HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Decision PLT18-0004; DEV19-0010; DEV19-0032 10.31.192
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Phil 01brechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: West Hill Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat and
Engineering Standard
Deviations
File Nos. PLT18-0004;
DEV19-0010; DEV19-0032
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
OVERVIEW
The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat and two engineering deviations
for a 19 -lot single-family residential subdivision of a 4.77 -acre parcel located at the
northeast corner of S 294th St. and 59th Ave. S. The plat and deviations are approved
subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general
overview of hearing testimony. The summary is not required or necessary to the decision issued by the
Hearing Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary
should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an indication of what the
Examiner found significant to his decision. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are issued in
separate sections of this decision.
Thaniel Gouk, City of Auburn senior planner, summarized the staff report. In response
to Examiner questions, Mr. Gouk responded that most of the surrounding development
was developed under King County standards prior to annexation, which means that
surrounding lots may be smaller than those proposed. No perimeter landscaping is
required by the City except along the stormwater tract and frontage improvements. The
stormwater vault deviation request was approved because the proposal follows criteria
that the City is in the process of adopting and. will be in place at the beginning of next
year.
In response to examiner questions, James Webb, City senior traffic engineer, noted that
the deviation request for reduced design speed was approved by the City Engineer
Preliminary Plat P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because it involves such a short stretch of road that vehicles wouldn't be able to reach
design speed.
In response to examiner questions, Shannon Howard, City development review
engineer, noted that enhanced water treatment is a designation adopted by the
Department of Ecology and the modular wetland proposed by the Applicant is one of
the strongest types of enhanced. water treatment.
In response to examiner questions, Mr. Gouk noted that the City has no standards for
addressing the soil contamination comments made by the Department of Ecology. He
noted that the project is located in an area that has the lowest potential for
contamination as identified in DOE mapping. Staff didn't feel that the City had
standing to address that type of impact.
Evan. Mann, Applicant, noted that the project is being developed by Copper Ridge,
LLC. Mr. Mann noted that the plat name had been recently changed to West Hill
Preliminary Plat and requested that the decision reference the plat with that name. He
confirmed that for the design speed deviation the roadway is so short that vehicles can't
get to the design speed. For the storinwater deviation, the stormwater vault has been
designed to meet the upcoming amended engineering design standards.
Mary Beth Dahl, neighbor, noted that the lots along 59th between 296th and 292"d are
much larger. Ms. Dahl lives next door. The only access to her house is from 294tH
She opposes the project on aesthetic, practical and environmental grounds. Trees and
wildlife will be destroyed to be replaced with 19 houses, adversely affecting the quality
of life for surrounding neighbors. For practical impacts, every house comes with two
or three cars, at least. 59th Ave S is a narrow two-lane road with no shoulder on either
side. It's already hard to walls on that street. This is not compatible with all the
additional traffic caused by the 2-3 cars per proposed home. There will be more traffic,
noise, pollution and crowding. When she purchased her house six years ago, she was
told that the project site would not be developed due to wetlands. Her backyard and
her neighbor's back yard partially floods during rain events. She's not convinced that
the proposal will not cause flooding on her property. She believes an environmental
impact statement needs to be prepared for the project.
Sharon Wisenburg, neighbor, is concerned about surface water management. She
noted that when a development was constructed several years ago south of the project
site, she was told that stormwater standards would control runoff but nonetheless after
the development was completed her garage flooded on a regular basis. Her house had
been constructed with swales on either side and there were no flooding problems before
installation of the new development. She got the City to place berms along the side of
the road to fix the problem. She noted that the project has a significant amount of
wildlife, such as rabbits and coyotes.
Robert Wisenburg, neighbor, noted he lives across the street and his property is over
three-quarters of an acre and that all other lots on his side of the street are over three
Preliminary Plat p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
V
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quarters of an acre. The proposed lots will be considerably smaller. The new
development to the south mentioned by Mrs. Wisenburg is also considerably smaller.
He noted that when the new development was installed the road grade in front of his
house was lowered to improve site distance. On 296th and 59th there's a significant hill
that also has poor and dangerous site distance. That problem needs to be solved given
the increase in traffic caused by the proposal. He doesn't believe there's room for
sidewalks.
