HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-5~
ATYOF .
~ a;~", RN
~ °WASHWGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6271 for Final Plat Application No.
Date: September 29, 2009
PLT09-0006
Department: Planning, Building
Attachments: Ordinance No. 6271
Budget Impact: N/A
and Communit
and Exhibits listed below
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6271.
Background Summary:
Doug Bennett of Springer Development, LLC, has made application for the Final Plat of "Kersey 3
Division No. 1A". Division 1A includes the creation of a 2.7 acre public park, private park tract,
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 50.85 acre property is located south of the intersection of Kersey Way SE with Evergreen Way SE in
the 2500-2700 block. A rezone from R-1 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a PUD received
approval under Ordinance 6026 (Files REZ05-0001 and PUD05-0001) on May 11, 2006. The preliminary
plat of Kersey 3 Division No. 1 received preliminary approval under Resolution 4021 (PLT05-0001) on this
same date to subdivide the site into 167 single-family lots and create tracts as noted above. Lots will be
created in a subsequent final piat.
The plat has been developed in accordance with the approved PUD, the Planned Unit Development
zoning district as defined by ACC, Section 18.69 (subsequently repealed), Title 17 (Finai Plats, ACC
17.06 subsequently amended) and conditions of the preliminary plat. The approval of the PUD and Plat
are tied to the approvai of "The Ridge at Bowman Creek" (aka Kersey 3 Division 2). 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 "The Ridge at Bowman Creek".
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.
L1005-2
03.5 PLT09-0006
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
0 Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance Z Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
Z Fire Z Planning
❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works
0 Legal ❑ Police
p 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
Meeting Date: October 5, 2009
Item Number: VIII.A.5
AU$j.,TRN * MORE THAN YOU iMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6271 for Final Plat Application No. Date: September 29, 2009
PLT09-0006
Attached are the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 1- Final Plat (8 Sheets)
Exhibit 2- Proposed Ordinance No. 6271 to approve the Final Plat of Kersey 3 Division No. 1A
Exhibit 3- Ordinance No. 6026, approving the rezone to PUD, Planned Unit Development
Exhibit 4- Resolution No. 4021, approving the Preliminary Plat of Kersey 3 Division No. 1
Exhibit 5- Exhibit A(Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation) attached to Ordinance 6026 and
Resolution 4021
Exhibit 6- The City Engineer's Certificate of Improvements
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6271
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF KERSEY 3 DIVISION 1A
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received a final plat application for the Plat
of KERSEY 3, Division 1A, Application No. PLT09-0006, the final approval of
which is appropriate for City Council Action; and
WHEREAS, based on the review given this Plat by the City, the City
Council hereby makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Doug Bennett of Springer Development, LLC, has made application for the
Finat Plat of "Kersey 3 Division 1A". The preliminary plat was approved by
the City Council under Resolution No. 4021 and signed by the Mayor on
May 11, 2006. "Kersey 3 Division 1A" creates tracts and dedicated rights-
of-way, no lots are created under this Plat. A subsequent final plat will be
submitted to create lots.
2. "Division 1A" of the preliminary plat has been developed in accordance
with the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD05-0001) and all
applicable conditions of the preliminary plat (PLT05-0001).
3. The "Kersey 3 Division 1" PUD and Plat are tied to the PUD and Plat of
"The Ridge At Bowman Creek" (aka Kersey 3 Division 2) as the conditions
of approval for "Kersey 3 Division 1" require that street dedication, park
dedication, creation of openspace tracts within "The Ridge At Bowman
Creek" 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 Q, a 2.7-acre (118,870 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. 6271
September 29, 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. Kersey 3 Division 1A, 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:
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE H.B. CARTER
COUNTY ROAD, ALL IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE
5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY
FOR STUCK RIVER ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER
RECORDING NO. 5407388;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY
FOR LAKE TAPPS ACCESS ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER
RECORDING NO. 5801756 AND
EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN
FOR RIGHT OF WAY BY DEDICATION DEEDS RECORDED UNDER
RECORDING NUMBERS 20071109001318 AND 20071109001319.
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. Constitutionality or Invaliditv. If any section, subsection
clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held 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.
Ordinance No. 6271
September 29, 2009
Page 2 of 3
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.
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 S. Effective Date. This ordinance shall 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
APP6t'bVED AS-Tp FO
DYniel B. H*eiel;
City Attorney
Published:
Ordinance No. 6271
September 29, 2009
Page 3 of 3
ORDlNANCE NO. 6 0 2 6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, Af'F'ROVING A
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 50.85
ACRES FROM SlNGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI. (R1)
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Applicatians Nos. REZ05-0001 and PUD05-0001, dated April
8, 2005, were submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by Wayne Jones,
Lakeridge Development, requesting approval of a rezane and approvai af ~a
plannsd unit development to subdivide 50.85 acres into 967 lots for future single
family residenfia( development, open space, and street and u#i(ity tracts within the
City of Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said applicatinn was made concurrentiy with an applicaEion
for preliminary pla# approval for the same site (Application No. PLT05-0001); and
. WHEREAS, said applicativns were determined to be complete pursuant to
Aubum City Code on .lune 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said requests referred to above were referred to #he Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing therean; and
WHEREAS, following s#aff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
pubfic hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions on September 2, 2005; and
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT 3
OF
ORD. NO. 6271
AGENDA BILL
WHEREAS, a# its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner`s
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a c(osed record hearing was heid on Ocfober 3, 2005 and
continued on October 17, 2005, at which time the City Council considered the
Hearing Examiner's recommendatians and fhe material presented to the Hearing
Examiner and argument made to the City Cnuncil at said ciosed record hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments received at the cfosed
record hearing concerning matters related to the record drew in#o question
significant portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the closed record hearing, the City Council asked the
applicant if he would be willing to accept the additional fime it would take if the
requests were remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for further review and
consideration of issues raised by the Council, and the applicanYs representative
declined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
Ci#y a wiiiingness to wafve the 120-day project review timetable otherwise
applicable for processing fhe applicatian and a willingness to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS, at i#s regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
City Counc9l adopted Resoiu#ion No. 3947, remanded the application back to the
Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the developmen#
addressed or affected eight (8) defined issues; and
WHEREAS, fvllowing staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing ta cansider said petition in the Council Charnbers of the Auburn
City Hall on February 22, 2006, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval af #he revised preliminary plat subject to candltions 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 Examiner's recommendations, the
material presented to #he Hearing Examiner and argument made to the City
Council at said closed record hearing and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for prefiminary plat based upon the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendation which is at#ached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subject to addi#ionai conditians of approval.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHfNGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 12
Recommendation aftached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated herein.
Sectlon 2. APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS. The rec{uest far rezone and
planned unit deveEopment approval to allow a preliminary plat to subdivide 50.85
acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open space
and street and ufility tracts within the City of Auburn, 1egaEly described in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
appraved subject to the following canditinns:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the #ollowing notice shal[ be placed on the
fina( plat and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey Iil
devefopment (Division I and Division !l):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral
resource lands on which a variety of commercial
activities occur that may not be compatible with
residential development, incfiuding, but not limited ta,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, cancrete and asphalt production,
recycling of materials, and their reiated and
supparting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of #inaf plat approval for any phase containing an
open space tract, the Applicants shall submit, or enter fnto an agresment
to submit, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that
conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69200.
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the
construction of interior impcovements to the subdivision, Applicant shall
also submit engineering/construction drawings for the construction of all
park improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City nf Auburn's Parks
Director prior to the appraval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City Parks
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 12
Department standards and be appraved by the Parks Director prior ko
installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
Kersey II! Homeowners' Association shall be submi#ted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall
include architectural design criteria for new hames and specify the
financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces, The CC&Rs
shall provide that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be
responslble to maintain and replace as necessary al1 trees, tcaifs, special
#eatures and landscaping within any street median strip, planting strips
and all HOA parks. En addition, the HOA shaA maintaln those portions of
the stormwater tract Iocated outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if provided, vutside the 10-year storm water surface elevation, as
determined by the City Engineer.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division Il
Canceptual Building Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the
subrnitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application, The Architectural Design Guidelines shali be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. Tha final design guidelines shall include a
color pale#te for proposed hause exterior cofors. In addition, the following
conditions shall apply.
a) Homes shafl feature rnulfiple roof pitches an their street-
facing facades.
b) Garagas shall be set back a minimum of 20 feat from the
front property line. At Esast, but na more than, a two-car
garage door shall face the street; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two
homes sharing the same floor plan are located adjacent to
nne another
d) L.ot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6. Finai landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the PreEiminary
Overall L.andscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Agplicants' resubmittal for rez4ne, PUD, and preliminary plat approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shall rnaximize the use of native
and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the p!a#, including park and
iandscaped apen space areas. Emphasis shauld be on the use of native
vegetatian, thereby mitigating the Ioss of native vegetatian.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 5 of 12
7. Afl lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot
numbers 19-62 and Division il Lot numbers 97-49) shall have, at a
minimum, one tr.ee in the rear yard se#back to buffer the adjacent
development #rom the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a'low monument style wifh accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and assaciated
landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the baundary of the plat shall be of consisten# material,
style, and colar. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, whlch
shall be equivalent to a six foot high solld wood fence. Any fencing #o ba
erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. Ali residential properties that border on
a nafive/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and i) shall
be separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of
approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
properfy iine and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the
native/open space, park, ar drainage tract, The Homeowners' Association
shall be responsible to maintain ail fences required by this condition.
1Q.Applicants shall comply with all of the mi#igation measures as no#ed on
pages 5-19 of the Kersey ill Prefiminary Plat Final E(S (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise nated
throughnut this recommendation.
11.Applicants shall construct a traffic signaf at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfactlon of the
City Engineer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active warning signal an southbound Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection ofi Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This activs warning signal must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13.Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be canstructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
94.Applicants shall provide access acceptable to the City of Auburn for
properties abuiting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53rd St. SE.
Ordinance No. 6426
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 12
I S. Prior to any final plat approvafs, Applicants shall construct or post
financial securiry for traffic controis to #he satisfaction of the Cify Engineer
at the intersection of l.akeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
traffic controls sha11 bs designed and constructed as a round-about uniess
the City Engineer determines, based an design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a raund-abouk is not
feasib(e, then the traffic controls shail be designed and cvnstruction as a
traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial
securify for traffic cafming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen
Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near Olive Avenue, These traffic
calmsng and pedestrian safety amenities must be canstructed to the
satisfaction of #he City Engineer.
17.The E!S states that there are unavoidable significant impacfs on the
environment, nameiy impacts on wildlife papulations and fheir associated
habitat. Twa main impacts pertain #o loss of native vegetation and
fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide far
preservation of a wildlife habi#at by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
18,Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn Schoof
District. Communications should nat merely sesk #o ensure that the
school district can provide transporEation, but that schools have the
capacify to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any schonl. Applican#s shall be
responsible for alf schaol impact fees in a manner consistent with focal
and state law requirements,
19. Prior ta issuance of clearing or grading permifs, a grading plan for grading
and c(earing necessary for bath 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 af the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots
during home construcEion. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest slopes for the site's 40% ar greater slapes. This plan shall
show quantitiss and locations of excavations, and embankments, the
design nf temparary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentafion from impacting adjacent
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 7 of 12
properties, natural and public storm drainage systems and other near by
sensitive areas. Temporary detention facilities shall be designed wi#h a
1.5 safety factor applied to the post-deve[oped calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed starm event. A![ the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filfing,
grading or construction activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunctian wi#h and reviewed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnicai engineer shall develop
and submit, far the City's review, specific recommendations to mitigate
grading activities, with particular attention to developfng a plan to minimize
the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and related
activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is
October 9 through March 31). The plans shail show the type and the
extent of geologic hazard area or any other critical areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code (IBC) and/or the
Ci#y's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, #he applicant shall
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised gea-technieal
report shall be submifted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by
the City Engineer. Recammendafions for areas where subsurface water
is known ar discovered shall be given particuiar attention by the
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer
responsible for the storm drainage system design.
24. Prior to final plat approva[, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vlcinity of Stream Station 94+00 must
be completed, inc(uding the off-site erosion feature observed at the outlet
of the culver# under Kersey Way and near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mitigation shall be proposed to efiminafe fhe observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplamental evaluation of
stream channel conditians along Bawman Creek.
21. Storm drainage facilities shali incorporate high standards of design to
enhance the appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design
of above ground storage and conveyancs facilities shall address or
incorporate landscaping utifizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes,
safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of 12
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with appEicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consistent with City standards can be accommadated on-
site.
Storm drainage facili#ies shall be provided consistent with the City of
Aubum Design Standards. In arder ta achieve this, the following design
elements must be incorparated into the final design:
Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
structures is required. To provide an adaquate and safe sEorm pond
access, an appropriately designed pufl-off shall be provided from
Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
All storm drainage conveyance [ines required to manage upstream
bypass surface flows shall be routed through #he project site and shall
not be cornbined with the praposed on-site storm drainage system.
Maintenance access shall be provided to all structures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions of fhis sysfem shall be
placed within a tract dedicated to the Hameowners Assaciation for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriateiy designed energy
dissipation features are required at the end of fong runs of pipe, at pipe
intersections and a# the ouffet to the storm drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site,
appropriately designed aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity o# Kersey
Way near 53Id Street 5E, and subsequent flooding of fhe intersection, an
appropriately designed storm drainage system shall be consfructed to
mi#igate this condition.
22. The location and alignment of the force maln and the proposed pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacent properfy owners and the City to
ensure it prav9des service to the desired basin, The public sanitary sewer
pump station shall be Iocated as directed by the City Engineer in order to
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back
into pubiic right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub ta the south praperty line
iocated between Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 9 of 12
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system Iocated at the SE carner of Tract D, Division 1.
23.AIi roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and shail be dedicated as
public right of way.
24. The Applicants shall cans#ruct Evergreen Way Eo City standards for a
residential collector arterial including a 10 faat landscaped center median/furn
lane area through the p[at boundaries.
25.The Applicanfs shal{ also cons#ruct median treatments to match the 10
foat center median/turn lane within the plat on the exlsting roadway west to
l.akeland Hills Way, to #he satisfaction of the city engineer.
26.The App[icants shall redesign pedestrian crassirtgs at Road G and
Evergreen Way and Raad A and Evergreen Way to provide additional
pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27.The Applicants shail construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five foot landscape strlp from the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the fength of the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the
satisfaction of #he City Engineer.
28.The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for
a minor arterial road, to include a 12 fnot center turn lane, a 12 foot through
nor#hbound lane, a 12 foot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns
lane(s) at the intersection with 5P Street SE, a five foot fandscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on the west side. A!I other
features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and lighting
must meet city standards.
29. The Applicants shafl create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south
plat boundary, through the location o# fots 27 and 28, Division 1, to allgn with
176th Avenue East.
30.A traffic impact fes equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hi(Is South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
homes.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 10 of 12
31.A fire impact fee equivalent to the fes being collected for the Lafceland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits far individual
homes.
32. The Appiicants shall compfy with all conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agreement enfered into by the Appiicants with Ehe Banneville Power
Administration, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by thls reference. The Land Use Agreement set forth 15
conditions, including, but not limited to landscaping, distance from
transmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. CONSTITUTIONALITY OR INVALIDITY. Ef any section,
subsectivn, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of th9s Ordinance, is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and 3ndependent provisEon, and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4. 1MPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives
of this Isgislation.
Section 5. EFFECTiVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect five (5) days after publication as required by law.
Dated and Signed this ~ day of 2006.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 12
INTRODUCED:
APPROVED:
MAY I 1 2006
PETER B. LEWfS,
MAYOR
1.135'-/6 -O~>
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2048
Page 12 of 12
Ile E. Daskam,
lerk
RESOLUTION N0. 4021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPR4VlNG A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPL.ICATIDN TO SUBDIVIDE
50.85 ACRES INTO 167 LOTS AND VARIOUS
TRACTS FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAM1l.Y
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHfNGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT05-0001, dated Aprif 8, 2005, has been
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Wayne Jones, Lakeridge
Development, requesting approval of a preliminary plat application to subdivide
50.85 acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open
space, and street and utifity trac#s within the City of Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was made concurrent(y with applications for
rezone and planned unit development approval for the same site (Application
Nos. REZ05-0001 and PUD05-4001); and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be complete pursuant
to Auburn City Code on June 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said request above was referred #o the Hearing Examiner far
study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, foflowing staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the preiiminary plat subject to conditions on September 2, 2005; and
Resolution No. 4421
May 2, 2006
Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT 4
oF
ORD. NO. 6271
AGENDA BILL
WHEREAS, af its regufar meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Councii
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held nn 4ctober 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
Exarniner and argument made to the City Council at said ciosed record hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and camments received at the closed
record hearing concerning matters related to the record drew into question
significan# portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the ciosed record hsaring, the City Council asked the
applicant if he would be willing to accept the additionaf time it would take if the
requests were remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for further review and
consideration of issues raised by the Council, and the applicant's representative
decllned the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a wi1lingness to waive the 120-day project review timetable otherwise
applicabfe for processing the application and a willingness to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the applicatian back to the
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 11
Hearing Examin.er #o re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected eight (8) defined issues; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on February 22, 2006, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the revised preliminary plat subject ta conditions on March 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a clased record hearing was held on April 25, 2006, at which
time the City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's recommendations, the
material presented to the Hearing Examiner and argument made to the City
Council at said closed record hearing and affirmed #he Hearing Examiner's
racomrnendation for preliminary plat based upon the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recornmendation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subjec# to additional conditions of approval.
N4W THEREFORE, THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOI.VES as follows:
Section 1. The Hearing Exarniner's Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorpora#ed in this Resolutlon.
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 50.85
acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open space
and street and utility tracts within the City of Auburn, legally described in Exhibit
Resoiution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 11
"B" attached hereto and incarporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved subject to the fotlowing conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, ths follawing notice shall be placed on the
fina{ plat and on afl buifding permits and deeds issued within fhe Kersey lli
development (Division i and Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral
resaurce (ands on which a variefiy of commercial
activities occur that may not be compatible with
residential development, including, but not limited to,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, concrete and asphalt produc#ion,
recycling of materials, and their refated and
supporting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of final p(at appraval for any phase containing an
open space tract, the Applicants shalf submit, or enter into an agreement
to submit, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditians, and Restrictions that
conforms to the requirements o# ACC 19.69.200.
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the
construc#ion of interior impravements to the subdivision, Applicant shalf
also submEt engineering/construction drawings #or the construction ofi all
park improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's Parks
Director prior to the approval af the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and insta!!ed far the parks must meet current City Parks
Department standards and be approved by the Parks Director prior to
installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
Kersey !II Hameowners' Association shall be submitted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall
include architecturai design criteria fior new homes and specify the
financial means of main#enance of a11 common open spaces. The CC&Rs
shall prov'sde that the Homeowners Association (H4A) shall be
responsible tv maintain and replace as necessary a1f trees, trails, special
features and fandscaping within any street medlan strip, p(anting strips
and alf HOA parks. In addition, the HOA shal( maintain those portions of
the stormwater tract Eocated outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if provided, outside the 90-year storm water surface elevatlon, as
determined by the City Engineer.
Resolution Na. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 11
5. Home designs shall be cansistent with the Kersey 3 Division I& If
Conceptua( Building Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2008 and the
submitted conceptuai drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall incfude a
coEor palette for proposed houss exterior colors. !n addition, the following
canditions shall apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roaf pitches on their street-
facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
front properEy line. At least, but no mare than, a two-car
garage door shall fiace the street; tandem parking is
acceptabfe.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two
homes sharing #he same floor plan are located adjacent to
one another
d) Lot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6. Final Eandscaping design shall be generally cansistent with the Preiiminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Applicants' resubmittal far rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shall maximize the use of native
and/or drough#-resistant plants throughout the plat, including park and
landscaped apen space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential devefopment (Division I Lot
numbers 19-62 and Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a
minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to buffer the adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement nf signs and associa#ed
landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
shall be equivalent to a six faot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be
erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that border an
a native/apen 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
approximatefy three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by #he property owner inta the
Resolution No, 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 5 af 11
nativelopen space, park, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Association
shall be responsible to maintain all fences required by this condition.
10.Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measures as no#ed on
pages 9-19 of the Kersey ill Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
throughout this recommendation.
11.Applicants shall construc# a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic s'ignal mus# be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on sauthbound Kersey
Way SE in advance o# the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This active warning signal must be canstructed to the
satisfaction of the Cify Enginesr.
13. Appiicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shal{ provide access acceptable to the City of Auburn for
properties abutting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53`d St..SE.
15. Prior to any fina) plat approvals, Applicants shall construct ar post
financiai security for traffic controls ta the satisfaation of the City Engineer
at the in#ersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
traffic contro(s shall be designed and constructed as a round-about unless
#he City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If ths City Engineer determines that a round-about is noE
feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and construction as a
traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial
security for traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen
Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic
calming and pedestrian safety amenities must ba canstructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the
environment, namely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated
habitat. Two main [mpacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and
fragmentation of habitat. Appiicants shall endeavor to provide for
preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mi#igating these impacts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reso[ution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 11
18.Applicants shali engage in meaningful consuitation with the Auburn School
District. Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the
school district can provide transportation, but that schoals have the
capacity to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any schoal. Applicants shall be
responsibis for all school impact fees in a manner consistent w+th local
and state law requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing ar grading permits, a grading plan for grading
and clearing necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as
roads and utilities and for lot grading shall be submitted and approved by
the City of Auburn. The purpose af the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one fsme to [imit ar avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots
during hame constructian. The plan shall identify the surveyed baundary
of the crest slopes for the site's 40% or greater sEopes. This plan shall
show quantities and focations nf excavations, and embankments, the
design of temporary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent
properties, natural and public storm drainage systems and other near by
sensitive areas. Temporary detention facilities shall be designed wlth a
1,5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour past developed storm event. All the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling,
grading ar construction activities.
The grading plans sha{l be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop
and submit, for #he City's review, specific recomrnendations to mitigate
grading activities, with particular aftention ta developing a plan to minimize
the extent and tirne soils are exposed and address grading and retated
activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest cancern is
October 1 through March 31). The plans shalf show the type and the
extent of geologic hazard area or any other criticaf areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the Internationai Building Code (4BC) andlor the
City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall
have a gea-technical engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical
report shall be subrnitted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by
the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface water
is known ar discavered shall be given particutar attention by the
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 7 af 11
geotechnical engineer and coardinated with the project engineer
responsible for the storm drainage system design.
20. Prior to final plai approva(, a supplemental eva(uation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must
be completed, including the off-site erosion feature observed at the outlet
of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mifigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosiort as weil as
any erosion determined be presen# from the suppiemental evaluation 'of
stream channel condltions afong Bowman Creek.
21. Storm drainage facili#ies shall incorporate high standards of design to
enhance the appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design
of above ground storage and conveyance facilitfes shall address or
incorporate landscaping u#ilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes,
safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consistent with City standards can be accommodated on-
site.
Storm drainage faciiities shall be provided consistent with the City of
Auburn Design Standards. 1n order to achieve this, the following design
elements must be incorporated into the final design:
Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
structures is required. To provide an adequate and safe storm pond
access, an appropriately designed pull-off shall be provided from
Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream
bypass surFace fiows shall be routed through the pro)ect si#e and shatl
not be combined with the proposed on-site storm drainage system.
Maintenance access shall be provided to all s#ructures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system shall be
placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Associa#ion for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy
dissipation features are required at the end af fong runs of pipe, at pipe
intersections and at the outlet to the storm drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge feaving the site,
appropria#ely designed aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Given the existing on-site drainage de#iciencies 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 canstructed to
mitigate this condition,
22. The location and afignment of the force main and the proposed pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacent property owners and the Cify to
ensure it provides service to the desired basin. The public sanitary sewer
pump station shall be located as directed by the City Engineer in order to
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back
into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanltary sewer stub to the south property line
located between Gots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shail provide an easemen# for possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division 1.
23.A11 roads within the plat must be canstructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as
public right of way.
24. The Applicants shall construc# Evergreen Way to City standards for a
residential collector arterial including a 10 #oot fandscaped center median/turn
lane area through the p[at boundaries.
25. The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10
foot center median/turn lane within the plat ort the existing roadway west to
Lakeland Hllls 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 refiuge, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 1 Q-font wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five faot landscape strip from the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the (ength of the site frontage afong Kersey Way, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
28. The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way tv a modified city standard for
a minor arterial road, to include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foat through
northbound lane, a 12 faot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns
iane(s) at the intersection with 53`d Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path an the west side. AIl other
Resolu#ion No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 9 of 11
features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and lighting
must mee# city standards.
