HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-4
* *
CITY OF *
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHINGTON
Agenda SubJect: Ordinance No. 6318 for Final Plat Application No. Date: June 29, 2010
PLT09-0008
Department: Planning and Attachments: (See Exhibit list below Budget impact:
Develo ment and Exhibits
Administrative Recommendation:. City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6318.
Background Summary:
Tony Ching of Apex Engineering on behalf of Christopher Huss of TA 40 LLC has made application for
the Final Plat of "Auburn 40" (a.k.a. Monterey Park). The plat includes the creation of 239 lots and .
landscape, open space, pedestrian access and private vehicle access tracts.
The property is located east of I Street NE in the 4200-4300 block. A rezone from R2, Single Family
Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development was approved under Ordinance No. 6002 (File No.
PUD04-0002) on March 6, 2006. The preliminary plat of Auburn 40 received preliminary plat approval
under Resolution No. 3989 (PLT04-0009) of this same date to subdivide tHe approximately 38.48 acre
site into 236 single-family lots and create various public and private tracts as noted above. Tract B(0.95
acres) and Tract E(3.25 acres) are proposed to 6e publicly dedicated as Park. Tract A(0.87 acres) and
Tract F(0.95 acres ) are proposed to be publicly dedicated as stormwater facility and open space.
A minor adjustment to the approved preliminary plat has been granted by the Planning Director pursuant
to the ACC 17.06.100 (subsequently amended) (Application No. MIS10-0009) to adjust front yard and
rear yard setbacks, adjust minor changes to'lot boundaries at the northwest and southwest corners of the
plat, to allow the addition of three lots, to add an entry sign tract, and provide flexibility in completion of
Tract E park improvements.
The plat has been developed in accordance with approved PUD, the planned unit development district as
defined by ACC, Section 18.69 (subsequently repealed), Title 17, (Final Plats, ACC 17.06 subsequently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 th'e completion of all of the plat infrastructure improvements has been
provided to the City. The City Engineer has signed fhe Certificate of Improvements accepting the
financial security.
L0719-1 03.5 PLT09-0008
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed tiy Departrnents 8 Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: 0 Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
[I Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance Z Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD 0 Fire ID Planning
❑ Park Board ❑Public Works Z Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ED Public Works ❑ Human Resources
❑ Infarmation Services
Action:
Committee Approval: E]Yes ❑No
Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referced to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember. Norman Staff: Sn der
Meetin Date: Jul 19, 2010 Item Number: VIII.A.4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6318 for Final Plat Application No. Date: June 29, 2010
PLT09-0008
Attached are the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 1- Proposed Ordinance No. 6318 to approve the Final Plat of Aubum 40 (a.k.a.
Monferey Park)
Exhibit 2- Resolution Na'3989, previously approving the Preliminary Plat of Auburn 40
(Includes Hearing Ezaminer Recommendation as Exhibit A)
Exhibit 3- Ordinance No. 6002, previously approving the cezone to PUD, Planned Unit
Development of Auburn 40 Exhibit 4- The City Engineer's Certificate of Improvements
Exhibit 5- Final Plat (Map, 8 pages)
Exhibit 6- A Minor Adjustment to the approved preliminary plat by the Planning Director
pursuant to ACC 17.06.100
Since the time of the approval of the preliminary plat, finro circumstances have changed affecting
the final plat.
First, due to increased flooding risk from the Howard Hanson Dam upstream on the Green
River, the applicant voluntarily agreed to assist the City by installing temporary flood pcotection.
The Green River borders the east end ofithe site. The applicant used their own equipment fo
. install temporary flood protection, barriers within topographic low spot"s generally along the
northern boundary and a portion of the east boundary of their site. The city inspected the
installation of the temporary flood protection. A temporary easement acceptable to the
applicant; King County, and the City of Aubum to be separately and concunently recorded is
shown on the final plat to acknowledge and provide for the continued existence of the temporary
flood protection rneasures. This temporary easement may prevent some lots within the plaf from being developed for up to 3-5 years until the flood risk is eliminated.
Second, since the time of the approval of the preliminary plat, the City and applicant have
become aware that the King Counfy Flood Control District (Administered by the King County
River and Floodplain Management Section) has identified a future Reddington Levee Setback
Project which is currently under modeling, design and development. This levee project was not
known at the time of the preliminary plat approval. Based on preliminary conceptual information
from King County River and Floodplain Management Section, fhis future permanent levee could
occupy.nearly all.of Tract E at the east end of the plat adajcent to the Green River (one of the
two tracts for public park dedication). After final plat approval the City will own Tract E. Due to
the uncertainty about whether King County will after final plat approval, need to acquire all or
portion of Tract E from the Cify for this permanent levee setback project, the implementation of
park improvements within Tract E will be delayed and the preliminary plat condition has been
revised to allow the City to use the value of the financial securify guaranfeeing improvements to
Tract E at a different location off-site that could still benefit the plat, similar to an in-lieu fee.
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE iVO. 6318
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN; WASHINGTON, APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF AUBURN 40
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received a final plat application for.the Plat
of Auburn 40 (a.k.a. Monterey Park), Application No. PLT09-0008 the final
approval of which is appropriate for Gity Council Action; and _
WHEREAS, based on the review given this Plat by the City, the City
Council hereby makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Tony Ching of Apex Engineering on behalf of Christopher Huss of TA 40
LLC, has requested final plat approval of Aubum 40 (a.k.a. Monterey
Park) and all applicable conditions have been met.
2. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on, March 6, 2006
by Resolution Na 3998. The preliminary plat was approved with three
divisions; with this. application the applicant is revising the proposal to
include one division. The plat has been developed in accordance with the . PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning district.
3. A Certificate of Improvements has been issued by the City Engineer,
accepting all required plat improvements.
4. Tracf 6(0.95 acres) and Tract E(3.25 acres) are proposed to be publicly
dedicated as park. Tract A(0.87 acres) and Tract F(0.95 acres) are
proposed fo be publicly dedicated as stormwater facility and open space.
5. A minor adjustmenf to the approved preliminary plat` has been granted by the Planning Director, pursuant to the ACG 17.06.100 (subsequenfly
amended) (Application.No. MIS10-0009) to adjust front yard and rear.yard
setbacks, adjusfi lot boundaries at the northwest and southwest comers of
the plat, to allow the addition of three lots, to add an entry sign tract, and
provide flexibility in completion of Tract E park improvements.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Ordinance No. 6318
July 13, 2010
Page 1 of 3
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 requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Aaaroval. Aubum 40 (a.k.a. Monterey Park), a
subdivision involving property located within the City of Aubum, Washington,
which plat is legally described on Sheet 1 of 8 of the Final Plat and set forth in .
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby
approved, and deemed to conform to the requirements for Plat approval pursuant
. to State and local law and Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington
and Section 58.17.140 thereof.
Section 2. Constitutionalitv or Invaliditv. If any section, subsection
clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional such invalidity or unconstitutionaiity 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 Aubum shall
Ordinance No. 6318
July 13, 2010
Page 2 of 3
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Records,
Elections and Licensing Services Division.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Effecfive 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
APPROVE PINS TO FORM:
niel B. id,
City Attorney
Published:
Ordinance No. 6318
July 13, 2010
Page 3 of 3
i
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIOY
THE NQR7H HALF OF THE NORTN HAtf OF THE SOUiN HALF aF THE GEORGE E. KING OONAi10N
,
U1ND CLAIM N0. 44, IN SECT10N 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NQR?H, RAIVGE 5 EAST, W.M., tN fqNG COUMY,
WASiitNGTON.
;
EXCEFI T1iAT PaR110N THEREOF I.YING NQRIHERl.Y OF THE FENCE L1NE AS IT EXISTED QN `
OECQidBER 17, 1978, !1S DESCRIBED ~iN BOUNDARY LiNE, AGREEMENT RECOROED UNDER RECORDING - i
N0. .7912170640.
Ai.SO EXCEPT T~iAT PORTION THEREOF GQNVEYED TO KING COUMTY 9Y STANTORY WARltANTY DEED :
RECOROED UiVDER RECORDlNG N0. 7409060426. ;
ALSO EXCEPT TNAT FORTiQN 0F THE FlORTH HAIF Of' THE NORTH HALF QF THE SOUTH HAi.f QF
SAID OONA710N LAND CLAlM LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE Bal1NDARY LiNE DESCRIBED fN BaUNDARY
LJNE AGttEEMENT RECO~ED UNDER RECQROING N0. 7903021118.
TOGE7}EER WlTH TNAT POR'RON OF THE _ SOEJ7H. tiALF OF , THE NORTH HAtF QF THE SOUl}i HALF OF
SAfD DONAT10tV LAiVD CLAIM LYlNG MORTHERLY QF THE BOUNDARY LINE ' DESCFtlBED !N BOUNDARY ;
UNE AGREEMENlT R£GORDED UNDQZ R£COROiNG N0. 7903021118.
• i
. ;
I
i
~
i
I
RESOLUTION N0. 3 9 8 9
A RESOLUTlON OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE
CIT1( OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVtNG A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPI.ICATION. FOR A 236 LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIV{SION KNOWN AS AUBURN
FORTY WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. PLT04-0009, dated December 16. 2004,
has been submitted to the City of Auburn. Washington, by Brian McCabe on
behalf af Investco Financial Cocporation, requesting preliminary plat approval
for a 236 lot Singte-Family Residential subdivision known as Aubum Farty; and
WHEREAS, said request referred to above was referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to staff revisw, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to c:onsider said appfication in the Council Chambers of the
Aubum City Hall on December 7, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary
plat; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of January 17, 2006, the City Council
voted to conduct a ctosed recard hearing on the Hearing Examiners
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a dosed recorcl hearing was held Febn,iary 15, 2006, at
which time the City Council oonsidered the Hearing Examiner's
Resolution No. 3989
February 27, 2006
Page 1 of 3
recommendations and the material presentsd to the Hearing Examiner after
which the Council voied to approve Application No. PLT04-0009 with the
conditions recommended by the Hearing examiner and 3ta#f.
NOW, THEREFf3RE, THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
V1IASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as fotlows:
Sect_fon 1. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conciusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibif "A" are herewith approved and
incarporafed in this Resolution. .
, Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for a 236 (ot Single-
Family Residential subdivision known as Aubum Forty within .the City of Aubum,
fegally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, is hereby approved subject to the condfions as set forth in the
Hearing Exarniner's Findings, Conclusions and Recvmmendation attached
hereto.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implemeM such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shatl take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon:
Resolufion No. 3989
February 27, 2006
Page 2 of 3
Dated and Signed this day of --\q\ .2006
C OF AUBU
~
PE R B. IS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
r Dariielle E. Daskam;
City Clerk
APPR D A TO FORM:
;
!
D ie1 B. Hei ;
City Attomey _
Resolution No. 3989
February 27, 2006
Page 3 of 3
,
Exhibit "rin
Resolution No. 3989
BEFORE THE HEARING EXANIINER
FOR THE CYTY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Applications of ) NO. PUD04-0002
) PLT040009
)
Brian McCabe, Investco } )
}
) FINDINGS, CONCLUSiONS,
For Rezone, Planned Unit Development, } AND RECONIl4ENDATION
and PTeliminarv Plat 1
SiJMMARY OF RECOMMENDAnON
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Cauncil that the requests for a rezone of
approximately 38.48 acres from R=2 Residential to Planned Unit Development, for approval ofa
Planned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for the Auburn Forly subdivision,
a 236-1ot single-family residential subdivision, be APPROVED subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request
Investco, thraugh Brian McCabe (Applicant), requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and a preliminary plat foT the Auburn Forty, a 236-1ot single-family residential
subdivision. The subject propeny, totaling 38.48 acres, is located between the Green River and
the 4244-4300 block of I Street NE.
Hearing`Date
An open record hearing on the request was held before the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on
December 2005.
Testimon
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Mr. Jeff Dixon, Planner, City of Aubum
2. Joseph Welsh, City Transportation Engineer
3. Jeff Mann, Applicarn Representative, Apex Engineering
4. Dennis Hanberg, A.pplicant Representative, Apex 'Engineering
5. William Lynn, attorney representing the Applicant
6. Richard Hathaway, representative of the property to the south
Findi»gs, Conclusians, and Recommendation
Ciry ofAuburn Hearing Examiner
Ruburn 40 RezoneIPUD/Preliminary Plat - PLT04-04091PUD04-0002 page 10, f 26
Exhibits
At the open recard hearing, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record:
Exhibit 1 City of Aubum Staff Report, dated December 2, 2005
Exhibit 2 Notice of Applicatzon
Exhibit 3 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Posting
Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Mailing
Exhibit 6 Confirmation of Receipt of Request to Publish LegalNotice
Exhihit 7 Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (NIDNS), dated October 13,
2005
Exhibit 8. Final Staff Evaluation (supparting document to Final MDNS)
Exhibit 9 2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Exhibit 10 Sensitive ATeas Report for the Kawasaki Site, from Watershed Dynamics, 7-12-
04, revised 3-24-05
Exhibit 11 Letter from Apex Engineering respanse to Completeness Letter {environmental
checklist application supplement}, dated 3-25-05, including attachments
Figure 1- Photas of Aubum Marketplace Pond
Figure 2- Photos of open rail fences
Figure 3- aerial photo of existing site buildings
Exhibit 12 Aubum Forty PUD Revised Transgortation Impact Analysis, from The Transpo
Group, dated March.2005
Exhibit 13 Aubum Forry- Sugplemental Transportation Infarmation, from The Transpo
Crroup, dated Apri122; 2005
Exhibit 14 Letter Drainage Report: Preliminary Plaf of Aubum Forty Starm Drainage, from
Apex Engineering, dated June 14, 2005
Exhibit 15 Port of Seattle Master Plan Wetland Delineation Report of the Construction
Access and Staging Site Auburn Wetland Mitigatian Project, Parametrix, dated
April 2003
Exhibit 16 SEPA Addendum Relating to the Aubum Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of
Seattle, dated June 2003 Exhibit 17 Fina1 Construction Drawing Plan Set Port of Seattle, Wefland Mitigation
Construction Sife, GRA01-0004, Sheets Tl, C1-17, TE1-3, & L1-15, Port of
Seaitle, dated March 30, 2004
Exhibit 18 Conceptual Plans and Sections for I Street NE Storm Drainage, Apex
Engineering; Inc., dated July 1, 2005
Exhibit 19 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Aubum Farty Plat, ABPB Consulting, LLC,
dated July 22, 2005
" Exhibit 20 Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco, dated October 17, 2005
Exhibit 21 Typical Setback arid Building Envelapes - Diagams (4 pages)
Elchibit 22 Aubum Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex
Engineering, dated`October 27, 2005
Exhibit 23 Aubum Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Concepfual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering,
dated October 20, 2005
Exhibit 24 Aubum Farty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets 1 and
2 of 2, Apex Engineering, dated October 27, 2005
Findings, Carrclusioru, and Recamnrendation
City of Auburn Henring Examtner
Auburn 40Rezone1PUD1Preliminary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 paSe 2 Q,f 26
Exhibit 25 Aubum Forty PUD, I Street NE Alignment Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated
October 17, 2005 Exhibit 26 Preliminary Laudscape Plan Aubum Forty PUD, Bratiley Design Group, dated
October 31, 2045
Exhibit 27 Preliminary Landscape (Stormwater Pond) Cross Sections, Bradley Design
Group, dated October 31, 2005 ~
Exhibit 28 Aubum Forty PUD Pand Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering,
dated November 30, 2005
Exhibit 29 Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form
Exhibit 30 Aubum Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated
Exhibit 31 Aubum Forty Prel'uninary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Cruidelines, undated
Exhibit 31 REVISED Aubum Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design
Guidelines, undated
Exhibit 32 REVISED The City of Aubum Planned Unit Development Aubum Forty
Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public
Benefits and Open Space Griteria; dated November 4, 2005
Exhibit 33 Figure 3 Road Layout and Classification under Preferred Alternative for the NE
Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area P1an, Northeast Auburn/Robertson
Properties Final EIS, City of Auburn, dated July 2004
Exhibit 34 Letter &om Jim Kelly, Parametrix, to Ralph Wessels, Port of Seattle re: Pratective
. Buffers at the Auburn (Port of Seattle) Mitigation Site, dated November 7, 2003.
Exhibit 35 REVISED Preliminary Plat Aubum Forty PUD Sheets 1& 2 af 2, Apex
Engineering, final revision dated November 30, 2005
Exhibit 36 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Aubum North Forty
(cc&xs), 10-28-05
Exhibit 37 Exhibit B(to GC&Rs) The Aubum North Forty Hameowners' Association
Architectulal Guidelines, dated October 28, 2005
Exhibit 38 Exhibit B(to CC&Rs) The Aubum North Foriy Homeowners' Association .
Architectural Cruidelines, revised and received 11-30-05
Exhibit 39 The Aubum North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines for
the Construction of New Homes, received November 30, 2005 Exhibit 40 E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting sign detail, dated December
17, 2004 -
Exhibit 41 Letter from Jeffrey Mann of Apex Engineering re: Waiver of Regulatory
Timefiames, dated Novem.ber 30, 2005
Exhibit 42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northeast Aubuni/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan, Aubum WA, City of Auburn, February 2004 (CD version)
Exhibit 43 Final Environmental Imgact Statement Northeast Aubiun/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan, Aubtun WA, City ofAubum, July 3004 (CD version)
Exhibit 44 Aubum Forty Planned Unrt Developmenf; Aubum Hearing Examiner Public
Hearing December 7, 2005
Exhibit 45 Aubum Forty PUD Rezone Exhibit, Investco Financial, dated October 2$, 2005
Exlubit 46 Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parce104040U-Q005
Exhibit 47 Lakeland Hills PDD Landscape Amenities
Exhibit 48 Auburn Porty PUD and'Preliminary Plat; Comparison of Benefits ofthe PUD
Exhibit 49 Typical Storm Retention Facilities
Findings, Conclusiar.s, and Recom►nendation
City of Auburn Xearing Exaneiner
Auburn 40 Rezorre/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 3 of 26
Exhibit 50 Prelimiuary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I
Street NE, Auburn, WA; L-1 of l, dated December 7, 2005
Preliminary Landscape Cross Sections Auburn Forcy PUD, Investco Financial
Corp., I Street NE, Auburn, WA; L-2 of 2, dated December 7, 2005
Exhibit 51 Pond F Perspective
Pond A Perspective
Exhibit 52 Informal Open Space; Lakeland Hills South PUD "Verona"; Intersection of 67tn
Street & Eliza.beth Ave SE, dated December 5, 2005
Exhibit 53 Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's
staffreport regarding application nos. PUD04-0001 and PLT04-0049, File
#27830/0, da.ted December 7, 2005
' Exhibit 54 Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic
Impact Analysis Consistency, datedDecember 2005
Exhibit SS Polygon Floor Plans (a.dinitted for illustrative purposes)
OakRidge Homes Floor Plans (admitted for illusirative purposes)
Exhibit 56 Memorandum from JeffDixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's
response to the Applicant's updatrd exhibits, dated December 21, 2005 '
Upon consideration of the testunany and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Fiadings and Conclnsians:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a preliminary plat to develop "The Auburn Forty," a 236-1ot single-family residential
subdivision. The 38.48-acre subject property is located between the Crreen River and the
4200-4300 block of I Street NE in Auburn, Washington.2 Exhibit 1, Staff Report page 1;
ExkibPfs 29 and 30; Testrmony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
2. The City of Auburn processes PUD applications in several steps. The first step requires
approval of a contract rezone of the subject property from its existing zoning designation
to a PUD designation. The contract rezone specifies the land use, the density, the number
and types of dwelling units, the amount and types of bpen space, and the responsibilities
of the Applicant. In the present case, the application for preliminary plat approval has
been processed simultaneously with the PUD application. If the PUD is approved, the
next steps would be City approval of construction plans, installation af infrastructure by
the Applicant, and then application for final plat approval. Exhibit l, StaffReport, page
5.
