HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE PLT18-0006 Knudson Preliminary Plat 0
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
4 RE: Knudson Preliminary Plat
5 Preliminary Plat, Plat FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
Modification and Engineering OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
6 Deviation
7 File No.PLT18-0006;
8
9 OVERVIEW
10 The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat, plat modification and
engineering deviation for a 17-lot single-family residential subdivision of a 3.31-acre
11 parcel located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE,approximately 130 feet north of SE
12 302nd Place.The plat,plat modification and engineering deviation are approved subject
to conditions.
13
The project presented the very challenging issue of whether access should be required
14 off of 124th Ave. SE, an adjoining minor arterial, or 301' Place, an adjoining local
residential street. This decision finds the proposed access 301' Place access to be
15 consistent with and required by City policies and regulations. Numerous neighbors at
the hearing made i abundantly clear that they had serious concerns with the proposed
16 connection to 301 Pl., believing that the added traffic through their residential streets
17 would disrupt the safety and tranquility of their neighborhood.The vested right to park
on both sides of the 301' Pl. does make that street more narrow than the restricted
18 parking authorized under current City standards,and the City's traffic engineer opined
that this added parking may be the source of some of the safety concerns raised by the
19 neighbors.
20
The neighbors' concerns are certainly understandable, but so is the countervailing
21 consideration of limiting access points to the City's arterial system. The City's traffic
engineer, James Webb, testified that local residential street access points to arterials
22 reduce the safety and efficiency of the arterials. In furtherance of this,Mr. Webb noted
23 that City policies require access points for subdivisions to be placed on the frontage
adjoining the lowest street classification and that there was also a policy requiring the
24 minimization of local residential street access points to arterials.
25 It is undisputable that traffic congestion is a major problem facing the Auburn City
Council, as it is with all other city councils in the Puget Sound Region. When having
to choose between traffic impacts that adversely affect local residents verses impacts
to the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall transportation system,it is particularly
Preliminary Plat p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
important to follow the policy choices made by the City Council in its comprehensive
1 plan and development standards. Allowing the arterial access requested by the
2 neighbors in this application may produce negligible impacts on its own,but of course
the precedent such a decision would set could result in numerous additional residential
3 access points throughout the City's arterial system.
4 Unfortunately, the City's adopted policies and standards on residential access to
arterials are not that clear and are arguably contradictory. The policy cited by Mr.
5 Webb to require access to the lowest street classification doesn't appear to have been
6 adopted into the City's engineering standards or its comprehensive plan. The
engineering justification for such a policy is certainly logical and highly compelling,
7 but it doesn't appear such a policy has been formally adopted by the City Council'. In
point of fact, Section 10.02.10.1 of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards
8 requires in part that "...[rJesidential subdivisions developments with less than 100 lots
shall have at least one access to an arterial or collector." However, Comprehensive
9 Plan Policy Street-18 requires that"...[rJesidential developments should be planned in
10 a manner that minimizes the number of local street accesses to arterials and
collectors."
11
The courts have ruled that conflicts between a specific zoning ordinance will prevail
12 over an inconsistent comprehensive plan. See, e.g. Citizens v. Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.
2d 861 (1997). If Section 10.02.10.1 of the engineering design standards are construed
13 as conflicting with Comprehensive Plan Policy Street-18, the Citizens line of cases
14 would suggest that the design standard would prevail. However,design standards are
not zoning code regulations. They are distinguishable from design standards in that the
15 City Council likely gives much more deference to the technical expertise of engineering
staff in adoption of engineering design standards than it does to planning staff in the
16 adoption of comprehensive plan policies. Applying the principle of statutory
17 construction that legislative intent is paramount2, it is not so easy to conclude that the
Council intended its policy position of minimizing residential access to arterials to be
18 superseded by a one-line technical specification in a 153-page engineering manual.
Such a position is particularly problematical when the engineering staff who wrote the
19 engineering design standards are testifying that residential access points shouldn't be
made to arterials when connections to lower street classifications are available.
20
21 Courts require that when two statutes appear to conflict, every effort should be made
to harmonize their respective provisions.Leson v. State, 72 Wn.App. 558, 563 (1993).
