Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Decision - PLT18-0005 The Alicia's April 21, 2020 Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development 1 LLC PO BOX 146 Renton, WA 98057 Hans Krove DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Hearing Examiners Decision Application No. PLT18-0005 - Preliminary Plat application to subdivide approximately 15.53 acres into 56 single-family residential lots in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Attached is the Hearing Examiner’s official decision that was considered by the Hearing Examiner on April 15, 2020. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please contact Jeff Dixon at (253) 804-5033 or jdixon@auburnwa.gov. Sincerely, Jennifer Oliver Administrative Assistant Department of Community Development CORR20-010 Enclosures: Findings, Conclusions and Decision Cc: Interested Parties Findings and Decision Application No. PLT18-0005 Page 2 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later than (7 calendar days) April 28, 2020 by 5:00 p.m. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. 98001-4998. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless an appeal is filed with the Superior Court. See Chapter 2.46 of the Auburn City Code. Preliminary Plat p. 1 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: The Alicias Preliminary Plat File Nos. PLT18-0005 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION OVERVIEW The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat for a 56-lot single-family residential subdivision of 14.53 acres located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE. The application includes a deviation request to engineering design standards imposing minimum stopping sight distance and a plat modification to allow for two pocket parks in lieu of dedication of park land. The preliminary plat, deviation and modification requests are approved subject to conditions. The project drew a little more public interest than is typically seen in an Auburn project, probably due to the magnitude of the project and its location in a heavily developed, residential area. Overall, the project is close to or at the lowest density authorized for a preliminary plat in the R-5 zoning district. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the City of Auburn adopted minimum densities in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA mandates that cities accept developments at urban densities to avoid the infrastructure and environmental problems caused by displacement of population to more rural areas. As is the case with most new development, traffic and drainage concerns were shared by numerous neighbors. Precisely because traffic and drainage has always been an issue over decades of development review, the City of Auburn along with the State of Washington have developed detailed standards that ensure that traffic and drainage impacts meet legislatively adopted levels. For traffic, the City of Auburn has adopted “level of service” standards that set the level for acceptable levels of congestion based upon delay times at intersections. The Applicant’s traffic report establishes that applicable level of service standards have been met and there is no evidence to the contrary. For drainage, the City has adopted drainage standards required by the state that include a standard that off-site stormwater flows caused by the project site not exceed pre- developed, forested conditions. In general, this assures that the proposal will not exacerbate any off-site drainage problems. Often, off-site conditions will improve Preliminary Plat p. 2 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 under the state mandated standards. The Applicant has prepared a preliminary engineered stormwater report that established to the satisfaction of City public works staff that the preliminary plat design can accommodate a stormwater system that meets all applicable drainage standards. Detailed review of the final stormwater design will be conducted for final plat approval, which is an additional approval required before the Applicant can sell any lots. Rick Ishii-Huffer in written comment and hearing testimony expressed concern over private access tracts authorized for some of the proposed lots in lieu of a public road. Mr. Ishii-Huffer has observed that these private access tracts tend to serve as a repository for unsightly abandoned and illegally parked vehicles that obstruct emergency access. As emphasized by City staff, the private access tracts are expressly authorized by City regulations. There is nothing unique about the proposed development that would justify prohibiting access that is expressly authorized by code. However, Mr. Ishii-Huffer’s observations as to the impacts of such private tracts are largely uncontested. For this reason, a condition of approval requires that the tracts be posted with signage prohibiting parking if such signage is not already required. An outstanding issue that will have to be resolved during subsequent engineering review is potential development impacts to an adjoining well located underneath the Hazelwood Community Club building. A condition of approval requires that impacts to the well be assessed and mitigated by the Applicant’s geotechnical report, or in the alternative that the Applicant address the issue in a manner acceptable to the owners of the Hazelwood Community Club parcel. A final issue was a request by a neighboring property for the planting of screening trees along Lots 5 and 6 of the development. The Applicant has accommodated this request by volunteering to place six trees of 2-inch caliper or more that would grow at least 14 feet tall to provide the requested screening as detailed in the “Oral Testimony” section below. . 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. Dustin Lawrence, City of Auburn Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Lawrence noted that the comprehensive plan designation for Parcel 092105-9079 is Neighborhood Commercial Overlay, not Residential Transition Overlay as identified in Preliminary Plat p. 3 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 the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Lawrence stated that staff was supportive of some additional tree screening requested by Doug Ruth between his property and Lots 5 and 6 of the preliminary plat so long as it didn’t interfere with wetland mitigation. The screening should be incorporated into the wetland mitigation plan. He stated staff was unaware of the specifics of the screening agreed upon by Mr. Ruth and the Applicant. Mr. Lawrence didn’t think there was any code basis to mandate the additional screening. As to the plat modification, the standard subject to waiver was the 0.9 acres of park dedication set by the park standards contained in the Parks and Open Space plan of the City’s comprehensive plan. Mr. Lawrence stated he would have to run another analysis to make sure, but it appears that the plat is at the lowest density permitted by code even when factoring in the wetlands. The proposed lots are the same sizes as the lots platted in the vicinity. Division I has no secondary emergency access. Such secondary access is only required for plats of 30 lots or more and Division I only has 25 lots. Mr. Lawrence clarified that no one would be required to connect to the sewer and water lines serving the new development. James Webb, Auburn Transportation Engineer, confirmed that he agreed with the Applicant’s deviation analysis in Ex. 13. He also clarified that the stopping sight distance referenced in the criteria subject to deviation was the distance it would take to stop upon seeing something approaching from the opposite direction, not the stopping distance necessary for a stop sign. Wayne Jones, Applicant, noted that he’s been working on the project for a year and a half. He’s happy with the final details. He’s been working with Doug Ruth, who lives in the southeast corner of the project, to install some screening trees. He has to place some trees in the wetland buffer anyway, so Mr. Ruth can be accommodated by simply rearranging some of the trees and upsizing them. You can always make trees bigger in a buffer. You usually overplant mitigation vegetation anyway to assure an adequate number of trees and plants survive at the end of the five-year monitoring period. Mr. Ruth wants six two-inch caliber trees that will be around 14 feet tall. The trees are likely to be native trees, such as willow dogwood, big leaf maple or cottonwood. As to the Hoksbergen letters, Mr. Jones noted that project development would be outside the 100-foot radius of their well. The road cut near their property is just about at grade so there won’t be any deep road cuts near their well. The community center is not on public water as indicated in Assessor records, but rather is on a well located under the community center building. That will have to be addressed during final engineering and will be done at no cost to the community center. Carl Scheurman, neighbor, stated he adjoins Lot 8 of Division 2. He wanted to know what was going to happen to the existing home on Lot 9. Mr. Jones responded that there’s a tenant that’s not paying rent who is still apparently occupying the property. As soon as the tenant issue is resolved, the property will either be cleaned up and rented out again or the home will be torn down. Mr. Scheurman identified an easement along the eastern property line. Mr. Jones noted that there are a series of retaining walls along the eastern line in need of repair with associated drainage problems. He plans on Preliminary Plat p. 4 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 building a second set of retaining walls to avoid having to repair the existing set and to resolve some of the drainage problems. The retaining wall area will be managed by the abutting property owners from the project. Slow growing trees will be planted in the area as well. Dean Compaan, neighbor, adjoins Mr. Scheurman to the east. He inquired who would be the grantee of the drainage easement along the eastern side of Division 2. Mr. Jones noted that the easement will be a private drainage easement that will be benefit the Division 2 lots located on the east side. He noted that he has a four-foot retaining wall along the back of his lot. He wanted to know what the elevation difference would be between his lot and Division 2 property. Mr. Jones responded that the second set of retaining walls would be 4-6 feet, differing with location. The retaining walls will be modular type walls with fabric reinforcement similar to the walls building in another Alicias development. Mr. Compaan noted there’s a drainage easement used for a drainage line that collects a series of tight line drainage and it’s unclear where that drainage line is located, which is apparently a 6-8-inch line. He was concerned that the development may interfere with that line. Mr. Steven Sturza, Auburn Development Engineer Manager, noted that staff will take the location of the drainage line into account during engineering review if given information on its location. Mr. Compaan said he would submit the easement documents that identify its location. Jesse Jagne, neighbor to Carl Scheurman and Dean Compaan, inquired as to when construction would begin. Mr. Jones responded it would be his guess May 2021. Ms. Jagne wanted to know if sidewalks would be built along 304th to help connect to the school. Mr. Jones stated that the currently planned school route will be that elementary school children in Division 1 will walk to Lea Hill. The junior high and high school kids will take the bus. For Division 1 there’s a bus stop at 302nd and 124th. Ms. Jagne inquired about having a traffic light installed instead of a roundabout. Mr. Webb, Auburn transportation engineer, responded by first addressing Ms. Jagne’s sidewalk question. He noted that the Applicant will be constructing sidewalks to the frontages of both sides of 304th, which will create a continuous sidewalk all the way to the school upon completion of Division 2. As part of the construction of the new school, the school will complete sidewalk improvements along its frontage all the way to the intersection with 132nd. There will be a continuous sidewalk connection on the northern side and there will be one small gap on the south side. On the east side of 124th, south of the project, the Applicant has agreed to extend sidewalks down to the elementary school. The replacement of the elementary school will result in the construction of new sidewalks along its frontage as well. On the roundabout question, the roundabout meets the City’s standards. The roundabout was also found to satisfy the trip generation requirements for the new elementary school as well. For these reasons the City has no plans to replace the roundabout with a signal. City policy is to give preference to roundabouts and consider that first instead of signals. No speed limit changes are under consideration except along the frontage of the school. Ms. Jagne inquired whether trees will be installed in the divisions as mitigation for the loss of wildlife caused by the proposed wetland removal. She also wanted to know what Preliminary Plat p. 5 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 style of homes would be constructed. Mr. Jones noted that the reason the wetl ands are classified as Class 4 is because they’ve been heavily degraded and are basically just grass. Then newly created wetland will be 1.5 times as big as the