' At the public hearing, the Applicant submitted several updated versions of previously submitted documents, in
addition to several new exhibits. The Hearing Examiner aUowed the City time to prepare a responss to the
additional exhibiu afterreview, which the City submiued as Exhibit 56 on December 21, 2005. 'I'he record closed
on that date. The parties agreed. W extend the rime for preparation of the Heaiing Exarriiner's written decision until
January 6, 2006.
2 The legal description of the subject property is a partion of Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,
King County, Washington; also known as Parcel No. 0004200004. The fiill legal description of the site is in the
record atBxhibit 29. Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Applicution•
Findings, Conclusrons, arul Recommendation
City af.4ubarn Hearing Exarniner
.4uburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Prelimirrary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 4 of 26
,
3. The area suirounding the subject property was annexed to the City in 1970. Cansidered .
an "Auburn Gateway," it has remained largely undeveloped until recent market
conditions in the Puget Sound region`have begun to bring development to the area.
Abutting the nartheast portion of the subject property is a 67-acre wetland!'in-kind habitat
creation area owned by #he Port of Seattle and used for the purpose of compensating for
unavoidable impacts. from development of the third nmway project at SeaTac Airport.
Exhibit 16, SEPA Addendum Relating to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of
Seattle, June 2003. . The Port of Seattle purchased an additiona135-acre parcel abutting
the northwest corner of the subject property for the purpose of praviding -access to its
wetland mitigation site. Other than wetland creation and access-related improvements,
both of the Port's parcels will remain undeveloped. Also to the north of the subsect
property is the recently approved River Sand PUD, which will create 172 single-family
residenrial lots and 115 inultifamily units on approximately 40 acres narth of the subject
property. The River Sand property is on the south side of South 277'' Street
appmximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 14; Testimorry of Mr. Dixon.
4. An undeveloped section of I Street NE forms the western site boundary. Properties
across I Street NE have Heavy Commercial (0) and Mutti-Faznily Residential (R4)
zoning and land use designations. There is a childcaze facility across I Street NE. The R-
2 zvned property south of the site is vacant. It has Single Family Residential and High
Density Residential land use designations. Immediately east of the site is a swatti of
vacant, unincorporated Green River shoreiine owned by King County. Property west of
the riverhas an R-2 zoning designation and an Open Space land use designation. Exhibrt
l, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibrt 9, Aerial Site Photograph.
5. Critical areas found to exist on-site include the 140-year floodplain of the Green River
and buffers of off-site wetlands and river shoreline, No wetlands exisron-site; however,
the buffers of two off=site Port of Seattle wetlands extend into the subject property along
the northem.plat boundary. The Applicant groposes a vegetation planting plan for Tracts
X, Y, and the norkhwestern portion of Tract B to minimize impacts of the timil on the
wetland buffer. Impacts.to the on- and off-site critical areas were considered in the City's
environmental threshold determinatian. Requued mitigation measures relating to critical
areas include additional geotechnical study, preparation of a final wetland buffer -
enhanceinent plan, and construction of floadplain compensation in the event that
floodplain storage capacity is impacted by the project. Exhibit 20, Conceptual Wetland
Buffer Mitigation Plan, lrrvestco; Ezhibit 1, Stuff Report, pagel0; Exhibii 7, MDNS. The
Applicant's preliminary geotechnical study concluded the praject site is suitable far.the
proposed development. Exhibit 19, Preliminary Geoiechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat,
ABPB Consulting, LLC.
6. The proposed development would create 236 single-famiiy residential lots and 25 tracts
in three phases. Phase I would include development of the central one-third of the site,
, containing 881ots, and the sanitary pump station in proposed Tract K adjacent to the
southem plat boundary. Phase II would include the 70lots closest to I Street NE, and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation •
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
.4uburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plab- PL704-00091PUD0¢0002 page 5 of 26
Phase III would include the remaining 78 proposed lots closest to t12e Gresn River. The
Applicant intends to request three separate final plat approvals. No phasing is proposed
for infrastructure. improvements; the Applicant proposes to install all roads and utilities
prior to requesting final plat`approval on any of the tiiree phases. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
pages 4-5; Testimorry of Mr. Ducorr.
7. The subject property has had a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R-2)
since 1987 when the City adopted its zoning ordinance. It is developed with a single-
family residence and agricultural buildings that would not be retained if the proposal
were approved F.xhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Development
standards of the R-2 district require a minimum lot size of 6,004 square feet, with a
minimum lat width of 60 feet. ACC 18.14.040.
8: Recent market trends have encouraged the creation of residential lots smaller than those
required by the R-2 zoning district. Exhibit 1, Stafj`'Report, page 14; Testimorry of Mr.
Mann. The Applicant requested a rezone from R-2 to the PUD zoning district to a11ow an
enhanced, more flexible site design. Exhibit 29, Pretiminary PlatApplication; Exhibit
30, A uburn Forty PUD Application Narrative.
9: PUDs are permitted on parcels af at least ten acres within all azess designated as
residential by the City's Coinprehensive Plan (except for areas designated as "Rural
Residential"). ACC 18. 69.040. Pursuant to the City Code, "[t]he ;purpose of a(PUDj
district is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and altemative
development standards. A PUD district also allows for a greater range of residential
development scenarios, provides for itrtemal transfers of density, and may result in more
dwelling units than may be realized by using th,e existing development standards. In
exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City requires the PUD to result in a
significantly higher quality development, generate more public benefit, and be a more
sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of standard zoning ar
subdivision procedures." ACC 18.69.010.
10. The City's Comprehensive Plan Map was updated in 1995 to be consistent with the
Washingtan State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70H. The subject property has two
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. The westem 5.47 acres ofthe site, adjacent
to I Street NE, are designated H.igh Density Residential, and the eastern 33.01 acres, neaz
the Green River, aze designated Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Repart, page
2. "High Density Residential" areas may be developed with up to 18 units per acre. .
"Single Family Residential" areasmay contain upto six units per acre 3 Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, pages 6, 13.
3 The site is within an area designated by the City's Comprehensive Plan as a"NE Aubum Special PIan Area."
Several property owners'in tbe area are in the process of developing a mesfer plan addressing I Street alignment/design, stonndrainage and utilities, laud use types and densities, financing of required infrastructure, and
the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project. Recent developments in the vicinity, including the Port of Seattle's
wetland mitigation project and the approval of the River Sand PUD, have removed the uncertainty regarding the
development future of much of the NE Auburn Speciaf Ptan Area. City Plannmg Staffanticipates that the Auburn
40 properry wiil be excluded from the Spacia! Plan Area when the Comprehensive Plan Map is amended in
Findings,. Conclusions, and Recommendatfon
City ofRuburn Nearirtg Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preltminary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0001 page 6 of 26
11. The subject property contains no "unbuildable areas" and therefore, under the PUD
provisions; could be divided to contain up to 296 lots.4 The Applicant proposes 2361ots.
The propased density is 6.13 units per acre. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6; Exhibit 29,
Preliminary Plat Application; Farhibi135, Site Ptarr.
12. The Applicant proposes to develop only detached and zero setback lots.s PUD lot size
standazds vary by Comprehensive Plan land use designation and by lot type. "High
Density Resideirtial" areas require a minimucn lot` size of 2,400 square feet for detached
single-family residential uses and for zero lot line lots, "Single Family Residential" areas
require minimum lots sizss of 3,600 square feet for detached lots and 2,700 square feet.
for zero setback lots. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 6-7. All lots in Phase II (I,ots 1-36
and 203-236) and all "alley loaded" lots in Phases I and III would be zero setback lots 6
All other lots would be detached lots. All proposed lots satisfy the minimum PUD lot
size requirements.7 Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Testrmorry of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit l, Staff
Report, page 7.
13. The Applicant representative testified that the use of tlie flexible PUD development
standards would allow the Applicant to provide more affordable housing opportunities,
for a broader economic range of potential buyers. The resulting mixture of diverse
housing types creates a"streetscape" with aesthetic,value, which according t,o the.
Applicant cannot be deriyed from traditional subdivision layouts. Testimorry of Mr.
Mann; Exhibit 32, The City of Auburn Planmed Unit Development Auburn Forry
Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned. Unit Develapment (PUD) Public Bene}Its
and Open Space Criteria.
14. PUDs are required to set aside a minimum of ZO% of their total buil+dable area as open
space. ACC 18.69.080. The project, at 38.48 acres, must provide a minimum of 7.69
acres in open space. The Applicant proposes to set aside 7.79 acres of open space (24.2%
of the total site area) in the following tracts:
conjunction with the completed development of the Port of Seattle propeRies. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page S;
Testimony of Mr. Dixon. ,
i The 5.47-acre "High Density ResidenUal" designated portion of the site could contain up to 99 dwelling units. The
33,01-acre "Single Family Residential" designated portion of the site could contain up to 198 dwelling units.
Exhibit I, Staff Reporr, page 6.
5"Detached lots" are those on which the structure is set back from all lot lines. "Zero setback lots" are those on
which the structure is not sctback from one lot line and is not attached w other structures on adjoiniag lots. ACC
18.69.030(E). 6 Alley loaded lots are Wose that have vehicle access only to the rear of the lot from an aliey.
' For a depiction of typical setback enVelopes, please see Exhibit 21, Typical Setback and Building Envelopes -
Diagrams.
Findi»gs. Conclusioris, and Recommeadation °
City ofAubaern Nearing Exarainer
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Prelimirurry Plat- PL7'04-00091PUD04-0002 page 7 of 26
Publicly Owned;
Tracts A& F Enhanced stormwater facilities along north plat boundary
Tract B A trail along the north plat boundary connecting L Street NE to the
Green River parkway
Tract E Parkland to be dedicated to the City and developed with
recreational eqtripment
Tract X Opea space/wetlaad buffer along north central plat boundary
Tract Y Open space '
Privately Owned by the Homeow»ers' Associatiorr:
11 Tracts Proposed for general open space: Tracts G, I, J, Q, R, S, T, V, W,
DD & EE
Tract N Landscaped entrance sign
Tract Enhanced open space to ensure project satisfies sight distance
standards
Farhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7-8; Ezhibit 35, Site Plan.
15. City Planning Staff determined that Tract DD is not suitable for designation as open
space due to its size and its perpendicular orientation to the adjacent irail in Tract B.
Staff opined that most project residents would consider Tract DD part of the adjoining
lot. Staff noted that the project would satisfy the PUD requirement for 20% open space dedication even if Tract DD were excluded from proposed open space. Exhibit 1, Stafj`'
Report, page 15; Testimorry o, f Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dizon to
the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to the Applicant's updated exhibits,
dated December 21, 2005. The Applicant contends that Tract DD's location adjacent to
the trail in Tract B(regardless of its perpendiculaz rather than contiguous orientation), in
addition ta the potential view corridor into the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigatian project
to the north, particularly recommend the use af Tract DD as open space. Exhibit 53,
Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Foriy - Applicant comments to City's staff
report regarding application nos. P11D04-0001 and PLT04-0009. ; Testimony of Mr.
Mann.
16, City Planning Staff stated that Tract U, designated as open:space to ensure sight distance
standards are met, must be dedicated to the City as right-of-way for I Street NE. Exhibit
1, Staff Report, page 8.
17, The City's Park and Recreation Plan (as incorporated by the Subdivision Code) requires
that for every 1,000 proposed residents, development must dedicate 6.03 acres of
unimproved pazkland to the City. ACC 17.12,260. The project must dedicate a nairiimum
, of 3.99 acres of land to the City for public parklands.8 The project would include that
dedication of 4.18 acres consisting of Tracts B and E as public parklands. The Applicant
e Refer to the Staff Report for the complete calculation of required parkland dedicatian. Farhi6it 1, StaffReporr,
PaSe 8•
Findings, Conclusiorrs, arrd Recommendatiox
City afAuburn Nearirrg Examrner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1at- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 8 of 26
proposes to install play equipment and trail irnprovements in the 3.2-aere Tract E public
park concurrent with plat development as public park amenities for residents of the PUD.
The existing stand of mature trees within the Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tract E would be
retained. Exhibi# 1, Staff I Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 32, Revised
Analysis of PUD Benefits.
18. PLTDs are required to promote pedestrian circulation. . The project would enhance
pedestrian safety and movement by coatinuing the I Sftet NE sidewalk along the
properry's frontage, by providing sidewallcs on both sides of 0 intemal stree#s, and by
providing.a public brail connecting I Street NE with the Green River pazkway. The City
Pazks and Recreation Department requested the east west pedestrian trail (located in
Tract B) to create a dedicated public access point to the future north-south Crreen River
Trail, that the City plans to develop along the river's west bank as an important
recreational and transpartation resource. The proposed PUD would also provide
connections to the public park to be located in Tract E via the siclewalks along the
internal plaf road adjacent to the project's east boundary. The project is consistent with
the 2005 Park and Recreation Plan and fhe Non-Matarized Plan. Exhibit 35, Site Plan,-
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages ll, 17; Testimony of Mr. Mcnm; Testimorry of Mr. Dixorr.
19. Despite ttie site's long, narrow canfigwation, the proposal' would promote pedestriari circulation because it doesn't contain excessive lengths of straight internal streets,
thereby controlling vehicle speed. In order to further encourage vehicle speeds consistent
with pedestrian safety, the City Engineer requested that traffic-calming devices be
required at the time of final roadway design. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 11; Testimony
of Mr. Dixon.
20. The subject property is adjacent to an undevelaped portion of i Street NE. The Applicant
proposes to provide access to the site by improving the site's 3 Street NE frontage to City
standards for minor arterial roads. In order to do so, the Appiicant must dedicate right-
of-way to the City, including Tracts C and M. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 18; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. The proiect would have 571.3 feet of frontage.
Because of the proximity of existing accesses on adjacent properties, 571.3 feet of
frontage is not sufficient to allow more than one access paint into the projec# from I"
Street NE consistent witti the City's intersection separation standards. Exhibit 35, Site
Plan; Exhibit l, Staff Report,. page 11; Testimorty of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 12, Auburn Forry
PUD Revised 7'ran.sportatiorrlmpact Arralysis, 7he Transpo Group; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 71.
21. Comprehensive P1an Policy TR-13 requires developments with more than 75 dwelling
units to provide two access points. The same policy prohibits the creation of dead end
roads longer than 604 feet. Exhibtt 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimorry of Mr. Dixon.
Swrrounded by the Green River to the east, peanaaently p_rotected wetland property to the
north, and undevelnped private pmperty to the sauth, the subject property can only
' provide access along its western barder on I Street NE. Sauth of the site, I Streef NE
connects to public roads via 40tb Street NE. North of the site, I Stireet NE connects to
public roads via 45`h Street NE. Both 40* and 45`h Streets connect to Aubum Way North.
Findengs, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Ciry of Auburn Hearing Eramiaer
Ruburn 40 RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-00491PUD04-000I page 9 of 26
The Applicant must extend off-site improvements on I Street NE to both 40°i and 45`h
Streets to comply with City road standards and policies requiring multiple access points.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimorry of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 9, Aerial Site
Photograph. Providing north and south traffic access routes to the plat entrance would
also have the benefit of distributing traffc more evenly through the City's street network.
F.JICD'ilbll SSI, Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subjecf regarding Auburn Forty
Trafj"ic Impact Analysis Consrstency. The Applicant proposes to canstruct I Street NE ,
north to 45`h Street and south to 40'h Street with the first phase of development. Exhibit
54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburri Forty T'rafflc
Impact Arralysis Consistency.
" 22. The undeveloped I Street NE right-of way from the site nortli to 45t' Street NE has been
the subject of several recent studies done in conjunction with the Part of Seattle wetland
project. The City and the Port of Seattle aze currently engaged in negotiations regarding
vacation of the right-of-way. The City anticigates that the right-of=way exchange would
be concluded early in 2006. Exhibit 1, 3taff Report, pages 11-12; Testimony of Mr.
Dixon.
23. The primary intemal plat road connecting to I Street NE would be developed to
Residential Collector standards for the length of Phase I. The residential collector street
would be stubbed to tlze site's south boundary between Phases I and II to provide for
future connectivity. Immediately east of the boundary between Phases I and II, the
primary plat road would become a local residential street ttiioughout Phases II and III and
would stub to the site's south boundary ia two locations, once at the boundary between
Phases II and III, and once at the east end of the project, adjacent to Tract E. Notice of
the future extensions of on-site dead-end roads must be noted on ttie face of the final plat
and posted at the road stub locations, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13.
Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit I, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 13, Auburn Forry-
Supplemental 7'ransporration Information; The Transpo Group.
24. Despite its lunited frontage on I Street NE, the project must.still provide two points of
access internal to the site ia order to comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13.
City Planning Stafftestified that the purpose of the dual access requirement is to provide
adequate emergency access to developments of greater than 751ots. The Applicant
proposes to develop the plat's intemal residentiat collector access street as a boulevazd
with two 20-foot lanes separated by a tandscaped median. The 24-foot lanes would
extend east within the plat to'a point within Phase III such that the widened road would
serve alI lots within the P[7D except far 75. ' Staff testified that the divided boulevard
would provide two lanes for emergency vehicle access. The City accepted the proposed
divided boulevazd in sarisfaction of the dual access requi=ement If and when the
property to the sauth develops, three additional access points would be available. Exhibit
SS, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearrng Examiner, dated December 21, 2005;
Exhibit 1, Staff lteport, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Drxon.
25. Within the westem one-third of the site, the proposed intemal road network consists of
branching "T" intersections to the north and south from the primary residential collectar
Fi»dings, Conclusions, and Recommendatian
City ojAuburn Nearing Examiner
Auburn 40 RezotrelPUD/Prelirninary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD09-0002 page 10 ofl6
entrance road. The eastern two-thirds af the site would contain looped roadways
interconnected with public 20-foot-wide alleys. All roads within the plat would be
dedicated as public roadways. Seventeen lots would have access fmm shared private
access tracts, as follows: Tract D{Lots 42-44}; Tract H (Lots 125-127); Tract L(Lots
134-136); Tract O(Lots 14-13); and Tract P(Lots 27-30). The private access tracts
would be owned by the Homeowners' :Association. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8;
Exhibif 35, Site Plan. -
26. The Applicant requests deviations from four City Public Warks Design and Construction
Standards. including the following:
o A deviation fram the City's local residential street standazd to allow the
landscape strip to intervene between the sidevValk and curb on both sides of
the streets, rather than on only one side;
o A deviation from the City's residential collector street standard to allow a
landscaped bouleyazd section for the Residential Collector Street;
• A deviation for road radii for internal streets at seven lacations; and
• A deviation to allow ttie intersection spacing between local residential
streets and alleys (treated as local,residential streets) to be closer than the
design standard separatian of 125 feet
City Public Works Sta.ffreviewed the devia.tion requests and determined they aze
supported and approvable; however, approval of the requested deviations is deferred to
ensure that all required project modifications aze considered. Ezhibit 1, Stafj'Report,
page 6; Testimorry of Mr. Dizon.
27. The Applicant submitted a TrafFic Impact Analysis ('TIA}, prepared by The Transpo
Crroup. Tlie TIA indicated that the praject would generate approximately 2,328 average
daily trips, including 236 weekday PM peak hour trips 9 Exhibit' 12, Auburn Forty PUD
Revised Transportation Impac! Analysis, T'he ?'ranspo Group, March 2005. According to
the Applicant's transportation consultant, the intersection of the plan entrance and I Street
NE would operate a Level Of Service (LOS) B or better during peak hours, satisfying
City standards. Exhibit 54, Memorandum. from The Transpo Group.
28. The anticipated project trips combined with the new trips expected to be generated by
other "pipeline" prvjects, i.e. River Sand PUD, would degrade traffic movements at the
existing intersection af 45`h Street NE and Auburn Way North to LOS E, a condition
requiring mirigation. A traffic signal warrant analysis pecforined by the City revealed that
post-develogment operatians at the intersection would waaant signalization. A condition
of MDNS approval requires the Applicant ta contribute a 25% share towards the future
9 The TIA review was based oa 240 new lots; the AppEicant proposes 2361ots. Because the TIA documented the.
traffic impacts af a slightly larger propasai, its results adequately address the unpacts attributabte to the curcent
proposal. Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Graup Subject regardrRg Auburn Forty Trc~`'ic Impact
Analysis Consistency, dated Decernber 7, ZQOS.
Findings, Conclusior+s, and Recommeredation
City of A uburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 RezvnelPUD/Preliminqry Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 11 of 26
signalization of the intersection. No other mitigation was requested for off-site traffic
impacts. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 5 and 19; Exhrbit 1, StaffRepnrt, page 12; Exhibit 12,
Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis.
29. City of Kent schools would serve the project The project's impacts to schools would be mitigated by the payment of school impact fees to the Kent School District The City of
Auburn is autharized by ordinance to collect schaol impact fees on behalf of Kent. The
sidewalks provided along the internal plat staceets would provide safe walking routes fqr
school children within the plat to a bus stop that would be located on I Street NE. Due to
the Kent School DistricYs policy of not permitting school buses to enter subdivisians, a
bus stop would be located on I Street NE. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Fachibit 1, Sta~'f
Report, page 13; Testimorry of Mr. Dixon.
30. The Applicant's submittals indicate that approximately 35% of the site would be covered
by new impervious surfaces at fu11 build out, generating new stormwater runoff. The
Applicant commissioned a preliminary surface water report and engineering from Apex Engineering Inc. A stormpond in Tract F would collect and detain runoff from the
eastern two-thirds of the plat. The runoff would be treated using water quality best
management practices'and released into the existing Port of Seattle wetlands north of the
site via level spreaders or other means "to mimic natural sheet flow" to and across the
Port of Seattle property. Exhibit 14, page 1. In addition, the Applicant proposes to install
a bypass storm conveyance gipe from the south end of the plat to the level spreaders in
Tract F to maintain the existing natural flow from the approximately 80 acres south of the
subject properly to the Port's existing wedands. A second storm pond in Tract A would .
collect and treat runoff from new impervious surfaces in the easiern one-third of the
project and from the I Street NE improvements. The pand in Tract A has been sized to
collect and treat post-development runoff volumes for the sub-basin before conveying it
into an existing ditch system that flows north through an area of unincorporated King
County and eventually into the Green River. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 2-3; Exhibit 14,
Letter Drainage Report, Apex Ertgineering Inc.; Tes#imony of Mr. Mann.
31. The Applicant submitted plans depicting proposed stormpoads that generally satisfy City
stormwater management standards.1° Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape
Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineerin& dated November 30, 2005. Minor
modifications to pond designs may still be required during civil plan review. Testimany
of Mr. Drxon. Comprehensive Pian Policy UD-6 promotes stormdrainage facilities that
"incorporate high standazds of design to enhance the appearance of a site, preclude the
need for security fencing, and serve as an amenity." At hearing, Applicant
representatives described in detail the manner in which the Applicant proposes to create
starmponds that not only satisfy City stormwater management design standards; but also
pravide an aesthetic amenity to the plat and the general public. The Applicant submitted
conceptual drawings and photographs of existing stormponds to illustrate the intended
10 The November 30, 2405 plans (Exhibit 28) are revisions of the proposed storm pond designs for Tracu A and F
submitted in the October 31, 2005 Preliminary Landscape/Stormwater Pond Cross Sections, which did not comply
with Ciry design standards. Exhibir T, Staff Report, page 15; Testimony ofMr. Dixon.
Findtrtgs, Conctusions, and Recommendation
City ofAuburn Hearing Ezamirter
Au6urn 40 Rezone✓PUD/Prelirniruuy Pldt- PLTY14-00091PUD04-0002 Fage 12 oj26
aesthetic cantribution that wou.ld be made by the proposed stormponds. Testimony af Mr.
Hanberg; Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex
Engineerrng; Exhibit 49, photographs of existing o, f,)'-site ponds; Exhibit 51, Conceptual
Depictions of proposed ponds; Exhibit 32, RevisedAnalysis of PUD Berrefits.
32. Management of the stormwater runoff from the propased development was addressed
during the City's environmental review of the project- Compliance with the mitigation
measures impased on the project through the City's environmental threshold
determination would ensure that there would be no adverse impacts ta the environment or
surrounding properties. Exhibit 7, MDNS; Testimony af Mr. Dixon.
33. The Applicant proposes to extend City of Auburn water to the project. To do so, the
Applicant must construct on- and off-site water extension projects consistent with Comprehensive Water Plan and Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final plat
approval, the Applicant must install dual connections to the water system, including one
connection to the west in the viciniry of King County Parcel No. 000400-0 1 1 1? and
anather connection within the I Street NE right-of-way south to the vicuuty of Parcel No.
000400-0113. Specific parameters for water line extension were addressed in MDNS
Condition 12. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
34. Currently, no sewer service extends to the site. City sewer policies prioritize gravity
systems as the most cost-effective means of providing sanitary sewer service; however, ,
pressure systems are allowed when gravity systems are impractical or cost-prohibitive.
The Applicant submitted information justifying the need for a pressure system. Exhibit 7,
MDNS, page 6. The Applicant proposes to constxuct a sewer pump station in Tract K to
serve the entire development. The proposed central location of the pump station would
mir►imize the depth of the wet wells and increase system eff'iciency. The sewer pump
station would be sized to serve the undeveloped property south of the site in addirion to
the proposed project. The Applicant anticipates latecomers' agreements from other
properties in the general area. The pump station would tie dedicated to the City and
operated as a municipal utility. Exhibit 22, Auburn Forty PZID Conceptual Sanitary
Sewer Lift Stdtion Ezhibit, Apex Engineering; Testimorry of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr.
Dixon.
35. Fina1 design of the pwnp station must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
grading or construction pernut issuance. Until the final pump station design is
established, it is not known how large Tract K will need to be to contain the facility.
Because the project proposes to place a sewer pump station adjacent to residential
development, Tract K needs to be large enough to accommodate various screening and
mitigation measures required by the NIDNS. In the event that Tract K rnust be enlarged
to accommodate the pump station, adjacent Tract EE may need to be reduced in azea.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Fxhibit 7, MDNS, page 19.
36. PUDs must provide efficientpublic facilities, consistent with City standards that do not
result in higher public operational costs than would be iricuured: by traditional
subdivision. ACC 18. 69.090(B). City Planning Staff testified that the proposed layout of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Heqring Examiner '
.4uburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat PLT04-00041PUD04-0001 page 13 of 2 6
the sanitary sewer force main leading from the pump station contains too many beads that
would cantribute to increased friction in the pipe and result in head loss, forcing the
pump motors to work harder. At the hearing, Staff requested at hearing that the location
of sanitary sewer force main be revised within currently proposed rights-of-way to
produce a more efficierit system and requested that the force mainrevision be required as
a condition of agproval. Exhihit 23, Auburn Forly PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual
Utility Plan, Apex Engineering; Exhibit 1, Sta,,a'Report, page 16; Testimorry of Mr. Dixon.
The Apglicant representative testified that the requested revisions can be accomplished
by redesigning the path of the force main within the plat's north most intemal road.
Testimorry of Mr. Mann.
37. A Homeowners' Association is proposed to maintain private open spaces and access
tracts not dedicated to the City. The Applicant submitted a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) progosed to govem the requiredmaintenance of
private open spaces and tracts. Exhibit 30, Auburn Farty PUD Application (Varrative),
undated; Exhibit 36, CC&Rs. The GC&Rs, a legal instrument for permanent
maintenauce of commumty facilities, would be subject to review and approval prior to
final plat approval. Exhibit 31, REyISED Auburn Forty Prelrminary Plar and PUD
Conceptual Design Guidelines; Exhibit 56,Memorandum from JeffDixon to the Hearing
Examiner.
38. Proposed PUDs must be consistent with required design standards and demonstrate
design continuity of structures in order to achieve the PUD's stated purpose of "enhanced
design." ACC 18.69.080. To address this requirement, the Applicant submitted proposed
Homeavmers' Association Architectural Guidelines and CC&Rs for the developmeirt.
Exhibit 36; Exhibit 37; Exhibit 38; Exhihit 39. City Planning Staff stated that.while these ,
documents present a general intent to comply with the City's design requirements, the
documents primarily address the design review process by the Homeowners' Assaciation.
Staff recommended revisions to the praposed CC&Rs prior to final plat approval to
address requiied design specifications. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10, Testimonry of
Mr. Dixon.
39. The Applicant submitted an updated preliminary landscape plan, prepazed by the Bradley
Design Group, to address design features including street trees, landscaping, and signage.
Exhibit 50, Prelimirrary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group,
dated December 7, 2005. Photographic examples of landscaping amenities similar ta
those proposed were submitted for illustrative purposes. Exhibit 47, Lakeland Hills PDD
Landscape Amenities. The Applicant proposes a single standing montunent sign to be
placed at a landscaped plat emrance in Tract N. Exhibit l, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit
Forty, E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixorr transmitting dated December 17, 2004
transmitting sign detail. City Planning Staff noted that Tract Y is depicted on the revised
- plan as containing areas of lawn, which would not be consistent with the tract's intended
purpose as a wetland buffer. To ensure protection of the wetiand buffer, Staff requested
that Tracts X and' Y be protected by a native growth protection easemeaL Staff also
noted that the revised plan daes not addTess site furniture such as is depicted in the
photographic examples from other PUDs that were submitted Review and approval of a
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommerrdation
City of.4vburn Hearing Examiner
Aubran 40 RezonP/PUD/Prelfminqry Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 14 of 26
finallandscape plan would be required prior to final, ptat approval to ensure consistency
with PUD design guidelines. Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty
PUD; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner; Exhibit 1,
Staff Report, page 10.
40. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the City of
Aubum acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposed preliminaryplat. The City issued a final Mitigated Defermination of Non-
. Significance (MDNS) on October 13, 2005 confaining 13 rizitigationmeasures that would •
reduce enviranrriental impacts of the rezone ta PUD and plat development to a point of
non-significance. The required mitigation measures include additianal geotechnical
study, wetland mitigation for the off-site wetlands; :floodplain compensation (in the event
that the project.impacts floodplain storage capacity), water line extension requirements,
traffic circulation measures, and archeological resources measures. Exhibit l, Staff
Report, page.l3; Exhibit 7, MDNS. No appeal was filed and the NIDNS became fixial on
November 3, 2005. Testlmony of Mr. Dixon.
41. Notice of application and notice of public hearing were maiied to surrounding property
' owners, pasted on-site, and published in accordance with the City's code requirements. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit S; Exhibit 6.
42. At the public hearing, a representative from the undeveloped property to the south
presented questions and concerns regarding the project. His questiflns pertained to the
following: whether the proposed sewer pump station would be sized to serve off-site
properties and whether latecomers' agreements would be accegted; financing for the
compledon of I Street NE between 45`h and 49'h Streets NE; whether site grading would •
cause alterations in existing stormwater runoff flow, resulting in created wetlands; and
whether the Applicant was required to develop full or,half-street frontage improvements
alang the project's I Street NE frontag'e. Testimorry of Mr: Hathaway. Both City Planning
Staff and t6e Applicant responded to these concerns. Testimorry of Mr. Diacon; Testimony
of Mr. Mann.
43. In the present case, tlie use of the flexible PUD design standards would result in the
following public benefits that would not be provided under trad.itional subdivision of the
same property; parkland dedication above that required of a subdivision; greater diversity
in lot types and a more varied streetscape; relatively more affordable-housing; and apen
space equal to or greater than 20% of total site area, atlowing for shoreline access and a
public east-west trail that would most likely not be provided by a traditional plat. Farhibit
45; Exhibit 46, Prajected Pro,flle of the Developmentof King County Parce1000400-
0005; Testimorry ofMr. Mann:
' CONCGUSION5
Jurisdiction:
Pursuantto Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction ta hear and
make recommendations to the City Council on applications for preliminary plat and rezones to
PUD: ACC 18.69.140; ACC 14:03.040(A); ACC 17:06.050.
Findings, Conclusions, qnd Recaiunenilation
City oj.4 uburn Hearing Framirrer
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminqry Plax- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 15 of 26
Criteria for Review:
Rezone to PUD:
The Hearing Examiner shall only recommend approval of a rezone to PUD designation if the
record contains evidence to satisfy the foIIowing criteria established in ACC 18.69.150:
1. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The rezone was initiated by a party other than the City; and
3. Modifications made to the proposal by the Hearing Examiner will not result in a
more intense zone than the one requested.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has established general rules for rezoaes
(Pqrkxidge v, Seattle, 89 Wash.2d 454 (1978), including the requirement that "the rezone must
bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." i'
Planned Unit Development:
In order to recommend approval of a FUD, the Hearing Examiner must find that the record
contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the following criteriapursuant to ACC 18.69.150:
1. The progosal makes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways,
water supplies, sanitary westes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The pmposal 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, architec#ural and site design, housing choice and/or open
space protection over what would otherwise be attained through a develapment
using the existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or
plans which have been adopted by the City Council. 5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area th,an any other project would have if develaped using the
exisring zoning standards of the zorung district the PUD is located in.
" Parkridge v. Seattle (1978) also estabtished a general rule that rezones could only be spproved. if a substantial
"change in circumstances" had occurred in the vicinity of the proposal. However, Washington Goiuts have
subsequently held that where a pioposed rezone to PUD implements policies of the Gomprbheaisive Plaa, no
showing of changed circumstances is re.quired. Bjqrnson v. Kitsap Couray, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (1995).
Fin.dings, Conclusions; and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examtner .
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Pretiminary P1at- PL704-00091P UD04-0002 page 16 of 26
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood, including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map
designatians, and the design guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
Prelimirrary Plat:
In order to recommend approval of a preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner must find that the
record contains evidence to satisfy the following criteria pursuant to ACC 17.06.070:
, 1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and generat welfare
and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, l, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Con.formance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive
Plan, to the general purpose of T"itle 17.02, and to the general ptuposes of any
other applicable policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Councii.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable
planning or engineering standazd and specifications.
4. Potential environmeutal 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.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The Applicant initiated the rezone. Findirrg No. 8.
2. The Heariimg Eaaminer is not recommending any chaage or modification to the
rezone request tLat will result in a more infense zone than the one reqnested by the
Applicant.
3. Z'he rezone bears a substantisl relationship to the pablic health, safety, morais, or
general welfare. Tfie requested rezone would result in housing densities consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the sife, increasing the supply and
diversity of housing stock available in_the vicinity. The PUD, as conditioned, would
extend roads and utilities ta an undeveloped area at the periphery of the City. The PUD
would create 7.79 acres of open space within the development including a public park
adjacent to the Green River parkway and a public trail connecting I Street NE with the
Green River sh4reline. Fi»dings Nos. 4, 6, 10, II, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,10, 21, 22, 34,
35, 36, and 43.
4. The rezone, PUD, and Prelimmary Plat are consistent with the City of Aubnrn
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies. The proposed rezone,
PUD, and preliminary plat are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Exqminer
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Prelimfnary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 17 of l6
Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed densities of single-family residential
development are consistent with the site's current Comprehensive Plan land use
designations of "HighDensity Residential" and "Single Family Residential." The project
would be consistent with Comprehensive Transportation Pian policies, particularly TR-13
regarding the provision of two points of access for developments with more than 75 .
dwelling units, both through off-site construction of I Street NE road and throngh the
provision of the boulevard with two 20-foot lanes divided by a landscaped median at the
plat entrance. Proposed stormpond facilities would prflvide aesthetic amenities consistent
with Policy UD-6. Findings Nos. 9, 10, 12, 21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, and 39.
5. With canditioas, the proposal makes adequate provisions for the pnblic health,
safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools. The Applicant would
extend public water and sewer to the project consistent with" City design standards.