In rebuttal, Shannon Howard noted that the Applicant has met or exceeded the
stormwater standards required by state law. These requirements include matching pre -
development off-site stormwater discharge volumes. The existing roads have been
inherited by the City from its annexation of unincorporated King County and the roads
were built under less stringent stormwater requirements. As far as what happened to
the Wisenburgs, Mr. Howard doesn't have specific knowledge about their
circumstances, but he is aware that the roads on their street don't have curb and gutter
and that was likely the reason for the flooding.
In rebuttal, James Webb noted that the Applicant was required to evaluate site distance
at its connection to the existing 59th intersection and no site distance problem was
found. The City isn't aware of any site distance problem at the intersection of 59th and
296th to the south, but that will be evaluated.
Mr. Wisenburg noted he and his wife were assured when the new development to the
south was installed that they would take care of stormwater problems after they
happened, and they didn't. As a result, their garage floor sunk because the soils
underneath were washed away. They had to spend $5,000 to jack the floor back up
again. He wanted to know what they could do if the problems don't get taken care of
again.
Mr. Howard responded that the City's stormwater standards are much stricter than they
were at the time of the development identified by the Wisenburgs. The Department of
Ecology imposed much stricter stormwater standards in 2017.
In conclusion, Mr. Mann noted that the proposed densities are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and zoning requirements and is consistent with much of the
surrounding land use, such as property to the south, to the west across the wetland area
and directly to the east of the larger lot development towards 2941h. Currently, at the
project site stormwater sheet flows to the east towards 294th in the direction of the
Wisenburg property. The proposed improvements would capture that water and divert
it into the City stormwater system before it could get to the Wisenburg property, so the
proposed stormwater system should be a massive improvement over current conditions.
No reductions in critical area buffers were requested. The project is T'ing off of 294th
and 58th and site distance will be evaluated and then mitigated as necessary.
Preliminary Plat
EXHIBITS
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
The 14 exhibits identified at page 21-22 of the October 1, 2019 staff report were
admitted into the record during the October 16, 2019 public hearing
3
4
c Procedural:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant. Evan Mann, Entitlement Manager, Soundbuilt Northwest, PO
Box 73790, Puyallup, WA 98373.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on October 16, 2019 at
Auburn City Hall, Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant requests approval of a
preliminary plat for a 19 -lot single-family residential subdivision of a 4.77 -acre parcel
located at the northeast corner of S 294th St. and 59th Ave. S. The proposed lots range
in size from approximately 4,200 sq. ft. to 8,600 sq. ft. Roadways to be constructed
include the on-site approximately 200 -foot extension of 58th Ave. S. north from S.
294th St. as a cul-de-sac and two private access tracts. Utility lines will be extended
within the on-site public street and private access/utility tracts to serve the lots. Two
open space tracts are proposed to contain on-site wetlands and a stream.
The Applicant has also requested three engineering deviations. As required by ACC
17.18.010(A), the hearing examiner is only authorized to approve deviations approved
by the City Engineer and the City Engineer has only approved two of the deviations.
The two deviations approved by the City Engineer are (1) a request to construct a
stormwater detention vault in lieu of a detention pond; and (2) a request to reduce the
design speed for a crest curve from 30 MPH to 25 MPH and to reduce the sag curve
design speed from 30 MPH to 15 MPH for 58th Ave. S.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The subdivision is surrounded by property
zoned and developed for R5 single-family use. A city stormwater detention facility also
adjoins the project site to the south.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal. More specifically, impacts are addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. Critical areas on the project site are limited to two Class III
wetlands, a Type N stream and a groundwater protection zone. The
applicant has prepared a critical areas report, Ex. 7, which staff have found.
to comply with the City's critical areas regulations. For this reason, it is
Preliminary Plat p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
NA
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
found that the proposal doesn't create any significant adverse impacts to
critical areas. The buffers required by the City's critical areas ordinance for
the wetlands is 25 feet. The Applicant's critical area's report doesn't
identify whether any buffer is required for the stream and it's unclear from
the City's critical areas ordinance what buffers are required for Type N
streams' . A condition of approval requires the Critical Areas Report to
identify applicable stream buffers and to ensure that they are included in the
critical area/open space tracts of the proposal. The wetlands and stream
along with the required buffers will be located within Tracts C and E for
permanent open space preservation.