two removed Class 4 wetlands put together. The plants that will be placed within the new wetland are fairly low growing and water tolerant. The ones in the buffer will be dogwoods, big leaf maple, western cedar, douglas firs. The buffer area will eventually be covered with large growing trees. Rick Ishii-Huffer, neighbor, noted in chat mode that 304th and 124th are susceptible to high speed driving in excess of 65 mph. In the last five years there have been 5-10 fatal crashes in a one-mile radius. Mr. Ishii-Huffer then testified that there are a significant number of fatal accidents around the traffic circle. His main concern is over the number of private access tracts. He has surveyed the surrounding area and found that projects with a significant number of private access tracts such as that proposed become dumping grounds for abandoned vehicles, work vehicles and homeowner parking. It’s unsightly and dangerous. He has found that the access tracts are HOA controlled and fire and police cannot touch them. The tracts are just dumping grounds for cars. Doug Ruth, neighbor, noted he was the property owner who had been working with Mr. Jones on tree screening at lots 5 and 6. He thanked Mr. Jones for addressing his concerns. He wanted to know if the trees were found not to be compatible within the wetland buffer area whether they could be placed in Tract E. Mr. Jones noted that the trees that would normally go in the buffer can always be made bigger but if necessary they can be moved outside the buffer. Mr. Jones added that the whole area is going to be replanted and it won’t be a huge effort to accommodate Mr. Ruth. Mr. Compaan inquired whether a center turn lane would be integrated into 304th. He noted that currently there is an unused lane used for parking. Mr. Webb responded that City standards don’t require a center turn lane for the project but that such a lane could be added in the future. He noted that the 304th frontage will align with the adjoining street configuration. Carl Scheurman sent a chat asking for the development schedule of Divisions 1 and 2. Mr. Ruth stated ideally he’d like to build both divisions at the same time, which would be May 2021. A chat message from MKWA461 inquired whether left turns to access the project at 304th could be prohibited with roundabouts at both ends. Mr. Webb responded that was not a consideration. The distance between the existing roundabouts is the minimum consistent with access control. Rick sent a chat message asking for a clarification on 304th St. design, asking if the width of street and sidewalks would match existing adjoining widths. Mr. Webb confirmed that was the case. Preliminary Plat p. 6 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 In rebuttal, Mr. Webb noted that many of the access tracts in the area were developed under County standards prior to annexation in the City. City standards require that the access tracts be delineated as fire lanes. The reason for that is to enable parking enforcement so that vehicles can be required to be removed. However, the City has limited resources for parking enforcement. Calls should be made to the nonemergency police number if vehicles are illegally parked. Mr. Lawrence noted that private access points are authorized by code so staff is limited in its authority to prohibit them. EXHIBITS The 15 exhibits identified at page 23 of the April 15, 2020 staff report were admitted into the record during the December 18, 2019 public hearing. The staff power point was admitted as Exhibit 16. Exhibit 5, comprised of public comment letters, is identified in more detail as follows: Exhibit 5A DOE, Tracy Nishikawa, 3/19/20 Exhibit 5B Rick Ishi-Huffer, 3/12/20 Exhibit 5C Crystal Hanisch Exhibit 5D Marilyn Hoksbergen, 3/19/20 Exhibit 5E Craig Hoksbergen, Hazelwood Community Club (undated) Exhibit 5F Marilyn Hoksbergen, 3/19/20 Exhibit 5G Craig Hoksbergen, 4/7/20 Exhibit 5H Mathew Kwartin (Willow Park HOA) Exhibit 5I Craig Hoksbergen (12627 SE 304th Auburn, WA 98092) Exhibit 5J Doug Ruth (30515 127TH PL SE, Auburn, WA 98092), 4/14/20 Exhibit 5K Wayne Jones (Applicant, responding to Doug Ruth), 4/13/20 Exhibit 5L Crystal Hanisch (30509 127th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092), 4/14/20 Exhibit 5M Mathew Kwartin/Willow Park Neighborhood (Willow Park HOA), 4/15/20 Exhibit 5N Craig Hoksbergen (Hazelwood Community Club), 4/15/20 Preliminary Plat p. 7 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 Exhibit 5O Rick Ishi-Huffer, 4/15/20 Exhibit 5P Craig Hoksbergen, 4/16/20 Exhibit 5Q Marilyn Hoksbergen, 4/16/20 Exhibit 5R Wayne Jones, 4/18/20 Exhibit 5S Dustin Lawrence to Marilyn Hoksbergen, 4/18/20 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development 1 LLC, P.O. Box 146, Renton, WA 98057. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the application on April 4, 2020 at 5:30 pm at https://zoom.us/j/499728232. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat for a 56-lot single-family residential subdivision of 14.53 acres located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE. The application includes a deviation request to engineering design standards imposing minimum stopping sight distance and a plat modification to allow for two pocket parks in lieu of dedication of park land. An existing residence, located on proposed Lot 20, Division I, is to remain. The project will be divided into two phases, with Phase I (Division I, 25 lots) being south of SE 304th St and Phase II (Division II, 31 lots) being north of SE 304th St. The deviation request is for Section 10.02.5 of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) to reduce the stopping sight distance (sag vertical curve length) from 328-feet to 75-feet and 260-feet to 50-feet. The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation request and justification and recommends approval (Exhibit 13) subject to the condition that fixed/additional lighting shall be provided at the intersection of 126th Ave SE and SE 304th St. The City Engineer concurs with the deviation analysis presented in Ex. 13. The plat modification is for ACC 17.14.100, which requires preliminary plats of more than 50 lots to include a dedication for park land. Specifically, park dedication standards specified in the City’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan requires a dedication of 0.9 acres and the Applicant proposes 0.53 acres. As part of the proposal, the Applicant has proposed two separate recreation tracts to serve each phase of the plat in lieu of dedicating parkland to the City. The size, location, and the amenities Preliminary Plat p. 8 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 provided within each tract are included within the preliminary plat plans for the project, Exhibit 6. The City’s Parks Planning and Development Manager reviewed the plat modification and is supportive of the request, subject to conditions of approval. 