29.The Applicants shail create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south
plat boundary, through the tocation of lots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with
176th Avenue East.
30. A traffic lmpact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills Sauth PUD shafl be paid at the time of building permits for lndividua{
homss.
31.A fire impact fee equivafenf to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hilis South PUD shafl be paid, at the time of bui[ding permits for individual
homes.
32. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agreement entered into by the Applicants with the gonneville Power
Administration (Exhibit 8). The Land Use Agreement set forth 15 conditions,
including, but not limited to iandscaping, distance from transmission line
towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directlves of this legislation.
Sect~ ion 4. This Resolu#ion shall take effect and be in fu11 force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signsd this It,Vo- day of , 2006.
C UBU N
~
B. L.EWIS,
PETE
MAYOR
Resoiutian No, 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 10 of 11
ATTEST:
Dan'eile E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROT/EDA!41"0 F
E2rhiel B. Wi
City Attorney
Reso{utian No. 4421
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 11
BEI'OR.E THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matfer of the Application of )
)
Lakerldge Developmen# )
by Wayne Jones )
and }
Landholdings LLC )
by Daniei and Stormy Hayes )
)
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit Development, )
a Preliminfuy Plat, and a Varianee for )
Kersey III - Divisioii I and Division II }
N4, R.EZOS-0001, REZ05-0002
PUD05-0001, PUD 05-0002
PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSTONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
In 2005, Lakeridge Developraent, through Wayne Jories, and Lartdhaldings LLC, through Joyce
Bowles and Peter. Bowles, (AppIicants) requested approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Developtnent, and preliminary plat for Division I and Division TI of Kersey 111, a sinp;le-family
residential subdivision, and a variance from certairi design standards.
Tiie Applicants requested a rezone of tliree separate tax parcels froin R-l Singie FamiIy
Residential to Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots iii Division I and 204 lots in Division II. The requested variances would
reduce front yard setback and tot coverage reguirements. The subject property totals 89.31 acres
and is located within the city limits of Auburn, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53`d Street SE,
extending sauthward to the King-Pierce Coutity line.
An open racord hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City af
Auburn on August 9, 2005. The Hearing Examiiier ailowed the reeord to remain open for the
Iimited puipose of securing cornments from the Auburn School llistrict on impacts generated by
the proposed residential development. The School DistricNs comments were received and the
record was officially closed on Augtist 16, 2005. Follosving a review of the testimony and
exhibiis, and based 'on the criteria established by the Auburn City Council, on Septembex 2, 2005
the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the rezone from R-1 Residential
to Planned Unit Development, apgroval of the Planned Unit Development, and approval of the
preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kerseq III, subject to 1$ conditians. The
Hearing Examiner recummended that the Applica.nts' reqaest for variances from the xequired
fronf yard setback and total lot coverage design requiremonts be denied.
On 4ctober 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Auburn City CounciI conducted a hearing to
cansider 'the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. At the close of the hearing, the City Council
asked the Applicants if tFiey were rvilling to accept the additional time i# would tak8 for the
matter to be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for furlher review, The Applicants declined the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recom:nendation AGENDA BILL EXHIBIT
~R~. N0. 6271 EXHIBIT 5
Hearings fixaminer for the City of Aubum
Kersey lIT Kezone/PUD/Pcelim'snary PIaUVariance - ON REMAND (EXHIB[7 A- HEARING EXAMINER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
. ATTACHED TD ORD. 6026 AND RES. 4021)
remand offer and the City Council denied all of the applications. On November 10, 2005, the
Applicants rescinded its denia( and asked that the applications be remanded to #he Hearing
Examiner.
On November 15, 2005, the Aubuni City Council issued Resoiutiott Number 3947, remanding
the matter to the Hearing Examiner fo re-open the record and considex how the development
addressea or affected the follawing issues;
1. 4pen spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental features, such as steep slopes,
mature trees, wetlands, and scenic views.
2. Use of traffic management and design #echniques ta reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly atong Kersey Way, and promote alternative modes of travet. Gotisideration
should be given to applying the LAkeland PUD traffic inipact fee structurs in responding to
similar impacts areas located south of the White River.
3, The develapznent of transitional areas between these pro,Jects and adjaceni developments and
environmentalty sensitive areas. "
4. The huilding and structurat designs #haf complement sarrounding laiid uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping, and building architecture required
under #he Auburn PUD oxdinance.
5. The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces located under
Bonnevilte Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate natification to future (ot owners of the adjacent surface rnining
operations.
7. Pro#ectian nf waterways and the deveIopment's proposed stormwater system.
8. Application of the Lakeland Fire rmpact Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities to
serve the area south of the White River.
On February 22, 2006, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held a pubIic hearing on the
matte.r as it was rernanded from the City Council.
Testimonv
At ttie February 22 hearing on remand, the following individuaIs presented testimony under oath:
i, Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Jaseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3, D. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Auburn
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Worics, City of Auburn
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Pubtic Works, City of Auburn
6. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representaiive
7. Rob Azmstrong, Civil Engineer
8. Art Sidel, Landscapa Architect
9. Pat McBride, Building Architect
10. John Norris, Norris Homes
11. Michele Fassbind, neighboring properiy owner
12. Jahn Chaffee, neighboring property owner
13. Darryl Thompson, neighboring property owner
Findings, Conclusions, an@ Recommendation Page 2 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey Irt Rexonc/F'UD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
14. Pat Davis, neighboring property owner
15. Dale Huston, neighboring property owner
16. Erin Galeno, neighboring properiy owner
17. Chuck Goutd, neighboring properEy ovmer
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. Katrina Frice, neighboring propecty owner
20. Donald Bykonen, neighboring property owner
21. William Remiek, neighboring property owner
22. Kristi Knatt, neighboring proper#y owner
23. Bruce Koch, neighboring property awner
24, Jonie Brooke, neighboring property owner
25. Bill Anderson, neighboring property ovvner
Exhibits At the Febnuary 22 hearing on remand, the following exhibits were admitfeci as part of the
official record;
i. Staff Report, dated Februaxy 16, 2006
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Auburn City Council Resolution 3947
4. Re-submittai letter from Barghausen Engineers, dated January 11, 2006
5. Revised Preliminary PIat/PUD Site PJans -12 sheets
6. Engineer's Responses to Auburn City Councit Comments 7. Kersey TII Divisions I and It Praject Proposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint
Presentation Slides and Architect Narrative
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonneville Power Administration and Lakeridge Development,
dated August 30, 2005
9. Excerpts from Environmental Innpact Statement pertaining ta Geologic Hazaxds, Wildlife
and Habita#, and Wetlands and Streams, with maps
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. A#fidavit ofMailing o#'Legai Notice
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice
13. E-mail confirmation from King County Journal, Publication of Legai Notice, dated
Febniary 7, 2006
14. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Pcoposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides
15. Frelirninary Landscape Pian - 3 sheets
36. Correspondence from GMS Architecturai Group, dated February 22, 2006
l 6A. Lot Coverage Drawings
17. Correspondence from Segale Proparties, dated February 22, 2006
18. Statatory Warranty Deed - Tax Parce13221059039
19, Pubtic Comment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22, 2006
20. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated Octaber 15, 2005
21. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated February 21, 2006
22. Correspondenee from MuckIeshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23. Public Comment Letter: MicheIle Fassbind, dated February 22, 2006
24. PubIic Comment Letter: Jalui Chaffee, dated February 22, 2006
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 3 of30
Hearings Examincr for ihe City of Auburn
Kersey i11 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
25, Ptsblic Comment Letter: Erin and Paul Galena, undated
26. Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, October 17, 2005
27. Pablic Comment Letter: Janet Koch, dated February 22, 2006
28, "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter, dated Fcbruary 15, 2006
29. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy 7ohannsen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public.Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilla, dohn and Cindy Flinchbaugh, WiII and Jeaii Julum, Rod and Judy
Johannsen, unrdated
31. Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated Februazy 22, 2006
32. Public Comment Letter: Bili Anderson, dated February 22, 2006
33. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Stan
Purdin, Kirk Andexson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen, Gary and Margare# Staples, undated
34. Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, February 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applicant's Response ta Public Hearing Comments, dated March 3, 2006
36A, Agency Comment Letter from Auburn Schoal District, dated Maroh 2, 2006
Upon considcration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing of August
9, 2005 and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remand, the Hearing Examiner enters the
following Findin$s and Conclusions:
k'INDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS
The Applicants requested approval of a rezone of three parcels of land to#aling
approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the property from R-1 Single
Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Appticants also requested
approvat of a PUD and Preliminary Plat for Division I and Division II of Kersay III. The
properly is located on the west side of Kersey Way at 53td Street SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. All of the parcels are within the city limits of
Auburn and the boundaries of King County. Ceneral Finding of Fact No. 1, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3.
2. To reach a determination on #he City Council's Order of Remand, tha Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submitted into the record of the Kersey tIT,
Division I and Division II hearings conducted an August 9, 2005 and February 22,2006.
Alt Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Examiner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incorporated inta the present decision by reference.
Findings fram the August 2005 hearing are referenced as "Findings Sept. 2405 FCR. "
Findings from the February 2006 hearing aze referenced as "Ftndings Feb. 2006
Remand Hearing. "
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 4 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey lil Rezone/AUD/Preliminary P1aWariance-ON REMAND
In the original proposal heard by the Hearin$ Examiner in August 2005, the Applicants
proposed a two phase development with Division I containing 169 single-family
residential lots averaging 5,032 square feet, resulting in an average density of 3.34
dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Division II Nvas to be developed with 205 single-family
lots averaging 4,863 square feet, resulting in an average density of 5.35 dulacre. The
overail project density is 4.17 du/acre for hoth divisions. At the February 2006 Hearing
on Remand (Remand Hearing), the Applicants submitted a revised proposal. The
Applicants are still proposing development of Kersey IIT in two phases, however,
Division 1 wouId now contain 167 single-family re,sidential lots averaging 4,900 square
feet, and an average density of 3.28 du/acre. Divisian II would now contain 201 single-
fainily residential lots averaging 4,990 square feet, and an average density of 5,23
du/acre. The overall project density is 4.12 du/acre. Gerreral Finding of Fact No. 2, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Reporl, .Page 3; Exhibrt I, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhihit S,
Revised PrelJminaty Plat/PUD plans; Exhibit 19, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcals of land comprise the proposal and a!l three parcels are within the city limits
of Aubum. Division 1 is includes twa tax parcels - King County Parcel No. 322I05-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Development). Division II is camprised of one tax parceI - King County Parcel No.
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwpod "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings LLG).
On December 14, 2005, the Bowles executed a Statutory Warranty Deed conveying Tax
Parcel 3221050-9039 to Daniel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowles as Appticants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No. 4, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibft 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Teatimony of Mr. Pilcher.
5. Design standards for detached single-family residentiat development within a PUD
include: minimum Iot size of 3,600 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 40%, maximum building height of 30 feet, and front, rear, and side yard
setbacks of 15-20 feet, 20 feet, and 5 feet, respectively. The Applicants proposal
confortns to these standards. .4CC 18. 69.070(A); Exhibit S, Revised Plat.
6. At #he August 2005 hearing, the Applicants requested tt variance from certain design
requirements set forth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). The proposal at that
time was for the reduction in the fi•ont yazd setback to 10 feet and an inerease in the'totat
allowable lot coverage to 50%. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of this
request. At the Retnand Hearing, the Applicants revised the previous request, seeking an
increase in the total allowabie lot coverage nf up to 45%. The Applicants argue that
adherence to the 40% Iot eoverage maximum provided in ACC 18.69.470(A) would
create hardship and that increased lot coverage is needed to provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to prevent a`cookie cutter' look. Approval of t}ie
variarxce, according to the Applicants, would create baiance and diversity wi#hin the
PUD. Tn addition, the Applicant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially larger amount of open/recreational space than normally is required. It
appears from the record that the Appiicants have abandoned therr request far a frant yard
setbaek variance. Speciftc Finding of Fact Na. 23, Reco»iy»endation, Sept. 2005 .FCR;
Fittdings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page S of 30
Hcarings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey Iti Razone/PUD/Preliminary plaWariance - ON REMAND
Exhibrt 16, Correspondence from GMC Archltectural; Lxhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Tesllmony of Mr. McBride; Testimony of Mr. Norris.
7. At the Rema.rid Hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for the Applicants to
submit responses on all af the written and oral conuments received into the record at the
February 2006 Remand Hearing. Bob Jahns of Jofins Monxoe Mitsunaga, attorney for
the Applioants, submitted the required responses, along with comments from the Auburn
School District, to the City of Auburn on March 3, 2006. A copy of this letter was not
provided to the Hearing Examiner until March 14, 2006. On March 14, 2006, the
Hea.ring Examiner entered an Order setting the date of the issuance of the
recommendation to March 22, 2006.
8. Notice of the Remand Hearing was posted on the property and was mailed ta al1 properEy
owners Iocated within 300 feet of the affected site on February 10, 2006. Notice tivas
pubiished in the King Cou»ty Jaurnal on February 10, 2006. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
9. The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A, requires tand tivithin a eity to be
classifed as urban and that it musf be develaped at urban densities. Tkte Applicants
submitted that this principle justifies !he rezone request. The GMA itseif does not assign
a quan#itative value ta the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Boazd, which has been applied, clarified, and
evolved over the years, has stated that urban density is equivalent to four dwelling units
per acre unless a reasonable exception applies (i.e. critical areas). (see City of Bremerton
et al v, Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case Na. 95-3-0039c {1995}, Litowitz v. City of
Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 (1996)). The CPSGMHB's rule was
recently called into question by the Washington State Supreme Court in Yiking v. Hobn
when the couri stated that the CPSGMFiB did not have the authority to create sueh a
`bright line rule'. Viking x Holm, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acxe
threshold as a`safe harbor' rather than a`bright line'. Furhiman v. Crty of Bothell,
CPSGMHB Case No, 05-0025c (2005), The subject property was designated as Single
Family Residential in 1995 and Auburn foresees the bulk of single-family residential
communities developed at a density of four to six dwelEing units per acre. RCW
36.70A,110; zarrd Use Policy LU-19; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (noting factors to satisfy change in
circumstances).
10. Auburn's Comprehensive PIan speaks to the development of residential housing at
single-facnily densities that establish a balanced mix of housing types appropriate for a
family-oriented community. When assigning the Comprehensive Pian's land use
desigr►ation for the subject property, the City Council was to evaluate the ability to buffer
the area by taking advantage of topographic variations, natural features, seibacics, and
other means. The devclopment of new neigtiborhoods is to be govemed by flexible
development standards #hat encourage compact urban clevetopment while protecting
cri#ical areas. These flexible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types aud site planning techniques so that a site can achieve ifs maximum
Findings, Conclusions, and Recammendation Page 6 of30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey Ii! RezonelPUD/PreEiminary PlaWariance - ON RGMAND
housing potentiai. Chapter 3, Land Use Goal 7; Land Use Policy LU-14; Land Use
Policy LU-17; Land Use Policy LU-20; Chapter. 4, Housing Goal 7; Housing ObJective
12.1; Nousing Policy HO-34.
11. As reyuired by ACC 18.68, ACC 1$.69, and ACC 17.06, analysis of the proposal's
cansistency with the Comprehensive Plan was provided for in the DEIS. The DEIS
reviewed the goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan periaining to utilities,
transportation, the environment, natural resources, na#ural and manmade hazards, and
parks, recreation, and apen space. The proposed Pti-DJpiat was determined to be
generally consistent with the Single Family Residential designation. The City of
Auburn's Pianning Director reviewed the rezone application for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consistent. Specific Frndings of 1%act
Nos. 4-6, Sept. 2005 FCR; ACC 18.68.030(B)(1); ACC 1$. 69.1 SQ(B); ACC 17.06.470(B);
Exhibit 1, Staf)`'Report, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEE'A), RCW 43,21C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for identification and review of environmentai impaets
caused by the proposed PUD/plat. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey III project was issued on February 11, 2005. No appeals were filed. Speclfrc
Findings vf Fact No. 9, Sept. 2005 FCR.
13. Public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the adequacy of the
EIS a# both the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Appeals of
an EIS must be submitted to the Auburn City Clerk 14-21 days after issuance of the Final
EIS. ACC I6.06.230. No appeal was filed and ali chalienges ta the adequacy of the EIS
are time-barred. As noted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adeyuacy of the EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEPA is the
consideration of environmental values. 'The key purpcse of an EIS is to ensure full
disclosure atid consideration of envixonmental information prior to the construction of a
projeet. It is from tha impacts disclosed in the EIS that the decision-maker can make an
informed decision about the proposal. Public comment, both written and oral, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing, provided further
detail in this regard and therefore is pennitted. Spee f c Findings. of Fac1111o. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Trlbel; Exhibit 25, Comments of
Galeno; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibrt 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Ezhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhiblt 36, Applicants' Response, Page 2.
14. Agency and public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the
impact of the proposed plat on the Auburn School District at both the August 2005
hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. The antieipated increase in student
population generated frotn #he development was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or
209 students. Subm'ttted public comment stated that schools and the related
i Exhibit 22 is dated August 16,2004 and were comments submitted during the DEIS review process. The Tribe's
comments should have been taken into consideration when drafiing tha Final EtS, The'Tribe's commenis were not
chalfanging the adequacy of the Fiaat EIS.
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 7 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey lil RezonelPUD/('reliminary I'ladVariance - ON REMAND
transportation systein were over capacity and that dangerous walking conditions were
present along Kersey Way. The Auburn School District responded that the recent
opening of Aubum Mountainview High School would provide capacity into the future to
accommodate growth. at the high school level. Two new elementaty schools, ineIuding
Lakeland Hilis Elementary scheduled to open Fal1 2006 and Eiementary No, 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to open Fall 2007, would provide additional capaaity~at the elementary
level. The middle schooi level currently has capacity to accommodate growth bu#
enrollment projections indicata tha# an additional middle school wouid be needed in the
future and that the Schaol District has begun planning for a new school. ACC 19.02
allows #he City to collect schooi impact fees, approximately $4,500 per buiiding permit,
on behalf of the school district. Conditions of approval require the Appticants to pay this
fee. Spec fc Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Exhibit 24, Comments of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comrnents of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of A»derson; Exhibrt 34, Comments of Starles; Exhibit 36A, 5chool District
Comntents; Testimony of Mr. Cha~`'ee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price;
Testimony af Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms: Braoke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; 1'estlmony
of Mr. Armstrong.
15. Bus transportation tivould be provided for the pIat with bus pick up/drop off areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applicanis would construct a 1 U-foot wide multi-use path along the
site's frontage with Kersey Way. This path, aiong with sidewalks and crosswalks within
the plat, would provide safe walking conditions for students to/from school. Specific
Findings of Fact Nos. 19-13, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhrbit 19, Comments of Peters; Exhibit
24, Comments of Cha,~`'ee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhrbit 32, Comments of
Anderso»; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District Comnrents;
Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of
Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. I3raoke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
16. All lots are to be served with sanitary sewer service provided by the City a:f Auburn.
Public comment was submitted in regards to the capacity of ths system to accommodate
additional sewage stemming from the proposed plat. Both the City and the Applicants
are canstructing improvements #o the sewer system, including an interim purrtp station.
A neighboring properry 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
Ehat force mains at the Lakeland Hills peunp stafion and #he Eliingson pump station are
not funetianing properly and thereby have Iess capacity. City Public Works Siaff
testified that the sewer system is capabie of handling the increased volume and, after
repiacement, the farce mains are operating adequately. Specific Findings of Fact No. 20,
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit X, StafJ`' Report, Page 3; Exhibit 25, Cvmrnents of Galeno;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, page S; Testimony of Ms. Galeno; Testimony of Mr.
Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral, were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wiIdlife and their habitat. The EIS concluded that urbanization af the area woutd result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conelusions, and Recommendation Page 8 of 30
Hearings ExamineT for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezonc/PUDIPreliminary P1aWariance - ON RBMAND
fragmentation, and human encroachment. Public comments stated that several species of
animals have been sighted on the subject property that werc not accounted for in the EIS
including Redheaded Wondpecker, Balc! Eagle, Osprey, Pileated Woodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Applicants install
stormwater control t6Chtlplpgy that woutd eliminate/reduce sedimentation/erosion
impacts in Bowman Creek and, subsequently, the White River. A Hydrau[ic Permit
Approval (HPA) issued by Washington State Department of Fish & Wiidlife would be
required for construction neaz Bowman Creek and would address impacts to fishery
resources. Open space and parkland would provide habifat and a corridor for wildlife
species. Reyuired fencing would delineate private property from open space/parkland
and prevent encroachment. Disturbed Areas would be re-vegetated with native species.
Specrf c Firrding of Fact No. 19, Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Sta,J)''Report, Pages 7-9, 12;
Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 15, Larrdscape Plan; Exhibit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments of Davis; Exhibit 22, Comments af
Miickleshoot Tribe; Exhtbit 29, Com»tents of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of
Bykonen et al; Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykanen et al; Te.rtimony of Mr. Cha, ffee;
Testimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony of Ms. K»ott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony
of Mr. H:tsky; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS iN RESPONSE TO THE CITY COLJNCiL'S ISSUES ON itEMAND:
In Resolution 3947, the Auburn City Council set forth eight specific issues far the Hearing
Examiner to review arzd to determine haw the pxaposed development addressed or affectcd these
issues. Findings of Facts Numbers 18, 19,20,21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 address the City Councii's
specific issues. 18. Cify Council Remand Tssue Number 1: Open spaces and the proteet9on of sensitive
environmental features, such as steep stopes, mature trees, wetlands, and scenic
views.
A. Steep Slopes The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicted in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I contains ident'sfied Class I Knawn Landslide* Hazard Areas (defined a.s slopes greater
ihan 40%). However, the location of these areas on Figure 23 was based on a generalized map
that is utilized as a first indicator sottrce that ground reconnaissance and survey are done to
further delineate the steep slopes. To supplement th,e siope information, the AppIicaiits
conducted a field survey in which the location of the slopes is mare accurately shown (see
Exhibit 5, Slape Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2). The slopes are primarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q and would be impacted by #he construction of Evergreen Way, the main
boulevard servicing the plat, and Kersey Way, the minar arterzal fram whioh access to the plat
would be obtained. Construction of Evergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of thc slope ta aacommodate road
widening. All impacts would be at 2: ] slope ratio. The maximum grade of Evergreen Way, in
onty two iocations, would be 10%. Impacts to the steep slope areas are unavoidable, as these
roadways are necessary for access to the plat.
Findings, Conelusions, and Recommendation Page 9 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey tll Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariancc - ON REMAND
B. Mature Txees On the subject property ar$ four types of vegetative cover. Division I has
a ma#ure mixed-species forest and Division II has a young deciduous farest, mature coniferoas
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
AppIicaats proposed the retention of native vegetation, inctuding mature trees, in several tracts
including B, G, H, and I of Division I, totaling approximately 3.7 acres, and tracts A and F of
Division II, totaling approximateiy 1.4 acres. Some trees would need to be removed from Tracts
B and I to accommodate road construc#ion and from Tracts A for construction o#' the drainage
facility. City constructian standards require #hat no trees may project into the "clear zone" far
roads or sidewalks. Impacted areas would be revegetated with apprapriate tree specie's.
C. Wetlands There are no wettands located withfn Division I and Divisian II.
However, changes to existing surface and subsurface flows could affect the hydrology of off-site
wetlands including several wetlands located in proposed Division 3 and two off-site streams,
Bowman Creek and the White River, located North/Northwest of the plat. These impacts would
be addressed and mitigated via stormtivater drainage control design.
D. Scenic Views The residential portion of Kersey III is set back 200 to 600 feet fram
Kersey Way with a 35 foot building setback provided frorrt properties to the east (zoned Rural
Residential) and a 25 foot setback from properties to the south (zoned R-1 Residential). The
topography of the si#e, along with both retained and new vegetation, would pravide screerting of
the pxoposeci PUD from existing Iow-density residential areas to the North/Northeast. Satbacks,
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence constructed along the southezn and eastern horder of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density residential areas. Na scenic views
are anticipated ta be obstrucked.
E. Public Comments Publie comtnents were received in regards to visual impacts
(primarily due ta headlights from traffic exiting the plat, Ioss of vegetation, and stormwater
drainage design). Neighboring property owners asserted that the headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shfne directly into their homes and that construction of the Kersey Way/Evergreen
Way intersection would resutt in removal of vegetation and erosion, impacting views.
Facts pressnted in Findings af Faets Numbers I 8(A), I8(B), 18(C), 18(D), and 1$(E) relied on
the falIowing evidence: Exhlbit 1, StaffReport, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Respo»se Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Excerpts from DE15; Exhibft 14, Applicants' Power Poirrt; Exhibit 15, Landscape
Plan; Exhibit 23, Comments of Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong;
Testimony of Mr. Siedel; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr, Ferko; Testrmony of Ms.
Fassbind.
19. City Cauncil Remand Tssue Number 2: Use of trafric management and design
teeh»iques to reduce po#ential traffic cougestion, particuiarly along Kersey Way,
and promote alternative mades of travel. Consideration should be given to applying
the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to siunilar impacts
areas located south of the White Rtver. .
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 10 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersay IIf RezorielPUD/Pretiminary PlaWariance - ON REMAiVD
A. Traffic Management and Desio Techniques Traf#ic Impacts (valume and safety) were
the most frequently cited issues of public comment and testimony received at both the August
2005 and the February 2006 hearings. The Applicants prepared a transportation impact anaiysis
(TIA) in March 2004 and amended this document in January 2005. The TIA Addendum
concluded that all comdors affecied by the development are expected to meet or exceed the LOS
minimum threshold set by the City of Auburn, which is LQS-D with the proposed signalization
in place. The TIA and the E1S set forth several ttaffic 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-alignument of 53~d Street SE and Kersey Way; tluee-lane
channelization (center turn Iane) on Kersey Way; exclusive center left tum tanes on all legs of
the re-aligned Ksxsey Way/53'd Street SE/Evergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane along
Kersey Way at Evergreen Way; traff c signal and pedestrian crossings at re-aligned intersection
of Kersey Way/53'd StreetlEvergreen Way; active tra#fic signal warning signaga for southbound
Kersey Way; pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection crosswallc of Evergreen
Way/Olive Way; traffic controls (round-aboui) at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the constructinn of Evezgreen way from Lakelanci Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safety and Aesthetics The revised plat added severat additional amenities to
improve road safety and assthetics. The additions included: safe pedestrian crossings (pavement
markings and advance warning signage) at three locations on Evergreen Way; three-lane
channelization on Evergreen Way including exciusive left-turn lanes at three locations; and
center median landscaped planter islands along Evergreen Way to improve aesthetics and
calm/slow. Conditions of approval woutd require that the Applicants extend the boulevard
design throughout the plat, continuing west to 1,akeland Hiils.
C. Traff c Impact Fees Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may collect irripact
fees for transportation facitities impacted by proposed development. In conjunction with the
revised plat, City Piarming Staff recommended that the AppIicants pay the $940,36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Tmpact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traffic impact fee of $677.71. The
Applicants submitted that they were not averse to paying the fee but requested that the Cit~y
identify what the fee pays for. T}xe Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City mast demonstrate that the cottdition is necessary
to mitigate an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
proportional. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (19$7); Dolan v City of
7'igard, 522 US 374 (1994)},
T'he Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was estabIished through an agreement between the
develapers of Lakeiand Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to
address the unique transportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD, The proposed
PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeltind Hills and the additional impact fee
2 RCW 82,02.020 auihorizes local governments to impose permit conditioris on devetopnieiit if the conditions are
reasonably retated to the new development.
Findings, Conclusians, and Recammendation Page ] 1 of 30
Heazings Exarniner far the City ofAaburn
Kersey I(I Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance- ON REMAND _
wouid allaw far the construction of road improvements to serve the area, thexeby promoting
greater pubiio safety and increased traffic flow,
D. Public Comments Public comments received an traffic impacts generated by the
propasal included: the inadequacy of infrastructure to handle the increase in traffic volumes,
noise and air pallution (exhaust emissions); safe walking/bioyciing; evacuation route; and th$
impact of traffic controls (stop lights). Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed
bike pakh along Kersey Way was a"path to nowhere," that the pxoposed traffic signal at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way/53rd Street would create backups during peak traf#ic times, and that
Applicants did not mitigate noise and air impacts. Neighboring property owners stated that the
existing neighbarhood would be adversely impacted during construction of fhe proposed
improvements to Kersey Way and during construction of the plat itself. Neighboring property
owners asserted that Kersey Way is the main tra#fic corcidor for the area, serving commuters,
school buses, and trucks from the gravel pit, and that limiiting improvements to the plat's
frontage would create a funnel effect with negative impacts on traffic.
E. Applicants' Response to Public Comments tn response to public concerns regarding
traffic, The Applicants submitted testimony on measures being taken as part of the develapment
to mitigate traffic impacts. The Applicants stated that the TIA concluded that the Kersey
Wayl53`d Street/Evergreen Way intersection woatd operate at LOS B at fuil bui(d-out of Kersey
111, well within an acceptable LOS range for the Cify. In addition, the TIA determined that an
appropriate mitigation for unacceptable ievels af service is signaliz.ation. Evergreen Way wouid
provide an alternative route available to area residences during emergency situations. Conditions
of approval require the Applicants to construct a 10-foot wide walkway along the subject
property's frontage with Kersey Way. Although the walkway does not fully extend northward to
the site of an existing sidewalk, the Applicants assert that they azc paying their "fair share" of the
development and that subsequent developraents that are currently "in the pipeline' would be
responsible for additional segments.
F. Fassbind Drivewav Neighboring property owner Ms. Fassbind stated that she was
uniquely affected by the praposed re-alignment of Kersey Way and 53`d Street due to the
loeation of her driveway at this intersection and has not been eantacted by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Passbind asserts that the proposed alignment would create an extremely dangerous
situation for her and her family en#ering and exiting their property especially with a truck/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the curreni re-alignment proposal for Kersey Way/53~d
Stxeet is tentative and #hat they would be in contact with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the flnal
engineering design of the intersec#ion and of the driveway, including alternative solutions sach
as the use of two driveways. Faets presented in Findings of Facts Numbars 19(A), I9(B), 19(C), 19(D}, 19(E), and 19(F)
relied on the following evidence: Spec f c Findings af Fact Nos. S, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, StaffReport, Pages 7, 21-25, 29; Exhibit S, Prelimrnary Plat Map, Sheet 10; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, ,4pplicants' PowerPoirtt/ Exhibit 19,
Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments by Davis; Exhibit 21, Comments by Davis; Exhibrt
23, Comments by Fassbind; Tarhibit 24, Comments by Chaffee; E.ichibft 32, Comments by
.4nderson; Exhibit 34, Comments by Staples; ; Isxhibit 36, Applicants' Responses, Pages 3-4;
Findings, Conclusians, and Recommendation Page 12 of 30
Nearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey I11 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1adVariance - ON REMAND
Teslimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Mr, Armstrong; Testimony of Mr, Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
24. Ci#y Council Remand Issus Number 3: The developraent of tranaiHonal areas
between these projects and adjacent developments and environmeutally sensitive
areas.
A. Zoniniz Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and vacant tand.
Residential development is comprised of low (zoned Rl - 1 det/acre) and semi-rural (1 du/2.5 - 5
acres) densities to the east and sauth, with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel to the west (Kersey III, Divisian TII). ParceTs west of the proposed Kersey III,
Division ItI site are comprised of Lakeland 14itls, a high density PUD development. Parcels ta
the north are a mixture of vacant land (zoned Rl) and natural (mineral) resource lands. The
subject pzoperty has been zoned R-1 Siiigle Family Residential (Rl) since 1987 and was
designated as Single Family Residential under the City's Comprehensivs Plan in 1995. The
Comprehensive Plan contemplates the bulk of singIe-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 Iot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. The proposed density is consistent wi#h City standards.
B. Cornprehensive Plan Designation The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Aubum
addresses the issue of transition in the context of incompatible land uses and densities. Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan state tha site design should utilize and preserve features, including
#opagraphy, opezt spaces, and vegetation, to sepazate densities and that landscaped buffers or
other measures should be utilized to separate uses.
C. Setbacks ACC 18.69.080(B) requires seibacks from the perimeter of the PUD that
correspond ta the requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. ACC 18.08.040(E)(4) requires
a 35-foot rear yard building setback iine (BSBL) within Ehe RR zoning district and ACC
1$.12.040(E)(4) requires a 25-foot rear BSBL within the RI zoning district. Piarce County Code
(PCC), Tabie 18A.17.030(13)(2)(1), requires a 10-foot rear yard se#back within the MSF zoning
district. The Applicants propose,d a 35-foot BSBL on the eastern border of the site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject property's southern horder with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development within the northern portion of the PUD/plat is set back 200 to 600 feet from Kersey
Way and is further screened by vegekation and topography. The Applicant intends to canstruct a
six-foot high solid wood fence along the southern and eastern borders to provide additional
screening.
D. 1'nblic Comment Public comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted stated thaE the transition from the dense Lakeland Hiils PUD to the neighboring rural
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey III should be a buffer xone between two extremes - the
higher density devefopment of Lakeland Hilfs and the existing lower density development to the
east and south; and that the higher density would not blend wittt the existing rural neighborhood.
Neighboring properiy owners argued that Kersey tIT provides no transition between low density
(one acre lot), the propased density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hills density
Findings, Conclosions, and Recommendation Page 13 of 30
Hearings Examiner for tho Ciry of Aubum
Kersey iIl Rezone/PUD/Prcliminary Piat/Variance-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 fence does not provide adequate buffering and/or screening of uses.
E. Environmental Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas are primarily contained
within open space tracts. Recommended conditions of appraval require a three ta four foot high
two-rail fence to separate all residential properties that horder on an open space, park, or
stormwater drainage area. The purpose of the fence is to delineate private property from
common areas and to prevent ancroachment by thE pzoperty owner into the common areas.
Maintenance ofthis fence shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association,
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A), 20(B), 20(C), 20(D), and 24 (E) relied on
the foilowing evidence: General Frndings of Fact Na: S, Sept. 2005 FCR; Speci, f~e Finding of
Fact Nos. 2, 4, and S; Sept. 2005 FG'R; Chapter 3, Land Use Palicies LU-26, LU-27, LU-28;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12; Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Cover Sheet; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibrt 19, Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments
by Davis; Exhibit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhi6it 36, .4pplicarrts' Response, Pages 5-6;
Testimony ofMr. Gould; Testimony of Mr. Bykonerr.
21. City Council Remand Issue Namber 4: The building and structurai designs that
complement surrounding land uses and their environment, re#lectfng quaiity site
design, landscaping, and bailding architecture required under the Aubarn PUD
ordinance.
A. DeSIQn 5tandards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including building orientation, varied facades, continuity and campatihility of structures, colors,
screening, lighting, and landscaping. The Applicants' architect, Patrick McBride, stated that the
architectural intent behind Kezsey III was to ensitre consistent, compatible, and attractive
residences which portray a sense of arehitectcual integrity, qualiry, durability, residential
chazacter, and innovative design. Residences are to be designed on a pedestrian scale with
sensitivity ta the site. Si#e design elements proposed for the development include variatio»s in
footprint and/or orientatian on the lot; front setbaeks; driveway locations and materials; accent
materials such as natural stone, columns, and shutters; front porches that promote pedestrian
coruiectivity; decks and other architectural features; de-emphasis af gaxages by blending garage
doors with the character of the xesidence; differing roof types and window designs; and spacing
of homes with identical elevations. The Applicant submitted a Preliminazy 4verall Landscapa
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, park amenities, and street tree
landscaping,
B. Lot CaveraLe The Applicants assert that in order #o meet (ACC 18.69) PUD standards
for quatity site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must be granted. The
Applicartts stated that the five- percent increase in allowable tot coverage is to allow flexibility in
home design that would satisfy the PUD guidelines and prevent a"cookie cutter" look with all
homes sharing a simitar footprint.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Aage 14 of 30
Hearings Examiner for tha City of Aubum
Kersey lIl Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariaiice - ON REMAND
C. Public Comrnents Public comments were received on the issue of dasign. Neighboring
property owners stated that the Applicants' xevised proposal reduces the total nwnber of
residences by six and modifies the average loE sizes fram 3,800 square #'eet fo 8,400 square feet
to 4,000 square feet to 8,400 sqaare feet with only 10 lots greater than 7,000 square feet.
Neigliboring property owners argued that the proposed design does not create compatibility with
Lakeland Hilis which has lots ranging from 7,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet nor does it
have the look and feel of sub-communities similar to Lalceland Hills. Neighboring property
owners assert that the proposed PUD/plat does not provide the quality of design required by
ACC 18.69.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 21(A), 21(B), and 21 (C) relied on the following
evidence: Exhfbit 1, Staff Report, Pages S and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrrx, Pages
4-5; L'xhiblt 7, Applicant's PowerPoint and Archlteet Narrative; Exhrbit 15, Landscape Pla»;
Exhibit 26, Comments by Galeno; Exhiblt 36, Applicants' Response, Page 6; Testlmony of Mr•.
McBride; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Norrfs; Testimony of Mr. Galeno.
22. City Council Remand Issue Numbcr 5: The parks and open spaces, »nd the
adequacy of parks and open spaces located under Bonneviile Porver Actministration
power Iines.
A. Parks and Open Space Requirement ACC 1$.69.080(A)(1) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as, open spaca, which amounts to 17.86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and Tl. Non-buildable azeas (areas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.030(G)) may be used to meet no more than 50 percent of the open space
area requirement. ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) provides that each PUD must meet the City's Park PIan
standazds far park dedication. Current standards are 6.03 acres of unimproved park land for
every 1000 population of the plat. The City pertnits the required open space to meet all or a
portion of the required parktand. The Applicants proposed 368 single-family residences, or
approximateiy 924 peopte (based on 2.5 persons per residence), far a total rcquirement of 5.55
acres of park lmid.
As part of the Applicants' original proposal, a11 of the park space and a iarge percentage of open
space were being provided within Division I. In the proposal fvr apen space and parks, land
encumbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement is the only site for active
and passive recreatian opportunifies. Open space summary for the first proposal inaludeci 28.94
acres of open space (stormwafer drainage, apen space, parkland, entry signage, pedestrian
pathways) with 15.82 acres in azeas af less than 25%. 4f the 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres
was designated as park latid. In the revised proposal, #he Applieants iticreased bath the amount
of open space and pazkland, providing four new pazks with two parks for active recreation and
two for passive recreation. Open space now includes 29.64 acres (33.19% of gross area) with
18.12 acres in areas of less than 25%. A total of 9.17 acres has been designated as parkland
(includes open space, parks, and pedestrian pathways but not acreagc within the BPA easement)
with the parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division 11 as opposed to centrally
located. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the City's Pazk Plan. All of
the propnsed park facilities would be built by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation I'age IS of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey !iT Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
B. BPA Easement The western 300 feet of Parcels 322I05-9015 and 322105-9017
(Division I) are encumbered by an easement held by the BPA foz a high-voltage 'power
transmission lines. The BPA easement encompasses approximately 12.51 aeres. Tn both the
original and the revised proposals, the Applicants would utiIixe ttiis area to satisfy both open
space and park requirements for the development, On August 30, 2005, the Applicants entered
into a Land Use Agreement wiEh BPA allowing for the construction/installation of roads,
utilities, trails, larzdscaping, a park, and park appurtenarices within the caseanent. BPA has
entered 'anto simitar reIationships with other developers wi#hin the puget Sound Area as it
provides an efficient use of land and assuces maintenance of the BPA easement. The Land Use
Agreement contained 15 conditions including the location of structures in relationship to BPA
frattsmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimutn path width of 16 feet.
C. Revised Parks and Open Space Plan The revised proposal would retain the DPA
easement area in open space and provicie a waiking trail. The Applicants' drawings note the path
width as 12 feet as opposed to the 16 feet width reqaired under the Land Use Agreement.
Walking trails would also he provided in Tract B(Division I) and Tract F(Division II), The
walking trail in Tract 8 would provide a par-cou.rse (exercise stations). A playground area
would be pravided in Tract Q(Divisian I) and Tract P(Divisifln II). Tract I' would also have a
haif-court sports court. Tract Q would have a sports field, inctuding baseball d'zamond, a full
basketball court, open lawn area, and walking trail. Alt park areas would have picnic tables and
benchas. On-street parking would be pzovided in the vicinity of the active recreatians areas
(bailfield 'and playgrounds) inciuding along Roads A, E, G, and K. Pedestrian pathways
throughout the plat allow for safe walking to and from pazk areas.
D. Ve e~n Al1 parks would retain existing vegetation when passible. Trec remavaI
would be required in Tract B and Tract I to accommodate road construction and in other open
space/park tracts to allow for the construcfion of recreational amenities (ballfields, playgrounds,
walking trails) and stormwater drainage.
E. Citv Review The City of Aubum Pazk's Department and City Parks and Recxeation
Board reviewed the Applicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant fuIE credit for the uss
of land encumbered by the Bl'A casement, it determined that the Applicant's praposal conforrns
to City standards.
Faets presented in Findings af Facts Numbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C), 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the fo3lowing evidence: Speeific Finditrgs of Fact No. 21, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specifre Findittgs of
Fact No. 22, Sept. 2005 FCR. Earhibit 1, Sta, fJ`'Report, Pages 4, S, and 7; Exhibit S, Prelimrnary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Resporrse Matrtx, Page 7-$; Exhrbit 8, BPA Land Use
Agreement; Exhibit 15, Prelirninary Pla1/PUD Plans; Exhibit 15, Landscaprng Plan; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher; Testintony of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; 7estrmorry of Mr. Siedel.
23. City Counci! Remand Issue Numbcr 6: Incorporation of adequate notification to
fr:ture Iot owners of the ad,jacent surface mining operations.
Findings, Conclnsions, and ltecommendaiion Pa$e 16 of 30
Hearings Exsminer for the City of Auburn
Kersey Ill Etezone/PUD/Preliminary AlaWariance - ON REMAND
A. Surface MininQ At the August 2005 hearing, pubiic comments were received with
regards to the impact on neighboring natura) resource lands, a 664-acre gravel mining operation
owned by Segale 1'roperties/ICON Materiats lying north of the site. Segale/ICON expressed
concern that a dense residential develapment ivould have the potential for generating homeowner
complainks periaining to air, noise, iight, traffic, and safety, Furthermore, Segale/ICON
submitted the construction of Kersey Il] woutd generate traftic congestion and other safety
situations, impacting the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a notice be
placed on the final p1at, all building permits, and all individual lot deeds as required by RCW
36.70A,060.
B. Modified Condition of Avvroval For the Fabruary 2006 Remand Hearing,
Segale/fCON Properties submitted additional comments, seeking to modify a condition to make
it more clear to potential buyers that mining activities are currently on-going at the 'site, 1'his
condition would protect the mining activities as well as the interests of the City and the
dsvelopers. The wording proposed hy Segale/ICON is acceptable to the Applicants and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on the foliowing evidence:
Specif c Findings of I+act Nos. 11; 12, and 13, Condition No. 1, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhibit 17, Correspondence fram Segale; Testimo»y of Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Council Remand Issue Number 7: Protection of waterways and the
development's proposed stormivater system,
A. Water SupplY Water woutd be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valiey Water System.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Applicants
wauid be required to construct a booster pvmp station at the corner of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SE and extend a water line alang Kersey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the
existing lines in the Lakeland Hills devetopment. Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
City wa#er, adjacent properties are served by private welis. Documentation was not submitted
as part of the zecord in regards to impacts on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
welis.
B. Private Wells Neighboring property owners stated that wells in the area have gone dry
and the City has been forced to request supplemental water from the City of Bonney Lalce. In
addition, the neighbors asserted that the City has given no assurance as to what impact the
AUD/Plat, or the recent sale of water rights, would have on the wAter level in Lake Tapps and,
subsequently, the City's aquifers.
C. Protecfion of Waterwavs Bowman Creek iies north of the subject property and is a
tributary to the White River. The creek was a fish-beazing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for salmon and bull trout populations. As noted in the DEIS, the creation of impervious surface
within the project site tivould cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes that could cause
downstream channel and bank erosion. The Applicants proposed to collect and canvey
stortnwater to a standard two-cell weddetention pond via catch basins and underground storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 17 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rexone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
drainage pipes prior to discharge into Bowman Creek. The drainage facilities, designed to the
City's standazds, aze located on Txact A of both Division T and Division II and would operake as
a single tuut. An energy dissipater wouid be installed to redace erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. The revised PUD/Plat contains modifications to the drainage
facilities which increase both pond volume and wetpond surfxce area. Recommended conditions
of approval incorporate high standards of design (100-year flood event) and enhanced erosion
control features. The drainage facilities would be landscaped fo screen from adjacent residential
development.
D. Public Comments Public comments tivere received into the record pertaining to storm
water and water quality with many of the comments pertaining to impacts on Bowman Creek.
Testimony voiced concern for both sediment and pollutant run-off that could impact Bowman
Creek's water quality and fish and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted that while the
development of the Kersey III PUD would not be the cause of the salman's departure,
development should not prevent restoration of water quality and the return of salman. The
Applicants stated that the design of the stormwater system shauld not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 24{A}, 24(B), 24(C), and 24{D} relied on the
following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Ezhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets 7,
9; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 7-8; Exhibit 14, Applfeants' PowerPolnt;
EXhIbJt 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 23, Comments
of Fassbind; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhrbit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibil 32,
Comments of A»dersan; Exhibit 36, Applicant's Response, Page S; Testrrnony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testrmorry of Mr, Armstrong; Testintony of Mr. Cha, fJ''ee; Testimany of Mr. Bykonen; Testtmony
of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Brooke. .
25. City Couneil Remand Issuc Number 8: Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact
Fee to aid the City in deveioping fire faciiities to serve the area south of the White
ltiver.
A. Impact Fees Comments from the Auburr3 Fire Department were not submitfed in#o the
recard for the August 2005 public hearing nor for the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Impacts
on the fire services were considered during environmental review (Exhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
119, Sept. 2005 FCR), To mitigate #hese impacts, City Planning Staff recommended ttiat the
Applicants pay a$470.16 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard fire impact fee
of $290.13.
The Applicants are not averse to paying the fire impacl fee but requested that the City identif~
what is fhe reason for the fee. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the conditiori is necessary
as rnitigation for an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
3 RCW 82.02.020 authoriaes local govemments to impose permit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably ralated to thc ncNv development.
Findings, Conclusians, and Recommendation Page 18 af 30
Hearings Examincr for the City of Auburn
Kersey lii Rezone/PUD/Prefiniinary PlaWariance-ON REMAND
proportional, (Nollan v Ca! fornia Caastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)}.
The Lakeland Fire Impact Fes was established through an agreement between the developers of
Lakeland HiUs PUD and the Aubum City Council. The fee was assessed to address ftre
department service in the remate location of the PUD and the lack of a fire station within close
proximity to the PUD. The proposed PUD/Plat is within the same geagraphic area as Lakeland
Hills and ihe additional impact fee would allow for the construction of additianal facilities to
serve the area, thereby prornoting greater public safety.
B. Pubiic Comment Public comments were received on the issae. Neighboring
property owners stated that the City of Aubum is curtently experiencing explosive growth that is
putting a skrain on emergency services providers, sueh as police and fire. Aeaording to the
neighbors, the nearest fire station is by the SuperMali, 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, Staff Report, Pages 7 and 15, Exhibit 6, Applicant's Response Matrix, Page 8; Lxhibit
28, "Sound the Alarm... Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Tastimony of Mr. Ferko.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Aubum City Code {ACC} 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to
hear and make recommendations to the City Council. 7urisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to
make recommendations for an applieation for rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(D) and
18,68.034, for approval of an application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminary plat is pursuaz2t to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Along wifh tlte requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court (rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhaod conditions and bear a substantial relationship to the public
heatth, safety, and general welfaxe - Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (I97$), in order to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner mus# find that the following criteria, as set forth
in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with tha Comprehensive Pian.
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing
Examiner to hold a public hearing and cansider the request.
3. Any change or modification ta the rezone reyuest made by the Heazing Examinex or the
City Cauncil shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requesked.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 19 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey i[I Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON RLMAND
In arder to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PCJD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18,69. 150, the proposal must demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support
the following:
l. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, atleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools,
2. The proposat is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consis#ent with the purpase of ACC 18.69, provides for the pubiic
benefits required of the,development of PUDs hy providing an improvement in the
quality, character, archetectural and site design, housing choice and/or open space
protecfion over what would otherwise be attained through a•development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the generai purposes of othar applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by the City Councii.
5. The approvai of the PUD wi11 have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area than any other pzaject woulc3 have if developed using the existing zoning standards
ofthe zoning district the PUD is loeated in.
6. The PUD mus# be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
incZuding existing zoning and comprchensivs plan map designations, and the design
guidelines set forth in ACC 18.b9.080{D}.
In order to APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public healttz, safety anc# general weIfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water suppl'res, sanitary
wastes, pazks, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conforznance to the generai purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the
general parpos$ of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plan which have been adapted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
pcaposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effeck upon the quality of the
environment. 5. Adequate provisions have beert made so thaf the preliminary pIat will prevent or abate
public nuisances.
In order TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
rnust find facts in support of the following:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 20 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey lIf Rezone/PUDIPreliminary PlaWariance ON REMAND
l. Unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical vr other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship.
2. Strict canfornnity wi#.h Title 18 would not atiow a reasonable and harmonious use of the
property. 3. Variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood ar be detrimental to
surraunding properties. •
4. Circumstances justifying variance are nat a result af the Appiicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonty enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning district,
6. Approvat of the Variance is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and #he zoning dzstrict in which property is located.
7. Variance would not atlow for incxeased density.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. Thc rezone, PUD, and I'retiminary Plat are consistent rvith the Comprehensive
Plan, other appitcable gaals and policies of the City Couacil, and the ACC.
The Director of Planning correc#ly detertnined the proposal tivas consistent with the
Compzehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concuned with this resutt, finding several
goals and poticies of the Comprehensive Plan salisfied by the developmenf, including
improving the City's transpflrtation network; ereating and maintaining park iand and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
densify; improvement ta the City's public utiIity (water/sewer) system; and protecting
streams and naturai areas. The goals and policies of the City Council are embodied in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. The Applicants' proposai is consistent with the
Cify's Park Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. Praposed design standards comply with the
purpose and intent of ACC 18.69. General Findings of Fact Nos. 2 artd S, Sept 2005
FCR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 9, 6, 7, and 8, Sept 2005, FCR; Findings of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, S, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Feb 2006 Remand Hearrng.
Rezone Criteria 2. Thc rezone was inifiated by the Applicant»Property Owner and not the Cihy.
Pursuant ta ACC 18.68.030(B)(1), in order fox the Hearing Examiner to consider a rezone
request, the Ciiy may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the owners of the
properiy subject to the rezone. Findrttg of Fact IVos. 1 and 3, Feb 2006 Re»tand Hearrng.
3. Conditivns in the area have substantiaUy changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public heaith, safety, morals, or generAt welfare.
The Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the original zoning and that the rezone beazs a substantial relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conclusions, and Recammendation Pagc 21 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey il[ Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PiaWariance - ON REMAND
(1978). A variety af factors may satisfy a change in circumstances, including ehanges in
public opinion, Iocal Iand use pattems, and on the property itsetf. B,/arnson vKttsnp
County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. l, 1995). The City and the Appiicants stated that
the area where the subject property is located has experienced significant development as
a resui# of the Lakeland Hills PUD; population growth within the City of Auburn; overall
market conditions in Puget Sound whiah are creating a demand for smalter 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 woutd provide new homes for the
growing community and improvements to infrastructare. Changes in both land use
patterns and public opinion, along with the xequirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plan designation, provide justification for the rezone. General Filtdings
of Fact Nos Z and S, Sept 2005 FCR; Specifrc Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,
Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 9, and 10, Feb 2006 Rema»d Hearing.
4. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modificahon to the
rezone request that wilt result in a morc intense zone fhan the one requested by
the Applicant.
Plaubed Un'rt Develo ment/Prelimina Plat Criteria
5. The PUD/plat praposal contains adeyuate provisions for the publie healfh, safety,
and general welfare and for apen spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, tivater
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schaols.
The Applieants have made pravisions for internal streets with sidewalks for pedestrian
safety, these ittclude safe walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for
park and open space access. The EiS mitigation measures and conditions of appraval
would provide for traffic improvements and traff c confroUcalming devices to ensure
safety within and ta the community. The development would be served by City water
and sanitary sewer. Storm water facilities would eollect and convey run-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output. Applicants have provided for a total af
29.64 acres of apen space, of which 9.17 acres are to be deveioped for hoth active and
passive recreation with an additional 12.51 acres of open/park space provided within the
BI'A easement. The open/park space is generally provided in a contiguous block so as to
provide corridors for wildlife. The PUD would be served by City of Auburn water and
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve ths needs of the
community. School impacf fees would mitigat$ the incxease in student population.
Develapment of over 350 homes at varied ptice levels serves the general welfare and
growing housing needs of the commwaity. Specifte Findings of Fact Nos. 14, IS, 16, 18,
20, 21, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 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 purpase of ACC I$.69, and provides for the
public benefts reqaired of the developntent of PUDs such as preservation of
natural amenities, creatioa of pedestriau-ot7iented communities, efficient use of
land, development of transitiomal areas, in novative/a esthetic building and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page22 of 30
Nearings Examiner for ihe City of AubUrn
Kersey YJI Rezone/PllDlPreliminary PlaWariance ON REMAND
struciurat design, creation of parks and open spaces, provision for affordable
housing.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. The Applicants proposed to preserve
natural amenities and sensitive. areas thraugh the use of open spaces and parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated concephtal destgn demonstrate a pedestrian-orisnted
carnmunity with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks for both ac#ive and
passive recreation that are dispersed fhroughout the development. The plat is shuctured
to utilize the property efficiently by layout, house design, and open space. Homes would
not be facing the residential collector, Evergreen Way SE, and would be separated fram
the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by 200 to 600 feet of open spacc. Setbacks and
privacy fencing would separate the developrnent from adjoining Iow-density residential
areas. The Applicants proposed a variety of architectural styles, providing a varied
streetscape, and have submiited landscape plans. The Applicants proposed over -nine
acres Qf active and passive recreation parklands with additional acreage provided by the
BpA easement. Affordable housing is a concern within the entire Puget Sound area and
the PUD/plat wouid provide homes ranging in price fcom $400,000 to $700,000,
providing a range of options for potential buyers. Specrfic Ffrtdtngs ofFact Nos. 4; S, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, urtd 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. S, b, 18(A)-(D),
21(A)-(C}, 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing,
7. The approvat of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrouuding area than any ofher project would have if develflped using the
eXi9ting zoning standard9. •
The praperty is currently zoned R-l, which could alIow for development of up to $9
dwelling units on site. Howsver, probably only 60-65 dweiling units would be allowed to
be constructed due to the presence of nan-buiidable areas (steep slopes, BPA easement),
infrastructure, and park rsquirements. Applicants seek to develop 368 dwelling units.
Development of nver 354 dwelling units would undoubtedly have more impact than the
existing zoning standard but the PUD is providing a signiftcant amount of open space,
park land, and infrastructure improvements to the community. Connec#ion to City water
and sewer would have less impact on graundwater quality and quantiry then installation
of private vVells and/ar on-site septic systems. Location and design of open space would
provida a cantiguous coriridor for wildlife and scenic views. Development of the site
vvith homes on one acre iots would result in suhstantially more fragrnentation, creating
greater impacts on wildlife and associated habitat along with scenic view corridors.
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR; Findrngs 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 the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood.
Surrounding land use consists af natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and the Lakeland Hilis PUD. The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 23 of 34
Hearings Examiner for tha City of Auburn
Kersey lII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PtaWariance- ON 12EMAND
designatian for the area is Single-Family Residentiaf which endeavors to develop land
with this designation at a density of four to six dwelling units per acrg. Developmertt
would be consistent with the charaeter of the neighboring Lakeland Hills comrnunity and
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The PUD would be screened from low-
density development in the north/northwest by the site's tapography and the
ratention/enhancsment of vegetation. The Applicants would pxovide 25 to 35 foot rear
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer lnw-density development to the east and
south. Conditions of app;raval would require a minimum of one tree per rear yard to
further buffer between adjacent uses, General Findings of Fact No. ,Z, Sept 2005 FCR;
Specift Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 8, Sept 2005 FCR; Findirrgs of Fact Nos. 3, 4,
10, 11, 18(B), 20(A)-(E), 21(A), 21(C), Feb 2006 .Remand H'earing. .
9. The PUD and Preliminary PIat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning
ordinance and any other applicable ptanning or engineering standards and
specifications and to o#$er applicable policies or plaus adoptcd by the City
Coancil.
Wiih conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies with all related City
codes aiid standards. Specific Findings of Fact No. 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 11, Feb 2005 Remand Hearing. -
10. Patential environmentai impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an unaceeptable adverse effect -on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, wildlifs and their associated habitat would be directly affected and
no mitigation measures were available to ameliorate this impac#. Wildlife would suffcr
from loss of native vegetation, fragmentation of habitat, reduction in native populations,
and disturbance in retained habitat due to human encroachment. While these impacts can
not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species is listed as endangered,
threatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The design of
open/park space does provide habitat for wildtifa in a contiguous, as opposed to
fragmented manner, and retention of native vegetation would assist in preservin$ habitat.
In additian to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be effected by the increase in
impervious surface that would affect the hydrology of #he area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applicant would be required to provide #echnology to control
sedimenderosion thereby lessening impacts to water resaurces and fisheries habitat.
Pubiic Services - Police, Fire, Schools - would alI be impacted by the inereased
population generated by the deveiopment. Conditions of approval zequire the Appticants
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these public service impaets, including fire and traff'ic
impacts fees higher than those that are mandated under the ACC. Specifrc Findings of
Fact Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22, Sept ZOOS FCX; I'indings of Fact
Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, Ib, 17, 18(A)-(E), 19(A)-(F), 20(E), 22(A)-(E), 23(A), 24(A)-(D), a»d
2S(A)-(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation page 24 of 34
Heacings Examiner for tlse City of Auburn
Kersey lIl Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWeriance ON REMANA
lI. Adeguate praWisions have been wade sa that the preliminary plat will prevent
or abate public nuisances,
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are'addressed directly
in ACC 8,12. A public nuisance affects pnblic health and properiy vatues by creating
visual biight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic
situatians. Compliance wsth City design standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
condi#ioned the development of a Homeowners' Association and the associated
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would ensure that visual blights and dangers to
publie health are reducedleliminated, thereby promoting both general public wel:fare and
property valuas. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FCR
Variance Criteria '
12. The subject properfy daes not possess physical conditions or exceptional
tapographic features that warrant deviating from the applicable design
requirements nor does strict conformity with ACC Title 18 fail to altow
reasonabie and harmoniaus use of the pragerty whieh would jus#ify a variance.
Frndings of Fact Nos. 6, 21(A)-(C}, Feb 2006 FCR.
REC4MMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Coneluszon of taw, the Hearing Exatniner recommends to the
Auburn Ciry Council that the request for a varianee from #he required tot caverage be DENIED.
nased upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the request for a rezone of 89.31 acres from R-1 Single
Family Residential to PUD, approval of the PUD, and approval of the Preliminary Pla#, subject
ta the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36,70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final piat ancl on
all bttitding permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III development (Division I and
Division TI): _
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource
lands on which a variety of cornmercial activities may aecur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining-related activities inoluding, but not limited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporiing, and recycling of minerals.
2. Prior to tlie issuance of final plat appraval for any phase containing an open space tract, the
AppIicants shall submit, or enier into an agreement to submit, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 25 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey fII ItezonelPilD/Pretiminary Plat/Variance--ONREMAND
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted'for the construction of interior
improvements to the suhdivision, Applicant shall aIso submit engineering/construction
drawings for the construc#ion of all pack irnprovements as depicted on the drawings
submitted (Exhibit 5), Th,e park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum's
Parks Directox prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any materials
supplied and installed fvr the parks must meet current City Pazks Department standards and
be approved by tha Pazks Director prior to installation and final plat approval,
4. Propased Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) #'or the future Kersey III
Homeowncrs' Associafion shall be submitted for review xnd approval by City Staff prior to
finai plat approval. This document shall include azchitectural design criteria for new homes
and specify the financial means of rnaintenance of afl common open spaces.
5. Hame designs shall be consistenf with the Kersey 3 Division I& II Conceptuat Buiiding
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2046 and the submitted conceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architeotura! Design Guidelines shall be
incorporatcd into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall includc a
caIor paIette for proposed house exteriar colors. 1n addition, tha following conditions shalI
apply,
a) Homes shall feature muItiple roofpitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall ba set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front properiy
line. No more than a two-car garage shall be used; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shali be varied such that no more than two homes sharing
the same flaor plan are located adjacent to one another
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
Landscaping Pian, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with the Applicants'
resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary piat approval (Exhibit S, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the
plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of
nativa vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vege#ation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential devetopment (Division I Lot numbers 19-62 and
Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a rninimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to
buffer the adjacent deveiopment fram the PUD.
8. An.y sntrar3ce sign shall be a Iow monument style with aceenting lacidscaping. The number,
style, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be appzoved by the Planning
Director.
9. rencing along the boundary of the ptat shall be of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shalt approve such fences, which shall be eyuivalent to a six foot high
solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 26 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Au6urn
Kersey 11T Rezone/l'UD/f'reliminaty PlaWariance - QN REMANp
pathways requires the ap;proval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that
border on a native%pen space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shaU be
separated from these azeas by use of a two- rait wooden fence of approximately three fo•four
feet in height. This fence shall delineate the property line and prevent encroachmant by the
property owner into the native%pen space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approvai of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the
associated prelimittary plat.
11. Appiicants shalt comply with a11 of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the
Kersey III Preliminary Ptat Final ETS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated February
2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this recommendation.
12. Applicants shalE construct a traffie s'rgnal at Evergreen Way aE and Kersey Way SE. This
traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an acfive warning signal on soukhbound Kersey Way SE itt
advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be consfructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide atixiliaxy Ianes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxitiary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to any fina[ plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hilis
Way and Evergreen Way SE. These traffic controls shall be dasigned and constructed as a
round-about unIess the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is nof
feasible. Tf the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic
controis shall be designed and construction as a traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shalt construct or post fnancial 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 pedostrian safety amenities must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS staies that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to
loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide
for pxeservativn of a witdlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegetation,
thereby mitigating fhese impacfs.
18. Applicants shal[ engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School District,
Communica#ions shouid not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide
transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the
proposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
Findings, Conelusionp, and Recommcndatiori paga 27 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersay III Rozone/i'UD/Preliminary PladVariance - ON REMAND
responsible for alt sehool impact fees in a manner consistent with local and state law
requirernents.
19. Prior to issuance of elearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing
necessary for both the construction of infrastracture such as roads and utilities and for [ot
grading shall be submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the p3an
should be to accomplish the maYimum annount of grading at one time to Iimit or avoid the
need for subsequent grading and disturbanee, including grading of individaal lots during
home construetion. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary of the crest slopes for the
site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall show quantities and locatians of excavations, and
embankments, the design of temporary s#orm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent properfies, natural
and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas. Temporary detention
faciiities shali be designed with a 1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated
pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-how post-developed starm even#. AII the measures
shall be imptemented prior to beginnir,g phased on-site filling, grading ox constnaction
activities.
The grading plans shalI be prepared in conjunctian with and reviewed by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and sabmit, for the City's
review, specific recomtnendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attention to
deve3oping a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and
related activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is October l
through March 3I). The plans shaIl show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or
any other critical axeas as required in chapters 16 and 18 of tha Internafional Building Code
(IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas Ordinance,
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, fhe applicant shall have a geo-technical
engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new ar additional mitigation measures are
necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for
review and approval by the City Engineer, Recommendations for areas where subsurface
water is k.nown or discovered shall be given particular at#ention by.the geotechnical engineer
and cobrdinated with the project engineer responsible for the storm drainage system design.
19, Prior to final plat appraval, a supplemental evaiuation of stream channel conditions atong
Bowman Creek ia vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, including the aff-site
erosion feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way mid near Bowman
Creek. Appropriate mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the suppiemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage facilities shalt incorporate high staridards of desigzi to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design of abave ground storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Paga 28 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn ,
Kersey itI Rewnc/PUD/,Preliminary P1aWariance - ON RBMAND
Prior to final piat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic requirements consistent with City standards
can be accommodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of Auburn Design
Standards. In order to achieve this, the foltowing design elements must ba incorporafed inta
the final design;
• Vehicle access for ma'tntenance to alt proposed storm drainage structures is required.
To provide an adequate and safe storm pond access, an appropxiately designed pull-
aff shall be provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
• AlI storm drainage conveyance iines required to mana$e upstream bypass surface
flows shall be routed through the project site and shall not be combined with the
propased Qn-site storm drainage.system. Maintenance access shall be provided to all
structures proposed to be in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system
shall be placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and aperation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriatety designed energy dissipatian features
are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet ta the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site, appropriately designed
aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way near 53`d Street
SE, and subssqnent flooding of the intersection, an appropriately designed storm drainage
system shall be constructed to mitigate this condition.
21. The location and aligiment of the forca main and the proposed pump station shall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the
desired basin. The public sanitary sewer pump station shall be lacated as dixected by the Cifiy
Engineer in arder to allow room for iarge vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into publia right-of ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between
Lots 27 and 28 of Divisian
The applicant shaEl pravide an easement for possible future extension of tlie sanitary sewer
system located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division 1. .
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except where dsviations
are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 29 of 34
Hearings Examiner for the City af Auburn
Kersey IIl Rezone/AUD/Areliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
23. The Applicants shall canstruct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential coltector
arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/iurn lane area through fhe plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shali also constzuct median #reatments to match the 10 foot center
median/turn lane within the plat on the existing raadway west to Lalceland Hills Way, to the
satisfaction of the city engineer. •
25. The Applicants shalI redesign padastrian crossings at Road G anc3 Evergreen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer,
26. The Applicants shall constract a minimum 10-faot wide shared multi-use path, separated
by a#ive foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for the length of -
the site frontage along Kersey Way, fo the satisfaction o£the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 foot eenter tum lane, a 12 foot thraugh norihbound lane, a 12
foot throvgh southbound lane, appropriate right turns lane(s) at the intersection with 53rd
Street SE, a five foot landscage strip and a miniznum Ip-foot wide shared multi-use path on
the west side. All other features about the road such as varticat curb, storm drainage and
lighting mast meet city standards.
2$. The Applicants shalI create a 50-foot right of way shabbing to the south plat boundary,
#hrough the location of lots 27 and 28, Division l, to align with 1760` Avenue East.
29. A traf#ic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South
PUD shall he paid at the tune of building permits for individual homes.
30. A fire impact fee equivatent to the fea being coilected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
shall be paid a# the time of building permits for individaal homes.
31. The Applieants shall compiy with all condiiions set forth in the Land Use Agreement
entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power Administration (Exhibit The
Land Use Agreement se# forth 15 conditions, including, but no# limited to landscaping,
distance from transmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Decided this. day of March, 2006.
J es Driscoll
earings Examiner for the City af Auburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendat'son Page 34 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersay IlI Rezone/PUD/Prelirninaty PlaWariance - ON REMAND
__1 - ' . ...~Y.<. ' . r...
i..... . . . . . ~ f.... .
WASHINGTON
FINAL PLAT APPLICATxON
FAGU6-0013
FAC06-0042
FAC07-0002
FAC07-0003
SECURITY IN LIEU OF COMPLET[C3N
!n lieu of the required public improvements for the Fina1 Plat of Kersey 3 Division 1
and Associated Projects, an approved security, PLAT SECURfTY BOND for
$2,835,298.00 (150% of the estimated costs of improvements) has been submitted and
approved by the Ci#y Engineer.
City Engineer a e
1. The developer has provicied references and demons#rated a minimum of 3 years
successful, non-defaulted plat development experience in #he Puget Sound region.
2. The bond/security is based on the following costs:
*Phase I
Total Construction
150% Multiplier
Total
*Phase 2
$106,009.00
$ 63,006.00
$159,014.00
*Phase 3
Total Construction
750% Multiplier
Total
*Phase 4
$1,629,668.00
$ 814,834.00
$2,444,502.00
Total Construction $ 72,065.00 7otal Constructian
150% Multiplier $ 36,033.00 150% Multiplier
Total $108,098.00 Totat
*See Attached Breakdown for Specific Phase Detaits
cc: Original: Plat Securify Fiie
Copy (2) Planning Director
Copy. Developer
$ 82,456.00
$ 41,228.00
$123,684.00
oRD. No. 6271
AGENDA BILLEXHIBIT 6
KERSEY 3
PERFORMANCE BOND NU. 1 VALUE5
PHASE 1 RELEASE
FAC06-0013 Evergreen Way SE & Kersey Way SE
1. Gurb & Gutter
Concrete Servtces
12 LF
$6.60 /LF
2. Patterned Concrete
Concrete Services
120 SF
$9 /SF
3. As-Built Drawings
Barghausen
1 LS
$67,000 /LS
FAC06-0042
Division 1& 2- Tracts B, C, D, F, P, Q,
& R Parks and Up
en Spaces
` 1. Tract 8
~ a. GBzebp
Highridge Landscdping
1 LS
$18,750 /LS
2. Tract F
.
a. Gaxebo
Highridge Landscaping
1 LS
$19,100 /LS
3. Tract P
a. Concrete Sidewalks
Hodge Cottstruction
200 SF
$4.07 /SF
6. Concrete Stairs
Hodge Construction
I. LS
$4,043 /LS
c. lrrigat€on & Landscaping
Hightidge i.andscaping
1 LS
$6,082 /LS
Total Construct(on Costs
Total Financta)
Guarantee Amount at 150%
$79
$1,080
$67,000
$18,750
$19,100
$814
$4,043
$6,082
$106,009
$159,014
PHASE 2 RELEASE
FAC06-0042 Dtvision 1& Z- Tracts B, C, D, P, P, 4, & it Parks and Open Spaces
1. 'Fract Q
a, Concrete
Sidewatk
Landstape curb
b. Irrigatfon & Landscaping
c. SiCe Furniture
d. Backstop
2. As-Bui{t Drawings
Nodge Construction
150 SF
$4.07 /Sf
353 LF
$22.48 /LF
Eiighridge Candscaping 1 LS
$51,653 /tS
Highridge Landscaping 1 LS
$2,788 /LS
Hlghridge Landscaping 1 LS
$6,079 /LS
8arghausen 2 LS
$3,000 /E.S
Total Construction Costs
7otal Financial Guarantee Amau
nt at 150%
$611
$7,935
$51,653
$2,788
$6,079
$3,000
$72,065
$108,098
PHASE 3 RELEASE
FAC07-0003 Booster Pump Station
1. Booster Pump 5tatfon Estimated 1 LS $1,629,668 /tS $1,629,668 ,
7ota! Constructton Costs $1,629,66$
Total Financiai Guarantee Amount at 150% $2,444,502
Revised 2/26/2009 Page 1 of 2
PHASE 4 RELEASE
~ 1. 7ract C
a. Stair rail
' b. Spiit Rall fence
2. 'Cract D
a. Stair rail
b. Split Rail fence
3. Tract f
a. Split Rail fence
4. Tract q
, a. Concrete
FAC06-0042 D(vision 1& 2- i"racts B, C, D, F, P, Q, & R Parks and Open Spaces
Nodge Construction
28 LF
$87.30 /I.F
$2,444
quality Fence
690 LF
$8.85 /LF
$5,107
Hodge Construction
8 LF
$87.30 /Lf
$698
Quality Fence
420 LF
$8.85 /lF
$3,717
Qual(ty fence
525 LF
$8,85 /LF
$5,531
Hodge Construction
Sidewalk 100 SF
Stair systems 1 EA
Landsc2pe curb 153 LF
b. Split Rait fehce Quality Fence 390 LF
. FAC07-0002 Division 1. Plat •
iarlotte Ave SE and SSth St SE Imgrovements per attached Exhibit A
$4.07
/SF
$407
$1,53$
/EA
$1,538
$22.48
/LF
$3,439
$8.85
/LF
$3,452
1. Grading
J.R. Hayes & Sons
26,727 SF
$0.15 /SF
z. CSTC
J.R. Hayes & Sons
.
a. Concrete Curb & Gutter
32 TNS
$18.00 /TN
b. Concrete Stdewallcs
37 TfVS
$18.00 /TN
AC Paving
129 TNS
$18.00 /TN
~.:oncrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Servlces
780 LF
$6,80 /LF
4. Concrete Sidewalks
Concrete Services
1800 Sf
$2.50 /SF
5.. ADA Ramps
Cvncrete Servtces
1 EA
$350 /EA
6. AC Paving
fC(?N Materials
I 2-1/2" base course
1-1/2" final IifC
, Thickened edge
! 7. Traffic Signage & 8arricades
! S. Street Iights
~ 9. ROW Landscaping
1336 SY $10.15 /SY
1336 SY $6.80 /SY
7.53 LF $5 /LF
StripeRite 4 EA $600 /LS
Transtech Electric 1 LS $28,930 /LS
lsham Landscaptng 1 L5 $10,130 /SF
$4,009
$583
$673
$2,317
$5,148
$4,500
$350
$13,563
$9,087
$765
$2,400
$28,930
$10,130
Total Construction CosCs $82,456
Tota! Financial Guarantee Amount at 150% $123,684
Grand Total Construction Casts
Grand Tota! Ftnancto! Guarantee Amount at 150%
$1,890,199
$2,835,298
ZevIsed 2/26/2009 Page 2 of 2