion, maintaining slope stability, providing visual and aural buffering, protecting. ·
plant and animal habitats, and enhancing and maintaining views from the residences and
lots within this plat. '
All of the areas designated on the face of the Final Plat as being within the
Vegetation Protection Area are subject to the restrictions set forth below. [These areas
will include everything except the lots, street rights-of-way, park areas, and the utility
tract near Lot 31.] The zones delineated on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall be described
verbally on the face of the final plat and shall be marked in the field.
Vegetation 'krimming" is defined as the cutting ora portion ora plant while
leaving a substantial portion of the plant so that the plant will continue to live and
produce substantial new growth following the cutting. Vegetation "removal" is defined
as the cutting of all of or a large portion ora plant without leaving a substantial portion of
the plant so that the plant will not continue to produce substantial new growth following
removal.
The Vegetation Protection Area is divided into three zones. Within Zone 1 no
trimming or removal of trees will be allowed for purposes of view enhancement. Within
Zone 2 trees may be trimmed to the sight-line elevations shown on the face of the plat in
order to provide for views of Mt. Rainier. The sight lines and elevations given at each
end of the sight'lines shall define a series of surfaces. Vegetation which grows above
these surfaces may be trimmed to a maximum of 15 feet lower than the defined surface.
Vegetation may be removed as provided for below. Within Zone 3 vegetation that
exceeds 350 feet in elevation may be trimmed to provide for views to the Cascade
Mountains so that the height of trees does not exceed 335 feet in elevation. Trees may be
removed as provided for below.
Removal of trees in Zone 2 or Zone 3 for view enhancement shall be allowed
provided that there are at least two trees that will remain follow, lng tree removal that are
ov~ 25 feet in height and that are located within 20 feet of the tree to be removed.
All vegetation trimming and removal shall be done by a licensed tree trim.ming
service hired by the Homeowners' Association. All tree trimming and removal shall be
Resolution No. 2774 page I of 2
Exhibit 1 ..
d~ne pursuant to a plan that identifies ail trees to be removed; delineates all areas where
tree trimming will occur; de£mes the methods thai will be used to accomplish tree
trimming and removal including the type of equipment to be used; addresses issues of
slope stability and erosion with regard to trees to be removed; and, in the event of tree
removal, provides for a replacement plan as pro','ided for below. This plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Director of the City of Auburn at least sixty (60) days prior to
the start of the tree trimming or removal. The Planning Director shall review this plan to
determine whether it complies with the terms of this easement aud shall approve the plan
if it does so. The Planning Director shall have the authority to add whatever conditions
are required to ensure that the plan complies with the terms of this easement. No work
shall be undertaken pursuant to the plan until it has been approved by the Planning
Director, provided, however, that the plan shall be deemed approved after sixty (60) days
il'the Planning Director has not acted to approve, condition, or deny the plan. In the event
of a dispute between the Planning Director and the Homeov,:ners' Association the matter
shall be resolved by a final decision with no further right of appeaI by the Mayor of the
Cit')' of Auburn. Tree trimming and removal plans shall not be submitted to the City
more often than one time per year.
Trees (other than Aiders, Cottonwoods, and Willows) that are removed to
accommodate view corridors shall be replaced according to the provisions of a planting
plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect and reviewed and approved by the
Auburn Planning Director. This plan shall be designed to accomplish the following
purposes and shall be reviewed to ensure that it does so: (1) maintaining slope stability
and minimizing erosion by ensuring a healthy vegetative cover within the easement area;
(2) maintaining attractive visual setting; (3) specifying the size, type, species, and method
and time of planting that will result in the best prospects for survival and healthy trees,
and providing measures designed to ensure an appropriate survival rate of replacement
trees to accomplish the purposes of the plan and the easement; and (4) where practical,
selecting species and types of trees within species that will reduce or eliminate the need
for future trimming or removal to protect view corridors (e.g., by selecting types of trees
that are slow growing or that would not require trimming because their typical mature
height would not exceed the height limits established in the vegetation protection
easements).
The provisions of this easement allow the Homeowners' Association to remove
trees or other vegetation v,'ithin the Vegetation Protection Area that present an imminent
peril to public or private safety if the trees are not immediately removed.
Resolution No. 2774
Exhibit 1