HomeMy WebLinkAboutEX_30_C_Applicant Request for Revisions_20230117CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
From:Courtney Flora
To:Andrew Van Gordon; Jennifer Cisneros; Margarette Bravo; Chip Vincent
Cc:Aron Golden; Kyle Carrick
Subject:Maple Highlands Preliminary Plat, LUA22-000122, PP, ECF, Comments from Applicant
Date:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:09:41 AM
Attachments:Maple Highlands, Hearing Examiner 1.17.23.pdf
Hello all— We represent Conner Homes in connection with its proposed Maple Highlands plat.
Please include the attached letter in the record for the preliminary plat hearing scheduled for today
at 11 am before the Hearing Examiner. The letter requests revisions to recommended Conditions 1
and 6, which are necessary to ensure viability of the plat. I am travelling today and cannot attend the
hearing, but Aron Golden and KPFF will be there to speak to the letter and answer any questions.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Courtney Flora
Partner
MCCullough hill PllC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6600
Seattle, Washington 98104
Direct: 206-812-3376
Cell: 206-788-7729
email@mhseattle.com
www.mhseattle.com
NoTiCE: This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. if you have received it in error,
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.
______________________________________________________________________
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 6600 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com
January 17, 2023
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
incwd90.com
Re: Maple Highlands Preliminary Plat (LUA22-000122)
Proposed Revisions to Recommended Conditions
Dear Examiner:
We represent Conner Homes, applicant for “Maple Highlands,” a 12-lot residential plat on an
approximately 4-acre site located at 13818 152nd Ave SE and 13939 154th Ave SE in the City of
Renton.
City staff has prepared a Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner in advance of the January 17, 2023
preliminary plat hearing. Applicant requests revision of two recommended conditions in the Staff
Report—Conditions 1 and 6. Condition 1 creates the potential for unnecessary construction delay,
and Condition 6 jeopardizes the viability of the plat by suggesting that the trees on Lots 5 and 6 may
have to be retained, despite the fact that the record is clear that Lots 5 and 6 are undevelopable
unless those trees are removed. The proposed preliminary plat meets and exceeds the requirements
of the City’s Tree Retention code. Conner Homes requests that the Examiner revise Conditions 1
and 6 as proposed below.
Recommended Condition 1
Recommended Condition 1 a. provides that “Prior to civil construction approval, the applicant shall
rehabilitate the existing stormwater ditch from the existing 18-inch (18”) outfall to the southern
driveway at 14024 154th Ave SW . . .”
Rehabilitation of the existing stormwater ditch requires a Right-of-Way permit from King County.
Conner will submit an application for this permit as soon as possible, but the County’s review and
approval timeline are outside the applicant’s control (and based on recent experience, we anticipate
significant delay). The current recommended condition requires the ROW permit to be issued and
the work completed before the City’s civil construction approval may be issued. Because the off-site
downstream condition is understood and will not change, Conner requests a minor revision to
Condition 1, as follows:
Prior to civil construction permit approval, The applicant shall obtain a Right-of-Way permit
from King County to rehabilitate the existing stormwater ditch from the existing 18-inch
(18”) outfall to the southern driveway at 14024 154th Ave SW. The work authorized under
the Right-of-Way permit must be performed before final plat approval . . .
Renton Hearing Examiner
January 17, 2023
Page 2
This condition will allow the ROW work and civil work to occur simultaneously and will reduce the
risk of civil work being delayed while the ROW permit is under review.
Recommended Condition 6
Condition 6 relates to the Tree Retention Plan for the plat. The proposed Tree Retention Plan was
prepared in compliance with the City’s Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations in Renton
Municipal Code (“RMC”) 4-4-130.
1. The Tree Retention Plan complies with City Code.
RMC 4-4-130 requires that “properties subject to an active land development permit shall retain a
minimum of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees on site.” RMC 4-4-130.H.1.a. The proposed
plat satisfies this requirement. The arborist report documents one hundred and twenty-three (123)
trees on the project site. Two (2) of those trees are non-viable and sixty-five (65) are located within
right-of-way, resulting in fifty-six (56) trees eligible for retention. Application of the thirty percent
(30%) requirement means seventeen (17) trees must be maintained. The applicant is proposing to
retain twenty-eight (28) trees on Lots 7 and 10, which exceeds the code requirement by nineteen (19)
trees. The trees to be retained are classified as “Tier 2” trees, which require protection by
recordation of a permanent tree protection easement. The applicant will record a permanent tree
protection easement for the twenty-eight (28) retained trees as required by RMC 4-4-1.H.2.a.ii.
2. Trees 97 – 101 must be removed in order for the plat to be feasible.
The Tree Retention Plan and accompanying arborist reports note that five (5) Tier 1 trees (Trees 97-
101) must be removed on proposed Lots 5 and 6. The arborist report confirms that Trees 97 – 101
are too close to the home footprints, so cannot be retained. Throughout the course of this plat
review, the applicant has explored every option to retain some or all of the trees on Lots 5 and 6. It
is not possible to do so. Accordingly, the applicant has made the required showing under RMC 4-4-
130.H.2.a, which allows compliance with a lower priority tier if the applicant can demonstrate that:
(i) all reasonable efforts have been taken to preserve trees utilizing the highest priority tier
possible,
(ii) that compliance with a higher tier is not feasible or practical for the project site, and
(iii) that the project proposal meets or exceeds the purposes and intent of this Section.
The record demonstrates that Tier 1 tree retention is not feasible or practical for the project site, and
that the proposal meets or exceeds the purposes and intent of this Section (again, the applicant is
proposing to retain 28 Tier 2 trees, which is 19 more than required).
Renton Hearing Examiner
January 17, 2023
Page 3
Condition 6 leaves this issue open, requiring another Tree Retention Plan to be submitted before
approval to remove Trees 97- 101 may be granted. That approach is not acceptable to the applicant.
The ability to remove the trees on Lots 5 and 6 is a threshold feasibility issue that must be resolved
at the preliminary plat stage.
We propose that Condition 6 be revised as follows:
The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Retention Plan and updated Certified Arborist
Report with the civil construction permit application. The revised arborist report shall
provide monitoring instructions by a Certified Arborist deemed necessary during
construction activities near protected trees on the project site that shall be incorporated into
final construction specifications. The revised plan shall provide a permanent tree protection
easement retention tract for trees 11- 28 along the northern border of Lot 7 and Trees 1 –
10 along the northern border of Lot 10. and Trees 97- 101 on Lots 5 and 6 shall be retained
based on the guidance of a Certified Arborist. An updated arborist report shall provide a
root reconnaissance and recommendations for best practices for construction around Trees
97-101. The applicant shall provide a surety for monitoring of Trees 97- 101 performed by a
Certified Arborist for five (5) years following completion of the homes on lots 5 and 6.
Should Trees 97-101 be determined not feasible for retainment, then the Current Planning
Manager would allow removal of some or all of Trees 97 – 101. The revised tree retention
plan and arborist report shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Manager
prior to permit issuance.
The applicant has been clear throughout this process that the proposed plat is not viable unless the
trees on proposed Lots 5 and 6 are removed. The removal of these trees is justified under City Code,
and the retention of twenty-eight (28) existing Tier 2 trees exceeds code requirements.
We appreciate your attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
s/Courtney E. Flora
Courtney E. Flora
cc: Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Andrew Van Gordon, Associate Planner
Clients