HomeMy WebLinkAbout4021
RESOLUTION NO. 4021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE
50.85 ACRES INTO 167 LOTS AND VARIOUS
TRACTS FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. PL T05-0001, dated April 8, 2005, has been
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Wayne Jones, Lakeridge
Development, requesting approval of a preliminary plat application to subdivide
50.85 acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open
space, and street and utility tracts within the City of Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was made concurrently with applications for
rezone and planned unit development approval for the same site (Application
Nos. REl05-0001 and PUD05-0001); and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be complete pursuant
to Auburn City Code on June 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said request above was referred to the Hearing Examiner for
study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions on September 2, 2005; and
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 1 of 11
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held on October 3, 2005 and
continued on October 17, 2005, at which time the City Council considered the
Hearing Examiner's recommendations and the material presented to the Hearing
Examiner and argument made to the City Council at said closed record hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments received at the closed
record hearing concerning matters related to the record drew into question
significant portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the closed record hearing, the City Council asked the
applicant if he would be willing to accept the additional time it would take if the
requests were remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for further review and
consideration of issues raised by the Council, and the applicant's representative
declined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a willingness to waive the 120-day project review timetable otherwise
applicable for processing the application and a willingness to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the application back to the
Resolution No. 4021
May 2,2006
Page 2 of 11
Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected eight (8) defined issues; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on February 22, 2006, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to conditions on March 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held on April 25, 2006, at which
time the City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's recommendations, the
material presented to the Hearing Examiner and argument made to the City
Council at said closed record hearing and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for preliminary plat based upon the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subject to additional conditions of approval.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1.
The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated in this Resolution.
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 50.85
acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open space
and street and utility tracts within the City of Auburn, legally described in Exhibit
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 11
"B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the
final plat and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III
development (Division I and Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral
resource lands on which a variety of commercial
activities occur that may not be compatible with
residential development, including, but not limited to,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, concrete and asphalt production,
recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an
open space tract, the Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreement
to submit, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that
conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the
construction of interior improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall
also submit engineering/construction drawings for the construction of all
park improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's Parks
Director prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City Parks
Department standards and be approved by the Parks Director prior to
installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
Kersey III Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall
include architectural design criteria for new homes and specify the
financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces. The CC&Rs
shall provide that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be
responsible to maintain and replace as necessary all trees, trails, special
features and landscaping within any street median strip, planting strips
and all HOA parks. In addition, the HOA shall maintain those portions of
the stormwater tract located outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if provided, outside the 10-year storm water surface elevation, as
determined by the City Engineer.
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 11
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II
Conceptual Building Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the
submitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall include a
color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following
conditions shall apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-
facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
front property line. At least, but no more than, a two-car
garage door shall face the street; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two
homes sharing the same floor plan are located adjacent to
one another
d) Lot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Applicants' resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shall maximize the use of native
and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the plat, including park and
landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot
numbers 19-62 and Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a
minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to buffer the adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
shall be equivalent to a six foot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be
erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that border on
a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall
be separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of
approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the
Resolution No. 4021
May 2,2006
Page 5 of 11
native/open space, park, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Association
shall be responsible to maintain all fences required by this condition.
10.Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measures as noted on
pages 9-19 of the Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
throughout this recommendation.
11 . Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This active warning signal must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide access acceptable to the City of Auburn for
properties abutting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53rd St. SE.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post
financial security for traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
traffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a round-about unless
the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not
feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and construction as a
traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial
security for traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen
Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic
calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the
environment, namely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated
habitat. Two main impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and
fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide for
preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
Resolution No. 4021
May 2,2006
Page 6 of 11
18.Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School
District. Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the
school district can provide transportation, but that schools have the
capacity to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with local
and state law requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading
and clearing necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as
roads and utilities and for lot grading shall be submitted and approved by
the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots
during home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest slopes for the site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall
show quantities and locations of excavations, and embankments, the
design of temporary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent
properties, natural and public storm drainage systems and other near by
sensitive areas. Temporary detention facilities shall be designed with a
1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling,
grading or construction activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop
and submit, for the City's review, specific recommendations to mitigate
grading activities, with particular attention to developing a plan to minimize
the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and related
activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is
October 1 through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the
extent of geologic hazard area or any other critical areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code (IBC) and/or the
City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical
report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by
the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface water
is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by the
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 7 of 11
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer
responsible for the storm drainage system design.
20. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must
be completed, including the off-site erosion feature observed at the outlet
of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation of
stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek.
21. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to
enhance the appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design
of above ground storage and conveyance facilities shall address or
incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes,
safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consistent with City standards can be accommodated on-
site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of
Auburn Design Standards. In order to achieve this, the following design
elements must be incorporated into the final design:
. Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
structures is required. To provide an adequate and safe storm pond
access, an appropriately designed pull-off shall be provided from
Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
. All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream
bypass surface flows shall be routed through the project site and shall
not be combined with the proposed on-site storm drainage system.
Maintenance access shall be provided to all structures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system shall be
placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy
dissipation features are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe
intersections and at the outlet to the storm drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site,
appropriately designed aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey
Way near 53rd Street SE, and subsequent flooding of the intersection, an
appropriately designed storm drainage system shall be constructed to
mitigate this condition.
22. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to
ensure it provides service to the desired basin. The public sanitary sewer
pump station shall be located as directed by the City Engineer in order to
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back
into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line
located between Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division 1.
23.AII roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as
public right of way.
24. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a
residential collector arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn
lane area through the plat boundaries.
25. The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10
foot center median/turn lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to
Lakeland Hills Way, to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
26. The Applicants shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and
Evergreen Way and Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional
pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the length of the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
28. The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for
a minor arterial road, to include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foot through
northbound lane, a 12 foot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns
lane(s) at the intersection with 53rd Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on the west side. All other
Resolution No. 4021
May 2,2006
Page 9 of 11
features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and lighting
must meet city standards.
29. The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south
plat boundary, through the location of lots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with
176th Avenue East.
30.A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
homes.
31 . A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
homes.
32. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agreement entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power
Administration (Exhibit 8). The Land Use Agreement set forth 15 conditions,
including, but not limited to landscaping, distance from transmission line
towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this I \~ day of
\fV\~j
,2006.
c
~
~
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 10 of 11
ATTEST:
~04~2&~
Dan'elle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 11
4
~y,II/tJlr fr
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit Development,)
a Preliminary Plat, and a Variance for )
Kersev III - Division I and Division II )
Lakeridge Development
by Wayne Jones
and
Landholdings LLC
by Daniel and Stormy Hayes
NO. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002
PUD05-000 1, PUD 05-0002
PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
In 2005, Lakeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce
Bowles and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) requested approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a single-family
residential subdivision, and a variance from certain design standards.
The Applicants requested a rezone of three separate tax parcels from R-l Single Family
Residential to Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots in Division I and 204 lots in Division II. The requested variances would
reduce front yard setback and lot coverage requirements. The subject property totals 89.31 acres
and is located within the city limits of Auburn, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE,
extending southward to the King-Pierce County line.
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of
Auburn on August 9, 2005. The Hearing Examiner allowed the record to remain open for the
limited purpose of securing comments from the Auburn School District on impacts generated by
the proposed residential development. The School District's comments were received and the
record was officially closed on August 16, 2005. Following a review of the testimony and
exhibits, and based on the criteria established by the Auburn City Council, on September 2, 2005
the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the rezone from R-1 Residential
to Planned Unit Development, approval of the Planned Unit Development, and approval of the
preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, subject to 18 conditions. The
Hearing Examiner recommended that the Applicants' request for variances from the required
front yard setback and total lot coverage design requirements be denied.
On October 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Auburn City Council conducted a hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. At the close ofthe hearing, the City Council
asked the Applicants if they were willing to accept the additional time it would take for the
matter to be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for further review. The Applicants declined the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
remand offer and the City Council denied all of the applications. On November 10, 2005, the
Applicants rescinded its denial and asked that the applications be remanded to the Hearing
Examiner.
On November 15, 2005, the Auburn City Council issued Resolution Number 3947, remanding
. the matter to the Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected the following issues:
1. Open spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental features, such as steep slopes,
mature trees, wetlands, and scenic views.
2. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly along Kersey Way, and promote alternative modes of travel. Consideration
should be given to applying the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to
similar impacts areas located south of the White River.
3. The development of transitional areas between these projects and adjacent developments and
environmentally sensitive areas.
4. The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping, and building architecture required
under the Auburn PUD ordinance.
5. The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces located under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate notification to future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining
operations.
7. Protection of waterways and the development's proposed stormwater system.
8. Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities to
serve the area south of the White River.
On February 22, 2006, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held a public hearing on the
matter as it was remanded from the City Council.
Testimony
At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3. D. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Auburn
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Works, City of Auburn
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Public Works, City of Auburn
6. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative
7. Rob Armstrong, Civil Engineer
8. Art Sidel, Landscape Architect
9. Pat McBride, Building Architect
10. John Norris, Norris Homes
11. Michele Fassbind, neighboring property owner
12. John Chaffee, neighboring property owner
13. Darryl Thompson, neighboring property owner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 2 of 30
14. Pat Davis, neighboring property owner
15. Dale Huston, neighboring property owner
16. Erin Galeno, neighboring property owner
17. Chuck Gould, neighboring property owner
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. Katrina Price, neighboring property owner
20. Donald Bykonen, neighboring property owner
21. William Remick, neighboring property owner
22. Kristi Knott, neighboring property owner
23. Bruce Koch, neighboring property owner
24. Jonie Brooke, neighboring property owner
25. Bill Anderson, neighboring property owner
Exhibits
At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the
official record:
1. Staff Report, dated February 16,2006
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Auburn City Council Resolution 3947
4. Re-submittalletter from Barghausen Engineers, dated January 11, 2006
5. Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD Site Plans - 12 sheets
6. Engineer's Responses to Auburn City Council Comments
7. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint
Presentation Slides and Architect Narrative
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonneville Power Administration and Lakeridge Development,
dated August 30, 2005
9. Excerpts from Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Geologic Hazards, Wildlife
and Habitat, and Wetlands and Streams, with maps
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. Affidavit of Mailing of Legal Notice
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice
13. E-mail confirmation from King County Journal, Publication of Legal Notice, dated
February 7, 2006
14. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides
15. Preliminary Landscape Plan - 3 sheets
16. Correspondence from GMS Architectural Group, dated February 22, 2006
16A. Lot Coverage Drawings
17. Correspondence from Segale Properties, dated February 22, 2006
18. Statutory Warranty Deed - Tax Parcel 3221059039
19. Public Comment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22,2006
20. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated October 15,2005
21. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated February 21, 2006
22. Correspondence from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23. Public Comment Letter: Michelle Fassbind, dated February 22,2006
24. Public Comment Letter: John Chaffee, dated February 22, 2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 3 of 30
25. Public Comment Letter: Erin and Paul Galeno, undated
26. Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, October 17, 2005
27. Public Comment Letter: Janet Koch, dated February 22,2006
28. "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter, dated February 15,2006
29. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy Johannsen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, Will and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy
Johannsen, undated
31. Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated February 22, 2006
32. Public Comment Letter: Bill Anderson, dated February 22,2006
33. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Stan
Purdin, Kirk Anderson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen, Gary and Margaret Staples, undated
34. Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, February 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applic~t's Response to Public Hearing Comments, dated March 3,2006
36A. Agency Comment Letter from Auburn School District, dated March 2, 2006
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing of August
9, 2005 and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remand, the Hearing Examiner enters the
following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The Applicants requested approval of a rezone of three parcels of land totaling
approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the property from R -1 Single
Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Applicants also requested
approval of a PUD and Preliminary Plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III. The
property is located on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. All of the parcels are within the city limits of
Auburn and the boundaries of King County. General Finding of Fact No. J, Sept. 2005
FeR; Exhibit J, Staff Report, Page 3.
2. To reach a determination on the City Council's Order of Remand, the Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submitted into the record of the Kersey III,
Division I and Division II hearings conducted on August 9, 2005 and February 22, 2006.
All Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Examiner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incorporated into the present decision by reference.
Findings from the August 2005 hearing are referenced as "Findings ..., Sept. 2005 FeR. "
Findings from the February 2006 hearing are referenced as "Findings ..., Feb, 2006
Remand Hearing."
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 4 of 30
3. In the original proposal heard by the Hearing Examiner in August 2005, the Applicants
proposed a two phase development with Division I containing 169 single-family
residential lots averaging 5,032 square feet, resulting in an average density of 3.34
dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Division II was to be developed with 205 single-family
lots averaging 4,863 square feet, resulting in an average density of 5.35 du/acre. The
overall project density is 4.17 du/acre for both divisions. At the February 2006 Hearing
on Remand (Remand Hearing), the Applicants submitted a revised proposal. The
Applicants are still proposing development of Kersey III in two phases, however,
Division I would now contain 167 single-family residential lots averaging 4,900 square
feet, and an average density of 3.28 du/acre. Division II would now contain 201 single-
family residential lots averaging 4,990 square feet, and an average density of 5.23
du/acre. The overall project density is 4.12 du/acre. General Finding of Fact No.2. Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 5,
Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD plans; Exhibit 14, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcels of land comprise the proposal and all three parcels are within the city limits
of Auburn. Division I is includes two tax parcels - King County Parcel No. 322105-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Development). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King County Parcel No.
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings LLC).
On December 14,2005, the Bowles executed a Statutory Warranty Deed conveying Tax
Parcel 3221050-9039 to Daniel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowles as Applicants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No.4, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibit 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
5. Design standards for detached single-family residential development within a PUD
include: minimum lot size of 3,600 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 40%, maximum building height of 30 feet, and front, rear, and side yard
setbacks of 15-20 feet, 20 feet, and 5 feet, respectively. The Applicants proposal
conforms to these standards. ACC 18.69.070(A); Exhibit 5, Revised Plat.
6. At the August 2005 hearing, the Applicants requested a variance from certain design
requirements set forth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). The proposal at that
time was for the reduction in the front yard setback to 10 feet and an increase in the. total
allowable lot coverage to 50%. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of this
request. At the Remand Hearing, the Applicants revised the previous request, seeking an
increase in the total allowable lot coverage of up to 45%. The Applicants argue that
adherence to the 40% lot coverage maximum provided in ACC 18.69.070{A) would
create hardship and that increased lot coverage is needed to provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to prevent a 'cookie cutter' look. Approval of the
variance, according to the Applicants, would create balance and diversity within the
PUD. In addition, the Applicant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially larger amount of open/recreational space than normally is required. It
appears from the record that the Applicants have abandoned their request for a front yard
setback variance. Specific Finding of Fact No. 23, Recommendation, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 5 of30
Exhibit 16, Correspondence from GMC Architectural; Exhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. McBride; Testimony of Mr. Norris.
7. At the Remand Hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for the Applicants to
submit responses on all of the written and oral comments received into the record at the
February 2006 Remand Hearing. Bob Johns of Johns Monroe Mitsunaga, attorney for
the Applicants, submitted the required responses, along with comments from the Auburn
School District, to the City of Auburn on March 3, 2006. A copy of this letter was not
provided to the Hearing Examiner until March 14, 2006. On March 14, 2006, the
Hearing Examiner entered an Order setting the date of the issuance of the
recommendation to March 22, 2006.
8. Notice of the Remand Hearing was posted on the property and was mailed to all property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on February 10, 2006. Notice was
published in the King County Journal on February 10,2006. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
9. The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A, requires land within a city to be
classified as urban and that it must be developed at urban densities. The Applicants
submitted that this principle justifies the rezone request. The GMA itself does not assign
a quantitative value to the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which has been applied, clarified, and
evolved over the years, has stated that urban density is equivalent to four dwelling units
per acre unless a reasonable exception applies (Le. critical areas). (see City of Bremerton
et al v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c (1995), Litowitz v. City of
Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 (1996)). The CPSGMHB's rule was
recently called into question by the Washington State Supreme Court in Viking v. Holm
when the court stated that the CPSGMHB did not have the authority to create such a
'bright line rule'. Viking v. Holm, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acre
threshold as a 'safe harbor' rather than a 'bright line'. Furhiman v. City of Bothell,
CPSGMHB Case No. 05-0025c (2005). The subject property was designated as Single
Family Residential in 1995 and Auburn foresees the bulk of single-family residential
communities developed at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. RCW
36. 70A.ll 0; Land Use Policy LU-14; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos. 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (noting factors to satisfy change in
circumstances).
10. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of residential housing at
single-family densities that establish a balanced mix of housing types appropriate for a
family-oriented community. When assigning the Comprehensive Plan's land use
designation for the subject property, the City Council was to evaluate the ability to buffer
the area by taking advantage of topographic variations, natural features, setbacks, and
other means. The development of new neighborhoods is to be governed by flexible
development standards that encourage compact urban development while protecting
critical areas. These flexible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types and site planning techniques so that a site can achieve its maximum
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 6 of30
housing potential. Chapter 3, Land Use Goal 7; Land Use Policy LU-14; Land Use
Policy LU-17; Land Use Policy LU-20; Chapter 4, Housing Goal 7; Housing Objective
12.1; Housing Policy HO-34.
11. As required by ACC 18.68, ACC 18.69, and ACC 17.06, analysis of the proposal's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was provided for in the DEIS. The DElS
reviewed the goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to utilities,
transportation, the environment, natural resources, natural and manmade hazards, and
parks, recreation, and open space. The proposed PUD/plat was determined to be
generally consistent with the Single Family Residential designation. The City of
Auburn's Planning Director reviewed the rezone application for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consistent. Specific Findings of Fact
Nos. 4-6, Sept. 2005 FCR; ACC 18, 68.030(B)(1); ACC 18. 69. 150(B); ACC 17. 06. o 70 (B);
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for identification and review of environmental impacts
caused by the proposed PUD/plat. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey III project was issued on February 11,2005. No appeals were filed. Specific
Findings of Fact No.9, Sept. 2005 FCR.
13. Public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the adequacy of the
EIS at both the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Appeals of
an EIS must be submitted to the Auburn City Clerk 14-21 days after issuance of the Final
EIS. ACC 16.06.230. No appeal was filed and all challenges to the adequacy ofthe EIS
are time-barred. As noted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adequacy of the EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEP A is the
consideration of environmental values. The key purpcse of an ElS is to ensure full
disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of a
project. It is from the impacts disclosed in the EIS that the decision-maker can make an
informed decision about the proposal. Public comment, both written and oral, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing, provided further
detail in this regard and therefore is permitted. Specific Findings of Fact No. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe]; Exhibit 25, Comments of
Galeno; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Exhibit 33, Comments ofBykonen et al; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 2.
14. Agency and public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the
impact of the proposed plat on the Auburn School District at both the August 2005
hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. The anticipated increase in student
population generated from the development was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or
209 students. Submitted public comment stated that schools and the related
1 Exhibit 22 is dated August 16,2004 and were comments submitted during the DEIS review process. The Tribe's
comments should have been taken into consideration when drafting the Final ElS. The Tribe's comments were not
challenging the adequacy of the Final EIS.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 7 of 30
transportation system were over capacity and that dangerous walking conditions were
present along Kersey Way. The Auburn School District responded that the recent
opening of Auburn Mountainview High School would provide capacity into the future to
accommodate growth at the high school level. Two new elementary schools, including
Lakeland Hills Elementary scheduled to open Fall 2006 and Elementary No. 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to open Fall 2007, would provide additional capacity at the elementary
level. The middle school level currently has capacity to accommodate growth but
enrollment projections indicate that an additional middle school would be needed in the
future and that the School District has begun planning for a new school. ACC 19.02
allows the City to collect school impact fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit,
on behalf of the school district. Conditions of approval require the Applicants to pay this
fee. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Exhibit 24, Comments of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District
Comments; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee,' Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Armstrong.
IS. Bus transportation would be provided for the plat with bus pick up/drop off areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applicants would construct a 10-foot wide multi-use path along the
site's frontage with Kersey Way. This path, along with sidewalks and crosswalks within
the plat, would provide safe walking conditions for students to/from school. Specific
Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of Peters; Exhibit
24, Comments of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32, Comments of
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District Comments;
Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of
Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
16. All lots are to be served with sanitary sewer service provided by the City of Auburn.
Public comment was submitted in regards to the capacity of the system to accommodate
additional sewage stemming from the proposed plat. Both the City and the Applicants
are constructing improvements to the sewer system, including an interim pump station.
A neighboring property owner asserted that the problem is not with the pump station but
with the force mains that carry sewage away from the pump station. The neighbor argues
that force mains at the Lakeland Hills pump station and the Ellingson pump station are
not functioning properly and thereby have less capacity. City Public Works Staff
testified that the sewer system is capable of handling the increased volume and, after
replacement, the force mains are operating adequately. Specific Findings of Fact No. 20,
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 25, Comments of Galeno;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, page 5; Testimony of Ms. Galeno; Testimony of Mr.
Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral, were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wildlife and their habitat. The EIS concluded that urbanization of the area would result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatIVariance - ON REMAND
Page 8 of30
fragmentation, and human encroachment. Public comments stated that several species of
animals have been sighted on the subject property that were not accounted for in the EIS
including Redheaded Woodpecker, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Pileated Woodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Applicants install
stormwater control technology that would eliminate/reduce sedimentation/erosion
impacts in Bowman Creek and, subsequently, the White River. A Hydraulic Permit
Approval (HPA) issued by Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife would be
required for construction near Bowman Creek and would address impacts to fishery
resources. Open space and parkland would provide habitat and a corridor for wildlife
species. Required fencing would delineate private property from open space/parkland
and prevent encroachment. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species.
Specific Finding of Fact No. 19, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12;
Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments of Davis; Exhibit 22, Comments of
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of
Bykonen et al; Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee;
Testimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony
of Mr. Husky; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S ISSUES ON REMAND:
In Resolution 3947, the Auburn City Council set forth eight specific issues for the Hearing
Examiner to review and to determine how the proposed development addressed or affected these
issues. Findings of Facts Numbers 18,19,20,21,22,23,24, and 25 address the City Council's
specific issues.
18. City Council Remand Issue Number 1: Open spaces and the protection of sensitive
environmental features, such as steep slopes, mature trees, wetlands, and scenic
views.
A. Steep Slopes The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicted in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I contains identified Class I Known Landslide Hazard Areas (defined as slopes greater
than 40%). However, the location of these areas on Figure 13 was based on a generalized map
that is utilized as a first indicator source that ground reconnaissance and survey are done to
further delineate the steep slopes. To supplement the slope information, the Applicants
conducted a field survey in which the location of the slopes is more accurately shown (see
Exhibit 5, Slope Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2). The slopes are primarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q and would be impacted by the construction of Evergreen Way, the main
boulevard servicing the plat, and Kersey Way, the minor arterial from which access to the plat
would be obtained. Construction of Evergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of the slope to accommodate road
widening. All impacts would be at 2:1 slope ratio. The maximum grade of Evergreen Way, in
only two locations, would be 10%. Impacts to the steep slope areas are unavoidable, as these
roadways are necessary for access to the plat.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatNariance - ON REMAND
Page 9 000
.
B. Mature Trees On the subject property are four types of vegetative cover. Division I has
a mature mixed-species forest and Division II has a young deciduous forest, mature coniferous
forest, as well as a mature mixed-species forest. The BP A easement area is vegetated with
shrubs and grasses. The loss of forest areas is an unavoidable impact of urbanization. The
Applicants proposed the retention of native vegetation, including mature trees, in several tracts
including B, G, H, and I of Division I, totaling approximately 3.7 acres, and tracts A and F of
Division II, totaling approximately 1.4 acres. Some trees would need to be removed from Tracts
B and I to accommodate road construction and from Tracts A for construction of the drainage
facility. City construction standards require that no trees may project into the "clear zone" for
roads or sidewalks. Impacted areas would be revegetated with appropriate tree species.
C. Wetlands There are no wetlands located within Division I and Division II.
However, changes to existing surface and subsurface flows could affect the hydrology of off-site
wetlands including several wetlands located in proposed Division 3 and two off-site streams,
Bowman Creek and the White River, located NorthINorthwest of the plat. These impacts would
be addressed and mitigated via stormwater drainage control design.
D. Scenic Views The residential portion of Kersey III is set back 200 to 600 feet from
Kersey Way with a 35 foot building setback provided from properties to the east (zoned Rural
Residential) and a 25 foot setback from properties to the south (zoned R-l Residential). The
topography of the site, along with both retained and new vegetation, would provide screening of
the proposed PUD from existing low-density residential areas to the NorthINortheast. Setbacks,
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence constructed along the southern and eastern border of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density residential areas. No scenic views
are anticipated to be obstructed.
E. Public Comments Public comments were received in regards to visual impacts
(primarily due to headlights from traffic exiting the plat, loss of vegetation, and storm water
drainage design). Neighboring property owners asserted that the headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shine directly into their homes and that construction of the Kersey Way/Evergreen
Way intersection would result in removal of vegetation and erosion, impacting views.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 18(A), 18(B), 18(C), 18(D), and 18(E) relied on
the following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Excerpts from DEIS; Exhibit 14, Applicants' Power Point; Exhibit 15, Landscape
Plan; Exhibit 23, Comments of Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong;
Testimony of Mr. Siedel; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind
19. City Council Remand Issue Number 2: Use of traffic management and design
techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion, particularly along Kersey Way,
and promote alternative modes of travel. Consideration should be given to applying
the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to similar impacts
areas located south of the White River.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUDlPreliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 10 000
A. Traffic Management and Design TechniQues Traffic Impacts (volume and safety) were
the most frequently cited issues of public comment and testimony received at both the August
2005 and the February 2006 hearings. The Applicants prepared a transportation impact analysis
(TIA) in March 2004 and amended this document in January 2005. The TIA Addendum
concluded that all corridors affected by the development are expected to meet or exceed the LOS
minimum threshold set by the City of Auburn, which is LOS-D with the proposed signalization
in place.
The TIA and the EIS set forth several traffic mitigation measures, both on-site and off-site. The
mitigation measures included: payment of impact fee; construction of half-street frontage
improvements along Kersey Way; re-alignment of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way; three-lane
channelization (center turn lane) on Kersey Way; exclusive center left turn lanes on all legs of
the re-aligned Kersey Way/53rd Street SE/Evergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane along
Kersey Way at Evergreen Way; traffic signal and pedestrian crossings at re-aligned intersection
of Kersey Way/53rd Street/Evergreen Way; active traffic signal warning signage for southbound
Kersey Way; pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection crosswalk of Evergreen
Way/Olive Way; traffic controls (round-about) at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the construction of Evergreen way from Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safety and Aesthetics The revised plat added several additional amenities to
improve road safety and aesthetics. The additions included: safe pedestrian crossings (pavement
markings and advance warning signage) at three locations on Evergreen Way; three-lane
channelization on Evergreen Way including exclusive left-turn lanes at three locations; and
center median landscaped planter islands along Evergreen Way to improve aesthetics and
calm/slow. Conditions of approval would require that the Applicants extend the boulevard
design throughout the plat, continuing west to Lakeland Hills.
C. Traffic Impact Fees Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may collect impact
fees for transportation facilities impacted by proposed development. In conjunction with the
revised plat, City Planning Staff recommended that the Applicants pay the $940.36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traffic impact fee of $677.71. The
Applicants submitted that they were not averse to paying the fee but requested that the Citi
identify what the fee pays for. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
to mitigate an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
proportional. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the
developers of Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to
address the unique transportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD. The proposed
PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland Hills and the additional impact fee
2 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local governments to impose permit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 11 of30
would allow for the construction of road improvements to serve the area, thereby promoting
greater public safety and increased traffic flow.
D. Public Comments Public comments received on traffic impacts generated by the
proposal included: the inadequacy of infrastructure to handle the increase in traffic volumes,
noise and air pollution (exhaust emissions); safe walkinglbicycling; evacuation route; and the
impact of traffic controls (stop lights). Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed
bike path along Kersey Way was a "path to nowhere," that the proposed traffic signal at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way/53rd Street would create backups during peak traffic times, and that
Applicants did not mitigate noise and air impacts. Neighboring property owners stated that the
existing neighborhood would be adversely impacted during construction of the proposed
improvements to Kersey Way and during construction of the plat itself. Neighboring property
owners asserted that Kersey Way is the main traffic corridor for the area, serving commuters,
school buses, and trucks from the gravel pit, and that limiting improvements to the plat's
frontage would create a funnel effect with negative impacts on traffic.
E. Applicants' Response to Public Comments In response to public concerns regarding
traffic, The Applicants submitted testimony on measures being taken as part of the development
to mitigate traffic impacts. The Applicants stated that the TIA concluded that the Kersey
Way/53rd Street/Evergreen Way intersection would operate at LOS B at full build-out of Kersey
III, well within an acceptable LOS range for the City. In addition, the TIA determined that an
appropriate mitigation for unacceptable levels of service is signalization. Evergreen Way would
provide an alternative route available to area residences during emergency situations. Conditions
of approval require the Applicants to construct a lO-foot wide walkway along the subject
property's frontage with Kersey Way. Although the walkway does not fully extend northward to
the site of an existing sidewalk, the Applicants assert that they are paying their "fair share" of the
development and that subsequent developments that are currently "in the pipeline' would be
responsible for additional segments.
F. Fassbind Driveway Neighboring property owner Ms. Fassbind stated that she was
uniquely affected by the proposed re-alignment of Kersey Way and 53rd Street due to the
location of her driveway at this intersection and has not been contacted by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Fassbind asserts that the proposed alignment would create an extremely dangerous
situation for her and her family entering and exiting their property especially with a truck/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the current re-alignment proposal for Kersey Way/53rd
Street is tentative and that they would be in contact with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the final
engineering design of the intersection and of the driveway, including alternative solutions such
as the use of two driveways.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 19(A), 19(B), 19(C), 19(D), 19(E), and 19(F)
relied on the following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7, 21-25, 29; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheet 10; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPointl Exhibit 19,
Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments by Davis; Exhibit 21, Comments by Davis; Exhibit
23, Comments by Fassbind; Exhibit 24, Comments by Chaffee; Exhibit 32, Comments by
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments by Staples; " Exhibit 36, Applicants' Responses, Pages 3-4;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 12 of30
Testimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
20. City Council Remand Issue Number 3: The development of transitional areas
between these projects and adjacent developments and environmentally sensitive
areas.
A. Zoning Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and vacant land.
Residential development is comprised oflow (zoned Rl - 1 duJacre) and semi-rural (1 duJ2.5 - 5
acres) densities to the east and south, with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel to the west (Kersey III, Division III). Parcels west of the proposed Kersey III,
Division III site are comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development. Parcels to
the north are a mixture of vacant land (zoned Rl) and natural (mineral) resource lands. The
subject property has been zoned R-l Single Family Residential (Rl) since 1987 and was
designated as Single Family Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The
Comprehensive Plan contemplates the bulk of single-family residential communities developed
at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. The Applicants proposed development at an
overall density of 4.12 duJacre with lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. The proposed density is consistent with City standards.
B. Comprehensive Plan Designation The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Auburn
addresses the issue of transition in the context of incompatible land uses and densities. Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan state the site design should utilize and preserve features, including
topography, open spaces, and vegetation, to separate densities and that landscaped buffers or
other measures should be utilized to separate uses.
C. Setbacks ACC 18.69.080(B) requires setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD that
correspond to the requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. ACC 18.08.040(E)(4) requires
a 35-foot rear yard building setback line (BSBL) within the RR zoning district and ACC
18.12.040(E)(4) requires a 25-foot rear BSBL within the Rl zoning district. Pierce County Code
(PCC), Table 18A.17.030(B)(2)(1), requires a 10-foot rear yard setback within the MSF zoning
district. The Applicants proposed a 35-foot BSBL on the eastern border ofthe site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject property's southern border with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development within the northern portion of the PUD/plat is set back 200 to 600 feet from Kersey
Way and is further screened by vegetation and topography. The Applicant intends to construct a
six-foot high solid wood fence along the southern and eastern borders to provide additional
screenmg.
D. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted stated that the transition from the dense Lakeland Hills PUD to the neighboring rural
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey III should be a buffer zone between two extremes - the
higher density development of Lakeland Hills and the existing lower density development to the
east and south; and that the higher density would not blend with the existing rural neighborhood.
Neighboring property owners argued that Kersey III provides no transition between low density
(one acre lot), the proposed density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hills density
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 13 000
(7,200 to 10,000 square feet). Neighboring property owners also asserted that a 25-35 foot
BSBL and/or a six foot high fence does not provide adequate buffering and/or screening of uses.
E. Environmental Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas are primarily contained
within open space tracts. Recommended conditions of approval require a three to four foot high
two-rail fence to separate all residential properties that border on an open space, park, or
stormwater drainage area. The purpose of the fence is to delineate private property from
common areas and to prevent encroachment by the property owner into the common areas.
Maintenance of this fence shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A), 20(B), 20(C), 2Q(D), and 20 (E) relied on
the following evidence: General Findings of Fact No.5, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specific Finding of
Fact Nos. 2, 4, and 5; Sept. 2005 FCR; Chapter 3, Land Use Policies LU-26, LU-27, LU-28;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Cover Sheet; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 19, Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments
by Davis; Exhibit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Pages 5-6;
Testimony of Mr. Gould; Testimony of Mr. Bykonen.
21. City Council Remand Issue Number 4: The building and structural designs that
complement surrounding land uses and their environment, reflecting quality site
design, landscaping, and building architecture required under the Auburn pun
ordinance.
A. Design Standards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including building orientation, varied facades, continuity and compatibility of structures, colors,
screening, lighting, and landscaping. The Applicants' architect, Patrick McBride, stated that the
architectural intent behind Kersey III was to ensure consistent, compatible, and attractive
residences which portray a sense of architectural integrity, quality, durability, residential
character, and innovative design. Residences are to be designed on a pedestrian scale with
sensitivity to the site. Site design elements proposed for the development include variations in
footprint and/or orientation on the lot; front setbacks; driveway locations and materials; accent
materials such as natural stone, columns, and shutters; front porches that promote pedestrian
connectivity; decks and other architectural features; de-emphasis of garages by blending garage
doors with the character of the residence; differing roof types and window designs; and spacing
of homes with identical elevations, The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Overall Landscape
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, park amenities, and street tree
landscaping.
B. Lot Coverage The Applicants assert that in order to meet (ACC 18.69) PUD standards
for quality site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must be granted. The
Applicants stated that the five- percent increase in allowable lot coverage is to allow flexibility in
home design that would satisfy the PUD guidelines and prevent a "cookie cutter" look with all
homes sharing a similar footprint.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 14000
C. Public Comments Public comments were received on the issue of design. Neighboring
property owners stated that the Applicants' revised proposal reduces the total number of
residences by six and modifies the average lot sizes from 3,800 square feet to 8,400 square feet
to 4,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet with only 10 lots greater than 7,000 square feet.
Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed design does not create compatibility with
Lakeland Hills which has lots ranging from 7,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet nor does it
have the look and feel of sub-communities similar to Lakeland Hills. Neighboring property
owners assert that the proposed PUD/plat does not provide the quality of design required by
ACC 18.69.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 21(A), 21(B), and 21(C) relied on the following
evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 5 and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages
4-5; Exhibit 7, Applicant's PowerPoint and Architect Narrative; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan;
Exhibit 26, Comments by Galeno; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 6; Testimony of Mr.
McBride; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Norris; Testimony of Mr. Galeno.
22. City Council Remand Issue Number 5: The parks and open spaces, and the
adequacy of parks and open spaces located under Bonneville Power Administration
power lines.
A. Parks and Open Space Requirement ACC 18.69.080(A)(l) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as open space, which amounts to 17.86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and II. Non-buildable areas (areas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.030(G)) may be used to meet no more than 50 percent of the open space
area requirement. ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) provides that each PUD must meet the City's Park Plan
standards for park dedication. Current standards are 6.03 acres of unimproved park land for
every 1000 population of the plat. The City permits the required open space to meet all or a
portion of the required parkland. The Applicants proposed 368 single-family residences, or
approximately 920 people (based on 2.5 persons per residence), for a total requirement of 5.55
acres of park land.
As part of the Applicants' original proposal, all of the park space and a large percentage of open
space were being provided within Division I. In the proposal for open space and parks, land
encumbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) easement is the only site for active
and passive recreation opportunities. Open space summary for the first proposal included 28.94
acres of open space (stormwater drainage, open space, parkland, entry signage, pedestrian
pathways) with 15.82 acres in areas ofless than 25%. Of the 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres
was designated as park land. In the revised proposal, the Applicants increased both the amount
of open space and parkland, providing four new parks with two parks for active recreation and
two for passive recreation. Open space now includes 29.64 acres (33.19% of gross area) with
18.12 acres in areas of less than 25%. A total of 9.17 acres has been designated as parkland
(includes open space, parks, and pedestrian pathways but not acreage within the BPA easement)
with the parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division II as opposed to centrally
located. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the City's Park Plan. All of
the proposed park facilities would be built by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUDlPreliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 15 of30
B. BPA Easement The western 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105-9017
(Division I) are encumbered by an easement held by the BP A for a high-voltage power
transmission lines. The BPA easement encompasses approximately 12.51 acres. In both the
original and the revised proposals, the Applicants would utilize this area to satisfy both open
space and park requirements for the development. On August 30, 2005, the Applicants entered
into a Land Use Agreement with BP A allowing for the construction/installation of roads,
utilities, trails, landscaping, a park, and park appurtenances within the easement. BP A has
entered into similar relationships with other developers within the Puget Sound Area as it
provides an efficient use of land and assures maintenance of the BP A easement. The Land Use
Agreement contained 15 conditions including the location of structures in relationship to BP A
transmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
C. Revised Parks and Open Space Plan The revised proposal would retain the BP A
easement area in open space and provide a walking trail. The Applicants' drawings note the path
width as 12 feet as opposed to the 16 feet width required under the Land Use Agreement.
Walking trails would also be provided in Tract B (Division I) and Tract F (Division II). The
walking trail in Tract B would provide a par-course (exercise stations). A playground area
would be provided in Tract Q (Division I) and Tract P (Division II). Tract P would also have a
half-court sports court. Tract Q would have a sports field, including baseball diamond, a full
basketball court, open lawn area, and walking trail. All park areas would have picnic tables and
benches. On-street parking would be provided in the vicinity of the active recreations areas
(ballfield and playgrounds) including along Roads A, E, G, and K. Pedestrian pathways
throughout the plat allow for safe walking to and from park areas.
D. Vegetation All parks would retain existing vegetation when possible. Tree removal
would be required in Tract B and Tract I to accommodate road construction and in other open
space/park tracts to allow for the construction of recreational amenities (ballfields, playgrounds,
walking trails) and stormwater drainage.
E. City Review The City of Auburn Park's Department and City Parks and Recreation
Board reviewed the Applicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant full credit for the use
of land encumbered by the BP A easement, it determined that the Applicant's proposal conforms
to City standards.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C), 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact No. 21, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specific Findings of
Fact No. 22, Sept. 2005 FCR. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 4, 5, and 7; Exhibit 5, Preliminary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7-8; Exhibit 8, BP A Land Use
Agreement; Exhibit 15, Preliminary Plat/PUD Plans; Exhibit 15, Landscaping Plan; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Siedel.
23. City Council Remand Issue Number 6: Incorporation of adequate notification to
future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining operations.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 16 of30
A. Surface Mining At the August 2005 hearing, public comments were received with
regards to the impact on neighboring natural resource lands, a 664-acre gravel mining operation
owned by Segale Properties/ICON Materials lying north of the site. Segale/ICON expressed
concern that a dense residential development would have the potential for generating homeowner
complaints pertaining to air, noise, light, traffic, and safety. Furthermore, Segale/ICON
submitted the construction of Kersey III would generate traffic congestion and other safety
situations, impacting the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a notice be
placed on the final plat, all building permits, and all individual lot deeds as required by RCW
36.70A.060.
B. Modified Condition of Approval For the February 2006 Remand Hearing,
Segale/ICON Properties submitted additional co~ments, seeking to modify a condition to make
it more clear to potential buyers that mining activities are currently on-going at the site. This
condition would protect the mining activities as well as the interests of the City and the
developers. The wording proposed by Segale/ICON is acceptable to the Applicants and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on the following evidence:
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 11; 12, and 13, Condition No.1, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhibit 17, Correspondence from Segale; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Council Remand Issue Number 7: Protection of waterways and the
development's proposed stormwater system.
A. Water Supply Water would be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Applicants
would be required to construct a booster pump station at the comer of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SE and extend a water line along Kersey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the
existing lines in the Lakeland Hills development. Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
City water, adjacent properties are served by private wells. Documentation was not submitted
as part of the record in regards to impacts on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
wells.
B. Private Wells Neighboring property owners stated that wells in the area have gone dry
and the City has been forced to request supplemental water from the City of Bonney Lake. In
addition, the neighbors asserted that the City has given no assurance as to what impact the
PUD/Plat, or the recent sale of water rights, would have on the water level in Lake Tapps and,
subsequently, the City's aquifers.
C. Protection ofWaterwavs Bowman Creek lies north of the subject property and is a
tributary to the White River. The creek was a fish-bearing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for salmon and bull trout populations. As noted in the DEIS, the creation of impervious surface
within the project site would cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes that could cause
downstream channel and bank erosion. The Applicants proposed to collect and convey
stormwater to a standard two-cell wet/detention pond via catch basins and underground storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 17 of30
drainage pipes prior to discharge into Bowman Creek. The drainage facilities, designed to the
City's standards, are located on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and would operate as
a single unit. An energy dissipater would be installed to reduce erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. The revised PUD/Plat contains modifications to the drainage
facilities which increase both pond volume and wetpond surface area. Recommended conditions
of approval incorporate high standards of design (IOO-year flood event) and enhanced erosion
control features. The drainage facilities would be landscaped to screen from adjacent residential
development.
D. Public Comments Public comments were received into the record pertaining to storm
water and water quality with many of the comments pertaining to impacts on Bowman Creek.
Testimony voiced concern for both sediment and pollutant run-off that could impact Bowman
Creek's water quality and fish and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted that while the
development of the Kersey III PUD would not be the cause of the salmon's departure,
development should not prevent restoration of water quality and the return of salmon. The
Applicants stated that the design of the stormwater system should not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 24(A), 24(B), 24(C), and 24(D) relied on the
following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets 7,
9; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 7-8; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint;
Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 23, Comments
of Fassbind; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 36, Applicant's Response, Page 5; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony
of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Brooke.
25. City Council Remand Issue Number 8: Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact
Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities to serve the area south of the White
River.
A. Impact Fees Comments from the Auburn Fire Department were not submitted into the
record for the August 2005 public hearing nor for the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Impacts
on the fire services were considered during environmental review (Exhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
119, Sept. 2005 FCR). To mitigate these impacts, City Planning Staff recommended that the
Applicants pay a $470.16 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard fire impact fee
of $290. 13.
The Applicants are not averse to paying the fire impact fee but requested that the City identifJ
what is the reason for the fee. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
as mitigation for an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
3 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local governments to impose pennit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 18 of30
proportional. (Nol/an v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland Fire Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the developers of
Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to address fire
department service in the remote location of the PUD and the lack of a fire station within close
proximity to the PUD. The proposed PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland
Hills and the additional impact fee would allow for the construction of additional facilities to
serve the area, thereby promoting greater public safety.
B. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue. Neighboring
property owners stated that the City of Auburn is currently experiencing explosive growth that is
putting a strain on emergency services providers, such as police and fire. According to the
neighbors, the nearest fire station is by the SuperMall, some 12 minutes away from the plat.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 25(A) and 25(B) relied on the following evidence:
Exhibit J, Staff Report, Pages 7 and J 5; Exhibit 6, Applicant's Response Matrix, Page 8; Exhibit
28, "Sound the Alarm..."; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to
hear and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to
make recommendations for an application for rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(D) and
18.68.030, for approval of an application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Along with the requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court (rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhood conditions and bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, and general welfare - Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), in order to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the following criteria, as set forth
in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing
Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request.
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing Examiner or the
City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Findings, Condusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 19 of30
In order to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18.69.150, the proposal must demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support
the following:
1. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an improvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open space
protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards
of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the design
guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
In order to APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the
general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
public nuisances.
In order TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the following:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatIVariance - ON REMAND
Page 20 of 30
1. Unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship.
2. Strict conformity with Title 18 would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the
property.
3. Variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to
surrounding properties.
4. Circumstances justifying variance are not a result of the Applicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning district.
6. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning district in which property is located.
7. Variance would not allow for increased density.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, other applicable goals and policies of the City Council, and the ACe.
The Director of Planning correctly determined the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding several
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the development, including
improving the City's transportation network; creating and maintaining park land and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
density; improvement to the City's public utility (water/sewer) system; and protecting
streams and natural areas. The goals and policies of the City Council are embodied in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. The Applicants' proposal is consistent with the
City's Park Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. Proposed design standards comply with the
purpose and intent of ACC 18.69. General Findings of Fact Nos. 2 and 5, Sept 2005
FCR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, Sept 2005, FCR; Findings of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, IO, I I, and I2, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
Rezone Criteria
2. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant-Property Owner and not the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(B)(l), in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider a rezone
request, the City may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the owners of the
property subject to the rezone. Finding of Fact Nos. I and 3, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
3. Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
The Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the original zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 21 of30
(1978). A variety of factors may satisfy a change in circumstances, including changes in
public opinion, local land use patterns, and on the property itself. Bjarnson v. Kitsap
County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. I, 1995). The City and the Applicants stated that
the area where the subject property is located has experienced significant development as
a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; population growth within the City of Auburn; overall
market conditions in Puget Sound which are creating a demand for smaller lots;
topography making the land more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district;
compliance with the urban density requirement of the GMA; and compatibility with the
existing PUD community. Development of the site would provide new homes for the
growing community and improvements to infrastructure. Changes in both land use
patterns and public opinion, along with the requirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plan designation, provide justification for the rezone. General Findings
of Fact Nos. 2 and 5, Sept 2005 FCR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,
Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 9, and 10, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
4. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by
the Applicant.
Planned Unit Develo>>ment/Preliminarv Plat Criteria
5. The PUD/plat proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety,
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
The Applicants have made provisions for internal streets with sidewalks for pedestrian
safety, these include safe walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for
park and open space access. The EIS mitigation measures and conditions of approval
would provide for traffic improvements and traffic control/calming devices to ensure
safety within and to the community. The development would be served by City water
and sanitary sewer. Storm water facilities would collect and convey run-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output. Applicants have provided for a total of
29.64 acres of open space, of which 9.17 acres are to be developed for both active and
passive recreation with an additional 12.51 acres of open/park space provided within the
BP A easement. The open/park space is generally provided in a contiguous block so as to
provide corridors for wildlife. The PUD would be served by City of Auburn water and
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve the needs of the
community. School impact fees would mitigate the increase in student population.
Development of over 350 homes at varied price levels serves the general welfare and
growing housing needs of the community. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18(B)-(C),
19(A)-(F), 21(A)-(C), 22 (A)-(E), and 24(A)-(D), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
6. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, and provides for the
public benefits required of the development of PUDs such as preservation of
natural amenities, creation of pedestrian-oriented communities, efficient use of
land, development of transitional areas, innovative/aesthetic building and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 22 of 30
structural design, creation of parks and open spaces, provision for affordable
housing.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. The Applicants proposed to preserve
natural amenities and sensitive areas through the use of open spaces and parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonstrate a pedestrian-oriented
community with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks for both active and
passive recreation that are dispersed throughout the development. The plat is structured
to utilize the property efficiently by layout, house design, and open space. Homes would
not be facing the residential collector, Evergreen Way SE, and would be separated from
the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by 200 to 600 feet of open space. Setbacks and
privacy fencing would separate the development from adjoining low-density residential
areas. The Applicants proposed a variety of architectural styles, providing a varied
streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. The Applicants proposed over nine
acres of active and passive recreation parklands with additional acreage provided by the
BP A easement. Affordable housing is a concern within the entire Puget Sound area and .
the PUD/plat would provide homes ranging in price from $400,000 to $700,000,
providing a range of options for potential buyers. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5, 14,
15,16,18,19,20,21,22, and 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 5,6, 18(A)-(D),
21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
7. The approval of the pun will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards.
The property is currently zoned R-l, which could allow for development of up to 89
dwelling units on site. However, probably only 60-65 dwelling units would be allowed to
be constructed due to the presence of non-buildable areas (steep slopes, BP A easement),
infrastructure, and park requirements. Applicants seek to develop 368 dwelling units.
Development of over 350 dwelling units would undoubtedly have more impact than the
existing zoning standard but the PUD is providing a significant amount of open space,
park land, and infrastructure improvements to the community. Connection to City water
and sewer would have less impact on groundwater quality and quantity then installation
of private wells and/or on-site septic systems. Location and design of open space would
provide a contiguous corridor for wildlife and scenic views. Development of the site
with homes on one acre lots would result in substantially more fragmentation, creating
greater impacts on wildlife and associated habitat along with scenic view corridors.
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18(D), 20(A), 20(E), and
22, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
8. The pun is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood.
Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and the Lakeland Hills PUD. The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 23 of30
designation for the area is Single-Family Residential which endeavors to develop land
with this designation at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. Development
would be consistent with the character of the neighboring Lakeland Hills community and
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The pun would be screened from low-
density development in the north/northwest by the site's topography and the
retention/enhancement of vegetation. The Applicants would provide 25 to 35 foot rear
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer low-density development to the east and
south. Conditions of approval would require a minimum of one tree per rear yard to
further buffer between adjacent uses. General Findings of Fact No.2, Sept 2005 FCR;
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 8, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 4,
10, 11, 18(B), 20(A)-(E), 21(A), 21(C), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
9. The pun and Preliminary Plat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning
ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications and to other applicable policies or plans adopted by the City
Council.
With conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the pun complies with all related City
codes and standards. Specific Findings of Fact No. 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 11, Feb 2005 Remand Hearing.
10. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, wildlife and their associated habitat would be directly affected and
no mitigation measures were available to ameliorate this impact. Wildlife would suffer
from loss of native vegetation, fragmentation of habitat, reduction in native populations,
and disturbance in retained habitat due to human encroachment. While these impacts can
not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species is listed as endangered,
threatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The design of
open/park space does provide habitat for wildlife in a contiguous, as opposed to
fragmented manner, and retention of native vegetation would assist in preserving habitat.
In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be effected by the increase in
impervious surface that would affect the hydrology of the area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applicant would be required to provide technology to control
sediment/erosion thereby lessening impacts to water resources and fisheries habitat.
Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - would all be impacted by the increased
population generated by the development. Conditions of approval require the Applicants
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these public service impacts, including fire and traffic
impacts fees higher than those that are mandated under the ACC. Specific Findings of
Fact Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19,20, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18(A)-(E), 19(A)-(F), 20(E), 22(A)-(E), 23(A), 24(A)-(D), and
25(A)-(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III RezonefPUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 24000
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent
or abate public nuisances.
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are addressed directly
in ACC 8.12. A public nuisance affects public health and property values by creating
visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic
situations. Compliance with City design standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
conditioned the development of a Homeowners' A~sociation and the associated
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would ensure that visual blights and dangers to
public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FeR
Variance Criteria
12. The subject property does not possess physical conditions or exceptional
topographic features that warrant deviating from the applicable design
requirements nor does strict conformity with ACC Title 18 fail to allow
reasonable and harmonious use of the property which would justify a variance.
Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 21 (A)-(C), Feb 2006 FeR.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of law, the Hearing Examiner recommends to the
Auburn City Council that the request for a variance from the required lot coverage be DENIED.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the request for a rezone of 89.31 acres from R-l Single
Family Residential to PUD, approval of the PUD, and approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and on
all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III development (Division I and
Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining-related activities including, but not limited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Prior to the issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an open space tract, the
Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 25 of 30
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the construction of interior
improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also submit engineering/construction
drawings for the construction of all park improvements as depicted on the drawings
submitted (Exhibit 5). The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's
Parks Director prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any materials
supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City Parks Department standards and
be approved by the Parks Director prior to installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval by City Staff prior to
final plat approval. This .document shall include architectural design criteria for new homes
and specify the financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II Conceptual Building
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the submitted conceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be
incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall include a
color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following conditions shall
apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. No more than a two-car garage shall be used; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes sharing
the same floor plan are located adjacent to one another
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with the Applicants'
resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval. (Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the
plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of
native vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot numbers 19-62 and
Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to
buffer the adjacent development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting landscaping. The number,
style, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivalent to a six foot high
solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 26 of 30
pathways requires the approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that
border on a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall be
separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of approximately three to four
feet in height. This fence shall delineate the property line and prevent encroachment by the
property owner into the native/open space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the
associated preliminary plat.
11. Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the
Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated February
2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this recommendation.
12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. This
traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in
advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills
Way and Evergreen Way SE. These traffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a
round-about unless the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic
controls shall be designed and construction as a traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the
park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to
loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide
for preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegetation,
thereby mitigating these impacts.
18. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School District.
Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide
transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the
proposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 27 of 30
responsible for all school impact fees In a manner consistent with local and state law
requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing
necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for lot
grading shall be submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan
should be to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the
need for subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots during
home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary of the crest slopes for the
site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall show quantities and locations of excavations, and
embankments, the design of temporary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent properties, natural
and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas. Temporary detention
facilities shall be designed with a 1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated
pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the measures
shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construction
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's
review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attention to
developing a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and
related activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is October 1
through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or
any other critical areas as required in chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code
(IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geo-technical
engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are
necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for
review and approval by the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface
water is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by the geotechnical engineer
and coordinated with the project engineer responsible for the storm drainage system design.
19. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, including the off-site
erosion feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman
Creek. Appropriate mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 28000
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic requirements consistent with City standards
can be accommodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of Auburn Design
Standards. In order to achieve this, the following design elements must be incorporated into
the final design:
. Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage structures is required.
To provide an adequate and safe storm pond access, an appropriately designed pull-
off shall be provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
. All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream bypass surface
flows shall be routed through the project site and shall not be combined with the
proposed on-site storm drainage system. Maintenance access shall be provided to all
structures proposed to be in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system
shall be placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy dissipation features
are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site, appropriately designed
aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way near 53rd Street
SE, and subsequent flooding of the intersection, an appropriately designed storm drainage
system shall be constructed to mitigate this condition.
21. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump station shall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the
desired basin. The public sanitary sewer pump station shall be located as directed by the City
Engineer in order to allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between
Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the sanitary sewer
system located at the SE comer of Tract D, Division 1.
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except where deviations
are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatIVariance - ON REMAND
Page 29 of 30
23. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential collector
arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn lane area through the plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10 foot center
median/turn lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to Lakeland Hills Way, to the
satisfaction of the city engineer.
25. The Applicants shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and Evergreen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
26. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path, separated
by a five foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for the length of.
the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foot through northbound lane, a 12
foot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns lane{s) at the intersection with 53rd
Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on
the west side. All other features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and
lighting must meet city standards.
28. The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary,
through the location of lots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with 176th A venue East.
29. A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South
PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
30. A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
31. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Land Use Agreement
entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power Administration (Exhibit 8). The
Land Use Agreement set forth 15 conditions, including, but not limited to landscaping,
distance from transmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Decided this .2L- day of March, 2006.
J es Driscoll
earings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 30 of 30
1
j
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and that portion of
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lying southerly of
the H.B. Carter County Road; All in Section 32, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for Stuck Road
and by Deed recorded under Recording Number 5407388;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed by King County for Lake
~~apps Access Road, by deed recorded under Recording Number 5801756.
,->
.-
,
FEE PAYMENT:
T.R. #:
DATE RECEIVED:
CASHIER'S INITiAlS:
$1,038.00 and $53.00 per lot plus $727.00 for Environmental Checklist
Preliminary Plat
Revised 11612005
p
:';-=000 I
j-
I
Page 6 of6