22
23 1 If such a policy has been formally adopted by the City Council,the City is invited to
make a request for reconsideration. Since such an adopted policy would be subject to
24 judicial notice and would not change the result of this Decision, this decision could
then be corrected to acknowledge that policy with minimal delay and no need for
25 briefing from the parties.
2 "The purpose of statutory interpretation is "to determine and give effect to the intent
of the legislature."State v. S.G.,No. 78614-8-1 (Wash. Ct.App. Oct. 28, 2019).
Preliminary Plat p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Section 10.02.10.1 and Policy Street-18 can be harmonized to require that the proposed
1 emergency access point to 124th Ave. SE satisfies the Section 10.02.10.1 requirement
2 for an access point while also minimizing access points as required by Policy Street-
18. The policy basis for Section 10.02.10.1 isn't immediately apparent but given the
3 strong public interest in maintaining the efficiency of the City's arterial system, the
basis is likely limited to ensuring a quick means of an emergency response. The
4 emergency access point proposed by the Applicant provides that quick access for
emergency vehicles while at the same time protecting the integrity of the City's arterial
5 system as contemplated in Policy Street-18. For these reasons, the proposed 301'Pl.
6 access is found to be consistent with both Section 10.02.10.1 and Policy Street-18.
7 The neighbors' anecdotally based concerns about traffic safety are understandable,but
not significantly supported by the record. The proposed subdivision is actually of only
8 a moderate size and engineering staff have found no safety problems in their expert
based review of the proposal. Although the parking authorized on both sides of 301St
9 is apparently not allowed under current City regulations, the record doesn't establish
10
that the situation creates a significant safety issue. Further, as testified by Mr. Webb,
the City can impose parking restrictions or the area and/or install traffic calming
11 devices if that's desired by the residents. The Applicant has offered to contribute to
the cost of the traffic calming devices as well.
12
13 ORAL TESTIMONY
14
Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general
15 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
16 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
17 separate sections of this decision.
18
Alexandria Teague, City of Auburn Planner II,summarized the staff report.
19
20 In response to examiner questions, Mr. Web, City traffic engineer, affirmed that he
agreed with the Applicant's analysis for meeting its requested deviation requests.
21
Maher Joudi, project engineer, noted that regarding the lot width modification, the
22 Applicant believes it's meeting the intent of the code by agreeing to a smaller building
pad in order to ensure adequate setbacks on a corner lot. The road variance is necessary
23 to meet the cul de sac grade requirements for emergency access.
24 Patrice Landon, neighbor, is concerned with the road access. The access road is very
25 narrow with high traffic. There are a lot of children and pets that access the area. She
would like to at least see a speed bump,or some other speed control measure installed.
Carl Shurman, neighbor and HOA president of a neighboring development with 141
homes, inquired whether the emergency access could be taken off of 124th. He noted
Preliminary Plat P. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
that his development has three or four parks and that the project doesn't propose any.
1 He wanted to know if there was any consideration in merging the HOA of the proposal
2 to his HOA since the new residents likely will be using his HOA's park facilities. He
also had a concern with traffic impacts and would like to see mitigation. He also wanted
3 to know if during the development process construction vehicles would be using 124th
as opposed to driving through his development. Mitigation requiring 124th access is
4 requested.
5 Ms. Sinclair, neighbor, was concerned about traffic and wanted to know why access
6 couldn't be off of 124th. The traffic will be horrendous.
7 Mr.Sinclair,neighbor,noted that property values haven't been brought up. One reason
he and his wife bought their home was because of the HOA and the higher standard
8 applicable to property maintenance. The proposal will involve smaller lots, which
equates to smaller homes and lower property values, which will impact his property
9 value. There have been several requests over the last few years for a traffic study over
10 127th due to speeding on that road. 17 more houses will add more traffic and it appears
that school traffic will also be coming out of 127th. Access of 124th would resolve all
11 the issues.
12 Lee Howard, neighbor,also expressed concern over traffic. He also noted that parking
was a problem. Since there's no on-street parking for the proposed cul de sac,parking
13 will spill out onto 127th. As previously mentioned, the parks of the adjoining
14 neighborhood will be used by the residents of the proposal.
15 Mr. Singh, neighbor, noted traffic was a huge issue now, not only volume but speed.
304th traffic is a problem as well. He also believed that vehicles would make more
16 noise on the steeper grade if the grade deviation is approved.
