HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2026 - HEX Decision & Appendix A - Windsor plat and site plan1
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: Windsor Court
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
LUA25-000148, PP, SA-H, ECF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The Applicant requests preliminary plat and hearing examiner site plan approval for a 20-lot residential
subdivision on a 2.56 acre project site located at 19411 & 19505 108th Ave SE, Renton. The
applications are approved with conditions.
TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. No members of the public testified. The transcript is provided for informational purposes
only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-33 presented by the City at the January 20, 2026 hearing were admitted into the record
during the hearing
FINDINGS OF FACT
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
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Tom DeDonato, DeDonato Group, LLC, 10257 NE 64th St, Kirkland, WA 98033
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on August 9, 2016 in the City
of Renton Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The Applicant requests preliminary plat and hearing examiner site plan
approval for a 20-lot residential subdivision on a 2.56 acre project site located at 19411 & 19505 108th
Ave SE, Renton. The project site is currently developed with two (2) single-family residences and
associated detached accessory structures, all of which are proposed for removal.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is within Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
Water and Sewer Availability Certificates (Exhibit 28) were submitted with the land use
application materials. A copy of the approved Soos Creek Water and Sewer District plans
shall be provided to the City prior to civil construction permit approval.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development if the applicant provides
Code required improvements and fees. The current Fire Impact Fee for a single-family
dwelling unit is $421.98. Credit would be given for the removal of any existing dwelling
units. The Fire Impact Fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance would be
assessed.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage
facilities.
The proposal is subject to full drainage review under the 2022 City of Renton Surface
Water Design Manual. As required by state law, the Manual adopts all known, available
and reasonable methods of stormwater prevention, control and treatment (AKART). See
RCW 90.52.040 and RCW 90.48.010. The Manual generally requires that the proposal
not generate off-site flows that exceed pre-developed forested conditions of the project site.
The Manual also incorporates the latest feasible technology on assuring adequate water
treatment. The Applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, dated April 1, 2025, revised December 18, 2025 (Exhibit
22). Public works staff have determined that the TIR establishes compliance with the
Manual for this stage of review.
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
Stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be collected in a series of catch
basins and routed via pipe conveyance systems to a stormwater detention vault within Tract
A. Pollution-generating surfaces would be routed to a proprietary enhanced media filter
system for water quality treatment. The detained and treated discharge will discharge to an
existing public system located near the northeast corner of the site.
The Applicant will pay its proportionate share impact to the City’s stormwater system via
payment of a surface water system development charge (SDC) fees. Fees will be charged
based on the rate at the time of construction permit issuance. The current SDC fee is $0.94
per square foot of new impervious surface but not less than $2,350.00.
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
open space and parks.
In the R14 zone, developments involving more than four dwelling units must provide 350
square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. Based on the proposal for 20 lots, a
total of 7,000 square feet of common open space would be required within the proposed
development. The applicant is proposing to accommodate the required open space area
within Tract A. Tract A totals 13,817 square feet with approximately 9,100 square feet at
a grade of less than five percent (5%), which exceeds the 7,000 square foot minimum
requirement.
The open space is required to be designed as a park, common green, pea-patch, pocket
park, or pedestrian entry easement in the development and shall include picnic areas, space
for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. The Landscape Plan (Exhibit
2) included landscaping within the proposed open space area, however, there were no
details provided for recreational activities. A condition of approval requires a detailed open
space plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review demonstrating that the
common open space area would include picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and
other activities as appropriate.
A Park Impact Fee is assessed to require the Applicant to pay its proportionate share added
demand upon City park facilities. The fee is imposed during building permit review.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate streets.
Access to the site is proposed via a new 53-foot (53’) wide public right-of-way off 108th
Ave SE (SR 515). In addition, two 16-foot (16’) wide alley access tracts (Tracts A and B)
are proposed to provide access to Lots 1-3 and 20 and Lots 4-9.
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
The project has frontage along 108th Ave SE to the east, and 107th Ave SE to the west.
108th Ave SE is located in the City of Kent. A condition of approval, that all applicable
approvals from the City of Kent must be obtained for roadway access to 108th Ave SE.
Proposed Roads A and B would be classified as residential access streets. Per RMC 4-6-
060, the minimum right-of-way width for a residential access street is 53 feet (53’). Half-
street improvements shall include a pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet from centerline), a
one-half-foot (0/5’) wide curb, an eight-foot (8’) wide planting strip, a five-foot (5’) wide
sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. The proposed street sections for
Roads A and B would comply with these requirements (Exhibit 21).
The proposal was evaluated for compliance with Transportation Concurrency and public
works staff determined that the proposed plat passed the Transportation Concurrency Test
(Exhibit 17).
Each new lot is subject to a Transportation Impact Fee to mitigate for the Applicant’s
proportionate share added demand upon the City’s traffic infrastructure. The 2026
Transportation Impact Fee is $11,485.67 per single-family home. Assessed fees for the
future home would be based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule at the time of building
permit issuance. This fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance.
There is an existing transit stop located on 108th Ave SE, approximately 0.2 miles to the
north of the project site. Bicycle parking is not required for detached residential dwelling
units.
Alley access is provided to several lots. Access to Lots 1 through 3 and Lot 20 would be
provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley (Tract B) and access to Lots 4 through
9 would be provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley within Tract A. Access to
Lots 10 through 15 and Lots 18 and 19 would be provided via joint-use driveways. Access
to Lots 16 and 17 would be provided via individual driveway curb cuts, as joint-use
driveway access to these lots would not be feasible due to conflicts with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp locations. A condition of approval requires that
vehicular access to the proposed lots be provided as follows: access to Lots 1 through 3
and Lot 20 shall be provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley (Tract B) and access
to Lots 4 through 9 shall be provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley within
Tract A. Access to Lots 10 through 15 and Lots 18 and 19 shall be provided via joint-use
driveways.
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
Public works review and City street standards assure safe and efficient vehicular
circulation.
F. Sidewalks, Paths and Pedestrian Easements. Pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian
connections are located throughout the subject property and would provide for safe and
efficient pedestrian access throughout the site.
The number of curb cuts to the individual lots has been reduced through the provision of
alleys to access the lots on the east side of the project site and through the provision of
joint-use driveways to the lots on the west side of the project site. In addition, new public
sidewalks would be constructed along the existing 108th Ave SE and the new Roads A and
B frontages.
G. Tree Retention. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate tree retention by
complying with the City’s tree retention standards.
The City’s adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (4-4-130) require the
retention of 30 percent of trees in a residential development. Tree credit requirements shall
apply at a minimum rate of 30 credits per net acre. The tree density may consist of existing
trees, replacement trees, trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070F.1, Street Frontage
Landscaping Required, or a combination.
An Arborist Report, prepared by Layton Tree Consulting LLC, dated July 24, 2024
(Exhibit 26); a Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet (Exhibit 27); and a Conceptual
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2) were submitted with the project application. According to the
submitted report, 64 trees were inventoried for the proposed project. Of these 64 trees,
seven (7) trees were identified as high-risk trees leaving 57 viable significant trees on the
project site. Based on the City’s 30 percent (30%) tree retention requirements, a total of 17
trees would be required to be retained or replaced. The applicant is proposing to remove
all existing trees for the proposed development. To mitigate for the replacement of the 17
trees, a total of 194 tree credits would be required to be planted on-site, or payment of a
fee in lieu of replacement would be required.
The City also has a requirement for the provision of a minimum of 30 tree credits per net
acre. The project site has a gross site area of 111,381 square feet (2.56 acres). After the
deduction of 31,106 square feet of right-of-way dedication, the net site area would be
80,275 square feet (1.84 acres). Based on a net developable area of 1.84 acres, a total of 55
tree credits would be required on the project site (1.84 acres x 30 tree credits/ac = 55 tree
credits). Combined with the 194 replacement tree credits, a total of 249 tree credits would
be required to be planted on-site. As shown on the submitted Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2),
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
a total of 84.75 tree credits are proposed to be planted on-site (outside of the public right-
of-way), which is less than the 249 total tree credits that are required.
A condition of approval requires that a final tree retention and replacement plan be
provided at the time of construction permit application demonstrating compliance with the
tree retention and tree credit requirements, including the mitigation for 164.25 tree credits
either through the planting of trees on-site or through the payment of a fee-in-lieu.
H. Landscaping. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate landscaping via
compliance with the City’s landscaping standards.
The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot landscape strip along
all public street frontages. Additional minimum planting strip widths between the curb and
sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060.
Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according
to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060.
A Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2) and a Revised Conceptual Civil Plan Set (Exhibit
21) were submitted with the project application materials. The conceptual landscape plan
includes a five-foot (5’) wide street tree planter strip between the curb and sidewalk along
108th Ave SE (located within the City of Kent city limits); however, the revised conceptual
civil plan set notes that the street tree planter strip would range from 3.4 feet (3.4’) to 3.7
feet (3.7’) in width. The conceptual landscape plan also includes an eight-foot (8’) wide
planting strip between the curb and sidewalk (along new Road A and Road B).
The proposed landscape plan includes trees not on the City’s approved street tree list. A
condition of approval requires submission of a detailed landscape plan that correctly
includes street tree species from the City’s approved street tree list.
A ten-foot (10’) wide on-site landscape strip is also proposed along the street frontages of
the proposed lots and would be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover (see
species list on the conceptual landscape plan [Exhibit 2]).
Stormwater facilities are required to be landscaped with a minimum of 15 feet (15’) of
landscaping unless otherwise determined through the preliminary plat review process. A
stormwater/open space tract (Tract A) is proposed on the northeast corner of the project
site. Tract A would be landscaped with a mix of lawn, a ten-foot (10’) wide street frontage
landscape strip and trees along the north property line (Exhibit 2). Tract A would 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
landscaped in its entirety, with the exception of access points for maintenance of the
stormwater facility.
I. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street vehicular parking.
Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for each
detached dwelling, however one space per dwelling unit may be permitted for dwelling
units with 1 bedroom or less. The proposed lot sizes are large enough to accommodate the
required parking.
J. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools and walking
conditions to and from school.
It is anticipated that the Kent School District can accommodate any additional students
generated by this proposal at the following schools: Springbrook Elementary, Meeker
Middle School, and Kentridge High School. Elementary students would walk to school,
and middle and high school students would be bussed to their schools.
Elementary students would walk approximately 0.8 miles to Springbrook Elementary
School. Students would walk south along the existing sidewalk along 108th Ave SE to SE
200th St, where they would head west and walk along the existing painted shoulder or
sidewalk before crossing the street via an existing crosswalk to the school.
The bus stop for middle school students is located approximately 0.15 miles from the
project site at 106th Ave SE and SE 196th St. Middle school students would walk to the
south along the sidewalk along 108th Ave SE to SE 196th St, where they would turn west
and walk along the existing shoulder of SE 196th St to the bus stop. The bus stop for high
school students is located approximately 0.30 miles from the project site at 106th Ave SE
and SE 192nd St. High school students would walk to the north along the sidewalk along
108th Ave SE to SE 192nd St, where they would turn west and walk along the existing
shoulder of SE 192nd St to the bus stop. The proposed project includes the installation of
frontage improvements along the 108th SE frontage, including sidewalks.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. As discussed in
Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure and is served by adequate
public services. No critical areas are located on site except for a Wellhead Protection Area, Zone 1
Modified. The only applicable requirement for the wellhead protection zone is that a Fill Source
Statement may be required for any fill brought onto the project site in accordance with the adopted
Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050).
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
Beyond critical areas, the impacts of single-family development are well addressed in numerous city
standards such as landscaping, bulk and dimensional standards, noise and light. The City’s lighting
standards require lighting that is appropriate to the architectural character of the neighborhood and of
a human scale. A lighting plan was not included with the submitted application materials as required
by those lighting standards. A condition of approval requires that a lighting plan demonstrating
compliance with City lighting standards be submitted at the time of construction permit and building
permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold
a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that
the Hearing Examiner shall issue a final decision on Type III hearing examiner site plans. Both
processes are Type III decisions subject to hearing examiner approval.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 14
dwelling units per net acre (R-14). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential
High Density.
3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. RMC 4-9-200
governs hearing examiner site plan review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and
applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The proposal meets all quoted standards for the
reasons identified in the associated conclusions of law.
Preliminary Plat
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. Criterion met. The proposed lots conform to all applicable zoning code requirements as
identified in Finding 19 of the staff report. The plan set, Ex. 2, shows adequate access to each lot.
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
The proposal is not encumbered with any floodplain or flood hazard area. Adequate provision is
made for drainage as identified in FOF No. 4C.
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 proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 18 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. As shown in the plan set, Ex. 2, Inner Roads A and B are connected to 108th Ave SE, a public
street. All lots have direct access to these streets or indirect access via private alley connections to
Roads A and B. This street layout connects every proposed lot to a public street as required.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. There does not appear to be any street plan applicable to this proposal.
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 staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the
vicinity.
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
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
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
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. As discussed in Conclusions of Law No. 4 and Finding of Fact No. 5, and as conditioned, the
land is suitable for development. The property is not designated as a floodplain and no adverse impacts
to critical areas are anticipated. There are no streams, wetlands or geologically hazardous areas on the
project site. As conditioned, the proposal conforms to the City’s tree retention standards as determined
in FOF No. 4G.
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 developer will provide common open space, recreational amenities and park impact fees
as detailed in FOF 4D.
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
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
requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and
designated by the Department.
11. As previously determined, the proposed internal roads connect to a public street.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. As proposed, there will be a single intersection with 108th Ave SE. It is not possible to
further minimize street connections.
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 City’s Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment.
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:
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.
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
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 plan set shows that a grid network is created to the extent possible. Proposed Road B
stubs on both ends to provide for future connectivity in a grid pattern. Several of the lots will have
private alley access as detailed in FOF 4E.
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. As proposed and as will be required during engineering review for final plat approval.
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. As proposed – Road B stubs on both ends for future connections.
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.
18. As depicted in the Ex. 2 plan set, 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. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street or road.
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
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. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-14
zone, which includes area, width and density.
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. As shown in the Ex. 2 Plan Set, the requirement is satisfied.
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. As proposed.
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. As detailed in FOF No. 4, the proposal conforms to the City’s tree retention and critical area
standards. There are no other natural features on the project site. As such, natural features are found
to be protected as contemplated in the standard above.
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. This requirement will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
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
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
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 proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with
applicable City drainage standards, including those identified above, as determined in Finding of Fact
No. 4C.
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. This requirement will be imposed during engineering review or final plat approval.
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. This requirement will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
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 land owner. 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. This requirement will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
RMC 4-7-210:
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:
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
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. This requirement will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3) Criteria: The Administrator must find a proposed project to be in compliance
with the following: (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012)
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation, and any applicable
adopted Community Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC
4-3-100. (Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015)
30. As discussed in Conclusions of Law No. 4 and 5 above, the proposed project complies with
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable land use regulations. As discussed
in Finding 20 of the Staff Report, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth
in full, as conditioned the project complies with all applicable design regulations from RMC 4-2-115
or will at the time of building permit review.
b. Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development
on a particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
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
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize
views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
enhance the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
31. The development will be limited to single-family homes that are subject to the bulk and
dimensional standards of the R-14 district. As such, the homes will be of compatible scale and
character to surrounding residential development. In the R-14 zone, a maximum building height of
three (3) stories with a wall plate height of 24 feet (24’) is permitted. It is not anticipated that homes
constructed on the proposed lots would negatively impact views of surrounding properties. The City’s
landscaping standards, as detailed in FOF No. 4H, provide for transitions and linkages between uses
by the focus on those standards on street frontage areas and around stormwater utilities. No loading
or storage areas are proposed. Lighting impacts are adequately mitigated by a condition of approval
as identified in FOF No. 5.
c. On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building
placement, spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to
natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and
pedestrian and vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing
vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting
impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to
provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and
generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the
design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage
from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
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
32. Privacy and noise reduction are adequately addressed by the City’s setback standards for
single-family homes. Scale is adequately addressed by the City’s bulk and dimensional standards
applicable to the R14 zone. As previously noted, protection of natural features is adequately addressed
by the City’s critical area and tree retention standards. The City’s landscaping standards, as outlined
in FOF 4, provide for any necessary additional shade and privacy and enhance the aesthetics of the
project site, in particular around storm facilities.
d. Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage
streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress
points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation
system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian
access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency
access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access;
and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
33. All requirements of the standard above are met for the reasons identified in FOF 4E and 4F.
No loading or delivery areas are proposed.
e. Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to
provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site.
34. As shown in the Ex. 2 plan set and addressed in FOF 4D, the Applicant proposes an open space
tract that in the small plat serves as a recreational focal point for both active and passive recreation to
the extent required by applicable open space standards.
f. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt.
Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
35. There are no view corridors or public access to shorelines, nor is Mt. Rainier visible in this
area.
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 - 18
g. Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where
applicable.
36. As previously noted, there are no natural features at the project site. For the same reasons,
there are also no natural systems at the project site.
h. Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate
the proposed use.
37. As described in Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal, as conditioned, is served by adequate
public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
DECISION
The LUA25-000148 preliminary plat and site plan applications are approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 8, 2025:
a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the
submitted Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated July 23,
2024, revised December 30, 2024, and any future addenda.
b. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she
has reviewed the construction permit plans and in their opinion the plans and
specifications meet the intent of the report(s).
c. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall provide notes on the construction plans
identifying when on-site geotechnical engineer supervision of construction events
is recommended.
d. The applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan prepared by a qualified
professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall
provide notification to Tribes’ cultural committee prior to the start of construction.
2. All lots shall have a common undivided interest in proposed Tracts A and B and a
maintenance agreement or Homeowner’s Association shall be established. A draft
maintenance agreement or CC&Rs for all common improvements shall be submitted at the
time of civil construction permit review for review and approval by the Development
Engineering Plan Reviewer and Current Planning Project Manager.
3. The front yards of Lots 1 and 3 shall be oriented to the east, facing 108th Ave SE; the front
yards of Lots 2 and 20 shall be oriented to the west, facing Road B; the front yards of Lots
4 through 6 shall be oriented to the south, facing Road A; the front yards of Lots 7 through
9 shall be oriented to the west towards Road B; and the front yards of Lots 10 through 19
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 - 19
shall be oriented to the east towards Road B. The front yards shall be shown on the site
plans submitted for the individual residences at the time of building permit review for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
4. Demolition permits shall be obtained, all existing residential and detached accessory
buildings shall be removed, and all required demolition inspections shall be completed
prior to the recording of the plat.
5. If the proposal is revised to include townhomes or multi-family residences, a new
preliminary plat and site plan review application shall be required.
6. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit application.
The detailed landscape plan shall include street tree species from the City’s approved street
tree list. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a construction permit.
7. A final tree retention and replacement plan shall be provided at the time of construction
permit application demonstrating compliance with the tree retention and tree credit
requirements, including the mitigation for 164.25 tree credits either through the planting of
trees on-site or through the payment of a fee-in-lieu. The final tree retention plan shall be
submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. Payment of a
fee-in-lieu shall be made prior to the issuance of a construction permit.
8. A revised civil plan set and retaining wall detail shall be submitted at the time of
construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager. The revised civil plans shall demonstrate that any proposed retaining walls would
comply with the retaining wall setback and height requirements.
9. A lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the lighting requirements shall be
submitted at the time of construction permit and building permit review for the review and
approval of the Current Planning Project Manager.
10. A detailed open space plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review
demonstrating that the common open space area would include picnic areas, space for
recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. The detailed open space plan
shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior
to the issuance of a construction permit.
11. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided within Tract A that would connect to the public
sidewalk along 108th Ave SE. The location of the walkway shall be shown on the civil plan
set submitted at the time of construction permit review and shall be submitted to the Current
Planning Project Manager for review and approval. If feasible, this walkway shall be
designed to be ADA compliant.
12. Architectural elevations shall be submitted at the time of building permit review for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The architectural elevations shall
orient the primary entrances for the new homes as follows: the primary entries for the new
homes on Lots 1 and 3 shall be oriented to the east (towards 108th Ave SE), the primary
entries for the new homes on Lots 2 and 20 shall be oriented to the west (towards Road B),
the primary entries for the new homes on Lots 4 through 6 shall be oriented to the south
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 - 20
(towards Road A), the primary entries for the new homes on Lots 7 through 9 shall be
oriented to the west (towards Road B), and the primary entries for the new homes on Lots
10 through 19 shall be oriented to the east (towards Road B).
13.Vehicular access to the proposed lots shall be provided as follows: access to Lots 1 through
3 and Lot 20 shall be provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley (Tract B) and
access to Lots 4 through 9 shall be provided via a new 16-foot (16’) wide private alley
within Tract A. Access to Lots 10 through 15 and Lots 18 and 19 shall be provided via
joint-use driveways. The individual driveway curb cuts proposed to serve Lots 16 and 17
shall have a maximum width of nine feet (9’). The required vehicular access locations shall
be shown on the civil plan set and shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval at the time of construction permit review.
14.All applicable approvals from the City of Kent shall be obtained for roadway access to
108th Ave SE. These approvals may include but not be limited to: approval of a Deviation
Request to Construction Standards Permit from the 2021 City of Kent Construction
Standards and a City of Kent civil construction permit. These approvals shall be submitted
to the Development Engineering Manager at the time of construction permit review.
15.If legal rights for roadway access to 107th Ave SE are obtained and access is proposed off
107th Ave SE, this change shall be considered a major modification to the approved
preliminary plat and would require a new application.
16.All civil construction improvements within the City of Kent (under the RECC civil
construction permit) shall be constructed by the developer and accepted by the City of Kent
prior to final plat recording. Proof of acceptance shall be provided to the City of Renton
Development Engineering Manager.
17.All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2026.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject
to judicial appeal to King County Superior Court as governed by the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA),
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 - 21
Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeals of this decision must be served and filed within twenty-one (21)
calendar days of issuance as required by LUPA.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 13
Appendix A
January 20, 2026, Hearing Transcript
Windsor Court Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
File No. – LUA25-000148
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
from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Examiner Olbrechts (00:07):
Okay. Hello everyone. My name's Phil Albright. I'm the hearing examiner for the City of Renton and
today holding a hearing on a preliminary plat and site plan application for 20 lot subdivision. The hearing
format today is we'll have a presentation from city staff that's Ms. Sting will give us an overview of the
project. She wrote up the staff report for this and made the recommendation for approval. After her
comments, we'll move on to applicant comments if they want to say anything in favor of their
application. That would be done after Ms. Sting is completed. Applicants, you don't have to speak if you
don't want to, but if you do want to say something, that would be the time. Then after that we'll move
on to public comments. And it looks like we may have some members of the public here on this one, so
we'll make sure that all of you who are participating virtually, we'll have an opportunity to speak.
(00:54):
We'll explain how to be heard when we get to that part of the hearing. Once we're done with public
comments, we go back to Ms. Sting who's there to answer your questions, members of the public if you
had any questions. And she also has the opportunity to complete the record for any rebuttal evidence.
She finds necessary applicants get final word and final opportunity for rebuttal evidence. And then after
that I get 10 business days, which is a couple weeks usually to issue a final decision. And if any of you
participating today, do want to get a copy of that final decision emailed to you, be sure to let Mr. Ros
know what your email address is. And Mr. Ros that you can see, she has her email address behind her
head there. It's Jason sros@rentonlaw.gov. Like I said, just go ahead, email her your email address and
we'll get that final decision to you.
(01:42):
That decision is appealable to Superior Court if done so within 21 days of issuance. So those are the
basics. Let's see. By state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put in the record. I don't get
to talk to the applicant or staff or anybody opposed to the project. All the information that I have about
this project is so far just based on the staff report and exhibits that Ms. Sting put together for me. And
Mrs. Nero, she's been through this a few times. I knew I wanted to take a look at the exhibit list, which
she's posted on the screen there. You can see there's a bit of work that goes into these hearings. We've
got the Environmental review committee. The city has a committee put together that does the
environmental review to determine if an environmental impact statement needs to be done or if any
mitigation measures need to be imposed to offset environmental impacts. We've got a site plan building
floor plans, the environmental checklist used by the environmental committee to evaluate
environmental impacts. We've got
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 13
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Track bergs. I have the wrong screen here. Oh, actually I don't have all the, let me pull up that exhibit
list. Just give me one moment. I have the wrong one.
Examiner Olbrechts (02:54):
Alright, yeah, we've got two hearings today and that's probably
Speaker 3 (02:58):
The exhibit
Examiner Olbrechts (02:59):
List for the other one, which is fine. This list will probably be a little longer actually. That's coming up.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Okay, here we go. Okay, here's
Speaker 4 (03:30):
The correct one.
Examiner Olbrechts (03:33):
Alright. Yep. As I predicted a little bit longer probably we got kind of the same thing there. The
Environmental Review committee reports civil plan set, which shows the layout of the lots. The
geotechnical analysis was done, critical area, that's for review of environmentally sensitive areas, make
sure their buffers are properly imposed, that kind of thing. A technical information report is a drainage
analysis. We've got trip generation, which is the traffic review Department of Ecology, sent the city a
few comments as did the Duwamish tribe, king County Public Health and so on. And then transportation
concurrency, which means that the city evaluated whether it's congestion standards were met for this
project as well. So that's a total of 18 on that list. And we got a couple more. We have the, where's the
other ones? I just got the other, this
Speaker 3 (04:22):
One right here. The hearing examiner.
Examiner Olbrechts (04:26):
Yeah, the list before was just 18 and now we see that we're jumping to 30.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
Goodness. Just a second.
Examiner Olbrechts (04:33):
Okay. Once we get past the exhibit list, it's not too complicated.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 13
There's other part here.
Examiner Olbrechts (04:58):
Okay. Alright. And then, yeah, more environmental reviews, civil plans, and kind of looks like just more
updated letters. Also, some tree analysis was done as well. And water availability from Seas Creek Water
District. Now finally, let's go to the final list. Alright, and we got some comments from the city of Kent.
We got the staff PowerPoint and then the core maps that city of Rent maps available at the city's
website, which gives the aerial photographs, the zoning and the location of critical areas, that kind of
thing. As well as Google Earth, which is another set of aerial maps. So a total of 33 documents have been
presented for admission at this point. Just want to ask if anyone needs to see any of those or would like
those or has any objections to their entry in the record. If you do, just click on the raise hand button at
the bottom of your screen. And we usually don't have any objections, not seeing any this time. So I'll go
ahead then and admit exhibits one through 33. So with that, Ms. Ding, let's finally get to you. Lemme
swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts (06:06):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
All right, thank you. Okay,
Speaker 3 (06:17):
So let's hope,
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Oops. Okay. Are you seeing my PowerPoint or is it in presentation mode?
Examiner Olbrechts (06:29):
It's presentation mode right now.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
All right, so I need to
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Try again. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
That's not quite right. That's still presentation mode, isn't it?
Examiner Olbrechts (07:07):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 13
Yes. Yeah,
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Just change the display
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Settings. Display settings there. Does that work?
Examiner Olbrechts (07:41):
No. Oh, now it does. Yes,
Speaker 4 (07:43):
It worked. Okay, good. Excellent. Okay, so good morning. This is Jill Ding, senior planner with the city of
Renton. Here to present the staff recommendation for the Windsor Court preliminary plat. The file
number is LUA 25 dash 0 0 1 48. And just to start off with a brief description, the applicant is requesting
preliminary plat approval as well as hearing examiner site plan review for a 20 lot subdivision. The
project site is located within the R 14 zone. It's approximately two and a half acres in area. There are
two existing single family homes and accessory structures located in the site. These are all proposed for
removal. There is an offsite stream. It is a type F or fish bearing stream that is mapped to the east as
well as to the north of the project site. The site is located within a wellhead protection area, zone one
modified, and there are onsite slopes with grades between 15 and 25%.
(08:59):
The proposal includes a 20 lot subdivision for single family lots. There are two tracks, proposed tracks A
and B. There's a new 53 foot wide public right of way off of a hundred eighth Avenue Southeast or SR
five 15. There's a dedicated open space proposed within track A and there are two 16 foot wide alleys
located within tracks A and B. They would provide vehicular access to lots, one through three and 20 as
well as lots four through nine. Joint use. Driveways are proposed to serve lots 10 through, let's see, 15
and 18 and 19.
(09:52):
The city initiated a 14 day public comment period on May 21st. That ended on June 16th. We did receive
comments from the Dwell Tribe, department of Ecology, king County Public Health, and the Washington
State Department of Transportation on December 9th. The Environmental review committee issued a
determination of non-significant mitigated for the project, and that included four mitigation measures.
The proposal was reviewed by staff and it was determined that the proposal would be compliant with
the preliminary plat and site plan review criteria. The proposal is consistent or compliant with the
relevant comprehensive plan, land use element policies, all applicable zoning regulations if all
conditional conditions of approval are complied with. And like I said, the preliminary plat and site plan
review criteria, again, if all conditions of approval are complied with, we did route the proposal to other
departments for review. Police and fire prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to serve
the proposed development. Water and sewer service will be provided by the Sues Creek Water and
Sewer district. A technical information report or drainage report was submitted if that report was
prepared by ESM Consulting Engineering. The project includes an underground detention facility and a
proprietary enhanced media filter system to meet flow control and water quality requirements. The
proposal will be required to comply with the City of Rent's current surface water design manual. So in
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 13
conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the Windsor Court preliminary plat as depicted in Exhibit
21, and there are 16 recommended conditions of approval.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Any
Speaker 4 (12:03):
Questions
Examiner Olbrechts (12:05):
More of kind of a code question? Kind of curious, it seems a little odd to require site plan review for a
residential subdivision. Is that required basically for all residential subdivisions in this zoning district?
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Yeah, it's all development in the R 14 zone. And it is unusual because I don't have any buildings to
evaluate
Speaker 3 (12:26):
For
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Compliance with site plan review, but I didn't see an exemption for it.
Examiner Olbrechts (12:34):
Right, right. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I would think that the subdivision criteria pretty much covers everything
that you need to cover in site plan review anyway ultimately. Right. So
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Correct.
Examiner Olbrechts (12:43):
A little bit of a duplication there, but okay. Yes. Alright. Interesting. Alright, well let's move on to
applicant's. Anyone on the applicant team want to say anything at this point? I don't need to swear in
anyone who wants to speak. Oh, there you go. Yeah, I was just going to say, you're muted, sir. Let me
swear you in real quick. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the
truth in this proceeding? Yes, I do. Okay, great. And for the record, sir, what's your name?
Speaker 6 (13:10):
Tom Deto.
Examiner Olbrechts (13:11):
Okay. Alright, Mr. Deto, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (13:14):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 13
Okay. I'm the consultant for the owners who and Liz tt. They've hired me to push the process through
the city of Renton for preliminary plat approval and then we're going to follow with civil engineering
approval. Also, attending this meeting is our engineer, Lauren Barton Hagen with ESM, and she can
answer any specific or technical questions on the project. We did have a neighborhood meeting back in
March of last year. Several neighbors attended. The main concerns that were expressed were the
condition of the property because it was kind of junky and some cars that were left there to rot and stuff
like that. We did follow up with the owners and I think there was some progress made on that.
(14:13):
They also wanted to make sure that the construction hours for the project were complied with, which
obviously we would have to comply with. They want to know if the project was going to be fenced and
the answer is yes. And most of these neighbors were on hundred seventh, which is the right of way to
the west of the property that we do not have the right to access and they just want to confirm that. And
then there would also not be any construction vehicles using that road, which is confirmed because it's
not allowed, so can't do it. The project is under construction with MTT homes and they're a local family
owned company, but they're very highly rated in the master builders rankings. And so they might even
be listening to this, but they're great and they'll be very accommodating. So that's about all I have for
now, and if someone wants to ask questions or whatever, I can answer or I can answer.
Examiner Olbrechts (15:32):
Okay. Just on your fence comment, I mean, is the fence integrated into the civil plans for the proposal or
because I don't see anything, I don't see a fence mentioned in the staff report except for the block wall.
Speaker 6 (15:47):
Yeah, I don't think there's any drawings for a fence. It just was a question by the neighbors. They wanted
to make sure it was fenced for their own
Examiner Olbrechts (15:58):
Purpose. Okay. And so what you're saying is the developer intends on putting a perimeter fence around
the entire property, is that correct?
Speaker 6 (16:07):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts (16:07):
Okay. Okay, great. Alright, good to know. Thank you sir. Alright, well now we get to go to the public
portion of the meeting. As I said, if anyone wants to speak, now is the time to do it. Just click on the
raise hand button at the bottom of your screen and some versions of Zoom, not the one I have
currently, but I don't know if it's the same for everyone. Some versions of Zoom don't have the raise
hand button at the bottom of the screen. Instead they have a heart and you click on the heart and then
raise hand button flips up when you do that. So if anyone wants to say anything at this point, click on
that raise hand button and we'll call on you. Let's see if we got it. We don't have any takers it looks like.
Right? Mr. Cisneros doesn't look like it, so. Alright, well as I always say, in case
Speaker 3 (16:53):
We do have one,
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 13
Examiner Olbrechts (16:54):
We do have one, okay. From the city of Kent. Okay. Let's see. Ms. Meyer, why don't you come on up and
Mr. Ros, I guess if you can get her out there she is. Okay. Ms. Shield Meyer, can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Yeah, yeah,
Examiner Olbrechts (17:08):
I can hear you fine. Oh sir, I'm sorry sir. Yeah, I didn't see the first name there. Okay.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Oh, that's fine.
Examiner Olbrechts (17:14):
Yeah, and your video's not on, it's not necessary, but in case you want to be seen, we're not seeing you
at this point. But
Speaker 7 (17:21):
Yeah, let me see. I'm not trying to hide, but just I'm not seeing a video option.
Examiner Olbrechts (17:31):
It should be in the bottom left corner of your zoom screen. There would be a video camera with a line
through it and I maybe Mr. Cisneros, is it possible that Mr.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
I would have to promote him to
Examiner Olbrechts (17:42):
S room. Okay, that's what I was just going to say. Alright. Yeah, I was just going to ask her. So only if
you're a panelist. So if you don't mind Mr. Meyer, is it okay, we kind of do the Wizard of Oz thing and
you speak from above?
Speaker 7 (17:52):
Absolutely. And do you need to swear
Examiner Olbrechts (17:54):
Me in? Yes, I need to swear.
Speaker 7 (17:55):
I promise to raise my hand.
Examiner Olbrechts (17:56):
Swear. Okay, great. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 13
Speaker 7 (18:00):
Absolutely,
Examiner Olbrechts (18:01):
Yes. Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 7 (18:03):
Okay, so I just was asked by our engineering department today to attend just to make sure, because
they had provided some comments I think it looks like on the 15th for the record, for your
consideration. And their main concern was just making sure that during the hearing some consideration
was given to the requirements that were in their comments that were provided. I don't need to get into
them if those have already entered into the record, but really it's just integrating our civil construction
permitting processes and some impact fees it looks like related to the stormwater development and the
traffic impacts. So that was my whole goal here today was to just make sure that those were in the
record. I apologize, I was about six or seven minutes into the presentation and logging on. And so yeah,
so I just wanted to make sure and give some voice to those comments on behalf of the city because of
the a hundred eighth issues that are related to that part of the project as it is in our city, city of Kent
Examiner Olbrechts (19:17):
And MS thing. Let me ask, I've got exhibit eight comments. I don't recall if those are the only ones
because the Exhibit
Speaker 2 (19:23):
X? No, we got comments on the 15th and I believe they're exhibit 30.
Examiner Olbrechts (19:29):
Oh, let's see. Oh there, it's okay. Got you. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (19:32):
So we did include, we did add them.
Examiner Olbrechts (19:34):
Okay. Alright. We have, oh, sorry, go ahead sir.
Speaker 7 (19:39):
Oh, I was just going to say, it looks like we did actually have a pre-app with the developer for this. Talked
through all of those things and my understanding was that our public works and engineering folks have
all been in coordination already with the city of Brenton on it. So I just wanted for your benefit, Mr. Rex,
just wanted to call some attention to that so your decision can reflect that coordinated effort
Examiner Olbrechts (20:05):
In the
Speaker 7 (20:05):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 13
Two cities.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:05):
Certainly and MS thing, when we get back to staff comments, maybe if we have the city's engineer,
maybe the city engineer can identify what kind of coordination has been done, what conditions, if any,
are being imposed and whether there's still any outstanding issues that would be helpful to know. So,
alright, Mr. Helmy, thank you for your comments. Just for the transcripts, your last name is spelled S-C-
H-I-L-D-M-E-Y-E-R, is that correct?
Speaker 7 (20:30):
Yes. Yes. And I'm the current planning manager for the city.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:33):
Oh great. Okay. Thank you sir. Alright, anyone else out there? It looks like we've got a Ike m or is
Speaker 8 (20:40):
In Yeah, that's Michael Eisenberger.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:43):
Okay. And sir, are you okay without your video?
Speaker 8 (20:47):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:47):
Okay. Let me swear you in then. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 8 (20:53):
Yes, I do.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:54):
And sir, what was your name again for the record?
Speaker 8 (20:57):
Michael Eisenberger.
Examiner Olbrechts (20:58):
Okay. Alright, Mr. Eisenberger. And how do you spell that for our transcripts?
Speaker 8 (21:03):
E-I-X-E-N-B-E-R-G-E-R.
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 13
Examiner Olbrechts (21:07):
Oh, perfect. Okay, thank you. Alright, go ahead.
Speaker 8 (21:10):
Okay, yeah, my concern is on the, I guess it would be the northwest end of the lot. There are some trees
there. Will they be taken down? They're close to the fence line.
Examiner Olbrechts (21:27):
Okay. Well I'll have staff and applicant answer that question when we get back to their portion of the
hearing. Was there anything else you wanted to say or any other questions?
Speaker 8 (21:38):
The only other thing is I know there's a lot of spring water that comes off that property and on the
hundred seventh Street, I don't, has that been taken into consideration of the stormwater?
Examiner Olbrechts (21:54):
Okay. Well yeah, it sounds like we're going to have the city engineer answer some questions and he can
address that as well. I know that the city's drainage standards are pretty comprehensive. They usually do
cover that kind of thing, but I'll let the staff and applicant answer that question for you. Anything else,
sir? Okay, thank you. Okay, great.
Speaker 8 (22:10):
No, that's all. Thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts (22:11):
Alright, anybody else out there want to say anything? Okay, back to you Ms. Sting. And as I said, just to
kind of address the Kent questions if you could, or comments as well as a question about the drainage.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
So regarding the question about the trees, I believe all the trees on the site are going to be removed as
part of this development. There just isn't room with the size of the lots and all the infrastructure to
retain trees. So they're going to be replanting trees, but there are no trees that are proposed for
retention. With respect to coordination with the city of Kent, there has been significant coordination
with the city of Kent. Most of it has been between the applicant and the city of Kent directly, but I know
that the city was very diligent about making sure that we moved forward after we verified that they had
been coordinating with Kent. And I do have Nate Jander here from our development engineering group,
he can answer some of the more specific engineering questions.
Examiner Olbrechts (23:29):
Okay. Yeah, I was kind of curious which conditions, if any address that, like the payment of impact fees, I
saw there was a discussion about intersection spacing in the exhibits, maybe how that was resolved. Mr.
Janers, could you maybe answer some of that?
Speaker 9 (23:45):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 13
Absolutely.
Examiner Olbrechts (23:45):
Okay. Let me swear you in. You'd swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding.
I do. Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (23:52):
Alright. Specifically to the permits and the needs for the City of Kent, as Jill mentioned, our teams have
been in coordination with Kent engineering staff to this point and we'll continue that throughout. It is
our standard of practice for all external agency permits. For example, not just the city of Kent tier, but
this is also a project that is serviced by water and sewer from creek water and sewer utility that all
external agency permits are obtained prior to final issuance of the city construction permit. So we will
ensure and follow that exact standard as we continue through here and just coordinate with our
partners as we do on all of these types of projects. The specific drive away placement that is reviewed
by the city of Kent. And so we do have conditions that were identified, I believe it's condition 14 that
speaks to the needs for the deviations from Kent that would be required. And like all of our other agency
permits, those would have to be approved prior to city approval of the construction permit as well.
Examiner Olbrechts (25:13):
And so I think there's mention of impact fees. Does the city require that through its conditions of
approval or how is that handled for Kent Impact fees?
Speaker 9 (25:23):
The city does not typically assess impact fees for others through city impact fees. That would be through
the other agency permits as needed.
Examiner Olbrechts (25:33):
Oh, I see. Okay. Okay, gotcha. Okay, thank you Mr. Jens, really helpful. Alright, Ms. Ding, anything else
before we move on to applicant for final comments?
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Nate, did you want to address the comment about the water runoff?
Examiner Olbrechts (25:47):
Oh yeah, the water, sorry.
Speaker 9 (25:48):
Yes. So the spring and surface waters in accordance with the city of Renton surface water manual, all
upstream flows are required to be captured and or routed in accordance with the surface water manual.
So what exactly those are and how it's being specifically mitigated. I'll let the applicant's engineer speak
a little further to that. However, all runoff will have to comply with the surface water manual.
Examiner Olbrechts (26:24):
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 13
And Mr. Janers, how does the city handle its review of the drainage reports? By applicants, I mean, do
you have people on staff who have expertise in drainage that do a pretty deep review to ensure it meets
the drainage manual or how's that done?
Speaker 9 (26:41):
Yes, our engineering staff reviews it. We are extremely knowledgeable of the surface water manual. And
then we also coordinate with our surface water public util, excuse me, our public, oh my gosh, our
surface water team in the Public Works department or secondary review and coordination as well. So
we have a very thorough review of all surface water elements on the project.
Examiner Olbrechts (27:09):
Okay, sounds good. And just for the benefit of the public out there, if you're kind of curious about the
engineering that goes in the stormwater review, that would be mainly in the document, that's technical
information report TIR. Right, Mr. Janers. Any other documents they could look to see how that's done?
Speaker 9 (27:25):
The TIR is the primary one as you mentioned. And then the preliminary utility plans demonstrates how
the TIR is applying its elements to the project IE shows where the vaults are, shows where the piping is,
shows where those facilities that are described in the TIR are located.
Examiner Olbrechts (27:44):
Okay, great. And all that's available at the city's website? I believe if you go to, I think it's Mr. Cisneros,
the hearing examiner page, they can find it in the land use files and all those exhibits we're talking about
are
Speaker 3 (27:55):
Correct?
Examiner Olbrechts (27:56):
Yeah, you can just download 'em from there and see what's going on. Okay. Alright, I see we got
somebody, Laura, who's one of the panelists, are you part of the applicant team? Is that right?
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts (28:06):
Okay. And what's your last name for the record?
Speaker 5 (28:09):
It's Barton Hagen. B-A-R-T-E-N-H-A-G-E-N.
Examiner Olbrechts (28:15):
Okay. Ms. Barton Hagen, let me swear in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the
truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
This transcript was exported on Feb 04, 2026 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Windsor Plat 1 (Completed 02/04/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 13
Speaker 5 (28:21):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts (28:22):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 5 (28:24):
I just wanted to speak to the Springs related questions to 1 0 7. We have applied and received variance,
the deviation from the city of Kent to be able to discharge stormwater to 1 0 8. So we will be redirecting
that there shouldn't be any stormwater heading to 1 0 7, even if it goes there today because that is a
private road which we are not able to discharge stormwater to. So instead we are discharging to the
Northeast to 1 0 8 and the city of Kansas. Good to go with that. They've approved our deviation.
Examiner Olbrechts (29:09):
Okay, thank you Ms. Bar. So
Speaker 5 (29:10):
That's resolved. That should resolve any spring issues.
Examiner Olbrechts (29:14):
Great. Okay, good to hear. Yeah, and I can say normally when it comes to stormwater, the state
essentially has put together a manual that's very comprehensive, very effective, and a lot of times, I
believe neighboring property owners after development city improvement over the prior stormwater
conditions. I mean, the developers don't have a responsibility to fix existing problems, but the way the
stormwater regulations are put together, a lot of times they are improved a little bit because the
applicants are required to essentially put stormwater runoff back to what it was like when the land was
forested and vacant. And that's usually a better source of stormwater than what you have in the current
condition. So anyway, with Spartan Hagan, thank you for your comments. Anything else that applicant
want to add at this point? Nope. Okay, I guess we're done with this one. Thank you all again for taking
your afternoon to participate today.
(30:10):
Both the public and people on the applicant team and so forth. As always with written great job and
putting together the staff analysis and the applicants have, I think, pretty comprehensively covered all
the impacts. And as I mentioned to the public, you're curious about the details that as you saw, there's a
lot of study that goes into these projects if you're concerned about traffic, there's a traffic report,
stormwater, there's a stormwater report, the stream, there's a report that addresses that to a certain
extent. So all that information is there and if you still have questions, I bet Ms. Sting, you can take
questions. If they got any more, they can call you. Yeah. So that's the way it's set up. So anyway, thank
you all again, and like I said, if you want to copy that decision, be sure to email Ms. Ros there. She's got
her email address behind her and we'll make sure you get that decision. So thanks again. Have a great
rest of the day and we're adjourned.