Conditions of appmval would ensure that the sewer pump stadon is siz.ed to provide
service to the undeveloped property adjacent to the south if and when it is developed in
the future and that Tract K is adequately sized to protect adjacent residential lots. On-site
portions of the buffers of off-site wetlands would be protected through compliance with
NIDNS conditions of approval. Stormwater would be collected, treated, and detained on-
site prior to release in its natural drainage paths. Some of the treated storaiwater runoff
would be discharged to the off-site wetlands to the north in a manner designed to mimic
pre-development flows and the remainder would be released into the existing open
channel and eventually the Green River. A condition of approval would ensure that the
starmpond designs satisfy City standards. The project would provide 7.79 acres of open
space, including 3.9 acres of public parklands providing active recreation opportunities
for the general public in addition to plat residents. The project would provide significant
off-site infrastructure unprovements in the comgletion of I Street NE between 401' and
450` Streets NE. These improvements would provide two access routes to the project
from off-site areas for emergency and general traffic. The Applicant would dedicate
significant right-of-way along the property frontage for I Street NE improvements. The
internal plat road system would be designed and constiuct,ed consistent with City road
standards. Sidewallcs on both sides of all intemal roads and the public trail provided in
Tract B would provide for safe pedestrian circuladon, as well as a connection to the
Green River shoreline. School children would be bussed to area schools from a bus stop
located an I Street NE near the plat entrance. Impacts to City of Kent Schools would be
mi#igated by the payment of fees. Firrdings Nos. 6. 14. 15. '16 17. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 34, 36, and 40.
6. With conditions, the proposal provides the public benefits required of PIJD
develapments and is consistent wifh the purpose of ACC 18.59. In addition to the
provisions named in Conclusion 5, the PUD would'provide public benefits that would not
be provided by a traditional plat including greater parkland dedication, more affordable
housing, and open space equal to at least 200/a of total site area. In light of a possible
reduction in Tract EE to accommodate the pump station in Track K, a condition of
approval is necessary to ensure that at least 20% of the total site area is set aside as open
space. While Tract DD as a stand-alone tract might not represent desirable open space
Findings, Conclusions, and Recoinmerrdbtion
City of'14uburn Hearing Examiner
iiuburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PL?Y14-00091PUD04-0002 page 18 of 26
due to its size and location, nothing in the record supports a conclusion that Tract DD
should not be inclu.ded as contiguous open space to the public trail in Tract B. A •
condition of approval would ensure that PUD design guidelines are satisfied. Findings
Nos. 9, 13, IS, 35, 37, 38, and 41
The approval of the PUD would have no moce of an adverse impact on the
snrrounding area than any project developed nsing tLe egisting zoning standards
wonld h$ve. 1'he PUD is consistent wit6 the earisting and planned character of the
neighborhood. While the PUD would allow for a slightly higher number of dwelling
units than would be possible on the 6,000 square foot minimum lots required in the R-2
district with traditional subdivision of the site, the increase in impacts would be
imperceptible. Surmunding prope=ties are andeveloped and have primarily residential
zoning designations. Development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning code would not negatively impact the planned character of the immediaxe vicinity.
Findings 1Vos. 3, 7, and 11. 9. As conditioned, the preliminary plat conforms to the City of Aubarn's land division
and zoning ordinances and other appUcable planaing or engineering standards and
speeifications. As proposed; the project is consistent with the development standards of
the PUD zoning district within the underlying Comprehensive Plarf Land Use
designations. Conditions of appmval would ensure that roads, utilities, open space, and
stormdrainage improvements conform to applicable standards. Findings Nos. 10, 12, 20,
21, 22, 31, and 32.
10. The project was reviewed for compliance with SEPA and an NIDNS was issued. No
appeals were filed and the NIDNS became final. A condition of approval would ensure
compliance with all mitigating'measures required in the October 13, 2005 MDNS.
Additional conditions ofapproval would ensure thatthe off-site improvements of I Street
NE north to 45'h Street have no adverse impacts on off: site wetlands and that sufficient
noise attenuation from the sewerpump station would be provided. Finding Mo. 40. .
11. Compliance witb ACC 8.12 would ensure that pnbIic nnisances are prevented or
abated.
RECONdMENDATION
Based upon the precedi.ng Find'ungs of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends
that the requests for rezone of approximately 38.48 acres from R2 Residential to Planned Unit
Development, for approval of a Plauned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for
the Auburn Forty subdivision, a 236-1vt single-family re"sidential subdivision, be GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
PUD Conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a
plan or manner of peimanent care and maintenance of open space, recreational areas,
private tracts, parkland, and other communally owned faciiities. No such instrument
sha11 be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to its legal form and effect
Firrdings, Conclusivns, and Recammehdatron
City of Auburn Hearing Fxaminer
Auburn 40 Resone/PUD/PreliminqryPldt-PLTi74-OOU4/PUD04-0002 page 19 of26
Areas proposed to meet the twenty perceni (20%) open space shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant or other method, describing that the space, its maintenance, and
irnprovement are appurtenaut to the land for the benefit of the residents of the pia.nned
unit development and adjoining property owners. The final plat shalt grant easements to
the City of Aubum in all comrnunally owned open space and park land tracts so that the
City may perform maintenance in the everrt of improper maintenance by the
homeowners' association. All maintenance shall adhere to City of Aubum standazds.
2. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, a plan for the design and
construction of traf6c calming methods on the northern, east-west street must be
approved by the City Engineer. The tra.ffic calming devices shall be completed or
financially guaranteed for installation priorto final plat approval.
3. The Applicant shall prepare a Fina1 Landscaping Plan that demonstrates that all
landscaping in the public rights-of-way, storm diainage tracts, sight distance tracts, and
open space tracts conform to City standards. The plan must demonstrate conformance
with standards for accepta.ble tree types and root barriers, etc., and must also show
coordination with utility and road improvements. The plan must also include
maintenance and conform to the staridards in ACC 18.50.070. The Applicant shall
provide root deflection devices or similar mechanisms for all trees planted within five
feet of curbs, sidewalks, or pavement to ensure mature trees does not confribute Eo
gavement deterioration. Care should be taken by the Applicantto account for individual
lots' ingress and egress when defining the location of proposed street trees. The
landscapeti median within the residential collector street shall be the responsibility of the
homeowners' association and be included in the landscaping maintenance plan and the
legal instrument assuring maintenance. The plan must be approved by the Planning
Department prior to issuance of grading, construction or facitity extension approvals.
4. In order to meet subdivision requirements of ACC 17.12.260 and PUD requirements of
ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) related to dedication of recreation land and based on the
Applicant's submitted preliminary plat, the Applicant shall dedicate at least 4.18 acres of
land generally in the location ideirtified as Tracts "B" &"E" on the Preliminary Plat
Auburn Forty PUD, Apex Engineering, 9-16-04, revised 10-18-05 and in a configuration
acceptable to the City of Auburn Parks Director.
5. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are typically submitted
for conmction of the subdivision there shall also be submitted engineering/conslruction
and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publiciy
dedicated Tract "B". The park improvements sha11 be approved by the City of Auburn
Pazks Director prior ta the approval of the grading plau5 or facility extension drawings
for the plat. The materials supplied and installed must be shown and meet the curnent
City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director
prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteed. The plans for Tract B shall
be accompanied by plans for and coordinated with the construction of wetland buffer and
stormwater facilities on the adjacent tracts. The trail surface will be maintained by the
City and the landscaping will be maintained by the Developer and/ or homeowner's
Findings, Conclusions, and Recomr►sendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examirser.
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preltminary Plat-PLT04-0004/PUD04-0002 page 20 of26
association. This condition shall be part of each property owner's legal description and .
title. The maintenance schedule and responsibilities shall be identified in the legal
instrusnent whose language shall be reviewed and approved 'by the Parks Director prior to
final plat approval and recording. Also a maintenance easement shall be provided by the
City to the homeawner's association at the time of the final plat
6. Concurnent with tbe plat engineering/construction drawings that are typipally submitted
for construction of the subdivision there shall also be submitted engineeringJconstruction
and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicly
dedicated Tract "E". The park impmvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum
Parks Director prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings =
:for the plat.: The materials supplied and installed must be shown and meet the current
City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director
prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteeci. Also the plan shall inciude an
interior pathway connecting to the public sidewalk. The plan shall at a minimum include
play equipment of notless than:9,600 sq ft including fall zone. The play structure sliall be
large enough to service at least 90 children, featuring 18 to 20 glay events designed for
children from the ages of 2 to 12 years ald. The park area shauld include but not limited
to four (4) park benches, four (4) picnic tables and one (1) garbage receptacle. The
materials will be purchased and installed by the developer. The area that will be
developed and constructed will be located west (outside) of the 200-foot shoreline
jurisdiction. Curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be pravided along the street of Tract E prior
to final plat approval.
7. The developed park azea within Tract B and E shall be irrigated with an automatic
irrigation system that meets the City/Park departinent standards. The irrigation
information shall be identified in a plan ta be submitted to the City for review and
approval.
8. The Applicant shall work with the City of Auburn Parks Department and witti King
Counfiy Pazks and Open Space Department on locating the Green River Trail alignment
on the developer's constructifln drawings so as not to place play equipment or park
fiunishings in the path of the potential trail (Green River Trail) that will be constructed in
the future by the county or successor agency.
9. Pedesttian/omamental street lights shall be provided along the interior streets of the plat.
The style of the lights shall be consistent with city standards or an ornamental style
approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the spacing and location
of the lights to ensure that adequate lighting is provided alang the surface of alI streets
and any adjacent sidewalks. The lightiag standazds shall be coordinated with lighting
standards provided in apen spaces..
10. The designs of the homes shall be at least equivalent to the, illustrations in The Aubum
North Fortv Homeowner's Association Architectural Guidelines for the Construction of
New Homes (Extubit 53) and Polyggn and OakRidLe Homes Elevations and Floor Plans.
Revisions to the CC&Rs and an architectural design plan shall be reviewed and appraved
Frrrdin,gs, Conclusions, and Recommendatian
City ofl4uburn Hearing Exarrrirter Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Prelfminary Plat- PL7'04-00091PUD04-0402 page 21 of26
by the Planning Directar prior to submittal of btanlding permits (for model homes) or finai
plat, providing addirional sgecifications for the following items:
• Overall coordinatian of building design in liglrt of the fact that the hoa2es could be
develaped by multiple homebuilders '
• Modulation of roof and wall fagade
• Opportunity to stagger ttie placement of homes on the lots to avoid continuous
rows • The use of different materials an each house & consistency of siding materials on
sides of the residence
• Variation in facades and roof lines
. Number of different building designs and dispersion af building designs
• Number of parking spaces provided on each lot
• Colors Idesigns for the buildings
11. Prior to appmval grading, construction, or facility extension permits, the type and . placement of landscaping shatl be approved by the Planning Director. The Final
landscape design shall be generally consistent with the: Preliminarv Laadscape Plan
Auburn Forty PUD. BradleyDesign Group, dated October 31, 2005 with the following '
revisions:
e Avoid landscape trees in front of stornt pond maintenance accesses
o Avoid removal or disturbance within the 200-foot shoreline area
• Ensure that landscaping is coordinated with and identifies sight distance
requirements
• Ensure that Tract boundaries, i.e. Tract N, agree with the plat
12. The PUD requires that open spaces be enhauced as an amenity. The PUD will also
require ornamentaUpedestrian type lighting, furniture in the open space areas, and that entrance signs and fencing will be coordinated. Lighting, furniture and signs shall be of
consistent design and material throughout the project. Any signs shall be a low
monument style with tighting and accenting landscaping. The signs shall generally be
consistent with the plan accompanying the E-mail from Sean Martin to JeffDixon
transmittio a sign detail, December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 40). The number, style, placement
and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director as part of the final lan_dscaping
plan. The permanent maintenance of the Iighting fumiture and signs within any public
tracts or open spaces shall be addressed as part of the instrument setting forth a plan or
manner of permanent care.
13. Fencing shall be of a compatible material, style and color throughout the PUD. The Planning Director sha11 approve of a fencing plan or fencing shall be addressed as part of
the required lanciscaping plan. The fence designs sha11 be at least equivalent to the photos
of open rail fences accompanying the Letter from Anex fingineerin~sponse to
Comnleteness Letter (environmental checklist application sumlement) dated 3-25-05.
Specifically, consisteirt fence treatments shall be provided in the following locatians:
• Fencing between lots and Tract B 8c E(park land tracts)
Frndings, Conclusions, and Recommendatior►
City of Auburn Heartng Eacaminer
.4uburn 40 Reaoae/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-00091PUD04-0002 page 22 of 26
• Fencing between individuallots and Tract A and Tract F(stormwater facility
tracts) .
e Fencing or other separatian between lots and the open space tracts including Tract
N
e Fencing atong southern boundary of project site
The permanent maintenance of the fencing adjacent to any public tracts or open spaces shall
be addressed as part of the legal instrument setting forth a plaa or maFmer of permanent caze.
14. The Applicant has proposed that certain Lots shall be limited to alley access, i.e. no
vehicle access except by the alley. The final plat shall include a requirement that Lots 65
through 108 and Lots 144 through 157 (or equivalent number of lots should the plat be
modified and lots renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building entrance oriented to the street and vehicle entrance from the public alley., Additionally,
Lots 1 through 5, and Lots 30 through 36 and Lots 211 through 223 (of their equivalents
should the plat be modified and lots renumbered for any reason) sha11 be developed with
the main building entrance oriented to the residential collector street and the vehicle
entrance from the local residential street.
15. The approval of the PUD is anly valid upon the approval and execution by the Aubum
City Council of the associated preliminary plat, File No. PLT04-4009.
16. While Tracts A and F will be publicly dedicated for stortnwater inanagement, in order to.
meet open space objectives of the PUD the tracts will require more extensive landscaping
treatment and more intensive maintenance. As a result, the HOA must maintain the
portions of the tracts outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no fence if provided, outside
the 10-year storm water surface elevation and the public right-of-way. The maintenance
sha11 be prescribed in the legal instrumeni that addresses maintenance of open space
tracts.
17. Prior to issuance of grading, construction, or facility extension approvals, the Applicant
shall provide construction plans and cross sections for review meeting city standards for
the praposed storm water facilities located within Tracts A and F that and demonstrate
coordination with landscapirig plans. Tracts A and F inay need to be modified and or
enlarged fo meet the design and constntction standards to accommodate the calculated
storage volummes and required aesthetics for storm ponds constructed in residential areas.
18. The Applicant has submitted an Auburn Fortv PUD Conceotual Sanitarv Sewer Lift
Station Exhibit; Apex Engineering, 10-27-05, that d.emonstrates the Proposed Tract K is
not sufficient to accommodate needed pump station facilities. As a result, the adjacent
Tract EE will require reduction.in area. The developer should be aware of the City may
require the pump station to incorporate variable speed drive (VFD) motors in the sewer
pump statian since the initial flows to the pump station will be minimal. This
consideration is important because the station will serve a larger area in the future and
VFD motors will handle the initial lower flows better. Ttie ase of this pump type wauld
limit the needed expansion of the tract.
Findings, Conclusloru, and Recommendation
Clty ojAuburn Hearirrg Examiner
Auburn 40 RezoneJPUD/Prelimin"ary Plat- FLT114-00091PUD04-0002 page 23 of 26
19. Prior to issuance of grading permits orfacility extension approyals, the Applicant shall
provide a written comparison between the placement of the, sewer force main as
identified in the Auburn Fortv PUD Preliminarv Plat Conceptual Utili ~t~ Plan, Apex
Engineering,10-20•OS and the placement of the force main along public righ# of way and
then between Lots 41 and 42, Lot 29 and finally between Lots 9 and 10. The discussion
must compare the possible lass of two lots with the Iayout of a direct force main and
increased open space. The goal of the discussion is to reduce the number and severity of
the force main bends as shown in the conceptual plan to reduce maintenance, realize
public utility efficiencies and reduce net public operational casts consistent with PUD
requirements at ACC 18.69.090(B).
20. Tracts X and Y shall be owned by the HOA and encumbered by a native growth
protection easement conveyed. to the City of Aubum to meet minimum buffer
requirements of the CAO, ACC 16.10 and PUD open space requirements.
21. Criven the relatively narrow frontages of the proposed single-family residential lots and
the impact on pedestrians (and wheelchairs and strollers) from elevation changes due to a
series of clasely spaced driveways, the local residential road crass section showri on the
preliminary plat shall be revised to shaw the landscape planting strip abutting the curb on
both sides of the street.
22. Prior to approval of construction drawings or facility extensians, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that twenty percent (20%) of the site's buildable area is set aside as open
space meeting the definition of open spact per ACC 18.69.084(A)(1) as determined by
the Planning Director.
23. The maintenance responsibilify for the landscaping withia the medians would be by the
HOA by licensed and bonded professional maintenance firm under a right-of-way use
permiL
Preliminary Plat Conditions:
1. Per section 10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, sight distance is required to be measured
at a point 14.5 feet from the travel way. The Aubum Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight
Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, Apex Engineering, 10-27-05 shows sight
distance at intersections as being measured at 10 feet from the travel way. Th15 15 Ail
acceptable departure from standards for a local residential road intersection. However,
intersections 1, 6 and 7 as indicated in the sight plan drawings submitted are collector or '
arterial road 'urtersecrions and shall evaluate sight distance at 14.5 feet per the city
standards. The Applicant shall resubmit a corrected sight distance analyses for review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading, construction or facility
extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis, the plat shall tie modified to
ensure that City sight distance standards are met and that all land within the property
boundaries that occurs within the sight distance triangles is dedicated as right-of-way.
The dedication is shall be accomplished on the Final Plat, if not comeyed in advance.
This may result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable
Firrdings, Conclusions, cnrd Recommendation
City offluburn Heating Ezaminer
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Alat- PL704-00091PUD04-0002 page 24 of l6
requirements are satisfied.
Also, per section ,10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, the speed assumed for the sight
distance analysis at intersection 1, the main plat entrance to I Street NE; as shown on the
exhibit snbmitted, shall use 35 mph forthe design speed The Applicant sha11 resubmit a
corrected sight distance analyses for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of grading or facility extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis,
the plat sha11 be modif ed to ensure that city sight distance standards are met and that all
land within the property boundaries that is located within sight distance triangles is
dedicated as right of way on the Final Plat, if not already conveyed in advance. This may
result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable rrequirements are
satisfied.
2. The Applicant has proposed that the off-site extension of I StreetNE will nat result in
wetland filling or impacts beyond those identified on the Port's property and addressed in
the Final MDNS. Prior to approval of the grading permit or facility extensions for half
street improvemeirts or off -site extension of I Streef NE, unless it is demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Plazuung:Director that the I Street NE half-street improvements will
nflt result in wetland filling or iinpacfs, a final wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared -
and submitted far review and appraval by the Planning Directvr and: Public Works
Directors. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the subsequent grading
permits or other construction permits. If applicable, the plan shall identify the amount of
wetland impacts associated with extension of I Street NE and any associated wetland
mitigation in accordance with the AC 16.10.
3. Notice of the future extension of the project's dead end streets shall be recorded on the
face of the final plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on site signage of such future
traffic improvements shall be pmvided as directed by the City Engineer.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval the Applicant shall demonstrate to the sarisfaction of the City
Engineer that the site's existing water well and site septic system lzave been abandoned in
accordance with state and lacal regulations and a water right transfer to the City's well
field will need to lie completed and filed with the Department of Ecology.
5. The project shall not at anytime disturb or encroach upon the 200-foot shoreline buffer
of the Green River.
6. The plat shall implement tlle tturteen (13) Conditions ofthe Fina1 Mitigated
Determination of Non-Sigriificance (FMDNS) (File Number SEP04-0037) issued
October 13, 2005.. The conditions.prescribe geotechnical procedures, wetland
mitigation, floodpiain compensation, azcheological and culiural resources, road
improvements, traffic circulation and water line extension requirements.
7. Because tlie propossd off-site extension of I Street NE that is needed to provide access to
the plat will result in additional impervious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the
issuance of any grading or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide plans
Frndings, Conclusions, and Recommendatton
City of Auburn Hearing Eacaminer
Auburn 40 ReaareJPUD/Prel3mfnary Plat- PL7YI4-00091PUD04-0002 page 25 of 26
detailing off-site storm dra.inage improvements including waxer quality treatment for the
required I St. NE extension.
8. Becavse the proposed frontage improvements of I Street NE will result in additional
impervious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the issuance of any grading or facility
extension approvals, the Applicant sha11 provide plans for review detailing drainage '
improvements for the half-street improvements along the plat froirtage. Water quantity
control and water qualitytreatment for the impervious surfaces or an equivalent area or
discharge shali be managed within the proposed on-site storm drainage pond facility.
9. The median at far southern end of the Plat on the collector road shall be foreshortened
and designed to permit vehicle turnaround. This shall be accomplished prior to approval
of any construction drawings.
10. All alleys are public and shall be identified as public on the plat. This sha11 be
accomplished prior to apgroval of any construction drawings.
11. No direct residential I:ot access shall be allowed fram the proposed lots to the collector
street within the plat.
12. No direct residential Lot access shall be allowed from the proposed lots to the arterial
street (I Street NE).
13. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, in order to avoid a sight
distance/safety concern the Applicant shall restrict direct access to the street from the
alley between Lots 83 and 84 by a means of traffic control acceptable to the City
Engineer. ,
14. In order to ensure the.accurate placement of homeslstructures in relationship to the
setbacks required from praperty lines, easements, or other similar features associated
with a lot, the City's Building Official may require that all applicable carners of the
structure be surveyed and staked prior to the pouring of footings or foundations.
15. Prior to appmval of construction or facility extension plans, the Appliaant shall submit
manufacturer specifications or a noise study for review and approval by the City
Engineer that demonstrates that noise associated with the sanitary sewer pnmp station
will meet state noise standards. Noise attenuation measures may be required tb achieve
consistency.
Decided this • day of January 2006.
Driscoll 8t Hunter
City of Auburn Hearing Examiners
By:
Theodore Paul Hunter
Findings, Concluslons, arrd Recommendation
City ofAuburn Hearing F.xantiner
Auburn 40 RezonelPUD/Preliminmy Plcrtt- PLT714-00091PUD04-0002 page.26 of l6
EXhlbit "B°
Resolution No. 3989
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NORTH HA.LF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE. SOUTH HALF OF THE GEORGE E.
KING DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 40, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,
RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE ME1tIDIAN,IN KING COI3NTY, WASHNGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYIlVG NORTHERLY OF THE FENCE LINE AS TT '
EXISTED ON DECEMBER 17, 1979, AS DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE
AGREEMENT, REC4RDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912174640; ALSO
EXCEPT THAT PORTION TFEREOP CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDBR RECORDING NUMBER 7409060426,
TOGE'FHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING NORTEERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
iJNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118; ALSO
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LY1NG SOUTHERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED INBQUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
[JNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118.
I ,
. ,
s .
1
Retum Address: 20~50330~0242
Aubum City Clerk ppCiFIC N~f jI~T Oi~ , 6i.e0
City of Aubum ~s 5:38
25 West Main St. K~_
Aubum, WA 98001
RECORDER'S COVER SHEET
Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein):
1. Rezone - Ordinance No. 6002 ql.
1,J'~i
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released:
❑Additional reference #'s on age of document
Grantor(s) (Lasf name first, then first narime and initials)
. 1, Aubum, City of
Grantee: (Last name first)
1. Investco Financial Corporation
Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township,, range)
The north haif of the north half of the south half of the George E. King Danation Land Ciaim No. 40 in
Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East
~ Additional legal is on page 30 of the document
Assessoes Property Tax Parcel/Account Number:
006400-0420-0004
p Assessor Tax # not yet assigned
recortl bY Pacific Norft" Titfe as
aocomrrrodation oniy. It tm M beoa
examinad as io propereoo~oulonat
as to its aeCt upo~ Ne.
S r
ORDINANCE N0. 6 0 0 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 38.48
ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R2)
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Application No. PUD04-0002, dated` December 16, 2004, has
been submitted to the City of Aubum, Washington by Brian McCabe on behalf of lnvestco Financial Corporation requesting approval of a rezone request for
approximately 38.48 acres from Single Family Residential (R2) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development in
Aubum, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said requests referred to above were referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to sta.ff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said applications in the Council Chambers of the
Aubum City Hall on December 7, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of"the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary
plat on January 10, 2006; and
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 1 of 28
1
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of January 17, 2006, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was heid February 15, 2006, at which
time the City Council considered the Hearing Examinees rec;ommendations and
the maferial presented to the Hearing Ecaminer after which the Council voted ta
approve Application Na PUD04-0002 with the conditions recommended by the
Hearing Examiner and staff.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant requests approvai of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development .
(PUD), and a preliminaryplat to develop 'The Aubum Forty,° a 236-1ot,
single-family residential subdivision. The 38.48-acre subject property is
located between the Green River and the 4200-4300 block of I Sfreet NE
in Aubum, Washingfon. Exhibit 1*, Staff Report page 1; Exhibits 29 and
30; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
2. The City ofAubum processes PUD applications in several steps. The first
step requires approval of a contract rezone of the subject property from its
existing zoning designation to a PUD designation. The contract rezone
specifies the land use, the density, the number and types of dwelling units,
the amount and types of open space; and the responsibilities of the
Applicant. In the present case, the application foc preliminary plat
approval has been processed simultaneously with the PUD application. If
the PUD is approved, the next steps would be City approval of
construction plans, installation of infrastructure by the Applicant, and then
application for final plat approval. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 5.
3. The area surrounding the subject property was annexed to the City in
1970. Considered an "Aubum Gateway,° it has remained largely
undeveloped until recent market conditions in the Puget Sound region
'Note: All exhibits referenced herein are exhibits attached #o the Hearing Examiner's Findings of
Fact and Conclusions, which exhi6its are incorporated herein.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 2 of 28
e have begun to bring development to the area. Abutting the northeast
portion of the subject property is a 67-acre wetlandrn-kind habitat creation
area owned by the Port of Seattle and used for the purpose of
compensating for unavoidable impacts from developmenf of the third
runway project at SeaTac Airport. Exhibif 96, SEPA Addendum Relating
to the Aubum Wetland Mifigation Project, Port of Seattle, June 2003. The
Port of Seattle purchased an additional 35-acre parcel abutting the
northwest comer of the subject property for the purpose of providing
access to its wetland mitigation site. Other than wetland creation and
access-related improvements, both of the Port's parcels will remain
undeveloped. Also to the north of the subject property is the recently
approved River Sand PUD, which will create 172 single-family residential
lots and 115 multifamily units on approximately 40 acres north of the
subject property. The River Sand property is on the south side of South
277th Street approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped I'Street NE.
right-of-way. Exhibit 1, 8taff Report, page 14; Testimon,y of Mr. Dixon.
4. An undeveloped section of I Street NE forms the westem site bounda_ry.
Properties across I Street. NE have Heavy Commercial (C3) and Multi-
Family Residential (R-4) zoning and land use designations. There is a
childcare facility across I Street NE. The R-2 zoned property south of the
site is vacant. It has Single Family Residential and High Density
Residential land use designations. Immediately east of the site is a swath
of vacant, unincorporated Gteen River shoreline owned by King County.
Property west of the river has an R-2 zoning designation and an Open
Space land use designation. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 9, Aeria/ Site Photograph.
5. Critical areas found-to exist on-site include the 100-year floodplain of the
Green River and buffers of off-site wetlands and river shoreline. No
wetlands exist on-site; however, the buffers of finro off-site Port of Seattle
wetlands extend into the subject property atong the northem plat
boundary. The Applicant proposes a vegetation planting plan for Tracts X,
Y, and the northwestem portion of Tract B to minimize impacts of the trail
on the wetland buffer. Impacts to the on- and off-site critical areas were
considered in the City's environmental threshold determination. Required
mitigation measures relating to critical areas include additional
geotechnical study, preparation of a final wetland buffer enhancement
plan, and construction of floodplain compensation in #he event that
floodplain storage capacity is impacted by the project. Exhibit 20,
Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mi#igation Plan, Investco; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page10; Exhibit 7, MDNS. The Applicant's pretiminary
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 3 of 28
.
geotechnical study concluded the project site is suitable for the proposed
development. Exhibit 19, Preliminary Geotechnical Report Aubum Forty
P/at, ABPB Consulting, LLC.
6. The proposed development would create 236 .single-family residential lots
and 25 tracts in three phases. Phase I would include development of the
central one-third of the site, containing 88 lots, and the sanitary pump
station in proposed Tract K adjacent to the southem plat boundary. Phase
II would 'include the 70 lots ciosest to I 8treet NE, and Phase 111 would
include the remaining 78 proposed lots closest to the Green River. The
Applicant infends to request three separate final plat approvals. No
phasing is proposed for infrastructure improvements; the Applicant
proposes to instalt all roads and utilities prior to requesting final plat
approval on any of the three phases. Exhibif 1, Sfaff Report, pages 4-5;
Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
7. The subject property has had a zoning designation of Single-Family
`Residential (R-2) since 1987 when the City adopted its zoning orciinance.
It is developed with a single-family residence and agricultural buildings
that would not be retained if the proposal were approved. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Development standards of the R- ,
2 district reqwire a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, with a minimum
lot width of 60 feet. ACC 18.14.040.
8. Recent market trends have encouraged the creation of residential lots
smaller than those required by the R 2 zoning district. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 14; Testimony of Mr. Mann. The Applicant requested a
rezone from R-2 to the PUD zoning district to allow an enhanced, more
flexible site design. Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Applicairon; Exhibit 30,
Auburn Forty PUD Application Narrative.
9. PUDs are permitted on parcels of at least ten acres within all areas
designated as residential by the City's Comprehensive Plan (except for
areas designated as "Rural Residential"). ACC 18.69:040. Pursuant to
the City Cade, "[t]he purpose of a[PUD] district is to offer enhanced
flexibility to develop a site through innovative and altemative development
standards. A PUD district also allows for a greater range of residenfial
development scenarios, provides for intemal fransfers ofi density, and may
result in more dwelling units than may be realized by using the existing
development standards. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City
requires the PUD to result in a signficanfly higher quality development,
generate more public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 4 of 28
would have been the case with the use of standard zoning or subdiVision
procedures." ACC18.69.010. -
10.. The City's Comprehensive Plan Map was updated in 1995 to be
consistent with the Washingfon Stafe Growth Management Acf, RCW
36.70B. The subject property has finro Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designations. . The westem 5.47 acres of the site, adjacent to I Street NE,
are designated High Density ;Residential, and the eastem 3101 acres,
near the Green River, are designated Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1,
StafiF Report, page 2. "High Density Residential" areas may be developed
with up to 18 units per acre. "Single Family Residential" areas may contain
up to six unifs per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 13.
11. The subject property contains no "unbuildable areas" and therefore, under
the PUD provisions, could be divided to contain up to 296 lots. The
Applicant proposes 236 lots. The proposed density is 6.13 units per acre.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plaf Application;
Exhibit 35, Site Plan.
12. The Applicant proposes to develop only detached and zero setback lots.
PUD lot size standards vary by Comprehensive Plan land use designation
and by lot type. "High Density ResidentiaE" areas require a minimum lot
size of 2,400 square feet for detached single-family residential uses and
for zero lot line lots. "Single Family Residential" areas require minimum
lots sizes of 3,600 square feet for detached lots and 2,700 square feet for
zero setback lots. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6-7. All (ofs in Phase II
(Lots 1-36 and 203-236) and all °alley loaded° lots in Pfiases I and III
would be zero setback lots. All other lots would be detached lots. All
proposed lots satisfy the minimum PUD lot size requirements. Exhibit 35,
Site Plan; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 1, Sfaff Report, page 7.
13. The Applicant representative testified that the use of the flexible PUD
development standards woufd allow the Applicant to provide more
affordable housing opportunities for a broader economic range of potential
buyers. The resulting mixture of diverse housing types creates a
"streetscape" with aesthetic value, which according to the Applicant
cannot be derived from traditional subdivision layouts. Testimony of Mr.
Mann; Exhibit 32, The City of Aubum P/anned Unif Deve/opment Aubum
Foriy Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of P/anned Unit Development
(PUD) Public Benefits and Open Space Criteria.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 5 of 28
t i .
14. PUDs are required to set aside a minimum of 20% of theirfotal buildable
area as open space. ACC 18.69.080. The project, at 38.48 acres, must
provide a minimum of 7.69 acres in open space. The Applicant proposes
to set aside 7.79 acres of open space (202% of the total site area) in the
following tracfs:
Publicly Owned:
Tracts A& F Enhanced stormwater facilities along north plat
boundary
Tract B, A trail along the north plat boundary connecting I
Street NE to the Green River parkway
Tract E Parkland to be dedicated to the City and developed
- with recreational equipment
Tract X Open space/wetland buifer along north central plat
boundary
Tract Y Open space
PrivateJy Owned by the Homeowners' Association:
,
11 Tracts Proposed for general open space: Tracts G, I, J, Q, R.
S, T, V, W, DD & EE
Tract N Landscaped enfrance sign
Tract U Enhanced open space to ensure project satisfies sight
distance standarcJs
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7-8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan.
15. City Planning Staff determined that Tract DD is not suitable for designation
as open space due to its size and its perpendicular orientation to the
adjacent trail in Tract B. Staff opined that most project residents would
consider Tract DD part of the adjoining lot. Staff noted that the project
would satisfy the PUD requirement for 20% open space dedication even if
Tract DD were excluded from proposed open space. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 15; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from
Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to the
Applicant's updated exhibits, dated December 21, 2005. The Applicant
contends that Tract DD's location adjacent to the trail in Tract B
(regardless of its perpendicular rather than contiguous orientation), in
addition to the potentiat view comdor into fhe Port of Seattle's wetland
mitigation project to the north, particulady recommend the use of Tract DD
as open space. Exhibit 53, Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Aubum
Ordinance No. 6002 February 28, 2006
Page 6 of 28
Forty - Applicanf commenfs to City's staff reporf regarding application
nos. PUD04-0001 and PLT04-0009; Testimony of Mr. Mann.
16. City Planning Staff stated that Tract U, designafed as open space to
ensure sight distance standards are met, musf be dedicated to the City as
right-of-wayfor I Street NE. Exhibit 1,- Staff Report, page 8.
17. The City's Park and Recreation Plan (as incorporated by the Subdivision
Code) requires that for every 1,000 proposed residents, development
must dedicate 6.03 acres of unimproved parkland to the City. ACC
17.12.260. The project must dedicate a minimum of 3.99 acres of land to
the City for public parklands. The project would include that dedication of
4.18 acres consisting of Tracts B and E as public parklands. The
Applicant proposes to install play equipmenf and trail improvements in the-
3.2-acre Tract E public park concurrent with plat development as pubtic
park amenities for residents of the PUD. The existing stand of mature -
trees within the Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tract . E would be retained.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site P/an; Exhibit 32, Revised
Analysis of PUD Benefits.
18. PUDs are required to promote pedestrian circulation. The project would
enhance pedestrian safefy and moVement by continuing the I Street NE
sidewalk along the property's frontage, by providing sidewalks on both
sides of all intemal streets, and by providing a public trail connecting I
Street NE with the Green River parkway. The City Parks and Recreation
Department,requested the east-west pedestrian trail (located in Tract B) to
create a dedicated public aecess point to the future north-south Green .
River Trail, that the City plans to develop along the river's west bank as an
important recreational and transportation resource. The proposed PUD
would also provide connections to the public park to be located 'in Tract E
via the sidewalks along the intemal plat road adjacent.to the projecYs .east
boundary. The" project is consistent with the 2005 Park and Recreation
Plan and the Non-Motorized Plan. Exhibif 35, Site P/an; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, pages 19, 17;` Tesfimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
19. Despite the site's long, narrow configuration, the proposal would promote
pedestrian circulation because it doesn't contain excessive lengths of
straight intemal sfreets, thereby controlling vehicle speed. In order to
further encourage vehicle speeds consistent with pedestrian safety, the
City Engineer requested that traffic-calming devices be required at the
time of finaf roadway design. Exhibit 9, Staff Repoif, page 11; Testimony
of Mr. Dixon:
Ordinance No. 6002
Febnuary 28; 2006
Page 7 of 28
(
~
20. The subject property is adjacent to an undeveloped portion of I Streef NE.
The Applicant proposes to provide access to the site by improving the
site's I Street NE frontage to City standards for minor arterial roads. In
order to do so, the Applicant must dedicate right-of-way to the City,
including Tracts C and M. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 18; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site P/an. The project would have 571.3 feet
of frontage. Because of the proximity of existing accesses on adjacent
properties, 571.3 feet of frontage is not sufficient to allow more than one
access point into the project from I Street NE consistent with the City's
intersection separation standards. Exhibif 35, Site P/an; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 19; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 12, Aubum Forty PUD
Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group; Exhibif 1,
Staff Report, page 11.
21. Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13 requires developments with more than
75 dwelling units to provide two access points. The same policy prohibits
the creation of dead end roads longer than 600 #eet. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 19; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Surrounded by the Green River
to the east, permanently protected wetland property to the north, and
undeveloped private property to the south, the subject property can only provide access along its westem border on I Sfreet NE. South of the site,
I Street NE connects to public roads via 40t' Street NE. North of the site, I
Street NE connects to public roads via 45~' Street. NE. Both 40t' and 45h
Streets connect to Aubum Way North. The Applicant must extend off-sife
improvements on 1 Streef NE to both 40th and 45t' Streets to comply with
City road standards and policies requiring multiple access points. Exhibit ' -
1, Staff Report, page 19; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 9, Aerial 3ite
Photograph. Providing north and south traffic access rbutes to the piat
entrance would also have the benefit of distributing traffic more evenly
through the City's street network. Exhibif 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Aubum Forty Traffic Impact Analysis
Consistency. The Applicant proposes to construct I Street NE north to
45'' Street and south to 4& Street with the first phase ofi development.
Exhibif 54, Memorandum. from The Transpo Group Subject regarding
Aubum Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency.
22. The undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way from the site north to 45th Street
NE has been the subject of several recent studies done in conjunction with
the Port of Seattle wetland project. The City and the 'Port of Seattle are
currently engaged in negotiations regarding vacation of the right-of. way.
The City anticipates that the right-of-way exchange would be concluded
Ordinance Na 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 8 of 28
~ ,
early in 2006. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11-12; Testimony of Mr.
Dixon.
23. The primary intemal plat road connecting to i Street NE would be
developed to Residential Collector standards for the length of Phase I.
The residential collecfor streef would be sfubbed to the site's south
boundary befinreen Phases I_ and II to provide for future c:onnectivity.
Immediately east of the boundary between Phases I and 11, the primary
plat road would become a local residential street throughout Phases II and
I I I and would stub to the site`s south boundary in two locations, once at the
boundary between Phases II and III, and once at the east end of the
, project, adjacent to Tract E. Notice of the future extensions of on-site
dead-end roads must be noted on the face of the final plat and posted at
the road stub locations, consistenf with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-
13. Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 13,
Auburn Forty- Supplemen#al Transportation lnformation, The Transpo
Group.
24. Despite its limited frontage on I Street NE, the project must still provide
two points of access 'intemal to the site in order to comply with
Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13. City Planning Staff testified that the
purpose of the dual access requirement is to provide adequate emergency
access to developments of greater than 75 lots. The Applicant proposes
to develop the plat's intemal residentiaf collector access street as a
boulevard with two 20-foot lanes separated by a landscaped median. The
20-foot lanes would extend east within the plat to a point within Phase III
such that the widened road would serve all Iots within the PUD except for
75. Staff testified that the divided boulevard would provide finro lanes for
emergency vehicle access. The City accepted the proposed divided
boulevard in satisfaction of the dual access requirement. if and when the
property to the south develops, three additional access points would be
available. Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing
Examiner, dated .December 21, 2005; Exhibit .1, Staff Report, page 12;
- Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
25. Within the westem one-third of the site, the proposed intemal road.
network consists of branching 'T' intersections to the north and south from
the primary residential collector entrance road. The eastem two-thirds of
the site would contain looped :roadways interconnected with public 20-foot-
wide alleys. All roads within the plat would be dedicated as public
roadways. Seventeen lots would have access from shared private access
tracts, as follows: Tract D(Lots 42-44); Tract H(Lots125-127); Tract L
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 9 of 28
(Lots 134-136); Tract O(Lots 10-13); and Tract P(Lots 27-30). The
private access tracts would be owned by the Homeowners' Association.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibif 35, Sife P/an.
26. The Applicant requests deviations from #our City Public Works Desiqn and
Construction Standards, including the following:
• A deviation from the City's local residential street standard to
allow the landscape strip to intervene beiween the sidewalk
and curb on both sides of the streets, rather than on only one
side;
o A deviation from the City's residential collector street standard
to allow a landscaped boulevard section for the Residential
Collector Street;
• A deviation for road radii for intemal streets at seven locations;
and
o A deviation to allow the intersection spacing between local
residential streets and alleys (treated as local residential
streets) to be closer than the design standard separation of
125 feet.
City Public Works Staff reviewed the deviation requests and determined
they are supported and approyable; however, approval of the requesfed
deviations is deferred to ensure that all required project modifications are
considered. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
27. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by The
Transpo Group. The TIA indicated that the project would generate
approximately 2;328 average daily trips, including 236 weekday PM peak
hour trips. Exhibit 12, Aubum Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact
Analysis, The Transpo Group, March 2005. According to the Applicant's
transportation consultant, the intersection of the plan entrance and I Street
NE would operate a Level Of Service (LOS) B or better during peak hours,
satisfying City standards. Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo
Group.
28. The anticipated project trips combined with the new fips expected to be
generated by other "pipeline° projects, i.e. River Sand PUD, would
degrade #raffic movements at the existing intersection of 45th Street NE
and Auburn Way North to tOS E, a condition requiring mitigation. A traffic
signal warrant analysis performed by the City revealed that post-
development operations at the intersection would wamant signafization. A
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2008
Page 10 of 28
,
condition of MDNS approval requires the Applicant to contribute a 25%
share towards the future signalization of the intersection. No other
mitigation was requested for off-site traffic impacts. Exhibit 7, MDNS,
pages 5 and 19; Exhibit 1, Sfaff Report, page 12; Exhibit 12, Auburn Forty
PUD Revised Transportation Impact Ana/ysis.
29. City of Kent . schools would serve fhe project. The project's impacts to
schools would be mitigated by the payment of school impact fees to the .
Kent School District. The,City of Aubum is authorized by ordinance to
collect school impact fees on behalf of Kent. The sidewalks provided
along the infemal plat streets would provide safe walking roufes for school
children within the plat to a bus stop that would be located an I Street NE:.
Due to the Kent School District's policy of not ,pecmitting school buses to
enter subdivisions, a bus stop would be located on I Street NE. Exhibit 7,
MDNS, page 6; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 93; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
30. The Applicant's submittals indicate that approximately.35% of the site .
would be covered by new impervious surFaces at full build out, generating
new stormwater, runoff.. The Applicant commissioned a preliminary
surface water report and engineering from Apex Engineering Inc. A
stormpond in Tract F would collect and detain runoff from the eastem two-
thirds of the plat. The runoff would be treated using water quality best
management practices and released into the existing Port of Seattle
wetlands north of the site via level spreaders or other means "to mimic .
natural sheet flow" to and across the Port ofi Seattle property. Exhibit 94,
page 1. In addition, the Applicant proposes fo install a bypass storm
conveyance pipe from the south end, of the plat to the level spreaders in
Tracf F to maintain the existing natural flow from the approximately 80
acres south of the subject property to the Port's existing wetlands. A
second storm pond in Tract A would collect and treat runoff from new
impervious surfaces in the eastem one-third ofi the project and from the I
Street NE improyements. The pond in Tract A has been sized to collect
and treat posf-development runoff volumes for the sub-basin before
conveying it into an existing ditch system that flows north through an area
of unincorporated King County and, eventually into the Green River.
Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, Letter Drainage Repvrt, Apex
Engineering lnc.; Testimony of Mr. Mann.
31. The Applicant submitted plans depicting proposed stormponds that
generally satisfy Ciiy stocmwater managemerrt standards. Exhibit 28,
Aubum Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex
Engineering, dated November 30, 2005. Minor modifications to pond
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2008
Page 11 of 28
designs may still be required during civil plan review. Testimony of Mr.
Dixon. Comprehensive Pian Policy UD-6 promotes stormdrainage
facilities that "incorporate high standards of design to enhance the ,
appearanee of a site, preclude the need for securiiy fencing, and senre, as
an amenity." At hearing, Applicant representatives described in detail the '
manner in which the Applicant proposes to create stormponds that not
only satisfy City stormwater management design standards, but also ,
provide an aesthetic amenity to the plat and the general public. The
Applicant submitted concepfual drawings and photographs of existing
stormponds to illustrate the intended aesthetic contribution that would be
made by the proposed stormponds. Testimony of Mr. Hanherg; Exhibit
28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex
Engineering; Exhibit 49, photographs of existing off-site ponds; Exhibit 59,
Conceptua/ Depictions of proposed ponds; Exhibit 32, Revised Ana/ysis-of
PUD Benefits.
32. Management of the stormwater runoff from the proposed development
was addressed during the Cdy's environmental review of the project.
Compliance with the mitigation measures imposed on the project through
the City's environmental threshold determination would ensure that there
would be no adverse impacts to the environmenf or surrounding
properties. Exhibit 7, MDNS; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
33. The Applicant proposes to extend City of Aubum water ta the project. To
do so, the Appticant must construct on- and off-site water extension
projects consistent with Compcehensive Water Plan and Design and
Construction Standards. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant must
install dual connections to the water system, including one connection to
the west in the vicinity of King Gounty Parcel No. 000400=01117 and
another connection within the I Street NE right-of-way south to the vicinity
of Parcel No. 000400-0113. Specific parameters for water iine extension
were addressed in MDNS Condition 12. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6;
Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
34. CuRently, no sewer service extends to the site. City sewer policies
prioritize gravity systems as the most cost-effective means of providing
sanitary sewer service; however, pressure systems are allowed when
gravity systems are impractical or cost-prohibitive. The Applicant
submitted information justifying the need for a pressure system. Exhibit 7,
MDNS, page 6. The Applicant proposes to construct a sewer pump
station in Tract K to serve the entire development. The'proposed central
location of the pump station would minimize the depth of the wet wells and
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page .12 of 28
increase system efficiency. The sewer pump station would be sized to
serve the undeveloped property sou#h of the site in addition to the
proposed project. The Applicant anticipates latecomers' agreements"from
other properties in the general area. The pump station would be
dedicated to the City and operated as a municipal utility. Exhibit 22,
Aubum Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer liff Station Exhibit, Apex
Engineering; Tesfimony of. Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
35. Final design of the pump station must be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to grading or construction permit issuance. Until the final pump
station design is established, it is not known how large Tract K will need to
. be to contain the facility. Because the project proposes to place a sewer
pump station adjacent to residential development, Tract K needs to be
large enough to accommodate various screening and mitigation measures
required by the MDNS. In the event that Tract K must be enlarged to
accommodate the pump station, adjacent Tract EE may need to be
reduced in area. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Tesfimony of Mr. Dixon;
Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 19.
36. PUDs must provide efficient public facilities, consistent with City standards
that do not result in higher public operational cosfs than would be ineurred
. by traditional subdivision. ACC 18.69.090(8). City Planning Staff testified
that the proposed layout of the sanitary sewer force main leading from the
pump station contains too many bends that would contribute to increased
friction in the pipe and result in head loss, forcing the pump motors to work
harder. Af the hearing, Staff requested at hearing that the locafion of
sanitary sewer force main be revised within currently proposed rights-of-
way to produce a more efficient system and requested that the force main
rev'ision be required as a condition of approval. Exhibif 23, Aubum Forty
PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Utilr'ty Plan, Apex Engineering; Exhibit
9, Staff Report, page 16; Testimony ot Mr. Dixon. The Applicant
representative testffied that the requested revisions can be accomplished
by redesigning the path of the force main within ~the plat's north-most
intemal road. Tesfimony of Mr. Mann. 37. A Homeowners' Association is proposed to ma. intain private open spaces
and access tracts not dedicated to the City. The Applicant submitted a
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Resfrictions (CC&Rs) proposed
to govem the required maintenance of private open spaces and tracts.
Exhibit 30, Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated; Exhibit 36,
CCBRs. The CC&Rs, a legal instrument for permanent maintenance of
community facilities, would be subject to review and approval prior to final
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 13 of 28
plat approval. Exhibit 31, REVISED Aubum Forty. Preliminary P/at and
PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff
Dixon to fhe Hearing Examiner. 38. Proposed PUDs must be consistent with required design standarcis and
demonstrate design continuity of structures in order to achieve the PUD's
stated purpose of "enhanced design." ACC 18.69.080. To address this
requirement, the Applicant submitted proposed Homeowners' Association
Archifectural G.uidelines and CC&Rs for the development. Exhibit 36;
Exhibit 37; Exhibif 38; Exhibit 39. City Planning Staff stated that while
these.documents present a general intent to comply with the City's design
requirements, the documents primarily address the design review process
by the Homeowners' Association. Staff recommended revisions to the
proposed CC&Rs prior to final plat approval to address required design
specifications. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
39. The Applicant submitted an updated preliminary landscape plan, prepared
by the Bradley Design Group, to address design features including street
trees, landscaping, and signage. Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan
Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group, dafed December 7, 2005.
Photographic examples of landscaping amenities similar to those
praposed were submitted for illustrative purposes. Exhibit 47, Lakeland
Hills PDD Landscape Amenifies. The Applicant proposes a single
standing monument sign to be placed at a landscaped plat entrance in
Tract N. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit Forty, E=mail from Sean
Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitfing dated December 17, 2004 transmifting
sign defail. City Planning Staff noted that Tract Y is depicted on the
revised plan as containing areas of lawn, which would not be consistent
with the tract's intended purpose as a wetland buffer. To ensure
protection of the wetfand buffer, Staff requested that Tracts X and Y be
protected by a native growth protection easement. Staff also noted that
the revised plan does not address site fumiture such as is depicted in the
photographic examples from other PUDs that were submitted. Review
and approval of a final landscape plan would be required prior to final plat
approval to ensure consistency with PUD design guidelines. Exhibit 50,
Preliminary Landscape P/an Aubum Forty PUD; Exhibit 56, Memorandum
from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner; Exhibit 1, Staff. Report, page 10.
40. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C, the
City of Aubum acted as lead agency for the review of environmental
impacts caused by the proposed preliminary plat. The Cify issued a final
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on October 13, 2005
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 14 of 28
containing 13 mitigation measures that would reduce environmental
impacts of the rezone to PUD and plat development to a point of non-
signficance. 1"he required mitigation measures include additional
geotechnical study, wetland mitigation for the off-site wetlands, floodplain
compensation (in the eyent that the project impacts floodplain storage
capacity), water line exten5ion requiremenfs, traffic circulafion measures,
and archeological resources measures. Exhibif 1, Staff Report, page 13;
Exhibit 7, MDNS. No appeal was filed and the MDNS became final on
November 3, 2005. Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
41. Notice of application and notice of public hearing were mailed to
surrounding property owners, posted on-site, :and published in accordance
with the City's code requirements. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5;
Exhibit 6.
42. At the pubfic hearing, a represenfative from the undeyeloped property to
the south presented questions and concems regarding the project. His
questions pertained to the following: whether the proposed sewer pump .
station would be sized to serve off-site properties and whether latecomers'
agreemen#s would be accepted; financing for the completion of I Street NE
between 450 and 49h Strests NE; whether site grading would cause
alterations in existing stormwater runoff flow, resulting in created wetlands;
and whether the Applicanfi w.as required to develop full or half-sfreet
frontage improvements along the project's I Street NE frontage.
Testimony of Mr. Hathaway. Both City Planning Staff and the Applicant
responded to these concerns. Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr.
Mann.
43. In the present case, the use of the flexible PUD design standards would
result in the following public benefits that would not be provided under
traditional subdivision of the. same property: parkland dedication above
that required of a subdivision; greater diversity in lot types and a more
varied streetscape; relatively more affordable housing; and open space
equal to or greater than 20% of totaf site area, allowing for shoreline
access and a public east-wesf trail that would most likely not be provided
by a traditional plat. Exhibit 45; Exhibit 46, Projected Profile of the
Development of King County Parce/ 000400-0005; Testimony of Mr.
Mann.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006 ,
Page 15 of 28
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction•
Pursuant to Aubum City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner has
jurisdiction fo hear and make recommendations to the City Council ' on
applications for preliminary plat and rezones to PUD. ACC 18.69.140; ACC
14.03.040(A); ACC` 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Rezone to PUD•
The Hearing Examiner shall on(y recommend approval of a rezone to PUD -
designation if the recocd contains evidence to satisfy the following criteria
established in ACC 18.69.150:
1. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The rezone was initiated by a party other than the City; and
3. Modifications made to fhe. proposal by the Hearing Examiner will
not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has established general rutes
for rezones (Parkridge v, Seaftle, 89 Wash.2d 454 (1978), including the
requirement that °the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, morals, or welfare."
Planned Unit Development:
In order to recommend approval of a PUD, the Hearing Examiner must find that
the record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the following criteria pursuant to
ACC 18.69.150:
1. The proposal rnakes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other
public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites
for schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the
public benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an
improvement in the quality, character, architectural and site tlesign,
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 16 of 28
housing choice and/or open space protection over what wouid otherwise
be attained through a development using the existing zoning and
subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by the City CounciL
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of.an adyerse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards of the zoning district fhe PUD is locafed in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of
the neighborhood, including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map
designations, and the design guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D):
Preliminarv Plat:
In orderto recommend approval of a preliminary plat, the Hearing Examinermust
find that the record contains evidence to satisfy the following criteria pursuant to
ACC 17.06.070:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, sfreets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, I, and sites for schools and
school grounds.
2. Confonnance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's
Comprehensive Plan, to the general purpose of Ttle 17A2, and to the
general purposes of any other applicable policies or plan which have been
adopted by the City Cauncil.
3. Conformance to the City of Aubum's zoning ordinance and any other
applicable planning or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal haVe been mitigated such
that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the
quality of the envirbnment:
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will
prevent or abate public nuisances.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 17 of 28
Conclusions Based on Findinus:
1. The Applicant initiated the rezone. Finding No. B.
2. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or
modification to the rezone request that will resuit in a more intense
zone than the one requested by the Applicant
3. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public heatth,
safety, morals, or general welfare. The requested rezone would result
in housing densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designations for the site, increasing the supply and diversity of housing
stock available in the vicinity. The PUD, as conditioned, would extend
roads and utilities to an undeveloped area at the periphery of the City.
The PUD would create 7.79 acres of open space,within the development
including a public park adjacent to the Green River parkway and a public
trail connecting I Street NE with the Green Riyer shoreline. Findings Nos.
4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 98, 20, 21, 22, 34, 35, 36, and 43.
4. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the City of
Aubum Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies.
The proposed rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat are consistent with the
goals and policies of the City of Aubum's Comprehensive Plan. The ,
proposed densities of single-family residential development are consistenf
with the site's current Comprehensive Plan land use designations of "High
Density Residential° and °Single Family Residential.° The project would be consistent with Comprehensive Transportation Plan policies,
particularly TR-13 regarding the provision of finro points of access for
developments with more than 75 dwelling units, both through off-site `
construction of I Street NE road and through the provision of the boufevard.
with two 20-foot lanes divided by a landscaped median at the plat
entrance. Proposed stormpond facilities would provide aesthetic
amenities consistent with Policy UD-6. Findings Nos. 9, 10, 12, 21, 23,
24, 31, 32, 33, and 39.
5. With conditions, the proposal makes adequate provisions for the
public 'health, safety, and general welfare and for open spaces,
drainage ways, streets, water supplies, sanifary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, or schools. The Applicant would extend public water and
sewer to the project consistent with City design standards. Conditions of
approval would ensure that the sewer pump station is sized to, provide
service to the undevetoped property adjacent to the south if and when it is
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006 Page 18 of 28
developed in the future and that Tract K is adequately sized to protect adjacent residential lots. On-site portions of the buffers of off-site
wetlands would be protected through compliance with MDNS conditions of
approval. Stormwater would be collected, treated, and detained on-site
prior to release in its natural drainage paths. Some of the treated
stormwater runoff would be discharged to the off-site wetlands to the north
in a manner designed to mimic pre-levelopment flows and the remainder
would be. released irrto the existing open channel and eventually the
Green River. A condition of approval would ensure that the stoRnpond.
designs satisfy City standards. The project would provide 7.79 acres of
open space, including 3:9 acres of public parklands providing active
recreation opportunities for the general public in addition to plat residents.
The project would provide signifcant off-site infrastructure improvements
in the. completion of I Street NE between 40t' and 45t' Streets NE, These
improvemenfs would provide finro access routes to the project from off-site
areas for emergency and general traffic. The Applicant would dedicate
significant right-of-way along the property frontage for I Street NE
improvements. The intemal plat road system would be designed and
. constructed consistent with City road standards. - Sidewalks on both sides
of all intemal roads and the public trail provided in Traet B would provide
for safe pedestrian circulation, as well as a connection to the Green River
shoreline. School children would be bussed to area sehools from a bus
stop located on 1 Sfteet NE near the plat entrance. Impacts to City of Kent
Schools would be mitigated by the payment of fees. Findings Nos. 6. 14.
15. 16. 17. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 34, 36, and 40.
6. With conditions, the proposal provides the publlc benefits required
of PUD developments and is consistent with the pu.rpose of ACC
18.69. In addition to the provisions named in Condusion 5, the PUD
would provide public benefits that would not be provided by a traditional
plat including greater parkland dedication, more affordable housing, and
open space equal to at least 20% of total site area. In light of a possible
reduction in Tract EE to accommodate the pump station in Track K, a
condition of approval is necessary to ensure that at least 20% of the total
site area is set aside as open space. While Tract DD as a stand-alone ,
trac# might not represent desirable open space due to its size and location,
nothing in the record. supports a conclusion that Tract DD should not be
included as contiguous open space to the public trail in Tract B. A
condition of approval would ensure that PUD design guidelines are
satisfied. Findings Nos. 9; 93, 15, 35, 37, 38, and 43.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 19 of 28
7. The approvaf of the PUD would have no more of an adverse impact `
on the surrounding area than any project developed using the
existing zoning standards would have. The PUD is consistent with
the existing and planned character of the neighborhood. While the
PUD would allow for a slightly higher number of dwelling units than would
be possible on the 6,000 square foot minimum lots required in the R-2 -
district with traditional subdivision of the site, the increase in impacts
would be imperceptible. Surrounding properties are undeveloped and
have primarily residential zoning designations. Development that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code would not
negatively impact the planned character of ~ the immediate vicinity.
Findings Nos. 3, 7, and 19.
9. As conditioned, the preliminary plat conforms to the City of Aubum's
land division and _zoning ordinances and other applicable planning
or engineering standards and specifications. As proposed, the project
is consistent with the tlevelopment standards of the PUD zoning district
within the underlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations.
Conditions of approval would ensure that roads, utilities, open space, and
stormdrainage improvements conform to applicable standards. Findings
Nos. 10, 12, 20, 29, 22, 31, and 32.
10. The project was reviewed for compliance with SEPA and an MDNS
was 'issued. No appeals were filed and the MDNS became final. A
condition of approval would ensure compliance with all mitigating
measures required in the October 13, 2005 MDNS: Additional conditions
of approval would ensure that the off-site improvements of I Street NE
north to 45t' Street have no adverse impacts on off-site wetlands and that
sufficient noise attenuation from the sewer pump station would be
provided. Finding No. 40. 11. Compliance with ACC 8.12 would ensure that public nuisances are
prevented or abated.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing
Examiner recommends that the requests for rezone of approximately 38.48 acres
from R2 Residential to Planned Unit Development, for approval of a Planned Unit
Development, and for preliminary plat approval for the Aubum Forty subdivision,
a 236-1ot single-family residential subdivision, be GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
`
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 20 of 28
~
PUD Conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit a legal instrument
setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of
open space, recreational areas, private tracts, parkland, and other
communally owned facilities. No such instrument shall be aeceptable until
approved by the City .Attomey as to its legal form and effect. Areas
proposed to meet the finrenty percent (20%) open space shall be
guaranteed by a resfrictive covenant or other method, describing that the
space, its maintenance, and improvement are appurtenant to the land for
the benefit of the residents of the planned unit development and adjoining
property owners. The final plat sha0 grant easements to the City of
. Aubum in all communally owned open space and park land tracts so that the City-may perform maintenance in the event of improper maintenance
by the homeowners' association. All maintenance shall adhere to City of
Aubum standards.
2. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, a plan for the
design and construction of traf ric calming methods on the northem, east-
west street must be approved by the City Engineer. The traffic calming devices shall be completed or financially guaranteed for installatian prior
to final plat approval.
3. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Landscaping Plan that demonstrates
that all landscaping in the public rights-of-way, storm drainage tracts, sight
disfance tracts, and open space tracts conform to City standards. The
plan must demonstrate conformance with sfandards for acceptable tree
types and root bamers, etc., and must also show coordinafion with utility
and road improvemenfs. The plan must also include maintenance and
conform to the standards in ACC 18.50.070. The Applicant shall provide
root deflection devices or similar mechanisms for all trees ptanted within
five feet of curbs, sidewalks, or pavement to ensure mature trees does not
contribute to pavement deterioration. Care should be taken by the
Appficant to account for individual lots' ingress and egress when defining
the location of proposed street trees. The landscaped median within the
residential collector sfreet shall be the responsibility of the 'homeowners'
association and be included in the landscaping maintenance plan and the
legal instrument assuring maintenance. The plan must be approved by
the Planning Depa"rttment prior to issuance of grading, construction or
facility extension approvals.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2008 _
Page 21 of 28
4. In order to meet subdivision reguirements of ACC 17.12.260 and PUD
requirements of ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) related to dedication of recreation
` land and based on the ApplicanYs submitted preliminary plat, the
Applicant shall dedicate at least 4.18 acres of land generally in the
location identified as Tracts "B" &"E" on the Preliminary Plat Aubum Forty
PUD, Apex Engineering, 9-16-04, reVised 10-18-05 and in a configuration
acceptable to the Gity of Aubum Parks Director.
5. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are
typically submitted ,for construction of the subdivision there shall also be
submitted engineering/construction and landscape drawings for the
construction of park improvements in the publicly dedicated Tract °B". The
park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum Parks Director
prior to the approval of the grading plans or facilify extension drawings for
the plat. The materials supplied and installed must be shown and meet
the current City Parks Department standards and be installed and
accepted by the Parks Director prior to any final plat approval or
satisfactorily guaranteed. The plans for Tract B shail be accompanied by
plans for and coordinated with the construction of weUand buffer and
stormwater facilities on the adjacent tracts. The trail surface will be
maintained by the City and the landscaping will be maintained by the
Developer and/ or homeowner's association. This condition shall be part
of each property owner's legal description and title. The maintenance
schedule and responsibilities shall be identified in the legal instrument
whose language shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Director
prior to final plat approval and recording. Also a maintenance easement
shall be provided by the City to the hvmeowner's association at the time of
the final plat.
6. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are
typically submitted for construction of the subdivision there shall also be
submitted engineering/construction and landscape drawings for the
construction of park improvemenfs in the publicly dedicated Tract "E". The
park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum Parks Director
prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings for
the plat. The materials supplied and ins#alled must be shown and meet
the current City Parks Department standards and be installed and
accepted by the Parks Director prior to any final plat approval or
satisfactorily guaranteed. .Afso the plan shall include an interior pathway
connecting to the public sidewalk. The plan shall at a minimum include
play equipment of not. less than 9,600 sq ft including fall zone. The play
structure shall be large enough to service at Ieast 90 children, featuring 18
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 22 of 28
to 20 play events designed for children from the ages of 2 to 12 years old.
The paric area should include but not limited to four (4) park benches, four
(4) picnic tables and one (1) garbage receptacle. The materials will be
purchased and installed by the developer. The area that will be
developed and constructed will be located west (outside) of the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction. Curb, gutter and sidewaiks shall be provided along
the street of Tract E prior to final plat approvaL
7. The developed park area within Tract B and E shall be irrigated with an
automatic irrigation system that meets the City/Park department
standards. The imgation information shall be ideritified in a plan to be
submitted to the Cityfor review and approval.
8. The Applicant shall work with the City of Aubum .Parks Department and
with King Caunty Parks and Open Space Department on locating the
Green River Trail alignment on the developer's construction drawings so
as not to place play equipment or partc furnishings in the path of the
potential traif (Green River Trail) that will be constructed in the future by
the county or successar agency.
9. Pedestrian/omamenfal street lights shall be proVided along #he interior '
streets of the plat. The style ofi the lights shall be consistent with city
standards or an omamental style approved by the City Engineer: The City
Engineer 'shall review the spacing arid iocation of the lights to ensure that
adequate lighting is provided along the surFace of all streets and any
adjacent sidewalks. The lighting standards shall be coordinated with
lighting standards provided in open spaces.
10. The designs of the homes shall be at least equivalent to the illustrations in
The Aubum North Forty Homeowner's _ Association Architectural
Guidelines for the'Constrvction of New Homes (Exhibi-t 53) and Polygon
and OakRidQe Homes Elevations and Floor Plans. Revisions to the
CC&Rs and an architectural design plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director prior to submittal of building permits (for model
homes) or final plat, providing additional specifications for fhe following
items:
• Overall coordination af building design in light of the fact that the
homes could be developed by multiple homebuilders
• Modulation of roof and wall fagade
• Opportunity to stagger the placement of homes on the lots to avoid
continuous rows
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 23 of 28
o The use of different materials on each hause & consistency of
siding materials on sides of the residence
• Variation in facades and roof lines .
• Number ofi different building designs and dispersion of building designs
• Number of parking spaces provided on each lot
• Colors /designs for the buildings
11. Prior to approval grading, construction, or facility extension permits, the
type and placement of landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director. The Final landscape design shall be generally consistent with -
the: Preliminarv Landscane Plan Aubum Fortv PUD, 'Bradley Design
Group, dated October 31, 2005 with the fallowing revisions:
• Avoid landscape trees in front of storm pond maintenance
accesses
• Avoid removal or disturbance within the 200-foot shoreline area
• Ensure that landscaping is coordinated with and identifies sight
distance requirements
• Ensure that Tract boundaries, i.e. Tract N, agree with the plat
12. The PUD requires that open spaces be enhanced as an amenity. The
PUD will also require omamentaVpedestrian type lightingT furniture in the
open space areas, and that entrance signs and fencing will be
coordinated. Lighting, fumiture and signs shall be of consistent design
and material throughout the project. Any signs shall be a low monument
style with lighting and accenting landscaping. The signs shall generally be
consistent with the plan accompanying the E-maiF from Sean Martin to Jeff
Dixon transmitting a sign detail, December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 40). The
number, style, placement and landscaping to be approved by the Planning
Director as part of the final landscaping plan. The permanent
maintenance of the lighting fumiture and signs within any public tracts or
open spaces shall be addressed as part of the instrument setting forth a
plan or manner of permanent care.
13. Fencing shall be of a compatible material, s#yle and color throughout the
PUD. The Planning Director shall approve of a fencing plan or fencing
shall be addressed as part of the required.landscaping plan. The fence
designs shall be at least equivalent to the photos of open rail fences
accompanying the Letter __from Apex Engineerin4 resnonse to
Completeness Letter (environmental checklist application suaalement)
dated 3-25-05. Specifcally, consistenf fence treatments shall be provided
in the following locations`.
Ordinance Na 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 24 of 28 .
• Fencing between lots and Tract B& E(park land tracts)
• Fencing befinreen individual lots and Tract A and Tract F
(stormwater facil_ity tracts)
e Fencing or other separation befin+een lots and the open space tracts
including Tract N
• Fencing along southem boundary of project site
The permanent maintenance of the fencing adjacent to any public tracts or
open spaces shall be addressed as part of the legal instrument setting
forth a plan or manner of permanent care.
14. The Applicant has proposed that certain Lots shall be limited to alley
access, i.e. no vehicle access except by the alley., The final plat shall
include a cequirement that Lots 65 through 108 and Lots 144 through 157
(or equivalent number of lots should the plat be modified and lots
renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building
entrance oriented to the street and vehicle enfrance from the public altey.
Additionally, Lots 1 through 5, and Lots 30 through 36 and Lots 211
through 223 (of their equivalents should the plat be modifed and lots
renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building
entrance oriented to the residential collector street and the vehicle
entrance from the local residential street.
15. The approval of the PUD is only valid upon the approval and execution by
the Aubum City Council of the associated preliminary plat, File No. PLT04-
0009.
16. While Tracts A and F will be publicly dedicated for stormwater
management, in order to meet open space objectives of the PUD the
tracts will require more extensive landscaping treatment and more
intensive mainfenance. As a result, the HOA must maintain the portions
of the tracts outside the fenced pond boundary, or if no fence if provided,
outside the 10-year storm water surface elevation and the public right-of-
way. The maintenance shall be prescribed in the legal instrument that
addresses maintenance of open space tracts.
17. Prior to issuance of grading, construction, or facility extension approvals,
the. Applicant shall provide construction plans and cross sections for
review meeting c'ity standacds for the Qroposed storm water facilities
Iocated within Tracts A and i that and demonstrate coorclination with
landscaping plans. Tracts A and F inay need to be modified and or
enlarged to meet the design and construction standards to accommodate
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 25 of 28
the cafculated storage volumes and required aesthetics for storm ponds
constructed in residential areas.
18. The Applicant has submitted an Aubum Fortv PUD Conceptual Sanifary
Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineeting, 10-27-05, that demonstrates
the Proposed Tract K is not sufficient to accommodate needed pump
station facilities. As a result, the adjacent Tract EE will require reduction
in area. The deveioper should be aware of the City may require the
pump station to incorporate variabte speetl drive (VFD) motors in the
sewer pump station since the inifial flows to the pump station will be
minimal. This consideration is important because the station will serve a -
larger area in the future and VFD motors will handle the initial lower flows
better. The use of this pump type would limit the needed expansion of the
tract.
19. Prior to issuance of grading permits or facility extension approvals, the
Applicant shall provide a written comparison between the placement of the
sewer force main as identified in the Aubum Forty FUD Preliminary Plat.
Conceptual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering, 10-20-05 and the placement of the force main along public right of way and then befinreen Lots 41 and 42,
Lot 29 and finally befinreen Lots 9 and 10. The discussion must compare
the possible loss of two lots with the layout of a direct force main and
increased open space. The goal of the discussion is to reduce the
number and severity of the fotce main bends as shown in the conceptual
pian fo reduce maintenance, realize public utility efficiencies and reduce
net public operational costs consistent with PUD requirements at ACC
18.69.090(B).
20. Tracts X and Y shall be owned by the HOA and encumbered by a native
growth protection easement conveyed to the City of Aubum to meet
minimum buffer requirements of the CAO, ACC 16.10 and PUD open
space requirements.
21. Given the relatively nacrow frontages of the proposed single-family
residential fots and the impact on pedestrians (and wfieelchairs and
strollers) from elevation changes due to a series of closely spaced
driveways, the local residential road cross section shown on the preliminary plat shall be revised to show the landscape planting strip
abutting the curb on both sides of the street
22. Prior to approval of construction drawings or. facility extensions, the
Applicant shall demonstrate that twenty percent (20%) of the site's
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 26 of 28
buildable area is set aside as open space meeting the definition of open
space per ACC 18.69.080(A)(1) as determined by the Planning Director.
23. The maintenance responsibility for the landscaping within the medians
wouid be by the HOA by licensed and., bonded professional maintenance
frm under a right-of-way use permit. '
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. Aaproval. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Decision of the Hearing Examiner are adopted herein by this reference, and the
request to rezone is hereby approved to rezone approximately 38.48 acres from
Single Family Residential (R2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the
request for approval, of a Planned Unit Development is hereby approved, and as
legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the conditions as
outlined above.
Section 2. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to
be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph,
subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persans or
circumstances.
Section 3. Recording: Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Aubum sha11
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor.
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 27 of 28
. •
.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED: -_~=6.2nna
PASSED: ~ - 6 2006
APPROVED: MAR - 6 2006
CI'TV OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
.
Dan Ile E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APP A RM:
D ' I B. Heid,
City Attomey
Publication:
Ordinance No. 6002
February 28, 2006
Page 28 of 28 .
1 r `
Exhibit "A"
Ordinance No. 6002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NORTH HALF OF THE 1VORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE GEORGE E.
K1NG DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 40,` IN SECTION 31, TOWATSHIP 22 NORTH,
RAIVGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXGEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FENCE LINE AS IT `
EXISTED ON DECEMBER 17, 1979, AS DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LiNE
AGREEMENT, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912170640; ALSO
EXCBPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY STATUTORY
WARRAN'TY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7409060426;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE, NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOLJNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
UNDER REGORDING NLTMBER 7903021118.
;
?k
CiTY OF * *
WASHINGTON . ~ - _ . - .
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
FAC06-0032
. FAC06-0030 (ioa% comptete)
FAC06-0010
FAC06-0035 ,
. i
SECURITY IN LlEU OF COMPLETION ~
- - ~
In lieu of the required public improvements for the Final Plat of AUBURN 40, ~
an approved security - PLAT BOND for $2,635,852.50 (150% of the estimated cosfs
. of improvements) has been submitted and approved by the City Enginesr. . .
CitY En9ineer tiat
!
1. The developer has provided references and demonstrated a minimum of 3 years ~
suceessful, non-defau[ted pfat development experlence in the Puget Sound region.
2. The bond/security is based on the folfowing costs:
2
Phase 1 FAC06-0010 (Partial) $2;086,566.96
m On-Site [nfrastructure, Open Space Landscaping & frriga#ion, Ha(f Stree# i
~
Improvements for `I' ST NE (fram south property line to north of 40t' ST NE)
Phase 2 FACQB-O ~
032 $226,092.50
• Canstruction of Off Site Half-Street Impravements for f ST [dE (from north
property line of the plat to 45"'. ST NE including roads, storm drainage and road
improvements) i
Phase 3 FAC46-0435 . $98,000.00 I
• Consfruction of a Sanitary Sewer Lift Station and Force Mains On-Site '
Phase 4 FAC06-0010 (Partial) $227,273.04
Tract `E' Park improvernents (ON-SITE or OFF-SITE USE)
• Instaflation and cost of:
o Play Structures o Irrigation and Landscaping ,
o Miscellaneous (Trail, Benches etc)
1 Copy: OevAEmin spedatist .
2 Copiea: PlanninQ
, 1 Copy: Developer
~k
CITY OF * * .
~ TB~J T ~~~1 ~T Peter B. Lewis,_Mayor .
V \1
WASHINGT'ON 25 West Main Sfreet * Aubum WA 98001-4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000
July 7, 2010
Mr. Tony Ching Mr. Chris Huss
Apex Engineering PLLC TA 40 LLC
2601 South 36'h Suite 200 1302 Puyallup Street
Tacoma, WA 98409 Sumner, WA 98390
Re: Request for Minor Amendment to Approved Preliminary Plat for of Auburn 40
(a.k.a. Monterey Park), File No.MIS10-0009 (related to PLT04-0009)
Dear Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss:
This letter is in response to your letter submitfed May 25, 2010 and resubmitted on June 24,
2010 as a formal request for a Plat Adjustment to the approved preliminary plat of Aubum 40
(a.k.a. Monterey Park) in accordance with ACC 17.06.100. This code section has subsequently
been changed but is being processed under the original code seetion to which the project is
_ vested.
17.06.100 Adjustments of an approved preliminary plat
- A. Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments may be made and approved by
the planning director. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise
dimensions of the plat but which do not affect the basic character or
arrangement of the lots and streets. Such dimensional requirements shall - not
vary more than 10 percerit from the original. The adjustments cannot be
inconsistent with the requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The
adjustments cannot cause the subdivision to be in violation of this tiffe, the
zoning ordinance, any other applicable city (and use control, Chapter 58.17
RCllV, or any other appficable state law or regufation.
. • B. Major Adjustments. Major adjustments are those when determined by the • •
planning director, substantially change the basic design, layout, open space or
other requiremenfs of the plat. When the planning director determines a change
constitutes 'a major adjusfinent, a new application for a preliminary plat is
required and shaU be processed as a new and separate application. (Ord. 5140 §
1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 9 996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.)
The Preliminary Plat for the project' of.Aubum 40 was approved by the City Council in March 6,
2006 by Resolution No. 3989: The requested changes from what was approved by the Aubum
City Council through Resolution No. 3989 include the following items: .
a) Setback changes - In the letter'from Joel Young'of Conner Homes (homebuilder) dated
May 25, 2010 received with the original submittal, it was requested to reduce the front and
rear yard setbacks fot the plat's single family and duplex houses applicable to the front-
loaded and alley-loaded lots to provide greafer variation in home placement for design
benefits.
AjJ$LJRN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss
July 7, 2010 Page 2
TABLE 1 Proposed minimum setbacks ExiSting requlred minimum
sefbacks
House Garage Front to Front. to Front to Front
Types Access sfructure garage Rear structure to Rear
ara e
Single Front loaded 15' 20' 15' 15' 20' 15'
famil
Single 10'/15' 10'/15'/20' .
Alley-loaded 15' 15' 20' 15'
famil varied varied
Du lex Front-loaded 15' varied 15' varied 15'. 20' 20' 15'
Du lex AI(e -loaded 10' varied 15' 15' 15' 20' 15'
b) Lot boundary changes - The request is to revise the bounda(es of Lots 7-13, 203-206, and 224-236 to better accommodate the intended home layoutsldesigns,-based on the
current market demand and economic conditions. All lots wi(I continue to meet the
minimum area and size dimensions of the PUD zoning.
c) Added lots - Three added lots total. Lots 237 and 238 were previousiy shown on the city-
approved civil plans to be added within the centcal portion of the plat. To accommodate ,
these added lots, the adjacent north-south alley was shifted west, Lots 83 and 90 were
. reduced in width by 5 feet, and Lots 65 and 108 were reduced .in width by 3 feet. Also Lot
239 is being requested to be added as an additional lot'to make an even number of lots in the row of lots 224 = 236 to accommodate a proposed duplex on adjacent lots 236/239:
The density allowed by tFie PUO zoning would allow up to 296 lots.
d) Added tracts - One added tcact. Tract CC will be a private Tract and was added to
incorporate monument signage on what was previously a comer of Tract A to be publicly
dedicated for storm pond and open space. ,
e) Change in number of divisions of the plat - The original preliminary plat approval
showed three divisions of the plat; east, central and west. The applicant intends to pursue
final platting with a single phase.
• fl -Change to preliminary plat condition No. 6 related to Tract E, 3.25 acres of park • dedication and improvements - Change preliminary plat condition No. 6, Resolution No.
3989 to provide flexibility in accomplishing park improvements afterfinal plat approVal.
g) Change to preliminary plat conditlon No.1 related to sight distances triangles
overlapping minor portion of lots - Change,preliminary plat condition No. 1, Resolution
No. 3989 to allow minor encroachment5 of sight disfance triangles to be protected by
easement rather than being made right-of-way.
You have specifically requested a minor adjustment. An analysis of the minor adjustment
request in light of the above code provision is detailed below.
Analvsis of the requested chansaes for the Minot Adiustrnent
Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions of the plat but which do
not affect the basic characfer or arrangemenf of the tots and streefs. Such dimensionaf
requirements shall not vary more than 10 percent from the original.
, Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss
July 7; 2010
Page 3
a) Setback changes - The requested change in setbacks would result in additional flexibility
in the placement of homes on the lots within the plat and thus allow greater variety in the
setbacks along the plat streets; a design benefit. However, city review identfied two
operational concerns. One that the requested 15-foot front yard setback coutd 'result in
vehicles parked outside the garage overhanging the public sidewalk and two, that reduced
rear yard setback for alley-loaded lots could resuff in'insufficient parallel parking areas
adjacent to the alley and thus unintended parking impacts to the alleys.
Anal sis
Based on updated information provided by the applicant, it appears that the set back
- distance of 15 feet from the garage to the alley would allow parallel parfcing in the
driveway and would be acceptabfe to the city. Note that this design must include a
paved area width of no less than 22 feet to faciiitate parallel parking of a standard-sized .
vehicle.
Based on updated i,nformation provided by the appficant as well as research by the city
on average passenger vehicle [engths, it appears that a distance for property fronts.of
17 feet from the garage to the front property line (the nearest pos§ible part ofithe
sidewalk) wou(d be acceptable to the city. The Public Worlcs Department supports the
change from 20 foot front yard to 17 foot fronf yard setback.
Table 2 Authorized minimum setbacks Existing required minimum b thls Ad ustment - MIS10-0009 setbacks
House Garage . Front to Front to Rear FFrontto Front to Rear
T es Access structure ara e_ ructure ara e
Single Front-loaded 15' 20' 15' 15' 20' 15'
famil
Single 1(Y/15' 10715720' 1~' 20' 15'
famil Alley-loaded varied varied 15' *
Du lex Front-loaded 15' varied 17' varied 15' 20' 20' 15'
Duplex Alley-loaded 10' varied 171 15, * 15' 20' 15' *With minimum pavement width (perpendicular to the alley/street) of 22 feet
With modification herein, the proposed adjustment of the setbacks wiU not be
inconsistent with fhe requirements of the preliminary plat approvaL The adjustments will
not cause the subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other
applicable city land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW; or any other applicable state Iaw
or regulation.
b) Lot boundary changes - The request is to revise the boundaries of Lots 7-13, 203-206,
and 224236 to better accommodate the intended tiome layouts/designs based on the
current market demand and economic conditions. All lots wilf continue to meet the
minimum area and size dimensions of the PUD zoning. .
Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss .
July 7, 2010
, Page 4
Analvsis
The changes to the lots will alter the precise dimensions and shape; the lots will_ -
continue to be oriented to the same street. The lots will also continue to meet the
minimum width, lot depth, minimum lot frontage, a_nd lot area. The changes to
preliminary plat to adjust lot boundaries will resutt in the need to modify the previously-
approved civil plans and may require pFiysical modification of driveways, fighting
standards, sfreet trees, and water and sewer connections wifhin the plat. The city has
reviewed conceptual plans for these changes. The city also belieVes fhat existing
financial security required prior to final plat is sufficient to guarantee these clianges.
The proposed adjustment of the lot boundaries will not be inconsistent with the
requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The adjustments w(ill not cause the
subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ardinance, any other applicable city
land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or regulation.
c) Added lots - Three added lots total. Lots 237 and 238 were previously shown on the city-
approved civil plans to be added within the central portion of the plat. To accommodate
these added lots, the adjacent north-south alley was shifted west, Lots 83 and 90 were
reduced in width by 5 feet, and Lots 65 and 108 were reduced in width by 3 feet. .Also Lot
239 is being requested to be added as an additional lot to make an even number of lots in
the row of Jots 224 - 236 to accommodate a propased duplex on adjacent lots 236/239.
The density allowed by the PUD zoning would allow up to 296 lo#s.
Analvsis
The addition of three lots does not exceed the density allowed by the PUD zoning would
allow up to 296 lots. The plaf continues to meet the park land dedication sfanclards with
the addition of the lots. The changes to preliminary plat to add lots will resulf in the need
to modify the prev'rously-approved civil plans and may require physical modification of
driveways, lighting standards, street trees, and water and sewer connections within the
plat. The city has reviewed conceptual plans for these changes. The city also believes '
that existing financial security required prior to final plat is sufficient fo guarantee these
changed changes.
The proposed adjustment of the preliminary plat to add three fots will not be inconsistent
with the requirements of the pretiminary plat approvat. Tfie adjustments will not cause
the subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any otherapplicable
city land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or
regulation.
d) Added tracts - One added trac,~t: Tract CC will be a private Tract and was added fo
incorporate monument signage on what was previously.a comer of Traat A proposed fo be
publicly dedicated for storm pond and open space. ,
Analvsis
The proposal to adjust the preliminary plat to change a portion (3,167 square feet) of the ;
public sformwater and open space tract (Trad A) to a new private (homeowner
association-owned tract) (fract CC) will faalitate applicant's placement of entry feature
, and sign. The entry features wifl not adversely affect sight distance near the intersection
Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss
July 7., 2010
. Page 5
or the storm drainage facilities already constructed. The area was already required to be maintained by the homeowner association.
The proposed additional of a tract will maintain consistency with the requirements of the
preliminary plat approval. The adjustments will not cause the subdivision to be in
viola6on of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other applicable city land use control,
Chapter 58:17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or regulation.
e) Changv in number of divisions of the plat - The original preliminary plat approval
showed three divisions of the plat; an east, central and west division. The appticant intends
to pursue final platting with a single phase.
Analvsis The applicant is pursuing final platting in a single phase. Pursuing final platting,in a
single phase is consistent with how the applicant pursued the city approval of civil plans.
This avoids the complexity of assuring that each phase of the project is independent and
does not rely on subsequent phases.
The proposed finai platting in a single phase wiU not be inconsistent with the
requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The adjustments will not cause the
subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other applicable city
land use control, Chaptet 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or regulation.
' fl Change to preliminary p[at condition No. 6 related to Tract E, 3.25 acres of park
dedication and tmprovements - Change preliminary plat condition No. 6, Resolution No.
3989 to provide flexibil'ity in accomplishing park improvements afterflnal plat approval.
Analysis
Since the time of the approval of the preliminary plat, the Applicant and the City have
become aware that the King Courrty Flood Contro{ District (Administered by the King
County River and Floodplain Management Section) has identified a future Reddington
• . Levee Set6ack Project which is currently under modeling, design and development. • Based on preliminary conceptual information. from King County River and Floodplain
Management Section, this fufure permanent levee could occupy nearly all of Tract E
(one of the two tracts for public park dedication).. After final plat approval the City will
own Tract E. Due to the uncer#ainiy about whether King County will, need to acquire all
or portion of Tract E for this permanent levee setback project after final plat approval, ,
the implementation of park improvements within Tract E will be delayed and the
prelirninary plat condition revised to allow the City to use financial security as in-lieu fee
for other park improvements benefitting #he plat and vicin"ity:
Proposed revision of PreliminarY Plat Condition No. 6 for purposes of the Final Plat
6. Concurrent with fhe plat engineering/consfruction drawings that are typica!!y submitted for
construction of the suDdivision there shall also be submitted engineering /constrrrction and
landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicallydedicated Tract
"E". The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Aubum Parks Direcfor prior to
' Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss
July 7, 2010
• Page 6 .
approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings for the plat. Ths maferials supplied
and insfalled must be shown and meet fhe current city Parks.Department stanrlards and be
installed and accepted bythe Parks Director prior to any final p/at apprnval or satisfactorily
guaranteed. A/so, the plan shall include an interior pathway connecting to the publicsidewalk.
The plan sha0 at a minimum include play equipmenf of not less than 9,600 sq ff including fall
zone. The play structure shail large enough to servlce at least 90 chi7dren, featuring 18 to 20
play events designed for children from the ages of 2 to 12 years o/d. The park shouid include
but is notlimited fo four (4) parkbenches, four (4) picnic tab/es and one (9) garbage receptac/e.
The materials will 6e purchased and installed by the developer. The area thaf ►nrr7! be developed
and constructed wi!l be located west (outside) of the 200-foot shoraline juriscliction. Curb,
gutter, and sidewalks shall be provided along the streetof Tract E prior to fina/ plat approval.
Dus to King County River and Floodplain Management Section's future Reddington Levee
Setback Project, which is currently under modeling, design and development and fhe
uncertainty about fhe potential use of all or portion of Tract E(public park dedicatian) for this
permanent levee setback project, the imp/ementation of park improvements w+thin Tract E will
be delayed untii after frnal plat. Prior #o final piat approval the applicant will amend the financial
security helcl by the City, or suitab/e alfemative mechanism to the City, such that King County's
acquisition of Tracf E wrll be evaluated one year after ftnal plat approval, wifh possibility for
extension, to determine if Tract E will be conveyed to King County. If portion of Tract E will be
conveyed to King County, the financial securrty can ba used for the redesign and improvement
of the remaining City-owned portion of Tract E. Also, fhe financial security must provide that if
some or all of the value secured is not used for redesign and improvement of the remaining
City-owned portion of Tracf E, the value of ths security can altemativety be used by the City to:
A) design and improve an off-site and edjacent parcel area that is newly acquired for the
purpose of replacing all or part of Tract E and providing city-owned public park land; or
B) be used by the City as a fee-in-lieu for the design and improvement of sn existing or
future park that is or will be intenconnected via public sidewalks and/or trail corridors to
the P/at of Aubum 40.
!f only a portion of Tract E is conveyed to King CountyRiver and Floodplain . .
Managemenf Section or. successor agency, the remaining portion of Tract E nof owned
or rnaintained by King County River and FloodpJain Management Section shall be .
maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA). This HOA maintenance
requirement will be established in the Open Space and Right-of-way Maintenance
' Agreement. °
Analvsis
The proposal to adjust the preliminary plat to change Condition No. 6 to defer
completion of the park improvements within Tract E after f nal plat and #o provide
flexibility such that the value of rerriaining improvement value will be used by the city
parks department at a future location that could benefit the piat and the vicinity. This is
y at final
similar to an in-lieu of fee for parks as has been done•for othec plats in the cit
plat. King County will have to acquire the property from the city in. the future (after final
plat) if needed forthe permanent levee project. The revision ofthe condition is
. consistent with the purpose and intent of the original condition and is based on
Mr.. Ching and Mr: Huss
July 7, 2010 .
. Page 7
consultation with the applicant. The change is to recognize circumstances that are
beyond the city's and applicant's control and to address the current uncertainty.
The proposed revision of the condifion related to parks impravements will consistent ,
with the requirements of the prelimina.ry plat approval. The adjustments wiU not. cause
the subdivision to be in violation of this titte, the zoning ordinance, any o#her applicable
city land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or
regulation. g) Change to preliminary plat condltion No.1 retated to sight distances triangles
overlapping rninor portion of lots - Change preliminary plat condition No. 1 Resolution
No. 3989 to allow minor encroachments of sight distance triangles to be protected by
easement rather than being made right-of-way.
Anal sis
The proposal to adjust the preliminary plat fo change Preliminary plat Condition Na 1 of
Resalution No. 3989 will allow protection of the sight distance triangle to be
accomplished by a different rriechanism than prescribed in the condition. Specifically,
the applicant has requested an easement be allowed rather than be made right-of-way
(part of the street) where there are minor encroachments of the sight distance triangles
within individual lots. The applicant has identified three locations where sighf distance
triangles affect six fofs; Lots 31, 32, 117; 118, 236 and 239.
The easement can meet the same objective for proteation of the sight distance triangles.
The proposed revision of the condition related to sight distance wi(I consisterrt with the
requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The adjustments will not cause the
subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other applicable city
land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or regulation.
Conclusion
• The decision to approve the proposed •Minor Adjustmerrt is subject to the following conditions: . •
1. The request for reduction in setbacks is modified by this approval as shown in Table 2
above.
2. The applicant shali modify the previously-approved civil plans to indicate utility services and
sfreet access for each lot in conformance with the City's Design Standards. Upon approval
ofi the modified p(ans by the Cify, tfie applicant shall construct and/or reconstruct the
iden tif'ied utility services and sfreet access for each lof in conformance with the City's
Construction Standards and the approved plans. The perFormance guarantee for
completing the required design modifications and constructioNreconstruction work shall be
covered by the existing terms of the financial sewrity for the final plat. 3. The city must review and approve the language of the final plat easements and the
associated plat drawings prior to final plat approval. The easements are for the purpose of
ensuring sight distance.
Mr. Ching and Mr. Huss
July 7, 2010
Pag6 8 This letter constitutes an official administrative decision of the Planning Director in accordance
. with ACC Section 18.69.190. Should you disagree with this administrative decision, the
decision may be appealed fo the Hearing Examiner as prescribetl in ACC Secction 18.70.050
(enclosed) within 14 days of the mailing of this decision, or February 14, 2008.
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Jeff Dixon at 253-804-5033 or by e-
mail at jdixan@aubumwa.gov Sincerely,
Kevin Snyder, AICP
Director .
Planning and Development Department
KS:JBD/r
coRR1aza2
cc: Dennis Selle, COA City Engineer
. Monty Bakken, COA Development Engineer
Tim Carlaw, COA Storm Drainage Engineer
Bob EIwe11, COA Sanitary Sewer Engineer
Joe.Welsh, COA Transportation Ptanner .
Daryl Faber; COA Parks Arts and Recreation Director
JefFStottlemyre, Fre Marshall; VRFA: -
Files PLT04-0009, PLT09-0008 and"MIS10-0009