HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-2
*CITYOF
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHINGTON
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6307 for Final Plat Application No. Date: May 10, 2010
PLT10-0002
Department: Planning and Attachments: (See Exhi6it list below Budget Impact:
Develo ment and Exhibits
Administrative Recommendation:. City. ` Council to introduce and ado t Ordinance No. 6307.
Background Summary:
Doug Bennett of Springer'Development, LLC has made application for the Final Plat of "Kersey 3,
Division No. 1 B". Division 16 includes the creation of 167 lots and landscape, open space, pedestrian
access and private veliicle access tracts.
~ The property is located'south of tfie intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE in the 2500-
2700 block. A rezone from R1, Single Family Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development and the
PUD were approved under Ordinance No. 6026 (File No. REZ05-0001 and PUD05-0001) on May 11, "
2006. The,preliminary plat of Kersey 3, Division No. 1 received preliminary plat approval under
Resolution No. 4021 (PLT05-0001) of this same date to subdivide the site into 167 single-family lots and
create tracts as noted above. Tract Q, a 2.7-acre park was previously dedicated to the City with Kersey
3, Division 1A by Ordinance No. 6271 on October 5, 2009.
The plat has been developed in accordanee with approved PUD, the planned unit development district as
defned by ACC, Section 18.69 (subsequently repealed), Title'17; (Final Plats, ACC 17.06 subsequently
amended) and the conditions of the preliminary plat and PUD.
A financial security in lieu of the completion of all of the plat infrasfructure improvements has been
provided to the City. The City Engineer has signed the Certificate of Improvements accepting the
financial security.
L0517-1 03,5 PLT10-0002 x PLT05-0001
Reviewed by Council & Committees: ReViewed by Departments S Divisions:
❑-Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ~ Building , M&0
" ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
~ Hearing.Examiner [I Municipal Serv: ❑ Finance 0 Parks '
C] Numan Services ❑ Planning & CD ~ Fire Z Planning
p.Park Board ❑Public Works ~ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ~ Public Works ❑ Human Resources
❑ Information Services
Action• Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Council ApprovaL DYes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
RefeRed to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Sn der
Meetin Date: Ma 17, 2010 Item Number:.VIII.A.2
AUBURN * M0RE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6307 for Final Plat Application No. Date: May 10, 2010
PLT10-0002 Attached are the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 1- Proposed Ordinance No. 6307 to.approve the Final Plat of Kersey 3; Division 1 B
Exhibit 2- Resolution No. 4021, previously approving the Preliminary Plat of Kersey3, Div. 1
(Includes Hearing Examiner Reeommendation as Exhibif A)
Exhibit 3- Ordinance No. 6026, previously approving the rezone to PUD, Planned Unit
Development of Kersey 3, Div. 1
Exhibit 4- The City Engineer's.Certificate of Improvements
Exhibit 5- Final Plat (Map, 8 pages)
;
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6307
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF KERSEY 3; DIVI$ION 1 B
WHEREAS, the City of Aubum received a final plat application for the Plat -
of Kersey 3, Division 1 B, Application No. PLT10-0002 the final approval of which
is appcopriate for City Council Action;
WHEREAS, based on the review given this Plat by the City, the City '
Council hereby makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Doug Bennett of Springer Development, LLC, has made application for the
Final Plat of "Kersey. 3, Division 1B". ,
' 2: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council under Resolution
No. 4024 and signed by the Mayor on May 11, 2006. A previous final plat
of the adjacent "Kersey 3; Division 1A" which created tracts and dedicafed
right-of-ways without the creation of lots was previously approved by
Ordinance No. 6271 on October 5, 2009.
3. "Kersey 3, Division 16" of the preliminary plafi hes been developed in
accordance with the approved Planned. Unit Development (PUD05-0001)
and all applicable condition of the preliminary plat (PLT05-0001).
4. A Certificate of Improvements has been issued by the. City Engineer, "
accepting a security bond in lieu of completion of all required plat
improvements.
5. Tract Q, a 2.7-acre (118,870 square foot) tract of land was previously
dedicated to the City of Auburn for a public park when the adjacent fnal
plat of Kersey 3, Division 1A was recorded (Ordinance No. 6271).
Additionally, the applicant proposes Tract I, (95,860 square feet) as open
Ordinance'No. 6307
April 26, 2010
Page 1 of 4
space to be owned initially by the developer and eventually the home
owner's organization.
CONCLID$IONS 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.
2. The Plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Plat meets the requirernents of Chapter 58.17 RCW.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approval. Kersey 3, Division 1 B, a subdivision involving
. property located within . the City of Auburn, Washington; which plat is legally
described on Sheet 2 of 8 of the Final Plat and set forth in Exhibit "A," attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved, and deemetl to.
conform to the requirements for Plaf approval pursuanf to State and local law and
Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington and Section 58.17.140
thereof.
Section 2. Constitutionalitv or Invaliditv. If any section, subsection clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any. reason 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 any one or more section, .
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. Recordation. Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law; the City Clerk of the City of Auburn, shall
Ortlinance No. 6307
Apri126, 2010 , Page 2 of 4
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Records, ~
Elections and Licensing Services Division.
, Section 4. Imalementation. . The Mayor is hereby authorized to
~ implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
, direcfions of this legislation.
Section S. Effectove 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
; .
APP D TO FORM: .
niel B. H ; .
City Attorney Published: ~
Ordinance No. 6307
April 26, 2010
Fage 3 of 4 -
EXHIBITA
Legal Description:
TRACT ZZ OF.KERSEY 3, DIVISION 1A, AS PER PLAT
RECORDED IN VOLUME 253 OF PLATS, PAGES 1 THROUGH 8,
INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN, COUNTY OF KING, STATE
OF WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. 6307 April 26, 2010 , Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 4021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE ,
50.85 ACRES INTO 167 LOTS AND VARIOUS
TRACTS FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON ,
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT05-0001, dated April 8, 2405, 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 Iots for future single family residential development, open
space, and street and utility tracts within the City of Aubum, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was made concurrently with applications for
_ rezone and planned unit development approval for the same site (Application
Nos. REZ05-0001 and PUD054001); and
WHEREAS, said applications were deteRnined to be complete pursuant
to Auburn City Code on June 8, 2005; and
, WHEREP►S, said request above was referred to the Hearing Examiner for
~
~ study and public hearing thereon; and "
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditrons on September 2, 2005; and
Resolutian No. 4021
May 2, 2006 _
Page 1 of 11 .
' . . . ' . , .
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held on October 3, 2005 and
continued on October 17, 2005, at which time the City Council,considered the
Hearing Examiner's recommendations and the materiaf presented to the Hearing
Examiner and argument made to the City Council at said closed record hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments received at the closed
record hearing conceming matters related to the record drew into question
significant portions of the-Hearing Examinees recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the closed record hearing, th'e City Council.,asked the
appticant if he would be willing to accept the additional time it woufd 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
,
deGined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a willingness to waive the 120-day project review timetable othenivise
applicable for processing the application and a willingness:to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; `and WHEREA3, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the application badc to the
~
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 2, of 11
Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected eight (8) defined issues; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hea'ring to consider said peirtion in #he Council Chambers of the Auburn
City Hall on February 22, 2006, 'of which the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to conditions on March 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held on April 25, 2006, at which
tirne the City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's recommendations, the
material presented to the Hearing Examiner and argument made to the City
Council at said closed record hearing and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for preliminary plat based upon. the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subject to additional conditions of approval.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Hearing Examiners Findings, Canclusions and
- Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A° are hecewith approved and
incorporated in this Resolution,
' Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 50.85
acres into 167 lots for future single family residential development, open space
and street and utility tracts within the City of Aubum,legaUy described in Exhibit
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 11
"B" attached heretb and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, fhe following notice shall be placed on the
final plat and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey lll _
development (Division I and Division II);
, NOTICE; This property is near designated mineral
resource tands on which a variety of commercial
activities occuc that may not be compatible with
residential development, including; but not limited to,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, , tra.nsporting, concrete and asphalf production,.
recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
2. Prior to the issuance of fnal plat approval for any phase containing an open space tract, the Applicanfs shall submit, or enter into an agreement
to submit, a DeclaraUon of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that
conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200. ,
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the
construction of interiot improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall
also submit engineeringlconstruction _ drawings for the construction of all
park improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum's Parks
Director prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City Parlcs
Department standards and be approved by the Parks Director prior #o
installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions; Covenants, and Resfrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
Kersey III Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for reyiew and
approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval: This document shall
include architectural design criteria for new F►omes and specify the
fihancial means of maintenance of all common open spaces. The CC&Rs
shall provide that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be
responsible to maintain and replace as necessary all trees, trails, special
features and landscaping within any s#reef inedian strip, planting strips
and all HOA packs. In addition; the HOA shall maintain those porEions of =
the stormwater tract located outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if provided, outside the 10-year storm water surface elevation, as
detennined by the City Engineer.
Resofution No. 4021
May 2, 2Q06
Page 4 of 11
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I& Ii .
Conceptual Building Design Guidelines dated. January 9, 2006 and the
submitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architecturat Design Guidelines shall be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall include a
color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following
conditions shall apply.
, a) Homes. shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-
facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
front property line. At least, but no more than, a two-car
garage door shall face. the street; tandem parking is
acceptab{e.
c) Home designs shall be va(ed such that no more than finro
homes sharing the same floor plan are located adjacent to,
one another
d) Lot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Applicants' r'esubmittal for rezane, PUD, and preliminary plat approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shall maximize the use of native
and/or drought-resistant plants throughout ;the_. plat, including parlc and
landscaped open space areas. Emphasis.should be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of nativevegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot
numbers. 19-62 and Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall 'have, at a
minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to buffer the . adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a law monument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
landscaping shall be apptoved by the Planning Dicector.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
, shall 'be equivalent to a six foot high solid, wood fence. Any fencing to be
erected adjaoent to any of, the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that border on a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I), shall be separated from these areas by use of :a two- rail .wooden. fence of ;
approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the
Resolution, No. 4021 -
May 2, 2006 ,
Page 5 of 11
native/open space, park, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Association
- shall be responsible to maintain all fences required by this condition.
, 10. Applicants shall comply -with all of `the mitigation measures as noted on
pages 9-19 of the Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 ofi the
Augusf 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
throughout this recommendation.
11.Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic s'ignal must be constructed toi the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active waming signal on southbound Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE: This active warning signal must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13.Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be donstructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14.Applicants shall provide access accepfable, to the City of Auburn for
properties abutting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53ro St.. SE.
15. Prior to any final plaf approvals, Applicants shall construct or post
financial security for traffc controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
traffic oontrols shall be designed and constructed as a tound-about unless
the City Engineer determines, based on design, fhat a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not
feasibte, then the traffic controls shall be designed and construcfion as a
traffic signal.
16. Prior fo any final plat approvals, Applicants sfiall construct or post financial
security for trafFic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen
Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic
calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City;Engineer.
17.The EIS states that there are unayoidable significant impacts on the
environment, narnely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated
habitat. Two main impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and
fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor fo provide for
preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
-Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006 _
Page 6 of 11
18.Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Aubum School
District. Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the
school district can provide #ransportation, buf that schools have the
capacity to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with local
and state law requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading
and clearing necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as
roads and utilities and for lot grading shall be submi4ted and approved by
the City of Aubum. The purpose of the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance,, including grading of individual lots
during home construction, The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest slopes for the site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall
show quantities and locations of excavations, and embankments, the
design of temporary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation ftom impacting adjacent
properties, naturat and public storm drainage systems and other near by
sensitive areas. Temporary detention facilities shall be designed with a
1.5 safety factor applied to the post-deyeloped calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour, post=d,eveloped storm event. All the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling,
grading or construction activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjuncfion with and reviewed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer: The geotechnical engineer shall develop
and submit, for the City's review, specific recommendations to mitigate
grading acfivities, with particular attention to developing a plan to minimize
` the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and related
aetivities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concem is
~ October 1 through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the
extent of geologic'hazard area or any other critical areas as required in ,
~ chapters 16 and 18 of the Internationaf -Building Code (IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the appficant shaU
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical
report shall be submitted to the City of Aubum for review and approval, by
the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface water
is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by the
I
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 7 of 11
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer .
responsible fvr the stoRn drainage system design.
20. Prior to final plaf approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 94+00 must
be completed, including the off-site erosion feature observed at the outlet
of the culvert under'Kersey Way and near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation of
stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek.
21. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to
enhance the appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design
of above ground storage and conveyance facilities. shall address or
incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes,
' safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan wfth applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consistent with City standards can be accommodafed on-
site:
, Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent .with the City of
Aubum Design Standards. In order to achieve. this, the following design
elements must be incorporated into the final design:
• Vehicle access for - maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
structures is required. _To provide an adequate and 'safe storm pond'
access, an appropriately designed pull-off shalf be provided from
Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
• All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream
bypass surface flows shall be routed through the project site and.shalt
not be combined' with the proposed on-site storm drainage sysfem.
Maintenance access shafl be provided to all sfivctures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions. of this system shall be
placed within a tracfi dedicated to the,. Homeowners Association for
, maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy
' dissipation features are required at the end of Iong runs of pipe, at pipe
intersections and at the outlet to the storm drainage pond. -
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site,
appropriately designed aeration shall be provided within the sform pond.
Resolution No. 4021 '
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of' 11
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey
Way near 53'd Streefi SE, and subsequent flooding of the intersection, an
appropriately designed storm drainage system shall be constructed to
mitigate this condition.
22. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacenf property owners and the City to .
ensure it provides servics to the desired basin. The public sanitary sewer
~ pump station shall be located as directed by the C.ity Engineer in order fo
allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back
, into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line
Iocafed befinreen Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE comer of TractD, Division 1.
23.A11 roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as
public right of way.
24.The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a
residentiaF collector arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn
lane area through the platboundaries.
25. The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10
foot cenfer median/turn lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to
Lakeland Hills Way, to the safisfaction of the c'ity engineer.
26. The Applicants shall redesign pedesfrian crossings at Road G and
Evergreen Way and Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional
pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the length of the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
28.The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a rnodified city standard fior
a minor arterial road, to include a 12 foot center tum lane, a 12 foot through
northbound tane; a 12 foot through southbound lane, appropriate right tums
lane(s) at the intersection with 53'd Sfreet Sf, a fve foot landscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on the west side. All other
Resolution No. 4021
May 2, 2006
Page 9 of 11
features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and lighting
must meet c"ity standards.
29. The. Appiicants shall create a 50 :foot right of way stubbing to the sauth
plat boundary, through the location of iots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with
176th Avenue East. 30.A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
31.A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits foc individual
homes. °
32. The Applicants shall comply, with aIF conditions set forth in the Lan.d Use
Agreement - entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power
Administration (Exhibit 8). The Land Use: Agreement set forth 15 conditions,
including, but not limited` to landscaping, distance from fransmission line
towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
: Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in fu{I force upon
passage-and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this day of , 2006.
C UBU N
-t-- =
PETE B. LEVVIS,
MAYOR
I
Resolution No. 4021
May. 2, 2006 .
Page 10 of 11
ATTEST:
Z aftpw
Dan' 11e E. Daskam, '
. . City Clerk
APP D O FORM: .
iel B. id,
Cify Attomey- "
~
Resolution No: 4021 ^
May 2, 2006
Page 11 of 11
,
BEFOItE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0042
) PUD05-0001, PUD 05-0002
LakeridgeDevelopmeat ) PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
by Wayne Jones )
and )
Landholdings LLC ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
by Daniel and Stormy giayes ) AND RECOMMENDATION _
For a Rezone, a Planned Utit Development, )
a Preliminary Plat, and a Variance for - ) _
Kersev III - Division I and Division II )
BACKGROUND
,
In 2005, Lakeridge Development; through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce
Bowles and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) requested approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and prelitninary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a single-family
; residential subdivision, and a vaziance from certain design standards.
The Applicants requested a rezone of three separatel~ tax pazcels from R-T Single Family
Residential to Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots in Division I and 204 lots in Division II. The requested variances would
reduce front yard setback and lot coverage requirements. The subject property totals 89.31 acres
and is located within the city limifs of Aubum, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53`d Street SE,
extending southward to the King-Pierce County line.
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Aubum on August 9, 2005. The Hearing Examiner allowed the record to remain open for the
limited purpose of securing comments from the Aubum School District on impacts generated by
the proposed residential development. The School District's coinments were received and the
record was officially ctosed on August 16, 2005. Following a review of the testimony and
exhibits, and based on; the criteria established by the Aubum City Gouncil, on September 2, 2005
the Hearing Exatniner issued a: recommendation for approval of the rezone from R-1 Residential
to Planned Unit Development, approval of the Planned Unit Development, and approval of the
preliminary plat for Division 1 and Division II of Kersey 111, subject to 18 conditions. The
Hearing Examiner recommend~ that the Applicants' request for variances from the required
front yard setback and total lot coverage design requirements be denied.
On October 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Auburn. City Council conducted a hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. At the close ofthe hearing, the City Council
asked the Appiicarits if they were wiliing to accept the additional time it would take for the
matter to be remanded fo the Hearing Examiner for further review. The Applicants decIined the
i Findings, Gonclusions, and Recommendation
I-iearings Examiner for the'City of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
remand offer and the City Council denied all of the applications. On November 10, 2005, the
` Applicants rescinded its denial and asked that the applications be remanded to the Hearing
Examiner.
On November 15, 2005, the Aubum City Council issued Resolution Number 3947, remanding
the matter to the Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected the following issues:
1. Open spaces and the protection of sensidve environmental features, such as steep slopes,
mature irees, wetlands, and scenic views. ,
2. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly along Kersey Way, and promote altemative modes of travel. Consideration
should be given to applying the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to
simiIar unpacts areas located south of the White River.
3. The development of transitional areas between these projects and adjacent devetopments and
environmentally sensitive areas.
4. The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping, and building azchitecture required
under the Auburn PUD ordinance.
5. The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces located under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate notification to future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining
operations.
7. Protection of waterways and the development's propased stormwater system.
8. Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact Fee to aid fhe City in developing fire facilities to ,
serve the area south of the White River.
On February 22, 2006, the Hearing Examiner for the Cit y of Aubum held a public hearing on the
matter as it was remanded from the City Council.
Testimonv
At the Febniaty 22 hearing on remand, the foIlowing individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Aubum
3. D. Scamporlina, Parks Deparhnent, City of Auburn
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Works, City of Aubum
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Public Works, City of Auburn
6. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative
7. Rob Armstrong, Civil Engineer
8., Art Sidel, Landscape Architect
9. Pat McBride, Building Architect 10. Jolui Norris, Norris Homes 11. Michele Fassbutd, neighboring property owner .
12. John Ghaffee, neighboring property owner
13. Darryl Thompson, neighboring property owner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 2 of 30.
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aaburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P2aWariance - ON REMAND
i .
i
14. Pat Davis, neighboring property owner
15. Dale Huston, neighboring property owner
16. Erin Galeno, neigiiboringproperty owner
17. Chuck Gould, neighboring properfy owner
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. Katrina Price, neighboring property owner
20. Donald Bykorien, neighboring property owner
21. William Remick, neighboring property owner '
22. Kristi Knott,.neighboring progerty owner
23. Bruce Koch, neighboring property ovmer
24. Jonie Brooke, neighboring property owner
25. Bill Anderson, neighboring property owner
' Exhibits _
~ At the February 22 hearing an remand, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the
official record:
1. Staff Report, dated February 16, 2006
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Auburn City Council Resolutian 3947
4. Re-submittal`letter from Barghausen Engineers, dated January l l, 2006
5. Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD Site Plans -12 sheets
6. Engineer's Responses to Aubum City Council Comments 7. Keisey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint
Presentation Slides and Arclutect Narrarive
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonaeville Power Administration and Lakeridge Development,
~ dated August 30, 2005 ;
9. Excerpts from Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Geologic Hazards, Wildlife
and Habitat; arid Wetlands and Streams, with maps '
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. Affdavit of Mai2ing of Legal Notice
'12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice
13. E-mail confirmation from King County Journal, Publication of Legal Notice, dated
Febn:ary 7, 2006
14. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides
15. Prelimiaary Landscape Plan - 3 sheets
16. Cor'respondence from GMS Architectural Group, dated February 22,2006
16A. Lot Covemge Drawings ,
17. Correspondence from $egale Properties, dated Febnuary 22, 2006 '
18. Statutory Wacranty Deed - Tax Parce13221059039
19. PubIic Comment Letter Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22, 2006
20. Public Comment Letter: ° Pat and Gene Dayis, dated October 15,.2005
21. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dafed February 21, 2006
22. Coftspondence from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23: Public Comment Letter: MicheIle. Fassbind, dated Februaazy 22, 2006
24. Public Comment Lette=: Johii Chaffee, dated February 22, 2006 Eindings, Conclusions, and:Recommendation Page 3 of 30
Hearings Examinerfor the City of Auburo '
Kersey tII Reaone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Yariance - ON REMAND
, . . . . . .