17 Jessi Jape,neighbor,believes 124th should be used as the access point. With three cars
18 per home, 17 homes will generate a lot of traffic. School traffic will also make matters
worse on 127th. Speed bumps should also be installed. She wanted to know if sound
19 barriers.could be installed since the development will remove trees that currently serve
as a sound barrier. The trees also served as bird habitat. She was also concerned about
20 air pollution and crowding
21
Rebecca Zucati, neighbor, was concerned about traffic. The proposed access is
22 dangerous since there are numerous blank spots with cars parked on corners. She's had
to grab children on bicycles because of oncoming traffic they didn't see. The cul de sac
23 that will serve as the access point has been a cul de sac for 21 years and she thought it
would stay that way. The entrance should be from 124th and would remove all her
24 concerns. There also doesn't appear to be any space set aside for wildlife or trees.
25 Mr. Koch, neighbor, noted he has a retaining wall that runs along the project site. He
noted that there's an owl and woodpecker at the project site.
Preliminary Plat p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
In rebuttal,James Webb notedh
tat 124th is classified as a minor arterial and is intended
I to carry significant volumes of traffic at high speeds. 301', 127th and [inaudible] are
2 classified as residential streets, intended to carry lower volumes of traffic at lower
speeds.City policy requires that project access come from the lowest street classification
3 that they front, which is 301st for this project. He also believes there's a City policy
that provides that local residential streets should not connect to arterial streets. In
4 response to examiner questions, Mr. Webb affirmed that the rationale behind these
policies is to prevent multiple access points to high speed arterials that would create
5 safety and efficiency problems. The emergency access tract is intended to be used in its
6 full width as a pedestrian access tract.
7 In rebuttal, Mr. Shannon, City engineer, noted that retaining walls may be involved in
property line encroachments and is a civil matter between the adjoining property
8 owners. He noted that the retaining walls will be construed as owned by the property
supported by it and that the civil review process will involve the granting of maintenance
9 easements for those walls.
10 i
Ms.Teague clarified that on the lot width modification issue,the plats she named were
11 based on the nomenclature of recorded plats and this nomenclature may have changed
since recording.
12
13 In concluding comments, Mr. Joudi noted that the Applicant is willing to participate in
the installation of traffic calming devices on 301st and 127th if the City will allow it.
14 Mr.Webb noted that the City has a traffic calming program in effect where at the request
15 of neighborhoods the City will come out and study the streets and document whether
there's a speeding issue. If there's a speeding issue the neighborhood will be surveyed
16 to determine whether there's an interest of installing speed cushions. In response to
17 examiner questions, Mr. Webb noted that 301st isn't unusually narrow and meets City
standards. However, the roads of the adjoining neighborhood were developed under
18 King County standards, which allowed on-street parking, which likely contributes to
some of the problems cited in the hearing. If the neighborhood was concerned about on
19 street parking the City would survey the neighborhood to see if it is open to restricting
parking to one side.
20
21 Mr.Joudi also noted that the Applicant will be providing a stop sign for the intersection
of 301st and 127th. There will be no parking allowed in the proposed cul de sac and
22 parking will only be allowed on one side of the remainder of the street. Tree retention
would be very difficult given that the grade changes necessary for the proposal. The
23 City has landscaping standards that will require the planting of new trees. Merging the
HOAs would be complex but the Applicant is willing to discuss it. A survey should be
24 done to address the retaining wall encroachments and grades investigated to ensure that
25 stability is not adversely affected by the development.
Mike Sinclaire,neighbor, noted that the City has made a number of concessions for lot
size and grade size that benefits the developer and city. The existing citizens should be
Preliminary Plat P. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
given the concession of 124th access. If that were done all the neighbor's issues would
1 be resolved.
2 Ms.Teague noted that density and lot size requirements are still being met by the project.
3
Mr.Joudi noted that the only reason the 55 foot lot width is required for the modification
4 lots is because they are off of joint use driveways, which is not entirely the same as
corner lots for which the 55 foot lot width applies,so the concession isn't a tremendous
5 one. Mr. Joudi doesn't believe the modification lots should even be considered as
6 corner lots. He noted that as said by Ms.Teague,the project meets density and lot size
requirements.
7
Ms. Zucati noted that two other neighborhoods close by are accessing 124th.Also, 124th
8 has a speeding problem and limiting access to it makes it worse.Mr.Webb clarified that
the plat to the south with access was a corner property that only fronted arterials so there
9 was no alternative. The plat to the north was developed in King County at a different
10 time under different standards. Mr. Webb also noted that the City's engineering
standards are designed to accommodate the street grade request in the design standards,
11 which require grades up to 8% and allow deviations up to 10%. The 10% deviation
request is happening more frequently as easy to develop properties are dwindling in
12 number in the City. The 10% is well justified given that grade constraints of the
property.
13 EXHIBITS
14
The 12 exhibits identified at page 25 of the September 30, 2019 staff report were
15 admitted into the record during the October 16, 2019 public hearing. The following
16 exhibits were admitted into the record during the hearing:
17 Exhibit 13: Staff PowerPoint presentation
18
19 FINDINGS OF FACT
20 Procedural:
21 1. Applicant. Jamie Waltier, Project Manager,Harbour Homes,LLC,400 N.
22 34th Street, Seattle,WA 98103.
23 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on October 16, 2019 at
Auburn City Hall, Council Chambers.
24
Substantive:
25
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant requests approval of a
preliminary plat for a 17-lot single-family residential subdivision of a 3.31-acre parcel
Preliminary Plat p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE,approximately 130 feet north of SE 302nd
1 Place and west of the end of SE 301st Place.The proposed lots range in size from 4,668
2 square feet(SF)to 7,687 SF.Roadways to be constructed include the public extension
of SE 301st Pl. (from The Ridge at Willow Park Subdivision) to form a cul-de-sac,
3 three (3) new private access tracts stemming off of SE 301st Pl. SE, and one (1)
emergency/pedestrian access tract connecting to 124th Ave. SE. Stormwater will be
4 managed on-site via a stormwater pond (Tract E). Water and sewer will be extended
through the site to service each lot.
5
6 The Applicant has requested a plat modification pursuant to ACC 17.18 for relief from
the minimum lot width for corner lots(Lots 2,5,7 and 13).These four lots are proposed
7 to meet the street side setback of ten feet as is routinely required for corner lots.
However, the lots will not meet the width plus five feet requirement of ACC
8 17.14.090(D).The modification request is to waive the ACC 17.14.090(D)requirement
adding five feet to required lot width for corner lots. Staff recommended approval of
9 this deviation request.
10
The Applicant has also requested an engineering deviation from the City of Auburn
11 Engineering and Design Standards (COADS) to increase the maximum road grade of
SE 301st Pl. and the emergency vehicle and pedestrian access tract(Tract D)from 8%
12 to 10% (City File No. DEV 19-0025, Exhibit 12). Deviations from the COADS are
subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner per ACC 17.18.010(A)and COADS 1.04
13 provided the City Engineer concurs with the approval.The City Engineer has reviewed
14 the requested engineering deviation and recommends approval.
15 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subdivision is located on Lea Hill and is
surrounded by property zoned and developed for R5 single-family use. The property
16 abuts the City of Kent to the west. The City of Kent has designated the property to the
west Single-Family SR-1. This property is currently vacant but will be a portion of the
17 Bridges Planned Unit Development.
18
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned,there are no significant adverse impacts
19 associated with the proposal. More specifically, impacts are addressed as follows:
20 A. Critical Areas. There arc no critical areas on the subject site except for a
21 Zone 4 Groundwater Protection Zone. The Groundwater Protection Zone
is the least stringent classification. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated
22 that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs).
As recommended in the Preliminary Stormwater Report (Exhibit 9),
23 stormwater runoff from the Project will be treated and detained in a
stormwater detention facility ("stormwater pond") located in Tract E, per
24 the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
25 Washington(SWMMWW)and Auburn Supplements.
B. Drainage. No adverse stormwater impacts are anticipated. The Applicant
has prepared a preliminary stormwater report that staff have determined
Preliminary Plat p. 7 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
preliminarily complies with the City's stormwater regulations. Through the
1 civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the Project will be
2 evaluated,treated,and detained in a stormwater pond located in Tract E and
dispersed into the wetland buffers, consistent with the SWMMWW and
3 Auburn Supplements.
4 C. Archaeological Resources. A portion of the site is located in a"High Risk"
area for archaeological resources according to the Washington State
5 Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive
6 model data, Washington Information System for Architectural &
Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). The DAHP highly advises the
7 Applicant to provide a cultural resources survey. Therefore, the project is
conditioned such that prior to approval of the construction plans under the
8 Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC), the Applicant must prepare a
cultural resources investigation report meeting the guidelines of the
9 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP)
10 and provide it to the City of Auburn Community Development Dept.,
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,and DAHP for review.
11
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. The proposal will be served by
12 adequate and appropriate public infrastructure. Stormwater facilities have already been
addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5 above. The City's public work standards assure
13 adequacy of infrastructure. Project streets, sidewalks, storm drainage facilities, and
14 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
15 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
16 infrastructure and services:
17 A. Water.The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate water facilities.
18 The Site is located in the City's water service area.Adequate water service will
be provided for the Project. Water will be extended from the existing water
19 main in SE 301st Pl.west through the plat(via SE 301st Pl.,Tract C,and Tract
D)to the existing water main in 124th Ave. SE.
20
21 B. Sewer. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate sewer
facilities. The Site is located in the City's sewer service area.Adequate sanitary
22 sewer service will be provided for the Project. Sanitary sewer service will be
extended through the plat from SE 301st P1. (through Tract C and D)to connect
23 into the existing sewer main in 124th Ave. SE.
24 C. Transportation. As mitigated the proposal provides for adequate and
25 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
Preliminary Plat p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Site is bordered by an existing
1 "Local Residential" classified street to the east (SE 301st P1.), and an "Minor
2 Arterial" classified street (124th Ave. SE) to the west. SE 301st Pl. will be
extended through the Project with full street improvements meeting "local
3 residential" standards and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Three new private access
tracts (Tracts A, B, and C) will stem off of SE 301st P1. SE. One
4 emergency/pedestrian access tract will connect to 124th Ave. SE.
5 With the extension of SE 301"Place into the site and the completion of the half
6 street improvements along 124th Avenue SE,the City's Transportation Division
finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of service(LOS)
7 standard.To enhance the pedestrian experience from the public sidewalk along
124th Ave. SE, the portion of the stormwater pond tract (Tract E) located
8 between the westernmost retaining wall and the back of the right-of-way of
9 124th St. SE will be landscaped with shallow-rooted shrubs and groundcover.
10 Proportionate share system-wide impacts will be mitigated via payment of
traffic impact fees during building permit review.
11
For the reasons identified in the "overview" section of this decision, the
12 proposed 301' Pl. access is found to conform to the City's policies and
13 development standards.
14 D. Schools. Adequate and appropriate provisions are made for schools and
walking conditions to and from school.
15
The proposal's proportionate share mitigation for school facilities is addressed
16 via the payment of school impact fees at the time of building permit review.
17 The project site is located within the Auburn School District(ASD)boundary.
18 Per the Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Arthur Jacobson
Elementary School; 2) Rainier Middle School, and 3) Auburn Mountainview
19 High School. Students will be bussed from a bus stop located near the
intersection of 124th Ave. SE and SE 302nd Pl. to their respective schools.
20 Students will travel through the Site, to 124th Ave. SE, via Tract C and Tract
21 D, where they will walk to SE 302nd Pl. A safe walking route to the bus stop
will be provided via the installation of sidewalks along project frontage as part
22 of required half-street improvements, and existing sidewalk that was
constructed with the plat directly to the south of the site.
23
E. Parks and Open Space. Adequate and appropriate provision are made for parks
24 and open space as the proposal complies with all applicable requirements.
25 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).
Preliminary Plat p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
ACC 17.14.100 provides that an Applicant should dedicate park land where a
1 proposed subdivision will result in a substantial increase in demand for park
2 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
3 or open space dedication is required under ACC 17.14.100. No other park or
open space requirements apply to the project.
4
F. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire services will serve the proposed
5 development and will be provided by the Valley Regional Fire Authority and
6 the City of Auburn Police Department. Fire impact fees imposed during
building permit review mitigate demand placed on fire services and facilities.
7
8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9 Procedural:
10 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.050 grants the Hearing
11 Examiner with the authority to review and make a final decision on preliminary plat
applications. ACC 17.18.010(A) grants the I-searing Examiner with the authority to
12 approve modifications to the City's Engineering and Design Standards with the
13 concurrence of the City Engineer.
14 Substantive:
15 2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is zoned R-5
Residential,and its Comprehensive Plan map designation is Single-Family Residential.
16
17 3. Review Criteria and Application/Deviation and Modification Approved.
ACC 17.06.070 governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval. Relevant criteria for
18 the preliminary plat application are quoted below with corresponding conclusions of
law.ACC 17.18.030 governs the criteria for public works standards deviations and plat
19 modification requests. The findings and conclusions of the analysis for the engineering
deviation application contained in Ex. 12 and the findings in the staff report for the plat
20 modification at pages 20-22 are adopted by reference and from those it is determined
21 that the deviation and modification requests meet the deviation criteria of ACC
17.18.030 and should be approved.
22
Preliminary Plat Standards:
23
24 ACC 17.07.070(A): Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
25 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.
Preliminary Plat p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
4. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the proposal as mitigated and
1 conditioned is adequately served by all public services and utilities required in the
2 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
3 conjunction with adequate public facilities, it is concluded that adequate provision is
made for the public health, safety and welfare.
4
ACC 17.07.070(B): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes
5 of the Comprehensive Plan.
6 5. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified
7 in Pages 14-16 of the staff report.
8 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
9 Council.
10 6. The proposal is consistent with all other applicable policies and plans for the
11 reasons identified at pages 16 of the staff report.
12 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.
13 '
14 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
15 welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards
established by the state and the city, and to:
16
A. Prevent the overcrowding of land;
17
B. Lessen congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on
18 streets and highways;
C. Promote the effective use of land;
19 D. Provide for adequate light and air;
E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, drainage, parks and
20 recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public
21 requirements;
F. Provide for proper ingress and egress;
22 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
23 and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW;
H Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of
24 the state and city;
25 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;
Preliminary Plat p. 11 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
K. Prevent or abate public nuisances.
1
2 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
3 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
4 open space tracts provides for adequate light and air. The proposal does not result in
overcrowding as it is within the narrow range of densities authorized for the R5 zone.
5 As previously discussed, the proposal is consistent with and implements the Auburn
6 Comprehensive Plan. As previously determined the proposal is adequately served by
all essential public facilities and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
7 subdivision process,with the required surveying and recording of final plats,provides
for uniform monumenting and conveyance by accurate legal description.
8
ACC 17.07.070(E): Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn Zoning
9 Ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
10 specifications as adopted by the City.
11 8. The proposal is in conformance with applicable development standards as applicable
at this stage of review. In the R5 zone minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet and all
12 proposed lots meet this requirement. 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 13 to 17
13 lots for the proposal. Compliance with most of the other zoning standards and all
14 building code standards, will be implemented during building permit review. Public
works staff have determined that the preliminary design for plat infrastructure meets
15 applicable engineering,public works and stormwater standards.
16 ACC 17.07.070(F): The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision
17 are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality of the environment.
18 ;
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 there are no significant adverse impacts
19 associated with the proposal.
20 ACC 1,7.07.070(G): Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will
21 prevent or abate public nuisances.
22 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.
23
DECISION
24
25 The proposed preliminary plat and deviation requests comply with all applicable
requirements for the reasons identified above, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
Preliminary Plat p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1. The plat modification request regarding of the minimum lot width of the corner lots
1 is approved for proposed Lots No. 2, 5, 7, and 13 as shown on the "Preliminary Civil
2 Plans", D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., June 21, 2019 (or as may be
renumbered). All other zoning development standards must be met.
3
2. The application for a deviation from the Engineering Design Standards (COADS
4 10.02.4),to increase the maximum road grade from 8%to 10%on SE 301st P1. and on
the emergency vehicle access road is approved. The City Engineer supports and
5 recommends to the Hearing Examiner approval due to the existing grade of SE 301st
6 P1 to the east and 124th Ave. SE to the west.
7 3. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the City of Auburn Facilities
Extension Agreement (FAC), the plans shall show that appropriate portions of public
8 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 the entire perimeter. The posting
9 shall be in accordance with the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
10
4. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC,the Applicant must provide
11 documentation of submittal of an application to the Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECOLOGY) for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1
12 acre in size.
13
5. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC,the existing on-site septic
14 system shall be abandoned in accordance with the King County Health Department
requirements and documentation of the approved abandonment from the Health
15 Department shall be provided to the City.
16 6. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the existing water well(s)
17 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
18 service agreement prohibiting the installation of irrigation wells(s) and other
requirements,pursuant to ACC 13.06.150,"Required connections—Existing wells".
19
7. The Washington State Department of Archeology&Historic Preservation(DAHP)
20 predictive model data, Washington Information System for Architectural &
21 Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD, https://dahp.wa.gov/wisaard), identifies a
portion of the site is located in a"High Risk"area for archaeological resources and that
22 a cultural resources survey is "highly advised". As a result of this likelihood,prior to
City approval of the civic plans under the FAC or other approvals authorizing
23 earthwork or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall prepare a cultural
resources investigation report meeting the guidelines of the Washington Department of
24 Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAFIP) and provide it to the City of Auburn,
25 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,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
Preliminary Plat p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
during construction activities, shall immediately halt all construction activities in the
1 vicinity and notify the City of Auburn, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and DAHP.
2 Treatment and preservation of any cultural resources shall then be coordinated with
these agencies.
3
8. If groundwater is encountered during construction in the proposed stormwater
4 detention pond that appears that it will impact the live storage capacity of the detention
pond, the City of Auburn will stop construction and may require groundwater
5 monitoring and will require redesign of the facility as necessary to account for observed
6 groundwater. Depending on the groundwater seepage rates encountered, water
elevation observed, the time of year or other possible factors involved, construction
7 may not commence again until an updated pond design and revised City of Auburn
Facilities Extension Agreement(FAC) is approved by the City of Auburn.
8
9. The dividing wall that is proposed in the stormwater detention/management pond
9 and shown on Preliminary Civil Plans", D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.,June
10 21, 2019 shall be constructed of structural reinforced concrete. The walls shall be
designed and stamped by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington.
11
10.Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plan shall include a
12 landscaping plan. This plan shall show portion of the stormwater pond tract located
13 between the westernmost retaining wall and the back of the right-of-way of 124th St.
SE will be landscaped with shallow-rooted shrubs and groundcover.
14 !
11.Prior to final plat approval a note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that
15 the Knudson Plat Homeowner's Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain
those portions of the tracts containing stormwater ponds and specifically the portions
16 located outside the fenced pond boundaries, or if no fence is provided, outside the 10-
17 year stormwater surface elevation, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally,
the Covenants, Conditions,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)to be reviewed by the City shall
18 also address this maintenance responsibility.
19 12.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
20 management practices(BMPs)per ACC 16.10.120(E)(2).
21 13.If at the time of FINAL PLAT application,the nature and location of the depicted
22 occupation features remain unchanged and/or unresolved,then per RCW 58.17.255, a
"survey discrepancy note" shall be placed on the face of the FINAL SHORT PLAT
23 similar to the following example:
24 SURVEY DISCREPANCY NOTE:
25 EXISTING FENCES, RETAINING WALL AND ROCKERY HAVE BEEN
SHOWN PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.255 AND SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN
Preliminary Plat p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
THE TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TITLE INSURER AND ISSUED
1 AFTER THE FILING OF THIS PLAT
2 14. Prior to final plat approval, the emergency vehicle access tracts (Tract C and D)
3 must be completed and opened to the public street(124th Ave. SE).
4 15. Tracts A and B are private access tract(joint use driveway)and will be owned and
maintained by the HOA. Tract C is a private access(joint use driveway), and partly an
5 emergency vehicle access, and pedestrian access which will be owned and maintained
6 by the HOA.Tract D is a continuation of emergency vehicle and pedestrian access tract
in Tract C. An ingress and egress easement, or other instrument as approved by the
7 City, over Tracts C and D must be granted to the City of Auburn, for the purpose of
accessing Tract E (stormwater pond), providing emergency services, and pedestrian
8 access to 124th Ave SE.
9 DATED this 31st day of October 2019.
10
11 Ptu A:Olbrechts
12 i
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
13
14
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
15
This decision is final subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C
16 RCW.
17 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
18
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Preliminary Plat p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision