Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEXAppendixA_MapleHighlands Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 30 Appendix A January 17, 2023 Hearing Transcript Maple Highlands -- LUA22-000122, PP Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available on the City’s website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, for the record, it's January 17th, 2023, 11:00 AM. I'm Phil Olbrechts, hearing examiner for the City of Renton. This morning, we have an application for a preliminary plat application, Maple Highlands preliminary plat. The hearing format will be able to start off with a presentation from staff. Who's that today? Is that Mr. Herrera? Are you doing it? This one? Mr. Van Gordon: That would be for me. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Great. So after Mr. Herrera has given us an overview of what the project is about, we'll give a chance for the applicants to speak, and once they're done, then we'll move on to public comments. That's all the neighbors out there, anyone from the public who wants to make a comment, that'll be your chance and we'll get into a little more detail on how to participate once we get to that portion of the hearing. So if you still don't know how to be included, don't worry about it. We'll give you some more explanation when we get to that point in the hearing today. After public comments. Oh, sorry? Ms. Cisneros: Mr. Olbrechts, it's actually Mr. Van Gordon. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, Mr. Van Gordon's doing the staff presentation? Ms. Cisneros: Yes, yes. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Great. Great. Okay, good. All right. Then once all the public comments are done, we'll go back to Mr. Van Gordon to answer any questions that were asked and provide any necessary rebuttal evidence. Then applicant gets final word. After that, I get 10 business days to issue a final decision on this, and that's appealable to Superior Court. Now, by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put into the record today. That would be composed of exhibits that are admitted into the record and all your testimony. That way, everybody knows exactly what decision is or what information I should say, and evidence is being considered for the final decision. Ms. Cisneros now is sharing screen with the Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 30 exhibits that were given to me ahead of the hearing. These are the exhibits that Mr. Van Gordon wants admitted into the record for consideration on the final plat decision. We can see the first 10 exhibits there. The environmental committee report is a report put together by the city planning staff to determine whether an environmental impact statement needs to be issued and what kind of mitigation measures are necessary to avoid having to do that environmental impact statement. We have the preliminary site plan, which gives us an overview of how the lots are laid out, where the roads are located, that kind of thing. Then as with all these preliminary plats, we have a lot of supporting review done by geotechnical experts, stormwater experts, and even we have the arborists who go over what trees need to be retained. We have a concurrency memo which addresses the project traffic congestion, if any, and then advisory notes. That's where the city staff from all the different departments point out what mitigation measures are necessary to ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding development and also doesn't create undue demand on public services. So beyond exhibits one through 10, we also have the staff report, which is Exhibit 11, neighborhood meeting minutes, survey map, the CEPA checklist, that's the preliminary checklist to determine whether an environmental impact statement is necessary. Then we have your public comments there. Exhibits 15 through 18, which is from Mr. Bettes, Mr. Christensen, and the Hansens. Then finally, we have our landscape plan tree retention and utilities plan and so on. So we have exhibits one through 25. Ms. Cisneros, I know normally you also have the staff PowerPoint and stuff listed as well? Ms. Cisneros: Yes. Phil Olbrechts: So there we are. Ms. Cisneros: We have a few, also a couple comments that came this morning. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Ms. Cisneros: From Mark Bettes and also correspondence from the applicant. I do have those exhibits if you would like me to pull them up on the screen. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Yeah, so you see there, exhibits 26 through 30 as well. So if any of you need to see any of those documents, they're available online and just raise your virtual hand, we'll tell you how to access those. But at this point, I just want to ask if anyone needs to see any of those documents or anyone has any objection to their entry in the record. If you do, just post your virtual hand there, and I'm not seeing any virtual hands, and that's pretty standard. Oh, sorry. Mr. Golden: [inaudible 00:04:10]. There we go. I'll raise my hand. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Golden: I have seen if there are additional public comments that arrived this morning, I haven't seen those. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. And Mr. Golden, are you here on behalf of the applicant? Mr. Golden: I am, sorry. [inaudible 00:04:22] Golden. Connor Holmes. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Golden: President of [inaudible 00:04:26] development. Phil Olbrechts: All right. Ms. Cisneros, is there a way you can get that to Mr. Golden and... Ms. Cisneros: Yes. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. So I think she's going to email them to you, Mr. Golden. If you don't get a chance to fully look them over before the end of the hearing and need me to leave the record open for you to give an opportunity to provide a response in writing or something, just let me know and we'll ensure that you have enough time to review that new information. So with that, I'll just ask again, anyone else need to see any of the documents or have any objection to their entry beyond that? I'm not, so I'll go ahead and admit exhibits, I think it was one through 26. Was that... Ms. Cisneros, is that how many there work? Ms. Cisneros: I believe there was 30. Phil Olbrechts: 30. Ms. Cisneros: I'll double-check. Phil Olbrechts: Just double-check. Yeah, I think you're right. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 30 Ms. Cisneros: Yes. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. One through 30. Okay. All right. So one through 30 are admitted. With that, let's go to Mr. Van Gordon and Mr. Van Gordon, just raise your virtual hand. Not seeing you on the screen here yet though. Oh, there he is. Okay. All right. Yeah. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Van Gordon: I do. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, great. Great. Go ahead. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. I'm going to share my screen here. Forgive me, it's been a little while since I have worked in Zoom. Let me know when people can see my screen. Okay. Phil Olbrechts: Not yet. There it goes. Okay, now it's go. Okay. Yeah, there. It's all right. Mr. Van Gordon: All right, so once again, thank you. My name is Andrew. For the record, my name's Andrew Van Gordon and I'm an associate planner with the city of Renton and I'm going to be making the presentation for the Maple Highlands preliminary plat. So the... Just a minute here. So the applicant is proposing to... He's requesting a preliminary plat for the subdivision of an existing 4.16-acre site into 12 lots and one tract. Hang on. The project site is zoned R4 and is currently is two legal lots of record. Each lot has its own existing single-family residence with associated detached structures. All of those are proposed for removal. The proposed lots would range in size from 9,010 square feet to 11,580 square feet and access to lots one through four and 11 through 12 would be via Southeast 5th place, access to lots five through seven would be provided via 153rd Avenue Southeast, and access to lots eight through 10 would be provided from 152nd Avenue Southeast. So the applicant is also proposing to retain 28 significant trees on the project site located along the northern property lines of lot seven and lot 10. So the applicant is proposing to extend Southeast 5th place between 152nd Avenue Southeast and 154th Avenue Southeast. They're also proposing to extend 153rd Avenue Southeast from Southeast 5th place to the northern property line. Frontage improvements including [inaudible 00:07:37], curb, gutter, planter strip of street trees and sidewalk are proposal along the street frontages with a note, with the caveat along Southeast 5th Place between 152nd and 153rd Avenue Southeast would be constructed to half street standards. So those planter strips and sidewalk would only be located on the north side in that section. There's also landscaping, which would include a storm water facility screening and the 10- foot onsite landscaping screening along the street front just for all the lots. So a neighborhood meeting was held on February 2nd, 2022. There was a 14-day public comment period from April 20th to May 4th. Staff received three public comments regarding stormwater and through vehicle access on 154th Avenue Southeast plus the one that we received this morning, which also addresses those items. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 30 Staff also received comment from the Duwamish Tribe regarding preservation of cultural resources. A determination of not significance mitigated was issued on December 12th, 2022 that had one mitigation measure related to storm water. I will touch on that a little bit later, but there were no appeals filed of that determination. Of note, the project was placed on hold May 6th through July 19th and August 5th through November 1st. So the proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive plan land use policies and would be compliant with all relevance zoning regulations if the conditions of approval are complied with. Additionally, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops where any students may reside in the future residences. So of note, the applicant is proposing to retain 28 trees, significant trees along the northern property lines of lot seven and lot 10. These are priority two trees. Trees one through 10 would be on lot 10 and trees 11 through 28 would be on lot seven. They're proposing to retain them based on the documents within the lots themselves. Additionally, there are trees 97 through 102, which are located on lots five and six, trees 97 through 101 are straddling that lot line. Then tree 102 is more internal to lot five. Those trees are priority one trees. It includes three of the four landmark trees that are located on the site. Additionally, the arborist report that was provided states that these trees have a continuous canopy and have formed a grove. So staff recommends that trees 11 through 28 be retained in a tract. Trees one through 10 and 97 through 101 be retained based on guidance of the certified arborist. So the applicant currently is not proposing a tree tract for preservation. Part of the guidance from the certified arborist would be that prior to ground disturbance and updated report would need to be provided showing root reconnaissance and recommendations for best practices for construction around trees 97 through 101. Should it be determined that all or individual trees may not be feasible for retainment, then we would allow for removal of some or all trees, 97 through 101. We did receive this morning a comment from the applicant's counsel requesting that those conditions, [inaudible 00:11:31] conditions not be approved as recommended. The letter that we received provides regulation references regarding percentage of trees that need to be retained along with tree priority tier protection. Those references are to the current tree regulations. This project is vested to the previous tree regulations, which do not include that language. So the 30% minimum significant tree retention is still required. So the items that the applicant proposes, such as that they're going to put the trees in easements, that's not permitted under the tree regulations that they're vested to. Additionally, the applicant's arborist report, they did provide an updated arborist report with a letter from the arborist where the arborist does say that construction activity is not recommended within drip lines, but it doesn't say that it can't happen within drip lines. Additionally, it does provide some kind of more general, because they haven't done a full site [inaudible 00:12:52] yet. Does provide mitigation, potential mitigation measures that relate to [inaudible 00:12:57] and protection of trees, false activation of how [inaudible 00:13:02]. Phil Olbrechts: Mr. Van Gordon, just a sec. You're kind of coming in... The audio's kind of getting garbled at this point. Ms. Cisneros, did you notice that? Is the audio getting garbled from your end? Ms. Cisneros: Yes, it is. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 30 Mr. Van Gordon: I apologize. I was getting a phone call at the same time, so maybe that had something to do with it. Phil Olbrechts: I think you're getting... Mr. Van Gordon: Is it still an issue? Phil Olbrechts: No, it just got better. Yeah. Okay, good. Good. Okay. Yeah, I don't know what that was, but okay, now you're good. All right, go ahead. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Okay. Where was it starting getting garbled? Phil Olbrechts: Well, it was just like about 30 seconds ago, so yeah. Yeah. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Okay. So I'll quickly go. They're vested. The project is vested to the previous tree regulations. The applicant's letter referencing easements, those items are not applicable to this project because those are the new tree regulations. There was also an arborist report that was provided. The updated arborist report letter does include general mitigation measures regarding root pruning, protection of trees, excavation around trees. Additionally, past experience with projects in the city has shown that work can be done within drip lines and around root systems provided we have the arborist mitigation recommended protection measures. So [inaudible 00:14:30]. Phil Olbrechts: Uh oh, now we're losing to you again, Mr. Gordon. Sorry. You just did, that's very... Did you get another call or something or. Mr. Van Gordon: No. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Ms. Cisneros: Andrew, I can probably get you a phone-in line if you'd like. Phil Olbrechts: You want to try that? Yeah. Yeah, maybe we should try that. Yeah, Mr. Gordon, if you just phone in, we'll lose your video, but I think that's okay. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 30 Ms. Cisneros: If you want to turn off your video for a little bit to see if that sounds better and then I'll send you the phone number. Now, we can't hear you. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, we can't hear you at all, Mr. Van Gordon. There we go. Oh, still can't hear you. You're totally muted. Ms. Cisneros, is he patched in by the phone or... Ms. Cisneros: I'm getting him the number. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, so I'll just wait a sec. Ms. Cisneros is giving the phone patch in to Mr. Van Gordon. That should solve the problem. Has he phoned in yet, Ms. Cisneros? Ms. Cisneros: Not yet. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Ms. Cisneros: So he is calling in as we speak. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, good. Ms. Cisneros: Yep. Just give him a few seconds here. I'm going to stop sharing screen for now, so give him a few minutes. Okay. I have unmuted you. Phil Olbrechts: All right. Are you with us, Mr. Van Gordon? Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Can people hear me? Phil Olbrechts: Yes, now we can hear you. Great. Okay. Back on. So I think... Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: And Ms. Cisneros, he can still share his screen and everything, right? Ms. Cisneros: I'm not sure if he can from the phone, but I can definitely help him out if... Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. All right. Ms. Cisneros: [inaudible 00:19:31] for him. Phil Olbrechts: Sure. Okay. Yeah. So Mr. Van Gordon, I guess... Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah, I'm working on... Phil Olbrechts: Hmm? Mr. Van Gordon: I'm working on trying to get it back up. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Yeah, if that doesn't work, you can just ask Ms. Cisneros to kind of go through your PowerPoint. She has it is my understanding. All right. We see it. Great. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Okay, boy. All right. Okay. Where was I? So just wrapping up on this, staff believe that the recommended conditions provide flexibility to retain high priority trees and retain the number of proposed lots that the applicant has shown here. Police and Fire indicate that there are sufficient resources to furnish services. It's anticipated that the Renton school district can accommodate any additional students generated. They'd be attending Maplewood Heights Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Water service will be provided by King County Water District 90. Sewer service provided by the city. So the applicant did submit a technical information report prepared by KPFF. The project will have one discharge location from the single stormwater pond proposed. Stormwater pond is proposed in the southeast portion of the project at the intersection of Southeast 5th Place and 154th Avenue Southeast, abutting lot 11, and would connect to the stormwater facilities in 154th Avenue Southeast. So as part of the MDNS, there was a mitigation measure to rehabilitate the downstream stormwater ditch along 154th Avenue Southeast, as there had been, there was a documented flooding issue further south here. Filing the project is required to comply with the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 30 Manual. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the 13 recommended conditions of approval. Do you have any questions for myself at this time? Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah. Maybe this is more for public works, but I had a question about Mr. Bettes' concern about the barricade, and I was just having a little trouble following why those barricades are there, how they relate to the project, and what measures, if any, have been taken to address Mr. Bettes' concerns. So I'm hoping that you or somebody can show where the barricades are in relation to the [inaudible 00:22:21] to the project, what the problem is, and what's being done to address it at this point. Mr. Van Gordon: Right. So the issue is that... So a few years ago to the east on the opposite side of 154th Avenue Southeast, there was... Phil Olbrechts: Can you put to that on the site plan maybe to show me where everything is or I don't know if you can do that from the phone? Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: Let's see. This one would probably... I think this... So on the east side of 154th Avenue, [inaudible 00:23:02]. Phil Olbrechts: I can see your cursor. Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah. So yeah, this is 154th Avenue Southeast here. On the east side of it, there was a subdivision that was completed a couple years ago and they did their half street improvements along the 154th, on 154th Avenue East. It looks like there... Bring up some... Jonathan, would you be able to get Exhibit 29 while I explain? Jonathan: Yeah, I can do that. Mr. Van Gordon: And share your screen on this? So I'm going to close my... Stop sharing my screen here while Jonathan... Well, Jonathan's ready. So at the time that previous subdivision was going through the public process, and let me know when you're ready, Jonathan, I'll stop sharing my screen. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 30 Jonathan: I'm ready, but I... Yeah, go ahead. I'm ready. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. Okay. So for the previous subdivision across the street there, they did half street improvements on the east side of 154th Avenue Southeast. The neighbors to the south were afraid of through-traffic coming through as 154th Avenue Southeast. To the south there is unimproved within unincorporated King County, it's unimproved, it's a dirt road within open stormwater ditch there along the side. So as part of the... This was not a recommended condition of approvals, but at the hearing for that other subdivision, which I apologize, I forget the name of it off the top of my head, the applicant in the city were indicated that basically a [inaudible 00:25:01] can be worked out to block off traffic to prevent that through-traffic, which is why along the [inaudible 00:25:07] now is that fencing there with the danger striping posts there. So to basically, as our recommended condition of approval, we've got it there to basically extend that fencing across the paved area. The comments that were received from the public were related to a more attractive option there with the post fencing, additionally, provide basically fencing along the sidewalk area there that would kind of create shikane type of situation to try to prevent people from driving around slow down bicyclists and still allow pedestrians to go through there because the concern is that there will be that through-traffic using that unincorporated area. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. So what is the staff recommended mitigation measure do again? It just extends that barricade all the way across the paved portion? Is that what it does? Mr. Van Gordon: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Then another question related to roads. The proposed interior road, 153rd Avenue Southeast, are both ends of those planned to be... I mean, are they serving as stub roads on both ends? Is there a right-of-way to connect to in the future on both ends or what's going on with that? Mr. Van Gordon: So directly south of the project is Unincorporated King County and to the north of it, there is a proposed road to be running east west to the north there. So when the lots to the north redeveloped, they would be able to connect there. Let me share, let me see if I can bring up core maps here just a minute to show you here. Just a minute. Phil Olbrechts: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 30 Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: So yeah, there aren't spurs there currently, but it would be proposed in the future there. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, so there's right-of-way up there. Is that correct? You said east west right-of-way? Mr. Van Gordon: [inaudible 00:27:36] core map. So okay. Yeah, there is, come on. This is the first [inaudible 00:28:00] would go for my first hearing here. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Welcome to Renton public hearings. Yeah. Mr. Van Gordon: Get it all out of the way in the beginning here. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. So the project area is located here. Let me bring up my... So we do have a potential extension. So they're completing this extension of Southeast 5th Place here. Phil Olbrechts: Where's the project site on there again? Which is the project site? Mr. Van Gordon: Oh, I'm sorry. It's 13818, 152nd. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. We're your cursor... That one. Mr. Van Gordon: Here. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: [inaudible 00:28:34] here. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: So it's directly south of the project is Unincorporated King County. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Van Gordon: So going south, we don't have a specific connection, but it would be reasonable in the future whenever this area is incorporated that we would continue [inaudible 00:28:53]. Phil Olbrechts: Is there a right-of-way down there? Is there north south right-of-way going down there? Do you know? Would that just be part of a plat or something that was dedicated? Mr. Van Gordon: I'm not aware of north south of right-of-way to the top of it. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Mr. Van Gordon: I am being told that there is right-of-way though, but I'm not exactly sure where it is. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Okay. Jonathan: So that right-of-way to the south, the belongs to King County roadways. Then the event that we were to annex this area in, that would become City of Renton right-of-way. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. So there's right-of-way that stub road... So it is a stub road essentially that from the future would connect. And the same with the north as well? Jonathan: Yeah. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. And Mr. Chavez, you swear you in real quick, swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding. And also your prior comments are sworn as well? Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 30 Jonathan: Yeah, I do. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay, Mr. Van Gordon. Thanks. Let's see, had just some other quick questions. Got to pull them up here. Just to confirm, there are no open space requirements, specific open space requirements for [inaudible 00:30:05]? Okay. Then... Mr. Van Gordon: Correct [inaudible 00:30:07]. Phil Olbrechts: Hmm? Mr. Van Gordon: I said correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. And then there was some drainage problems identified by Nori. I think as you mentioned, the CEPA mitigation I think was designed to address that. Could you kind of explain how that's being addressed by the... I think it was by improvements to the ditch or something and how that relates to the problem addressed by Ms. Nori? Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah, so I met with the neighbor to the south, I think July 29th, 2022, to discuss their concerns. There was an event in 2018, February of 2018 where the area to the south of this project flooded quite a bit to the point where a couple of the homes actually had basement flooding as well. Since then, to my knowledge, that has not occurred again. Then also since then, we had the plat to the east, the Meadowview plat, installed a retention pond to help with the drainage issues. The concern here, although it's valid under the existing condition and the proposed condition, we feel confident that that would not occur. Having said that, I think moving the ditch and straightening it out would help flow with the water flow. Because right now, what happens is that there's an 18-inch outlet and the ditch kind of does a serpentine movement, which slows down the water. So having that ditch straightened out, shifting it further east, and/or if the applicant decides, they can actually tight line the ditch, which means put an 18-inch pipe, close a ditch, that would help convey the water from the north to the south much more effectively. So that's what the mitigation measure is for. It's to address the concern that there may be a very small chance that this could flood. So the resident was concerned and suggested that we look into that mitigation measure. So that's what we presented to here at the hearing. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. So Mr. Chavez, it essentially this, the mitigation measure is going to be an improvement over current conditions, I take it then, right? Ultimately? Jonathan: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 30 Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Jonathan: Yeah, and it's in King County right-of-way. So it will require a King County right-of-way permit application. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. Then I just need some kind of magic words from you, Mr. Chavez, just so I can put in the report that Public Works has reviewed the street system and find is consistent with city street standards. Can you say that was just done because it's just not made clear in the record? Jonathan: Yeah, no. Okay. It meets current street standards and the drainage system does as well. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Van Gordon: [inaudible 00:33:06] real quick and say that the applicants, in their letter that we received this morning also proposed revisions to the condition related to that downstream mitigation. We are not opposed to those provisions. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. I'll let the applicant address what those are. Mr. Van Gordon, there's a, and this is, I'm one of those things I just kind of check all the boxes. I think that the city regulations discouraged piping or tunneling of streams. I just want to make also clear on the record that's not happening with this project. Is that correct? Mr. Van Gordon: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Then finally, another city standard requires that the proposed streets be consistent with any adopted street plans and trail plans. Are there any that apply to this project? Mr. Van Gordon: Not that I'm aware of. Jonathan, are there any? Jonathan: No. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 15 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right, perfect. Okay, I think those are all my questions, so thanks for all your help on that. Let's move on then to the applicants and Mr. Golden, is that you? Okay. Let me swear you in. Mr. Golden: Yes. Phil Olbrechts: I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Golden: I do. Phil Olbrechts: Is your last name spelled G-O-L-D-E-N? Mr. Golden: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Then go ahead. Mr. Golden: Great. Thank you, Mr. Examiner and [inaudible 00:34:20] staff for your help on this project. By quick introduction, I'm the Vice President for Land Development at Conner Homes. Conner Homes has been building houses since 1959 in the region. We're proud to be one of the only locally-owned production homeowners in the region left. We have, for decades, built homes in Renton. So we're proud of the products we built, our customers are happy with the warranty services we provide. We're just [inaudible 00:34:49] group of people. We're happy to be back in Renton as well. That said, we always got to work out the kinks on projects. We have Kyle Carrick and Tim Crusso, who's our civil engineering team. They're here today if anybody's got technical questions that I can't answer. Unfortunately, our [inaudible 00:35:12] attorney, Courtney Flora, wasn't able to make the hearing today, so I'm going to have to pretend to be her and defer if there's something over my head. As Andrew mentioned, Andrew Van Gordon, we did submit a letter this morning concerning conditions one and six. Mr. Examiner, I look to you, but [inaudible 00:35:35] like me to summarize what's in the letter now or at some point later during the proceeding? Phil Olbrechts: So one in six, this is deals with the, what was it? One was the tree retention, I think, and what was the other one? Mr. Golden: Correct. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 16 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Oh, and then the other one was the stormwater one. Mr. Golden: Condition one is the stormwater condition, six is about trees, correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Yeah, if you don't mind, just let me know what you have in mind for the revisions and also on the legal issue, I mean, and Mr. Van Gordon seemed to make a pretty compelling point that your attorney maybe wasn't relying on the vested regulations. I don't know if maybe you want me to leave the record open to get some more input from her on that particular issue, or whether you're comfortable addressing that today. I'll leave that up to you. How do you want to handle it? Mr. Golden: All right, well, why don't we go from six to one then? Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Golden: [inaudible 00:36:27]. I would like you to leave the record open for her to provide guidance on the regulations themselves, new or old code. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Golden: [inaudible 00:36:37] staff can just update the group on when the tree code changed, so we have that date in the record as it [inaudible 00:36:45] to [inaudible 00:36:47] application, but [inaudible 00:36:55]. The letter that we submitted discussed [inaudible 00:36:59]... Phil Olbrechts: No. Oh, Mr. Golden, you're not coming in too well either, unfortunately. Shoot, I mean, maybe you should call in I think so we can hear you better. Jennifer, can... Ms. Cisneros: If Mr. Goldlen turns off his video, it may help if he wants to try that first and then... Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Yeah. Mr. Golden: All right. Do I sound [inaudible 00:37:21]? Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 17 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Yes. I think you sound pretty good right now. All right. Mr. Golden: Okay. Great. Great. Okay. Well, you'll have to go without my [inaudible 00:37:29]. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, now we're losing again. I'm sorry. Yeah, we better I guess. Yeah, we better have you try to phone in. I don't, yeah, I don't know what's going on today. It must be an internet issue I suppose. This doesn't happen very often, but... Ms. Cisneros: Mr. Golden, I'll send you the phone number. I think it's in the Outlook invite, but I'll send it to your email. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Ms. Cisneros: So you have it. Mr. Golden: Great, thanks. Phil Olbrechts: We survived the entire pandemic and did just fine. Then afterwards, we had another hearing where it was a little garbled and then this one, so yeah, it sounds like it's internet traffic issue, but I don't know. Ms. Cisneros: I've sent that over to you, Mr. Golden. Did you receive my email? Mr. Van Gordon: [inaudible 00:40:02] a little bit of depth on here. The new tree regulations, Mr. Examiner, went ordinance date was [inaudible 00:40:13] August 8th, 2022. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Ms. Cisneros: Mr. Golden, were you able to call in? Mr. Golden: No, I'm still working on it. Am I still... Can you hear me, Ms. Cisneros? Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 18 of 30 Ms. Cisneros: Yes. Mr. Golden: Yeah, I keep trying and it keeps cutting me off when I enter some of the meeting ID, so I enter six of the numbers and it says that's wrong. Ms. Cisneros: Okay. Mr. Golden: So I'm still, let me try one more time. Phil Olbrechts: Shoot. Ms. Cisneros: Copied it from what I sent Andrew. So let me, if you want to verify the numbers that you have possibly? Let's see here. Mr. Golden: All right. I just joined as an attendee, but I need you to unmute. Ms. Cisneros: Okay, yes, I see you. There you go. Mr. Golden: Great. Ms. Cisneros: You got some feedback [inaudible 00:43:48]. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, you'd probably want to get out of the video portion and just do through your phone. Mr. Golden: Okay. Okay. How's that? I'm getting an echo. Oh, not now. Okay. Sounds good. Can you hear me? Phil Olbrechts: Sounds good. Yeah, sounds good. Mr. Golden: All right. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 19 of 30 Ms. Cisneros: Sounds good. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Mr. Golden: All right. Thanks everybody. Sorry about that. So we were talking about conditions six or... Oh, we're talking about condition, yeah, six for trees, correct. So yeah, we had a number of phone calls starting in October. Phil Olbrechts: Actually, I don't, is it condition six? Because let me make sure I'm looking at the right... Oh, I'm looking at the wrong, okay, hold on. Sorry, I got to pull up the right staff report. Where did that go? Okay, I'm on board. All right, go ahead. Mr. Golden: All right. Sure. Starting in about October, we recognized the issue with the trees at the north end of lots seven and 10 and then between lots five and six, we really made an effort, emails and phone calls with staff. They were very responsive. In our November 1st [inaudible 00:44:57] submittal included an arbor report indicating that trees between lots five and six, 97 through 101, would not survive building construction. Then let's see. The issue. As we know that now, we had discussions with staff about the viability of those trees were conflicting with house foundations and being significantly within the drip line of those trees. That was the reason for the arborist conclusion that they wouldn't survive. That's in that the middle from 11-1, and I can tell you exactly which exhibit it is. It's Exhibit six. Yes. Exhibit six. Okay. We had also suggested putting the trees at the north end of lot seven in an easement as opposed to a tract. The reason for placing the trees 11 through 28 in an easement is because with the tract, you again have another setback from the tract edge to the building impacting what kind of house you could place on lot seven, understanding that we still need to discuss the code issue and would like to keep the record open for that. With the trees between five and six, we know now that the houses are on lot six [inaudible 00:47:01] for certain is infeasible keeping the trees and lot five would be severely constrained based on the drip line on those trees, which were in a difficult position with the condition as written, stating that we would then have to bring [inaudible 00:47:18], study the tree root systems, make a recommendation, and engineering plan review. This would mean we would have to close on the land at a significant cost, pay for the engineering plan, preparation the submittal fees to the city, and then obtain permission from the planning manager to have those trees, 97 through 101 removed at that time, after considerable capital outlay. So it becomes a threshold feasibility issue over, which I'm not sure we can... We can't... So the project would not survive that level of risk. So that's the summary of what's in Courtney Flora's letter. Moving on to condition one, we're fine with the mitigation. We do not object to either tight-lining or fixing the ditch line as that portion of the condition is written. We had concerns about the permitting timeline. The condition is written, asks that the work, the offsite storm line work be completed before the city would issue a civil permit. We know that King County is particularly slow in processing permits and we suggest... Well, we want to avoid having city plants approved and not even having a county permit in hand. So we suggest that we do all the work by the time of plan approval. Based on the current storm Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 20 of 30 conditions, we don't think there'll be any impact to doing the work simultaneously with plat construction. Those are my comments. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Yeah, and as you said, we can leave the record open to deal with the tree retention issues. I mean, I think if you are locked into the old regulations, then there's no way around them. Maybe the solution is a setback modification or something like that, but it sounds like some time to work that out with staff would be helpful in this case. Then in terms of condition one, that's a CEPA mitigation measure and the appeal period is expired on that. So I don't know if I really have any authority to modify it at all. I think maybe staff would have to do that through a CEPA addendum and they may be willing to do it. I don't know if you've had discussions with them about that particular modification, but I think that one might be out of my hands. But anyway, let's move on to public comments at this point. Ms. Cisneros, let's see. I'll click on my attendee screen here. If any of you members of the public out there want to comment at this point, go ahead and hit the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen. Ms. Cisneros, did you have an instruction sheet you wanted to go over at this point as well? Ms. Cisneros: Yes, I do. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, I want to let you go over that. Ms. Cisneros: Yes. It shows how you can comment if you're on the phone, that if you are on the line, you can raise your hand. There at the bottom of the page, it shows the button that you can push, be able to comment, and I will unmute you. If you'd like to comment now, then go ahead and raise your hand. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. I see that... Ms. Cisneros: [inaudible 00:50:33] phone, there's a press star nine and dial star six for unmuting. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, well let's deal with the raised hands first. I see we have Catherine placed there and, Jennifer, if you could unmute her, I'll swear her in. All right. Ms. Place, I'm not... Is your last name Place or is it Washington? I'm kind of hard to tell what that is there. Catherine Place: It's place. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 21 of 30 Catherine Place: I'm here with Marvin Bates. He wishes to speak. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. So that's Mr. Bates wishes to speak. Okay. Mr. Bates, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Marvin Bettes: I do. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. How do you spell your last name for the record again? Marvin Bettes: Bettes, actually, B-E-T-T-E-S. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. All right, go ahead then. Marvin Bettes: I have an issue which only affects me in this thing, and that's the... I sent the four or five pages, which covers all the issues I was concerned about, but the one I want to talk about now is the rockery wall on the south line of the property. It's going to be 140 feet long and six feet high, and it's going to be right smack on the property line. So I'm wondering how do I deal with that? Because the people who are going to own that lot once the houses are sold hasn't got any ability to maintain that wall at all. So it looks like to me that because there's no setback or anything, I'm forced to maintain the wall and I'm worried that that wall might affect my ability to build a shop or something in there as far as offsets go and stuff like that. I'm not sure that I care one way or the other because I'm just saying for now, I don't know what all the implications are of that wall. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Marvin Bettes: I read that it was going to be eight-and-a-half feet high at one point, and then it was, it's now going to be six feet high, but when you got a six-foot high rock wall and then a six-foot high fence on top of the rock wall, you got a 12-foot barricade there, which is not particularly neighborhood-friendly. You know what I mean? There just doesn't leave many options. I mean, can I build right up to it? If they can build up to the zero lot line with that wall, can I build up to the zero lot line with my building? Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Do you want Mr. Van Gordon to answer that now or did you have other comments you wanted to make? Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 22 of 30 Marvin Bettes: That's the one that affects just me personally. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Van Gordon, maybe if you could identify whether that'll affect Mr. Bettes' development rights, if it's going to affect his setbacks and also address what the specifics are of this rock wall right now, whether it is six feet with a six-foot fence and how that was permitted under city regulations. Mr. Van Gordon: Sure. Yeah. So a six-foot tall retaining wall is permitted within the side yard setback. So they would be meeting side yard setback that a six-foot foot [inaudible 00:54:06] retaining wall. They would not be permitted to then put a six-foot fence on top of that because then that would then be a 12-foot tall and that wouldn't meet [inaudible 00:54:16] requirements. So they would have to set the fence back to meet setbacks. With regards placing on Mr. Bettes' property, his property is within the Unincorporated King County, so I don't know what their setback requirements are. If this was in the City of Renton, depending on what he's proposing to place on his property, would have to meet whatever the zoning at the time would setback would permit. So for example, he wanted to put, if he wanted to put a six-foot tall fence or retaining wall along his property line, the code would allow that. But just a note, his property's within Unincorporated King County, so I can't speak specifically. [inaudible 00:55:04]. Phil Olbrechts: But under city regulations, I mean, the fact that someone builds a retaining wall doesn't affect the setback requirements of the adjoining lot, is that correct? Mr. Van Gordon: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Now, so a six-foot retaining wall is allowed there. Would a six-foot fence be allowed there if there wasn't a retaining wall placed there? Mr. Van Gordon: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. What's the setback for the additional fence now that they are having the retaining wall there? How far back does the fence have to be placed? Mr. Van Gordon: That would end up being, just a minute here. So that would have a [inaudible 00:55:43] along the rear there. So they would've a rear of setback at 25 feet. Phil Olbrechts: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 23 of 30 Five feet? Okay. All right. Okay, so they can have the six-foot retaining wall, then they go back five feet and they can have a six-foot fence. That's how it would be laid out? Mr. Van Gordon: 25 feet, sorry. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, 25 feet. Really? Really, for a fence? Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah. The property was, it would be rear yard, excuse me, I misspoke. It'd be a rear yard setback. They would be allowed to have that retaining wall there. Then the fence would've to then be set back 25 feet, [inaudible 00:56:12] feet, excuse me. Phil Olbrechts: 22 feet. Oh, okay. All right. Mr. Bettes, did that answer your question? Marvin Bettes: Yeah, it's just not a very good answer. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Marvin Bettes: If they've got 30-foot set back now and they got to set back another 25 feet to get a fence in there, then most of their backyard where the kids are going to be playing is going to have no fence at all and a six- foot drop at the end. So I don't know. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, understood. Marvin Bettes: I mean, I'd rather have the 12-foot high thing and have the balls with the kids and the lawnmowers and everything like that [inaudible 00:56:54] what they have to do on their side of the fence. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah, understood. I'll check out the regs too. That does seem pretty unusual that it would be set up that way, but because oftentimes it would just be six feet beyond the retaining wall or something. But yeah, I'll check it out too. Marvin Bettes: My other specific concern here is that those rock walls need maintenance. Who maintains it? Phil Olbrechts: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 24 of 30 Yeah. Marvin Bettes: There's no setback. They have to maintain it for my property. So I'm basically providing property so that they can maintain their fence. If anything goes wrong with that thing and they do, then they've got to put big equipment in, and the only way they're going to get it in is through my property. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, and... Marvin Bettes: That's a bad idea. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Mr. Van Gordon is there, do you have any comment on that issue? Mr. Van Gordon: At this time, I don't. I'm just trying to, sorry, I'm just clarify my previous comments regarding the... Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, because my understanding is normally you have your setbacks, but a fence can normally be placed within the setback, and it would be a special regulation applicable to combination of fence and retaining walls where, like I said, usually the separation is like six feet or something, but I don't know if your code has that, but that's my experience with other codes. Mr. Van Gordon: Okay. I apologize, I've got my... I apologize. Okay, so the retaining wall is six feet tall. It can be placed within the setback, so be the retaining wall would be on the rear setback of lot 11 and 12. Mr. Bettes is on the south side of there, so that six-foot retaining wall can be placed along the rear there. Then a six- foot fence can be placed, a minimum setback, a minimum of two feet from the retaining wall. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. That makes a little more sense. Mr. Van Gordon: The fence would not be directly on top of it. It would be set back a little bit. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Yeah, that's what I kind of guessed, right. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, so let's see. Do we have anyone else here who wants to say anything? Don't see? Oh, I see there's a raised hand from somebody. Oh, there it is. There we go. Scott Christensen looks like. Okay. Mr. Christensen, are you there? Scott Christensen: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 25 of 30 Yes, I am. Can you hear me okay? Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Is your last name spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-E-N, is that correct? Scott Christensen: Yes, it is. Okay. Let me swear you in real quick, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? I do. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Go ahead. Scott Christensen: Thank you. So I live directly south of Marvin on the same side of the street. The question I have concerns the storm water, and it appears that the discharge from the pond travels across the existing roadway there at 154th to the east side of the road, and then it's proposed to go down the east side of the road. I'm just wondering when we would be able to see either engineering drawings or some kind of an idea of what is proposed to be done on that side of the street. Because the issue also is that where our road, and again, this is a King County right-of-way, it is unmaintained by the county, meaning that the residents maintain this road. Marvin does a lot of that and we pay for our own gravel and all this because this was set up many, many years ago by the county. Somehow they, I guess, feel like our taxes are not high enough to maintain this road, but at any rate, the road has a low point in it to the south before it connects into the existing asphalt road, which I think is 142nd. That is where some of the flooding that you all have been talking about occurs. There is currently a culvert under the road, barely under the road at that point. So if this larger line is put in going down there, the extension, I think somebody said that potentially 16- or 14-inch, can't remember what the number was, 16-inch. That existing culvert that goes under, I think is a 12-inch culvert. So I don't even know if a 16-inch culvert would fit underneath the road down there. At any rate, I would just asking the question when we would know or when we would be able to see what kind of improvements are going to be proposed for that system and getting that water down to a point where it has access to move further away, which is basically 142nd. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, and I see Mr. Chavez has unmuted himself, so he's ready to answer and the status of the construction drawings, when they'll be out if they haven't been out already. Also, I'm just curious, I mean how you're going to consider that low point that Mr. Christensen is talking about. Jonathan: So the engineering drawings would come in at the civil permit application stage. So theoretically after hearing approval and the 14-day appeal period, if the consulting firm is ready to submit drawings, they can submit 14 days from the end of the 14-day appeal period. That's the soonest we can have engineered drawings if they have them available or it's up to the applicant. Phil Olbrechts: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 26 of 30 Do you know, Mr. Chavez, are those drawings then posted at the website, the Laserfiche there that the public can access or how would Mr. Christensen get ahold of those or how should he try to get ahold of them? Jonathan: Yeah, so normally, we don't. During the review process, we don't post the drawings on our website. They only get posted once they've been approved. So if he would want a copy, he can reach out to me and I can send him a copy. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Thanks. Jonathan: [inaudible 01:03:04] submittal drawings. That way he can have an opportunity to make comments if he would like. So yeah, that's how that would be. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Jonathan: With respect to the low point, so it's an 18-inch culvert, that's the outfall to the ditch, and so the idea is this project would take that point and then rehabilitate south, I think two properties south. So that, again, up to the applicant's engineer, how they want to propose that mitigation, whether it be a relocation of the ditch, straightening it out, changing the capacity, the volume of the ditch, or tight- lining, whether that be another 18-inch pipe connecting off of that or whatever the capacity calculations that they come up with show is what we would review. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. So the capacity of that area of discharge is going to be with the scope of review that you're going to be looking at, and the applicant has to show through engineering calculations that it'll be sufficient for the 100-year storm events, that kind of thing? Is that... Jonathan: Yep. Correct. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Thanks Mr. Chavez. Okay. Let's see. Anybody else? No, no, I don't see any more takers. Now, if any of you have been trying to connect and for some reason have been unable to, I know Ms. Cisneros has a phone number and an email address that you can use to contact her. Go ahead and give her a call right now if you want to say something and you're not able to. That's 425-430-6583 or a shoot her an email. I'll also leave the record open until 5:00 PM tomorrow in case you were unable to connect today due to technical reasons, identify what your technical problem was, the internet wasn't working, or something like that, and then go ahead and write up your comments, and then I'll give staff and the applicant a chance to respond to those. Just make sure they Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 27 of 30 get in there by 5:00 tomorrow. Okay, so not hearing any takers then for additional comments, I'll go back to Mr. Van Gordon. Any rebuttal comments or concluding comments at this point? Mr. Van Gordon: Yeah, so [inaudible 01:05:17] Mr. Bettes comment about the retaining wall would need to be built at least a foot off... [inaudible 01:05:24] would need to be built at least a foot off of the property line so that there is room for the property owner for maintenance of that wall. With regards to the arborist report, I want to share my screen again real quickly here. So we did receive the a arborist report that Mr. Golden is referring to. The report... We didn't see where the report says that trees 97 through 101 have to be removed. It does identify that building within the drip lines is not recommended. It does provide some caution about removal of trees within the grove, but then it also provides root pruning recommendations for how to remove roots up to certain sizes, how to excavate around them. Also, some mitigation measures related to growing conditions of the tree. So it's a pretty short little addendum letter there on the arborist report, but it provides general methods that can be used to retain those trees. So we didn't see anywhere in there that says the trees 97 through 101 have to be removed. Those trees may conflict with the applicants' preferred housing designs, but there's still definitely the still buildable area on the lot. So that's why we're asking for the arborist reports to do those additional reconnaissance and provide those additional measures so that we can have that additional information to make a determination about whether the lot is reasonably buildable and maintaining those trees. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. What about the applicant's request to modify the CEPA mitigation measure? Like I said, I don't think I really have any authority to change the wording of that, but I mean, I suspect staff has a kind of process where they sometimes modify CEPA mitigation measures and I would guess that would be done through an addendum. But how, I mean is staff opening to revising that and how would they do that? Matt Herrera: Yeah, Mr. Examiner. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Oh, sorry. Mr. Herrera? Matt Herrera: Mr. Examiner, Matt Herrera, current planning manager. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Matt Herrera: I do. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 28 of 30 Matt Herrera: Thank you. Mr. Examiner. Again, Matt Herrera, City of Renton current planning manager. Yes. Altering a SEPA mitigation measure that is no longer timely with regard to appeal or reconsideration, we can do that with an addendum and in conversations that we've had this morning after we received the email from the applicant's counsel, we would be amenable to considering that. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Matt Herrera: SEPA addendum would be the avenue. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. All right. That's what I thought. Yeah, so I'll leave that for you guys to work out then, you and staff and the applicant. So, all right. Mr. Van Gordon, anything else? Mr. Van Gordon, you're muted for some reason again. Matt Herrera: Mr. Examiner, if I may just close, just because we're having some problems with Mr. Van Gordon's connection, if I could just quick little rebuttal here. Regarding the trees and the applicant's submittal, I know that we had planned on leaving the record open so applicant's counsel can respond to the updated code sections or I guess really the previous code, but I just wanted to say that city staff really was compromising with this condition with regard to the previous code. The previous code really said priority one trees are required, that's required to stay with 30% retention. What we saw in reviewing this plat was the ability to save more trees. So we compromised with the applicant with the ability to save priority two trees along the northern portion of the parcel there, and then attempt to save that grove of significant priority one trees. We mentioned to the applicant that we would be flexible with regard to or consider being flexible with regard to setbacks to do what we can to save those trees. However, if it sounds like the applicant is looking for some kind of certainty with regard to how we implement the tree regulations, and I think if certainty is what the applicant is requesting, then potentially we need to go back and look at those priority one trees for retention, which would be lots five and six. Phil Olbrechts: Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Herrera. Yeah, so yeah, that sounds like a difficult issue and like I said, probably, yeah, best leave the record open and see what they want to do there to negotiate further or leave it as is. Yeah, so leave it at that. Mr. Golden, any final comments? Mr. Golden: No. Phil Olbrechts: No? Mr. Golden: Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 29 of 30 Can you hear me? Phil Olbrechts: Yep, now I can hear you. Yeah. Mr. Golden: Okay, great. Well thanks everybody. Thank you, Mr. Examiner and staff. I better cut those. So sorry. Hopefully it goes away. We'll do it like this. The arborist report, just to clarify, that went in on November 1st, it may not have been written the in the clearest manner, but it does state that trees one through 28 can be retained and that the rest of the trees on site would conflict the building footprints and would not survive. So that's in the second paragraph of that memo. That said, yes, certainty is the biggest issue. If there's a potential to having further arborist study of those root systems presently and getting certainty in that matter rather than waiting until posing the property and preparing civil plans, maybe that's a route to satisfying those. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. And Mr. Herrera, how much time do you think you'll need or Mr. Golden, sorry, how much time do you think you'll need to work this out with staff? Mr. Golden: I don't know if I can answer that question. We'll start with staff [inaudible 01:12:25]. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, well, how about I leave the record open until, I don't know, next Tuesday maybe, and then if you need additional time, just request it by email. I suspect, it sounds like maybe you need to come up with you want more certainty or something that you come up with some language and see if staff likes it or not and start off that way. I'll let you guys figure out how to do that. Mr. Golden: Mr. Examiner? Phil Olbrechts: Yeah? Mr. Golden: If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make sure... Phil Olbrechts: Oh sure. No, I understand. Mr. Golden: ... we're [inaudible 01:12:51] the record that we're just requesting time to respond to the applicant's counsel's written documents. Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23) Transcript by Rev.com Page 30 of 30 Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. So maybe, Mr. Golden, get your written comments at it's a staff by this Friday, and then give staff until next Wednesday to respond. How's that? Then, like I said, if it turns out you need more time, we can always extend it. Is that a good starting point? Then I'll just say for anyone else who's listening out there who wants to get a copy of that, if you want to be part of that email chain, go ahead and email Ms. Cisneros there and I'll let her flash her email address and then you'll be included in all that correspondence so that anyone who has an interest in the tree issue will have an opportunity to see what's going on. Then if you want to provide a written response yourself, if you're a member of the public to what's going on with the trees, just go ahead and email Ms. Cisneros as well and I'll set up a time that you can provide a response and give a chance for staff and applicant to reply to that. So any questions from anybody about what's going on at this point so that in sum, I'm going to give the applicant, Mr. Goldman, and his counsel until this Friday to email some proposed solution to staff and then give staff until the Wednesday after to provide a response. Hopefully, you guys can just get together and mutually agree on something. If you don't and you need more time, just let me know and I'll extend that out. Again, if any members of the public want to be privy to all these communications, let Ms. Cisneros know and we'll include you in all those emails too. So any questions and concerns at this point? Okay, then. Well, I appreciate all your comments and concerns and, of course, I'll take them real seriously. I'm going to have the hearing transcribed so that ensures that I address everything that everyone had an issue with, and we'll get that decision then out two weeks essentially after the whole tree issue is resolved. So thanks for your participation today, and we're adjourned for now. See you next time. Bye-bye. Mr. Golden: Thank you. Phil Olbrechts: All right.