. 25. Public Comment Letter: Erin and Paul Galeno, undated
26. Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, October 17, 2005
27. Public Comment Letter. Janet Koch, dated February 22, 2006
28. "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter, dated February 15, 2006
29. Public Comment Letter with excerpts fram Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will '
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy Johannsen; Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public.Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilia, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, WiII and Jean Julum, Roci and Judy
Johannsen, undated
31. Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated February 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 Anderson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen,. Gary and Mazgaret Staples, undated
34. Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, Febivaiy 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applicant's Response to Public Hearing Comments, dated Mazch 3, 2006
36A. Agency Comment Letter from Auburn Schoot District, dated March 2, 2006
;
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits subrnitted at the open record hearing of August
9, 2005 and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remand, the Heazing Examiner enters the
following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The Applicants requested approvai of a rezone of duee parcels of land totaling
approxinately 89.31 acres: _The rezone would reclassify the property from R-1 Single
Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Applicants also requested
approval of a PUD and Prelimiaary Plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III. The
property is located on the west. side of Kersey Way at 53d Street SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. All of the pazcels are within the city limits of
Auburn and the boundaries of King County. Ge»eral Finding of Fact No. 1, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibit 1, StafJ''Report, Page 3.
2. To reach a determination on the City Council's Order of Remand, the Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submiited into the record of the Keisey III,
Division I and Division II hearings conducted on August 9, 2005 and February 22, 2006.
All Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Examiner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incorporated into the present decision by reference. -
Findings from the August 2005 hearing are refeienced as "Findings Sept. 2005 FCR. "
Findings from the Febniary, 2006 hearing are referenced as "Findings Feb. 2006
Remand Hearing. "
Fmdings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 4 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
3. In the original proposal heard by the Hearing Examiner in August 2005, the Applicants
proposed a two phase development with Division I containing 169 single-family
residential lots averaging 5,032 square feet, resulting in an average density of 3.34
dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Division II was to be developed with 205 single-family
lots averaging 4,863 square feet, resulting in an average density of 5.35 du/acre. The
overall pmject density is 4.17 du/acre for both divisions. At the February 2006 Hearing,
on Remand (Remand Hearing), the Applicants submitted a revised proposaI. The
, Applicants are still proposing development of Kersey III in two phases, however,
Division T would now contain 167 single-family residential lots averaging 4,904 square
feet, and an average density of 3.28 du/acre. Division II would now contain 201 single-
family residential lots averaging 4,990 square feet; and an average density of 5.23
du/acre. The overall project density is 4.12 du/acre. General Finding of Fact No. 2. Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit S,
Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD pl4ns; Fxhibit 14, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher; Testimorry of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcels of land comprise the proposal and ail three parcels are within the city limits
of Aubum. Division I is includes two tax pazcels - King County Parcel No. 322105-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Development). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King County Parcel No:
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings LLC).
On December 14, 2005, the Bowles executed a StatutoryVVarranty Deed conveying Tax
Parcel 3221050-9039 to Datuel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowles as Applicants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No. 4, Sept. 1005
FCR; Exhibit 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher.
' S. Design standards for detached single-family residential development within a PUD
include: minimum lot size of 3,640 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 400/a, maximum building height of 30 feet, and froirt, rear,_ and side yard
setbacks of 15-20 feet, 20 feet; and 5 feet, respectively. The Applicants proposal
conforms to these standards. ACC 18.69.070(A); Ezhibit S, Revised Plat.
6. At the August 2005 hearing, the Applicants requested a variance from certain design
requirements set forth in Aubum City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). The proposal at.that
time was for the reduction in the front yazd setback to 10 feet and an increase in the totat
allowable lot coverage to SO%. The Heazing Examiner recommended denial of this
request. At the Remand Hearing, the Applica.nts revised the previous request, seeking an
! increase in the total allowable lot coverage of up to 45%. The Applicants argue that
adherence to the 400/o lot coverage maximum piovided in ACC 18,69.070(A) would
create hardship and that increased lot coverage is needed to provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to preveirt a`cookie cutter' Iook. Approval of the '
variance, accoiding to the Applicants, would create balance and diversity within the
PUD. In addition, the Appticant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially larger amoiuit of open/recreational space than normally is required. It
appears from the record that the Applicants have abandoned their request for a front yazd
setback variance. Specific Finding of Fact No. .23, Recommendation, Sept. 2045 FCR;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 5 of 34
Heazings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
. Ezhibit 16, Correspondence from GMC Architectural; Exhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimorry ofMr: McBride; Testimorry of Mr. Norris.
. 7. At the Remand Hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for the Applicants to
submit responses on all of the written and oral commeats received into the record at the
February 2006 Remand Hearing. Bob Johns of Johns Mom-oe Mitsiinaga, attomey for
; ihe Applicants, submitted the requi=ed responses, along with comments from the Auburn
School Disirict, fo the City of Auburn on March 3, 2006. A copy of this letter was not
provided to the Hearing Examiner uzrtil March 14, 2006. On March 14, 2006, the
Hearing Examiner entered an Order setting the date of the issuance of the
recommendation to March 22, 2006.
'8. Notice of the Remand Hearing -was posted on the property and was mailed to a11 property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on February 10, 2006. Notice was
published in the King County Journal on February 10, 2006. Exhibits 10, 11, Il, and 13.
9. The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36,70A, requires land within a city to be
classified' as urban and that it must be developed at urban densities. The Applicants
submitted that this principle justifies the rezons request. The GMA itself does not assign
a quantitative value to the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which fias been applied, clarified, arid
evolved over the years, has stated that urban density is equivalent to fouc dwelling units
per acre unless a reasonable exception applies (i.e. critical areas). (see City of Bremerton
et al v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c (1995), Litowrtz 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. Holm
when the court stated that the CPSGMHB did not have the authority to create such a
, `bright line rule'. Viking v.-Holm, 118 P.3d 322 (2045). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acre
threshold as a`safe harbor' rather than a`bright line'. Furhiman v. City oj 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
conimunities developed at_ a density of four to six dwelling units per . acre. RCW
36.70A.I10; Land Use Policy LU-14; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Resporrse. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos. 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (notirig factors to satisfy change in
circumstances).
10. Aubum's Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of residential housing at
single-family densities that establish a balanced miic of housing types appropriate for a
family-oriented community. When assigning tlie Comprehensive Plan's land use
designation for.the subject property, the City Council was to evaluate the abilityto buffer
the area by taking advantage of topographic variations, natural features, setbacks, and
other meaas. The development of new neighborhoods is to be govemed by flexible
development standards that encourage cbmpact urban development while protecting
critical areas. These flexible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types and site planning techniques so that a site can achieve its maximum
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 6 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum
Kerseylll Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND ,
e '
housing potential. Chapter 3, Land Use Goal 7; Land Use Policy LU-14; Land Use
Policy LU-17; La»d Use Policy LU-20; Chapter. 4, Housing Goal 7; Housing Objective
12.1; Housing Policy HO-34.
11. As required by ACG 18.68, ACC 18.69, and ACC 17.06, analysis of the proposal's
consistency with the Compiehensive Plan was provided for in, the DEIS. The DEIS
reviewed the goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to utilities,
transporfation, the environment, natural ;resources, natural and manmade hazards, and .
parks, recreation, and open space. The pmposed PUD/plat was determined to be
generally consistent with the Single Family Residential designation. 'Ihe City of
Aubum's Planning Director reviewed the reaone application for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consistent. Spec fc Findings of Fact
Nos. 4-6, Sept. 2005 FCR; ACC 18 68.030(B)(1); ACC 18.69.150(B); ACC 17.06.070(B);
Exhibit 1, Sta;J'Report, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW.43.21C, the City of
Auburn acted as Iead agency for identification and review of enviroamental impacts
caused by the proposed PUD/plat. The Final Environmentat Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey III project was issued on February 11; 2005. No appeals were filed. Specific
Findings of FactNo. 9, Sept. 2005 FCR. 13. Public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards, to the adequacy of the
EIS at both the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Heazing. Appeals of
an EIS must be submitted to the Aubum City Clerk 1421 days after issuance of the Final
EIS. ACC 16.06.230. No appeal was filed and all challenges to the adequacy ofthe EIS
are time-barred. As noted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adequacy of the EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEPA is the
consideration of environmental values. The key purpcse of an EIS is to ensuie full
disclosure and consideration of environmental infornation: prior to the constcuction of a
project. It is from the impacts disclosed in the EIS that ttie decision-maker caa make an
informed decision about the proposal. Public comment, both written and aral, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the Febniaiy 2006 Remand Hearing, provided further
detail in this regard and therefore is permitted. Specific Findings of Fact No. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Farhibit 22; Comments of Muckleshoot TribeExhibit 25, Comments of
Galeno; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; . Exhibit 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Echibit 33, Comments ofBykonen et al; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 2. '
14. Agency and public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the
. impact of ttie proposed plat on the Aubum School District at both the August 2005
kearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. The anticipated increase in student
population generated from the devetopment was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or ,
209 students. Submitted public comment stated that schools and the related I
' Exhibit 22 is dated August 16, 2004 and were comments submitted duri ng the DEIS review process. The Tribe's
comments should have been taken into consideration when drafting the Final EIS. The Tribe's comments were not
c6allenging the adequacy of the Final EIS.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 7 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubtun
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Prelaninary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
transportation system were over capacity and that dangerous walking conditions were
present along Kersey Way. The Auburti 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 elementaiy schools, including
_ Lakeland Hills Elementary scheduled to open Fall 2006 and Elementary Na 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to opea Fa11 2007, would provide additional capacity at the elementary
levei. The riuddle school level currently has capacity to accommodate growth but
enrollment pmjections indicate that an additionai middle school would be needed in the
future and that the School District has begun planning far a new school. ACC 19.02
allows the City to collect school impact. fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit,
on behalf of the school district. Gonditions of approval require the Applicaats to pay this
fee. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Exhibit 24, Comments of Chaffee; .Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District
Comments; Testimony of Mr; Cha~''ee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimorry of Ms. Price;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
ofMr: Armstrong.
15. Bus transportation would be provided for the plat with bus pick up/drop off areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applicants would construct a 10-foot wide multi-use path along the
site's frontage with Kersey Way. This path, along with sidewalks and crosswalks within
the plat, would provide safe walking conditions for students to/from school. Specific
Findings of Fact Nos. 14-1 S, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of Peters; Exhibit
24, Comments of Cha~`'ee; Fxhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32, Comments of
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School Dishict Comments;
Testimony of Mr. Cha, f~'ee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of
Ms Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony oJ Mr. ,
Armstrong.
16. All lots are to be served with sanitary sewer service provided by the City of Aubum.
Public cvmment was submitted in regards to the capacity of the system to accommodate additional sewage stemming from the proposed plat. Both the City and the Applicants ~
are constructing impmvements to the sewer system, including an interim pump station.
A neighboring property owner asserted that che problem is not with the pump station but
with the force mains that carry sewage away from the pump station. The neighbor azgues ,
that force mains at the Lakeland Hills pump station and the Ellingson pump station are
not functioning properly and thereby have: less capacity. City Public Works Staff
testified that the sewer system is capable of handling the increased volume and, after
replacement, the force mains are operating adequately. Specific Findings of Fact No. 20,
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 25, Comments of Galeno;
Ezhibit 36, Applicants' Response, page S; Testimorry of Ms. Galeno; Testimorry of Mr.
~ Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral, were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wildlife and their habitat. The EIS concluded that urbanization of the area would result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conclusioas, and Recommendation Page 8 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
. ~
fragmentation, and human encroachment Public comments stated that several species of
animals have been sighted on the subject property that were not accounted for in the EIS
including Redheaded Woodpecker, Bald F,agle, Osprey, Pileated Woodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Applicants install
stormwater control technology that woutd eliminate/reduce sedimentation/erosion
impacts in Bowman ~Creek and, subsequently, the White Riyer. A Hydraulic Permit
Approval (HPA) issued by Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife wonld be . required for consixuction neaz ;Bowaian Creek and would address impacts to fishery
resources. Open space and parkland would provide habitat and a corridor for wildlife
species. Required fencing would delineate private property from open space/parkland
and prevent encroachment. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species.
Specific Finding of Fact No. 19, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12;
Exhibit 6; Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Fxhibit 13, Landscape Plarr; Exhibit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments of Davis; Ezhibit 22, Comments of
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of
Bykonen et al; Ezhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Testimony of Mr. Clrafi''ee;
Testimony o, f Mr. Bykonen; Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony
of Mr. Husky; Testimonry of Mr. Armstrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S ISSUES ON REMAND:
In Resolution 3947, the Aubum City Council set. forth eiglit specific issues for ttie Hearing
Examiner to.review and to determine how the pmposed development addressed or affected these
issues. Findings of Facts Numbers 1$, 19, 20, 21, 23, 23, 24, and 25 address the City Council's
specific issues.
18. City Council Remand Issue Number 1: Open spaces and the pmtection of sensitive
environmen4al features, such as steep slopes, mature trees, wetlands, and scenic
views.
A. Steep Slopes The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicte{l in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I contains identified Class I Known Landslide Hazard Areas (defined as slopes greater
than 40%). However, the location of these areas on Figure 13 was based on a generalized map
' ttrat is utilized as a first indicator source that ground reconnaissance and' survey are done to
further delineate the steep slopes. To supplement the slope information, the Applicants
conducted a field siuvey in wluch the location of the slopes is more accurately shown (see
Exhibit 5, Slope Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2). The slopes are primarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q. and woutd be impacted by the construction of Evergreen Way, the main
boulevard servicing the plat, and. Kersey Way, the minor arterial from which access to the plat
would be obtained. Construcrion of Bvergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of the slope to accommodate road
widening. All impacts would be at 2:I slope ratio. The maximiun grade of Evergreen Way, in
only two locations, would be 10%. Iinpacts to the steep slope areas are unavoidable, as these
roadways aze necessary for access to the plat
Findings, Conclusions, and RecommendaUon Page, 9 of 30
Hearings Examinerfor the City of Aubum .
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
~
B. Mature Trees On the subject property are four types of vegetative cover. Division I has
a mature mixed-species forest and Division II has a young deciduous forest, matire coniferous
forest, as well as a mature mixed-species forest: The BPA easement area is vegetated with
shrubs and grasses. The loss of forest areas is an unavoidable impact of urbaniaation. The
Applicants proposed the retention of native vegetation, including mature trees, in several tracts
including B, G, H, and I of Division I, totaling approximately 3.7 acres, and tiacts A and F of
Division II, totaling approximately 1.4 acres.. Some trees would need to be removed from Tracts B and I to accommodate road construction and from Tracts A for construction of the drainage
facility. City construction standards require that _no trees may project into the "clear zone" for
. roads or sidewalks. Impacted areas would be revegetated with appropriate tree species.
C. Wetlands There are no weilands located within Division I and Division II.
However; changes to existing surface and subsuiface flows could affect the hydrology of off-site
wedands including several wetlands located in proposed Division 3 and two off-site streams,
Bowman Creek and the White River, located Norrh/Northwest of the plat. These impacts would
lie addressed and mitigated via stormwater drainage control design.
D. Scenic Views The residential poriion of Kerssy III is set back 200 to 600 feet from
Kersey Way with a 35 foot building setback provided from properties to the east (zoned Rural
Residential) and a 25 foot setback from properties to the south (zoned R-1 Residential). The
topography of the site, along with both retained and new vegetation, would provide screening of
the proposed PUD from existing low-density residential azeas to the North/Northeast. Setbacks,
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence constructed along the southern and easterri border of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density residential areas. No scenic views
are anticipated to be obstructed.
E. Public Comments Public comments were received in regazds to visual impacts
(primarily due to headlights from tra~Fic exiting the plat, loss of vegetation, and stormwater
drainage design). Neighboring properfy owners asserted that the headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shine directly into their homes and that construction of the Keisey Way7Evergreen '
Way intersection would result in removal of vegetation and erosion, impacting views.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 18(A), 18(B),18(C), 18(D), and 18(E) relied on
the foliowing evidence: Exhibit 1, Stafi''Report, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Excerpts from DEIS; Exhibit 14, Applicants' Power Point; Exhibit 13, Landscape
Plan; Exhibit 23, Comments of Fassbind; Testimorry of tLh: Welsh; Testimorry of Mr. Armstrong; Testimorry of Mr. Siedel; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher; Testimorry of Mr. Ferko; Testimorry of Ms.
Fassbind
19. City Conncil Remand Issne Nnmber 2: Use of traffic management and design
~ tecLniques to redace potential traffic congestion, particularly slong Kersey Way,
and promote alternative modes of travel. Consideration should be given fo applying
the Lakeland PUD trafiic impact fee atructnre in responding to similar impacts
areas located south of the White River. '
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendadon Page 10 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City ofAuburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
' e
A. Traffic Management and Desip-n Tachnic~ues Traffic lmpacts (volume and safety) were
the most frequently cited issues of public comment and testimony received at both the August
2005 and the February 2006 hearings. The Applicants prepared~a transportation impact analysis
(TIA) in Mazch 2004 and amended this document in January 2005. The TIA Addendum
concluded that all comdors affected by the development_are expected to meet or exceed the LOS
minimum threshold set by the City of Aubum, which is LOS-D with the proposed signalization
in place.
The TTA and the EIS set forth several traffic mitigation measures, both on-site and off-site. The
mitigation measures inctuded: payment of impact fee; construction of half-street frontage
improvements along Kersey Way; re-alignment of 53d Street SE, and Kersey Way; three-lane
channelization (center tum lane) on Keisey Way; exciusive center left turn lanes on all legs of
the re-aligned Kersey Way/53`d Street SE/Evergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane atong
Keisey Way at Evergteen Way; traffic signal and pedestrian crossings at re-aligned intersection
_ of Kersey Way/53`d Street/Evergieen Way; active tra~'ic signal warning signage for southbound
Ker'sey Way; pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection crosswalk of Evergreen
WaylOlive Way; traffic controls. (round-about) at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the construcUon of Evergreen way from Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safety and Aesthetics The revised plat added several additional amenities to
improve road safety and aesthetics. The additions included: safe pedestrian crossings (pavement
mazkings and advance waming signage) at three locations on Evergreen Way; three-lane
channelization on Evergreen~ Way including exclusive `left-turn lanes at three locations; and,
center median landscaped planter islands. along Evergreen Way to impmve aesthetics and
calm/slow. Conditions of approval would require that the Applicants extend the boulevard
design throughout the plat, continuing west to Lakeland Hills.
C. Traffic Impact Fees ` Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the Gity of Aubum may collect impact
fees for fransportation facilities impacted by proposed development. In conjunction with the
revised plat, Cify Planning Staff recommended that the Applicants pay the $940:36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traffic impact fee of $677.71. The
Applicants submitted that they were not. averse to paying the fee but requested that the Cit~
identify what'the fee pays for. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
`
to mitigate an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
proportional. (1Vollan v California Coastal Commissio,% 483 US 825 (1987); Dolarr v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1944)).
The Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was established" through an agreement between the
developers of Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to
address the unique hansportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD. The proposed
PiJD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland Hills and the additional impact fee
~ RCW 82.02.020 authorizes locai governments to impose permit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recoromendation Page 11 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
• '
would allow for the consttvction of road improvements to serve the area, thereby promoting
'greatei public safety and increased traffic flow.
D. Public Comments Public comments received on traffic impacts generated by the
proposal included: the inadequacy of infrastructure to handle the increase in tiraffic volumes,
noise and air pollution (exhaust emissions); safe walking/bicycling; evacuation route; and the
unpact of traffic controls (stop lights). Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed
bike path alorig Kersey Way was a"path to nowhere," that the proposed traffic sigrial at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way/53`d Street would create backups during peak traffic times, and that
Applicants.did not mitigate noise and aii impacts. Neighboring pmperty owners stated that the
existing neighborhoocl would be adversely impacted during conshuction of the pcoposed
impmvements to Kersey Way and during construction of the plat itself. Neighboring property
owners asserted that Ke;sey Way is the main traffic corridor for the area, serving commuters,
school buses, and trucks from the gravel pit, and that limiting improvements to the plat's
frontage would create a funnel effect with negative impacts on traffic.
E. Applicants' Response to Public Comments In response to public concerns regarding
traffic, The Applicants submitted testimony on measures being taken as part of the development
to mitigate traffic impacts. The Applicants stated that the TIA concluded that the ,Kersey
. Way/53`d StreetlEvergreen Way intersection:would operate at LOS B at full build-out of Kersey
III, well within an acceptable LOS range for the City. In addition, the TIA determined that an
appropriate midgation for unaccepfable levels of service is signalization. Evergreen Way would
• provide an altemative 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 dces not fully extend northward to
the site of an existing sidewalk, the Applicants assert that they are paying their "fair sliare" of the
development and tha1 subsequent developments that are cunently "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 proposed re-alignment of Kersey Way and 53'd Street due to the
location of her driveway at this intersection and has not been contacted by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Fassbind asserts that ttie proposed alignment would create an extremely dangerous
situatioa for her and her family entering and exiting their property especially with a truck/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the current re-alignment pmposal for Kecsey Way/53rd
, Street is tentative and that they would be in contact with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the final
engineering desiga of the intersectioa and of the driveway, including alternative solutions such
as the use of two driveways. •
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 19(A), 19(B), 19(C), 19(D), 19(E), and 19(F)
relied on the _following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact Nos S, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, StaffReport, Pages 7, 21-25, 29,• Exhibit S, Preliininary Plat Map, Sheet 10; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page's 2-3; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint/ Exhibrt 19,
Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments by Davis;. Exhibit 21, Comments by Dayis; Exhibit
23, Commenis by Fassbind; Exhibit 24, Comments by Chaffee; Exhibit 32, Co►nments by
Anderson; Exhibif 34, Commerrts bjv Staples; ; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Responses, Pages 3-4;
Findings, Conclusions; and Recommendation Page 12 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubvm
Kersey 11I Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
~
• .
Testimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
20. City Coancil Remand Issue Number 3: The development uf transitional areas
between these projects and adjacent developments and environmentaliy sensitive
areas.
A. Zonin Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and vacant land.
Residential deyelopment is comprised of low (zoned Rl -1 du/acre) and semi-nual (1 du/2.5 - 5
acres) densities to the east and south, with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel to the west (Kersey III, Division III). Patcels west of the proposed Kersey III,
Division III site are comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development. Parcels to
the 'north are a mixture of vacant land (zoned Rl) and natu=al (mineral) resource lands. The
subject property has bcen zoned R-1 Single Family Residential (Rl) since 1987 and was
designated as Single Family Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. Tfie
Comprehensive Plan contemplates the bulk of singIe-family residential communitie5 developed
at a density of four #o six dwelling units per acre. The Applicants proposed development at an
overaIl density of 4.12 du/acre with lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. The proposed density is consistent with City standards.
B. Comp;ehensive PIan Desi uation The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Auburn
add=esses the issue of:transition in the context of incompatible land uses and densities. Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan state the site design should utilize and preserve features, including
topography, open spaces, and vegetation, to separate densities and that landscaped buffers or
other measures should be utilized to separate uses.
C. Setbacks ACC 18:69.080(B) ;requires setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD that
correspond to the requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. ACC 18.08.040(Ex4) requires
a 35-foot rear yard building setback line (BSBL) within the RR zoning district and ACC
18.12.040(E)(4) requires a 25-foot rear BSBL within the RI zoning district. Pierce County Code '
(PCC), Table I8A.17.030(B)(2)(1),.requires a 10-foot rear yard setback wittun the MSF zoning
district. The Applicants proposed a.35-footBSBL on the eastem border of the site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject property's, southern border with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development within the northem portion of the PUD/plat is set back 200 to 600 feet from Kersey
Way and is further screened by vegetation and topography. The Applicant intends to construct a
six-foot high solid wood fence along the southern and eastern borders to provide additional
screening.
,
D. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted siated that the transition from -the dense Lakeland Hills PUD to the neighboring nual
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey, III should be a buffer zone between two extremes - the
higher density development of Lakeland:Hills and the existing lower density development to the
east and, south; and that the higher density would not hlend with the existing, rural neighborhood.
Neighboring property owners azgued that Kersey III provides no transition between low density
(one acre'lot), the proposed density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hills density
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 13 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn Kersey Ill Rezone/PUD/P;eliminary PlaWariance - 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. EnvironmentaI Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas are primarily contained
within open space tracts. Recommended conditions of approval require a three to four foot high
two-rail fence to separate all residential properties that border. on an open space, park; or
stormwater drainage area. The purpose of the fence is to delineate private property from
coaimon areas and to prevent encroachment by the property owner into the common areas.
Maintenance of this fence shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
, Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A); 20(13), 20(G), 20(D), and 20 (E) relied on
the ;following evidence: General Findings of Fact No: S, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specific Finding of
Fact Nos. Z, 4, and S; Sept. 2005 FCR; Ghapter. 3, Land Use Policies 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; Farhibrt 19,. Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments
by Davis; Exhibit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Pages 5-6;
Testimorry of Mr. Gould; Testimorry of Mr. Bykonen.
21. Cnty Council Itemand Issue Number.4: The building and structural designs that
complement surronnding land nses and fheir environment, reflerting quality site
design, landscaping, and bnilding architecture required under the Auburn PUD
ordinance. -
A. Design Standards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including building orientation, varied facades, continuity.and compatibility of structures, cotors, screening, lighting, and landscaping. The Applicants' architect, Patrick McBride, stated that the
azchitectural intent behind Kersey III was to ensure consistent, compatible, and attrackive
residences which portray a sense of architectural integrity, quality, durability, residential
character, and innovative design. Residences are to be designed on `a pedestrian scale with
sensitivity to the site. Site design elements proposed for the deveIopment include variations in
footprint andlor orientmtion on the lot; front setbacks; driveway locations and materials; accent
materials such as natural stone, columns, and shutters; front porches that promote pedestrian
connectivity; decks and other architectural features; de-emphasis of garages by blending garage
doors with the character of the residence; differing roof types and window designs; and spacing
of homes with identical elevations:`The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Overall Landscape
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, pazk amenities, and street tree
landscaping.
B. Lot Coverage The Applicants assert that in order to meet (ACC 18.69) PUD: standards
for quality site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must be granted. The
Applicants stated that the five- percent increase in allowabie lot coverage is to allow flexibility in
home design that would satisfy the PUD guidelines and pievent a"cookie cutter" look with all
homes sharing a similaz footprint.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 14 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum.
Kersey IlI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
C. Public Comments Public comments were received on the issue of design. Neighboring
property owners stated that the Applicants' revised proposal reduces the total number of
residences by six and modifies the average lot sizes from 3,800 square feet to 8,400 square feet
to 4,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet with only 10 lots greater than 7,000 square feet
Neighboring property owners azgued that the pmposed design does nat create compatibility with
Lakeland Hills which has lots ranging &om 7,200 square feet to 14,000 square feet nor does it
have the look and feel of sub-communities similaz to Lakeland Hills., Neighboring property
owners assert that the proposed PUD/plat does not provide- the quality of design required by
ACC 18.69.
-Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbeis 21(A), 21(B), and 21(C) relied on the following
evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages S and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response -Matrm Pages
4-5; Exhibit 7, Applicgnt's PowerPoint and Architect Narrative; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan;
Exhibit 26, Comments by Galeno; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 6; Testimorry of Mr.
McBride; Testimorry of Mr. Ferko; Testimorry of Mr. Norris; Testimorry of Mr. Galeno.
22. City Council Remand Issae Number 5: The parks and open spaces, and the
adequacy of parks and open spaces located nnder Bonneville Power Administration
power lines.
A. Parks and Open Space Requirement ACC 18.69.080(A)(1) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as open space, which amounts to 17.86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and II. Nan-buildable areas (areas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.030(G)) may be used to meet no more than 50 percent of the open space
ac+ea requirement. ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) provides that each PUD must meet the City's Park Plan
standards for park dedication. Cuaent standards are 6:03 acres of unimproved park land for
every 1000 population of the plaL The City pernuts the required open space to meet all or a
portion of the required parkland. The Applicants proposed 368 single-family residences, or
approximately 920 people (based on 2.5 persons per residence), far a total requirement of 5.55
acres of park land. ' As part of the Applicants' original proposai, all of the park space and a lazge percentage of open
space were being provided within Division I. In the proposal for open space and parks; land
encumbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement is the only, site for active
and passive recreation opportunities. Open space summary for`the first proposal included 28.94
acres of open space (stormwater drainage, open space, parkland, entry signage, pedestrian
pathways) with 15.82 acres in areas of less than 25%. Of the 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres .
was designated as park Iand. Ia the revised proposai, the Applicants increased both the amount
of open space and parkland, providing fow new parks with two parlcs for acti"ve recreation and
two for passive :recTeation Oper►,space now incluaes 29.64 acres (33:19% of gross area) with
18.12 acres in`areas of less than 25%. A totai of 9:17 acres has been designated as parkland
(includes open space, parks, and pedestrian pathways but not.acreage within the BPA easement)
with the 'parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division II as opposed to centralIy.
located. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the Gity's Park Plan. All of
the proposed park facilities would be built by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Fmdings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 15 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum
Kersey 1D Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
B. BPA Easement The westem 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322145=9017
(Division I) are encumbered by an easement held by the BPA for a high-voltage power
transmission lines. The BPA easement encompasses approximaiely 12.51 acres. In both the
original and the revised proposals, the Applicants would utilize this area to satisfy both open
space and pazk requirements for the developraent On August 30, 2005, the Applicants entered
into a Land tJse Agreement with BPA allowing far the construction/installation of roads,
utilities, trails, landscaping, a park, and park appurtenances within the easement BPA has
entered into similar reIationships with other developers. within the. Puget Sound Area as it
provides an efficient use of land and assures maintenance of the BPA easemeut. The Land Use
Agreement contained 15 conditions including the location of structures in relationship to BPA
transmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimum path width of 16 feet
C. Revised Parks and Open Spac+e Plan The revised proposal would retain the BPA
easement area in open space and pmvide a walking trail. The Applicants' drawings note the path
' width as 12 feet as opposed to the 16 feet width required under the Land Use Agreement.
Waiking trails would also be provided in Tract B(Division I) and Tract F(Division In. The
walking trail in Tract B would provide a par-course (exercise stations). A playground area
would be pmvided in Tract Q(Division n and Tract P(Division II). Tract P would also have a
half-court sports caurt. Tract Q would have°a sports field, including baseball diamond, a full
trasketball court, open lawn area, and walking trail. All park areas would have picnic tables and
benches. On-street parking would be pmvided in the vicinity of the acdve recreations areas
(ballfield and playgrounds) including along Roads A, E, G; and K. Pedestrian pathways
throughout the plat aIlow for safe walking to and from pazk areas.
D. - Vegetation All parks would retain existing vegetation when possible. Tree removal
would be required in Tract B and Tract I to accommodate road construction and in other open space/park tracts to allow for the construction of recreational amenities (ballfields; playgrounds, walking trails) and stormwater drainage.
E. Ci , Review The City of Aubum Park's Department and City Parks and Recreation
Board reviewed the Applicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant fu11 credit for the use
of land encumbered by the BPA easement, it deternuned that the Applicant's proposal confoims
c to City standards.
Facts presented in Fittdings of Facts Numbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C), 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the following evidence: Specfflc Findings of Fact Na Zl; Sept. 2005 FCR; Specifrc Firldings of
Fact No. 22, Sept. 2005 FCR. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 4, S, and 7; Exhibit S, Preliminary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhfbit 6, Applicants' Resporue Matrk Page 7-8;, Exhibit 8, BPA Land, Use
Agreement; Exhibit IS, Preliminary Plat/PUD Plans; Exhibit 15, I,aridscaping Plan; Testimorry
of Mr. Pilcher; Testimorry of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimorry of Mr. Ferko; Testimorry of Mr. Siedel.
23. City Council Remand Issue Number 6: Iacorporation of adequate notification to
future lot owners of the adjacent aurface mining operations.
Findings, Conclasions, and Recommendation Page 16 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey IIl Rezone/PUD/Pteliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
A. Surface Minine At the August 2005 hearing, public comments were received with
regards to the impact on neighboring natural resource lands, a 664-acre gravel mining operation
owried by Segale. Properties/ICON Materiats lying north of the site. Segale/ICON expressed
concem that a dense residential development would have the potential for generating homeowner
complaints pertaining to air, noise, light, traffc, and safety. Furthermore, Segale/ICON submitted the construcrion of Kersey III would generate traffic congestion and other safety
situation's, impacting the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a notice be
placed on the final plat, all building permits, and all individual lot deeds as required by RCW
36.70A.060.
B. Modified Condition of Approval For the February 2006 Remand Hearing,
Segale/ICON Properties submitted additional comments; seeking to modify a condition to make
. it more clear to potential buyers that mining activities are currendy on-going at the site. This
condifion would protect the mining activities as well as the interests of the City . and -the
developers. The wording pmposed by Segale/ICON is acceptable to the Applicants and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on the following evidence:
Speciftc Findings of Fact Nos. 11; 12, and 13, Condition Na 1, Sept. 2005 FCR; Ezhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhibit 17, Correspondence from Segale; Testimorty of Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Council Remaad Issue Nnmber 7: Protection of waterways and the
development's proposed stormwater system.
A. • Water Supplv Water would be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Applicants
would be required to construct a booster pump station at the corner of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SE and extend'a water line along Kersey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the
existing lines in the Lakeland Hills development. Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
City water, adjacent properties aze served by private wells. Documentation was not submitted
as part of the record in regards to impacts on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
wells.
B. Private Wells Neighboring properiy owners stated that wells in the area have gone dry
and the City has been forced to request supplemental water from the City of Bonney Lake. In
addition, the neighbors asserted that the City has given no assurance as to what impact the
PUD/Plat, or the recent sale of water rights, would have on the water level in Lalce Tapps and,
subsequentty, the City's aquifers.
C. Protec "on of Waterwa~s Bowman Creek lies north of the subject pmperty and is a
tributary fo the White Rive=. The creek was a fish-bearing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for salmon and bull trout populations. As noted in the DEIS, the creation of impervious surface
within the project site would ca.use an increase in storinwater flow volumes that could cause
downstream channel and bank emsion. The Applicants. proposed to collect and convey
stormwater to a standard twacell weddetention pond via catch : basins and underground storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 17 of 30
Hearings Examiner forthe City ofAubvm
Kersey tII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary. PlaWariance - ON REMAND
drainage pipes prior to dischazge into Bowman Creek. The drainage faciIities, designed to the
City's standazds, are located on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and would operate as
a single unit An energy dissipater wouId be installed to reduce erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. The revised PUD/Plat coatains modifications to the drainage
facilities which inctease both pond volume and wetpond surface area. Recommended cottditions
of approval incorporate high standards of design (100-year flood event) and enhanced erosion
control. features. The drainage facilities would be landscaped to screen from adjacent residential
deveiopment
D., Public Comments Public comments, were received into the record pertaining to storm
water and water quality with many. of the comments pertaining to impacts on Bowman Creek.
Testimony voiced concem for both sediment and pollutant run-off that could impact Bowman
Creek's water quality. and fish and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted that while the
development of the Kersey III PUD would not be the cause of the salmon's departure,
development should 'not prevent restoration of water quality and the return of salmon. The
Applicants stated that the design of the stormwater system should not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 24(A), 24(B), 24(C), and 24(D) retied on the
following evidence: Exhibir 1, Staff Report, Page 7,• Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets 7,
9; Farhibit 6, .4pplicants' Response Matrix, Pages 7-8; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 23, Comments
af Fassbind; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Ezhibit 36, Applicant's Response, Page S; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimony of Mr. Armslrong; Testimorry of Mr. Cha,~`'ee; Testimorry of Mr. Bylconen; Testimorry
of Ms. Koch; Testimorry of Ms. Brooke. .
25. City Council Remand Issue Number 8: Applicatlon of the Lakeland Fire Impact
Fee to aid the City in deveioping fre facilities to serve the area south of the White
River.
A. Impact Fees Commeats from the Aubum Fire Departcnent were not submitted into the
record for the August 2005 public hearing nor for the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Impacts
• on the fire services were considered duting environmental. review (Exhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
, 119, Sept. 1003 FCR). To mitigate these unpacts, City Planning Staff recommended that the.
Applicants pay a$470.16 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard fire impact fee
- of $294.13.
The Applicants are not averse to paying the fire impact fee but.requested.that the City identify
what is the reason for the fee. Tlie Applicauts asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.0203,
prior to assessing the higher impact`fee the City musE demonstrate that the condition is necessary
as mitigation for an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus') and the extent of mitigarion is
3 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local govemments to impose permit coeditioas on devetopment if the. conditions aze
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 19 of 30
Hearings Exammer for the Ciry ofAuburn
Kersey III.RezonelPUD/Prelirainary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
~ proportionai. (Nollan x California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland Fire Impact Fee was estabtished through an agreement between the developers of
Lakeland Hills PUD and the Aubum City CounciI. The fee was assessed to address fire
department service in the remote location of the PUD and the lack of a fire station withiri close
proximity to the PUD. The proposed PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Latceland
Hills and the additional impact fee would allow for the conswiction of additional facilities to
serve the azea, thereby pmmoting greater public safety.
B. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue. Neighboring
property owners stated that the City of Auburn is currently experiencing' explosive growth that is
putting a strain on. emergency services providers, such as police and fire. According to the
neighbors, the nearest fire statioq is by the SuperMatl, some 12 minutes away from the plat. Facts presented in `Findings of Facts Numbers 25(A) and 25(B) relied on the foilowing evidence:
Exhibit 7, Sta,ff Report, Pages 7 and I S; Exhibit 6, Applicant's Response Matrix, Page 8; Ezhibit
28, "Sound the Alarm... Farhibit 16, Applicants' Resporise; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimorry ofMr. Ferko_
CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to ,
hear and make recommendations to the City Council, Jurisdiction for the Heariags Examiner to
make recommendations for ari application for rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(D) and
. 18.68.030, for appro"val of an, application for a PUD is pwsuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminary plat is.pu rsuaritto ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteriafor Review:
Along with the requirements set fortti by the Washington Siate Snpreme Court (rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhood conditions and bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, and general welfaze - Parlrridge v Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), in order to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the foIlowing criteria, as set forth
in:ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with ihe Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezone was initiated by a parry, other tban the City, in order for the Hearing
' Examiner to hold a pubiic hearing and consider tbe request
3. Any.change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing Examiner or the
City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested
Findings, Concfusions, and Recommendation . Page 19 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City ofAubum .
Kersey III Rewne/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND '
In order to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18.69.150, ttie proposal must demonstrate sufficient Sndings of facts to support
the following:
1. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfaze and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other pubIic ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, pazks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing. an improvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open space
protection over what would otherwise be attained ' through a development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by,the City Council. 5. The approval of tlie PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards
of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designarions, and the design
guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D). In order to APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicauts
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, dra.inage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, pazks, and sites for schools and school grounds,
2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or'plan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering startdard and specifications.
4: Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
, public nuisances. ,
In order TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the following:
Findings, Gonclusions, and. Recommendation Page 20 of 30
Nearings Examiner for the City of Auburtt
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preiiminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
1. Unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
, hardship.
2. Strict conformity with Title 18 would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the
property. ,
3. Variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental ta
surrounding properties. 4. Circumstances justifying variance-are not a result of the Applicants.
5. Litetal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the-same zoning district.
6. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of Tide 18, the Comprehensive
Plact, and the zoning district in which propertyiis located.
7. Variance would not allow for increased density
:
Conclusions Based on Findines:
1. TLe rezone, PUD,'and Preliminary Plat ace consistent with the Comprehensive
Ptan, other applfcable goals and poficies of the City Council, and the ACC.
The Director of Planning correctly determined the,proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding several
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the development, including
improving the City's transportation network; creat'tng and maintaining park land and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
' density; improvement to the City's public utility (water/sewer) system; and protecting
streams and natural areas: The goals and golicies of the Gity Couacil are embodied in the
_ City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. The Applicants' praposal is consistent with the
City's Pazk Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. Proposed design standards comply with the
purpose and intent af ACC 18.69. General Findings of Fact Nos. 2 and S, Sept 2005
FCR;, Specific Findi»gs of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4; 6, 7, and 8, Sept 2005, FCR; Findings of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, S, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Feb 2006 Remand Flearing.
- Rezone_Criteris
2. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant-Property Owner and not the City.
' Pursuaut to ACC 18.68.030(B}(1), in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider a rezone
request, the City may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the owners of the
property subject to the rezone. Finding of Fact Nos I and 3, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
3. Conditions in the area Lave snbstantiaUy etianged and the rezone bears a
substantial relatlonship to the pubtic health, safety, morals, or genem welfare.
' The Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the original zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial. relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkridge V. iSeanle, 89 Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conclu"sions, and Recommendation Page 21 of 30
Heazings Examiner for the City of Auburn .
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
(1978). A variety of factors may satisfy a change in circumstances, including changes in
public opinion, local land use pattems, and on the property itself. Bjm7rson v. Kitsap
Courrty, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. 1, 1995). The City and the Applicants stated that
the area where the subject property is located has expeiienced significant development as .
. a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; populatioa growth within the City of Auburn; overall
market conditions in Puget Sound which are creating a demand for smaller lots;
topography making the land more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district;
compliance with the urban density requirement of the GMA; and compatibility. with the
° existing PUD community. Development of the site would. provide new homes for the
growing community and improvements to infrastructure. Cha,nges in both land use
patteins, and public opinion, along with the requirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plan designation, provide jus6fication for the rezone. General. Findings
of Fact.Nos 2 and 3, Sept 2005 FCR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,
Sept ZOOS FCR; Findings of Fact Nos Z, 9, and 10, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
4. The Hearing Eaamiaer is not recommending any change or modificaNon to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one reqnested by
the Applicant
Planned Unit Develonment/Preliminarv Plat Criteria '
5. The PUD/plat proposal contains adequate provisions for the public heatth, safety,
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
?he Applicants have made provisions for internal streets with sidewalks for pedestrian
safety, these include safe waIking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for
park and open space access. The EIS mitigation measiues and conditions of approval .
would provide for traffic improvements and traffic controUcalming devices to ensure
safety within and to the community. The development would be served by City water .
and sanitary sewer. Storm water facilities would collect and convey run-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output Applicants have provided for a total of
29.64 acres of open space, of which 9.17 acres are to be developed for both active and
passive recreation with an additional 12.51 acres of open/park space pmvided within the
BPA easement. The open/park space is generally provided in a contiguous block so as to _
provide corridors for wildlife. The PUD would be served by City of Auburn water and
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve the needs of the
community. School impact 'fees would mitigate the increase in student population.
Development of over 350 hoines at varied price levels serves the general welfare and
growing housing needs of the cottununity. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, mtd 22, Sept 2005 FGR; Findings of Fact Nos 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18(B)-(C),
19(A)-(F), 21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), and 24(A)-(D), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
6. The proposal is consistent with the parpose of ACC 18.69, and prnvides for the
public benefits required of the development of PUDs snch as preservation of
natural amenities, creation of pedestrian-oriented communities, efficient use of
land, development of transitional areas, innovative/aesthetic bnilding and
Findings, Conclusions, end [tecommendation Page 22 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
structaral design, creation of parks and open spaces, provision for afforda6le
honsing.
A PUD must proyide certain public benefits. The Applicants proposed to preserve
natural amenities and sensitive. azeas fhrough the use of upen spaces and parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonsbrate a pedestrian-oriented
community with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks for both._ active and
passive recreation'that are dispersed throughout the development. The plat is structured
- to utilize the property efficiently by layout, house design, and open space. Homes would
not be facing the residential collector, Ev.ergreen Way SE, and would be separated from
, the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by 240 to 604 feet of open space. Setbacks and privacy fencing would separate the development from adjoining low-density residential
areas. The Applicants proposed a variety of arcIutectura! stytes, providing. a varied
streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. The A.pplicants proposed over nine
acres of active and passive rec=eation pa=klands with additional acreage provided by the
BPA easement. Aff'ordable housing is a concem within the entire Puget Sound area and the PUD/plat would provide homes ranging in price from $400,000 to $700;000,
providing a range of options for potential buyers. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 4, S, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, Sept 2003. FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. S, 6, 18(A)-(D),
-21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
7. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an 'adverse impact upon the
snrronnding area than any other prnject wonld have if develoged using the
existing zoning standards. The property is currently zoned R-l, which could allow for development of up to 8.9
dwelling units on site. However, probably only 60-65 dwelling units would be allowed to
be constructed due to the presence of non-buildable areas (steep slopes, BPA easement),
infrastructure, and parlc reguirements. Applicattts seek to develop 368 dwelling units.
Development of over 350 dwelling units would undoubtedly have more impact than the
existing zoning standard but the PUD is providing a significant amotwt of open space,
park land, and infrastructure :improvements to the community. Connection to City water
and sewer:would have less impact on groundwater quality and quantity then installation
of private weUs andlor on-site septic systems. Location arid design of open space would
provide a contiguous corridor for wildlife and scenic views. Development of t6e site
with homes on one acre lots would result in substantially more fragmentation, creating
greater impacts on wi2dlife and associated habitat aiong with scenic view corridors. Specific Findings of Fgct Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 73; 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 1. 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18(D)> 20(A), 20(E), and
22,.Feb 2006 Remarrd Hearing.
8. The PIJD is consistent with the eaisting and planned character of the
neighborbood. Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and the Lakeland HiIls PUD. The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 23 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
designation for the area is Single-Family Residential which endeavors to develop land
with this designation at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. Development
would be consistent with the character of the neighboring Lakeland Hills community and
with the Coaiprehensive Plan designation. The PUD would be screened fram low-
density devetopment in the north/northwest by the site's topography and the
retention/enhancement of vegetation: The Applicants would pmvide 25 to 35 foot rear
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer low-density development to the east and
south. Conditions of approval would require a minimum of one tree per rear yard to
further buffer between adjacent uses. General Findings of Fact No. 2, Sept 2005 FCR;
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 8, Sept 2005 FGR; Firrdings of Fact Nos. 3, 4,
10, 11,18(B), 24(A)-(E), 21(A), 21(C), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing. .
9. The PUD aad Preliminary Plat confornes to the City of Auburn's: zoning
ordinance aad any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications and to other applicable policies or plans adopted by the City
Council.
With conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies with all related City
codes and standards. Specific Findings of Fact No. 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 11, Feb 2005 Remand Hearing.
10. Potentisl environmeatal impacts of the proposal 6ave been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, wildlife and their associated habitat woutd be directly affected and
no mitigation rneasures were available to ameliorate this impact. Wildlife would suffer I
from loss of native vegeta.tion, fragmentation of habitat, reduction in native populations,
" and disturbance in.retained babitat due to humaa encroachment While these impacts ca.n
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/parlc space does provide habitat for wildlife "in a contiguous, as opposed to
fraginented manner, and retentian of native vegetation would assist in preserving habitat
In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be effected by the increase in
impervious surface that would affect ttie hydrology of the area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applicanf would be required to provide technology to control
sediment/erosion thereby lessening impacts to water resources and Ssheries habitat.
Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - would all be impacted by the increased
population generated by the development. Conditions of approval require #he Applicants
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these public service impacts, including fire and traffic
impacts fee§ higher than those that are mandated under the ACG Speci, fic Findings of
Fact Nos. 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16; 19, 20, and 22, Sepf 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18(A)-(E), 19(A)-(F), 20(E), 22(A)-(E), 23(A), 24(A)-(D), and
2S(A)-(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendadon Page 24 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the, City of Aubwn
Kersey III RezonelPUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent
. or abate public nnisances.
~
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are addressed direcdy in ACC 8.12: A public nuisance affects public health and property values by creating
visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or. creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic
situations. Compliance with City design standards for road. safety (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
conditioned the development of a Homeowners' . Association ` and the associated
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would ensure that v'tsval blights and dangers to
public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FCR
Vsriance Criteria
12.' The snbject property does not possess physica➢ conditions ar eaceptional
, topographic. features that warrant deviating from the appiicable design
reqnirements nor does strict conformity with ACC Title 18 fail to allow
reasonable and harmonious use of the property which would justify a variance.
Findings of Fact Nos 6, 21(A)-(C), Feb 2006 FE'R
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of law, the Hearing Examiner recommends to the
Auburn City Council that the request for a variance,from the required lot coverage be DENIED.
Based upon :the preceding . Findings of Fact and Canclusions, 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 Plat, subject
to the following conditions: .
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, .the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and on
all building permits and deeds "issued within the Kersey III development (Division I and
Division In:
NOTICE: This pmperty is near designated mineral resource
lands on wluch a variety of coinmercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands ma.y, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for rriining-related activities including, but not limited
to, mining, exUaction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transparting, and recycling of minerals.
2. , Prior to the issuance of final plat approval for any phsse containing an open space tract, the
Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreemeirt to submit, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC I 9.69.200.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 25 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey IIi Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1at/Variance - ON REMAND
. .
3. As part of the engineering/construction draveings submitted for tlie construction of interior
improvements to the subdivision,, Applicant shall also submit engineering/construction
drawings for the constrvction of all park iraprovements as depicted on the drawings
submitted (Exhibit 5). The park improvements sI2aI1 be approved by the City of Aubum's
Parks Director prior to the approval of the const=uction drawiags for the plat. Any materials
supplied and installed for the parks must meet current Ciiy Parks Department standards and
be approved by the Pazlcs Director prior to installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restriotions (CCBtRs) for the future Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shalf be submitted for review and approval by City Staff prior to
fuial plat approval. This document shall include architectural design criteria for new homes
and specify the financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces.
s. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I 8c II Conceptual Building
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the submitted conceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architecturai Design Guidelines shall be
incotporated into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall include a
color patette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following conditions shall
apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. No more than a two-car gara,ge shall be used; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes sharing
the same floor plan are located' adjacent to one another
6. Finai landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
Landscaping Plan, dated Mazch 7, 2045, wluch was included with the Applicants'
resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval.(Eachibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the
' plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of
. native vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetaiion.
; 7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot numbers 19-62 and
. Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a minimum; one tree in the reaz yard setback to
buffer ttie adjacent development from the PUD. ,
~
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low moaument style with accenting landscaping. The number,
styte, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
,
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be, of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivalent to a six foot high
solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conciusions, and Recominendation Page 26 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Autiurn .
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
•
pathways requires the approval of the Planning Director. AII residential properties that border on a native%pen space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B; C, D, and n shall le .
separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of approximately three to four
feet in height. This fence shall delineate: the property line and prevent encroachment by the
pmperty owner into the native%pen space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the
associate,d preliminary plat.
11. Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measure,a as noted on pages.9-l9 of the
Kersey III Pretiminary Plat Fiual EIS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated Febnuary
2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this recoaunendadon. 12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. . This
traffic signal must lie constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in
advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be constructed to the satisfaction-of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide awkiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall conshuct or post financial securify for
traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills
Way and Evergreen Way SE. These trafFc controls shall be designed and constructed as a
mund-about unless the Gity Engineer detennines, based on design, that a round-about is not ~
feasible: If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasibte, then the haffic
controls shall be designed and consttuction as, a traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals,- Applicants shal] construct or post financial security for traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near 01ive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedEStrian safety amenities must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environmeat, naazely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to .
. loss of riative vegetation and fragmentation of habitai. Applicants shall endeavor to pruvide
for preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a comdor containing native vegetati
on,.,
thereby mitigating these impacts.
- 18. Applicants shalt engage in meaningfiil consuttation with the Auburn School District:
Communications should not mereiy seek to ensure that the school districf 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 shaU be
Findings, Conclusions; and Recommendation Page 27 of 30,
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum . "
Kersey lll Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
.
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with local and state law
. requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing
necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for Iot
grading shall be submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan
should be to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the
need for subsequenf grading and distiirbance, including grading af individual lots during
home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyecl boundary of the crest slopes for the
site's 400/o or greater slopes. This plan shall show quantities and locations of excavations, and
embankmenfs, the design of tempvrary 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 sensirive azeas. Temporary detention
facilities shall be desigried with a 1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated
pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the measwes
shalt be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construction
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's
review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attenrion to
developing a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and
related activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concem is October 1
through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or
any other critical areas as required ia chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code
(IBC) andlor the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of mugh grading and excavation, the applicant shalt have a geo-techttical
engineer re-anaiyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measunes are
necessary. A reviserl geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for
review and appmval by the City Engineer. Recommendaiions for azeas where subsurface
water is knovm or discovered shall be given particular,attention by. the geotechnical engineer
and coordinated with the project engineer responsible for the storm drainage system design.
19. Prior to final plat approval, a. supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be cvmpleted, including the off-site
erosion feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman
Creek. Appropriate mitigation shalI be proposed to etiminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaiuation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve a.s, an amenity. The design of above ground storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate Iandscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side sIopes, safety, maintenarice needs, and function.
F'mdings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 28 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
Prior to final pIat approval, a landscaping plan with appGcable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate' that storm drainage pond aesthetic requirements consistent with City, standards
can be accominodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of Auburn Design
Standards: In otder to achieve this, tlie following design elements must be incorporated into
the final designr • Vehicle access for maintenarice to all proposed storm draina;ge sfructures is required.
To provide an adequate and safe' stonn pond access, an appropriately designed pull-
off shall be provided from" ICersey Way SE to serve the pond.
• All storm drainage conveyance lines reyuired to manage upstreazn.bypass surface
flows shall be routed through the project' site and shall not be combined with tfie
proposed on-site storm drainage .system. Maintenance access shall be provided to all
structures pioposed to be in public owne=ship. The remaining portions of this system
shatl, be placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation. . ,
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy dissipa.tion features
are required at the.end of long nuis of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the dischazge leaving the site, appropriately designed
aeration shall be pmvided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way near 53"d Street
SE, and subsequent flooding of the intersection, an app=opriately designed storm. drainage
system shall be constrvcted to mitigate this condition:
21. T'he location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump station shall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the
desired basin. The public sanitary sewer pump station sha11 be located as directed by the City
Engineer in order to ailow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall pmvide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between
Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall pmvide an easement for possible future extension of the sanitary sewer
system located at the SE corner of Tract_D, Division 1.
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City siandards (except where deviations
are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
Findings, Conctusions, and Recommendation Page 29 of 30
Hearings Examiner foc the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD%Preliminary P1aWariance'- ONREMAND
23. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential collector
arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/tum lane area thmugh the plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shall also constiuct median treatments to match the 10 foot center
median/tutn lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to Lakeland Hills Way, to the.
satisfaction of the city engineer. .
25. The Applicants shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and Evergreen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to pmvide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
26. The Applicants sha11 construct a minimum 1 Q-foot wide shared multi-use path, separated by a five foot Iandscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for tlie length of •
the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants sha11 construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 foot center tum lane, a 12 foot through northbound lane, a 12
foot through southbound lane, appropriate right tiuns lane(s) at the intersection with 53"
Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on
the west side: All other featuies about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and
lighting must meet city standards.
28. The Applicants shall create a 5040ot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary,
through the location of lots 27 and 2$, Division 1, to align with 17e Avenue East.
29. A traffic impact fee equivalent to therfee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South
PUD shatl be paid at the tirne of building permits for individual homes. .
30. A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
shall be paid at the time of building perniits for individual homes.
31. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Land Use Agreement
entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power Administration (Exhibit 8). The
Land Use Agreement set forth 15 conditions, including, but not limited to landscaping,
distance from h-dnsmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet ,
Decided this day of March, 2006. .
AAA-
J es Driscoll `
earings Examiner for the City of Anburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 30 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Keisey`IIT Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
~
LEGJIL QESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The southwest quarter of the southeast.quarter and that portion of
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lyinq southerly of
the H.B. Carter County Road; All in Sectian•32, Township 21 North,
Rainqe 5 East, W. M. , in King County, 'Wa.shington; p{CEpT that.portion thereof coneeyed to King County for Stuck Road
and by'Deed recorded under Recordinq Number 5907388;
AND EX6EPT that portion thereof conveyed by Kinq County for Lake
/'Fapps Access Road, by deed recorded under Recording Number 5801756.
~ .
~
FEE PAYMENT: $1 ,038.00 and $53.00 per Iot plus $727.00 for Environmental ChecldW
T.R.
DATE RECEIVEO:
CP►SHIER'S INITIAf.S:
~
PreArtwmtryr Plat . ~ -7" f Page 6 of 6 •
~
, .
~
Retum Address:
Aubum City Clerk 20~6.09224~5 69
pRCIFIC FN TIT 0
Cfty Of AUbUm / 00Z~ 18413 '
25 West Main St. K=N~couM~r,r. ua ` _ _ -
_
_ -
,
Auburm, WA 98001 -
RECORDER'S COVER SHEET
Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein):
Reione (Ordinance 6026) Q w`"(: \f1 0$
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released:
' ClAdditional reference #'s on page _ of document
, Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials)
1. Auburn, City of. . . .
_
Grantee: (Last'name frst) aooommod~io"0"~Y~ it hac not . .
1. Jones, Wayne OWWned as t0PWW ""MR N
2. Lakeridge Development
Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range)
The SW Quarter of the SE Quarter and that portion of the NW Quarter of the SE Quarter lying southerly of
HP Carter County Road; all in Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 5 East
~ Additional legal is on page 44 of the document.
Assessor's Property Tax P_arcel%Account Number:
3221059015,3221059017 .
❑ Assessor Tax # not yet assigned
ORDIIVANCE NO. 6 0 2 6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY :COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
REQUEST , TO REZONE` APPROXIMATELY 50.85
ACRES' FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1)
. TO PLANNED UN.IT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
APPROVING ;THE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED `
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Applications Nos. REZ05-0001 and PUD05-0001, dated April
8, 2005, were submitted to the City of' Aubum, Washington by Wayne Jones, _
Lakeridge Development, requesting approval of a rezone and approval of 'a:
planned unit development fo subdivide 50.85 acres into 167 lots for future single
family residential development, open space, and street and utility tracts within the °
City ofAuburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was made concurrently with an application
' for preliminary plat approval for the same site (Application No. PLT05-0001); and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be complete pursuant to
Aubum City Code on June 8, 2005; and , WHEREAS, said requests referred to above were referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and ,
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a.- -
public hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Aubum
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
,
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct aclosed ' record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and WHEREAS, a closed . record hear'ing was held on October 3, 2005 and
,
continued on, October 17, 2005, at which time the City Council, considered the
Hearing Ecaminers recommendations and the material presented to fhe Hearing
- Ezaminer and argument made to the City Council at said closed record hearing;
and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments received at the closed
record hearing ;conceming matters related to the record drew into question
significant portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the closed record hearing, the City Council asked the applicanf ifi he would be willing to accept fhe additional time it would take if the
requests were remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for further review and -
consideration of issues raised by the Council, and the applicanYs representative.
declined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a willingness to waive the 120-day project review timetable otherwise
applicable for processing the application and a wiflingness to have the application
remanded to the Hearing Examiner; and .
- Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 12
,
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2005, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 3947, remanded the application back to the
Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the_ development
addressed or affected eight (8) defined issues; and
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a_ public'hearing to consider said petition in the Council Chambers of the Aubum
Cify Hall on February 22, 2006, of which the Hearing- Examiner recommended -
approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to conditions on March 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was hetd on April 25, 2006', at which
tirne the City Council considered the Hearing Examiners recommendations, the
, material presented to the Hearing Examiner and argument made to the City
Council at said closed' record hearing and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's .
recommendation for preliminary plat based upon the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendation which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
subject to additiona,l conditions of approvaL . NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF AUBURN, -
WASHINGTON, 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 attached hereto as Exhibit °A° are herewith approved and
incorporated herein. ,
Section 2. APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS. The request for rezone and
planned unit development 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 utility tracts within the City of Aubum, legatly~described in Exhibit
"BA attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36:70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and on all building permits and deeds issuedwithin the Kersey III
development (Division I and Division -ll):
NOTIGE:, This property is near designated mineral
resource lands on which a variety of commercial
activities occur that may not be compatible witfi
residential development, including, but not limited to, mining, extraction, washing, crusfiing, stockpiling, ,
transporting, concrete and asphalt production,
recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
2. Prior.to the issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an
open space tract, the Applicants'sfiall submit; or enfer into an agreement
to submit, a Declaration of Covenants; Conditions, and Restrictions that
conforms to`the requirements of ACC 19..69200.
3. As, part of the engineeringlconstruction drawings submitted for the construction of interior improvements to the subd'nrision, Applicant shall
also submit engineering/construction drawinp for fhe construction of all
park improvements. as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 5).
The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum's Parks
Director prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any
materials supplied and installed for the` parks must meet currenf City Parks
Ordinance Na 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 12
Department standards and be approved by the Parks Director prior to
installafion and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
- Kersey Ilf Homeowners' Association shali be submitted for review and
approval by City Staff prior to.final plat approval. This document shall
include architectural, design criteria. for new homes and specify the
financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces: The CC&Rs
shall provide that fhe Homeowners Association (HOA) shall ° be
responsible to maintain and replace as necessary all trees; trails, special
features and tandscaping within any street median strip, planting strips
and all HOA parks. In addition, the HOA shall maintain those portions of
the stomiwater tract located oufside the fenced pond boundary, or if no
fence if prov'ided, outside fhe 10-year storm water surface elevation, as
determined by the City Engineer.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I& II
Conceptual Building Design Guidelines dated. January 9, 2006 and the
submitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall .be incorporated
into the CC&Rs for the project. The fnal design guidelines shall include a
color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following conditions shall appfy.
a). Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-
facing facades.
b) Garages shall be sefi back a minimum of 20 feet from the
front property line. At least, but no more than, a two-car
garage door shall face the street; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shafl be ,varied such that no more than two
homes sharing fhe same flooc plan are located adjacent to
one another d) Lot coverage shall not exceed 45%.
6: Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary'
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with
the Applicants' resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plaf approval
(Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The Applicants shall maximize the use ofnative
and/or drought-resistant_ plants throughout the plat, including park and.
landscaped open spaoe areas. Emphasis should be on the use of native
vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 5 of 12
7. All lots abutting tow-density residential development (Division I Lot
numbers 19-62 and Division II Lot numbers 17-48) shall have, at a
minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to buffer the adjacent
development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which
shall be equivalent to a six foot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be
erected adjacent to any of ttie planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that border on
a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall
be separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of
approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the
property line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the
native/open space, park, or drainage tract. The Homeowners' Association
shall be responsible to maintain all fences required by this condition.
10.Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measures as noted on
pages 9-19 of the Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the
August 2005 Hearing), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted
throughout this recommendation.
11.Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
12.Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen
Way SE. This active warning signal must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14.Applicants shall provide access acceptable to the City of Aubum for
properties abutting the intersection of Kersey Way and 53d St. SE.
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 12
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post ,
financial secu.rity for traffic con#rols to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
af the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These
. traffic controls shall lae designed and consfructed as a:round-about unless
the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-abouf is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not
feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and construction as a
traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial
security for traffic calming and pedestri.an safety, amenities on Evergreen
Way SE,'in the vicini,ty of the park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic
calming and, pedestrian safety amenities must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. ,
17.The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the
environment, namely impacfs on wild(ife populations and their associated
habitat. Two. main impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and .
fragmentation of habifat. . Applicants shall endeavor to provide_ for
preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a coRidor containing natiVe
vegetation, thereby mitigating these impacts.
18.Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Aubum School
District. Communications should not merely seek 'to ensure that the
school district can provide transportation, but that schools have the
capacity - to serve the students generated by the proposal without
burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shafl be
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent 'with local
and state'law requirements. .
19. Prior to, issuance of clea. ring or grading permits, a grading plan for grading
and clearing necessary for_ both the construction of infrastructure such_ as
roads and utilities and: for lot grading shall be submitted and approVed by
the City of Aubum. The purpose of the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the need for
subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots
during home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest sfopes for the site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall
show quantities and locations of excavations, and embankments, the
design of temporary sform drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent
Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page7of12
~
i
;
properties, natural and public storm drainage systems and other near by
sensitive areas. Temporary detention facilities. shaU be designed with a
1.5 safety facfor applied to the post-developed calculated pond design
volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-cleveloped storm event. All the
measures shalt be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling,
grading or construction activities. The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a
licensecf geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop
' - and submit, for the City's ceview, specific recommendations to mitigate .
grading _activities; with particular attention to' developing a plan to minimize
the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and related
activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatesfi concern is
October 1_ through March 31). The plans shall show #he type and the
extent of geologic hazard area or any other critical areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code (IBC) and/or the
City's Critica! Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of r.ough grading'and excavation, the applicant shall
have a geo-technical engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new:or -
additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical
report shall be submitted to the City of Aubum for review and approval. by
the- City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface water
is known or discovered shall be given particular. attention by the °
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer
- responsible for the storm drainage system design.
20. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 mast
be cornpleted, including the off-site erosion feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way and. near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion defermined be present from the supplemental evaluation of
stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek. . 21. Storm dcainage facilities shafl incorporate high standards of design to
. enhance the appearance of the site and serve as an amenity; The design
of above' ground storage . and conveyance .facilities shall• -address or::
incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Ordinance No. 6026 '
May 2, 2006
Page 8 of 12
.
. Prioc to fnal plat approVal, a.landscaping plan with applicable cross-
sections is required to demonstrate that stoRn drainage pond aesthetic
requirements consistent with City standards can; be accommodated on-
site.
` Storm drainage facilities shail be provided consistent with the Cify of
Aubum Design Standards. In order to achieve this, the following design
elements must be.incorporated.into:the final design:
• Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage
structures : is required. .To provide an adequate and safe storm: pond
access, an appropriately, designed pull-off shall be provided from
Kersey Way. SE to serve the pond. o All stomt dcainage conveyance lines required .to. manage upstream
bypass surFace flows shall be routed through the project site and. shall
not be combined with the proposed on-site storm drainage system.
Maintenance access shall be provided to all structures proposed to be
in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system shall be
placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy
dissipation feafures are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe
- intersections and at the outlet to the storm drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site,-
appropriately designed aeration shall be provided within the storrn pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage defciencies in the vicinity of Kersey
Way near 53ro Street SE, and subsequent flooding,of the intersection, an
appropriately designed storm drainage sysfem shalF be constructed to
mitigate.this condition.
22. The location and alignment of the force main .and the proposed. pump
station shall be coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to
ensure it provides service to the desired basin.,The public sanitary::sewer
~ pump - station . shall be located as . directed by the City : Engineer in order to
allow room for large-yehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back
into public right-of-ways. . ,
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line
located between Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
Ordinance No: 6026 '
_ May 2, 2006
Page9of12
The applicant shall providean easement for possible futu're extension of the
sanitary sewer system located at the SE comer of Tract D, Division 1. 23.A11 roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except
where deviations are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as
public right of_ way. . .
24. the Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a
residenfial collector arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/tum
lane area through the plat boundaries.
25.The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10
foot center median/tum lane within the plat.on the existing roadway west fo
Lakefand HiUs Way, to the satisfaction of ttie'city engineer.
26.The Applicants shaU redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and
Evergreen Way and Road A and Eyergreen Way to proVide additional
pedestrian refuge,. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. .
27. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use
path, separated by a five foot landscape strip from,the road, on the west side
of Kersey Way for the length of the site frontage along Kersey Way; to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer: ,
28.The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for
a minor arterial road, to include a.12 foot center tum lane, a 12 foot through
northbound lane, a 12 foot through southbound lane, appropriate right tums
lane,(s) at the intersection witti 5P Street SE,, a five foot landscape strip and
a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use pafh on the west side. All other
features about the road such as vertical curb; storm drainage and lighting
musf ineet city standards.
29..The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the sauth
plat boundary, through the location of lofs 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with
176th Avenue East.
30.A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual
homes. Ordinance No. 6026
May 2, 2006
Page 10 of 12
31.A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland
Hills South PUD shall be paid at the time, of building permits for. individual
homes. .
32. The Applicants shall compty with all conditions set forth in the Land Use
Agre`bment entered into by the Applicants with, the Bonneville Power
Administration, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by this referenoe. The Land Use Agreement set forth 15 .
conditions; including, . but not limited fo landscaping, distance from
transmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16.feet.
Section 3. CONSTITUTIONAUTY OR 1NVALIDITY: If any section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction,
; .
~ such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and
~ such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof:
Section 4: IMPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is authorized to implement
. such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry- out the directives
of this legislation.
-
. .
Section.5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect five (5) days after publicafion as required by law. .
Dated and Signed this ~ day of 2006.
I
; .
~
! Ordinance No. 6026
; May 2, 2006
; Page 11 of 12
INTRODUCED: MAY I 1 mos
. PASSED: MAY 112006,
:h
APPROVED: MAY 1 1=2006
CIIY F A N
- _ ~
PETER B. LEV111$,
MAYOR
ATTEST:.
Da` ielle E. Daskam,
City .;lerk
AP OVE O FO " niei id, . .
City Attomey . . .
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 6026 " .
May 2, 2006 _
- Page 12 of 12
• - ~x~~`~t~ ~
BEFORE THE HEAWNG EXA.MINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. REZOS-0001, REZ05-0002 - ) PUD05-0001, PUD 05-0002
Lakeridge Development ) PLT05-0001, PLT05-0002
by Wayne Jones . ) -
and )
Landholdmgs LLC ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
by Daniel an`d Stormy. Hayes ) ANb RECOMMENDATION )
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit,Development, )
a Preliminary Plat, and a Variance for )
Kersev III - Division I and Division II )
BACKGROiJNID
In 2005, Lekeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Laridholdings LLC, tht+ough Joyce
Bowles and Peter. Bowles, (Applicants) requested approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development, and preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a singie-family
residentiai subdivision, and a variance from certain design standards.
The Applicants requested a rezone of three sepazate tax pazcels from R-1 Single Family
Residential to Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots in Division I.. and 204 lots in Division II. The requested variances would
reduce froat yard setback and lot coverage requirements. The subject property, totals 89.31 acres
and is located within #he city limits of Aubum, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53Td Street SE,
extending southward to the King-Pierce County line.
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Heazing Examiner for the City of ~
Auburn on August ,9, 2005. The Hearing Examiner allowed the record to remain open for the
limited purpose of securing couunents from the Auburn School District on impacts generated by
the proposed residential developmenL The School DistricYs comments were received and the
record was of6cially closed on August 16, 2005. Following a xeview of the testimony and
exhibits, and based on the criteria established by the Auburn City Council, on September 2, 2005
~ the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the rezone from R-i Residential ,
to Planned Unit Development, approval of the Planned Unit DeveIopment, and approval of the
' preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, subject to 18 conditions. The
Hearing Examiner recommended that the Applicants' request for variances from the required
front yard setback and total lot coverage design requirements be denied. _
On October 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Auburn City Council conducted a hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendarions. At the close of the hearing, the City Council
asked the Applicants if ttiey were willing to accept the additional time it would take for the . matter to be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for further review. The Applicants deciined the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation t
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
. remand offer and the City Council denied all of the applications. On November 10, 2005; the
Applicants rescinded its denial and asked that the application"s be remanded to' the Hearing
Examiner. . On November 15, 2005, the Aubum City Council issued Resolution Numlier 3947; remanding
' the matter to the Hearing Examiner to re-open 1fie. recoid and ' consider how the -development addressed or affected the following issues: - 1. Open spaces and the protection of sensitive environrnental features, such as steep slopes,
mature trees, wetlands, and scenic views.
2. Use of traffic management and design technique"s to reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly along Kersey Way, and promote alterriative modes of travel. • Consideration
~ should be given to applying the Lakeland PLJD haffic impact fee structure in responding to
similaiaz impacts areas located south of the White River:
3. The development of transitional areas between these pzojects and adjacent developments and ,
environmentaUy sensitive areas. . ~ 4. The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscapmg, and building acchitecture required
under the Auburn PUD ordinance.
- 5. The parlcs and open spaces, and. the adequacy of parks and open spaces located 'under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate notification to futiue Iot owners of the ad}acent surface mining operations.
7. Protection of:waterway§ and the development's pmposed sformwater system. " 8. Applicafibn of the Lakeland Fire impact Fee to aid, the City in developing `fire facilities to
serve the a'rea south of the White River.
On Februazy 22, 2006, ttie-Hearing Examiner foi the City of Auburn held a public hearing on the
matter as it was remanded from the City Council.
~
~ Testi
monv
At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn -
2. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3. D. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Auburn
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Works, City of Aubum
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Public Works, City of Aubum
b. Chris Ferko, Bazghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative . 7. Rob Armstrong, Civil Engineer
8. Art Sidel, Landscape Architect °
9. Pat McBride, Buildiag Architect ~
10. John Norris, Norris Homes ' 11. Michele Fassbind, neighboring property:owner .
12. John Chaffee, neighboring property owner
13., Darryl Thompson, neighboring property owner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 2 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn '
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Pretirr►inary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
.
14. Pat Davis, _neighboring property, owner _
15. Da1e Huston, neighbor'ing property owner
16: Erin Galeno, neighboimg propertyowner
17. Chuck Gould, neighboring property owner
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. . Katrina Pnce;= neighboring property owner
20. Donald Bykonen, neighboring property owner
21. William Remick,.neigtiboring property owner
22. Kristi Knott, neighbo;ing property owner ' 23. Bruce Koch, neighboring property owner
24. Jonie Brooke, neighboring pmperty owner
25. , Bill Anderson, neighboring property owner .
Exhibits At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following exhibits were admitted as patt of the-
official record:
1. StaffReport, dated Febnuary 16, 2006
2. Prbjecf Vicinity Map
3. Auburn City Council Resolution 3947
,
4. Re-submittal letter from Barghausen Engineers, dated January 11; 2006
5. Revised Preliminary PlatlPUD Site Plans -12 sheets
6. ' Engineer's Responses to Auburn Gity Council Comments 7. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint Presentation Slides and Architect Narrative •
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonneville Power Aclministration and Lakeridge Development,
dated August 30, 2005
9. Excerpts from Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Geologic Hazazds, Wildlife
and Habitat, atid Wetlands and Streams, with maps
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. Affidavit of Mailing of Legal Notice
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice 13. E-mail confirmation from King County Journal, Publication of Legat Notice, dated
February 7, 3006
14. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides' 15: Preliminary Landscape Plaa - 3 sheets.
16. Correspondence froin GMS Architectural Crroup, dated February 22, 2006 . '
16A. Lot Coverage Drawings
11 Correspondence from Segale Properties, dated February 22, 2006
18. Statutory Warranty. Deed - Tax Parcel 3221059039
19. Public Comment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22, 2006 20. Public Comment Letter. Pat and Gene Davis, dated October 15, 2005
21. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated February 21; 2006 22. Correspondence from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23. Public Comment Letter: Michelle Fassbind, dated Febrmry 22; 2006 -
24. Public Comment Letter: John Chaffee, dated Febniary 22, 2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 3 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn -
Ketsey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
25. Public Comment Letter: Fxin and Paul Galeno; undated
26. Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, October 17, 2005
27. Public Comment Letter: Janet Koch, dated February 22, 2006
28. "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter,,dated February 15, 2006
29. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Irripact Statement: Will '
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy Johannsen; EricYadilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh;
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public.Comment Letter with excerpts,from Draft Environmental Impact Sta#ement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, WiII and Jean dulum, Rod aud Judy
Johannsen, uadated .
31: Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated Feliruary 22, 2006 .
32. Public Comment Letter: Bill Anderson, dated Febniary 22, 2006
31 Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environrriental Impact Statement: Staa
Purdin, Kirk Anderson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen, Cary and Mazgazet Staples, undated
34. Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staple"s, Febniary 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applicant's Response to Public Hearing Cominents, dated March 3, 2006
36A. Agency Comment L.etter from Auburn School District, dated Mazch 2, 2006
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing of August
9, 2405 and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remaad, the Hearing Examiner. enters the
following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS . 1. The Applicants requested approval of a rezone of three pazcels of land. totaling
approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the property.:from R-1 Sirigle
- Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Applicants also requested
appmval of a PUD and Preliminary Plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III: The
property is located on the west, side of Keisey Way at 53rd Street SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. All of the pazcels are within the city limifs of
Auburri and the boundaries of King County. General Finding of Fact No. 1, Sept..2005
FCR; Exhibit 1, StaffReport, Page 3.
2. To reach a determination on the City Council's Order.of Remand, the Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submitted urto the record of the Kersey III,
Division I and Divisioq II hearings conducted on August 9, 2005 and Febniazy 22, 2006.
All Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Examiner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incorporated into the present decision by reference.
Findings from the August 2005 hearing are referenced as "Findings Sept. 2005 FCR. "
Findings from the February 2006 hearing aze referenced as "Findings Feb. 2006
Remand Hearing. "
Findings, Conclusiorts, and Recommendation Page 4 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Au6um
Kersey ]II Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance -ON REMAND
3. In the original proposal heard by the Hearing Examiner in Augiist 2005, the Applicants
proposed a two phase development with Division I oontaining 169 single-famity
residential lots averaging 5,032 square feet, resuIting in an average density of 3.34
dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Division II was to be developed with 205 single=family
lots averaging 4,863 square feet, resulting in an average density of 5.35 du/acre.' The
overall project deisity is 4.I7 du/acre for both divisions. At the Februazy 2006 Hearing
on Remand (Remand, Hearing), the Applicants submitted a revised proposal. ' The
Applicants are still proposing development of Kersey III in two phases, however,
Division I.would now contain 167 single-famiIy residential lots averaging 4,900 square
feet, and an average density of 3.28 du/acre. Division II would now contain 201 single-
family residential lots "averaging 4,990 square feet, and an average density of 5.23
du/acre. The overall project density is 4.12 du/acre. General Finding of Fact No. 2, Sept.
1005 FCR; Fxhibit I, Staff Report, Poge 3; Exhibit 1; Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 5,
Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD plarrs; Fachibit 14, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimorry of
Mr. Pilcher; Testimorry of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcels of land comprise theproposal and all tiuee parcels are within the city limits
ofAubum. Division I is includes two tax pazcels - King County Parcel No. 322105-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge Deveiopment). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King County Parcel No.
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings;LLG).
On December 14, 2005, the Bowles executed a Statutory Warranty Deed conveyirig Tax ' -
Parcel 3221050.9039 to Daniel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowles as Applicants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No: 4, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher.
5. Design standards for detached single-famiIy residernial development within, a PUD
include: minunum lot size of 3,600 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 400/o, maximum building height of 30 feet, and front, rear, and side yard
setbacks of 15-20 feet~ 20 feet, and 5 feet, respectively. The Applicants proposal
conforms to these standards. ACC 18.69 070(A); Exhibit S, Revised Plat.
6. At the August 2005 hearing, the Applicants requested u variance fram certain design
requirements set forth in Aubum City Code (ACC) 18.69:070(A). The proposal at that
time was for the reduction in the front yard setback to 10 feet and an increase in the totat
allowable lot coverage to SO%. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of this
request. At the Remand Hearing, the Applicants revised the previous request, seeking an
increase in the total allowable lot coverage of up to 45%. The Applicants argue that
adherence to the 40% lot coverage maximum provided in ACC 18:69.070(A) would
crea:te hardship and that increased tot coverage is needed to provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to prevent a`cookie cutter' look: Approval of the
variance, according to'the Applicants, would create balance and cliversity within the
_
PUD. In addidon, the Applicant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially lazger amount of open%recreational space than nomially is required. It
appeazs from the record that the Applicants tiave abandoned their request for a front yard
setback variance. Specific Finding of Fact No. 23, Recommendation, Sept: 2005 FCR;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 5 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum Kersey Ill Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
Exhibit 16, Correspondence fram GMC Architectural; ' Exhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimorry vfMr.-McBride; Testimorry ofMr: Norris.
7. At the Remand Hearing, the Hearing Examiner le$ the record open for the Applicants to
submit responses on all of the written and oral comments received into the reoord at the
February 2006 Remand Hearing. Bob Johns of JQhns Monroe Mitsunaga, attorney for
the Applicattts, submitted the required responses; along with comments from the Auliurn
School District, to the City of Aubum on March.3; 2006. "A copy of this letter was not
provided to the. Hearing Examiner until March 14; 2006. On March 14, 2006, ttre
Hearing Examiiier entered an Order setting the date of the issuance of the
recommendation to March 22,.2006.
8. . Notice of the Remazid Heazing was pusted on the property and was mailed'to all property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on Febroary 10, 2006. Notice was
published in the King County Journal on Febniaty 10, 2006. Exhibits 10, 11, Il, and 13.
9. The Growth Management.Act. (GMA); RGW 36.70A; requires land within a city to be
classified as urban and that it ;must be developed at urban densities. The Applicants
submitted that this principle justifies the rezone request: The GMA itself does not assign
a quantitative value to the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which has been applied, clarified, and
evolved over the yeazs, has stated that urbatt 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 No. 95-3-0039c (1995), Litowiti v. Ciry of
Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 ..(1996)). The CPSGMI-IB's rule was
recently called into question by the Washington State Supreme Court in Yiking Y. Holm
when the court stated that tlze CPSGNIHB did not have the authority to create snch a
`bright line rule'. Viking v Hotm, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB. re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acre
threshold as a`safe hazbor' rather than a`bright line'. Furhimcm v. City of Bothell,
CPSGMHB Case Na 05=0025c (2005). The subject property was designated as Single
Family Residential en 1995 and Aubum foresees the bnik of single-family. residential
communities developed at a density of four ~:to six dwelling units per acre. RCW
3670AI10,• Land Use Policy LU-14; Exhibit.36, Applicants' Response. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (noting factors to satisfy change in
circumstances). 10. Auburn's ,Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of residential housing at
single-famity densities that establish a balanced mix of housing types appiopriate for a
family-oriented community. When assigning the • Comprehensive Plan's . land use
designation for the subject property; the City Council was to evaluate the ability to buffer I
the. area by taking advantage of topographic variafioris, `natural features, setbacks, and ,
other means. The development of new neighborhoods is to be governed by flexible ~
development standards that encourage compact urban development while protectirig
critical areas. These flezible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types and site planning techniques so that a site can achieve its maximum
Findings, Conclusions; and Recommendation Page 6 of 30 -
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey JII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND .
housing potential. Chapter 3, Land Use Garl 7; Land Use Policy LU-14; Land Use
Policy LU-17: Land Use Policy LU-20; Chapter. 4, Housing Goa1. 7; Housing Objecfive
12 1; Housing Policy Ha-34.
11. As required by. ACC 18.68, :ACC 18.69, and ACC 17.06, analysis of the pmposal's
consistency with th& Comprehensive Plan was provided for in the DEIS. The DEIS T~
.
reviewed the goals and. elements of the Comprehensive: Plan pertaining to utilities,
transportation, the envimnment, natural resources, natural and manmade hazards, aad
.
parks, recreation, and open space. TheProPosecl PUD/plat was determiued to be
generally consistent with .the Single Family . Residential designation: The City 'of
Auburn's Planning Director reviewed . the rezone applica6on for. consistency :with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consisEent. Specific Findings of Fact
Nos 4-6, Sept 2003 FGR; ACC 18.68 430(B)(1); ACC 18 69.1 SO(B); ACC 17.06.070(B);
Exhibit 1, StaffReport, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43:21C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for identification and review of environmental impacts
caused by the pmposed PUD/piat. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey III project _was issued. on February11, 2005. No appeals were filed. Specific
Findings af Fact No. 9, Sept. 2005 FCR
13. Public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regazds to the adequacy of the
EIS, at both the Angust 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Appeals of
an EIS must be; submitted to the Aubum City Clerk 14-21 days after issuance of the Final '
EIS. ACC 16 06.230. No appeal was filed and all challenges to the adequacy of tlie EIS
are time-baaed. As noted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adequacy of the EIS can no Ionger be brought, the most important aspect of SEPA is the
consideration of environmental va3ues. The key purpcse of an EIS is to ensure full
disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of a
project. It is &om the impacts disclosed in ttie EIS that the decision-maker can make an
infortned decision about the proposal. Public comment, both written and oral, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing, provided furrther
detail in tliis regard and therefore is permitted. Specific Findings. of Fact No. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 22, Gomments of Muckleshoot Tribej; Fxhibit •23, Comments of
Galeno; Ezhibit. 29, C'omments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 2.
14. Agency and public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regazds to the
impact of the proposed plat :on the Aubum School District at both the August 2005
hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. The anticipated increase in student
population generated from the development was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or 209 students. Submitted public comment stated that schools and' the related
1 Exhibit 22 is dated August 16, 2004 and wae commenu submitted during the DEIS review process. The Tnbe's .
comments should have been taken into consideration when drafting the Final BIS. The Tribe's coinments were not
challenging the adequacy of the Finai EIS. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 7 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey ICI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
transportation system were over capacity and that: dangerous walking conditions were
-present along Kersey. Way. The Auburn 3chool,District responded that the recent
opening of Aubum Mountainview High School wouId. provide capacity into the future to
accommodate growth.at the high schooi level. Two new elementary schools; including
L,akeland Hills Elementary scheduIed to open Fall 2006 and ElementaryNo. 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to open Fall 2007, would provide additional capacity at the elementary
level. . The middle school level currently has capacity to. accomaiodate growth but
enrollment projections indicate that an additional middle school would be needed in the
future and that the School District has begun planning for a new school. ACC 19.02
, allows the City to collect school .impact fees; approxnaately $4,500 per building permit,
on behalf of the school distri& Conditions of approval _require the Applicants to pay this
fee. $pecific Findings of Fact Nos. 14-I5, Sept. 2005. FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Ezhibit 24, Comments of Ghaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District
Comments; T'estimorry of Mr: Cha„~`'ee; Testimony of Ms:. Koch; _Testimorry of M,r. Price;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr., Pilcher; Testimorry
of 11?'r. Armstrong.
15. Bus tran.sportation would be provided for the plat with bus pick up/drop off. areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applicants would construct a IO-foot wide multi-use path along the
site's froatage with Kersey Way. T1us path, along with sidewalks and crosswaltcs. within
the plat, would provide safe walking conditions for students to/from school. ~ Specic
Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept: 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of Peters; Exhibit
24, Comments of Gha, f~`'ee; Exhib"it 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32, Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 34, Commenrs of Siaples; Exhibit 36A, School District Comments;
Testimony of Mr. Cha,~''ee; Testimorry of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of
Ms Knott; Testimorry, of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of. Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
_ Armstrong.
16. All lots are to be served with sanitary sewer service: provided by the City of Aubuan.
Public comment was submitted in.regards to 'tlie capacity of the system to accoairnodate
addirionat sewage stemming from the proposed plat. Both the City and the Applicants
are constructing impmvements to the sewer system, including an interim pump station. '
A neighboring property owner asseRed that the problem is not with the-pump station but
with the force mains that carry sewage away from the pump station: The neighbor argues that force mains at the Lakeland Hills pump station and the Ellingson pump station are
not functioning properly and thereby have. less capacity. Cit}+ Public Works Staff
. testified that the sewer system is capable of handling the increased volume and, after
replacement, the force mains are operating adequately. Specific Findings of Fact No: 20, -
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; F.xhibit 25, Comments of Galeno;
Exhibit 36, Applicants.' Response, page S; Testimony of Ms Gdleno; Testimony of Mr. .
. Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral; were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wildlife and their habitat. The EIS concluded that urbanization of the area would result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 8 of30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
• ,
fraginentation, and human encroachment. Public comments stated that several species of `
animals have been sighted on the subject property that were not accounted for in the EIS
including Redheaded Woodpecker, Bald,Eagle, Osprey,' Pileated Woodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Appliaants install
stormwater control technology that would eliaiiaate/reduce ' sedimentatioderosion
-
unpacts in Bowman Ci~eek,and,'subsequently, the Wlute River. A Hydraulic Permit
Approval (HPA) issued by Wa'shington State Department of Fish & Wildlife would be
required for construction neaz Bowman Creek and would address impacts to fishery
resources. Open space arid parkland would provide' habitat and a corridor for wildlife
species. Required fencing would delineate private property fmm open space/parkland
and preyent encroachment. Disturbed ueas would be re-vegetated with native species.
Specific Finding of Fact No..19, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages . 7.-9, 12;
Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrir, Page 4; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments of ~Davis; Exhiliit 22, Coniments of
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 29, Comments a of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments. of
Bykonen et al; Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Testimorry of Mr. Cha~`'ee;
Testimorry of Mr. Bykonen; Testimorry, of Ms. Knott; Testimorry of Ms. Brooke; Testimorry
of Mr. Husky; Testimorry of Mr. Armstrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S ISSUE5 ON REMAND:
• _ _
In Resolution 3947, , the Aubum City Council set forth eight specific issues for the Hearing
Examiner to review and to determine how the pmposed development addressed or affected these
issues. Findings of FaCts Nuinbers _ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; 24, and 25 address the City Council's "
specific issues. " 18. City Council Remand Issue Number 1: Open spaces and the protection of sensitive
environmental features, such as steeQ slopes, mature trees, wetlands, and scenic
views.
A. SM,Slopes . The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicted in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I contains idendfied C1ass I. Known Landslide Haz.ard Areas (defined as slopes greater
than 40%). However,.the location' of these areas on Figure 13 was based on a generalized map
that is utilized as a first indicafor source that ground reconnaissance and survey are done to
further delineate the steep slopes. To supplement the slope iuformation, the Applicants
conducted a field survey. in wluch the. Iocation of the slopes is more accutately shown (see
Exhibit 5, Slope: Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2). The slopes are primarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q. and woutd be impacted by the construction of Evergreen Way, the main
boulevard servicing the plat; and Kersey Way, the minor arterial from which access to the plat
would be obtained. Construction of Evergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of the slope to accotnmodate road
widening. All impacts would be at 2:1 slope ratio. The maximum grade of Evergreen Way, in
only two locations; would be 100/a. Impacts to the steep slope areas are unavoidable, as these
madways are necessary for access to the plat.
Findings, Conctusions, andRecommendation Page 9 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatNariance - ON REMAND
B: . Mature Trees On the subject property are four types of vegetative, cover. Divisioa, I has
a mature mixed-species forest and Division II has a young deciduous forest, mature coniferous
forest, as well as a mature mixed-species forest The BPA easement area is 'vegetated with
sluubs atid grasses. The loss of forest areas is 4n unavoidable irnpact of urbanization. The
Apphcants proposed the retention of native vegetation, including mature trees, in several tcacts
including B, G, H, and I of Division I, totaling approximately 3Aeacres, and tracts A and F of
Diyision II, totaling approximately 1.4 acres. Some trees would need to be removed from Tracts
B and T.to accoriimodate road construction and from Tracts A for constructioa of the drainage
facility. City coristruction standards require that no trees may project into the "cleaz zone" for
- roads or sidewalks.; Imgacted areas would be revegetated with appropriate tree species.
C. Weflands There are no wetlands located within _ Division I: and Division II. .
However, changes to existing surface and subsurface flows could affect the hydrology of off-site
wetlands including severat wetlands located in proposed Division .3 arid two off site streams,
Bowman Creek and tfie, White River, located North%Northwest of the ptat These impacts would
be addressed and mitigated via stormwater drainage control design.
D. Scenic Views The residential portion of Kersey III is set back 200 to 600. feet from
Kersey VJay with a 35 foot building setback provided from properties to the east (zoned Rural
Residential) and a25 foot setback from,properties to.the south (zoned R-1 Residential). The
topography.of the site; atong with both retained and new vegetation, would provide screening of
' ihe proposed PUD from existing low-density residential areas to tlie NorthlNortheast. Setbacks;
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence constructed along the southern and eastern_border of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density re.sidential areas. No scenic views
are anticipated to be obstructed.
E. Public Comments Public comments were received in regazds to visual impacts
(primarily due to headlights firom traffic exiting the plat, loss of vegetation, and stormwater
: drainage ;design). , Neighboring property owners asserted that the headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shine directly into their homes and that construction of the Kersey Way/Evergreen
Way intersection would result in removal of vegetation and emsion; impacting views, ;
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 18(A), I8(B), 18(C), 18(D), and 18(E) relied on
ttie following evidence: Exhibit 1, StaffReport, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Resporrse Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Excerpis from DEIS; Exhibit 14, Applicants' Power Point; Exhibit 15, Landscape
Plan; F.xhibit 23, .Comments of Fassbind,- Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimorry of Mr. Armstrong;
Testimorry of Mr. Siedel; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind
19. City Conncii Remand Yssus Namber 2: Use of traffic management and design
techniques to reduce potential traffic cungestion, particuiarty along Kersey Way,
and prnmote alternative modes of traveL Consideratioq should be given to. apptying,
the Lakeland PUD traffic unpact fee stractnre in responding to similar impaMs
areas Iocated soutb of the White River. ~
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 10 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey ITI RezonelPUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
' e
A. Traffic Mana¢ement and Design Techniques Traffic Impacts'(volume and safety) were
the most frequently cited issues of public cbaunent and festimony received at both tlie August
2005 and the February 2006 hearings: The Applicants prepazed a tcansportation impact analysis
(TIA) in March 2004 and amended this document in January 2005, The TIA'Addendun
concluded thai all corridors affected by the developmenf are expected to meet or exceed the LOS „
, mnm threshold. set by the Cityof Auburh, which is LOS-D with the proposed signalization
`in place.
The TIA and the EIS set forth several traffic mitigatioa measures, both on-site and off-site. The
mitigation measures included: ~ payment of impact fee; constivction of half street frontage
improvements along Kersey Way; re-alignment of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way; three-lane
channelization (center tum lane) on Kersey Way; exclusive center,left turn lanes on aIl legs of
the re-aligned Kersey 'DVay/53rd Sfteet SElEvergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane along . , ,
Kersey.Way at Evergreen Way; traffic signal and,pedestrian crossings at re-aligned intersection.
of Kersey Way/530Street/Evergreen Way; active traffic signal waming signage for southbound
Kersey Way; pedestrian treatmeMs at the existing intersection crosswatk af Evergrcen.
WaylOlive Way; traffc controls (mund-about) at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the construction of Evergreen way from Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safetv and Aestlietics The revised plat added several additional amenities to improve road safety and aesthetics. The additions included: safe pedestrian crossings (pavement
mazkings and advance waming signage) at three locations on Evergreen Way; tlia+ee-lane
channeliza6on on Evergreen Way :including exclusive left-turn lanes at three locations; and center median landscaped planter islands along Evergreen R/ay to impmve aesttietics and '
calm/slow. Conditions of approval would require that the Applicants extendthe boulevard
design throughouf the plat, continaing west to Lakeland Hills.
C. Traffic Impact Fees Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may collect impact
fees for transportation facilities impacted by proposed development. In conjuncdon with the
revised plat, City Planning Staff recommeiided that the Applicants pay the $940.36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traffic impact fee of $677.71. The
Applicants submitted that they were not averse to paying the fee but requested that the Ci
identify what the fee pays foi. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW .82.02.02
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
to mitigate an adverse impact' of the project (a "nexus'~ and the extent of mitigation is,
proportional. {Noltan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City-of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the
developers of Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to
address the unique transportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD. The proposed
PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeiand Hills and the additional impact fee
Z RCW 82.02.020 aathorizes local governments to impose pernut conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 11 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey Iti Reaone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND '
.
would altow for the construc6on of road improvements to serre the azea, thereby promoting
greater public safety and increased traTic flow.
D. Public Comments Public comments received on trafflc impacts generated by the
proposal included the inadequacy of infiastructure to handle the increase in traffic volumes,
, noise and air pollutio'n (exhaust emissions); safe walking/bicyclu►g, : evacuation mute; and the
impact of haffic controls (stop Iights). Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed
bike path along Kersey Way was a."path to nowhere," that the proposed traffic signal at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way%53`d Street would create backups during pealc tiraffic times, arid that
Applic;ants did not mitigate noise and air impacts. Neighboring pmperty owners stated that the
; existing neighborhood would be adversely impacted during construction of the proposed
iraprovements to Kersey Way and during constivction of the plat itself. Neighboring property
. owners.asserted that;Kersey Way is the main traffic comdor for the area, serving commuters,
school buses, 'and tiucks from the gravel pit, and that limiting improvements to ttie plat's
frontage would cieate a fiinnel effect with negative impacts on traffic.
. E. . Annlicants' Response to Public Comments In response to public concems regarding
traffc; The Applicants sabinitted lestimony on measUres being,taken as part of the development
to autigate traffic impacts. The Appliiants . stated that : the TIA conctuded that the Kersey
Way/53" StreetlEvergreen Way intersection would operate at LOS B at full bnild-out of Kersey
I:II, well wittun an acceptable LOS range for the City. In additioq the TIA determiaed that an
apprapriate mitigation for unacceptable levels of service is signalization. Evergreen Way would
- provide an alteraative route available to azea residences during emergency situations. Conditions
of -approval require the Applicants to conshuct a 10=foot wide waikway along the subject
property's frontage with Kersey Way. Although the walkway does noi fuily extend northward to
the site of an eicisting sidewalk, the Applicants assert that they aze paying their °`fair share" of the
deveIopment. and that subsequent developments that aze currently. "in the pipeline' would be
responsible for additional segments.
F. Fassbind Drivewav Neighboring propertyowner Ms. . Fassbind stated that she was
uniquely affected by the proposed re alignment of Kersey Way and 53`d Street due to the
location of her driveway at this intersection and has-not been conta.cted by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Fa.ssbind asserts that the proposed alignment.would create an extremely dangerous
situation for her and her family entering, and euiting their property especially with a truck/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the current re-alignment.proposal for Kersey Way/53`'
Street is tentatiye and that they. would be.in con#act,with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the final
` engineering desiga of the intersection and of the driveway, including altemative solutions such
as the use of two driveways. Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 19(A), 19(B), 19(C), 19(D), 19(E), and 19(F)
relied on the following evidence: Spec f c Findings of Fact Nos 3, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, StafJ'Report, Pages 7, 21-25, 29; Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheet 10; Exhibit Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint/ Exhibit 19;
Comments by Peters; Ezhibit 20, Comments by Davis; Fxhibit 21, Commems by Dgyis; Exhibit
23, Comments by Fassbind; Exhibit 24, Comments by Chaf}'ee; Exhibit 31, Comments by
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments by Staples;.; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Responses, Pages 3-4;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 12 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/PreIiminary P16Wariance - ON REMAND
• Testimorry of Ms: Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong,. Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimorry
of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Ferko. °
20. CSty Counci! Remand Issue Nnnmber 3; The development of transitional'areas
between these projects and adjaeent developments and environmentally sensitive
areas.
A. _Zoning Surrounding land uses consist of residential ' development and vacant land.
Residential development is comprised o.f low (zoned Rl - 1 du/acre) and semi-numl (1 dul2.5 - S.
acres) densities to the .east and south; with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel to the west (Kersey III, Division, III). Parcels west of the proposed Kersey III,
Division III site are comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development Parcels to
the north are a mixture'of vacant land (zoned Rl) and natural (minerat) iesource lands. The
subject property has been zoned R=T Single Family Residentia! (Rl) since 1987 and was
designated as Siagle Family Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The
Comprehensive Plan contemplates the bulk of single-family residential communities developed
at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. The Applicants proposed development at an
overall density of 442 du/acre with lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. The prbposed density is consistent with City standards.
B. Comprehensive PIan Designation The Comprehensive, Plan for the City of Auburn
addresses the issue of transition in the context of incompatible land uses and densities. Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan state the site design should utilize and preserve features, including
~ topogxaphy, open spaces, and vegetation, to separate densities and that landscaped buffers or
other measures should be utilized to separate uses.
C. Setbacks ACC 18.69.080(B) requires setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD that
correspond to the requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. ACC 18.08.040(Ex4) requires
a 35-foot rear yard building setback line (BSBL) within the RR zoning district and ACC
18.13.040(E)(4) requires a 25-foot rear BSBL within the Rl zoning district. Pierce County Code
(PCC), Table 18A.17.030(B)(2)(1), requires a 10-foot rear yard setback within the MSF zoning
district T`he Applicants proposed a 35-foot BSBL on the eastern border of the site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject property's southern border with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development, within the northern portion of the PUD/plat is sef back 200 to 600 feet from.Kersey
Way arid is further screened by vegetation and topography. The Applicant intends to construct asix-foot high solid wood,fence along the southern and eastem borders to provide additional
screening. D. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted stated that-the transition from the dense Lakeland Hills PUD to the neighboring rucal
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey III should be a buffer zone between two extremes -'the
higher density development ofLakeland Hills and the existing lower density developmeut to the `
east and south; and that the higher density would not blend with the existing nual neighborhood: Neighboring property owners azgued that Kersey III provides no transition between low density
(one acre lot), the proposed density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hills density
Findings,:Conclusions; and Recommendation Page 13 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey t[I Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
(7,200 to 10,000 square feet). Neighboring property owners also asserted that a 25-35 :foot
BSBL arid/or a six foot high fence does not provide adequate buffering and/or screening of uses.
E. , :Environmental Sensitive Areas Environrnentally sensitive areas are primarily contained
within open space tracts. Recommended coaditions of approval require a;three to four foot high
two-rail fence 'to :separate all residential properties that border on an':'oPen spacs, Pazk, or
stormwater drainage a=ea. The. purpose, of the fence is to delineate private. ploperty from
commqn areas and to prevent encroachment by the pmperty owaer into the common areas.
Maintenance of this fence shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A), ZO(B), 20(C), 2Q(D), and 20 (E) relied on
the following evidence: General Findings of Fgct No: 5, Sept. ZOOS FCR; Specific.Finding. oj
Facf Nos. l,. 4, and S; Sept. 2005 FCR; 'Chapter 3; Land Use Policies LU-26, LU 27, LU-28;
. Exhibit 1, Stdff Report, Pages 7-9, 12; Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Cover Sheet,: Fxhibit 6,
Applicanls' Resportse Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 19, Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments
by Davis; Exhibit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Pages 5-6;
Test:morry of Mr. Gould; Testimorry of Mr. Bykonen. .
21. City Coancil Remand Issae Number 4: The building and structaral designs that
complement surraunding land uses and their environment, reflectiag quality site
design, landscaping, and building architecturerequired under the Auburn PUD
ordinance. .
A. Design Standards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including'building orientation, varied facades, continuity and compatibility of strvchires, colors, screening, lighting, arid tandscaping. The Applicants' architect, Patrick McBride, stated that ttie
architectural intent behind Kersey III was to ensure consistent, compatible, and attractive
residences, 'which portray a sense - of arclutectural integrity, quality, durability, residential
character, and inriovative design. Residences are to be 'designed on a pedestrian scale with sensitivity to the site. Site design elements proposed for the development include variations in
footprint and/or orienta.tion on the lot; front setbacks; driveway locations and materials; accent.
materials such as natural. stone, columns, and shutters; firont porches. that promote pedestrian
connectivity; decks and other architectural features; de-emphasis of garages by blending gara.ge
doors with the character of the residence; differing roof types and window designs; and spacing of homes with identical.elevations. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Overall Landscape
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, park amenities, and street tree
landscaping.
B. Lot Coverage The Applicants assert that in order to meet (ACC.18.69) PUD standards
for ciatity site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must:be granted. The
Applicants stated that the five- percent increase in allowable lot coverage is to allow, flexibility in .
. home design that would satisfy the PUD guidelines and prevent a"cookie cutter" look with all
homes sharing a similar footprint.
Findings, Concleuions, and Recommendation Page 14 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auborn
Kersey IIl Rezone/PUD/PreIiminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
. i
C. Public Comments Public comments were received on the issue of design. . Neighboring
property owners stated that the Applicants' revised. proposal reduces the total number of,
residences by six and modifies the average Iot sizes from 3,800 square feet to 8,400 square feet
to 41000 square feet to 8,400 square feet with only 10 lots greater than 7,000 square feet
Neighboring pmperty owners argued that the proposed design does not create compab'bility with-
Lakeland Hills which- has lotsranging from.7,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet nor does it
have the look and feel of sub-communities similar to Lakeland Hills. Neighboring pTOperty
owners assert that tlie proposed PUD/plat does not provide the quality of desiga required by
ACC 18.69.
Facts presented in Findings. of Facts Numbers 21(A), 21(B), and 21(C) relied on the following
evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pbges 5 and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages.
4-5; Exhibit 7, Applicant's PmverPoint and Architect Narrative; Exhibit 15, I,andscape Plan; .
Exhibif 26, Comments by Galeno; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 6; Testimorry of Mr.
McBride; Tesfimorry of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Norris; Testimorry of Mr. Galeno.
22. City Council Remand Issue Number 5: The parks and open spaces, and the
adequacy of parks and open spaces located ander Bonnevffle Power Administration
power lines.
A. Parks and O,pen Space Reqi:irement ACC 18.69.080(Axl) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as open space, which amounts to 17.86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and II. Non-buildable areas (azeas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.0300)) may be used to meet no more than SO percent of ;the open space
area requirement. ACC 18.69.080(Ax2) provides ttiat each PUD must meet. the City's Park Plan
standards for :park dedication. Current standards are 6.03 acres of unimproved park land for
every 1000 population of the plat. The City pennits the required open space to meet atl or a
portion of the requued parkland. The Applicants proposed 368 single-family residences, or
approximately 920 people (based on 25 per5ons per residence), for a total requirement of 5.55
acres of park land. As part of the Applicants' originaI proposal, all of the park space and a lazge percentage of open
space were being provided within Division I. In the proposal for open space and parks, land
encumbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement is the only site for active
and passive recreation opportanities. Open space summary for the first proposal included 28.94
acres of open. space (stormwater drainage, open space, parkland, entry signage, pedeshian .
pathways) with 15.82 acies in areas of less than ZS%. Of the 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres '
was designated as park land. In the revised pmposal, the Applicants increased botti the arriount
of open space and parkIand, providing four new parks with two parks for actiye recreation and
~ two for passiye recreation. Open space now includes 29.64 acres (33.190/o of gross area) with
' 18.12 acres in areas: of less than 25%. A: total of 9.17 acres has been desigaated as parkland (includes open space, parks, and pedestrian pathways but not acreage within the BPA easement)
witfi the parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division II. as 'opposed to centrally
located. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the City's Pazk Plan. All of.
the proposed park facilities would be built by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Findings, Conclvsions, and Recommendation Page 15 of30
Hearings Examiner for the Cityof Aubum .
Kersey ItI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
B. BPA Easement The westem 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105=9017
(Division I) are encumbered by an easement held by the BPA for a Iiiglt-voltage power
transrnission lines. The BPA easement encompasses approximately 12.51 acres. In both the
original. and the revised ProPosals, the Applicants would utilize this areato satisfy both open
;~'space and park requirements for the development On August 30, 2045; the'Applicants entered
into a. Land Use Agreemerrt with BpA allowing for the constructionlinstallation of roads,
utilities, trails, landscaping, a park, and park appurtenarices within t}ie 'easemern. BPA has
eateled into similar relationship's with other developers within the Puget Sound Area as it
provides an efficienti use of land and assures maintenance of the BPA easemeat The Land Use
Agreement contained 15 conditions including the location of stivctures in relationship to BPA
transmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimum path width of 16 feet. , C. Revised Parks and Open Space Plan : The revised proposa! would retain the BPA
easement area in open space.and provide a walldng trail.. The Applicants' clmwings note the path
width as -12 feet as opposed to the 16 feet,width required under the Land Use Agreement,
WaIking trails would also be provided in Tract B;(Division n and Tract F(Diyision In. The
: vValking trail in Tract B would provide a par-course (exercise stations). A pIayground area
would be provided.in Tract Q(Division n and Tract P(Division.In. Tract P would atso have a
half-court sports court. Tract Q would have a sports field, including baseball diamond, a full
basketbail court, open Iawn azea, and walking trail. All park azeas would have picnic tables and
benches. On-street parking would be provided in the viciaity of the active recreations areas
(ballfield and playgrounds) iacluding along Roads A, E, G, and K. Peclestrian pathways
throughout the plat allow for safe walking to and from park areas.
D. Ve~etafion . All parks would retain existing vegetation when possible. Tree removal
would be required in Tract B and Tract I to accommodate road construction and in other open
space/park, tracts to allow for the construction of recreational amenities (ballfields, playgrounds, ,
walking trails) and storinwater drainage.
E. City Review The City of Auburn Park's Departinent and City Parks and Recreation
Boaid reviewed the AppIicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant full credit for the ue
of land' encumbered by the BPA easement, it determined that the Applicant's proposal confoans
to City standards.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C); 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact No. 21, Sept. 2005 FCR; Speciflc Findings of
Fact No.. 22, Sept. 2005 FCR Exhibit 1, Stuff Report, Pages 4, S, and 7; Exhibit S, Preliminary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7-8; Exhibit 8, BPA Land Use
Agreement; Ezhibit 15, Preliminary Plat/PUD Plans; Exhibit 15, Landscaping Plan; Testimorry,
' ofMr. Pilcher; 7'estimorry of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimorry of Mr.° Ferko; Testimo'rry ofMr. Siedel.
23. City Coancil Remand Issue Nnmber 6: Incorporation of adequate notification to
fnture lot owners of the adjacent snrface mining operations.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 16 of 30 '
Hearings Examiner far ihe City of Auburn
Kersey Ill Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
I
A. Surface Mining At the August 2005 hearing, public comments were received with
regards to the impact on neighboring natural resource lands, a 664-acre gravel mining operation
owned by Segale Properties/ICON Materiats Iying north.of the site. Segale/ICOIV expressed
concem that a dense residential development would have the potential for generating-homeowner , complaiats pertaining to air, noise, light, traffic, and safety. Furthermore, Segale/ICON
I submitted ihe construction of Kersey III wou4d generate traffc congestion and otlier safety
situations, impacting.the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a notice be
placed on the final plat, all building permits, and all individual lot deeds as required -by RCW
36.70A.060.
B. Modified Conditigg of Approval For the February 2006 Remand Hearing,
Segale/ICON 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. This
condition would protect the mining activities as welI as the interests of the City and the
devetopers. The wording proposed by Segale/ICON is acceptable to the Applicants and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Nwnbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on tlie following evidence:
Speciflc Findings of Fact Nos. 11; 12, and_ 13, Condition No. 1, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 6,, -
Applicanfs' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhibit 17, Correspondence from Segale; Testimorry of Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Council Remand IIssue Nnmber 7: Protection of waterways and the
development's proposed stormwater system.
A. Water Supnlv Water would be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Applicants
would be required to conshuct a.booster pump station at the corner of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SB and extend a water line aiong Kersey Way and Evergreen. Way, cannecting to the
existing lines in the Lakeland Hills developmenL Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
City water, adjacent pmperties are serVed by private wells. Documentation was not submitted
as part of the record in regards to impacts .on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
wells.
B. Private Wells Neighboring property owners 'stated that wells in the azea have gone dry
anc3 the City has been forced to request supplemental water fiom the City of Bonney Lake. In '
addition, the neighbors asserted that the City has given no assurance as to what impact the
PUD/Plat, or the recent sale of water rights, would have on the water level in Lake Tapps and,
subsequentty, the City's aquifers.. C. Protectionof Waterwavs Bowman Creek lies north of the subject property and is a:
tributary to the White River. The creek was a fish-bearing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for salmon and bull trout populations. As noted in the DEI3, the creation of impervious surface
within the proj ect site would cavse an increase in stormwater flow volumes • that could cause
downstream channel and bank erosion. The Applicants,. proposed to collect and convey
stormwater to a standard two-cell weVdetention pond via catch basins and underground storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 17 of 30
Hearings Exanuner for the Ciry of Auburn
Kersey Ili Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
drainage pipes prior to discharge into Bowman Creek. The drainage facilities, designed to the
City's standazds, are located on Tract A of both Division I and Divisioa II and would operate as
a single unit. An energy dissipater would be installed to reduce erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. The revised PUD/Plat:contains modifications to the drainage
facilities which increase both pond voIume and wetpond surface area. R,ecommended conditions
' of:aPproval incorporate high sfandards of design (100-year flood event) and enhanced erosion
control features. The drainage facilities would be landscaped t"o screen from adjacent re,sidentiai
deyelopment. .
D. Public Comments Public comments were received into the record pertaining to storm
wate= 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 cbu]d. impact: Bowinan '
Crcek's water quality and fish and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted .thaf while the
development of the Kersey III .PUD woutd not be the cause of the salmon''s departure,
development should not prevent restoration of water quality and the return of salmon. The
, Applicants stated that the design of the stormwater system should not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of 'Facts Numbers 24(A); 24(B), 24(C), and 24(D) relied on the following evidence: Exhibit 1, Stafj'Report, Page 7; Exhibit S, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets, 7,
9; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 7-8; Exhibit,l4, Applicants' PowerPoint; Ezhibit 1 S; Laridscape Plan; Ezhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 23, Comments
of Fassbind; Ezhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments ofAnderson,• Exhibit 36, Applicant's R'esponse, Page S; Testimorry ofMr. Pilcher;
, Testimorry of Mr. Armsirong; Testimorry of Mr: Cha,~'ee; Testimorty of Mr. Bykonen; Testimorry
of Ms Koch; Testimorry of Ms. Brooke. .
25. City Council Remand Issue Nnmber 8:- Applicatlon of the Lakeland Y"ue Impact Fee. to aid the City in developimg ftre facilities to serve the area south of the White
River. .
A. Impact Fees Gomments from the Auburn Fire Department were not submitted into the
record for the August 2005 public hearing nor for the February 2006 Remand Hearing, Impacts ---on the fire services were considered during environmental review (Exhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
119, Sepr. 2005 FCR).' To mitigate these impacts, City Planning' Staff recommended that the
Applicants pay a$470.I6 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standacd fire impact fee of $294.13. . .
The Appticants aze not averse to paying the fire impact fee but requested that the City identi
what.is the reason for the fee. The Applicants asserted that, as reqaired by RCW 82A2.02~
~
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
as mitigation for an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus'l and the extent of mitigation is 3 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local govemments to impose permit conditions on development if the condirions are
reasonably retated to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 18 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Auburn
, Kersey III RezoneJPUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND •
proportional. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland Fire Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the developers of Lakeland Hills PUD and the Aubum City Council: The fee was assessed to address fire
department service in the remote location of the P[7D and the lack of a fire station within close proximity to the PUD. . The proposed:PUD/Plat is within the same geogiaphic area as Lakeland
Hills azid the additional impact fee would allow for the construction of additional facilities to
serve the area, thereby pmmoting greater public safety.
B. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue,, Neighboring
property owners stated that the City of Auburn is currendy experiencing explosive growth that is
putting a strain on emergency services providers, such as police and fire. According to;the
- neighbors, the nearest fire station is by the SuperMall; some12 minutes away from the plat Facts presented.in Findings ofFacts Numbers 25(A) and 25(B) relied on the following evidence:
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7 a»d 15; Exhibit6, Applicant's Response Matrix, Page 8; Exhibit.
28, "Sound the Alarm.., Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testirnorry of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimorry af Mr. Ferko: CONCLUSIONS - .
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Cade (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to
hear and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to
make recommendations for an application for rezone is pursuant to ACG 14.03.040(D) and
18.68.030, for approval of an application for a PUD is purstiant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminazy plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Along with the requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court {rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhood conditions, and bear. a substantial relationship w the public
health, safety, and general welfare = Parbidge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978~ in order to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the following criteria, as set forth
: in ACC 18.68, are, satisfied: '
I
I 1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. .
~ 2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing:
Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing Exatniner or the
City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 19 of 30 ~
Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey [II RezonelPUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
~ In order. to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18.69.1 S0, the proposal must demonstrate sufricient findings of facts to support
the folIowing: ,
1. ~:;,The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, aad general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other pubiic ways; water
supplie.s, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for s~chools. '
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objective,s of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an impmvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, hovsing choice and/or open space
protection over what would otherwise be attained through a-development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans
whicli have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the sunounding
area than any other project woutd have if developed using the existing zoning standards
ofthe zoning disbrict the PUD is Iocated in,
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the design
- guideliries set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
In order to APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the. following:
1. Adequate provisions aze made for the public health, safety and general welfare and'for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school grounds. -
~ 2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plau, to the
generai purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or pIan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of tlie proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality ofthe
environment
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
public nuisances. ,
In order TO APPROVE A, VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.014, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the following:
Findings, Conclusions; and Recommendation Page 20 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum
Kersey TII Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND ;
1. Unique physical conditions or excepti oaal topographical• or other`physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship. .
2. Strict conformity with Tit1e 18 would not allow a reasonable and harmorrious use of the
ProPextY• 3. Vaziance would not alter the character of the neigliborhood or be detrimental to
surmunding properties. ' .
4. Circumstances justifying variance are not a result of the Applicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Titie 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties ia the same zoning district.
6. Approval of the vuiance is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning district in which property is located.
7. Variance would not allow for. increased derisity.
Conclusions Based, on Findings:
~ l. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consisteat with the Comprehensive
Plan, other appljcable goals and policies of the City Council, and theACC.
The Director of Planning, comectly determined the proposal was consistent with the
' Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this resiilt, finding seveial
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the development, including
improving the City's transportation network; creating and maintaining park land and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
densitY; improvement to the Cit3''s
ublic utilitwater/sewer) sY
rotec '
_
P 3' ( ; and P ~
streams and natural areas: The goals and policies of the City Council are embodied in tlie
Ci 's Com rehensive Plan and ACC.
ty p The Appucants' proposal is consistent wrth the
City's Pazk Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. Proposed design standards comply with the
putpose and intent of ACC 18.69. General Findings of Fact Nos l and S, Sept 2005
• FCR; Speciftc Findings oj Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4,- 6, 7, and 8, Sept 2005, FCR; Findings of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, S, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Feb 2006 Remcmd Hearing.
Rezone Criteria
2. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant-Property Owner and not the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(B)(1), in or"der for the Hearing Examiner to consider a cezone request, the City may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the awners of the
property subject to- the rezone. -Finding of Fact Nos. 1 and 3, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing. .
3. Conditions in the area Lave substantialiy changed and. the rezone bears a
su6stantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
The Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the origina[ zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to
the public Itealth, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkridge v Seattle, 89 `Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 21 of 30
Hearings Examinec for the City of Aubum
Kersey IlI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PtaWariance - ON REMAND
.(1978), A variety of factors may satisfy a change in circumstances, including changes in
public opinion, tocat land use patterns, and on the praperty itself. Bjamson v. Kirsap
Couniy, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. 1, 1995). The City and the Applicants stated that
the area where the subject property is located has experienced sigriificant development as
_ a resuit of the Lakeland Hills PUD; population gTOwth within the City of Auburn; overail
mWket conditions in Puget Sound which are creating a demand for smWlerlots;
to h . m~ :
pograp y g the land more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district;
compliance, with the urban density requijement of the G1ViA; and compatibility with the
existing PUD community. Development 'of tlie site would provide new homes for the
growing community and : iinpiovements to infrastructure. Changes in both land use
pattems and public opinion,, along with the requirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plaa designation, provide justification for the rezone. General Findings
. of.F'act Nos l_and S, Sept 2045 FCR; Specific Find ings of Facf 1Vos: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,
Sept 2005 FCR; Findin"gs of Fact Nos. 2, 9, and 10, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
4. The Hearing. Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
, . rezone reqnest that wilL resuk in a more intense zone than the one requested by
'the Applicant. Plannerl Unit Develonment/Preliminarv Plat Criteria 5. The PUDlplat proposal coatains adequate' provisions for the public heaIth, safety,
and, geaeral welfare and for open spaces, drainage 'ways, streets, alleys, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, pl$ygrounds, or schools. `
. ;
The Applicants have' made provisions for internal streets with sidewalks for pedestrian
safety, these include safe .walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for
park and. open space access.: The EIS mitigation measures and conditions of approval
would provide far traffic improvements and traMc controUcalming devices to ensure
safety within and to the community. The development would be served by City water
and sanitary sewer.. Storm water facilities would collect and convey nm-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output Applicants have provided for a totat of
29.64 acres of open space, of which 9.17 acres are to be developed for both active and
passive recreation with an `additional 12.51 acres of open/park space pmvided within the
BPA easement. The open/park space.is generalIyprovided in a contiguous block so as to
provide corridors for wildlife. The PUD would' W served by City of Auburn water and'
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve the needs of the
: conununity. School impact fees would mitigate the increase iri student population:
Development of over 354 homes at varied price levels serves the general welfare and
: growing hoasing needs of the community. Specific Findings of Facf 1Vos. 14,. ,1 S, '16, 18,
20, 21, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos 14, 1 S, 16, 17, and 18(B)-(C);
-19(A)-(F), 21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), and 240)-(D), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
6. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, and provides for the
public beaefits required of the development of PUDs such as preservation of
natural amenities; creation of pedestrian-oriented communities, efficient use of
, land, development of traasitional areas,, innovative/aesthetic bnilding and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 22 of 30 Hearings Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND ,
structural . design, creation of parks and open spaces, provision for affordable
housing.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. The Applicants proposed to presenre
naturat amenities and sensitive. areas thmugh the use.of open spaces and -parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonstrate a pedestrian-oriented
commutity with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, -and parks for both active and
passive recreation that are dispersed throughout the development. The plat is structured
to utilize the property efficiently.by layout, house design; and open space. Homes would
not be facing the residentiai collector, Evergreen Way SE, and.would be separated from
the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by 200 to 600 feet of open space. Setbacks and
privacy. fencing would separate the, development from adjaining low-density residential
areas. The Applicauts proposed a variety of architectural styles, providing a varied
streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. The Applicants proposed over nine
acres of active and passive recreation parklands with additional acreage provided by the
BPA easement. Affordable housing is a concem witlun the entire Puget Sound area and. the PUD/plat would provide homes ranging in price. from.$400,000 to $700,000,
1rovidin a ran8e of options for tential bu ers. Spec'
g _ P~ y c Findings of Fact Nos 4; S, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos., S, 6, 18(A)-(D
21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
7. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impaM upon the
surrounding area t6an any other project would have if developed nsing the
existing zoning standards. •
The property is currently zoned R-1, which could allow for: development of.up to 89
dwelling units on site. However, probably only 60-65 dwelling units would be allowed to
be constructed due to•the presence of non-buildable areas (steep slopes, BPA easement), „
infrastructure, and park requirements. Applicants seek to develop 368 dwelling units:
Development of over 350 dwelling units would undoubtedly have mare impact than the
existing zoning standard but tl2e PUD is providing a sigaificant amount of open space,
park land, and infrastructure improvements to the community. Connection to City water
and sewer would have less impact on groundwater quaiity and quantity then `installation
of privafe wells and/or on-site septic systems. Locatioa and design of open space would
pmvide, a contiguous corridor for wildlife and scenic views: Development of the site
with hoines on one acre lots would result in substantially more fragmentation, creating
greater, impacts. on wildlife and associated . habitat along with scenic view comdors.
Specif c Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 10, :11, 12, 13, 14, 1 S, 16, 18, 19; 20, 21, 22; and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR;. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, I S(D); 20(A), ZO(E); and
22, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
8. The PUID is consistent with t6e eaisting and planned character of the
aeighborbood. .
Surrounding land use consists of.. nataral resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development; and the Lakeland Hills PUD. The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conclusions,,and Recommendation Page 23 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Aubum '
Kersey ItI Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
designation.for the area is Single-Family Residential which endeavors to develop Iaud
with this.designation at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. Development
would be consistent with the character of the neighboring Lakeland Hills community and
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The PUD would be screened from low
density : development • in the north/northwest ` by the site's topography and the
retenticn/enhancement of vegetation. The Applicants would provide 25 to 35 foot r"gr
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer low-density, development to the east and
south. Conditions of approvat; would require a minimum of one. tree per rear yard to
further buffer between-adjacent uses. General Findings of Fact No. 2, Sept 2005 F'CR;
Specific Findings of Fact Nos 2, 3, and 8, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Facf 1Vos. 3, 4,
10, 11, :18(B), 20(A)-(E). 21(A), 21(C), Feb 2006 Remand Heari»g.
9. TLe PUD and Preliminary Plat conforms to the City, of Aubum's zoning
ord'mance aad any other app6cable planning or engineering standards and '
specifications and to other applicabte policies or plans adopted by the City
Conacil.
With conditions; the Applicants', proposal for the PUD complies with aIl related City
codes and standards. Specific Findings of Fact No. 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 11, Feb 2005 Remand Hearing.
10. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an nnacceptable adverse effect -on the qaality af the
envirnnment. . .
According to the EIS, wildlife and their associated habitat would be directly affected and
no tnitigation measures were available to ameliorate this impact. Wildlife would suffer
from loss ofnative vegetation, &agmentation of habifat, =eduction in native populations,
and disturbance in retained habitat due to humari encroachment. While these impacts can
not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species is listed as endangered,
ttueatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The ;design of,
openlpark space does provide habitat for wildlife ` in a contiguous, as opposed to
fragmented manner; 'and "retention of native vegetation woutd assist in preserving habitat
In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be effected by the increase in
impervious surface that would affect the hydrology of the area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applicant would be required to provide technology to control
sediment/erosion thereby lessening impacts to water resources and fisheries habitat.
Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - would all be impacted by the inereased
population generated by the development. Conditions of approval require the AppGcarits
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these public service iinpacts, includirig fire and traffic
impacts fees higher than those that are mandated under the ACC. 3pecific Findings of
Faci Nos. 9, 10, 11, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18(A)-(E), 19(A)-(_~'20(E), 22(A)-(E), 23(A), 24(A)-(D), dnd
25 (A)-(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 24 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Pretiminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND , - ~
11. Adeqnate provisions have been made so ttiat.the preliminary plat wiIl preyent
or abate pnblic aaisances.
.
. Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are addressed directly
in ACC 8.12. A public nuisance affects public health and property values by creating
visual blight, harboring rodents and/or, pests, or crea6ng unsafe pedestrian and traffc
situations. Compliance with City design standards for. Toati safety. (width, sidewalks, and
visibility)'would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development As
conditioned. the development of a Homeowners' Association and the associated .
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would easure that visual blights and dangers to
public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specic Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FCR Variance Criteria . 12. The snbject property does not possess physical conditions or eaceptional
topographic features that warrant deviating from the appiicable design
reqnirements nor does strict conformity with ACC Title 18 fail to aDow
reasonable and harmonions use of the property which would justify a variance.
Findings of Fact Nos 6, 21(A)-(C), Feb 2006 FCR
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of law, the Hearing Examiner recommends to the
Auburri City Council that the request for a variance-from the required lot coverage be DErTIED.
Based upott the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions,. the Heazing Exazniner
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ,of the request for.a rezone of 89.31 acres from R-l Single
Family Residential to PLTD, approval of the PUD, and approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and. on
-
all building permits "and deeds issued within the Kersey III develogmern (Division I and
Division II): .
NOTICE: This property. is near, designated mineral resource
lands on wluch a variety of commercial acrivities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining-related activities including, but not. limited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transpoting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Prior to the issuance of final plat 'agproval for any phase coritaining an open space tract, the
Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 25 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
3. As pait of the engineering/construction drawings snbmitted for the construction of interior
improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also submit engineering/construction
drawings for. the construction of all park improvements as depicted on the drawings
submitted (Exhibit 5). The park improvements : shall be 'approved by the City of Aubum's
Pazks Directourior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat Any materials `,~•U
supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City.Parks:Departaient standards.and
be approved by the Parks Director prior to installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenanis, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approvat by City Staff prior.to .
final plat approval. This document shaII'include architectural design criteria for new homes
and specify the fnancial means,of maintenance of all common open spaces.
, 5. Home designs sha11 be consistent with the'Kersey 3 Division I& II Conceptual°Building
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the submitted conceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architectiual Design Guidelines shall-lie
incorporated. into the . CC&Rs for the P`roJ'ect The final desi
gn guideii.nes sha1T includ.e a
color palette for proposed house exterior coiors. In addition, the following conditions sliall
apply. :
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches ori their street-facing facades.b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. No more than a two-car garage shall be used; tandem gaiking is .
, acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no :more than two homes sharing
the same floor plan are located adjacent to one another 6:' Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
. Landscaping Plan, dated Mazch 7, 2005, which was included with the Applicants'
resubmittal for-rezone, PUD, and preliminary . plat approval (Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicants shatl maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the
plat, including park and landscaped ,open space : areas. Emphasis -ahould be on the use of
naUve vegefation, thereby mitigating the Ioss of.native vegetation. I
~ 7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division ILot numbers 19-62 and ~
Division II Lot numbers 1749) 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 numlier;
style, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivatent to a six foot high
solid wooii fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 26 of 30
Hearings Examiner for the Ciry of Autiurn
Kersey 111 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
. '
pathways requires the approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that
border on a nativelopen space; park; . or drainage tract (Tract A; B, C, D, and n shall be
separated &om these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of approximately three to four
feet in height Tlus fence shall delineate the property line and prevent encroachment by the
property owaer into the native%pen space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone aad PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the .
associated PrefiminarY Plat .
11. Applicants sha11 comply with all of tithe mitigation measures as noted on pages.9-19 of the:
Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated February
2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this recommendation.
12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. This
trat~ic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in
advance of the interseciion of Kersey Way SE and Bvergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall gmvide auxiliazy lanes at tiie intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Bngineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection- of Lakeland Hills
Way and Evergreen. Way SE. . These tiaffic controls shall be designed and'constructed as a
round-about unless the City Engineer detercnines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic
controls shall be designed and construction as a traffic signal:
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall conshuct or post financial security for
tTaffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in tlie vicinity of the
pazk area near Olive Avemie. These traff c calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ' 17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to
loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitaL Applicants shall endeavor to provide `
~ for preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegeta.tion,
i thereby mitigating these impacts. 18. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Aulium School District
Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide
transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the
pmposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 27 of 30 '
Hearings Exarriina foT the City of Aubum
Kersey III Rezone/PUDJPreliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
.
: •
responsible for all school impact fees in a manner consistent with local and state law
requirements. .
19. Frior to issuance of clearing or grading peimits, a grading plan for grading and ctearing
necessary for both the consiruction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for !ot
grading shall be ;,sribmitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan
should be to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the
need for subsequent grading and. disturbance, including grading of individual lots during
home construction. The plan shall identify the suryeyed boundary of the c=est slopes for the
site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall show quantities and locations of excavations, and
embankments, the design of temporary storm.drauiage dete.ntion system, and mettiods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent properties, natural
and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas. Temporary detention
facilities shall be designed with a I.5 safety facior applied to the post-developed calculated
pond design voIume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event All the measures
shall be implemeated prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construcdon
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. -The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's'
review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activiiies, with particulaz attention to
developing a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and
related. activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is October 1
through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or -
any other c_ritical azeas as required in chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code
(lBC) and/or.the. City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geo-technical
engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or add.itional mitigation measures are
necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted to the Ci{y of Aubum for
review and approval by the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface
water is known or discovered shall be given particulaz attention by the geotechnical engineer
and coordinated with the project engineer responsible for the storm drainage system design:
19. Prior.to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, including the off-site
erosion feature observed at the outlet of the cuIvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman
. Creek. :Appropriate mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any . erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek. :
20. Storm drainage facilities shall incorpora.te high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground, storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Fiadings, Conclusions, and RecoTnmendatioa Page 28 of 30
Hearings Facaminer for ttie City of Aubvm .
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross=sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic requiremeuts 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 folIowing design elements musf be incorporated into
the final design:
• Vehicle access for maintenance to aU proposed storm drainage structiires is required.
To provide an adequate and safe storm pond access, an appropriately~ designed pull-
off sha11 be provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond. . • All storm drainage conyeyance lines required to manage upstream bypass surface
tlows shall be routed through the project site and sha11 not be combined with the
pmposed on-site storm drainage system. Maintenat►ce access shall be provided to all
structures proposed to be in public ownerslup. The remaining portions of ttris system
sha1T be placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operatiion.
Given the steep slopes found on tlie site, appropriately designed energy dissipation features .
are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water qnality of the dischazge 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 subsequent flooding of the inteisection, an appropriately designed storm drainage
system shall be constructed to mitigate this condition. 21. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump station shall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it-provides service to the ,
desired basm. The public sanitary sewer pump station shall be located as directed by the City
-
Engineer in order to allow room for laTge velucle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1. .
The applicant shall provide an. easement for possible future extension of the sanitary sewer
system located at the SE corner of Tjact D, Division 1.
22. All roads within the plat 'must be constiucted to City standards (except where deviations
are granted by the City Engineex) and shall be dedicated as public right of way. -Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendarion Page 29 of 30
Heariags Examiner for the City of Aubum
Kersey Iil Rezone/PUDlPreliminary PlaWariance - ON REMAND
23. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential collector
artereal including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn lane area through the plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shatl aiso construcE median treatments to match the 10 foot center
median/tum lane witbin the plat on the. existing roadway west to Lakeland Hills Way, fo the .
satisfaction of the city engineer. .
25. The Applicants shall redesign pedesaian crossings at Road G and Evergreen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction ofthe
City Engineer.
26. The Applicants shatl consttuct a minimum 10-fooi wide shared multi-use path, separated by a five foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for the length of -
the site frontage along Kersey Way;'#o the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27.: The Applicants shall. construct ' Kersey Way fo a, modified city standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 foot center iurn lane, a 12 foot through northbonnd. lane, a 12 foot through southbound lane, appropriate right tluns Jane(s) at the intersection with 53"d
Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and a ininimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path on ;
the west side. All other features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and
lighting must meet city standards.
28. The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary, ,
through the location of lots 27 and 28; Divisian 1, to align with 176th Avenue East.
29.: A traffic itnpact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland HiIIs South
PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
30:,A fire impact f~ equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
~ shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual honies.
31. The Applicants shall comply with all condirions set forth in the Land Use Agreement
. entered.into by the Applicaats with the Bonneville Power'Administration.,(Exhibit 8). The
Land Use Agreement set -forth 15 conditions, includ, ing, but not 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 of Auburn
Findings; Conclusions, and Recommendation Page 30 of 30
`Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey Ill Rezone%PUD/Preliminary P1aWariance - ON REMAND
~
~
~
r
,
LEOAI. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The sovthwest quarter of the southeast.quarter'and that portion of
the northwest quarter of the southeast'-quarter lyinq southerly of
the H.B. Carter County Road; Al1 in Section-32, Toy+ns'hip 21 North,
Ran9e 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washinqton;.
~
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to Kinq County for Stuck Road
and by Deed recorded under Rec.o=ding Number 5407388;
AND EXCEPT`that portion thereof.aonveyed by Hing County.for Lake,
/fapps Access-Road,:by deed.recorded under Recording Number 5801756.
.
-
• .
J • _
f ,
,
FEE PAYNIENT: $1:038.00 and $53.00 per lot plus $727.00 for EnvironmeMal thecMlst
,
7.R.#: . ,
DATE RECENEO: ; -
CASHIER'S INITIALS:
,
I '
~
i
i
,
i
,
~ - Prpiat , Page 6 of 6
~S-~°~ ~
PL T
~-...~k
CTTY OF * * _
. . s, 'ii~~'":t.-s.,;y,,,iy..ft ,ntc"'-`°r.•~_r:»~J: 'T"_'• t.
.
. ' , . .
. ~ . . ~..~.,,__K..,....._:. _ _..._,.a. ,r.::,~
WASHINGTON
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
FAC07-0002
COMPLEi'ION OF IMPRC)VEMENTS
The required improvemerrts for the Final Plat of
_ have been completed in accordance with the Land Division Ordinance and the Clty. of
Aubum's standards and specifications.
• City Engineer • Da#e • .
SECURITY IN L1EU OF COMPLETION
tn lieu of the required public improvements for the Finat Plat of Kersey 3 Division 1,
an approved Assignment of Funds for $604,983.26 {150% o# #he estimated cosfs of
improvements} has been submitted and approved by the Cify Engineer.
'
. City Engineer D e
'
1. The developer, has provided references and demanstrated a minimum,of 3 years successful, non-defautted plat development experienc.e in the Puget Suund region. 2. The bond/security is based on the following costs:
Phase 1 $68,922.76 .
Hydro-seed remafning lots areas"and disturbed area in BPA Easemerrt, temporary catch '
basin protection, tnferceptor trench, rockery and gravel road on lot 37 & As-Built the Mylars Phase 2 #25,884.00
Mail Boxes
Phase 3 $241,880.00 Final Llft of Asphalt* monuments, raise manhofes and water vatves to finish grade
Phase 4 $968,196.50
Landscaping .
Routing Copfes: . .
1 • Development Admfn 3pedatist,
2 - Planning Dhedtor
1 - Developer