As for the groundwater protection zone, the Site is located within
Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best
Management Practices (BMPs). As recommended in the Preliminary
Stormwater Report (Exhibit 9), stormwater runoff from the Project will be
treated and detained in a stormwater detention facility ("stormwater vault")
located in Tract E, per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements.
A couple neighbors expressed concern over loss of wildlife and wildlife
habitat, specifically Ms. Dahl and Ms. Tarbuck, but the City's critical area
regulations do not require protection of animals such as coyotes and rabbits.
In written comment the Mucicleshoot Tribe asserted that the on-site stream
is in fact fish bearing and also that enhanced water quality treatment is
required. The Tribe's comments on the presence of fish were based upon
WDFW maps. The applicant's biologist evaluated downstream conditions
and found that the gradients were too steep for fish passage. His findings
were confirmed by a WDFW biologist as identified in Ex. 5. For these
reasons it is concluded that the on-site stream is not fish bearing. As to
enhanced water quality treatment, a City engineer, Mr. Shannon, testified at
the hearing that the Applicant will be employing one of the most effective
forms of enhanced water treatment available, modular wetlands.
B. Drainage. The proposal will not create any adverse stormwater impacts
because the Applicant has proposed a preliminary design that staff have
determined is consistent with the City's stormwater standards. The
Applicant proposes water treatment through modular wetlands and the
retention of stormwater in a stormwater vault that will discharge stormwater
into wetland buffers, all in conformance with City design and treatment
standards.
' It appears that DNR has adopted a new stream classification system and the City's
critical areas ordinance still uses the older stream classification nomenclature.
Preliminary Plat p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Drainage was a major issue of concern to some neighboring property
owners, the Wisenburgs. As they testified, they had been assured in a prior
development project that their property would not be adversely affected by
new stormwater, but their project suffered significant flooding after the new
development nonetheless. Ms. Dahl also expressed concern over
stormwater impacts. As noted by Mr. Shannon, a City engineer, stormwater
standards have significantly improved. over the years and Applicants must
now demonstrate by detailed engineering calculations that their stormwater
facility design will match predevelopment off-site flow conditions. Mr.
Mann also noted that currently unrestricted stormwater sheet flow runs to
the Wisenburg property from the project site and that the proposed
stormwater facilities will capture this stormwater and ultimately divert it
into the City's stormwater system. Given the requirements of current
stormwater standards and the expertise involved in implementing those
standards, the evidence in the record establishes that stormwater generated
by the project site is sufficiently mitigated against damage to adjoining
properties.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. The proposal will be served by
adequate and appropriate public infrastructure. Stormwater facilities have already been
addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5 above. The preliminary design's conformance to the
City's public work standards, as has been verified by the City's public work's staff,
assures adequate of infrastructure. Final design for streets, sidewalks, storm drainage
facilities, and. sewer mains will be required to meet the City's Design Standards during
engineering review and shall be required to meet and implement those standards prior
to final plat approval. These facilities will be reviewed as part of the facility extension,
grading, and civil plans to be submitted by the Applicant. The following more
specifically addresses infrastructure and services:
A. Water. The proposal will be served by adequate and. appropriate water
facilities. The Applicant has acquired a certificate of water availability from
the Lakehaven Utility District. See Ex. 14.
B. Sewer. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate water
facilities. The Applicant has acquired a certificate of water availability from
the Lakehaven Utility District. See Ex. 14.
C. Transportation. As mitigated the proposal provides for adequate and
appropriate on and off-site transportation facilities.
The Project will be required to construct streets per ACC, Chapter 12.64A ACC
`Required Public Improvements', the City's Engineering Design Standards, and
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. With the extension of 58th Ave. SE
into the site and the completion of the half street improvements along S. 294th
Preliminary Plat p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
St. and 59th Ave. S, the City's Transportation Division finds that there will be
no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. The Applicant
will be required, however, to provide an intersection control evaluation showing
what intersection controls are necessitated, if any, at the intersection of 58th
Ave. S and S. 294th St..
