HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-27-2024 - HEX Decision - Harmony Ridge - LUA-23-0001431
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Harmony Ridge
Preliminary Plat, Lot Line Adjustment
and Street Modification
PR21-000076
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
Kanon Kupferer on behalf of Ichijo USA Co., Ltd requests approval of applications for preliminary
plat, lot line adjustment and a street modification approval for a 22-lot subdivision at 15509 116th Ave
SE. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
The 25 exhibits identified in the staff prepared “Exhibit List” for the project were admitted into the
record at the November 19, 2024 hearing. A November 22, 2024 email from Alex Morganroth is
admitted as Ex. 26 and December 2, 2024 email from Ivana Halvorsen is admitted as Ex. 27.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Owner/Applicant. Kanon Kupferer, Ichijo USA Co., Ltd, 1406 140th Pl NE, Suite 104,
Bellevue, WA 98007
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the application was held on November 19, 2024 at 11:30 am.
The record was left open through December 2, 2024 for Applicant and City to work out modified
recommended conditions of approval.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. Kanon Kupferer on behalf of Ichijo USA Co., Ltd requests approval of
applications for preliminary plat, lot line adjustment and a street modification approval for an 22-lot
subdivision at 15509 116th Ave SE.
21 of the proposed lots are intended for new single-family homes and one lot is reserved for an
existing church, school, and associated surface parking currently developed on the site. The subject
parcel is approximately 6.27 acres in size. The Applicant is proposing a phased subdivision. Phase 1
of the subdivision would separate the church, school and associated parking from the rest of the site
by creating a new 46,129 sq. ft. lot. The remaining portion of the parent site would total
approximately 226,988 sq. ft. in area and would be subdivided into 21 new single-family lots as part
of Phase 2. The individual single-family lots would range in size from 5,001 to 5,866 sq. ft. The
proposal also includes four (4) tracts including three (3) tree retention tracts and one (1) stormwater
tract to be created during Phase 2 of the subdivision. Access to the lots is proposed via two (2) new
public residential access streets (Road A and Road B) off of 116th Ave SE, including a cul -de-sac.
Only Road A would have direct access to 116th Ave SE. Twelve (12) of the lots would utilize a new
public alley off of Road A.
The Applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, for the section of
116th Ave SE adjacent to the site. 116th Ave SE is classified as a Minor Arterial Street, with an
existing right-of-way (ROW) width of approximately 30 feet. To meet the City’s complete street
standards for minor arterial streets, minimum ROW width is 91 feet. Dedication of 30.5 feet of ROW
would be required. Street improvements are required which shall include a pavement width of 54 feet
(27 feet from centerline, 2-11-ft travel lanes, plus a 5-ft bike lane), a 0.5-ft curb, an 8-ft planting strip,
an 8-ft sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. The City’s Transportation
Department has established a corridor plan for this section of 116th Ave SE that is requested as the
modified street design. The corridor determined by the City’s Transportation Department requires a
right-of-way width of 71-ft. The paved roadway section is 44-ft, consisting of two 11-ft travel lanes,
one 12-ft center turn lane, and two 5-ft bike lanes. A 0.5-ft vertical curb, 8-ft planter and 5-ft
sidewalk are required along each side of the roadway.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 3
The proposed lot line adjustment is intended to correct a deed overlap at the southwest corner of the
site. As currently recorded, a deed overlap of approximately 0.9 feet is present between APN
7399301130 and 2023059067 (Applicant’s site). The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to
eliminate the overlap and ensure the shared property line between the two (2) lots is clear.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service are provided by the City of Renton.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire
Authority and police service by the Renton Police Department. Police and Fire Prevention
staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed
development subject to the condition that the Applicant install required improvements and
fees. A fire impact fee would be applicable to the proposal during building permit review.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage
facilities. The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
(“Manual”), which requires that the project not generate off-site stormwater flows that
exceed predevelopment, forested conditions. City staff have reviewed the Applicant’s
preliminary stormwater design and found it consistent with the requirements of the Design
Manual.
The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report, prepared by
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated February 2, 2023 (Exhibit 9) and preliminary
drainage plan (Exhibit 4, Sheet 4). Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site
falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard – Matching Forested. The site falls within
two (2) drainage basins including the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin (Ginger Creek
sub-basin) on the northeast portion of the site and the Black River Basin (Thunder Hills
Creek sub-basin) on the southwest portion of the site. The project will have one (1)
discharge location from the proposed stormwater vault to the city’s conveyance system in
Puget Dr SE.
Due to the water from the project site entering two (2) distinct basins (Black River and
Lower Cedar River), the TIR includes separate analysis related to each basin (identified as
Predeveloped Basin 1 and Predeveloped Basin 2). Predeveloped Basin 1, which flows to the
Black River Drainage Basin, will include the runoff from the existing United Christian
Church building and all future impervious surfaces associated with the subdivision
development. Predeveloped Basin 2, which flows to the Lower Cedar River Drainage
Basin, will only include runoff from the frontage improvements to be installed directly in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 4
front of the church site (identified as Lot 22). The project is required to provide a flow
control and a water quality facility for the proposed development in Predeveloped Basin 1,
as the proposed improvements would include more than 5,000 sq. ft. of new plus replaced
pollution generating impervious surface. One (1) stormwater vault is proposed to mitigate
flow control and water quality impacts in Predeveloped Basin 1. The vault would be located
in the stormwater tract (Tract A) on the west side of the project site. The improvements
proposed in Predeveloped Basin 2 are exempt from flow control requirements since the
peak flow produced by the 100-year storm event does not increase by more than 0.15 cfs.
The improvements are also exempt from providing water quality treatment as they will not
result in more than 5,000 sq. ft. of pollution generating impervious surfaces.
Improvements required for the conveyance from the stormwater vault to the discharge
location in Puget Dr SE includes a new 12-inch (12”) surface water main extending across
the City of Renton-owned site (Rolling Hills Reservoir) to the northwest of the project. The
Applicant is required to provide documentation from City of Renton approving the
construction of the proposed 12-inch (12”) surface water main, catch basins, and associated
access road within the city’s property prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
D. Parks/Open Space. Renton development standards do not require any open space of the
proposed plat in the R-8 zone.
E. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation
infrastructure.
Access to the site would be provided via two (2) points off of 116th Ave SE. The church
property would be accessed via an existing driveway off of 116th Ave SE and a new
driveway off of future Road A. The new subdivision would be accessed via two (2) new
residential access streets (Roads A and B), as well as one (1) public alley (Alley Z).
Street frontage improvements are proposed along the entire length of the site fronting 116th
Ave SE, including in front of the future church parcel.
The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis, Ex. 14. The analysis conducted an LOS
analyses for future year 2024 weekday PM peak hour conditions at six (6) off-site study
intersections. All study intersections, including all controlled movements at the stop-
controlled study intersections, are expected to operate at LOS Dor better during the
weekday PM peak hours in 2024 with or without the proposed project. The Transportation
Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan specifies a minimum standard of LOS D for
arterials and collectors. Based on the analysis, the report found that existing transportation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 5
facilities are anticipated to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed
project. No project-specific off-site transportation improvements are proposed.
Proportionate share impacts to the City’s road network will be mitigated by payment of
traffic impact fees, due during building permit review.
F. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools and walking
conditions to and from school.
It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students
generated by this proposal at the following schools: Cascade Elementary, Nelsen Middle
School and Lindbergh High School (Exhibit 20). The proposed project includes the
installation of frontage improvements along the 116th Ave SE frontage, including
sidewalks. Any new elementary students would walk to school which is located
approximately 0.25 miles south of the proposed subdivision. Any new elementary school
students would walk on the existing sidewalk located on the west side of 116h Ave SE until
reaching the controlled crosswalk at the intersection of 116th Ave SE and SE 162nd St.
Any new middle or high school students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. The stop for the middle school is located approximately 0.3 miles from the
project site at the intersection of Lake Youngs Way SE and Royal Hills Dr. Students would
walk north on the sidewalk along 116th Ave SE. Students would cross the intersection of
116th Ave SE and Puget Dr SE using the existing crosswalk and walk along the west side
of Royal Hills Dr SE on the existing sidewalk to reach the bus stop. The stop for the high
school is located approximately 0.2 miles away at the intersection of SE 16th St and Lake
Youngs Way SE. Any future high school students would walk north on new then existing
sidewalk along 116th Ave SE. Students would cross the intersection of 116th Ave SE and
Puget Dr SE using the existing crosswalks to access Beacon Way SE. From there, students
would travel north on the existing sidewalks along SE 16th St until reaching the bust stop.
A School Impact Fee will be assessed against each dwelling unit during building permit
review to offset the additional demand created by the development upon school facilities.
G. Parking. Thep proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking.
Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for each
detached dwelling. Staff have determined that adequate area would be provided on the
proposed single-family lots for the provision of the required onsite parking.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 6
Due to the reconfiguration of the parking lot associated with the existing church and
preschool, approximately nine (9) of the 41 existing parking stalls would be eliminated for
a new surface parking total of 32 stalls. In order to ensure the church and school have
adequate parking to meet the parking requirements in RMC 4-4-140F.10, a condition of
approval requires that the Applicant submit a parking analysis for the existing church and
school on proposed Lot 22 that demonstrates compliance with the parking standards in
RMC 4-4-140. The analysis shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for
review and approval prior to issuance of the civil construction permit.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows:
A. Critical Areas. The proposal conforms to the City’s critical area standards.
The only potential critical areas found by City staff at the project site are geologically
hazardous areas. According to COR Maps, a moderate coal mine hazard and regulated
slopes are located on the project site. As such, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical
Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC and dated November 21, 2022
and updated July 3, 2023 with the project application (Exhibit 8). Per the report, no
sensitive slopes were found on the site, however sensitive slopes were found along the
proposed utility connection on the City’s Rolling Hills site to the west.
The report concludes that the proposed single-family residences can be supported on
conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or
structural fill. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over excavated and
backfilled with structural fill. Full infiltration is deemed infeasible due to the wide-spread
prevalence of glacially consolidated soils. However, the report contends that small-scale
BMP or LID designs may be viable for the project depending on the final grading plan.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is
consistent with the City’s tree retention standards.
A conceptual tree retention plan with the plan drawings (Exhibit 4), two (2) Arborist
Reports (Exhibits 6 and 14), and a Tree Retention Worksheet (Exhibit 7) were included
with the project application materials. There are 404 trees identified on the project site. Of
those trees, 29 have been identified as high-risk and 67 trees are located within areas of
right-of-way. The Applicant is proposing to retain 63 significant trees, or 20 percent
(20%) of the viable onsite significant trees. All trees proposed to be retained are located in
the three (3) proposed tree tracts, which is the highest priority retention location per RMC
4-4-130H.2.
Pursuant to the tree regulations in RMC 4-4-130H, tree retention standards in the R-8
zone require a minimum of 30 percent (30%) of the site’s viable significant trees to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 7
retained during and post development. Based on a retention rate of 30%, the Applicant
would be required to retain 92 trees (308 significant trees x 0.3 = 92 trees). Per RMC 4-4-
130H.1.d, if the number of trees required for compliance with minimum tree retention or
minimum tree credit requirements includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or
greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up. The Applicant’s tree retention
proposal is short approximately 29 trees and therefore the Applicant has proposed tree
replacement as an alternative to retaining the required 30% of trees. Specifically, the
Applicant has proposed the planting of new large species trees totaling 326 credits to
replace the 29 trees or 325 tree credits as determined in the tree retention worksheet
(Exhibit 7) that the project proposal would fall short of retaining.
Per RMC 4-4-130H.1.e, the Administrator may authorize the planting of replacement trees
as an alternative to retaining trees in conformance with the following four (4) criteria:
(a) There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location,
or surroundings of the subject property; or
(b) The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or
(c) The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum
density requirements of the zone; or
(d) The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots.
Based on the project proposal, staff could not determine that the project would comply
with any of the above criteria and therefore cannot support the use of replacement trees as
an alternative to providing the required number of retained trees.
The site is relatively flat and appears to have many opportunities for additional tree
retention that would allow for the project to meet the code required retention rate of 30%.
Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the project comply with the 30% tree
retention rate as required per RMC 4-4-130H.1.a. by retaining a minimum of 92
significant trees on site. Alternatively, the Applicant may submit a detailed justification
letter documenting conformance with at least one of the four (4) criteria outlined in RMC
4-4-130H.1.e. The detailed justification letter shall be submitted to the Current Planning
Project Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of the civil construction permit.
Based on a total net land area of 220,413 sq. ft., (273,121 sq. ft. gross area minus 52,708
sq. ft. of ROW dedication), or 5.06 acres, the Applicant is required to provide a minimum
of 152 tree credits. According to the Applicant’s tree density calculation in the Tree
Retention and Credit Worksheet (Exhibit 7), the 63 trees proposed for retention by the
Applicant, which includes a range of sizes and species, is providing a total of 374 credits,
which exceeds the 152 tree credit requirement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III permits. The
street modification request and lot line adjustment are classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type I
reviews. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-
number procedure”. The Type III reviews are the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be
employed for all of the permit applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner
is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed
record appeal to the Renton City Council.
Substantive:
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned R-8 and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential Medium Density Residential.
3. Review Criteria/Approval of Lot Line Adjustment and Street Modification. Chapter 4-7
RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics
and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable criterion quoted below are met
for the reasons identified in the corresponding conclusions of law. Street modification standards are
governed by RMC 4-9-250.D and lot line adjustments by RMC 4-7-060B. The findings and
conclusions of Findings No. 22 and 23 of the staff report, as well as Finding No. 3 of this decision,
are adopted to determine that the proposal as modified in the staff recommendation meets the criteria
for street modification and lot line adjustment.
Subdivision
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
4. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code (including design standards),
Finding 18 of the staff report are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will
access 116 Ave SE two (2) new residential access streets (Roads A and B), as well as one (1) public
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 9
alley (Alley Z).. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal conforms to the City’s critical
area regulations and thus is physically suitable for development. The project will not cause flooding
problems as it is not located in a floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and
appropriate drainage facilities. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for
adequate public facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
5. The criterion is met. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 17 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this
reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The criterion is met. Internal proposed roads connect all lots to 116th Ave SE.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. The criterion is met. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s public works department
and no conformance issues with street plans have been identified.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
8. The criterion is met. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s public works department
and no conformance issues with trail plans have been identified.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 10
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
9. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and development will not encroach into critical areas as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees
will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B. No steep
slopes or streams are located on the property.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
10. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 11
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. The criterion is met. As shown in the Ex. 4 plans, surrounding development precludes any
potential and actual road connections beyond those proposed, i.e. the actual connection to 116 Ave
and the road stub for future connection at the western terminus of Road A.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. The criterion is met. The proposal is conditioned upon City approval of street names, if any.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. The criterion is met. 116th Ave SE is classified as a Minor Arterial Street. The only way to
access a public road under current development is via the proposed connection (and resulting
intersection) with 116th Ave SE.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty-five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. The criterion is met. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed street
configuration and staff has recommended approval as proposed.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 12
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
15. The criterion is met. Road A and Road B will be publicly dedicated. As shown in Ex. 4,
surrounding development only enables the street connectivity proposed, including the proposed cul-
de-sac.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. The criterion is met. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this
decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17. The criterion is met. The Ex. 4 plans identify Roads A and B as fully dedicated to the public,
including Road A with its future road connection to the west up to plat boundary lines.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 13
18. The criterion is met. As depicted in Ex. 4, the side lines are in conformance with the
requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
19. The criterion is met. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
20. The criterion is met. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
standards of the R-8 zone.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
21. The criterion is met as shown in Ex.4 and determined by planning staff.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
22. The criterion is met as shown in Ex. 4.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
23. The criterion is met. There are no significant on-site natural features.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
24. The criterion is met as conditioned.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 14
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
25. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with
applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater
standards, compliance of which is incorporated into the technical information report, Ex. 9, and will
be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the
criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
26. The criterion is met as proposed and as shall be regulated during civil plan review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
27. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or landowner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
28. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 15
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
29. The criterion is met. Surveying and monument standards will be enforced by staff during
final plat review. A condition of approval requires the Applicant to install all street name signs
necessary in the subdivision.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat, lot line adjustment and street modification comply with all applicable
criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law of this decision and are all approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the civil construction permit
application that clearly identifies the utilities and lighting in the planter strips with street
tree species selected from the City Approved Street Tree List. The detailed landscape
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
2. The Applicant shall provide a minimum fifteen feet (15’) of perimeter landscaping if any
part of the vault is above ground, or if any open detention system is utilized. If required,
the landscaping should consist of native large species evergreen trees and complementary
understory. If needed, the Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the civil
construction permit application that provides a plant schedule for the stormwater tract
screening outside of the fencing area consisting of Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and
Western Hemlock with associated shrubs and groundcover as determined by the Current
Planning Project Manager. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
3. The project shall comply with the 30% tree retention rate as require per RMC 4-4-
130.H.1.a. Alternatively, the Applicant shall submit a detailed justification letter
documenting conformance with at least one (1) of the four (4) criteria outlined in RMC 4-
4-130.H.1.e. The detailed justification letter shall be submitted to the Current Planning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 16
Project Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of the Civil Construction
Permit.
4. The Applicant shall submit a parking analysis for the existing church and school on
proposed Lot 22 that demonstrates compliance with the parking standards in RMC 4-4-
140. The analysis shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval prior to issuance of the Civil Construction Permit.
5. The Applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan (IDP) prepared by a qualified
professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project manager prior to permit issuance.
6. The Applicant shall submit a narrative describing how the future lots will comply with
the lot configuration requirement as outlined in RMC 4-2-115.E.1. The narrative shall be
submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to
issuance of the civil construction permit.
7. Lots 1 through 12 shall utilize a public alley for all vehicular access. No curb cuts for
Lots 1 through 12 shall be established on 116th Ave SE or future Roads A or B.
8. The secondary entrance to future Lot 22, located on future Road A, shall meet one (1) of
the following: a) relocate the entrance westward to align with future Alley Z; or b)
convert the entrance at the current proposed location to a gated secondary fire emergency
access as determined by the Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA); or c) eliminate the
entrance if determined to be unnecessary for vehicular circulation and access by the
Public Works Plan Reviewer.
9. The Applicant shall submit a photometric study and street lighting plan per city standard
at the time of construction permit review.
10. If the Applicant converts the stormwater vault within Tract A to a stormwater detention
pond, it shall be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined
under RMC 4-7-080M.2. If utilized, the stormwater vault be located entirely below
ground. Engineered construction plans showing the vault entirely below ground shall be
submitted to the Public Works Plan Reviewer at the time of construction permit review
for review and approval.
11. The Applicant shall submit an updated site plan that incorporates a minimum four foot
(4’) wide pedestrian pathway in Tract B that connects the street frontage improvements
of future Road B to 116th Ave SE. The design for the pedestrian pathway connection
shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior
to issuance of the civil construction permit.
12. The Applicant shall install all required street frontage improvements on the portion of
116th Ave SE adjacent to proposed Lot 22 (church site) within two (2) years of
preliminary plat approval, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager.
13. Street names shall be approved by the City and street name signs shall be installed if
required by City staff.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Plat - 17
14. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each
lot if sanitary sewer mains are available.
15. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall
be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements
may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department.
16. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities
are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot
line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including
sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve
any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well
as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the
developer and/or landowner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve
his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped.
The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall
inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
DATED this 27th day of December, 2024.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 18
Appendix A
November 19, 2024 Hearing Transcript
Preliminary Plat Harmony Ridge -- PR21-000076
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 at
the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department should anyone need an
accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:02):
For the record, it is November 19th, 2024, 11:30 AM and Fallbrook's Hearing Examiner for the City of
Renton holding a hearing this afternoon on an application for preliminary plat approval. Lot line
adjustment in a street modification project. File number is PR 23 dash 0 0 0 7 6 and it's called Harmony
Ridge. The hearing format is, we'll start off the presentation from staff. I believe that is Mr. Morgan
Roth. There will give us an overview of the project once he's done, we'll move on to applicant comments
after that, then we'll move on to public. So if you are attending virtually, you certainly will have an
opportunity to speak and we'll make sure that it tells you know how to do that. Once we are done with
public comments, we'll move back to Mr. Morgan Roth to answer any questions that were previously
raised, as well as complete the record with any information he finds necessary. And then the applicant
gets final word and final presentation of evidence. And after that I get 10 business days to issue a final
decision. And Mr. Ros, you want to start sharing the exhibit screen?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:08):
Alright. Yeah. By state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence put in the record today. I'm not allowed
to speak to staff or the applicant, read about it in the newspaper or anything. All the information I get is
the information being made accessible to all of you today, Mr. Morgan Roth in preparing a staff report
has put together an exhibit list of other documents he wants considered and made part of the record,
which includes the environmental review. That's where you determine whether an environmental
impact statement is necessary or mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the
project. We have planned drawings, topography, we had arborist report, tree retention workshop,
geotechnical evaluation, preliminary technical information report, which assesses the drainage. We've
got a wetlands evaluation and Mr. Ro, can you scroll down a little further or there we go. Just a few
more there. We have the traffic impact analysis and transportation concurrency as well as notes from
the city development review staff making recommendations for conditions and that kind of thing, plus
more tree analysis and any other exhibits. Mrs. Neros, those are one through 14.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I'm sorry, this is part of the hearing examiner,
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 18
Examiner Olbrechts: (02:23):
Right? Yeah, we have the staff report. We got some comments from the Duwamish tribe. The
determination and environmental impact statement isn't necessary. There was also a neighborhood
meeting held and we have a little summary of that meeting and some correspondence. Renton school
district looked at this probably for a walking analysis and then we have a lot line adjustment map And
then Mr. Snar, I believe there's a final
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Yes, we do have three
Examiner Olbrechts: (02:47):
Exhibits. Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Would like to be added to the public hearing today. Yeah,
Examiner Olbrechts: (02:51):
There we go. We've got,
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Oh yeah, this
Examiner Olbrechts: (02:54):
Is, oh yeah, that's it. Yep. The stat PowerPoint.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Actually you know what? It did not add the 22 through 25. We did have a comment from the public. Oh,
okay. Who's the person that wrote the comment
Examiner Olbrechts: (03:07):
Letter?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So I think I have it open here in a Word document so I can just pull that up. Can you see that?
Examiner Olbrechts: (03:14):
Not yet.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Okay. I think I'm just sharing my screen so lemme me try that again. So yeah, here's the correct one.
Examiner Olbrechts: (03:25):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 18
Oh okay. From Scott Fujita dated November 15th. Then we had the staff PowerPoint City of Rent and
Maps, which is available at the website, gives you aerial view zoning, critical areas where those are
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and streams. Then finally Google Earth gives us some
aerial photos as well. So just want to ask at this point if there are any objections or anyone needs to see
any of the exhibits one through 25, if you do just hit the raise hand button on the bottom of your zoom
screen. Not seeing any takers? Nope. Okay. So we'll admit exhibits one through 25. I don't know why my
raised hand is up but I didn't put it up there. Okay. Alright, so with that Mr. Morro, let me swear in, just
raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm and tell the truth nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (04:16):
Okay, great.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Let me share my screen quick. Okay, is that coming through? Okay? Yeah.
Okay, awesome. Thank you. Well, I'm Alex Morgan Roth, principal planner with City of Renton current
planning division and I'm going to be making a staff recommendation for the Harmony Ridge subdivision
project here. That's LUA 23 dash 0 0 1 43. So a little bit about the project site and you can see a map
down below there with north to the top of the screen. This site is at 1 5 5 0 9 1 16 Avenue Southeast. It's
about 6.27 acres zoned R eight, which are residential eight dwelling units per acre. It's in the residential
medium density comprehensive plan land use designation currently developed with a religious
institution. The United Christian Church, which includes a couple buildings, the main building a school or
a daycare, small building there, pre-K and then a couple accessory buildings currently access then via
two existing driveways off of one 16th Avenue Southeast.
(05:36):
And then the south side of the site to the south half or two thirds of the site. Where this project is
proposed is generally wooded undeveloped, probably logged at some point historically but hasn't been
touched in a while. And then surrounding the site we've got mostly single family residential to the east,
south and partially west, similar zoning designations, R eight and then to the north, the large site we've
got the Rolling Hills Reservoir site, which is administered by public works, just what it sounds like a
water reservoir site got some cell facilities on there, also heavily forested and that backs up to Puget
Drive Southeast there.
(06:23):
So the applicant, they're proposing a phase preliminary plat approval. They went through environmental
review and then a lot line adjustment and a street modification for this project. So this is a little unique
and I'll get into this a little bit more about the phasing, but basically this is a 22 lot subdivision, so it's 21
single family lots and then one lot for the existing church building. So the church is essentially selling off
a portion of their property for development by a single family home developer. So it'd be 21 new single
family homes, but 22 lots including the church lot comes out to about 5.3 dwelling units per acre. Four
tracks proposed which include three tree tracks and one stormwater track, which is a below grade vault.
Access is proposed to the new subdivision via 2 53 foot wide streets identified as road A and B on the
preliminary plat plan, a new alley for some alley loaded lots 12 approximately denoted as alley Z on the
plat plan.
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 18
(07:26):
And then there's street improvements proposal on one 16th Avenue Southeast and that's street
improvements in front of both the church, the future church site and the subdivision. Again, because
this whole parcel is part of the subdivision, it triggers front improvements across the entire site. One
access point to the church is to be relocated off of future Road a, although that may change, which I'll
get into in a little bit, but there will still be one existing access off of one 16. So two proposed to the
church might go down to one, which I will get into Utility connection. So again, a little unique, I'll have a
map coming up, but they're proposing storm and sewer, which are going to be owned and operated by
the city of Renton or maintained by the city of Renton across the Rolling Hills site. So basically
connecting to Puget to existing infrastructure and Puget Drive Southeast there.
(08:20):
And that's going to be located along the kind of west West boundary. I'll just back up here of the Rolling
Hills site here. And so again that's just storm and sewer water will connect out to one 16th through the
new roads they're proposing there. And that is kind of a separate process from this entitlement. So
basically the applicants and the church have been working with public works on getting approval for
that. It does need city council approval and I believe they went through committee already and it's got
to go through full council, but public work does support the proposal so we anticipate it to be approved
so they have a utility connection there.
(09:04):
So here's the plat map here. So you can see all the 21 single family home sites. You've got 12 accessed
off of Alley Z there and that's preferred in ra. Zoning district is alley access, so alley access a little over
half of the total units. So one 16th won't have any curb cuts on it except for the existing church. We'll
have one which is good for pedestrian safety and access there and vehicular safety as well. We've got
the cul-de-sac identified as road B, accessing vehicular access to lots 13 through 18 and then pedestrian
access to the others. And then you've got two lots up here north of road A and then you can see the
tracks kind of sprinkled around here. The road raised dead ends right now and that's for a potential
future extension. The city as far as I know, doesn't have any plans to sell off a portion of the Rolling Hill
site, but there is some topography challenges on this portion of the site and so it might be difficult to
have the site support additional water infrastructure, things of that nature.
(10:12):
So I just wanted to leave the option open, which is what our code asked for is if there's potential
connection possibilities in the future. That's kind when we allow dead end roads like that. And then you
can see the utility connection there, which would run up to Puget Drive and connect the stormwater
vault here. And then the sanitary sewer critical areas. So moderate coal mine hazard, like a lot of this
area up here. Historically there was coal mining but again it was just a moderate hazard there. Sensitive
slopes, you can see on the map there in the orange and yellow areas, there's definitely some larger
topography changes there, but mainly on the Rolling Hills site. And then there was a wetlands report
and the reason why is we had mapped a possible wetlands there, but the wetlands biologist found that
there was an area that was wet during some times created from a stormwater outfall pipe. But basically
it didn't meet the criteria of a formal wetlands and it's a very small kind of area. You can see my cursor,
kind of think right around here, maybe a little bit over. And basically we reviewed that and concurred
with his assessment that it was not a regulated wetland there.
(11:36):
Oops. So this project did go get APA determinations that a determination of non-significant issued
October 30th, 2023. No, no appeals were filed and the reason for the big gap there is they were looking
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 18
at some utility options during that period. So the project was on hold for a little while. While they looked
into that and worked with public works on that connection, we did get one comment from the
Duwamish tribe, which is kind of their typical comment, which is that there could be a artifacts, cultural
artifacts found. So there is one condition of approval related to that and that's asking for the applicant
to submit an inadvertent discovery plan, just making sure that work stops if anything is found on the site
that that could be culturally significant for the tribes. And then we did receive one recent public
comment from the neighbor regarding the potential for a fence and that would be a fence between the
utility corridor basically across the city site.
(12:38):
There will be obviously some tree removal associated with that and there will be a paved paved access
road which will not be, it'll be gated, not open to the public. And that's for maintenance for sewer
cleanouts and storm cleanouts. Again, this is something we kind of separate. We wanted to make sure
the process was kind of separate in that we're doing the entitlements for the subdivision and public
works. We as CED as the permitting entitlement authority didn't really have kind of turned it over to
them and they worked with the applicant on this connection. So this is something I will chat with about
to the applicant and to public works, but it's a city, it's a public works site so any fencing would kind of
need to go through them, but that is something I will certainly be bringing up with them. And that said,
that just came in Friday, so there's not any analysis in the report related to that availability of public
services.
(13:34):
So Renton Police Department and the Renton Regional Fire Authority indicate that there's sufficient
resources to furnish services to the development as long as all the conditions are complied with and the
code required improvements and fees are there and then schools and we did get a letter back from the
Renton school district that they can accommodate any additional students generated by the proposal.
We did do an analysis for Safe Routes to School, which was found in the body of the staff report, found
that there were safe routes between, but the bus stops the two bus stops, which I think were for middle
school and high school students. And then elementary school students will walk to their school and did
find that there are safe routes to school available for future students of the subdivision stormwater. So a
stormwater vault is proposed and attract and that's going to connect across to the existing storm main
and Puget Drive Southeast. So again, crossing the Rolling Hills site, it will be maintained by the city
obviously when it's all done. And the main reason for this is just the topography challenges of getting
storm water going the other direction. And so this was kind of their same for sewer. So this was an
alternative that the applicant pursued with Public works and like I said, if not they're going to expect
council approval shortly with support from the Public Works administrator.
(14:59):
They're also required to comply with the 2022 and Surface Water Design manual. They did submit a
preliminary drainage report, A TIR and they'll have to submit a final one making sure they're compliant
with all the criteria and requirements in there as part of their civil construction permit. San Terry Sewer.
So provided by the city of Renton by our wastewater division. So again, same with the stormwater new
extension across the Rolling Hills Reservoir site being working with public works on that pending
approval from city Council water. So there is a water connection in one 16th that's available that they
proposed to use new eight inch water main on the project site would connect to the existing six inch
water main in one 16th Avenue Southeast there. So in conclusion found that public services are
available to the applicant for the 21 lot subdivision, 22 lot subdivision with the 22 new single Family
Homes subdivision analysis.
(16:00):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 18
I won't read through each one of these and I could say these are all contingent on the applicant meeting
all the conditions of approval. But in the analysis which can be found in the staff report, found that the
project proposal was consistent with the comp plan goals and policies complies with the RA zoning
standards, complies with the subdivision regulations, complies with the critical areas regulations
complies with the street standards. They did propose a street modification. This was just, and we do our
transportation division does support this modification, essentially reducing the amount of dedication
that they need to provide. They basically reviewed this corridor section of one 16th in front of the site.
Found that we, even though it's technically the Complete Street standards calls for 91 feet, we're okay
with what's there right now as far as the curb to curb width and they've got enough.
(16:54):
And so we're just requiring them to do a little less dedication, but they do still need to do the sidewalk
and landscape, the normal street frontage improvement, street lighting, all of that. So they're still
getting all those improvement benefits, just not adding another lane, changing the width of the road
there. So did find that they satisfied five of five modification criteria. The lot line adjustment again, more
analysis in the staff report, but I just didn't want to make this presentation 45 minutes long. So basically
they're just doing a little bit of cleanup where there was some kind of deed overlaps with a parcel with
an adjacent parcel essentially. So I'm talking like half, I think it was like six inches or something or seven
inches, very small amount where there was a little bit of an issue of saying both property owners own
this piece of land, this little tiny strip and that's not actually the case. So that is the lot line adjustment.
Very, very minor as far as that goes.
(17:55):
Again, they're safe walking routes to school as discussed earlier and there's adequate public services and
facilities. And so just before I get into recommendations really quick on the phasing. So as far as phasing
what that's going to look like. So again, the church who owns the site right now, United Christian
Church, they are wanting to sell off the portion of their site to the applicant for the single family homes
and they worked out working with the applicant, they would like to basically divide that land right away
and then into two different parcels. So you'd have the church site and then you'd have the site that's
getting prepared for the single family homes, sell that off right away. So the church, the sale can
happen, the church can get money for maintenance and other reasons they needed to sell the property
and then the applicant can move forward with the second phase, which includes all the improvements
and getting the site prepped for single family homes, all the front engine improvements, things of that
nature.
(19:01):
So still the normal five-year period, they're just basically as soon as the decision comes out, if it's
approved in their favor, they would like to again separate off the church site and then sell the remainder
to the applicant. So that's kind of the reason for the phasing. So a little unique but just so they can get
that sale done quicker. And it is a phasing proposal that SAF does support based on, we've had a lot of
conversations with them going back a few years to make this work for the church and for the applicant.
So I'm recommending approval of the phase preliminary plat as well as the lot line adjustment and the
modification as depicted in the planned drawings. I won't read through each one of these conditions,
but there are 12 conditions related to landscaping trees as far as the, we want to make sure that there's
enough parking at the church and the schools.
(19:57):
So just asking for a parking analysis, they are going to be reducing a little bit of the parking at the church
site there. Submitting the inadvertent discovery plan for the Duwamish tribe comment. We have a
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 18
couple lot configuration requirements in the code for kind of variation for single family lots and we just
want to make sure that before they start submitting permits that there's kind of a understanding of how
that's going to work. So asking for a narrative there requiring the use of the public alley, which they
obviously already show, but just making sure we don't get any curb cuts off of one 16th that weren't
shown on the original plans.
(20:34):
This is one I wanted to get a little more into. So we had a condition the applicant shall relocate the
proposed secondary entrance to the church site. So that's the entrance. I'll just go back really quick here
so we're all on the same page. That's the entrance you can kind of see right here off of future road a
pretty recently both the applicant and the church representative of the church have said they don't
really want that second entrance there, they'd better just have it be the one entrance off there. We are
tentatively supportive of that but we didn't have really time to verify with the Renton Regional Fire
Authority as well as just making sure, we want to make sure there's still adequate circulation in there.
There's not people dropping off for daycare and having to go back out and make sure there's no other
kind of traffic impacts we're not aware of.
(21:21):
So it's something we might be supportive of but it's not something I wanted to include bring into as a
new condition or anything. So I think we still support keeping, sorry I'm going back here. Keeping this
condition as written, just understanding that it might be eliminated completely. This condition was
written essentially to shift the alley over to align, sorry, shift the entrance of the church site over to align
with the Alley Z. So kind of get it a little bit further away from the intersection there just because we're
worried about queuing and we've had some other projects where we've had had issues with just backup
stuff like that because churches sometimes get a lot of traffic and at different times of the day than
usual on weekends when people are moving around. So anyway, we're not recommending change to
this condition, but just an FYI, the chance that it'll go away, which would solve the problem the
condition is trying to solve is intended to solve.
(22:20):
So ask for a photometric study and street lighting plan. Pretty typical. If for some reason the stormwater
vault is converted to a detention pond, we would consider that a major platinum. That's a big change.
Don't anticipate that because of the size of the tract, but just a condition we usually put in there based
on kind of the previous issues we've had when that's happened. We've also asked for a pedestrian
focused design for track B. So essentially can we get some kind of soft trails or pathways to connect the
cul-de-sac sidewalks over to one 16th without having to walk back through the entire site. There's
basically a narrow strip on the, that's part of the track B that goes along the south side kind of intended
to buffer from the neighbors to the south, but also just to provide a little more opportunity for tree
retention.
(23:10):
So we wanted to look and see is there a chance that we could, is there a potential to get a trail soft trail
back there? Just again if students are wanting to walk to school and cut off a few minutes if they live in
the subdivision or if they want to access that area. So just something we wanted the applicant to look
into and we've talked to 'em about that a bit already and we'll work with them on what that might look
like. Okay, lastly, so again, wanting to make sure that we get the street street improvements in front of
the church in a timely manner requesting a condition that they install the frontage improvements within
two years. This is in front of the church site now within two years of preliminary PLA approval and lesson
alternative schedules approved. And again, that's just kind to make sure we're getting those, that's kind
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 18
of top priority, getting those improvements there so we get 'em across the entire site. Again, it is
triggered by code so it's a requirement no matter what, but just kind of want to prioritize that as
something and also just so the church can just be done with this and not have to have their site ripped
up as well. So I guess I did go through all of those that I was going to summarize, so sorry about that. But
if you got any questions on any of those, lemme know. But like I said, staff is recommending appro val
with the 12 conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:30):
Okay, perfect. Thank you Mr. Morgan Roth. Alright, let's move on to applicant applicants. You don't have
to add anything but certainly can. Does anyone want to speak? Is that Ivana there? Okay, Ivana, what's
your last name for the record?
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Good morning, Ivana. Halverson.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:44):
Okay Ms. Halverson, I'm swear in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear Affirm tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 4 (24:50):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:51):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
Alright, thank you Mr. Examiner and thanks to city staff. This has been, this hearing is a long time
coming. If I freeze up, our company's internet doesn't like video, so I'll try not to freeze up. But I think
staff for the detailed staff report and for all of the work I'm getting us to this point in general, the
applicant does agree with the staff report and the conditions of approval. We have gone through all of
the conditions with the applicant and actually some of them with the city as well to get clarification and
I'll talk about that some of that today as well as I might propose a couple of modifications to some of the
conditions as Mr. Morgan Roth stated, this is a proposed phase project with the church being on a
standalone parcel and their modified parking lot on the standalone parcel. And then the rest of the
project would be phase two, which would be the frontage improvements, the right of way, dedication,
and the remainder of the plat property that's proposed to be developed into 21 single family detached
lots or lots for detached homes. A stormwater vault is proposed with an offsite alignment for
stormwater and sewer and I can share my screen if you'd like to see that again.
(26:40):
So just to zoom out a little bit, this line designates the approximate location of the offsite stormwater
and sanitary sewer easement and agreement that the applicant has reached with City of Renton Public
Works. And that will allow stormwater and sewer to discharge over to Puget Drive to existing facilities in
Puget Drive and or Southeast 19th Street. So there are some offsite utilities to be constructed by the
project. I want to briefly talk about the street modification and this is exhibit four, sheet four and it's a
zoomed in picture of the proposed church property. So as Mr. Morgan Roth stated, this driveway over
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 18
here on the left hand side is potentially to be removed subject to city agreement. The applicant doesn't
want it, the church doesn't need it or particularly want it, so it's an extraneous access that can be
removed. So we'll talk about that condition here in a minute.
(27:56):
But I also wanted to talk about just the frontage improvements. Pardon? The modification was a
reduced dedication specifically at the Montessori school that exists on the site because that Montessori
school is located closer to the right of way than would be allowed today. And what that does is it
eliminates the ability of the applicant to provide the full 35.5 foot right of way dedication in that area. So
that's reduced to 33.5 so that there's a little bit of separation between the new right of way, the back of
sidewalk and the existing school building. So we have looked at that and we can still provide access to
the school from the public walk, it'll be reconstructed and in a different location, but it will still have
access, direct access to the sidewalk there. So I wanted to talk about that.
(28:56):
The other thing I want to mention is that the staff report indicated a desire for a pedestrian focus for
track B and I want to clarify that and modify that condition so that it's specifically identifies that the
linkage that's desired is from the termination of road B, the cul-de-sac of road B to 116th Avenue
Southeast north, yes, Southeast. I will stop sharing. And so again, the applicant does generally agree
with the staff report. We would like to go on record as stating that condition eight where it says the
applicant shall relocate the proposed secondary entrance.
(29:53):
I would like that condition to be modified to allow for the removal of the secondary entrance. And I
don't have that language available to me right at this moment, but I can submit it by the end of the
hearing for review or we can leave the hearing open for that proposed language. The next condition that
I'd like to talk about again is condition 11, and that pertains to the pedestrian focus for track B and I
want to specifically identify that that's from the termination of the cul-de-sac of road B out to 116th
Avenue Southeast. Other than that, I don't have anything additional to add. The staff report and
presentation was very thorough and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Examiner Olbrechts: (30:46):
Okay, sounds great. Yeah, and probably what I'll do with the requested condition modification is leave
the record open a day or two so that it's always best to give staff and applicant a little time to try to
work language out. So we'll go that way. I'll probably, I'll address it at the end of the hearing. Let's go on
to public comments at this point, if any of you out there in the public want to say something at this
point, click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen and we'll tell you how to participate. We
have somebody from Galaxy A three, two, got a couple speakers there. So Mr. Ros, you want to, oh,
okay. Four so far. Alright, we'll start with the Galaxy. You want to bring that person up?
Speaker 2 (31:28):
All right. You're able to speak now if you'd like.
Examiner Olbrechts: (31:31):
Okay. Galaxy. And your video's not on, you don't have to have it on, but just letting you know you are
muted. You'll want to click the bottom right hand corner. There's it. There you go.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 18
There you go. Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (31:43):
Okay. Who do we have there from Galaxy?
Speaker 5 (31:50):
Hello? Can you hear me?
Examiner Olbrechts: (31:53):
Yeah, now I can hear you. And ma'am, what's your name for the record?
Speaker 5 (31:56):
My name's Janet. Janet Metcalf. I live on hundred 16th.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:01):
Okay. mcc, let me swear you in. Just, do you swear Affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Speaker 5 (32:08):
Yeah. Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:08):
Okay, great. And how do you spell your last name for the record?
Speaker 5 (32:12):
M-E-D-C-A-L-F.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:14):
Oh, perfect. Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (32:17):
I live right across the street from this proposed site and my question is that there will not be any access
from the hundred 16th Street and I guess you sort of have answered that by eliminating that one road.
Examiner Olbrechts: (32:41):
Yeah, and I'll, I'll let Mr. Morgan Roth when he comes back and answers questions, he'll clarify that a
little bit about what the status is of that access point.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
I would like to comment, I've lived here 20 years almost, and on the corner here, 1 1 6 0 4 and the traffic
on hundred 16th has gotten heavier, especially every morning. And I just feel that an extra road going in
from hundred 16th would not be good, let's put it that way.
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:25):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 18
Okay. Anything else?
Speaker 5 (33:31):
I used to belong to the church, but it was very, very disturbing when a community church did not go to
their community to sell this land. And that's about all I can say.
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:47):
Okay, thank you Ms. McCab. Alright, next is Nancy.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:57):
And Nancy, you'll have to unmute yourself there. Okay. And again, your video's not showing that's not
necessary. What, could you tell us your last name though and how to spell it for the record?
Speaker 6 (34:05):
Yes. Nancy Osborne, O-S-B-O-R-N. I am a member of the church, member of the, okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (34:14):
Ms. Osborne, I have to swear you in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Speaker 6 (34:19):
Yes I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (34:19):
Okay, great. Go ahead,
Speaker 6 (34:21):
Sorry. So I'm a member of the land use committee and have been working with the city for more than
six years on something that we could make use of the land that has been in our possession for a long
time, knowing that there's a lot of need for more housing and we also would like to be able to use that
resource to do some of the outreach projects that we have as a church. So I'm very pleased with the
work that we've done so far. It's been slow, but other than that we're very pleased with working with
the city,
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:01):
Ms. Osborne. Alright, next is Justin Baker and you want to bring him up? Mrs. SROs?
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:12):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 18
Okay. Mr. Baker, let me swear in real quick. Do you swear from tell the truth nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Speaker 7 (35:18):
Yes I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:19):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 7 (35:21):
I dunno if it's a comment more of a question, but there's roughly four and a half acres of wooded area
that's going to be cut down for the development. Is there any plan in place to deal with the potential of
the wildlife that's going to be that will there be any kind of animal control onsite to help relocate those
animals?
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:44):
Okay. And yeah, like I said, I'll let Mr. Morgan Roth answer all those questions once it's turned to speak.
Did you have any other comments Mr. Baker?
Speaker 7 (35:51):
Nope, that's it. Thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:52):
Okay, sounds good. Alright, and then we had a Wallace,
Speaker 5 (35:57):
Go ahead.
Examiner Olbrechts: (35:59):
Okay. Alright. And Mr. Or Mrs. Wallace can't tell if it's, are you there?
Speaker 8 (36:08):
Yeah. Mr. Examiner, Alan Wallace, can you hear me
Examiner Olbrechts: (36:10):
Okay, Mr. Wallace let you swear in. Do you swear or affirm tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this
proceeding?
Speaker 8 (36:15):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (36:16):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 18
Speaker 8 (36:18):
Thank you Mr. Hearing Examiner Alan Wallace of Land Real Estate Council for United Christian Church.
We've been working on this project for three years with Alex and Young Key, so it's been a long path to
get here. I won't go through all that, but the important point I hope you understand is that it's a two
phase final plat because we don't have a legal lot to sell to the purchaser or the applicant each Joe
Homes. So that's been a solution the city has offered, which is great. So it'll be initial phase final plat to
split the property into two to create the sale parcel and then the purchaser of the sale parcel. Then we'll
proceed with the plat improvements to obtain final plat as a second phase final plat. We have talked to
Alex and also to the applicant's engineer at Bar Hausen Ivana about the second driveway. That was a bit
of news to us. We weren't aware that a second driveway was proposed. And then secondly, the
alternative that the staff report identifies of taking that second driveway up to the west in support. And
maybe Jennifer, can you bring up the map again?
Speaker 2 (37:39):
I don't have it handy, but yeah,
Speaker 3 (37:41):
I can bring it up. Okay. Just give me one second. Sorry, I accidentally closed it, so give me one second
here.
Speaker 8 (37:59):
Okay. Hey Mr. Examiner, good to see you here today. It's been a few years.
Examiner Olbrechts: (38:04):
Yeah, I would say I didn't recognize you from the name at first, but yes, you're still practicing. That's
great. So am I. Oh, you are too.
Speaker 8 (38:13):
Yeah, here
Speaker 3 (38:16):
We go. Here sharing it up here. Okay, let me know if that's coming through loud and clear.
Speaker 8 (38:28):
Great. And Alex, could you blow that up on the church site and
Speaker 3 (38:34):
The cannot because it's a PowerPoint. Okay, I'm
Speaker 8 (38:37):
Sorry. So Mr. Examiner and I was appointed just to briefly exchanged emails with Alex with regard to
this, but the staff report identifies an alternative of having a second driveway lineup with the alley. The
problem with that is you're going to sterilize two or three parking stalls to then provide a drive lane that
would then line up with the alley alley, which is a little bit there to the west. So losing parking stalls is a
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 18
problem. The other difficulty is if you look at track D, which is where this driveway would have to run,
track D is an important part of the tree retention, tree code compliance, because the church offered
that to ETO for tree planting. And because you're cutting down, this is very much a second growth
forest, it's dominated by alder and cottonwood, some big leaf maple and so forth. So to accommodate
the residential development, you have to cut a fair number of trees. And so offering a location to replant
trees for its tree credits are granted to comply with the code. A major part of that is to create a forest
area where track D is. And Mr. Examiner, I don't, I don't, do you get out to sites these days? Do you
actually view the site or
Examiner Olbrechts: (40:10):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 8 (40:11):
Okay. Well if you look at that area of track D, that's a large grass lawn at present. So that's going to be
forested and if you run a driveway through there, you're probably going to lose maybe not quite half of
that track D for the tree replanting. So the current plan is again for that to be a new forest tract and to
affect compliance with the city's tree code. So I'd also, in terms of need for the second driveway, the
church membership currently is about 25 members. Obviously not everyone shows up every Sunday, so
there's just not a really robust demand for parking or is there, in terms of the church's need, is there a
need for a second driveway? There is a Montessori school, but the population of the Montessori school
is fairly modest. The church doesn't believe there's any queuing issue of cars on one 16th during the
Montessori school. It's a pre-K Montessori school, the morning drop off or evening drop off and the
traffic count on one 16th is not so robust either. Has to present, we believe a peak hour attorney
movement for issue there too. So anyway, enough on that second driveway issue, but it is one of these
details, it's to work out that needs some attention and we support Ivana's request to modify that
condition and to work with the city to ideally eliminate second driveway.
Examiner Olbrechts: (41:52):
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Wallace. Alright. And then we have, Jeanette wants to make some comments.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
Okay. She can unmute herself.
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:01):
Alright, Jeanette, could you tell us your last name for the record? How to spell it and then I'll swear you
in.
Speaker 9 (42:07):
Whitefield, W-H-I-T-E-F-I-E-L-D.
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:11):
Okay. Mr. Whitefield swear you in. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Speaker 9 (42:15):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 18
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:16):
Okay, great.
Speaker 9 (42:17):
I actually mostly just have questions that may not be directed towards you guys. I got the letter of this
public hearing, my house is one of the houses that there's the potential of the road being built along our
property line of our backyard. And so I just wanted to know, according to Alex, you guys maybe aren't
the people I talked to, so if I could know who I need to reach out to about the concerns and questions I
have regarding that plan, that would be great.
Examiner Olbrechts: (42:48):
Okay. Alright. Alright, well I think that's it for the public comments at this point. We'll go back to Mr.
Morgan Roth, got a few questions to answer how the wildlife we will be dealt with that go to the project
sites, how the project accesses one 16th and then I guess city contacts for issues dealing with the road
construction.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
Yeah. Cool. Thank you. Yeah, and I wrote 'em down so I got 'em here. I'll run through 'em quickly and
happy to expand on any if needed. So really quick, I'll just say that staff again does support, this is all
related to a few comments, but really to Yvonne's comment, we do support modifying that condition
and we will work with them on that to figure out how best and get that over to you. As far as one 16th,
the first comment, there's really no other options for access to develop this parcel except one 16. What
we've tried to do is the city is reduce the impacts of that access. So by requiring the alley access, instead
of having seven new curb cuts there with the road and six new houses, you've got one just the house, or
sorry, just the road where road A which will funnel out to one 16th. And so yeah, I'm sure, I know one
16th has gotten busier, but this certainly will be better than having individual driveways come off there
as far as from a safety perspective. But again, that's the only, there's no other access potential for this
site, but we have tried to reduce the impact as much as possible through the reduction of curb cuts.
(44:22):
Nancy's comment, I don't think Nancy had a specific comment. I've worked with Nancy on this for a
while and she's been great to with as part of the churches, I said land use committee, if I'm missing
something let me know. Animal mitigation. So we don't have anything in our code with regards to in city
code regards to when there's wildlife, obviously there's wildlife and lots of urban areas and especially in
areas like this where you've got heavily wooded areas been heavily wooded for a while. So I will leave
that to the applicant if they want to respond to, if they have any mitigation efforts that they utilize when
working on a site, when prepping a site like this that I'm not familiar with. So again, I don't have an
answer for that in that we don't have any code or regulations requiring the removal of animals, but I
would recommend I would turn that over if the applicant wants to respond to that.
(45:22):
The other questions, again, remove those removal of access by Mr. Wallace. And so yeah, I think the city
again tentatively supports the removal. We've got to work with Renton Regional Fire Authority, make
sure that they're able to get their truck as close to the building as they need. And then I know the church
membership has decreased, that doesn't mean it'll be decreased forever. It is also the school there. We
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 18
have had challenges with circulation and stuff for date drop off and things like that. So again, tentatively
supportive but probably would want to look into that a little bit more, which is why we're open to the
condition being a little more flexible. And then the utility road. The last question, that's a great question.
Can, it depends on what your question is exactly, but you can reach out to me. I will say that is a utility
access.
(46:05):
It's private. Private, it's not open to the public. Essentially it'll be gated. It's only city vehicles back there
be lit or anything for people to walk on. It is just kind of an access road for cleanouts essentially or
slimmer than a normal road in access driveway if you will. But feel free to reach out to me. I think if you
got a letter you probably got my contact info on there, so just shoot me an email and I'll be happy to
discuss more with you or get you to the right person. And I think that was all of the questions. Okay,
Examiner Olbrechts: (46:37):
Sounds good. Applicant, final word, you don't have to say anything again, but if you want to, now's the
time.
Speaker 4 (46:45):
Thank you Mr. Examiner and thanks to the members of the public for your comments. I did write them
down as well as Alex stated. Yeah, the site only has furnish on one street and that's one 16th, so that is
where the access must come from, but it is consolidated to one access for the entire residential
property. So it's been minimized as much as we can as to the four and a half acres that will be cleared
and wildlife displacement. It's an unfortunate reality of infill development that whoever lives there now
in the critter world does find their way to a different, an forested location when that's available. There's
not a specific mitigation that's done by the development team or the construction crews as that
happens in this case, there aren't any protected species in that area. So those animals will relocate on
their own as construction occurs. So other than that, I'd like to leave the record open if we can, to work
with the city regarding conditions eight and 11, to modify those for clarity on number 11 and to either
eliminate the condition for number eight or modify it so that the driveway is a and if proposed situation
so we don't end up with a condition that we can't meet at final plat if the connection is eliminated with
concurrence of staff.
Examiner Olbrechts: (48:30):
Okay. So how about leaving record open until this Friday the 22nd? Is that That's
Speaker 4 (48:36):
Enough time for our side?
Examiner Olbrechts: (48:38):
Yeah. Okay. Yeah, for the staff and applicant to work out the language on if they can agree on anything
on conditions eight and 11. And if you can't agree, just if you want to provide a written pitch as to why it
should be modified, of course you can include that as well. If any members of the audience out there
want to get any of that information, shoot an email to Mr. Morgan Roth there and he'll be sure to
forward you any revised conditions or comments that are submitted to me for that decision. Also, if any
of you want a copy of the final hearing examiner decision that'll be issued in a couple of weeks and just
email Ms. Ciro, she's got her email address behind her right there, Jay cisneros@rewa.gov and she'll be
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 18
sure to send that out to you. And of course, for whatever reason you don't have email capability, you
can call the planning department, ask for Ms. Cisneros and give her your mailing address and that'll
work. Real quick, Mr. Baker, did you want to say something? I mean we're done with the hearing, but if
there's something still you needed to get in there, Mrs. Ros, you want to bring 'em up or?
Speaker 2 (49:46):
Yeah, I have
Examiner Olbrechts: (49:46):
You got a raised hand? Yeah. Mr. Baker, was there something?
Speaker 7 (49:49):
Yeah, thank you. Sorry. I appreciate the response for the wild animals and my concern is the self
relocation and that they're going to relocate into the existing homeowner's properties. That's really my
concern with the question. There's a lot of rats and mice and possums and raccoons and all sorts of
pests and sorry, I didn't clarify. I am property owner along track B 2300 Southeast 19th Street, so that's
actually was my,
Examiner Olbrechts: (50:20):
Oh, it's kind of more pest control. Yeah. Mr. Morgan Roth. Does the city kind of address that issue ever?
If you happen to see large kind of pest population there, does the city have any means to address that
problem?
Speaker 3 (50:34):
We do not, no. I mean certainly with any, we have construction inspectors and staff and stuff and we
have regulations regarding erosion control and everything else you can think of. We don't, I guess I will
say we don't typically run, I have not heard complaints about the issue. I'm not saying it's not a problem,
especially when you have an infill site like this, obviously we can condition it through our or recommend
conditions of approval related to that as far as mitigation, which we haven't done with this, but I think
that that's something that you, Mr. Examine, think would be appropriate to look into. That's something
we could certainly we're keeping the record open look into. I
Examiner Olbrechts: (51:15):
Have in past cases where there's an abandoned barn or something that just has a huge brat population
and then I'll require measures be taken. I mean, Mr. Baker, is there something unusual about the
property where there is a large population of rats or something of that nature?
Speaker 7 (51:33):
Well, I don't know if the property is unusual, but there are certainly a large number of rodents, pests. I
have security cameras and I see them walk by everywhere in my yard every night. Oh, okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (51:44):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
Appendix A -- Harmong Ridge November 19 (Completed 11/30/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 18
Yeah, Mr. Aand, so King County does have language related to this type of thing, kind a standard
condition and obviously we'll talk with the applicant as well, but we can certainly something we can set
the record staying open, we can look into a possible recommended condition. I've had rats in my
crawlspace. No, it's not pleasant. So I definitely understand. Yeah, we can look into that for the residents
and per Mr Figures comment, yeah,
Examiner Olbrechts: (52:11):
You could include that in the conditions and yeah, sounds good. I'll take a look at that as well. Alright,
well thank you all. Sorry for that half hour delay. I managed to double book myself at the seven hour
hearing in Kitsap County. I'm doing this hearing during the lunch hour, so I appreciate y'all waiting that
half hour and glad we were able to get everyone's comments in. So have a great rest of the day and I'll
look forward to seeing those hopefully agreed upon conditions at the end of the week. So have a great
day.
Speaker 3 (52:38):
Thank you.