4. Characteristics of the Area. Single-family residences surround the project site on all sides except for some vacant land to the south of Division 1 and a community club on the west side of Division 1. All surrounding property is zoned R-5 except for the lot with community club, which is zoned P-1. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP16-0020 on July 18, 2019. Pertinent impacts are addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. Critical areas on site are limited to two Category IV wetlands, a Category III wetland and an aquifer recharge area. The Applicant provided a Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), confirming that there are no geologic hazardous areas within the project site. All three wetlands are located in Division I of the plat. The Category IV Wetlands are located within the north and central portion of the site, while the Category III Wetland is located within the southeastern portion of the site. Both Category IV Wetlands are proposed to be filled, one of which is 994 square feet of area and the other is 7,712 square feet in area. To mitigate for the loss of these wetlands, the Applicant proposes to create 13,059 square feet of additional wetland area and enhancing 19,237 square feet of the existing Category III Wetland. The mitigation has been formulated as part of the Applicant’s critical areas report and wetland mitigation plan, Ex. 7 and 8 respectively. Staff have found the mitigation to generally comply with the City’s critical area requirements and will be reviewing the details of the plan more closely during staff review of the Facility Extension Agreement. For the aquifer recharge area, the site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Under this classification staff have found that no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are required during civil review. B. Compatibility. The project is fully compatible with surrounding uses. As shown in the civil plans, Ex. 6, and testified by staff, the proposed lot sizes and configuration are similar to those of surrounding development. Surrounding development, except for a community club, is all single-family residential. Preliminary Plat p. 9 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 C. Low Impact Development Techniques. The proposal uses low impact development techniques to the extent that site characteristics and the City’s minimum density requirements reasonably accommodate. With the exception of the wetland located on the southern portion of Division I, the project site will be cleared of vegetation and graded in preparation of the placement of site improvements such as the development of new roads, creation of a stormwater detention facility, home sites, and the installation of utilities. Per the Applicant’s Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), infiltration will not be feasible for this site. As a result, there are limited opportunities to manage stormwater on site through infiltration and other low impact development techniques. However, preservation and the creation of additional wetland area along the southern portion of Division I will help contribute towards preservation of existing native vegetation and soils. Finally, as required by the R-5 zoning district, development of each lot will be held to a maximum of 40% lot coverage and 65% impervious surface coverage. D. Property Line/Well Encroachments. In Ex. 5P and 5Q, the Hoksbergens raise concerns over property line encroachments and possible interference with the Hazelwood Community Club water rights arising from the proposed lots bordering the Hazelwood Community Club parcel. Consistent with the Hoksbergen comments, the Ex. 6 civil plans show that the adjoining existing home on the project site has a driveway encroachment onto the Community Club parcel. This is a pre-existing condition that is not caused by the proposed subdivision. As such it is a private civil matter between the owners of the home and the Community Club. Nonetheless, the Applicant has committed to addressing the encroachment prior to final plat approval. The Hoksbergens have also asserted that City roundabout construction has also apparently resulted in a fence encroachment. As noted in the Ex. 5S City response on this issue, it too is a pre-existing condition and is not a problem created or attributable to the proposed development. The Hoksbergens also identify that the community club parcel has a well located upon it that could affect development on the adjoining lots. This was recognized by the Applicant in his hearing testimony and Mr. Jones assured that the issue would be resolved by him at no cost to the community club. To prevent adverse impacts to the community club well, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to prepare an addendum to its geotechnical report assuring that proposed development will not impair the water rights of the owner of the community club parcel. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate public infrastructure. Preliminary infrastructure design has already been evaluated by the City’s Public Works staff and found to be in compliance with City standards. Final design for streets, sidewalks, storm drainage facilities, and Preliminary Plat p. 10 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 sewer mains will be required to meet the City’s Design Standards during engineering review and the Applicant will be required to meet and implement those standards prior to final plat approval. The 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. Sewer and Water. Adequate and appropriate water and sewer is available for the project. The City of Auburn will provide sewer and water service. Division I will connect directly into the existing sewer and water lines within SE 304th St and 124th Ave SE. Division II will connect into the existing sewer and water lines within SE 306th Pl. B. 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 proposed and required street improvements, the City’s Transportation Division finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. Additionally, the Traffic Impact Fee in place will be paid for each building permit issuance. More specifically, roadways will be constructed concurrent with the plat as follows: 1. Half-street improvements in accordance with ACC 12.64A to the Site’s frontage on 124th Ave SE and SE 304th St. 2. 126th Ave SE will be constructed, north south, from SE 304th St. Within Division I, the extended road will terminate with a roundabout. Within Division II, the newly constructed 126th Ave SE will terminate at the intersection with SE 302nd Place. Full street improvements to the city’s “Local Residential” standard will be required, including a full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. 3. Within Division I, SE 305th St will be constructed east west and connect to the roundabout where 126th Ave SE will terminate. Full street improvements to the city’s “Local Residential” standard will be required, including a full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. 4. Within Division II, SE 302nd Place will be extended from the adjacent Alicia Glen plat directly to the west and connect to 126 Ave SE to form a new intersection. Continuing from this intersection, SE 302nd Place will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Full street improvements to the city’s “Local Residential” standard will be required, including a full-width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. Preliminary Plat p. 11 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 5. Tract A (Division I) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is 26 ft. in width) with five-foot sidewalk located on one side. Tract A (Division I) will tie into the roundabout intersection formed by 126th Ave SE and SE 305th St. Six lots (Division I Lots No. 3 through 8) will take access from this private access tract. Tract A will be owned and maintained by Division I Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8. 6. Tract B (Division I) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is 25 ft. in width). Two lots (Division I Lots No. 11 and 12) will take access from this private access tract. Tract B will be owned and maintained by Division I Lots 11 and 12. 7. Tract B (Division II) is a private access tract featuring a paved width of 20 feet (tract is 26 ft. in width) with a five-foot sidewalk located on one side The legs of the tract will not have sidewalk. Tract B (Division II) will tie into 126th Ave SE. Five lots (Division II Lots 14, 15, 18, 19, & 20) will take access from this private access tract. Tract B will be owned and maintained by Division II Lots 14, 15, 18, 19, & 20. In a comment letter, Ex. 5, Rick Ishii-Huffer expressed concern over the private access tracts, stating that they were used for illegal parking, which is a safety concern because they impair access to emergency vehicles. Ultimately, the private access drives are expressly authorized and regulated by City code, which means that the City Council finds this type of access acceptable. Further, as recognized by Mr. Ishii-Huffer, eliminating such access points would likely result in the elimination of at least one lot. Although maximizing the number lots certainly serves the profit motive of the Applicant, it also serves the land use interests of the state. Recognizing that high urban densities maximize the efficient use of urban infrastructure and prevent the environmental degradation of urban sprawl, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires urban densities within cities, which is why Auburn has adopted minimum densities for the R5 district and authorizes densities up to five dwelling units per acre. The Applicant is already on the low range of densities authorized in the R5 district. Eliminating the opportunity for private access roads would likely further reduce the density, thereby further undermining the state policies encouraging high density development in urban areas. Although there is insufficient basis to eliminate the private access tracts, there is cause to mitigate against them. Mr. Ishii-Huffer testified that he had done a personal survey of private access tracts in his area and had found them to have a problem with aesthetic blight and blocked access caused by abandoned and illegally parked vehicles. The Applicant and City did not dispute this finding. James Webb, the City’s traffic engineer, did note that many of the access tracts were developed under County standards. Mr. Webb further noted that City standards delineate the private access tracts as fire lanes, which in turn authorizes the City to prohibit parking. It’s unknown if the County standards Preliminary Plat p. 12 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 also delineated private access tracts as fire lanes. From the evidence in the record, it is determined that more likely than not private access tracts are prone to being used for illegal and/or abandoned vehicle parking. A condition of approval is imposed to require signage prohibiting parking to the extent prohibited by City regulations for each of the proposed private access tracts. Mr. Ishii-Huffer also noted that 304th and 124th are susceptible to high speed driving in excess of 65 mph. He further asserted that in the last five years there have been 5-10 fatal crashes in a one-mile radius. The Applicant’s traffic reports identifies that there were five accidents at the 204th/124th roundabout intersection from 2015 through May 18, 2018. The traffic report noted that these accidents were most likely collisions with the roundabout median. The traffic report concluded, in the opinion of its traffic engineer author, that “the relatively low amount of recorded accidents does not pose a safety concern at this time.” The traffic report did not assess the incidence of accidents at any other intersections. However, Mr. Ishii-Huffer’s anecdotal observation of fatalities within a mile of the project do not raise any reasonable basis to conclude that the project will contribute to any unacceptable levels of vehicular safety risk, especially when the most directly affected intersections are found in the traffic report to not be adversely affected. City roads are also already heavily regulated and monitored to provide for safe driving conditions. For these reasons, it is concluded that more likely than not the proposal will not contribute to any driving conditions that pose an unreasonable risk for driver safety. C. Schools. Adequate and appropriate provisions are made for schools and walking conditions to and from school. The proposal is located within the Auburn School District (ASD) boundary. Per the Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Arthur Jacobson Elementary School; 2) Rainier Middle School, and 3) Auburn Mountainview High School. Elementary Students will be bussed from a bus stop located near the intersection of 124th Ave. SE and SE 302nd Pl. Further, a new five-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed along the east portion of 124th Ave SE abutting the project site to Lea Hill Elementary to the south. A safe walking route to the bus stop will be provided via the installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the Project as part of required half- street improvements, and existing sidewalk that was constructed with the plat directly to the north and west of the Site. High School and Middle School students will be bussed from the bus stop located near the intersection of SE 304th St and 127th Pl SE. See Exhibit 12 for the Applicant’s school walking and bussing analysis. Impacts to school facility demand are mitigated by the payment of school impact fees, assessed during building permit review. D. Parks and Open Space. Adequate and appropriate provision are made for parks and open space as the proposal complies with all applicable requirements as modified by the plat modification approved by this Decision. Two recreation tracts are proposed to serve the development. Tract C, Division I, will be 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 developed with adult fitness equipment, benches and a sport court. Tract A, Division II, will be developed with play equipment and benches. Park Impact Fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The closest park is “Auburndale 2” (located north of the intersection of 118th Ave. SE and SE 304th St.). Auburndale 2 is approximately 9.34 acres in size, features a walking trail, and is 0.86 miles away from the Site. E. 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 facilities. F. Stormwater. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate stormwater facilities and drainage ways. The design and construction of the stormwater facilities will be required to meet the City’s adopted Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and City of Auburn supplements. Public Works staff have determined the preliminary design is consistent with the City’s stormwater standards. The Applicant proposes that the stormwater runoff from the Project will be evaluated, treated, and detained in a stormwater pond located in Tract D. In a public comment letter, the Hoksbergens expressed concern over drainage impacts to their adjoining property. Drainage standards have evolved significantly over the years and the current standards required by state and federal law mandate that off-site drainage flows created by development must have the same volumes and velocity as predevelopment flows in forested conditions. In many instances the result is an improvement to adjoining properties over current conditions, but at worst the development will not be exacerbating any current drainage problems on adjoining properties. 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 authorizes the Hearing Examiner to waive requirements of the City’s design or construction standards upon concurrence of the City Engineer. The City Engineer concurs in granting the requested deviation from Section 10.02.5 of the Engineering Design Standards as identified in Ex. 13, so final approval authority is granted to the Examiner. ACC 17.18.010A authorizes the hearing examiner to modify Chapter 17.14 ACC standards. Preliminary Plat p. 14 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 Substantive: 2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is zoned R- 5 and its Comprehensive Plan map designation is Single-Family Residential. One of the lots is also concurrently designated with the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay comprehensive plan designation. 3. Review Criteria and Deviation/Modification Approved. ACC 17.10.070 governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval. ACC 17.18.030 governs the criteria for engineering standard deviations and plat modifications. The findings and conclusions supporting compliance with the deviation criteria as detailed in Ex. 13 are adopted by this reference and the deviation request is approved. The findings and conclusions supporting compliance with the plat modification criteria as detailed at page 17-19 of the staff report are adopted by this reference and the plat modification is approved. Relevant criteria for the preliminary plat application are quoted below in italics with corresponding conclusions of law. 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 schools; 4. The criterion is met. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 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 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 criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified in Pages 11-13 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 criterion is met. Staff have determined that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Preliminary Plat p. 15 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 Plan. There is no reasonable basis for concluding to the contrary and the proposal is found to conform to all applicable City policies. ACC 17.07.070(D): 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, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; 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. 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, storm drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing the use of storm water low impact development techniques; G. Provide for proper ingress and egress; H. 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; I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state and city; J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description; K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn comprehensive plan. 7. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Land Division Ordinance as enumerated above. The roads to be constructed for the proposal are designed to safely meet traffic demand and sidewalks on project frontage and both sides of the internal street promote pedestrian safety. Applicable zoning setbacks and lot coverage standards in conjunction with the stormwater and wetland tracts provide for adequate light and air. The proposal does not result in overcrowding as it proposes a density authorized for the R5 zone. The project is effectively developing the site by maximizing the number of residential units that are allowed for the R-5 zoning district while preserving existing onsite critical areas and providing mitigation. As previously determined the proposal is adequately served by all essential public facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. Per the Applicant’s Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), infiltration will not be feasible for this site. As a result, there are limited opportunities to manage stormwater on site through infiltration and other low impact Preliminary Plat p. 16 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 development techniques. However, preservation and the creation of additional wetland area along the southern portion of Division I will help contribute towards preservation of existing native vegetation and soils. Finally, as required by the R-5 zoning district, the subsequent development of each lot will be held to a maximum of 40% lot coverage and 65% impervious surface coverage. As shown in the civil plans, all lots have proper ingress and egress via direct access or private tract access to public streets. The proposal provides for the housing needs of the City by adding 55 homes to the City’s housing stock at a density encouraged by the Washington State Growth Management Act. The subdivision process, with the required surveying and recording of final plats, provides for uniform monumenting and conveyance by accurate legal description. As previously determined, the proposal is consistent with and therefore implements the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn comprehensive plan and all other regulations applicable to subdivision review. 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, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; 8. The criterion is met. The proposal is in conformance with the City’s development standards as applicable at this stage of review. The minimum density allowed for the project requires 58 lots and the Applicant proposes 56. However, the 56 proposed lots is authorized by ACC 18.02.065(A)(5) for the project because the Category III wetland prevents the Applicant from further reducing density. In the R-5 zone the minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet and the smallest proposed lot is 4,976 square feet. 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. The criterion is met. 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. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Consequently, no public nuisance is anticipated. ACC 17.07.070(H): Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native Preliminary Plat p. 17 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 soils and/or vegetation that are integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm water management manual. 11. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal integrates low impact development technique to the extent that the soils and minimum density requirements of the City can accommodate. The City’s stormwater regulations place a strong emphasis upon low impact development techniques. Compliance with those requirements is assured through Public Works review of the Applicant’s proposed stormwater design both in its conceptual form during subdivision review and then through later engineering review prior to final plat approval. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat, engineering deviation request and plat modification comply with all applicable requirements for the reasons identified above and are approved, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed recreation tracts shall be developed substantially consistent with the “Preliminary Plat & Civil Plans”, DMP Inc., dated January 22, 2020. The recreation tracts shall be owned and managed by the Alicias Homeowners Association and be available for public use. 2. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits to allow for the existing Category IV Wetlands to be filled. The City may require proof that these permits have been secured or are not necessary prior to authorizing any site disturbing activities associated with the project. 3. The application for a deviation from the City Engineering Design Standards (COADS 10.02.5), to reduce the stopping sight distance (sag vertical curve length) from 328-feet to 75-feet and 260-feet to 50-feet is approved. Fixed/additional lighting shall be provided at the intersection of 126th Ave SE and SE 304th St. 4. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), the plans shall show that appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted no parking on the appropriate portions of the streets due to its road width. Also, the cul-de-sacs shall be posted “No Parking” around their entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with ACC and City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards. 5. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), provide documentation of application to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size. Preliminary Plat p. 18 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 6. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that The Alicias Plat Homeowner’s Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the publicly-dedicated tracts containing the stormwater pond and specifically the portions located outside the fenced pond boundaries, or if no fence is provided, outside the 10-year stormwater surface elevation, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this maintenance responsibility. 7. The project proposes excavated storm ponds in an area that could be susceptible to high ground water. The Applicant is proposing a 2-foot thick low permeability soil liner per the Geotechnical Report prepared by Robinson Noble, dated July 24, 2019 to reduce groundwater seepage potential into the proposed detention pond. If groundwater is encountered during construction in the proposed detention pond that the low permeability soil liner that does not mitigate, the City of Auburn will stop construction and require redesign of the facility as necessary to account for observed groundwater. Depending on the groundwater seepage rates encountered, elevation observed, the time of year or other possible factors involved, construction may not commence again until an updated pond design is approved by the City of Auburn. 8. A proposed landscaping plan meeting City of Auburn Stormwater Management Manual, Engineering Design Standards, and City of Auburn code must be provided with the future civil site improvement submittal/Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC). 9. There are some existing storm structures on the southern portion of 124th that will likely need to be removed or relocated. The disposition of these will be identified with the future civil site improvement/Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal. 10. The walkway proposed along 124th Ave SE shall be required with Phase 1 (Division I) of the plat. 11. The project is proposed to be split into two phases, Division I and Division II. Each one of the two phase must have its own civil site improvement submittal showing the required improvements to construct and close out the phase alone. Each phase must have the ability to be independent. Should the Applicant wish to construct the civil improvements and complete the Final Plat as a single project, one civil site improvement submittal will be acceptable. 12. Vehicles are required to be able to enter/exit without driving beyond the limits of the proposed private access/utility tracts. The Applicant/engineer shall provide an adequate turn around area or turning templates to show how this is achieved for proposed Lots 5, 6, 14, and 19 (Lot numbering based on preliminary plat) with the future civil site improvement submittal. Preliminary Plat p. 19 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 13. When designing the detention pond with the future civil site improvement/Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal the Applicant/engineer shall model the proposed lots with an impervious area of 65% to be consistent with the maximum allowable impervious area allowed by the zoning development standards for R-5 residential zone. 14. To be consistent with the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMM) and Auburn Supplements, Stormwater Minimum Requirement #5 for low impact development shall be evaluated per the City’s current Surface Stormwater Management Manual for the entire plat including the buildings lots with the future civil site improvement submittal for the proposed plat. 15. To protect and avoid adverse impacts and to ensure adequate maintenance of hydrologic support to existing off-site and on-site wetlands and proposed mitigation wetlands, as part of the civil site improvement /Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) submittal eh Applicant shall properly evaluate per Volume I, Appendix I-D of the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Amended in 2014). This means protecting them and ensuring hydrologic functions of the wetland are maintained or improved. City approval of the analysis is required prior to approval of civil plans. 16. The Applicant shall provide confirmation to the City prior to FAC approval that all future structures proposed for the development will be located outside any 100- foot radius Well protection zone Covenants associated with any existing private wells near the site that are proposed to remain in use. 17. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the existing water well(s) shall be abandoned in accordance the Washington State and the King County Health Department requirements and the Applicant shall execute with the City of Auburn a service agreement prohibiting the installation of irrigation wells(s) and other requirements, pursuant to ACC 13.06.150, “Required connections– Existing wells”. 18. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC or other approvals authorizing earthwork or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall provide the archaeological investigation associated with the project to the City of Auburn and DAHP for review. The report shall assess the likelihood of the presence of culturally significant resources and identify the recommended mitigation measures to be implemented if resources are discovered. The Applicant shall then implement these recommendations and, if any cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, shall immediately halt all construction activities in the vicinity and notify the City of Auburn, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and DAHP. Treatment and preservation of any cultural resources shall then be coordinated with these agencies. Preliminary Plat p. 20 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 19. The Site is in the City’s identified Groundwater Protection Zone 4. All approvals and permits related to the Project and issued by the City shall be consistent with best management practices (BMPs) per ACC 16.10.120(E)(2). 20. As proposed, Division I Tracts A and B are private access tracts and will be owned and maintained by Lots 3-8 and Lots 11 and 12, respectively. Division I Tract C is a private access and recreation space tract which will be owned and maintained by the HOA, but made available for public use. 21. As proposed Division I Tract D is a public storm drainage tract which shall be dedicated and conveyed to the City of Auburn. The Alicias Homeowner’s Association shall be responsible for maintaining that portion of the tract laying outside of the fence storm pond area. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) shall address this responsibility and shall be reviewed by the City. 22. Division I Tract E is a sensitive area tract which shall be owned and managed by the future HOA. Tract E shall be protected with a conservation easement or similar protection method acceptable to the City in accordance with ACC 16.10. 23. As proposed Division II Tracts A is a private recreation space tract that will be owned and maintained by the HOA, but made available for public use. 24. Division II Tract B is a private access tract and will be owned and maintained by Lots 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. 25. The proposal shall implement and comply with the mitigation and recommendations made in the Applicant’s geotechnical report, critical areas report and traffic report, Ex. 7, 8, 9 and 11. 26. If not already required, signage shall be posted at each of the proposed private access tracts prohibiting parking to the extent prohibited by City regulations. 27. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant’s geotechnical report, Ex. 7, shall be updated with an addendum approved by the City planning manager1 to include an 1 It is recognized that this condition places the City in the position of having to assess water rights, which can be a complex legal issue. RCW 90.44.130 has been construed by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office as prohibiting new development from interfering with water rights of affected properties. See AGO 1984 No. 19 - Aug 10, 1984. Further, it appears to be fairly common in local land use review to include mitigation standards designed to monitor and prevent impacts to wells on other properties. See, e.g. Maytown Sand and Gravel LLC v. Thurston County, 423 P.3d 223 Preliminary Plat p. 21 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 analysis of the impacts of proposed development on the water rights adhering to the well on the Hazelwood Community Club parcel. The geotechnical report shall include mitigation and restrictions as necessary to ensure that the development does not impair those water rights. The proposal shall comply with the recommended mitigation and restrictions. In lieu of the geotechnical update, the Applicant may implement alternative mitigation as mutually agreed upon by the owner of the Hazelwood Community Club parcel. DATED this 21st day of April 2020. 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. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (2018). Since impacts to private wells appears to be within the scope of local land use review, the impact must be addressed and mitigated. Given that the Applicant has expressed a strong willingness to address the issue, it is hoped the need for staff to engage in any complex water rights analysis can be avoided by the Applicant’s efforts to protect the well.