Two private access roads (within Tracts A & D) will be constructed off of the
northern end of the cul-de-sac. Tract A will provide access for Lots 8- 10 and
11-13 and also provide a secondary emergency access onto 59th Ave. S; Tract
D will provide access to Lots 14-16. Details of the road improvements, which
are consistent with the City's engineering standards, as modified by DEV 19-
0032, are shown on Sheet 4 of 10 of the Preliminary Plat drawings (Exhibit 6).
Proportionate share system -wide impacts will be mitigated. via payment of
traffic impact fees during building permit review.
D. Schools. Adequate and appropriate provisions are made for schools and
walking conditions to and from school.
The proposal's proportionate share mitigation for school facilities is addressed
via the payment of school impact fees at the time of building permit review.
The Site is located within the Federal Way School District boundary. Per the
Applicant, students residing within the proposal will attend: 1) Meredith Hill
Elementary School; 2) Kilo Middle School, and 3) Thomas Jefferson High
School. Students will be bussed from a bus stop located near the intersection of
59th Ave. S and S. 294th St. to their respective schools. The proposal provides
for sidewalks that provide for safe walking conditions to the bus stop. Students
will have two options to walk to the bus stop (via sidewalks constructed with
this project); 1) travel south on 58th Ave. S then west on S. 294th St. to the stop
at 59th Ave. S; or 2) via the sidewalk within Tract A to 59th Ave. S then south
along 59th to the stop at S. 294th St. It is unclear if the bus stop is located on
the east or west side of 59th Ave. S.
E. Parks and Open Space. Adequate and appropriate provision are made for parks
and open space as the proposal complies with all applicable requirements.
Adequate provisions for off-site parks are made through the payment of park
impact fees at the time of building permit issuance for each lot or as may be
deferred per ACC 19.08.030(G).
ACC 17.14.100 provides that an Applicant should dedicate park land where a
proposed subdivision will result in a substantial increase in demand for park
land and that "generally" this will occur with subdivisions supporting 50 or
more dwelling units. The proposal has less than 50 dwelling units, so no park
Preliminary Plat
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or open space dedication is required under ACC 17.14.100. No other park or
open space requirements apply to the project.
F. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire services will serve the proposed
development and will be provided by the Valley Regional Fire Authority and
the City of Auburn Police Department. Fire impact fees imposed during
building permit review mitigate demand placed on fire services and facilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.050 grants the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and make a final decision on preliminary plat
applications. ACC 17.18.010(A) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to
approve modifications to the City's Engineering and Design Standards with the
concurrence of the City Engineer,
Substantive:
2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is zoned R-5
Residential and its Comprehensive Plan snap designation is Single -Family Residential.
3. Review Criteria and Application/Deviations Approved. ACC 17.06.070
governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval. Relevant criteria for the preliminary
plat application are quoted below with corresponding conclusions of law. ACC
17.18.030 governs the criteria for public works standards deviations. The findings and
conclusions of the analysis for the deviation applications contained in Ex. 11 and 13
are adopted by reference, and in conjunction with the deviation testimony identified in
the Oral Testimony section of this decision, it is determined that the deviations meet
city standards and should be approved.
Preliminary Plat Standards:
ACC 17.07.070(A): Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways,
water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school
grounds.
4. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the proposal as mitigated and
conditioned is adequately served by all public services and utilities required in the
criterion above. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse
impacts associated with the proposal. Given the absence of any adverse impacts in
Preliminary Plat P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conjunction with adequate public facilities, it is concluded that adequate provision is
made for the public health, safety and welfare.
ACC 17.07.070(B): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified
in Pages 11-14 of the staff report.
ACC 17.07.070(C): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general
purposes of any other applicable policies or plans that have been adopted by the City
Council.
6. The proposal is consistent with all other applicable policies and plans for the
reasons identified at pages 14 of the staff report.
ACC 17.07.070(D): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general
purposes of the Land Division Ordinance as enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030.
ACC 17.02.030: The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within
the corporate limits of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards
established by the state and the city, and to:
A. Prevent the overcrowding of land;
B. Lessen congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on
streets and highways;
C. Promote the effective use of land;
D. Provide for adequate light and air;
E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, drainage, parks and
recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public
requirements;
F. Provide for proper ingress and egress;
G. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions
which comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies
and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW;
H. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of
the state and city;
I. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate
legal description;
J. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn comprehensive
plan;
K Prevent or abate public nuisances.
7. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Land Division Ordinance as
enumerated above. The roads designed for the proposal are safely designed to meet
Preliminary Plat P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traffic demand and sidewalks on both sides of the subdivision street promote pedestrian
safety. Applicable zoning setbacks and lot coverage standards in conjunction with the
open space tracts provides for adequate light and air. The proposal does not result in
overcrowding as it proposes the minimum density authorized for the R5 zone. As
previously discussed, the proposal is consistent with and implements the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan. As previously determined the proposal is adequately served by
all essential public facilities and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
subdivision process, with the required surveying and recording of final plats, provides
for uniform monumenting and conveyance by accurate legal description.
ACC 17.07.070(E): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn Zoning
Ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications as adopted by the City.
8. The proposal is in conformance with applicable development standards as applicable
at this stage of review. The authorized R5 density range 4 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
which as noted in Finding No. 3 of the staff report would allow 19 to 24 lots for the
proposal. In the R5 zone minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet and one of the lots fails
to meet this standard, being only 4,237 square feet in area. However, as is apparent
from the plat map, it is not possible to meet both the minimum density requirement and
the minimum lot size requirement at the same time due to the space taken up by critical
areas. Staff has apparently found the minimum density standard to prevail over the
minimum lot size requirement under that circumstance and deference will be given to
that determination. Compliance with most of the other zoning standards and all
building code standards, will be implemented during building permit review. Public
works staff have determined that the preliminary design for plat infrastructure meets
applicable engineering, public works and stormwater standards.
ACC 17.07.070(F): The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision
are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality of the environment.
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 there are no significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal.
ACC 17.07.070(G): Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will
prevent or abate public nuisances.
10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal. Consequently, no public nuisance is anticipated..
Preliminary Plat
P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and. Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat and deviation requests DEV19-0010 and DEV19-0032
comply with all applicable requirements for the reasons identified above, subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. A final wetland buffer enhancement (mitigation) plan for Tracts C and E and the
on-site wetlands and stream buffers shall be prepared and. submitted with the civil (FAC)
plans and'consistent with Chapter 16.10 ACC.
The wetlands and their associated 25 -ft. buffers shall be placed in separate tracts on
which development is prohibited and protected by execution of an easement dedicated
to the City. The easement shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the
purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the on-site wetlands
and associated buffer areas, but not the obligation to do so. The location and limitations
associated with the wetlands, stream and their buffers shall be shown on the face the
final plat.
The plan shall also ensure that areas within the open space tracts that are disturbed
during the civil construction process will need to be restored; a planting / restoration
plan shall be included with the FAC submittal.
2. A means of access for inspections and monitoring of the critical areas and their
buffers within Tracts C and E (open space tracts) shall be designed and included with
the FAC drawings, as reviewed and approved by the City. A note shall be included on
the Final Plat indicating as such.
3. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat that the Homeowner's Association, and its
heirs and successors (HOA), shall be responsible for ownership, maintenance of the
open space Tracts C and E and that there shall not be removal of any vegetation without
prior City approvals.
4. Fencing shall be placed around the perimeter of the critical area buffers consistent
with Chapter 16.10 ACC. Maintenance of the fencing shall be the responsibility of the
HOA.
5. FAC approval will not be provided by the City of Auburn until approval for the
construction drawings is obtained from Lakehaven Water & Sewer District for public
water and public sewer. The Applicant shall provide approved plans to the City of
Auburn once obtained
6. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the Applicant must provide
documentation of submittal of an application to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size.
Preliminary Plat P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7. Fencing shall be provided around the perimeter of the stormwater vault, the location
of which to be reviewed and determined during the FAC review and consistent with
current City standards.
8. As part of the civil plans, a landscaping plan for the publicly dedicated stormwater
Tract B shall be provided for city review and approval. The type and location of
landscaping shall be coordinated with the location and type of fencing installed in the
storrnwater tract. The landscaping plan shall generally provide perimeter landscaping
including shrubs designed to provide screening of the vault area and provide visual
interest. The stormwater tract landscaping design must meet all applicable vehicle sight
distance requirements.
9. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the HOA shall be responsible
to regularly maintain those portions of the stormwater Tract B outside of the fenced
perimeter of the stormwater vault, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are approved by the City at Final
Plat application, and as recorded thereafter, shall establish the HOA's responsibility for
regular landscape maintenance.
10. The Final Plat shall indicate if the property owner(s) or the HOA is responsible for
maintenance of the storm drainage system dispersion areas. Access to these areas for
maintenance shall be shown / indicated on the FAC plans and contained on the Final
Plat.
11. Low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities are proposed within portions
of the Tracts C and E (open space tracts) including but not limited to dispersion trenches
and associated flow areas. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be prepared by
the Design Engineer, reviewed by the Wetland consultant, and utilized by the HOA. A
Stormwater Maintenance and Easement / Agreement will be on the Final Plat to ensure
maintenance of the LID facilities
12. An intersection control evaluation is required at the intersection of S 294th St. and
58th. Ave. S to determine the appropriate intersection traffic controls, such as but not
limited to signage and markings. The intersection control evaluation shall consider
traffic control options necessary to meet City requirements for safety in the right of way
and shall consider traffic movements from all directions of the intersection. The
intersection control evaluation shall also include a horizontal sight distance analysis for
all turning directions. The results of the intersection control evaluation shall be
implemented by the review and approval of the civil plans.
13. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the FAC, the plans shall show
that appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted no parking due to its road
width or presence of medians. Also, the cul-de-sac shall be posted "No Parking" around
their entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with ACC and. City of Auburn
Engineering Design Standards.
Preliminary Plat p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and. Decision
1 14. Any significant trees within the open space tracts should be retained to the fullest
2 extent possible. In the event significant trees are removed a replanting plan, that
provides for replacement at a ratio commensurate with the tree(s) diameter at breast
3 height (DBH), should be developed as part of the civil plan review and approval.
4 15. If at the time of Final Plat application, the nature and location of the depicted
occupation features remain unchanged and / or unresolved, then per RCW 58.17.255, a
5 "survey discrepancy note" shall be placed on the face of the FINAL SHORT PLAT
6 similar to the following example:
7 SURVEY DISCREPANCY NOTE:
8 EXISTING FENCES, RETAINING WALL AND ROCKERY HAVE BEEN SHOWN
PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.255 AND SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN THE TITLE
9 REPORT PREPARED BY THE TITLE INSURER AND ISSUED AFTER THE
10 FILING OF THIS PLAT
11 16, Tracts A and D are private access and utility tracts and will be owned and
maintained by the HOA. An ingress and egress easement, or other instrument as
12 approved by the City, over Tract A must be granted to the City of Auburn, for the
purpose of accessing Tract B (stormwater vault), providing emergency services, and
13 pedestrian access to 59th Ave. SE. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat that the HOA
14 is responsible for maintenance including associated retaining walls, walkways, signage,
and other associated features.
15
17. The Applicant has requested a deviation to utilize a stormwater detention vault
16 rather than an open stormwater pond. The City Engineer supports and recommends the
17 Hearing Examiner approves the request with the following condition:
18 The associated appurtenances and structures that are required to meet all applicable
storm requirements for flow control and treatment shall be modified during final
19 engineering design as needed to meet City requirements for maintenance and access.
This includes modifications as needed to location, configuration, and depth of all
20 structures and appurtenances associated with the detention vault.
21 18. The Applicant has requested a deviation to reduce the design speed for a crest curve
22 from 30 MPH to 25 MPH and to reduce the sag curve design speed from 30 MPH to 15
MPH for the construction of 58th Ave. S. The City Engineer supports and recommends
23 the Hearing Examiner approves the request.
24 19. The Applicant's critical areas report shall be revised to identify the buffer
25 applicable to the on-site stream and shall further assure that the stream buffer is fully
integrated into Tract C and. E.
Preliminary Plat p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20. Site distance shall be evaluated for the intersections of 296th and 59th and shall be
mitigated by the Applicant as consistent with constitutional nexus/proportionality to
assure safe site distance in conformance with City standards.
DATED this 30th day of October 2019.
11hil A .rvOi�,° 1s 0 1w%
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This decision is final subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C
RCW.
property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
anding any program of revaluation.
Preliminary Plat
p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision