HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-4*
«
CITYOF
RN AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHINGTON
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6270 for Final Plat Application No.
Date: September 29, 2009
PLT09-0005
Department: Planning, Building
Attachments: Ordinance No. 6270
Budget Impact: N/A
and Communit
and Exhibits listed below
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6270.
Background Summary:
M. Gary LaSala of Kersey 3 Division 2, LLC, has made application for the Final Plat of "The Ridge At
Bowman Creek" (aka Kersey 3 Division 2). This plat includes creation of 201 lots, dedication of a.80
acre public park, openspace tracts, drainage tract, and entry landscape tracts. Additionally, right-of-way
will be dedicated for Evergreen Way SE linking Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way SE.
The 38 acre property is located midway between Lakeland Hills and the intersection of Kersey Way SE
with Evergreen Way SE, in the 2100-2500 block. The parcel was rezoned from R-1 to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and received PUD approval under Ord. No. 6024 (Files REZ05-0002 and PUD05-
0002) on May 11, 2006. The preliminary plat of "The Ridge At Bowman Creek" received preliminary
approval under Resolution 4024 (PLT05-0002) on the same date.
This plat has been developed in accordance with the PUD zoning district per ACC18.69 (subsequently
repealed); Title 17 (subsequently amended); and conditions of the preliminary plat and PUD. The
approval of the PUD and Plat are tied to the approval of "Kersey 3 Division 1A". Approvals for both
properties require implementation of the identical conditions for street dedication (Evergreen Way SE);
street improvements to Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE, a water booster substation, park
dedications, and establishment of private parks and open space. As a result, this plat is to be recorded
concurrent with the plat of "Kersey 3 Division 1A".
A financial security in lieu of completion of all of plat infrastructure improvements has been provided to
the City. The City Engineer has signed the Certificate of Improvements accepting the security bond.
Prior to recording of the final plat minor changes are needed to the face of the plat. The City will record
the plat only after these changes are made.
L 1005-3
03.5 PLT09-0005
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
0 Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
p Finance ED Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
(D Fire 0 Planning
❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works
0 Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
0 Public Works ❑ Human Resources
❑ Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Norman
Staff: Baker
Meetin Date: October 5, 2009
Item Number: VIII.A.4
.A[J$[,,TRN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6271 for Date: September 29, 2009
Final Piat Application No. PLT09-0006
Attached are the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 1- Final Plat (11 Sheets)
Exhibit 2- Proposed Ordinance No. 6270 to approve the Final Plat of The Ridge At Bowman Creek
Exhibit 3- Ordinance No. 6024, approving the rezone to PUD, Planned Unit Development
Exhibit 4- Resolution No. 4024, approving the Preliminary Plat of The Ridge At Bowman Creek.
Exhibit 5- Exhibit A(Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation) attached to Ordinance No.6024
and attached to Resolution No. 4024
Exhibit 6- The City Engineer's Certificate of Improvements
Page2of2
ORDINANCE NO. 6270
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF THE RIDGE AT BOWMAN
CREEK.
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received a final plat application for the Plat
of The Ridge At Bowman Creek (aka Kersey 3 Div. 2), Application No. PLT09-
0005, the final approval of which is appropriate for City Council Action;
WHEREAS, based on the review given this Plat by the City, the City
Council hereby makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. M. Gary LaSala of Kersey 3 Division 2, LLC, has made application for the
Final Plat of "The Ridge At Bowman Creek". The preliminary plat was
approved by the City Council under Resolution No. 4024 and signed by
the Mayor on May 11, 2006. "The Ridge At Bowman Creek" creates 201
lots, tracts and dedicated rights-of-way.
2. "The preliminary plat has been developed in accordance with the
approved Planned Unit Development (PUD05-0002) and all applicable
conditions of the preliminary plat (PLT05-0002).
3. "The Ridge At Bowman Creek" PUD and Plat are tied to the PUD and Plat
of "Kersey 3 Division 1 as the conditions of approval for "The Ridge At
Bowman Creek" required that street dedication, park dedication, creation
of openspace tracts within "Kersey 3 Division 1" be accomplished
concurrently.
4. A Certificate of Improvements has been issued by the City Engineer,
accepting a security bond in lieu of completion of all required plat
improvements.
5. Tract P, a.80-acre (35,054 square foot) tract of land within the plat will be
dedicated to the City of Auburn for a public park when the plat is recorded.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Final Plat is in compliance and in conformity with applicable Zoning
and Land Division Ordinances and other applicable land use controls.
Ordinance No. 6270
October 5, 2009
Page 1 of 3
2. The Plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Plat meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approval. The Ridge At Bowman Creek, a subdivision
involving property located within the City of Auburn, Washington, which plat is
legally described on Sheet 2 of the Final Plat and set forth below:
Lot 1, City of Auburn Short Plat Number SP-22-77, recorded under
Recording Number 7905301012, being a revision of Short Plat recorded
under Recording Number 7712130917, in King County, Washington, being
a portion of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 32, Township
21 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington.
is hereby approved, and deemed to conform to the requirements for Plat
approval pursuant to State and local law and Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code
of Washington and Section 58.17.140 thereof.
Section 2. Constitutionalitv or Invaliditv. If any section, subsection
clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason hetd to be invalid or
unconstitutional such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, as it is being hereby
expressly declared that this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed adopted and
approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that nay one or more section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. Recordation. Upon the passage, approval and publication
of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Records,
Elections and Licensing Services Division.
Ordinance No. 6270
October 5, 2009
Page2of3
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shatl take effect and be
in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
AP[:' KO~'(EDi~~~FORM/
~ ~
baniel B. H6
City Attorney
Published:
Ordinance No. 6270
October 5, 2009
Page 3 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 6 0 2 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPR4VING A
REQUEST TD REZONE APPROXlMATELY 38.46
ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1)
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOFMENT (PUD) AND
APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Applica#ions Nos. REZ05-0002 and PUD05-0002, dated April
8, 2005, were submitted to the City of Auburn, Washingtan by Dan and Stormy
Hayes, Landholdings, Inc., requesfing approvaf of a rezone and approval of a
p{anned unit development to subdivide 38.46 acres into 201 lots for future single
family res'sdential development, open space, and street and utility tracts within the
City of Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said appfication was made concurrently with an applica#ion
far preliminary pEat approva[ for ths same site (Application No. F'LT05-0002); and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be compfete pursuant to
Aubum City Cade ort June 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said requests referred to above were referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, fhe Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Counci! Chambers af the Auburn
City Half on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recornmended
approval of the preliminary plaf subject to conciitions on September 2, 2406; and
ordinance Na. 6024 EX H I B IT 3
May 2, 2006 O F
Page 1 of 12 ORD. NO. 6270
AGENDA BILL
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommenda#ions; and
WHEREAS, a ciosed record hearing was held on October 3, 2005 and
continued on Ocfober 17, 2005, at which time the City Council considered the
Hearing Examiner's recommendations and the material presented fo the Hearing
Examiner and argument made to the City Council at said closed record hearing;
and WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments receivsd at the closed
record hearing concerning matters re(ated to the record drew into question
significant portians of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a#ter 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
considera#ion of issues raised by the Council, and the applicant's representative
declined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, ort November 90, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a willingness to waive the 120-day project review time#able otherwise
applicable for processing the application and a wilTngness to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
Ciky Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the application back to the
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 hear(ng to consider said petition in the Council Chambers o# 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 Cify Council considered the Hearing Examirter's recommendations, the
material presented to the Hearing Examiner and argumen# made to the City
Council at said ctosed record hearing and aifirmed the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for preliminary plat based upon the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendatian which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subjec# to additional conditions of appraval.
NOW THEREFORE, THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 12
Section 'I. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated Hersin.
Section 2. The request far rezane and pfanned unit development
approval to allow a preliminary plat ta subdivide 38.46 acres into 201 lots for
future single family residential development, open space and street and ufility
tracts within the City of Auburn, fegaily described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved subject to the
follawing conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, #he fol(owing notice shall be placed an the
final p{at and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey 111
development (Division ! and Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral
resource lands on which a variety of cammercial
activities occur that may not be campatible wifh
residential deve(opment, including, but not limited to,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, cancrete and asphait produc#ion,
recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of finak p(at approval for any phase containing an
apen space tract, the Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreement
to submit, a Declaration of Covenants, Canditions, and Restrictions that
conforms #o #he requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
3. As patt of the engineering/construction drawings submifted for the
construction of interior improvements #o the subdivisian, Applicant shall
also submit engineering/construction drawings for the cons#ruction of alf
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 #he approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 12
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 appravai.
4. Propased Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the fu#ure
Kersey [ll Homenwners' Association shall be submitted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to final pla# approval, This dacumenk 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 wifhin any street median strip, planting strips
and all HOA parks. !n additian, the HOA shall maintain those por#ions of
the stormwater tract located auts9de the fenced pond boundary, ar if no
fence if pravided, outside the 10-year starm water surface elsvation, as
determined by the City Engineer.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I& 11
Concep#ual Building Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the
submitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be incorpora#ed
into the CC&Rs for the projec#. The final design guidelines shall include a
color palefte for proposed house ex#erior colors. In addikinn, the following
conditions shall apply.
a) Homes shail feature muitip[e roaf pitches on their street-
#acing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
front properfy 1ine. At least, but no more than, a two-car
garage door shall face the street; tandem parking is
acceptabfe.
c) Home designs shafl be varied such that no more than two
homes sharing the same floor plan are located adjacent ta
one another
d) Lot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, da#ed March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Applicants' resubmitta[ for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shali maximize the use of native
and/or drought-resistant plants thraughout the plat, including park and
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 5 of 12
landscaped open space areas. Emphasis shouid be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential devefopmen# (Division I Lot
numbers 99-62 and Division Il Lot numbers 17-49) sha!l have, at a
minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to buffer the adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shail be a fow monument style with accenfing
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
landscaping shaq be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent materia[,
sty[e, and color. Ths Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
shall be equivalent to a six foat high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be
erected adJacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Directar. All residentiai 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 woaden fence of
approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by the praperty ownar into the
native/open space, park, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Association
shall be responsible to maintain a!1 fences required by this condifion.
10.Applicants shall comply with a!I of the mitigation measures as noted on
pages 9-19 of the Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final ElS (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
throughout this recommendation.
11.Applicants shafl canstruct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Eng9neer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbaund Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This active warning signal must be constcucted to the
satisfaction af the City Engineer.
13.Applicants shall pravide 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.
Ordinance Na. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 12
14.Applicants shall provide access acceptabls to the City of Auburn for
properties abutting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53~d St. SE.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post
financial securify for traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
traffic contrals shall be designed and conskrueted as a round-about unless
the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is nat
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not
feasible, then fhe traffic contrals 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 safefy amenities musk be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17.The EiS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the
enviranment, namely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated
habitat. Twa main impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and
fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavar to provide for
preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
18.Applicants shall engage in meaningfui consultation with the Auburn School
District. Communicafions should not rnerely seek to ensure that #he
school district can provide transportafion, but that schools have the
capacity to serve the students generated by the proposai without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any schooi. Applicants shall be
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with local
and state law requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of cfearing or grading permits, a grading pian for grading
and clearing necessary for both the canstruction of infrastructure such as
roads and utifities and for lot grading shall be submitted and approved by
the City of Ataburn. The purpose of the plan should be to accnmplish 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 ident+fy 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
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 7 of 12
design of temporary starm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent
properties, naturai and publlc storm drainage systems and ather near by
sensitive areas. Tsmporary detention facifitles shall be designed with a
1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour past-developed storm event. AEl the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filiing,
grading or construction activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a
licensed geQtechnical 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 wsather periods (the period of greatest concern is
October 9 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 lnternational Building Code (IBC) and/or the
City's Critical Areas Ordinartce.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the sife and determine if new or
additional mitigatian 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.
20. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vic9nity of Stream Station 14+40 musf
be completed, including the off site erosion feature observed at the outlet
of the culver# under Kersey Way and near Bowman Creefc. Appropriate
mitigatian sha(I be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation af
stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek.
21. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of dssign to
enhance the appearance of #he 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.
C3rdinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
PagB 8 af 12
Prior to final plat approvai, a landscaping pfan with applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that sform drainage pond aesfhetic
requirements consistent with City standards can be accommodated on-
site.
Stvrm drainage facilities shali be provided consistent with the City of
Auburn Design Standards. in order to achieve this, the following design
elements must be incorpara#ed 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 fo serve the pond.
All storm drainage conveyance Iines requlred to manage upstream
bypass surface flows shall be rouked through the praject site and shall
not be combined with fhe proposed on-site storm drainage system.
Maintenance access sha!l 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 slapes found on the site, appropriately designed energy
dissipatian features are required at the end af fong runs of pipe, at pipe
intersecfions and at the outlet to the storm drainage pond.
Ta enhance the water quality af the discharge leaving the site,
appropriately designed aeration shaif be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey
Way near 53`d 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 afignmen# of the farce main and the proposetf pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacent propetty nwners and the Cify to
ensure it provides service to the desired basin. The public sanitary sewer
pump station shall be loca#ad as directed by the City Enginaer in order to
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have ta back
into public right-of-ways.
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 9 of 12
The appticant shall provide sanitary sewer s#ub to the south property line
located between Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easemenE far possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Divisian 1.
23.AIf roads within ihe plat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and sha{I be dedicated as
public right of way.
24.The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to C'tty standards for a
residential collector ar#erial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn
lane area through the plat boundaries.
25.The Applicants shall also construct med(an treatments to match the 10
foot center medfan/turn [ane 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-faot wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five foot fandscape strip from the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the length of the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the
satisfactian of the City Engineer.
28.The Applicants shail construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for
a minor arterial road, to include a 12 foot center turn Eane, a 12 foot through
northbound lane, a 12 faot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns
fane(s) at the intersection with 5P Street SE, a five faot landscape strip and
a minimum 1 Q-foot wide shared muiki-use path on the west side. A11 other
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 af way stubbing to the south
plat boundary, through the location of lots 27 and 28, Division 1, to a[ign with
176th Avenue East.
30.A #raffic impact fee equivalenk to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
hames.
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 10 of 12
31.A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hiils South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individuaf
homes.
32. The Applicants shail comply with al1 conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agreement entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power
Administration, a copy of which is attached hereto, marksd as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by this reference. The Land Use Agreement set forth 15
conditions, inc(uding, but not fimited to landscaping, distance from
fransmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. CONSTtTUTIONALITY OR INVALIDITY. If any section,
subsectinn, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is far any
reason held invalid or unconstitufionai by any Court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and
such holding shall not affecf the validity of the remaining por#ions thereof.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is authorized to implsment
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives
of this legislation.
Section S. EFFECTfVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in fulf force and
effect five {5} days after publication as required by faw..
Dated and Signed this 11 ~day of , 2006.
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 12
INTRODUCED: MAY 1 1 2006~
PASSED: MAY 1 12006
APPROVED: MAY 1 1 2Dd6
CITY OF AU
. tfff7->
P TER B. LEWIS,
MAYO R
ATTEST:
,
Da ' I!e E. Daskam,
City Clerk
PUBLISHED:.> 'U ~
Ordinance No. 6024
May 2, 2006
Page 12 of 12
t
Return Address: ,
Auburn City Clerlc
City 4f Auburn
25 West Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001
Z0t~6~9280024m4
PACIFY 75-00
PRGE00t OF 044
091213/2008 16:13
KItiGCOtlNYY, iJA
RECORDER'S COVER SHEET
Document Titfe(s) (or transactions contained therein):
Rezone (Ordinance 6024) CM4 "15
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned ar released:
ai reference #'s on paqe of dacument
Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials)
1. Auburn, City of
Grantee. (Last name first)
1. Dan and Stormy Hayes Landholdings, Inc.
Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range)
Lot 4, City of Auburn Short Pfat Number SP-22-77 UW dmunM(e)Wo(ofW lot
~ by Pacifio Northweet 1i% !o
~ Additional legal is on page 44 of lhe document, aovomrnodaNon only,111tu ftp; twii
ammm as propw skoomn Ar
Assessar's Property Tax ParcellAccount Number: aw-m no arw uPm m'e' ~
3221059039
O Assessor Tax # not
LEGAL t?ESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Lot 1, Ciry of Auburn Short Plat Number SP-22-77, recorded under
Recording Number 7905301012, being a revision of Short Plat recorded
under Recording Number 7712130917, in King County, Washington, bezng
a porti.on oE the east half of the southwest quarter o£ 5ection 32,
Township 21 North, Range 5East, W.M., in King CounCy, Y7ashington.
FEE PAYMENT: $1,038.00 and $53A0 perlot plus $727.00 for EnvironrnsntaE Checklist
T.R.
DAi'E RECEIVED; • _ ~
CASHIER'S INI71AlS:
Preiiminary plat
ReHSed II6J2pp5
Page 6 of 6
(9~~
Dt v 2
_
RESOLUTION N0. 4024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CfTY COUNCiL OF THE
CITY UF AUBURN, WASHtNGTON, APPROViNG A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPI.ICATION TO SUBDIVIDE
38.46 ACRES INTO 201 LOTS AND VARIOUS
TRACTS F4R FUTURE SiNGLE FAMIL.Y
RESIDENTlAL DEVELf)PMENT, WITHIN THE ClTY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGT4N
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT05-0002, dated Aprif 8, 2005, has been
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Dan and Starmy Hayes,
Landholdings, Inc., requesting approvai of a preliminary plat application to
subdivide 38.46 acres into 201 (ofs for future single family residential
development, apen space, and streef and utility tracts wikhin the City of Auburn,
Washington; and
; WHEREAS, said application was made concurrently with applications #or
rezane and planned unif devefopment approval for the same site (Application
Nos. REZ05-4002 and PUD05-0002); and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be comp(ete pursuant
to Auburn Gity Code on June 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said request above referred to was referred ta the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, foffowing staff review, fhe Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said pe#ition in the Cauncil Chambers of the Auburn
City Hail on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to canditions on September 2, 2005; and
eso{ution No. 4024+
I~ R
May 2, 2006
Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT 4
OF
oRD. No. 6270
AGENDA BILL
WHEREAS, at i#s regular meeting of September 49, 2005, the City Cauncil
votecf to conduct a c[osed 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 fo the City Council at said closed recard hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and commenfs received at the closed
recflrd hearing concerning matters related fo the record drew into questian
significan# portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, afEer the cfosed record hearing, the City Gouncil asked the
applicant if he would be willing to accept the additional time it would take if the
requests were remanded back ta the Hearing Examiner for further review and
consideration of issues raised by the Councif, 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 ta the
City a willingness to waive the 920-day project review timetabls otherwise
applicable for processing the application and a wilfingnass to have the applrcation
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and
Resolution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 11
WHEREAS, a# iks regularly schedu{ed meeting of Novernber 15, 2005, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the application back to #he
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
publlc hearing to consfder said petition in the Caunci! Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on February 22, 2006, of which the Hearing Examiner fecommended
approval o# the revised preliminary plat subject to conditions on March 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was hefd on April 25, 2006, at whlch
time the City Councii 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,
Canclusions and Recommendation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subject to additional conditions of approval.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY C4UNClL OF THE CfTY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGI"ON, HEREBY RESOLVES as fotlows:
Section 1. The Hearing Examiner`s Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendatian attached hereta as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated in this Resolution.
Resolutian Na. 4424
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 11
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 38.46
acres into 201 lots for future smgle family residentia[ development, open space
and strest and utility tracts within the City of Auburn, legally described in Exhibit
°B" aitached hereto and incarporated herein by fhis reference, is hereby
approved subjec# ta the follnwing conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.74A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the
finaf plat and on all building perrnits and deeds issued within the Kersey f!I
development (Division E and Divisian II):
NOTiCE: This property is near designated mineral
resource lands on which a variety of commercial
activities occur tha# may not be compatibfe with
residential development, including, but nat limited to,
mining, exfrac#ion, washing, crushing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, concrete and asphalt production,
recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of finai plat approval for any phase cantaining an
open space tract, the Appficants shall submit, or enter into an agreement
to submit, a Declara#ion of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions fhat
conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
3. As part of the enginesring/construction drawings submi#ted for the
construction of interior improvements #o the subdivision, Applicant shall
also submit englneering/constructian drawings for the constructlon of afl
parEc improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City af Auburn's Parks
Director prior to #he approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and installed for #he parics must meet current Cify Parics
Department standards and be approved by ths f'arks Director prior to
installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditians, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the futurs
Kersey fll Homeawners' Assaciation shafl be submitted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall
inciude architectural design criteria for new homes and specify the
financial means of maintenance of alI common open spaces, The CC&Rs
sha11 provide that the Homenwners Association' (HOA) shall be
responsible to maintain and repface as necessary all trees, trails, special
Resolutivn No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 11
features and landscaping within any streef inedian strip, p#anting strips
and afi HOA parks. ln addition, the HOA shall maintain those portions of
the stormwater fract located outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if provided, autside the 10-year sform water surface elevafion, as
determined by the City Engineer.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 t]'tvision I& II
Conceptual Buifding Design Guidefines dated January 9, 2006 and the
submiffed conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architecturai Design Guidelines shall be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall inc(ude a
cofor pafefte for proposed house exterior co[ors. In addifion, the following
canditEOns shall apply.
a) Homes shall fea#ure multiple roof pitches on fheir sfreet-
facing facades. b) Garages shall be set back a minirnum 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
accsptable,
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two
homes sharing the same fioor pfan are lncated adjacent #o
one another d) Lot caverage shali not exceed 45%.
6. Finaf landscaping design shall be generaliy 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 3-6). The Applicants shall maximize the use af native
and/or drought-resisfant plants throughout the plat, including park and
landscaged open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the Eoss of native vege#a#ion.
7. A11 lots abutting low-density residential deveEopment (Division I Lot
numbers 19-62 and Division II Lot numbers 1749) shall have, at a
minimum, one tree in #he rear yard setback to buffer the adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shaEi be a low rnonument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
Eandscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent materia(,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
shaQ be equivalent to a six faot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be
Resolukion No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 11
erected adjacent to any of the pfanned pedes#rian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Dfrector. Afl residentiaf properties that barder on
a native/apen space, park, ar drainage tract (Tract A, 6, C, D, and I) shall
be separated from these areas by use of atrnro- rail wooden fence of
approximatefy three to four feet in height. This €ence shaH delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the
native/open space, paric, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Associatian
shall be responsible to maintain all fences required by this condition.
10.Applicants shal( comply with all of the mitigation measures as noted an
pages 9-99 of the Kersey ifl Preliminary Piat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
fhroughout this recommendation.
11.Appficants sha11 construct a#raffic signaf at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of #he
City Engineer. "
12.AppJicants shall construct an active warning signa[ on southbaund Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection af Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This active warning signal must be consfructed to the
satisfaction of the Ci#y Engineer.
13.Appficanfs shall provide auxifiary fanes at the intersection of Evergresn
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed
to the satisfaction of fhe CiEy Engineer.
14.Applicants shall provide access acceptable fa fhe City of Auburn for
properties abufting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53" S#, SE.
15. F'rior to any #inal plat approvals, Appllcants shail construct or post
#inancial security for traffic confrols to the satisfac#ian of the City Engineer
af the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
fraffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a round-abouf unless
the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a raund-abaut is not
feas'sble. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about 9s na#
feasible, then the fraffic controls shall be designed and consfructinn as a
kraffic signal.
16. f'rior fo any final plat approvals, Appiicants shall construct or past 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
cafming and pedestrian safety, amenifies must be constructed to the
satisfaction ofi the City Engineer.
Resolution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 1 I
17. The EIS states that fhere are unavoidab(e significant impacts on the
environmen#, namely impacts on wifdlife populations and their associated
habl#at. Two main impacts pertain to loss of nafive vegetation and
fragmerttation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavar, , to provide for
preservation of a wild[ife habitat by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
1 8.Applicants shall engage in meaningful cortsultatian with the Auburn School
Disfrict. Communicatians shvufd not mereiy seek to ensure. #hat the
school district can provide transportation, but that schools have the
capacity to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacify at any schonl. Applicants shall be
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with locaf
and state !aw requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of c[earing ar grading permits, a grading plan for grading
and ciearing 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 aceornplish the
maximum amount of grading a# one time to limik or avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots
during home cans#ruction. Ths plan sha(I identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest slopes for #he site's 40% or greater slopes. This pian shall
shaw quantities and locations of excavations= and embankmen#s, the
design of temporary s#orm drainage de#ention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentatian from impacting adjacent
properties, natural and publie 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
valume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed starm event. All tha
rneasures shaEl be implernented prior to beglnning phased on-site filling,
grading or cons#ructian ac#ivfties. The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunctian with and reviewed by a
ficensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shaA devetop
and submit, for the Gity's review, specific recommendatians to mitigate
grading activities, with particular attention to develaping a plan tn mfiimize
the axtent and time soils are expnsed and address grading and related
activities during we# weather perlods (the periad 'of greatest concern is
October 1 through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the
extent of geolagic hazard area or any other crifical areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the Internatlonal Building Code (fBC) andlor the
City's Critical Areas 4rdinance. Resafutian No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 7 of 11
Upon comp(etion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the s9te and determine if new or
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical
report shall be submitted to the Clty of Auburn far review and approvai by
the City Engineer. Recommendatians for areas where subsurface water
is known ar discovered shall be given particular attention by the
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with fhe project engineer
responsible for the sform drainage system design.
20. Prior to final plat approval, a supplementaf evaluation of s#ream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vicinify of Stream Station 14+00 must
be campleted, including the off-site eros9on feature observed a# the ou#let
of the cufvert under Kersey Way and near Sowman Creek. Apprapriate
mitigatian shall be propased to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determinsd be presen# from fhe supplemenfaf evaluation of
stream channel condi#ions along Bowman Creek.
21. Storm dra9nage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to
enhance the appearance of the si#e and serve as an arnenity. The design
of above ground storage and conveyance facilitles shall address or
incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetatian, minimal side slopes,
safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Prior to final plat approval, a fandscaping plan with applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consis#ent with Cify standards can be accommodated on-
sife.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistenf with the City of
Auburn Design Standards. !n order to achieve this, the fo[lowing design
elements must be incorporated infa the final design:
• Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
struckures is required. To provide an adequate and safe storm pond
access, an appropriately dssigned pull-off shall be provided from
Kerssy Way SE to serve the pand.
. All s#orm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream
bypass surFace fiows shall be routed through the project sife and shall
not be combined witn fhe proposed an-site s#orm drainage sys#em.
Maintenance access shall be provided to al[ structures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system shall be
pfaced within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Resolution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriate{y designed energy
dissipation features are.requirsd at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe
intersecfians and at the au#iet to the storm drainage pond.
To enhance the water qualify of the discharge leaving the sife,
appropriately designed aeration shap be prnvided wifhin the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencles in the vicinity af Kersey
Way near 53`d Street SE, and subsequent ffooding of the intersection, an
appropriately designed storm drainage system shafl be constructed to
mitigate this condition.
22,The Iocation and afignment of the force main and the proposed pump
station sha[l 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 locafed as directed by the City Engineer in order to
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have ta back
into pubfic right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line
lacated befween Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The appiicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division 1.
23.A11 roads wi#hin the pfat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the Cify Engineer) and shall be dedicated as
public right of way.
24,The Applicants shall canstruct Evargreen Way to City standards for a
residential collectar arteriaf including a 10 foot landscaped center medianlturn
fane area through the plat bnundaries.
25.The Appticants sha(I a(so construct median treatments to match the 10
foot center rnedian/turn lane within the pEat on the existing raadway west to
I.afceEand Hills Way, to the satis#action of the city engineer,
26,The Appficants shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and
Evergreen Way and Road A and Evergreen Way to provide addifional
pedestrian refuge, ta the satisfaction a# the City Engineer.
27.The Applicants shall cons#ruct a minirnum 10-font wide shared muifi-use
path, separated by a five foot fandscape strlp from the road, an the west slde
of Kersey Way for the length of the site frantage along Kersey Way, to the
satisfactian of the Cify Engineer.
Reso[ution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 9 of 11
28,The Appiicants shaH construct Kersey Way to a rnodified city standard for
a minor arteriai road, ta include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foof through
nor#hbound lane, a 12 foat through southbound lane, appropriate right tums
lane(s) at the intersectian with 5P Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on the west side. All o#her
features about fhe 'road such as vertical cUrb, s#orm drainage and fighting
must meet city standards.
29.The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south
piat baundary, through #he location of Eots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with
176`h Avenue East. • ,
30.A traffic impaet fee equivalent ta the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shafl be paid at #he #ime of building permits for individual
homes.
31.A fire impact fee equivalen# to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
HiE1s South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
homes.
32. The Appficants shall comply with aII conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agreement entered into by #he Applicants with the Bonneville Power
AdmPnistration (Exhibit 8). The Land Use Agreernent set forth 15 conditions,
including, but not limited to landscaping, distance frorn transmission fine
towers, and a rninimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. The Mayor is au#horized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the direcfives of fhis legislafion.
Section 4. This Resolution sha11 take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Resolution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page '90 of 11
Dated and Slgned this 4t 4- day of u , 2flp6.
C1TY 0 U ~
_.J
.
PETER B. LEWIS,
MAYOR
DarTt'efle E. Daskam,
City Cleric
Resolution No. 4024
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 11
BEFOTtE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE C1TY OF AUBURN
In the Marier of the Application of
Lakeridge Development )
by Wayne 3ones )
and )
Landholdings LLC )
by Daniel and Stormy Hayes )
)
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit Development, )
a Preliminary Ptat, and a Variance for )
Kersev II1- Division I and Division II )
NO. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002
PUD05-0041, PUD 05-0002
PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSTONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
Tn 2005, Lakeridge Deve[opment, through Wayne 3ones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce
Howles and Peter_ Bowles, (Applicants) requested approval of a xezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and preliminary piat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a single»family
residential subdivision, and a variance from certairi design skandards.
The Applicants requested a rezone of ihree separate tax parcels from R-1 Single Family
Residen#ial to Plaluied Unit Development. The PIanned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots in Division I and 204 Lots in Division II. The requesied vaiiances would
reduce front yard setback and lot coverage requirements. The subject property totals 89.31 acres
and is lvcated within the city limits of Auburn, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE,
extending southward tn the King-Pierce County iine.
An open record hearing on #he request was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of
Aubum on August 9, 2005. The Hearing Examiner ailowed the record to remain open for the
fimited purpose of securing comments from the Auburn Schoal District on impacts generated by
the proposed residential development. The School District's comments were received and the
record was officially ciosed on August 16, 2005. Following a review of the testimony and
exhibits, and based on th$ criteria established by the Aubum City Council, on September 2, 2005
the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the rezone from R-1 Residential
ta Planned Unit Development, approval of the Planned Unit Development, and approval of the
pzeliminary 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
fronf yard setback and total lot coverage design reguirements be detued.
On October 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Aubum City Council conducted a hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. At the clase of the hearing, the City Council
asked the Applicants if ttiey were willing to accept the additional time it wouId take for the
matter to ba remarided to the Hearing Examiner for further review. The AnnEicants declined the
AGENDA BILL EXHIBIT
`inaings,conciusions,anditecommendation ORD. NO. 6270 EXHIBIT 5
Heariitgs Examincr for tha City of Aubum (EXHIBIT A- HEAR►NG EXAMINER
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHED TO ORD. 6024 AND RES. 4024)
remand offer and the City Council denied ail 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, 2045, the Auburn City Council issued Resolution Number 3947, remanding
the matter to the Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how fhe development
addressed or affected the following issues:
1. Open spaces and the protection af sensitive environmental features, such as steep slopes,
mature trees, wetlands, and scenic views.
2. Use of traffic raanagement and design techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly along Kersey Way, and promote altemative modes of travel. Coiisideration
should be given to applying the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee stracture i1i respanding to
similar impacts areas located south ofthe White River.
3, The development of transitional areas between #hese projects and adjacent developznents and
environmentally sensitive areas. "
4. The building and structurai designs that complement surrounding laiid uses and #heir
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaging, and building architecture required
under the Aubum PUD ordinance.
5. The parks and open spaces, and the adsquacy of parks and open spaces located under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate notiftcation to future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining
aperations.
7. Protection of waterways and the devetopment's proposed stormwater system.
8. Application of the Lakeiand Fire Tmpaet 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 Aubum held a public hearing on the
anatter as it was remanded from the City Council.
Testimonv
At the Febriaary 22 hearing on remand, the following individuais presented testimony under oath:
1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Aubum
2. Joseph Wetsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Aubum
3. D. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Aubum
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Works, City of Aubum
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Puhlic Works, City of Aubum
6. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative
7. Rab Armstrong, Civi[ Engineer
8. Art Sidel, Landscape Architect
9. Pat McBride, Buitding Architect
IQ. Jolm Norris, Nonis Homes
11. Michele Fassbind, neighboring property owner
12. 3ohn Chaffee, neighboring praperEy owner
13. Darryl Thompson, neighboring properiy awner
rindings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 2 of 30
Hearings Bxaminer for the City of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUDIPeeliminary P1aWariance ON REMAND
14, Pat Davis, neighboring properfy owner
15. Dale Huston, neighboring property owner
16. Erin Galeno, neighboring propexiy owner
17. Chuck Gould, neighbaring property owner
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. Katrina Price, neighboring property owner
20. Donald Bykonen, neighboring property ownsr
21. William Remiek, neighboring property owner
22. Kristi Knoti, neighboring property owner
23. Bruce Koch, n$ighboring property owner
24. Jonie Braoke, neighboring property owner
25. Bill Anderson, neighboring property owner
Exhibits A# the February 22 hearing an remand, the foliowing exhibits were admitted as part of the
official record:
l. Staff Report, dated February 16, 2006
2. Project Vicin.ity Map
3. Auburn City Councii Resolution 3947
4. Re-submit#at letter frozn Barghausen Enginesrs, dated January 11, 2006
5. Revised Prelirninary Plat/PUD Site Plans -12 sheets
6. Engineer's Responses to Auburn City Council Comments 7. Kersey TII Divisions I and lI Project 1'roposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint
Presentation Slides and Architect Narrative
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonneville Power Administration and Lakeridge Develapment,
dated August 30, 2005
9. Excergts fratn Environmental Tmpact Statement pertaining to Geologic Hazards, Wildlife
and Habitat, and Weilands and StreRms, with niaps
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. Affdavit of Mailing of Legal Notice
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice
13, E-maii confirmation from King Counfy Journal, Publication of I,egal Notice, dated
February 7, 2006
14, Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PawerPoint Presentation Slides
15. Preliminary Landscape PIan - 3 sheets
16. Correspondence frnm GMS Architectural Group, dated IF ebruary 22, 2006
1 bA. Lot Coverage Drawings
17. Correspondence from Segale Properties, dated February 22, 2006
18, Statatory Warranty Deed - Tax Parce13221059d39
19. Public Carnment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22, 2006
20. T'ublic Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated October 25, 2005
21. Public Commeat Letter: Pat and Crene Davis, dated February 21, 2006
22. Corresponc3ence frotn Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23. Public Comment Letter: Michelle Fassbind, dated February 22, 2006
24, Public Comment T,etter: John Chaffee, dated February 22, 2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 3 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey TI1 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
25. Public Comment Let#er; Erin and Paul Galena, undated
26, Public Comment Letter; Erin GaIeno, October 17, 2005
27. Public Comment Leiter: Janet Koch, dated February 22, 2006
28. "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter, dated February 15, 2006
29, Public Comment Letter with excerpts fxom Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will
and Jean 3ulum, Rod and Judy Johannsen, Eric Paditla, dohn and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public.Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmentat Tmpact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eria 1'adil(a, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, WiII and 3ean Julum, Rod and Jiidy
Johannsen, undated
31. Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated February 22, 2006
32. Puhlic Camment Letter: Bill Anderson, dated February 22, 2006
33. Pub3ic Comment Lettez wzth excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Stan
1'urdin, Kirk Anderson, Mike And MariLee Bykonen, Gary and Margaret Staples, undated
34. Pvblic Commeni Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, February 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applicant'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, aaas and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remand, the Hearing Examiner enters the
fallowing Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS 4F FACT
GENERA.L FiNDTNGS
l. The Applicants requested approval of a rezone of three parcels of Iand tataling
approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the prvperty from R-1 Single
Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The AppIicants also reyuested
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 53`d Sheet SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. Ail oF the parcets are within the city limits of
Auburn and the boundaries of King Cauniy. General Findtng af Fact No. 1, Sept. 2045
FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3.
2. To reach a determinatian on the City Councii's Order a:f Remand, the Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submitted inta the xecord of the Kersey iII,
Division I and Division II hearings conducted on Aagust 9, 2005 and February 22, 2006.
All Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Exarniner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incarporated into the present decision by reference.
Findings from the August 2005 hearing aze referenced as "Findirrgs Sept 2005 FCR. "
Findings from the February 2005 hearing are refereneed as "Fir:dings Feb. 2006
Remand Hearing. "
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 4 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey 111 ]tezone/PUD/Preliminary F'laWariance - ON REMAND
3, ln the original proposal heard by the I-Iearing Examiner in Augttst 2005, the Applicants
proposed a twa phase deveIopment with Division T containing 169 s'sngle-family
residential lots averaging 5,032 sguare feet, resulting in an average density of 3.34
dwe)Iing units per acre (du/acre). Division II Nvas 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 dWacre for both divisions. A# the February 2006 Hearing
on Remand (Remand Hearing), the Appiicants subznitted a revised praposal, 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 dulacre. Division II would now contain 201 single-
family residential lots averaging 4,990 square feef, arid an average density of 5.23
du/acre, The overalI project density is 4.12 du/acre. General Finding o,f Fact No. 2, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibil 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhiblt S,
Revlsed Preliminary Plat/PUD plans; Exhibit 14, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher; Testit»ony of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcels of iand comprise the propflsal and aIl three parcels are wi#hin the city limits
of Auburn. Division I is inclndes two tax parcels - King County Pazcel No. 322I05-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Developax►ent). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King Caunty Parcel No.
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings LLG).
On December 14, 2005, the Bowies executed a Statutory Warranty Deed conveying Tax
Pai'cel 3221054-9039 to Daniel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowtes as Applicants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No. 4, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibit 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Testrmony of Mr. Pilcher.
5. Design standards for detached singte-family residcntial deveIopment within a PUD
include: minimum Eot size of 3,600 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
loi coverage of 40%, maxicnum building height of 30 feet, and front, rear, and side yard
setbacks of I5-20 feet, 20 feet, and S feat, respectively. The Applicants proposal
conforms to these standards. ACC 18.69. 070(A); Exhlbit S, Revlsed Plat.
6. A# the August 2405 hearing, the Applicants requested u variance from certain design
requirements set fnrth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18,69.070(A). The proposal at that
time was for the reduction in the fi•ont yard setback #0 10 feet and an inerease in the"totat
allowahle Iot coverage to Sa%. The Heariag Examiner recommended der3.ia1 of this
request, At the Remand Hearing, the Applicants revised #lae previous request, sceking an
ancrease in the total attowable lot coverage of up to 45%, The Applicants argue that
aciherence to the 40% loi coverage maximurn provided in ACC 18.69.070(A) wouid
create hazdship and that increased lot coverage is needed ta provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to prevent a`cookie cutter' look. Approval of tlie
variance, according to the Applicants, would create baiancs and diversity within the
PUD. Tn addition, the Applicant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially larger amount of opcn/recreational space than normally is required. It
appears from the record that the Applicants have abandoned their request for a front yard
setbaek variance. Specifrc Firrding of Fact No. 23, Reeo»rmendatiort, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Findings, Conciusions, and Recommendat9on Page 5 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey I[i Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P}aWariance ON REMAND
Exhibit 16, Corresponderrce , from GMC Archltectural; Exhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibrt 36, Applicants' Response; TestJmony of Mr. McBride; Testfmony of Mr. Norris.
7. At the Remand Hearing, the Hearing Examiner Ieft 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 af Johns Monroe Mitsunaga, attorney for
the Applicants, submitted the required responses, aiong 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 Exaniner until March 14, 2006. On March 14, 2006, the
Hearing Examiner entered an Order setting the date of the issuance af the
recommendation to March 22, 2006,
8. Notice of the Remand Hearing was posted on the p,roperty and was mailed to atl property
owners located within 300 feet of the affeeted site on February lfl, 2006. Notice was
published in the King Couttty 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
elassifted as urban and that it must be developed at urban densities. The Applicanfs
submitted that this principle justifies the rezane request. The GMA itself does not assign
a quantitative value #o the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Pugat
Sound Growth Management Hearings Boazd, which has been applied, clarificd, and
svolved over the years, has stated that urban density is equivalent to four dwelling units
per acre unless a reasonable exception appIies (i.e. critical areas). (see City a,f'Bremerton
et al v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No, 95-3-0039c (1995), Litowttz v. City of
Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 (I996)}. The CPSGMHB's rule was
recently calied 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 Iine rule', Vrking v. Holm, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acze
threshold as a`safe harbor' rather than a`bright line'. Furhiman v. City of Bothell,
CP5GMHB Case No. 05-0025c (2005). The subjeet property was designated as Single
Family Residential in 1995 and Auburn foresees the bulk of single-family residential
communities developed a# a density of four to six dweliing units per acre. RCW
36.70A.110; .Land Use Aoltcy LU-19; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos. 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (noting faetors to satisfy change in
circumstances).
10. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan speatcs to the development of residentiat housing at
single-family densities that establish a balanced mix of hnusing rypes appropriate for a
farnily-oriented community. When assiong the Comprehensive Plan's land use
designation fox the subject property, the City Cauncil 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 gaverned by flexible
development standards tha# encourage compact urban development while protecting
criticat areas. These flexible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types and site piatuning techniques so that a site can achieve its maximum
Find'sngs, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 6 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of'Aubum
Kersey TII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance ON itEMAND
e •
housing potential. Chapter 3, Larrd Use Goal 7; Land Use Polfcy LU-14; Land Use
Poltcy 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 propasat's
consistency with ihe Comprehensive Plan was provided for in the DEIS. The DEIS
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 conszstent with the Single Family Residenliat designatian, The City of
Auburn's Pianning Director reviewed the reaone application for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and de#ermined that it was consistent. Specific Firrdings of Fact
Nos. 9-6, Sept. 2005 FCR; AG"C 18. 68. 030(B) (1); ACC 18. 69.1 SO(13); ACC 17. 06. 070(13);
Exhibrt 1, StaffReport, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Poticy 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 Finai Environmeiital Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey IiI projeot was issued on February 11, 2005. No appeals were fi(ed. Speclfrc
Findings of Fact No. 9, Sept. 2005 FCR.
13. Puhlic comment, both written and oral, was submit#ed in regards to the adeguacy of the
EIS at both the August 2005 hearing and the Fehruary 2006 Remand Hearing. Appeais of
an ETS 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 aIl challenges to the adequacy of the EIS
are time-barred. As nflted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adequacy of the EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEPA is the
consideration of env'uonmental vatues. The key puzpcse of an EIS is to ensure fult
disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the eonstruction of a
project. Tt is from the impacts disclosed in the EIS that the decision-maker can make an
infarmed deeision abaut #he proposal, Public comment, both written and orai, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the February 2046 Remand Hearing, provided further
detail in this regard and therefore is perinitted. Specific Findings. of Fact No. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhfbit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Trlbel; Exhibit 25, Commenls of
Galeno; Exhibi129, Comments of Bykonerr et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Exhibit 33, Comments ofBykonen et al; Exhibit 36, Applicarrls' Response, Page 2.
14. Agancy and public comment, both written and oral, was sabmitted in regards ta the
impaci of the propased 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 fcom the development was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or
209 students. Submitted public comment stated that schools and the related
~Exhibit 22 is dated August 16,2004 and were comments submitted during the DE1S review process. The Triha's
comments should have been taken into consideration when dsafting the Final EIS. Tha Tribe's comments were not
challenging the adequacy of the Final EIS,
Pindings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 7 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey il! Rezone/PUDl1'reliminary P1adYariance ON itEMAND
transportativn system were over capacity and that dangeraus walking conditians were
present along Kersey Way. The Auburn School Dlstricf responded that the recent
opening of Aubum Mountainview High School would provide capacity into the future to
accammodate growth.at the high school level. Two new elementary schools, including
Lakeland HiIIs Elementary scheduled to open Fall 2006 and Elementary Na. 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to open Fall 2007, would provide additional capacity at the elementary
ievel. The middle school level currently has capacity to accommodatc growth but
enrollment projectians indicate that an additionai middle school woutd be needed in the
future and that the School District has begun planning for a naw school. ACC 19.02
allows the City to collect school impact fees, approximately $4,500 per bui[ding permit,
on behaIf of the schoal district. Conditions of approval require the Applicants to pay this
fee. Speclfic Findirrgs of Fact Nos. 19-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Exhibit 24, Comme»ts of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 39, Comments of Staples; Exhrbit 36A, School Distrtct
Comments; Testimony of Mr. Cha,~`'ee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testinrony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
af Mr. Armstrong.
15. Bus transpartation would be provided for the piat wi#h bus pick up/drop off areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applieants 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, wouId provide safe walking conditions for stuaents to/from school. Specific
Findings of Facl Nos. 14-13, Sept. ZDOS FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of Peters; Ezhibit
24, Commenls of Chajfee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32, Comments of
Anderson; Exhibit 39, Comments of Staples; Exhibil 36A, Schoo! District Com»rents;
Testrmony of Mr. Cha, f~`'ee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. 1'rice; Testrmony of
Ms. Knott; Testlmony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
16. Ail iats are to be served with sanitary sewer service pravided by the City of Auburn.
Public comment was submitted in regazds to the capacity of the system ta aecommodate
additioiial sewage stemming from the pxoposed plat. Both the Cify and the Applicants
are constructing impravements to the sewer system, including an interim purnp 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 Hilis pump s#ation and the Ellingson pamp station are
not functioning properly and thereby have less capacity. City Public Works Staff
tes#ified that the sewer system is capable of handling tha increased volume and, after
replacement, the force mains are operating adeqaately. Specific Findings of Fact No. 20,
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staf)'' Report, Page 3; Exhibit 25, Comments of Galeno;
Exhibil 36, Applicants' Resporrse, page S; Testimony of Ms. Galeno; 7'estinrony of Mr.
Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral, were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wildlife and their habitat. The EIS conciuded that urbanization af the area wouid result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conclusions, and Reeommendation Page $ of 30
Hearings Examinei for the City of Aubum
Kersey 1[I Rezone/PUD/Prefiminary P1aWariance - ON REMANb
fragmentation, and haman 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 Waodpecker, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Pileated Waodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Applicants instatl
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 Sta#e Depariment of Fish & Wildlife would be
required for constraction near Bawman Creek and wauld addzess impacts to fishery
resources. Open space and parkland would provide habitat and a comdor for wildlife
species. Required fencing would delineate private property frozn open space/paridand
and prevent encroachment. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species,
Specifrc Finding of Fact No. 19, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, StafJ''Report, Pages 7-9, 12;
Exhibit 6, ApplTcants' Response Malrix, Page 4; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhtbit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibil 20, Comments of Davis; Exhibit 22, Camments of
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 29, Comnrenfs of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comn:ents of
Bykonen et ul; Exhibit 33, Comments -of Bykonen et al; Testimony of Mr. Cha,~`'ee;
Testlmony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony of Ms. Krtott; Testimony of Ms. Broolre; Testimony
of Mr. Htrsky; Testlmony of Mr. Armslrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TQ TEiE CITY GOUNCIL'S ISSUES ON REMAND:
In Resolutian 3947, the Aubum 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 Numbcrs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 address the City Council's
speciflc issues. 1$, City Council Remand Issue Number 1: Open spaces and the protecEion of sensitive
environmental features, such as sEeop slopes, mature trees, wetlands, and sceuic
views.
A. Steep Slopes The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicted in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I cantains identified Class I Known Landslide Hazaxd 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 ta
furiher detineate the steep stopes. To supplement the slope information, the Applicants
conducted afield survey in which the location of the slopes is more accurately shawn (see
Exhibif S, Slope Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2). The slopes are pricnarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q and would be impacted by the construction of Evergreen Way, the main
baulevarci servicing the plat, and Kersey VVay, the minar arterial from which access to the plat
would be obiained. Construction of Evergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of thc slope to accommodate road
widening. All irnpacts would be at 2:1 slape ratio. The maximum grade of Evergreen Way, in
onty two tocations, would be 10%. Tmpacts to the steep slope areas axe unavoidable, as these
roadways are necessary for access to the plat.
Findings, Conciusions, and Recommcndation Page 9 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey f Il RezonelPUD/Preliminary P1atNariance - ON REMAND
B. Mature Trees Qn the subject property are foux types of vegetative cover. Division 1 has
a mature mixed-species forest and Division li has a young deciduous forest, mature coniferous
forest, as well as a mature mixed-species forest. The BPA 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 T of Division I, totaling approximately 3.7 acres, and tracts A and F of
Division I[, 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 speoie`s.
C. Wetlands There are no wetlands located within Division I and Division TI.
However, changes to existing sur#'ace and subsurface flows could affect the hydrology of off-s'ste
wetlands including several wetlands located in proposed Division 3 and two off-site streams,
Bowman Creek and the White River, located NorthlNarttiwest of the plat, These impacts would
be addressed and mitigated via stormwater drainage contral design.
D. Scenic Views The residential portion of Kersey III is set back 200 to 640 feet from
Kersey Way with a 35 foot building setback pravided froin properties to the cast (zoned Rural
Residential) and a 25 foot se#back from properties to the south (zoned R-l Residential). The
topography of the site, aIang with both re#ained and neNv vegetation, would provide screening of
thc proposed PUD from existing low-density residential azeas to the North/Northeast. Setbacks,
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence construeted atong the soathern and eastern border of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density residential areas. No scenic views
are anticipated to be obstruc#ed.
E. Public Comments Public comments were received in regards to visual impacts
(primarily due to headtights from trafFic exiting the p1at, lass of vegetation, and stormwater
drainage design). Neigttbaring properfy owners asserted that thc headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shine directly into their homes and that construction of the Kersey Way/Evergreen
Way intersec#ion would result in removal of vegetation and erosion, impacting views.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers l S(A), 18(B), 1 S(C), l 8(D), and 18(E) relied on
the following evidence: Ezhibit 1, StafJ`'Report, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applrcants' Response Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Faccerpts from DEIS; Exhibit 14, tlpplicants' Power Point; Exhibit IS, Landscape
Plan; Exhibit 23, Comments of Fassbind; 7'estimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong;
Testfmony of Mr. Siedel; Testtmony of Mr, Pilcher; Testimorty of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind.
19. City Council Remand Issue iVutnber 2: Use of trAffic management and design
techniques to reduce potentlal traffic cangestion, particularly along Kerssy Way,
and promote altcrnative modes of travel. Consideration should bc given ta applying
the Lakeiand PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to similar impacts
areas located south of the Whfte River. .
Tindings, Conclusions, and Aecommandation Page 10 of30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey ilI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PtaWarianca - ON REMAND
A. Traffic ManaLement and Design Techniaues Traffic impacts (volume and safety) were
the most frequendy cited issues of public comment and testimony received at both the August
2005 and the February 2046 hearings. The Applicants prepared a transportation impact analysis
(TIA) in March 2004 and amended this dooument in January 2005. The TIA Addendum
concluded that a(1 corridors affected hy 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 tum lane) on Kersey Way; exclusive center lefi turn lanes on all legs of
the re-aligned Kersey Wayl53`d Street SE/Evergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane along
Kersey Way at Evergreen Way; traffic signal and pedestrian exos5ings at re-aligned intersection
of Kersey Way/53`4 Street/Evergreen Way; active traffic signal warning signage for southbound
Kersey Way; pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection crosswalk of Evergreen
Way/Olive Way; trafFc controls (round-about) at the intersecfion of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the construction of Evergreen way from Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safetx and Aesthetics The revised plat added several additional amenities to
improve road safety and aesthetics. The additions includsd: safe pedestxian crossings (pavement
markings and advance warning signage) at three Iocations on Evergreen Way; three-Iane
channefization 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 zequire that the Applicants extend the boulevard
design throughout the plat, continuing west to T,akeland Hills.
C. Traffic Impact Fees PursUant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may colleet impaet
fees for transportafivn facilities impacted by proposed deveiopznent, In conjunction with the
revised plat, City Planning Staff recommended that the Appiicants pay the $940.36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traf£ic 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 reguired 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
proportionai. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dalan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)},
The Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was estabiished through an agreement between the
developers of Lakeland Hi11s PUD and the Auburn City Council. 7'he fee was assessed to
address the unique transportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD. The proposed
PUD/i'lat 4s within the same geographic area as Lakeland Hilis and the additional impact fee
Z ttCW 82.02.020 authorizes locai govemments to impose permit eonditioris on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to thc new development.
Findings, Canctusinns, and Recommendation Page 1 I of 30
Near'sngs Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey I(I Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PfaWariancc - ON REMAND .
would allow for the construction af road improvements to serve the area, thereby promofing
greater public safety and increased trafftc ftow.
D. Public Camments Public cornments received on traffic impacts generated by the
proposal includeti: the inadeguacy of infrastructure to handle the incxease in traffic volumes,
noise and air pailution (euhatast emissions); safe walking/bicycling; evacuation route; and the
impact of traffic controls (stop lights). Neighboring property owners argued that fha proposed
bike path along Kersey Way was a"path #o nowhere," that the propvsed traffic signal at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way/53t' Sneet would creRte 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 construciion of the proposed
improvemen#s to Kersey Way and during construction of the plat itsetf. Neighboring property
owners asserted that Kersey Way is the main traffic corridor #'or the area, serving commuters,
school buses, and trucks from the gravel pit, and that limiting improvements to the plat's
frontage would create a futunel effect with negative impacts on traffc.
E. Applicattts' Response to Public Comments Ia rssponse to public cancerns regarding
traffic, The Applicants submitted testimony on measures being taken as part of thc deveiopment
to mitigate traffic impacts. The Applicants stated that the T1A conciuded that the Kersey
Way/53`a StreetJEvergreen Way intersection would operate at LOS B at futl build-out of Kersey
1I1, 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 altemative route available to area residences during emergency situations. Conditions
of approval reqaire the Applicants to construct a 10-foot wide walkway along the subject
property's frontage with K$rscy Way. Although the walkway does not fully extend northward to
the site af an existing sidewatk, the Applicants assert that they aze paying their "fair share" of the
development and that subsequent developments that are currently "in the pipeline' would be
responsible for additionat segments.
F. Fassbind Drivewav Neighboring property owner Ms. Fassbind stated that she was
uniqueIy affec#ed by the proposed re-atignmeirt of Kersey Way and 53`d Street due to the
loeation of her driveway at this intersection and fias not been contactsd by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Fassbind asserts that the proposed alignment would create an extremely dangerous
situation for har and her family entering and exiting their property especially with a track/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the current re-alignment proposal for Kersey Wayl53ra
Stxeet is tentative and that they would be in contact with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the final
engineering design af the intersection and of the driveway, including alternative solutions such
as the use af 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: Specifrc Findings of Fact Nos. S, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, Sta,fJ''Report, Pages 7, 21-25, 29; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheet 10; lxhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, Applicants' Pa}verPoint/ Exhibit 19,
Comments by .f'eters; Exhibit 20, Comments by Davis; Exhibit 21, Comments by Davis; Exhibit
23, Comments by Fassbind; Exhibit 24, Commerrts by Cha,~`'ee; Exhibit 32, Comments by
Andersan; Exhibit 34, Comments by Staples; ; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Respo»ses, Pages 34.
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 12 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey 11I Itezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON R6MAND
Testfmany af Ms. Fassbirrd; Testrmony of Mr, Armstrong; Testtmony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
ofMr. Welsh; TesNmany of Mr. Ferko.
20. City Council Remand Issae Namber 3: The deveiopraent of transitional arsas
between these projects and adjacent developments and environmentaliy scnsitive
areas.
A. Zonin~ Surraunding land uses consist of residential development and vacant land.
Residential development is comprised of tow (zoned Rl - 1 du/acre) and semi-rural (1 da12.5 - 5
acres) densities to the east and south, with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel ta the west (Kersey III, Division IiT). ParceTs west of the proposed Kersey IIt,
Division III site are comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development. Parcels to
the norih are a mixture of vacant land (zoned R1) a4d natural (mineral) resource lands. The
subject property has been zoned R-1 Single Family Residential (RI) since 1987 and was
designated as Single Fanlily Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The
Comprehensive Plan contempla#es the bulk of single-family residential cammunities developed
at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. The Applicants proposed development at an
overall density of 4.12 dulacre with lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. Tt►e proposed density is consistent with City startdards.
B. Corn rehensive Plan Desi nation The Comprehensive Plan for the City of AubUrn
addresses the issue of transition in the con#ext of incompatible Iand uses and densities. Polieies
of khe Comprehensive Plan state the site design should utilize and preserve features, including
topography, open spaces, and vegeta#ion, to separate densities and that iandscaped buffers or
othex measurss should he utilized to separate uses.
C. Se#backs 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 R1 zoning district. Piexce County Code
(PCC), Tabie 18A.17.030(B)(2)(1), requires a 10-foot rear yard setback within the MSF zoning
district. Tha Appticanfs proposed a 35-foot BSBL on the eastern border of the site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject praperty's southern border with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development witlun the northcrn portion of the PUD/plat is set back 200 to 600 feet from Kersey
Way and is further screened by vegetation and topagraphy. The Applicant intends to eonstruct a
six-foot high solid wood fence along the southern and eastarn borders to provide additional
screening.
D. Public Commen# Fublic comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted stated that the transit'son from the dense Lakeland Hitls PUD to the neighboring rural
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey III should be a buffer zone befween two extremes - the
higher density development of Lakeland Hills arid the existing lower density development to the
east and south; and that the higher clensity wovld not blend with the existing rural neighborhood.
Neighboring property owners argued that Kersey IFT provides no trarisition bctween low density
(one acce lot), the proposed density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hi11s density
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 13 of 34
Hearings Examiner Cor ihe City oFAuburn
Kersey ttl Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PIatlVariance - ON REMAND
(7,200 to 10,000 square feet). Neighboring property owners also asserted that a 25-35 foot
BSBL and/or a six foot high fenee does not provide adequate buffering and/or screening of uses.
E. Environmental Sensitive Areas EnvironmentalIy 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
starmwater drainage area. The purpose of the fence is to delineate private property from
common areas and to prevent encroachment by the praperty owner into the cammon areas.
Maintenance of this fence shall be the responsibiIity of the Homeowners' Associatinn.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A), 20(B), 20(C), 20(D), and 20 (E) reIied on
the following evidence: General Findings of Fact No: 5, Sept. 2005 FCR; Speciflc Finding of
Fact Nos. 2, 4, and S; Sept. 2005 FCR; Chapter 3, Land Use Policies LU-26, LU-27, LU-28;
Exhibi! 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12; Exhibit S, Prelirninary Plat Cover Sheet; Exhibit 6,
.4pplicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 19, Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Canrments
by Davfs; Fzhtbit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Respo»se, Pages 5-6;
Testimony of Mr. Gould; 7'estimony of Mr. Bykonerr.
21. City CounciI Remand Issue Num6er 4: The building and structural designs that
complement surrounding Iand uses and their environment, reflectibg quallty site
design, landscaping, and building arcbitecture required under the Auburn PUD
ordinanc$.
A. Desi n~Standards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including building orientation, vazied facades, continuity and compatibility of structures, colors, screening, lighting, and landscaping. The Applicants' azchitect, Patrick McBridc, stated that the
azch'stectural intent hehind Kersey III was to ensure consistent, compatible, and attractive
residences which portray a sense of arehitectuxal integrity, quality, durability, residential
charac#er, and innovative design. Residences are to be designed on a pedestrian scale with
sensi#ivity #o the site. Site design elements proposed for the development include variations in
faotprint and/or orientatian nn the lot; froat setbacks; driveway locations and materials; accent
materials such as natural stone, columns, and shutters; front porches tnat promote pedestrian
cannectivity; 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 wiih identical elevations. The Applicant su6mitted a Preliminary Qveral! Landscape
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, park amenities, and street tree
landscaping.
B. Lot Coverage The Applicants assert ihat in order ta meei (ACC 18.69) PUD standards
for quality site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must be granted. The
Applicants stated that #he five- percent inerease in allowable lot coverage is to allow flexibitity in
home design that wouid sa#isfy the PUD guidelines and prevent a"cookie cutter" look with alt
homes sharing a similar foatprint.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 14 of 30
Hearings Examinar for the City of Aubum ,
Kersey iIl Rexone/PUD/Pre3iminary P1aWarisnce - ON REMAND
C. Public Comments Public comments were received on the issue of design. Neighboring
properiy owners stated that the Applicants' revised proposal reduces the totai 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 fset to 8,400 square feet w'rth only ] 0 lots greater than 7,000 square fect.
Neighboring property owners argued that the propased design does nat create compatibiiity with
Lakeland Hills which has lots ranging from 7,200 square feet ta 10,004 squara 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 guality 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: Exhrbit 1, 5taff'Reporf, Pages S and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages
4-5; Exhibit 7, Applicant's PowerPoint arrd ArchTtecl Narralive; Exhibit 15, Larrdscape Plan;
Exhibrt 26, Camments by GaJeno; Exhibit 36, Applfcants' Response, Page 6; Testimony of Mr.
McBride; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Norris; Testimo»y of Mr. Galeno.
22. Cify Councf! Remand Issue Number 5: The parks and open spaces, and the
adequacy of parks attd open spaces located under Bonneville Power Adrninistration
power iines.
A. 1'arks and Open Space Requirement ACC 18.69.4$0(A)(1) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% af the gross area of the PUD as, open space, whieh amounts to 17,86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and II. Non-buiIdable areas (axeas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.030(G)) znay be used to meet na mare than 50 percent of the open space
area requirement. ACC 1$.69,480(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 ali or a
portion of the required pazkland. Tlie Applicants proposed 36$ siitgle-family residences, or
approximately 920 people (based on 2.5 persons per reszdence), for a totaI requirement of 5.55
acres of pazk land. As part of the Applicants' original proposal, all of the pazk space and a large percentage of open
space were being provided within Division i. In the proposal for open space and parks, land
encurnbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement is the only site for active
ar►d passive recreation apportunities. Open space sumrnary for the first proposal included 28.94
acres of open space (stormwa#er drainage, open space, parktand, entry signage, pedestrian
pathways) with 15.82 acres in areas of less than 25%. Of tha 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres
was designated as park land. In fhe revised proposal, the Applicants increased both the amount
o€ open space and parkland, providing four new parks with two pazks 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 nat acreage within the BPA casement)
with the parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division II as opposed to centrally
tocated. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the City's Pazk Plan. All af
the praposed park facitities would be huilt by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendafion Page 15 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey lil Rezone/PUDIPreliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
B. BPA Easement The western 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105=9417
(Division I) aze encumbered by an easement held by the BPA 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 azea to satisfy bnth open
space and park requirements for the development. 4n August 30, 2005, the Applicanis entered
into a Land Use Agreemant with BPA allowing for the construction/instaltation of raads,
utilitiss, trails, landscaping, a park, and park appurtenarices within the easement. BPA has
entered into similar relationships with ather developers within the Puget Sound Arca as it
provides an sfficient use of land and assures maintenance of the BPA easement. The Land Use
Agreement conEained 15 conditions including the location of structures in retationship to BPA
transmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
C. Revised Parks and Open Space PIan The revised proposal would retain the BPA
easement area in open space and provide a walking trail. The Applicants' drawings note the path
width as 12 feet as oppased to the 16 feet width required under the Land Use Agreemeni.
Walki»g trails would also be provided in Tract B(Division T) and Tract F(Division II). The
walking trail in Tract B woutd provide a par-course (exercise stations). A playground area
would be pravided in Tract Q(Division I) and Tract P(Division II). Tract P would also have a
half-court sports court. Traet Q woutd have a sports field, including basebalt diamond, a fuIl
basketball court, open lawn area, and walking trail. All park areas would have picnic tables and
benches. On-street parking would be provided in fhe vicinity of the active recreations areas
{ballfield *and playgrounds} including aiong Roads A, E, G, and K. Pedestrian pathways
throughout the plat altow for safe walking to and from park areas,
D. Vegetaiion All parks vvould 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 Aubum Pazk's Department and City Pazks and Recreation
Board reviewed the Applicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant full credit for the use
of land encumbered by the BPA easement, it determined that the Applicant's proposal conforms
ta City stax►dards.
Facts presented in Findings of Facfs Nutnbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C), 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the foilowing evidence: Specific'Findings of Fact No. 21, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specifrc Findings of
Fact No. 22, Sept. 2005 FCR, Exhib#t 1, Staff Report, Pages 4, 5, and 7; Exhibit 5, Preliminary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhrbit G, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7-8; Exhibit 8, BPA ,Larrd Use
Agreement; Exhibtt 15, Preliminary Plat/PUD Plans; Exhibit 15, Landscapirrg Plan; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testtmorry of Mr. Siedel.
23. City Council Remand Issue Numbcr b: YncorporaNon of adeguate notification to
future Iot owners of the adjucent surfacc mining operations.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 16 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey tll Razonelf'UD/Preliminary PtaWariance - ON REMAND
A. Surface Mining At the August 2005 hearing, public comments were received with
regards #o the impact on neighboring natural resource lands, a 664-acxe gravel mining operation
owned by Segale Properties/ICON Materials lying north of the site. SegaIe/TCON axpressed
concern that a dense residential development would have the potential for generating homeowner
eompiaints pertaining to air, noise, light, traffsc, and safety. Furthermore, Segale/TCON
submitted the construction of Kersey III woutcf genera#e traffic congestion and vther safety
sitaations, impactin$ the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a nofica be
placed on the final plat, all building perrnits, and all individual lot deeds as required by RCW
36.70A.060.
B. Modified Condition of A„pprovai For the February 2406 Remand Hearing,
Segale/ICON Properties submitted additional comments, seeking to modify a condition to make
it more ctear to potential buyers that mining activities are currentiy on-gaing at the 'site. T'his
condition woUld protect the mining activities as well as the interests of the City and the
developers. The wording proposed by Segale/ICON is accepfable to the Applican#s and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on the follnwisig evidence:
Specrfrc Findfrtgs af Fact Nos. 11; 12, and 13, Condition No. 1, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhrbit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhihit 17, Correspondence from Segale; Testimony of •
Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Coutncil Remand Issue Number 7: Protection of wafenvays and the
devclopment's proposcd stormwater system.
A. Water Sup,ply Water would be supplied by the City of Auburn - Vailey Water Systetn.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Appiicants
would be required to construct a booster pump station at the corner of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SE and extend a water line along Kcrsey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the
existing Iines in the Lakeland Hills development. Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
Ciiy water, adjacent properties are served by private wells. Documantation was not submitted
as part of the record in regards to impacts on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
we11s.
B. Private Wells Neighboring property owners s#ated that weils in the area have gone dry
and the City has been foresd to request supplemental water from the City af Bonney Lake. Tn
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. Proteetion of Waterwavs Bowman Creek ]ies north of the subjeat property and is a
tributary to the White River. The creek was a fish-bearing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for saImon and bull trout pflpulations. As noted in the DETS, the creation of impervious sarface
within the project site would cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes that could cause
downstream channel and bank erosion. The Applicants propased to collect and convey
starmivater to a standard two-cell weUdetention pond via caich basins and undergrvund storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 17 of30
liearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey ti1 RezoneJPUD/Preliminary AiaWarianca - ON REMAND
drainage pipes prior to discharge into Bowman Creek, The drainage facilities, designed to the
City's standards, aze looated on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and wauld 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 PUA/Plat contains modifications to the drainage
facilities which increase both pond volurne and wetpond surface area. Recomcnended conditions
of approval incorporate high standards of design {100-year flood event} and enhanced erosion
control features. The drainage facilities would be iandscaped to screen from adjacent residential
development. .
D. Public Comments Public comments Svere received in#o the record pertaining to storm
water and wa#er qttality with many of the comments pertaining ta impacts on Bowman Creek.
Testimony voiced concern for both sediment and pollutant run-off that coutd impaci Bowman
Creek's water qaatity and fsh and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted that white the
development of the Kersey III PUD woutd not bc the cause of the salmon's departure,
development should not prevent restoration of water quality aizd the return of salmon, The
Appiican#s stated that the design of the stormwater system should not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 24(A), 29(B), 24(C), and 24(D) zelied on the
following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets 7,
9; Erhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrtx, Pages 7-8; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint;
Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 22, Comments af Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhlbit 23, Comments
of Fassbind; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibii 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 36, Applicant's Response, Page 5; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testrmorry of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; 7'estimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testrmany
of Ms. Koch; 7'estimony of Ms. Brooke. .
25. City Cauncil Remand Issue Number 8: Application of the Laketand Fire Impact
Fee to aid the Ce#y in deveioping fre facilities fo serve the area south of the White
River.
A. Tnnpact 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 considared during environmental reyiew (Lxhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
119, Sept. 2005 FCR), To mitigate these impacts, City Planning Staff recommended fhat the
ApplicanEs pay a$470.16 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard fre impact fee
of $290.13.
The Applicants are nnt averse to paying the fira impact fee but requested that the City identif~y
what is the ieason far 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 praject (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
3 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local govenunents to impose permit conditions on devetopment if thc condidons are
reasonab{y related to the new devclopment.
Findings, Conclusions, and Ttecommendation Page l8 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City ef Auburn
Kersey 11I }tezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
proportional, (Nollan v Cal fornia Coastal Commissian, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tfgard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland Fire lmpact Fee was established through an agreement betwecn the deveIopers of
Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to address fire
department service in the remote tocation of the PUD and the lack of afire station within alose
proximity ta the PUD. The propose,d PUD/Piat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland
Hills and the additional impact fee would allow for tha construction of additional facitities to
serve the azea, thereby promoting greater public safety.
B. Public Comment Pubfic cnmments were recaived on the issue. Neighboring
property owners s#ated that the City of Auburn is cunently experiencing explosive growth that is
putting a strain on emcrgency services providers, suCh as police and fire. According to the
neighbors, the nearest fire statian 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 1, Staf,J`'Report, Pages 7 and IS; Exhibit b, Applrcant's Response Matriz, Page 8; Exhibit
28, "Sound the Alarm... Txhlbit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
7'estimony 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 far an application for rezone is pursuant to ACC f 4.03.Q4Q(D) and
18.68.030, for approvat of an application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approvat of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and I7.06.050.
Criteria far Review:
Along with the requiremen#s set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court (rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhoad conditions and bear a substantial relationship ta the public
health, safety, and general welfaze - Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), in arder to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find fhat 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 arder for the Hearing
Examiner to hotd a public hearing and consider the request,
3. Any change or modification to the rezone reyuest made by the Hearing Examiner ar the
City Council shall not result in a mor$ intense zone than the one xequested.
Findings, Conclusions, and Kecommendation Page 19 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey II[ Rezone/PUDlPreliminary PlaWariance ON RLMAND
In order to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whoIe or in pazt, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18,69.I50, the proposal must demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support
the following: .
I . The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and genera[
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastcs, pazks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposat is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposai is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.59, pravides for the public
benefits required of the •development of PUDs by providing an improvement in the
quality, charactez, architecturai and site design, housing choice and/or apeli space
protection over what woutd otherwise be attained through a-development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the generat purposes of o#her applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approvai of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area fhan any other project would have if devetoped usino the existing zoning standards
of the zoning disMct the PUD is lacated in.
b. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
inciuding existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the designn
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 foltowing:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety aiid general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, and sites for sehools and schaol grounds.
2. Conformance ta the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Compreheitsive Plan, to the
general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purpases vf any ather applicable
palicies 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 mitiga#ed such tlhat the
proposal witl not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quaiity of the
environment.
S. Adequate pxovisions have been made so that the preliminary plat wilf prevent or abate
pubtic nuisances.
Tn order TO APPROVE A VAItIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the follawing:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 20 of 30
Hearings Examirter for the City of Auburn
Kersey lII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary AlaWariance - ON REMAND
1. Unique physical conditions or exceptianal topographical or other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property whiah create practica) difficulties or unnecessary
hardship,
2. Strict confonnify 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. Circutnstanees justifying variance are not a result af the Applicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning dis#rict.
6. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of Titte 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning district in which properfy is located.
7. Variance would not allow for increased density,
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The rexone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, other applicable gaaIs and polieies of the City Council, and the ACC.
The Director of Planning correctly determined the proposal was consistent with #he
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding several
goals and policies af the Comprehensive Plan saiisfied by the development, including
improving the Ciry's traiispor#Ation network; creating and maintaining park land and
open space; deveIoping diversity of arehitectural design; providing for adequate urban
density; improvemsnt 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 consisfen# with the
City's Park PIan and Non-Motorized Plan. Proposed design standards camply with the
purpose and intent of ACC 18.69. General Findings af Fact Nos. 2 and S, Sept 2005
FCR; Speclfrc Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, Sep'12005, FCR; Findfngs of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, S, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
Rezone Criteria 2. Thc rezone was initiated by the Applicant-Praperty Owner and uot the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.6$.030(B)(1), in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider a rezone
request, the Ci#y may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the owrzars of the
property subject to the rezone. Firrdrng of Fact Nos. 1 and 3, Feb 2006 Remand Hearirtg.
3. Condiflons in the area have substantialiy changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the pubiic health, safety, morals, or generAl welfare.
The Applicaiit has the burden of praof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the ariginal zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or generai welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conolusions, and Recommendation Page 21 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Kersey Il[ Rewnelf'UD1Preliminary P1aWariance - ON ltEMAND
(1978), A variety of factors may satisfy a change in circucns#ances, including changes in
public opinion, local land use pattems, and on the property itself. BJarrrson v. KTtsap
Counry, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. I, 1945). The City and the Applican#s stated ihat
the area where the subjeot praperty is located has experienced significant development as
a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; population growth wi#hin the City of Aubum; overall
market canditions in Puget Sound which are creating a demand for smaIler 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
growzng community and improvements to infrastructure. Changes in both land use
patterns and public apinion, along with the requirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Pian designation, provide justificatzon for the rezane. General Findings
of Fact Nos. Z and S, Sept 2005 FCR; Speciftc Ftndings 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. A. The Hearing Examiner is not recomraending any change or mndification to #he
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone tban the one requested by
the Applicant.
Planned Unit Develoliment/Preliminarv Plat Criteria
5. Tbe PUD/plat prnposAI contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety,
and general weifarc and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, allcys, water
sn,pplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
The Applicants have made provisions for internal streets with sidewaIks 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 af approval
would provide for tzaff'ic 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 coIlect and convey run-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output. Appiicants 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 wi#h an additianal 12.51 acres of open/park space provided within the
BPA easerrient, The open/park space is generally provided in a contiguous black so as to
provide comdors for wildlife. The PUD woutd be served by City of Auburn water and
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve the needs of iha
community. School impact fees would mitigate the incxease in student pogulation.
Development of over 350 homes at varied price levels serves the general welfare and
gtowing housing needs of the community, Speciftc Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findrngs af Fact Nos. 14, IS, lb, 17, and 18(13)-(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
pubUc benefi#s required of the development of PUDs such as preservation o£
natural amenities, creatiob of pedestrian-orienfed coxamunities, efricient use of
land, development of transitiomal areas, innovative/aesthetic buiiding and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 22 of 30
I3earings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey ]I( RezonelPUD/Preiiminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
struc#ural design, creation of parks and open spaees, provision for afforditble
housiug.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. Tha Applieants proposed to preserve
naturat amenities and sensitive. areas through the use of upen spaces and parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonstrate a pedestrian-oriented
cornmunity with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks for both active and
passive recreation that are dispersed throughout the development, Thc plat is structured
to utilize the properiy efficiently by layout, house design, and open space. Hames would
not he facing the residential coilector, 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 developrnent from adjoining tow-density residential
arcas. The Applicants proposed a variety of architectural stytes, providing a varied
streetscape, and have submitted landscape ptans, The Applicants proposed over nine
acras of active and passive recreation parkiands with addikional acreage provided by the
BPA easement. Affordable housing is a concern vvithin the entire Puget Sound area and
the PUD/plat wauld provide homes ranging in price from $400,000 to $700,000,
providing a range of options for potential buyers. Specifrc Findings ofFact Nas. 4; S, 14,
1 S, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Frndings of Fact Nos. S, b, I8(A)-(D),
21(.}-(C), 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
7. The approval of thc PUD wi11 have no more nf an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project wauld have if developed using thc
existing zoning standards. -
The property is currentiy zaned R-l, which could allow for development of up to $9
dwelling units on site. However, probably onIy 60-65 dwelting units woutd be allowed to
be constructed due to the presence of non-huiidable areas (steep slopes, BPA easement),
infrastrueture, and park requirements. Applicants seek to develop 368 dwelling urzits.
Deveiopmeni of over 350 dwelling tutits would undoubtedly have more impaet 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 Ciry wa#er
and sewer would have less impact on groundwater quality and yuuntity then installation
of private weIls and/or on-site septic sys#ems. Location and design of open space would
provide a contiguaus corridor for wi}dlife and scenic views. Development of the site
with homes on one acre 1o#s would result in substantiatly more fragmenfatian, creating
greater impacts on wildlife and associated habitat along with scenic view corridnrs.
Specific Firtdfngs of Fact Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR; I'indings of Fact Nos. 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18(D), 20(A), 20(E), and
22, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
8. The PUD is consistent with thc existing and planned character of the
neSghbvrhood.
Surrourading iand use cnnsists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and the Lakeland Hilis PUD, The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conclusians, and Recommendation Page 23 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey lIi Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
designation for the area is Singte-Family Residential which endeavors to develop land
with this designation at a density of fQUr to six dwelling units per acre. Development
woutd be consistent with the charaeter af the neighboring I.,akeland Hills community and
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The PUD would be screened from low-
density development in the, north/northwest by the site's topography and the
retendon/enhancement of vegetation. The Applicants would provide 25 to 35 foat rear
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer low-density develapmen# to the east and
south. Canditions of approval would require a minimum of one tree per rear yard to
further buffer between adjacent uses. General Ffndings of Fact No. 2, Sept 2005 FCR;
Specfflc Ftndings 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 Fl'earing. .
9. The PUD and Preliminary Plat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning
ordinance and any other applicabte planning or engineering standards and
specificatians and to other applicable policies or plans adopted by the City
Council. .
With condi#ions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies wi#h all related City
codes and standards. Speciftc Findings of Fact No, 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
IYos. 11, Feb 2005 Rentand Hearing. 10. Potentlal enviranmen#al impacfs of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposaI will not have an unaeceptabie adverse effect on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, witdlife and their associated habitat would be directly affected arid
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 retai.ned habitat due to humaci encroachment. While these impacts can
nok be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species is listed as endangered,
thzeatened, or sensitive pursnant to the Endangered Species Act. The design of
open/paxk 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 increasa in
impervious surface ihat woald affect the hydrology of the area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applieant would be required to provida technology to control
sedimenUerosion thereby lessening impacts to water resauxces and fisheries habitat.
Public Services - Pnlice, Fire, Schools - wnuld all be impacted by the increased
population genera#ed by the development. Conditions of approval reyuize the Applicants
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these pubiic service impacts, includisig fire and traffic
impacts fees higher than those that are mandated under the ACC. Speciftc 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, IS, lb, 17, 18(A) -(E), 19(A)-(F), 20(E), 22(A) -(E), 23(A), 24(A)-(D), and
2S(A)-(B).
Findings, Canctusions, and Recommendation ' Pagc 24 of 36
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey 1II ItezonelPUD/Preliminary PladVariance - ON REMAND
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent
or abate public nuisances.
Pablic Ntusaaces 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 roact safeEy (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) wouid ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
conditioned the development of a Homeowners' Assoeiation and the associated
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions wvuld ensure that visual btights and dangers to
public heaith are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting bofh general pubiic welfare and
property valtaes. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FCR
Variance Criteria '
12. The subject property tloes not possess physical conditions or eaceptional
topagraph9c features that warrant deviating from the applicable design
requirements nor does strict conformity witb ACC Titte 18 fail to atlow
reasonabte and harmonious use of thc property whech would justify a variaace.
Findings of Fact Nos, 6, 21(A)-(C), Feb 2006 FCR.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Concluszon of law, the Hearing Examiner recommends to the
Auburn City Council that the request for a variance from the required !ot coverage be DENIED.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
RECOMIYSENDS APPROVAL of the request for a rezone of 89.31 acres from R-1 Single
Fami(y Residential to PUD, approval of the PUD, and approvai af the Preliminary Plat, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36,74A.060, the faltowing notice shall be placed on the final plat and on
alf 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 zninera[ resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining-related activi#ies inciuding, but nat ]imited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiting, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerats.
2. Prior to the issuance of final plat approvai for any phase containing an open space tract, the
AppIicanis shall submii, or enter into an agreement to sabmi#, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
Findings, ConcIusions, and Recommendation Page 25 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubvm
Kersey lIi Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PIaUVariance - ON REMAND
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submittedfor the conshvction of interior
improvements to the subdivisian, 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 Direc#or prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any materiais
suppHed and ins#alled for the parks must m.eet 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 fu#ure Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval by City Staff prior to
finat plat approval. This doaument shall include azehiteetural design criteria for new hoznes
and specify the financial means of rnaintenance of afl common open spaces.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I& II Conceptual Building
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2406 and the submitted canceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be
incorporated into the CC&Rs for the projeet. The fnal design guidelines shall inciude a
color paleite far proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the foliowing conditions shall
apply. •
a) Homes shall feature multiple rooFpitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet froan the front property
Iine. 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 shaxing
tha same floor plan are loca#ed adjacent to one anothez
b. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with the Applicants'
resubmittai for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval (Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicanis shall maximize the use of native andlor drought-resistant plants ihxoughout the
plat, including park and landscaped open spaae areas. Emphasis should be on the use of
native vegetation, thereby mitigating the lass of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot numbers 19-62 and
Divisian iI Lot numbei•s 17-49) shall have, at a minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback io
buffer #he adjacent development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting landscaping. Tha niimber,
style, and placement of signs and assaciated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Directar.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consisteni material, style, and color. T'he
Planning Director shall approve such fences, vvhich shall be equivalent to a six foat high
solid wood fenee. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conclusions, aiid Recommendation Page 26 of3U
Hearings Examitter for the City of Autiurn
Kersey 11T RezonelPUD/Preliminary PtaWariance - ON REMAND
pathways requires the approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that
border on a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Trac# A, B, C, D, and I) shall be
separated from these areas by use of a twa- rail wooden fence of approximately three to•four
feet in height. This fence shall delineate the property lzne and prevent eneroachment by the
property owner into the native%pen space, park, or drainage tract.
10. ApprovaI of the rezone and PUD are vatid only upon approval and execution of the
associated preliminary plat. .
11. Applicants shall compty with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the
Kersey III Prelirninary Plal Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated February
2005, and as vtherwise noted throughout this recommendation.
12. Appiicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergrecn Way SE and Kersey Way SE. This
traffic signal must be canstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13, Applicanfs shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in
advance of #he intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be consttucted ta the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall pravide auxiliary lanes at ihe in#ersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Appticants shall construck or post financial security for
txaffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intexsection of Lakeland Hilts
Way and Evergreen Way SE. Thcse traff'ic controls shall be designed and constructed as a
round-about unless the City Bngineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasibte. Tf the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic
controls shall be designed and construcfion as a traffie signaS,
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or gost 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 atnenities must be
constntcted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS sEates that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two tnain impacts pertain to
loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat. App]icants shall endeavor to provide
for preservation of a witdlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegetation,
thereby mitigating these impaets.
18. Applicants shall engage in meaningfut consultation with the Auburn School District.
Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide
transportation, Uut that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the
proposal without burdaning or creating avercapacity at any school. Applicants shall 6e
Findings, Conclusions, and Rccommendatioti Page 27 oF30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey I!I Rezonelf'UD/Preliminary P1at/Varianc$ ON 1tEMAND
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent rvith local and state Iaw
requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and ctearing
necessary for both the constsuction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for lot
grading shall be sabmitted arid approved by the City af Auburn. The parpose of the plan
should be to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to [imit or avoid the
need for subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots during
home construction. The pIan shall identify the surveyed boundazy of the crest slopes for the
site's 40% or greater slopes. This pian shall show quantities and locations of excavations, and
embankments, the design of temporary storrn drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent properties, nafural
and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas. Temporary detention
faeilities shall be designed with a 1.5 safety factor apptied to the post-developed calculated
pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the measures
shall be itnpiemen#ed prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construction
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunc#ion with and reviewed hy a licensed
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall davelop and submit, for the City's
review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attention to
der+eloping a plan to minimize the extent and #ime soils are exposed and address grading and
related activities during wet weather periods (the period of graatest concern is October l
thraugh March 31). The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or
any other aritical areas as required in chapters lb and l$ of the International Building Code
(IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas Urdinance, ,
Upon completion of xough grading and excavation, the applicanf shali have a geo-technieal
engineer re-analyze the si#e and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are
necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted fo the City of Auburn far
review and approvat by the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface
watsr is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by tlie geoteehnical engineer
and coordinated with the project engineer respansibie for the storm drainage system design.
19. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evatitation of stream c#iannel coziditions atong
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, inctuding 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 erasion determined be present from the supplementai evaluation of stream chaiunel
conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage faoilities shall incorporate high stzndards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve as an artteni#y. The design of above ground storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate tandscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Findings, Conciusions, and Recommendation Page 28 af 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum .
Kersey IlI Rexone/PUD/Prelisninary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthctic requirements consistent with City standards
can be accommodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consisfent with the City of Auburn Design
S#andards. In order to achieve this, the follawing design elemants must be incorporated into
thc final design:
• Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage sfruatwes is required.
To provide an adeyuate and safe storm pond access, an appropriately designed pull-
off shall be provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
• Alt storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream bypass surface
flows shall be routed through the project site arzd 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 xemaining portions of this system
shall be placed within a tract dedica#ed to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy dissipafion features
are required at the end of long ri►ns of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water qaality of the dischaxge 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 53`a Street
SE, and subsequent flooding of #he intersection, an appropria#ely designed s#orm drainage
system shall be constructed to mitigate this condition.
21. The location and alignment of the force mAin and the proposed pump station siiall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the
desired basin. The public sanitary sewer pump stafian shatl be located as directed by the City
Engineer in order to allow raonn for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into publ'zc 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 sanitaty sewer
system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division l. .
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except where dcviations
are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recotnmendation Paga 29 af 30
Hearings Examiner for tha City ofAuburn
Kersey IlI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
23. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential coliector
arteriaI including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn lane azea through the plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shall atso construct median treatments to match thc 10 foo# center
median/turn lane wi#lun the plat on fhe existing roadway wesc to Lakeland Hills Way, to the
satisfaction of the city engineer. •
25. The Applicatits shalt redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and Evergeen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, ta the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
26. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 1 a-foot wide shared multi-use pa#h, separated
by a five foot lanciscape strip from the road, on the wesf side of Kersey Way for the length of -
the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct Kexsey Way to a modified eity standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 faat center turn lane, a 12 foot through norihbound lane, a 12
foot through southbound lane, appzopriate right turns lane(s) at the intersection with 53'a
Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on
the west side. All o#her features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and
Iighting must meet ciry standards,
28. The Applicants shali create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary,
through the lacation of Iots 27 and 28, Division l, to align with 176~' Avenue East.
29. A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills Soufh
PUD shall be paid at the time of building pennits for individual homes.
30. A ftre 'smpact fee equivalent to the fee being coltected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
31. The Applicants shall compty with a!1 conditiozis set forkh in the Land Use Agreement
entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power Administration (Exhibit 8). The
Land Use Agreement set forth 15 canditions, including, but no# limited io landscaping,
distance from transmission line towers, and a minitnum path width of 16 feet.
Decided this ~ day of March, 2006.
J es Driscoll earings Examiner for the City af Auburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 30 of 30
Fiearings Examiner for the City of Aeburn
Kersey IIf Rezone/PUD/Preiiminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
WASHINGTON
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL PLAT APALICATION
FAC06-0022
The required improvements for the Finai Plat of
have been completed in accordance with the Land Division Ordinance and fhe City of
Auburn's standards and specifications.
City Engineer
Date
SECURITY IN LIEU OF COMPLETION
In lieu of the required public improvements for the Final Plat of KERSEY 3 DIVlSfON 2,
an approved security, PLAT SECURfTY BOND for $581,623.00 (950% of the estimated
costs of improvements) has been submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
~s.~~
City Engineer a e
1. The developer has provided references and demonstrated a minimum of 3 years
successfiul, non-defaulted plat development experience in fhe Puget Sound region.
2. The bond/security is based on the following costs:
Phase 1
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalks
Driveway Aprons
Street iights
ADA Ramps
ADA/Sidewallc Slope Mitigation
a. Concrete Sidewalks
b. Driveway Aprons
c. ADA Ramps '
Phase 2
Landscaping
a. Right of Way
Finaf Lift of AC paving
Adjust utilities to Finish Grade
Survey Monuments
Traffic markings
As-built Drawings
Total Construction $ 89,886.00
150% Multiplier $ 44,942.00
Total $134,828.00
cc: Original: P(at Security File
Capy (2) Planning Director
Copy: Developer
Total Construction $297,863.00
150% Multiplier $148,932.00
Total $446,795.00
ORD. NO. 6270
Agenda sill EXHIBIT 6