HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-2023 - Maple Highlands Preliminary Plat - LUA-22-0001221
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: Maple Highlands Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat
LUA22-000122, PP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSINS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
Conner Homes requests approval of an application for a 12-lot subdivision located at 13818 - 152nd
Ave SE and 13939 – 154th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059. The application is approved subject to
conditions.
The proposal has raised some concerns from neighbors residing to the south along 154th Ave SE.
Marvin Bettes, one of the neighbors, prepared a well written summary of their concerns in Exhibits
15 and 29. Those concerns are all individually addressed in this Decision and were also addressed
by staff during the public hearing as identified in the accompanying informal transcript of the
hearing, Appendix A. The City’s detailed development standards have been designed to address the
types of issues raised by Mr. Bettes, and those standards in turn have been implemented via
conditions of approval adopted by this Decision. Condition No. 7 requires the retaining walls along
Mr. Bettes’ property to be lowered from eight to six feet as required by City retaining wall height
standards1. These standards were largely adopted in 2015 by the Renton City Council in response to
neighborhood concerns over retaining wall height. Condition No. 12 requires that a barricade that
currently blocks vehicular access to the undeveloped portion of 154th St. south of the project will be
1 Discussion on p. 7, Finding of Fact 5A.
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
redesigned to accommodate project frontage improvements to 154th.2 A major concern by the 154th
neighbors was the adequacy of their ditch along 154th to accommodate new run-off from the
proposed development. Condition No. 1 addresses that problem by requiring ditch improvements
designed to accommodate that additional run-off3. Mr. Bettes raised some compelling concerns
over the safety of the ditch because it is not fully visible to vehicles and sidewalk users affected by
the barricade4. Condition No. 12 requires that the ditch be partially fenced or improved with some
other warning device should that still prove necessary after the ditch is redesigned by the Applicant.
Finally, the Duwamish Tribe requested an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDK) to address any
discovery of cultural resources. Staff have found merit that to that request and Condition No. 8
requires the IDK.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-30 identified in the staff prepared document entitled “Exhibits” were admitted into the
record during the January 17, 2023 hearing. The record was left open after conclusion of the hearing
for a written submission from the Applicant dated January 27, 2023 and admitted as Exhibit 31.
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.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Conner Homes, Attn: Aron Golden, 12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA
98006
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the application was held at 11 am on January 17, 2023, Zoom
Meeting ID: 946 7233 4580. The hearing was left open through January 27, 2023 for staff and
Applicant to reach agreement on revisions to staff recommended conditions 1 and 6. Agreed upon
revisions were presented by the Applicant as Exhibit 31.
3. Project Description. Conner Homes requests approval of an application for a 12-lot
subdivision located at 13818 - 152nd Ave SE and 13939 – 154th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059. The
application is approved subject to conditions. The project site is composed of two separate lots, each
of which is developed with a single-family residence that will be removed.
2 Discussion on p. 4-6, Finding of Fact 4D.
3 Discussion on p. 3-4, Finding of Fact No. 4B.
4 Discussion on p. 4-6, Finding of Fact 4D.
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
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services. The City’s Public Works department has reviewed
the proposal for preliminary compliance with all City infrastructure and utility standards and has
found the preliminary design to meet those standards. Infrastructure/Services are more specifically
addressed as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by the King County Water
District 90 and the City of Renton will provide sewer service.
B. 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, which requires that the project not generate off-site stormwater flows that
exceed predevelopment, forested conditions and also imposes water quality standards.
City staff have reviewed the Applicant’s preliminary stormwater design and found it
consistent with the requirements of the Design Manual.
The design and engineering information provided by the Applicant has established to the
satisfaction of public works staff that the conceptual stormwater design of the project
meets applicable regulations. The submitted information is composed of a drainage
report, prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated October 2022 (Exhibit 4) and a
preliminary drainage control plan (Exhibit 5). Based on the City of Renton's flow control
map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard - Matching Forested and is
within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. Project construction is required to comply
with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The project will have
one (1) discharge location from the stormwater pond abutting 154th Ave SE to the City's
conveyance system. The existing site slopes generally southwest at gradual slops and
runoff sheet flows onto the neighboring properties. Downstream of the site, stormwater is
conveyed to a tightlined City of Renton system within the right-of-way of 154th Ave SE
before entering a series of drainage ditches within King County's jurisdiction. Runoff is
conveyed by King County roadside ditches a quarter of a mile downstream of the site and
ultimately discharges to the Cedar River approximately one (1) mile away. The proposed
discharge location would connect to this runoff system.
The project is required to provide a flow control and water quality facility as the
proposed development would include more than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced
pollution generating impervious surface. One (1) stormwater pond is proposed to mitigate
flow control and water quality impacts. The pond would be located in the stormwater
tract in the southeast portion of the project abutting 14th Ave SE.
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
An existing, documented flooding problem exists directly south of the project site on
154th Ave SE within King County. Without mitigation measures to address the issue, the
concentrated flows of the project would impact the existing problem. This problem was
identified in public comment Ex. 15 and 29. Due to the documented issue, a SEPA
mitigation measure requires that prior to civil construction permit approval, the Applicant
rehabilitate the existing stormwater ditch from the existing 18-inch (18") outfall to the
driveway at the southern driveway 14024- 154th Ave SE. The Applicant may choose to
tightline the existing ditch and upsize the existing driveway culverts or regrade/realign
the existing ditch and upsize the existing driveway culverts.
Public works staff testified that the SEPA mitigation measure should serve to improve
downstream flow problems over existing conditions. This evidence is sufficient to
establish that stormwater impacts are fully mitigated in the absence of any expert opinion
to the contrary. Public works staff have extensive experience in reviewing drainage
issues. The City’s drainage standards impose detailed requirements designed to ensure
that stormwater impacts of new development are fully mitigated. Public works staff at
the hearing testified that the capacity of the downstream conveyance system would be
engineered to accommodate hundred year floods. The opinion of public works staff that
SEPA mitigation measure No. 1 will result in an improvement over current drainage
conditions even with addition of the proposed development is uncontested and there is no
evidence to the contrary.
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and
open space.
City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit
issuance. City regulations do not require any specific set-aside for open space for
residential development in the R-4 zone. In the absence of any specific open space
requirements or any demonstrated need for open space, the Applicant cannot be legally
required to set aside any open space and it must be determined that the proposal provides
for adequate parks and open space through the payment of park impact fees.
D. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate streets. The proposal has
been designed and staff has recommended several conditions adopted by this Decision
that provide for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation by incorporating a
well linked and defined pedestrian and vehiculation system on-site that is integrated into
adjoining streets and sidewalks.
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
The proposed project fronts 152nd Ave SE along the western property line and 154th Ave
SE along the eastern property line. Both are classified as a Residential Access Street.
Both 152nd Ave SE and 154th Ave SE have an existing right-of-way (ROW) width,
according to the King County Assessor Map, of 60 feet (60'). The proposed development
would be required to construct frontage improvements, including paving, curb and gutter,
planter strip with street trees and a sidewalk along 152nd Ave SE and 154th Ave SE.
The Applicant would extend SE 5th Pl from 154th Ave SE west to 152nd Ave SE. Full
street improvements would occur to the abutting property line with 14024 - 152nd Ave
SE; from this point to 152nd Ave SE half-street improvements would be constructed.
Half-street improvements would include 37 feet (37') of right-of-way dedication. Twenty
feet (20') of pavement with an eight-foot (8') planter strip and five foot (5') sidewalk on
the north side of the pavement along with curb and gutter on both sides would be
constructed. The Applicant would also construct 153rd Ave SE from SE 5th Pl north to
13810 152nd Ave SE to full Residential Access standards except for the portion adjacent
to tax parcel 1463400017. Frontage improvements will not be required in this section as
the neighboring lot is undeveloped and has the opportunity to subdivide in the future.
153rd Ave SE will have a hammerhead turnaround as the section of street is
approximately 260 feet (260') long. Half-street improvements to complete 154th Ave SE
would also occur along the eastern portion of the property abutting 154th Ave SE.
A Traffic Impact Analysis is required when a project proposal would result in the
generation of 20 new a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. As the proposed subdivision would
result in the creation of 12 new lots, it is anticipated that the proposal would not generate
20 new a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. Therefore, the project was not required to provide a
Traffic Study with the preliminary plat application materials. Staff determined that at
completion of the project, the development will meet City of Renton concurrency
requirements (Exhibit 9), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan,
consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, site
specific improvements, and future payment of Transportation Impact Fees. The
transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit issuance would be
levied. It is anticipated that compliance with the City's adopted Street Standards and the
payment of required Traffic Impact Fees would mitigate any adverse impacts that could
be generated by additional traffic attributed to the proposed subdivision; therefore, no
further mitigation is required.
Mr. Bettes in Exhibit 29 raised some compelling safety concerns about traffic circulation
at the eastern terminus of 154Th Ave SE. 154th Ave SE is only paved to the southern end
of the project site. Further south it is a dirt road within unincorporated King County. A
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
barricade was placed across the southern terminus of the paved portion of the road to
prevent through traffic into the undeveloped portion of the road. This barricade was
placed to accommodate the concerns of property owners to the south when a subdivision
was developed on the eastern side of 154th Ave SE. In Ex. 29 Mr. Bettes identifies that
the barricade may cause accidents. Bicycles travelling south past the barricade are not
able to see a drainage ditch that is three feet below grade south of a cross street
immediately south of the barricade. Mr. Bettes is concerned about bicycles, skate boards
and motorcycles that frequently travel south past the barricade at full speed. The lack of
visibility of the ditch is well-demonstrated in the third photograph of Exhibit 29.
Vehicles travelling north on the unpaved portion of 154th Ave SE must also contend with
avoiding the same open ditch when reversing direction at the barricade. Mr. Bettes writes
many vehicles have driven into the ditch. Finally, in Ex. 15 Mr. Bettes also noted that
some vehicles even drive around the barricade onto the sidewalk, also exposing
themselves to potentially driving into the ditch.
Staff has partially addressed Mr. Bette’s concerns with staff recommended condition No.
12, which requires that the barrier be expanded to prevent any vehicular traffic from
going through to the County portion of 154th from the project site. However, the
condition doesn’t entirely address the safety issues caused by the ditch. The ditch safety
issue is partially attributable to the Applicant because the project necessitates the barrier,
which in turn creates the turn-around safety problem on the southern side of the barrier.
The project also adds to the sidewalk traffic affected by the hidden grade difference of
the ditch. Ex. 29 adequately establishes the existence of a safety problem by Mr. Bettes’
uncontested testimony that many vehicles have driven into the ditch and his photograph
in Exhibit 29 showing the limited visibility of the ditch.
Resolving the safety problem caused by the ditch is complicated by the fact that the
Applicant will be changing the design of the ditch. SEPA mitigation No. 1 of the project
gives the Applicant the option of either tightlining the ditch or realigning it. The current
safety problems caused by the ditch may be resolved by these required actions. To
ensure that they do, staff recommended No. 12 is revised by requiring that the visibility
issues raised by Mr. Bettes be addressed by ditch fencing or other warning devices
designed to enhance the visibility of the ditch.
E. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. Parking
regulations require that a minimum of two (2) parking spaces be provided for each
detached dwelling. The proposal meets this standard by providing for 12 on-site parking
spaces and 12 parking spaces on the right of way.
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
F. Schools. The proposal will be served by 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: Maplewood Heights Elementary,
McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed
development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located at the intersection of
152nd Ave SE and SE 142nd St approximately 0.15 miles from the south end of the
project site at 152nd Ave SE. Frontage improvements, to include sidewalks, will be made
abutting the frontage of all proposed lots. Existing sidewalks are located on the west side
of 152nd Ave SE running from the intersection of SE 138th Pl and 152nd Ave SE
(located just to the north of the project area) to the intersection of 152nd Ave SE and SE
142nd St. Students would walk east along SE 5th Pl to 152nd Ave SE or south along
153rd Ave SE to SE 5th Pl then south along 152nd Ave SE to the bus stop at the
intersection of 152nd Ave SE and SE 142nd St.
A school impact fee, based on new single-family lots, will be required in order to
mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable
to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. The 2023 Renton School District
impact fee is $2,911.00 (plus a 5% surcharge fee) per new single-family home, however
assessed fees for the future residences would be based.
G. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the payment of
required fire impact fees and compliance with recommended conditions of approval,
which are adopted by this Decision.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with
the proposal. A State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-significance was issued on
December 12, 2022. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4. Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding development. The subject
property is bordered by single-family development on all sides with the same R-4 zoning.
Concerns were raised about the eight foot retaining walls proposed along the stormwater
tract and lots 11 and 12. Condition of Approval No. 7 requires these heights to be
limited to six feet as required by RMC 4-4-040. The six foot height is expressly
authorized by RMC 4-4-040, which was extensively revised by the Renton City Council
by adoption of Ordinance No. 5747 in 2015 in response to community concern over 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 - 8
aesthetic impacts of retaining walls. As such, conformance to those standards is regarded
as a legislative determination of compatible retaining wall development. As mitigated,
the proposed retaining walls are found to be consistent with the detailed retaining wall
standards adopted by the City Council and are thus found to be compatible with
surrounding development.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards, thus
ensuring that in conjunction with the City’s landscaping requirements that impacts to
wildlife habitat and aesthetics are adequately mitigated.
A conceptual tree retention plan (Exhibit 8), arborist report (Exhibit 6), and tree retention
worksheet (Exhibit 21) were included with the project application materials. There are
123 trees identified on the project site, of those trees two (2) have been identified as non-
viable and 65 trees are located within areas of right-of-way, which results in a total of 56
trees required for retention. Based on the requirement to retain a minimum of 30 percent
(30%) of existing onsite trees, the applicant would be required to retain a minimum of 17
trees onsite.
The applicant is proposing to retain 28 trees (18 on Lot 7, 10 on Lot 10). In accordance
with RMC 4-4-130H1, protected trees may contribute to each residential lot’s required
minimum tree density, but any trees that are in excess of an individual lot’s minimum tree
density shall not contribute to the total number of trees that are required to be retained for
the Land Development Permit. Protected trees that do not contribute to a lot’s required
minimum tree density shall be held in perpetuity within a tree protection tract. Both Lot 7
and Lot 10 have an excess of protected trees through retention. As shown on the Tree
Retention Plan (Exhibit 8), the applicant has not provided a tree protection tract.
Additionally, RMC 4-4-130H1b identifies the priority order in which significant trees
shall be retained. The trees identified for retention by the applicant are all Priority Two
trees (Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees). Priority One trees, which the
regulations require retention of, include landmark trees and significant trees that form a
continuous canopy. The project site has four (4) landmark trees eligible for retention.
Further, the arborist report identifies that Tree #97 – 102 have developed as a grove with
a shared canopy. This grove is located on proposed Lot 5 and Lot 6 and contains three (3)
of the four (4) landmark trees (#97, #100, #101) eligible for retention. Of the five (5)
Priority One types of significant trees, landmark trees and significant trees that form a
continuous canopy are the highest priority to be retained. As shown on the Tree Retention
Plan (Exhibit 8), the applicant proposes to remove this continuous canopy on Lots 5 and
6.
In previous email correspondence with the applicant (Exhibit 22), staff indicated support
for the applicant providing a tract to retain Priority Two trees along the northern property
line of Lot 7 as was previously provided in an earlier iteration of the s ite plan (Submittal
v2 received July 18, 2022) in-lieu of providing a tract to retain and protect the continuous
canopy and Landmark trees that would likely result in the loss of Lot 5 and/or 6. This
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
support was on the condition that the applicant would attempt to retain the continuous
canopy to the greatest extent feasible within Lots 5 and 6 and retain the significant trees
along the northern border of Lot 10. Condition No. 6 provides a detailed plan to meet
these objectives, as agreed upon by staff and Applicant in post-hearing discussion (see
Ex. 31).
C. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on the project site.
D. Cultural Resources. The project is adequately mitigated by a condition requiring an
Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) to address potential impacts to cultural resources.
The Duwamish Tribe submitted a comment letter, Ex. 17, expressing concern that the
project is in an area the Tribe believes to be culturally significant with a moderate
probability to have unknown archaeological deposits. The Tribe identified that it would
accept the issue to be resolved with an IDP “with attention paid to depths.”
Staff have found the Tribe’s concerns to have merit. The stormwater facility will have an
11.37 - foot (11.37’) change in elevation from the top of the pond to the bottom and will
necessitate significant excavation to place the facility. Combined with the other grading
and clearing work proposed for the site, the potential for damage and/or destruction of
archaeological resources is present. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant submit an 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.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III permits. 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.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R4. The
comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density.
3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
subdivision 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.
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.
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
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, Finding 18 of the staff report
is adopted by reference as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will access a public road as depicted
in the preliminary plat map, Ex. 2. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is
adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and 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. The internal roads connect to 152nd Ave SE and 154th Ave SE as shown
in the site plan, Ex. 2.
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. As testified at the hearing, the proposal is not subject to any adopted
plans for streets.
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. As testified at the hearing, the proposal is not subject to any adopted
plans for trails.
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 4-7-130(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.
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 there are no critical areas on-site. 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. 5. No lots primarily composed of steep slopes will be created by the subdivision as
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
shown in the topographic lines of the preliminary plat plans, Ex. 2, and identified in the Applicant’s
geotechnical report, Ex. 3.
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. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the payment of impact fees and
the proposed tree retention tract provide for all the open space and park space that can be required by
City ordinances.
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. The internal roads connect to 152nd Ave SE and 154th Ave SE as
shown in the site plan, Ex. 2 and no other road connections are possible at this time. As testified by
staff, the interior 153rd Ave SE is stubbed on both sides and can be extended to connect to road
systems developed in the future to the north and south of the project site.
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. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial.
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.
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
14. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and
acceptable 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.
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. The proposed street system is well integrated into a current and future
street grid design that connects well with surrounding development and the project does not include
any cul-de-sacs.
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 4-7-150(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.
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. Proposed 153rd Ave SE has road stubs on its north and south ends and
those locations are the only potential future road connections available to the plat.
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. The criterion is met. As depicted in the plat maps, the side lines are generally 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 proposed, each lot will have 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, as conditioned, the proposed lots comply
with the zoning standards of the R4 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. The criterion is met. As shown in the Ex. 2 plat maps, the requirement is satisfied.
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
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 the Ex. 2 site plan.
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. 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. As conditioned.
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, which are addressed in the Applicant’s drainage reports 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. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for 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
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
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. 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 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. As conditioned.
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:
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. As conditioned.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 complies with all the
subdivision standards quoted above for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law and are
therefore approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
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
1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 12, 2022, as subsequently
amended as authorized by applicable law.
a. Prior to civil construction permit approval, the Applicant shall rehabilitate the
existing stormwater ditch from the existing 18-inch (18”) outfall to the southern
driveway at 14024 154th Ave SE. The Applicant may choose to tightline the
existing ditch and upsize the existing driveway culverts or regrade/realign the
existing ditch and upsize the existing driveway culverts.
2. Demolition permits shall be obtained, and all required inspections be completed for the
removal of the existing residences and detached accessory structures, prior to final plat
approval.
3. 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.
4. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the civil construction permit
application that identifies the onsite street frontage landscaping for each lot that includes
a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The detailed landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
5. 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.
6. The Applicant shall submit a revised Tree Retention Plan and updated Certified Arborist
Report with, or prior to, the civil construction permit application. The revised Plan shall
provide a tree retention tract for Trees 11-28 along the northern border of Lot 7. The
updated Arborist Report shall thoroughly analyze the feasibility of retaining Trees 1-10
along the northern border of Lot 10 and Trees 97-101 on Lots 5 and 6, including but not
limited to a root reconnaissance, recommendations for best practices for construction
around Trees 97-101, and evaluation of potential building setback variance reductions
that would allow for tree retention.
Trees 1 – 10 and any retained Trees 97 – 101 shall not be placed in a tract. The revised
Tree Retention Plan and Arborist Report shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance, and the City may hire a third-party
consultant paid for by the Applicant for peer review of the Report. If the Arborist Report
concludes that it is not possible to construct the proposed homes on Lots 5 and 6 as
permitted under applicable zoning with potential building setback variance reductions
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
without removing all or some of Trees 97-101, or if all or some of Trees 97-101 would
not be viable after construction, then the Current Planning Project Manager will allow
removal of the trees recommended for removal by the Arborist. If the Arborist Report
concludes that any of Trees 97 – 101 can be retained, the Applicant shall provide a surety
for monitoring of such trees for five (5) years following completion of the homes on Lots
5 and 6.
7. The Applicant shall submit a revised grading plan with the civil construction permit that
reduces the height of the retaining wall on Lot 1 to a maximum of 48 inches (48”) within
the secondary front and that the location of the wall be revised to provide the required
three-foot (3’) landscaped setback from the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also
reduce the height of the rockery retaining wall on the stormwater tract, Lot 11 and Lot 12
to a maximum of 72 inches. The revised plan shall also provide cross sections of the
proposed retaining walls and detail sheets of material composition. The revised plan,
cross sections and detail sheets shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
8. The Applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discoveries 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.
9. The Applicant shall provide a plat note with corresponding recorded easement for Lots 6
and 7 identifying the purpose of the emergency vehicle access turnaround and the lot
owner’s responsibility for keeping the turnaround clear of obstructions. As the turnaround
is temporary until the street is eventually extended and makes a connection that provides
full emergency vehicle access, the future homeowners of Lot 6 and 7 may extinguish the
easement at such time with Renton Regional Fire Authority and Department of
Community and Economic Development approval. The plat and easement language shall
be reviewed approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording.
10. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings with the civil construction permit
application that provides curb, gutter, eight (8) foot wide planter strip, and five (5) wide
sidewalk along the east side of 153rd Ave SE abutting APN 1463400017. The revised
drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to permit issuance.
11. The Applicant shall provide revised drawings with specifications with the civil
construction permit application for temporary dead-end street signage and barricade at
the terminus of the paved roadway of 153rd Ave SE. The revised drawings shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance. The signage and barricade shall be installed prior to plat recording.
12. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings with the civil construction permit that
provides specifications for a barrier matching the existing barrier at the city/county line to
prevent through vehicle traffic from using 154th Ave SE. The barrier shall not prevent
pedestrian and bicycle traffic from passing through it. The matching barrier shall be
installed prior to plat recording or earlier as determined by the Current Planning Project
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
Manager if vehicle pass through traffic is able to occur at or near the completion of the
154th Ave SE construction.
As determined necessary by public works staff, the revised drawings shall also including
ditch fencing or other warning devices that enhance the visibility of the ditch located on
the south side of the barrier to prevent motor vehicles and bicycles from driving into the
ditch as identified in Finding of Fact No. 5D. Given that the Applicant will be altering
ditch design as required by MDNS Condition No. 1, it is recognized that no fence or
other warning device may be necessary.
13. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings with the civil construction permit
application that provide pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections where on-street parking is
located. To ensure maximized on-street parking capacity, any needed fire hydrant
placement along SE 5th Pl shall be located along the north side of the street. The revised
drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to permit approval.
14. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
15. 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.
16. 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 City. 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 City.
17. 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 developer 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.
18. 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 City.
All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners
shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The Applicant shall install all street
name signs necessary in the 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 - 20
DATED this 30th day of January, 2023.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the 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.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 30
Appendix A
January 17, 2023 Hearing Transcript
Maple Highlands -- LUA22-000122, PP
Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available
on the City’s website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, for the record, it's January 17th, 2023, 11:00 AM. I'm Phil Olbrechts, hearing examiner for the City
of Renton. This morning, we have an application for a preliminary plat application, Maple Highlands
preliminary plat. The hearing format will be able to start off with a presentation from staff. Who's that
today? Is that Mr. Herrera? Are you doing it? This one?
Mr. Van Gordon:
That would be for me.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Great. So after Mr. Herrera has given us an overview of what the project is about, we'll give a
chance for the applicants to speak, and once they're done, then we'll move on to public comments.
That's all the neighbors out there, anyone from the public who wants to make a comment, that'll be
your chance and we'll get into a little more detail on how to participate once we get to that portion of
the hearing. So if you still don't know how to be included, don't worry about it. We'll give you some
more explanation when we get to that point in the hearing today. After public comments. Oh, sorry?
Ms. Cisneros:
Mr. Olbrechts, it's actually Mr. Van Gordon.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, Mr. Van Gordon's doing the staff presentation?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Great. Great. Okay, good. All right. Then once all the public comments are done, we'll go
back to Mr. Van Gordon to answer any questions that were asked and provide any necessary rebuttal
evidence. Then applicant gets final word. After that, I get 10 business days to issue a final decision on
this, and that's appealable to Superior Court. Now, by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence
that's put into the record today. That would be composed of exhibits that are admitted into the record
and all your testimony. That way, everybody knows exactly what decision is or what information I should
say, and evidence is being considered for the final decision. Ms. Cisneros now is sharing screen with the
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 30
exhibits that were given to me ahead of the hearing. These are the exhibits that Mr. Van Gordon wants
admitted into the record for consideration on the final plat decision. We can see the first 10 exhibits
there.
The environmental committee report is a report put together by the city planning staff to determine
whether an environmental impact statement needs to be issued and what kind of mitigation measures
are necessary to avoid having to do that environmental impact statement. We have the preliminary site
plan, which gives us an overview of how the lots are laid out, where the roads are located, that kind of
thing. Then as with all these preliminary plats, we have a lot of supporting review done by geotechnical
experts, stormwater experts, and even we have the arborists who go over what trees need to be
retained. We have a concurrency memo which addresses the project traffic congestion, if any, and then
advisory notes. That's where the city staff from all the different departments point out what mitigation
measures are necessary to ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding development and
also doesn't create undue demand on public services.
So beyond exhibits one through 10, we also have the staff report, which is Exhibit 11, neighborhood
meeting minutes, survey map, the CEPA checklist, that's the preliminary checklist to determine whether
an environmental impact statement is necessary. Then we have your public comments there. Exhibits 15
through 18, which is from Mr. Bettes, Mr. Christensen, and the Hansens. Then finally, we have our
landscape plan tree retention and utilities plan and so on. So we have exhibits one through 25. Ms.
Cisneros, I know normally you also have the staff PowerPoint and stuff listed as well?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
So there we are.
Ms. Cisneros:
We have a few, also a couple comments that came this morning.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
From Mark Bettes and also correspondence from the applicant. I do have those exhibits if you would like
me to pull them up on the screen.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Yeah, so you see there, exhibits 26 through 30 as well. So if any of you need to see any of
those documents, they're available online and just raise your virtual hand, we'll tell you how to access
those. But at this point, I just want to ask if anyone needs to see any of those documents or anyone has
any objection to their entry in the record. If you do, just post your virtual hand there, and I'm not seeing
any virtual hands, and that's pretty standard. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Golden:
[inaudible 00:04:10]. There we go. I'll raise my hand.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Golden:
I have seen if there are additional public comments that arrived this morning, I haven't seen those.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And Mr. Golden, are you here on behalf of the applicant?
Mr. Golden:
I am, sorry. [inaudible 00:04:22] Golden. Connor Holmes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Golden:
President of [inaudible 00:04:26] development.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Ms. Cisneros, is there a way you can get that to Mr. Golden and...
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. So I think she's going to email them to you, Mr. Golden. If you don't get a chance to fully
look them over before the end of the hearing and need me to leave the record open for you to give an
opportunity to provide a response in writing or something, just let me know and we'll ensure that you
have enough time to review that new information. So with that, I'll just ask again, anyone else need to
see any of the documents or have any objection to their entry beyond that? I'm not, so I'll go ahead and
admit exhibits, I think it was one through 26. Was that... Ms. Cisneros, is that how many there work?
Ms. Cisneros:
I believe there was 30.
Phil Olbrechts:
30.
Ms. Cisneros:
I'll double-check.
Phil Olbrechts:
Just double-check. Yeah, I think you're right.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 30
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. One through 30. Okay. All right. So one through 30 are admitted. With that, let's go to Mr. Van
Gordon and Mr. Van Gordon, just raise your virtual hand. Not seeing you on the screen here yet though.
Oh, there he is. Okay. All right. Yeah. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Mr. Van Gordon:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, great. Great. Go ahead.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. I'm going to share my screen here. Forgive me, it's been a little while since I have worked in Zoom.
Let me know when people can see my screen. Okay.
Phil Olbrechts:
Not yet. There it goes. Okay, now it's go. Okay. Yeah, there. It's all right.
Mr. Van Gordon:
All right, so once again, thank you. My name is Andrew. For the record, my name's Andrew Van Gordon
and I'm an associate planner with the city of Renton and I'm going to be making the presentation for the
Maple Highlands preliminary plat. So the... Just a minute here. So the applicant is proposing to... He's
requesting a preliminary plat for the subdivision of an existing 4.16-acre site into 12 lots and one tract.
Hang on. The project site is zoned R4 and is currently is two legal lots of record. Each lot has its own
existing single-family residence with associated detached structures. All of those are proposed for
removal. The proposed lots would range in size from 9,010 square feet to 11,580 square feet and access
to lots one through four and 11 through 12 would be via Southeast 5th place, access to lots five through
seven would be provided via 153rd Avenue Southeast, and access to lots eight through 10 would be
provided from 152nd Avenue Southeast. So the applicant is also proposing to retain 28 significant trees
on the project site located along the northern property lines of lot seven and lot 10.
So the applicant is proposing to extend Southeast 5th place between 152nd Avenue Southeast and
154th Avenue Southeast. They're also proposing to extend 153rd Avenue Southeast from Southeast 5th
place to the northern property line. Frontage improvements including [inaudible 00:07:37], curb, gutter,
planter strip of street trees and sidewalk are proposal along the street frontages with a note, with the
caveat along Southeast 5th Place between 152nd and 153rd Avenue Southeast would be constructed to
half street standards. So those planter strips and sidewalk would only be located on the north side in
that section. There's also landscaping, which would include a storm water facility screening and the 10-
foot onsite landscaping screening along the street front just for all the lots. So a neighborhood meeting
was held on February 2nd, 2022. There was a 14-day public comment period from April 20th to May 4th.
Staff received three public comments regarding stormwater and through vehicle access on 154th
Avenue Southeast plus the one that we received this morning, which also addresses those items.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 30
Staff also received comment from the Duwamish Tribe regarding preservation of cultural resources. A
determination of not significance mitigated was issued on December 12th, 2022 that had one mitigation
measure related to storm water. I will touch on that a little bit later, but there were no appeals filed of
that determination. Of note, the project was placed on hold May 6th through July 19th and August 5th
through November 1st. So the proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive plan land use policies
and would be compliant with all relevance zoning regulations if the conditions of approval are complied
with. Additionally, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops where any students may reside
in the future residences. So of note, the applicant is proposing to retain 28 trees, significant trees along
the northern property lines of lot seven and lot 10. These are priority two trees. Trees one through 10
would be on lot 10 and trees 11 through 28 would be on lot seven. They're proposing to retain them
based on the documents within the lots themselves.
Additionally, there are trees 97 through 102, which are located on lots five and six, trees 97 through 101
are straddling that lot line. Then tree 102 is more internal to lot five. Those trees are priority one trees.
It includes three of the four landmark trees that are located on the site. Additionally, the arborist report
that was provided states that these trees have a continuous canopy and have formed a grove. So staff
recommends that trees 11 through 28 be retained in a tract. Trees one through 10 and 97 through 101
be retained based on guidance of the certified arborist. So the applicant currently is not proposing a tree
tract for preservation. Part of the guidance from the certified arborist would be that prior to ground
disturbance and updated report would need to be provided showing root reconnaissance and
recommendations for best practices for construction around trees 97 through 101. Should it be
determined that all or individual trees may not be feasible for retainment, then we would allow for
removal of some or all trees, 97 through 101.
We did receive this morning a comment from the applicant's counsel requesting that those conditions,
[inaudible 00:11:31] conditions not be approved as recommended. The letter that we received provides
regulation references regarding percentage of trees that need to be retained along with tree priority tier
protection. Those references are to the current tree regulations. This project is vested to the previous
tree regulations, which do not include that language. So the 30% minimum significant tree retention is
still required. So the items that the applicant proposes, such as that they're going to put the trees in
easements, that's not permitted under the tree regulations that they're vested to. Additionally, the
applicant's arborist report, they did provide an updated arborist report with a letter from the arborist
where the arborist does say that construction activity is not recommended within drip lines, but it
doesn't say that it can't happen within drip lines. Additionally, it does provide some kind of more
general, because they haven't done a full site [inaudible 00:12:52] yet. Does provide mitigation,
potential mitigation measures that relate to [inaudible 00:12:57] and protection of trees, false activation
of how [inaudible 00:13:02].
Phil Olbrechts:
Mr. Van Gordon, just a sec. You're kind of coming in... The audio's kind of getting garbled at this point.
Ms. Cisneros, did you notice that? Is the audio getting garbled from your end?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, it is.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 30
Mr. Van Gordon:
I apologize. I was getting a phone call at the same time, so maybe that had something to do with it.
Phil Olbrechts:
I think you're getting...
Mr. Van Gordon:
Is it still an issue?
Phil Olbrechts:
No, it just got better. Yeah. Okay, good. Good. Okay. Yeah, I don't know what that was, but okay, now
you're good. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. Okay. Where was it starting getting garbled?
Phil Olbrechts:
Well, it was just like about 30 seconds ago, so yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. Okay. So I'll quickly go. They're vested. The project is vested to the previous tree regulations. The
applicant's letter referencing easements, those items are not applicable to this project because those
are the new tree regulations. There was also an arborist report that was provided. The updated arborist
report letter does include general mitigation measures regarding root pruning, protection of trees,
excavation around trees. Additionally, past experience with projects in the city has shown that work can
be done within drip lines and around root systems provided we have the arborist mitigation
recommended protection measures. So [inaudible 00:14:30].
Phil Olbrechts:
Uh oh, now we're losing to you again, Mr. Gordon. Sorry. You just did, that's very... Did you get another
call or something or.
Mr. Van Gordon:
No.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Ms. Cisneros:
Andrew, I can probably get you a phone-in line if you'd like.
Phil Olbrechts:
You want to try that? Yeah. Yeah, maybe we should try that. Yeah, Mr. Gordon, if you just phone in, we'll
lose your video, but I think that's okay.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 30
Ms. Cisneros:
If you want to turn off your video for a little bit to see if that sounds better and then I'll send you the
phone number. Now, we can't hear you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, we can't hear you at all, Mr. Van Gordon. There we go. Oh, still can't hear you. You're totally
muted. Ms. Cisneros, is he patched in by the phone or...
Ms. Cisneros:
I'm getting him the number.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, so I'll just wait a sec. Ms. Cisneros is giving the phone patch in to Mr. Van
Gordon. That should solve the problem. Has he phoned in yet, Ms. Cisneros?
Ms. Cisneros:
Not yet.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
So he is calling in as we speak.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, good.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yep. Just give him a few seconds here. I'm going to stop sharing screen for now, so give him a few
minutes. Okay. I have unmuted you.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Are you with us, Mr. Van Gordon?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. Can people hear me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes, now we can hear you. Great. Okay. Back on. So I think...
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
And Ms. Cisneros, he can still share his screen and everything, right?
Ms. Cisneros:
I'm not sure if he can from the phone, but I can definitely help him out if...
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right.
Ms. Cisneros:
[inaudible 00:19:31] for him.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sure. Okay. Yeah. So Mr. Van Gordon, I guess...
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah, I'm working on...
Phil Olbrechts:
Hmm?
Mr. Van Gordon:
I'm working on trying to get it back up.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, if that doesn't work, you can just ask Ms. Cisneros to kind of go through your PowerPoint.
She has it is my understanding. All right. We see it. Great.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. Okay, boy. All right. Okay. Where was I? So just wrapping up on this, staff believe that the
recommended conditions provide flexibility to retain high priority trees and retain the number of
proposed lots that the applicant has shown here. Police and Fire indicate that there are sufficient
resources to furnish services. It's anticipated that the Renton school district can accommodate any
additional students generated. They'd be attending Maplewood Heights Elementary, McKnight Middle
School, and Hazen High School. Water service will be provided by King County Water District 90. Sewer
service provided by the city. So the applicant did submit a technical information report prepared by
KPFF. The project will have one discharge location from the single stormwater pond proposed.
Stormwater pond is proposed in the southeast portion of the project at the intersection of Southeast
5th Place and 154th Avenue Southeast, abutting lot 11, and would connect to the stormwater facilities
in 154th Avenue Southeast.
So as part of the MDNS, there was a mitigation measure to rehabilitate the downstream stormwater
ditch along 154th Avenue Southeast, as there had been, there was a documented flooding issue further
south here. Filing the project is required to comply with the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 30
Manual. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the 13
recommended conditions of approval. Do you have any questions for myself at this time?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, yeah. Maybe this is more for public works, but I had a question about Mr. Bettes' concern about
the barricade, and I was just having a little trouble following why those barricades are there, how they
relate to the project, and what measures, if any, have been taken to address Mr. Bettes' concerns. So
I'm hoping that you or somebody can show where the barricades are in relation to the [inaudible
00:22:21] to the project, what the problem is, and what's being done to address it at this point.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Right. So the issue is that... So a few years ago to the east on the opposite side of 154th Avenue
Southeast, there was...
Phil Olbrechts:
Can you put to that on the site plan maybe to show me where everything is or I don't know if you can do
that from the phone?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Let's see. This one would probably... I think this... So on the east side of 154th Avenue, [inaudible
00:23:02].
Phil Olbrechts:
I can see your cursor.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah. So yeah, this is 154th Avenue Southeast here. On the east side of it, there was a subdivision that
was completed a couple years ago and they did their half street improvements along the 154th, on
154th Avenue East. It looks like there... Bring up some... Jonathan, would you be able to get Exhibit 29
while I explain?
Jonathan:
Yeah, I can do that.
Mr. Van Gordon:
And share your screen on this? So I'm going to close my... Stop sharing my screen here while Jonathan...
Well, Jonathan's ready. So at the time that previous subdivision was going through the public process,
and let me know when you're ready, Jonathan, I'll stop sharing my screen.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 30
Jonathan:
I'm ready, but I... Yeah, go ahead. I'm ready.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. Okay. So for the previous subdivision across the street there, they did half street improvements
on the east side of 154th Avenue Southeast. The neighbors to the south were afraid of through-traffic
coming through as 154th Avenue Southeast. To the south there is unimproved within unincorporated
King County, it's unimproved, it's a dirt road within open stormwater ditch there along the side. So as
part of the... This was not a recommended condition of approvals, but at the hearing for that other
subdivision, which I apologize, I forget the name of it off the top of my head, the applicant in the city
were indicated that basically a [inaudible 00:25:01] can be worked out to block off traffic to prevent that
through-traffic, which is why along the [inaudible 00:25:07] now is that fencing there with the danger
striping posts there.
So to basically, as our recommended condition of approval, we've got it there to basically extend that
fencing across the paved area. The comments that were received from the public were related to a
more attractive option there with the post fencing, additionally, provide basically fencing along the
sidewalk area there that would kind of create shikane type of situation to try to prevent people from
driving around slow down bicyclists and still allow pedestrians to go through there because the concern
is that there will be that through-traffic using that unincorporated area.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So what is the staff recommended mitigation measure do again? It just extends that barricade all
the way across the paved portion? Is that what it does?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Then another question related to roads. The proposed interior road, 153rd Avenue
Southeast, are both ends of those planned to be... I mean, are they serving as stub roads on both ends?
Is there a right-of-way to connect to in the future on both ends or what's going on with that?
Mr. Van Gordon:
So directly south of the project is Unincorporated King County and to the north of it, there is a proposed
road to be running east west to the north there. So when the lots to the north redeveloped, they would
be able to connect there. Let me share, let me see if I can bring up core maps here just a minute to show
you here. Just a minute.
Phil Olbrechts:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 30
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
So yeah, there aren't spurs there currently, but it would be proposed in the future there.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, so there's right-of-way up there. Is that correct? You said east west right-of-way?
Mr. Van Gordon:
[inaudible 00:27:36] core map. So okay. Yeah, there is, come on. This is the first [inaudible 00:28:00]
would go for my first hearing here.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Welcome to Renton public hearings. Yeah.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Get it all out of the way in the beginning here.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. So the project area is located here. Let me bring up my... So we do have a potential extension. So
they're completing this extension of Southeast 5th Place here.
Phil Olbrechts:
Where's the project site on there again? Which is the project site?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Oh, I'm sorry. It's 13818, 152nd.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. We're your cursor... That one.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Here.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
[inaudible 00:28:34] here.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
So it's directly south of the project is Unincorporated King County.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Van Gordon:
So going south, we don't have a specific connection, but it would be reasonable in the future whenever
this area is incorporated that we would continue [inaudible 00:28:53].
Phil Olbrechts:
Is there a right-of-way down there? Is there north south right-of-way going down there? Do you know?
Would that just be part of a plat or something that was dedicated?
Mr. Van Gordon:
I'm not aware of north south of right-of-way to the top of it.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right.
Mr. Van Gordon:
I am being told that there is right-of-way though, but I'm not exactly sure where it is.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Okay.
Jonathan:
So that right-of-way to the south, the belongs to King County roadways. Then the event that we were to
annex this area in, that would become City of Renton right-of-way.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So there's right-of-way that stub road... So it is a stub road essentially that from the future would
connect. And the same with the north as well?
Jonathan:
Yeah.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And Mr. Chavez, you swear you in real quick, swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the
truth in this proceeding. And also your prior comments are sworn as well?
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 30
Jonathan:
Yeah, I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay, Mr. Van Gordon. Thanks. Let's see, had just some
other quick questions. Got to pull them up here. Just to confirm, there are no open space requirements,
specific open space requirements for [inaudible 00:30:05]? Okay. Then...
Mr. Van Gordon:
Correct [inaudible 00:30:07].
Phil Olbrechts:
Hmm?
Mr. Van Gordon:
I said correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. And then there was some drainage problems identified by Nori. I think as you mentioned,
the CEPA mitigation I think was designed to address that. Could you kind of explain how that's being
addressed by the... I think it was by improvements to the ditch or something and how that relates to the
problem addressed by Ms. Nori?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah, so I met with the neighbor to the south, I think July 29th, 2022, to discuss their concerns. There
was an event in 2018, February of 2018 where the area to the south of this project flooded quite a bit to
the point where a couple of the homes actually had basement flooding as well. Since then, to my
knowledge, that has not occurred again. Then also since then, we had the plat to the east, the
Meadowview plat, installed a retention pond to help with the drainage issues. The concern here,
although it's valid under the existing condition and the proposed condition, we feel confident that that
would not occur. Having said that, I think moving the ditch and straightening it out would help flow with
the water flow. Because right now, what happens is that there's an 18-inch outlet and the ditch kind of
does a serpentine movement, which slows down the water.
So having that ditch straightened out, shifting it further east, and/or if the applicant decides, they can
actually tight line the ditch, which means put an 18-inch pipe, close a ditch, that would help convey the
water from the north to the south much more effectively. So that's what the mitigation measure is for.
It's to address the concern that there may be a very small chance that this could flood. So the resident
was concerned and suggested that we look into that mitigation measure. So that's what we presented to
here at the hearing.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So Mr. Chavez, it essentially this, the mitigation measure is going to be an improvement over
current conditions, I take it then, right? Ultimately?
Jonathan:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 30
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right.
Jonathan:
Yeah, and it's in King County right-of-way. So it will require a King County right-of-way permit
application.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. Then I just need some kind of magic words from you, Mr. Chavez, just so I can put in the
report that Public Works has reviewed the street system and find is consistent with city street standards.
Can you say that was just done because it's just not made clear in the record?
Jonathan:
Yeah, no. Okay. It meets current street standards and the drainage system does as well.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Great. Thank you very much. All right.
Mr. Van Gordon:
[inaudible 00:33:06] real quick and say that the applicants, in their letter that we received this morning
also proposed revisions to the condition related to that downstream mitigation. We are not opposed to
those provisions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. I'll let the applicant address what those are. Mr. Van Gordon, there's a, and this is, I'm
one of those things I just kind of check all the boxes. I think that the city regulations discouraged piping
or tunneling of streams. I just want to make also clear on the record that's not happening with this
project. Is that correct?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Then finally, another city standard requires that the proposed streets be consistent with
any adopted street plans and trail plans. Are there any that apply to this project?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Not that I'm aware of. Jonathan, are there any?
Jonathan:
No.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, perfect. Okay, I think those are all my questions, so thanks for all your help on that. Let's
move on then to the applicants and Mr. Golden, is that you? Okay. Let me swear you in.
Mr. Golden:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Golden:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Is your last name spelled G-O-L-D-E-N?
Mr. Golden:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Then go ahead.
Mr. Golden:
Great. Thank you, Mr. Examiner and [inaudible 00:34:20] staff for your help on this project. By quick
introduction, I'm the Vice President for Land Development at Conner Homes. Conner Homes has been
building houses since 1959 in the region. We're proud to be one of the only locally-owned production
homeowners in the region left. We have, for decades, built homes in Renton. So we're proud of the
products we built, our customers are happy with the warranty services we provide. We're just [inaudible
00:34:49] group of people. We're happy to be back in Renton as well. That said, we always got to work
out the kinks on projects.
We have Kyle Carrick and Tim Crusso, who's our civil engineering team. They're here today if anybody's
got technical questions that I can't answer. Unfortunately, our [inaudible 00:35:12] attorney, Courtney
Flora, wasn't able to make the hearing today, so I'm going to have to pretend to be her and defer if
there's something over my head. As Andrew mentioned, Andrew Van Gordon, we did submit a letter
this morning concerning conditions one and six. Mr. Examiner, I look to you, but [inaudible 00:35:35] like
me to summarize what's in the letter now or at some point later during the proceeding?
Phil Olbrechts:
So one in six, this is deals with the, what was it? One was the tree retention, I think, and what was the
other one?
Mr. Golden:
Correct.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, and then the other one was the stormwater one.
Mr. Golden:
Condition one is the stormwater condition, six is about trees, correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Yeah, if you don't mind, just let me know what you have in mind for the revisions and
also on the legal issue, I mean, and Mr. Van Gordon seemed to make a pretty compelling point that your
attorney maybe wasn't relying on the vested regulations. I don't know if maybe you want me to leave
the record open to get some more input from her on that particular issue, or whether you're
comfortable addressing that today. I'll leave that up to you. How do you want to handle it?
Mr. Golden:
All right, well, why don't we go from six to one then?
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Golden:
[inaudible 00:36:27]. I would like you to leave the record open for her to provide guidance on the
regulations themselves, new or old code.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Golden:
[inaudible 00:36:37] staff can just update the group on when the tree code changed, so we have that
date in the record as it [inaudible 00:36:45] to [inaudible 00:36:47] application, but [inaudible 00:36:55].
The letter that we submitted discussed [inaudible 00:36:59]...
Phil Olbrechts:
No. Oh, Mr. Golden, you're not coming in too well either, unfortunately. Shoot, I mean, maybe you
should call in I think so we can hear you better. Jennifer, can...
Ms. Cisneros:
If Mr. Goldlen turns off his video, it may help if he wants to try that first and then...
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah.
Mr. Golden:
All right. Do I sound [inaudible 00:37:21]?
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes. I think you sound pretty good right now. All right.
Mr. Golden:
Okay. Great. Great. Okay. Well, you'll have to go without my [inaudible 00:37:29].
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, now we're losing again. I'm sorry. Yeah, we better I guess. Yeah, we better have you try to phone in.
I don't, yeah, I don't know what's going on today. It must be an internet issue I suppose. This doesn't
happen very often, but...
Ms. Cisneros:
Mr. Golden, I'll send you the phone number. I think it's in the Outlook invite, but I'll send it to your
email.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
So you have it.
Mr. Golden:
Great, thanks.
Phil Olbrechts:
We survived the entire pandemic and did just fine. Then afterwards, we had another hearing where it
was a little garbled and then this one, so yeah, it sounds like it's internet traffic issue, but I don't know.
Ms. Cisneros:
I've sent that over to you, Mr. Golden. Did you receive my email?
Mr. Van Gordon:
[inaudible 00:40:02] a little bit of depth on here. The new tree regulations, Mr. Examiner, went
ordinance date was [inaudible 00:40:13] August 8th, 2022.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
Mr. Golden, were you able to call in?
Mr. Golden:
No, I'm still working on it. Am I still... Can you hear me, Ms. Cisneros?
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 30
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Mr. Golden:
Yeah, I keep trying and it keeps cutting me off when I enter some of the meeting ID, so I enter six of the
numbers and it says that's wrong.
Ms. Cisneros:
Okay.
Mr. Golden:
So I'm still, let me try one more time.
Phil Olbrechts:
Shoot.
Ms. Cisneros:
Copied it from what I sent Andrew. So let me, if you want to verify the numbers that you have possibly?
Let's see here.
Mr. Golden:
All right. I just joined as an attendee, but I need you to unmute.
Ms. Cisneros:
Okay, yes, I see you. There you go.
Mr. Golden:
Great.
Ms. Cisneros:
You got some feedback [inaudible 00:43:48].
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, you'd probably want to get out of the video portion and just do through your phone.
Mr. Golden:
Okay. Okay. How's that? I'm getting an echo. Oh, not now. Okay. Sounds good. Can you hear me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Sounds good. Yeah, sounds good.
Mr. Golden:
All right.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 30
Ms. Cisneros:
Sounds good.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Mr. Golden:
All right. Thanks everybody. Sorry about that. So we were talking about conditions six or... Oh, we're
talking about condition, yeah, six for trees, correct. So yeah, we had a number of phone calls starting in
October.
Phil Olbrechts:
Actually, I don't, is it condition six? Because let me make sure I'm looking at the right... Oh, I'm looking at
the wrong, okay, hold on. Sorry, I got to pull up the right staff report. Where did that go? Okay, I'm on
board. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Golden:
All right. Sure. Starting in about October, we recognized the issue with the trees at the north end of lots
seven and 10 and then between lots five and six, we really made an effort, emails and phone calls with
staff. They were very responsive. In our November 1st [inaudible 00:44:57] submittal included an arbor
report indicating that trees between lots five and six, 97 through 101, would not survive building
construction. Then let's see. The issue. As we know that now, we had discussions with staff about the
viability of those trees were conflicting with house foundations and being significantly within the drip
line of those trees. That was the reason for the arborist conclusion that they wouldn't survive. That's in
that the middle from 11-1, and I can tell you exactly which exhibit it is. It's Exhibit six. Yes. Exhibit six.
Okay. We had also suggested putting the trees at the north end of lot seven in an easement as opposed
to a tract.
The reason for placing the trees 11 through 28 in an easement is because with the tract, you again have
another setback from the tract edge to the building impacting what kind of house you could place on lot
seven, understanding that we still need to discuss the code issue and would like to keep the record open
for that. With the trees between five and six, we know now that the houses are on lot six [inaudible
00:47:01] for certain is infeasible keeping the trees and lot five would be severely constrained based on
the drip line on those trees, which were in a difficult position with the condition as written, stating that
we would then have to bring [inaudible 00:47:18], study the tree root systems, make a
recommendation, and engineering plan review. This would mean we would have to close on the land at
a significant cost, pay for the engineering plan, preparation the submittal fees to the city, and then
obtain permission from the planning manager to have those trees, 97 through 101 removed at that
time, after considerable capital outlay.
So it becomes a threshold feasibility issue over, which I'm not sure we can... We can't... So the project
would not survive that level of risk. So that's the summary of what's in Courtney Flora's letter. Moving
on to condition one, we're fine with the mitigation. We do not object to either tight-lining or fixing the
ditch line as that portion of the condition is written. We had concerns about the permitting timeline.
The condition is written, asks that the work, the offsite storm line work be completed before the city
would issue a civil permit. We know that King County is particularly slow in processing permits and we
suggest... Well, we want to avoid having city plants approved and not even having a county permit in
hand. So we suggest that we do all the work by the time of plan approval. Based on the current storm
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 30
conditions, we don't think there'll be any impact to doing the work simultaneously with plat
construction. Those are my comments.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Yeah, and as you said, we can leave the record open to deal with the tree retention issues. I
mean, I think if you are locked into the old regulations, then there's no way around them. Maybe the
solution is a setback modification or something like that, but it sounds like some time to work that out
with staff would be helpful in this case. Then in terms of condition one, that's a CEPA mitigation
measure and the appeal period is expired on that. So I don't know if I really have any authority to modify
it at all. I think maybe staff would have to do that through a CEPA addendum and they may be willing to
do it.
I don't know if you've had discussions with them about that particular modification, but I think that one
might be out of my hands. But anyway, let's move on to public comments at this point. Ms. Cisneros,
let's see. I'll click on my attendee screen here. If any of you members of the public out there want to
comment at this point, go ahead and hit the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen. Ms. Cisneros, did
you have an instruction sheet you wanted to go over at this point as well?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, I want to let you go over that.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes. It shows how you can comment if you're on the phone, that if you are on the line, you can raise
your hand. There at the bottom of the page, it shows the button that you can push, be able to comment,
and I will unmute you. If you'd like to comment now, then go ahead and raise your hand.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. I see that...
Ms. Cisneros:
[inaudible 00:50:33] phone, there's a press star nine and dial star six for unmuting.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, well let's deal with the raised hands first. I see we have Catherine placed there and, Jennifer, if
you could unmute her, I'll swear her in. All right. Ms. Place, I'm not... Is your last name Place or is it
Washington? I'm kind of hard to tell what that is there.
Catherine Place:
It's place.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 30
Catherine Place:
I'm here with Marvin Bates. He wishes to speak.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. So that's Mr. Bates wishes to speak. Okay. Mr. Bates, raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Marvin Bettes:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. How do you spell your last name for the record again?
Marvin Bettes:
Bettes, actually, B-E-T-T-E-S.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. All right, go ahead then.
Marvin Bettes:
I have an issue which only affects me in this thing, and that's the... I sent the four or five pages, which
covers all the issues I was concerned about, but the one I want to talk about now is the rockery wall on
the south line of the property. It's going to be 140 feet long and six feet high, and it's going to be right
smack on the property line. So I'm wondering how do I deal with that? Because the people who are
going to own that lot once the houses are sold hasn't got any ability to maintain that wall at all. So it
looks like to me that because there's no setback or anything, I'm forced to maintain the wall and I'm
worried that that wall might affect my ability to build a shop or something in there as far as offsets go
and stuff like that. I'm not sure that I care one way or the other because I'm just saying for now, I don't
know what all the implications are of that wall.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Marvin Bettes:
I read that it was going to be eight-and-a-half feet high at one point, and then it was, it's now going to be
six feet high, but when you got a six-foot high rock wall and then a six-foot high fence on top of the rock
wall, you got a 12-foot barricade there, which is not particularly neighborhood-friendly. You know what I
mean? There just doesn't leave many options. I mean, can I build right up to it? If they can build up to
the zero lot line with that wall, can I build up to the zero lot line with my building?
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Do you want Mr. Van Gordon to answer that now or did you have other comments you
wanted to make?
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 22 of 30
Marvin Bettes:
That's the one that affects just me personally.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Van Gordon, maybe if you could identify whether that'll affect Mr. Bettes'
development rights, if it's going to affect his setbacks and also address what the specifics are of this rock
wall right now, whether it is six feet with a six-foot fence and how that was permitted under city
regulations.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Sure. Yeah. So a six-foot tall retaining wall is permitted within the side yard setback. So they would be
meeting side yard setback that a six-foot foot [inaudible 00:54:06] retaining wall. They would not be
permitted to then put a six-foot fence on top of that because then that would then be a 12-foot tall and
that wouldn't meet [inaudible 00:54:16] requirements. So they would have to set the fence back to
meet setbacks. With regards placing on Mr. Bettes' property, his property is within the Unincorporated
King County, so I don't know what their setback requirements are. If this was in the City of Renton,
depending on what he's proposing to place on his property, would have to meet whatever the zoning at
the time would setback would permit. So for example, he wanted to put, if he wanted to put a six-foot
tall fence or retaining wall along his property line, the code would allow that. But just a note, his
property's within Unincorporated King County, so I can't speak specifically. [inaudible 00:55:04].
Phil Olbrechts:
But under city regulations, I mean, the fact that someone builds a retaining wall doesn't affect the
setback requirements of the adjoining lot, is that correct?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Now, so a six-foot retaining wall is allowed there. Would a six-foot fence be allowed there if there
wasn't a retaining wall placed there?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. What's the setback for the additional fence now that they are having the retaining wall there?
How far back does the fence have to be placed?
Mr. Van Gordon:
That would end up being, just a minute here. So that would have a [inaudible 00:55:43] along the rear
there. So they would've a rear of setback at 25 feet.
Phil Olbrechts:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 23 of 30
Five feet? Okay. All right. Okay, so they can have the six-foot retaining wall, then they go back five feet
and they can have a six-foot fence. That's how it would be laid out?
Mr. Van Gordon:
25 feet, sorry.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, 25 feet. Really? Really, for a fence?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah. The property was, it would be rear yard, excuse me, I misspoke. It'd be a rear yard setback. They
would be allowed to have that retaining wall there. Then the fence would've to then be set back 25 feet,
[inaudible 00:56:12] feet, excuse me.
Phil Olbrechts:
22 feet. Oh, okay. All right. Mr. Bettes, did that answer your question?
Marvin Bettes:
Yeah, it's just not a very good answer.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Marvin Bettes:
If they've got 30-foot set back now and they got to set back another 25 feet to get a fence in there, then
most of their backyard where the kids are going to be playing is going to have no fence at all and a six-
foot drop at the end. So I don't know. That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, understood.
Marvin Bettes:
I mean, I'd rather have the 12-foot high thing and have the balls with the kids and the lawnmowers and
everything like that [inaudible 00:56:54] what they have to do on their side of the fence.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, yeah, understood. I'll check out the regs too. That does seem pretty unusual that it would be set
up that way, but because oftentimes it would just be six feet beyond the retaining wall or something.
But yeah, I'll check it out too.
Marvin Bettes:
My other specific concern here is that those rock walls need maintenance. Who maintains it?
Phil Olbrechts:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 24 of 30
Yeah.
Marvin Bettes:
There's no setback. They have to maintain it for my property. So I'm basically providing property so that
they can maintain their fence. If anything goes wrong with that thing and they do, then they've got to
put big equipment in, and the only way they're going to get it in is through my property.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, and...
Marvin Bettes:
That's a bad idea.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Mr. Van Gordon is there, do you have any comment on that issue?
Mr. Van Gordon:
At this time, I don't. I'm just trying to, sorry, I'm just clarify my previous comments regarding the...
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, because my understanding is normally you have your setbacks, but a fence can normally be placed
within the setback, and it would be a special regulation applicable to combination of fence and retaining
walls where, like I said, usually the separation is like six feet or something, but I don't know if your code
has that, but that's my experience with other codes.
Mr. Van Gordon:
Okay. I apologize, I've got my... I apologize. Okay, so the retaining wall is six feet tall. It can be placed
within the setback, so be the retaining wall would be on the rear setback of lot 11 and 12. Mr. Bettes is
on the south side of there, so that six-foot retaining wall can be placed along the rear there. Then a six-
foot fence can be placed, a minimum setback, a minimum of two feet from the retaining wall.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. That makes a little more sense.
Mr. Van Gordon:
The fence would not be directly on top of it. It would be set back a little bit.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Yeah, that's what I kind of guessed, right. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, so let's see.
Do we have anyone else here who wants to say anything? Don't see? Oh, I see there's a raised hand
from somebody. Oh, there it is. There we go. Scott Christensen looks like. Okay. Mr. Christensen, are you
there?
Scott Christensen:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 25 of 30
Yes, I am. Can you hear me okay?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Is your last name spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-E-N, is that correct?
Scott Christensen:
Yes, it is. Okay. Let me swear you in real quick, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Scott Christensen:
Thank you. So I live directly south of Marvin on the same side of the street. The question I have concerns
the storm water, and it appears that the discharge from the pond travels across the existing roadway
there at 154th to the east side of the road, and then it's proposed to go down the east side of the road.
I'm just wondering when we would be able to see either engineering drawings or some kind of an idea
of what is proposed to be done on that side of the street. Because the issue also is that where our road,
and again, this is a King County right-of-way, it is unmaintained by the county, meaning that the
residents maintain this road. Marvin does a lot of that and we pay for our own gravel and all this
because this was set up many, many years ago by the county. Somehow they, I guess, feel like our taxes
are not high enough to maintain this road, but at any rate, the road has a low point in it to the south
before it connects into the existing asphalt road, which I think is 142nd.
That is where some of the flooding that you all have been talking about occurs. There is currently a
culvert under the road, barely under the road at that point. So if this larger line is put in going down
there, the extension, I think somebody said that potentially 16- or 14-inch, can't remember what the
number was, 16-inch. That existing culvert that goes under, I think is a 12-inch culvert. So I don't even
know if a 16-inch culvert would fit underneath the road down there. At any rate, I would just asking the
question when we would know or when we would be able to see what kind of improvements are going
to be proposed for that system and getting that water down to a point where it has access to move
further away, which is basically 142nd.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, and I see Mr. Chavez has unmuted himself, so he's ready to answer and the status of the
construction drawings, when they'll be out if they haven't been out already. Also, I'm just curious, I
mean how you're going to consider that low point that Mr. Christensen is talking about.
Jonathan:
So the engineering drawings would come in at the civil permit application stage. So theoretically after
hearing approval and the 14-day appeal period, if the consulting firm is ready to submit drawings, they
can submit 14 days from the end of the 14-day appeal period. That's the soonest we can have
engineered drawings if they have them available or it's up to the applicant.
Phil Olbrechts:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 26 of 30
Do you know, Mr. Chavez, are those drawings then posted at the website, the Laserfiche there that the
public can access or how would Mr. Christensen get ahold of those or how should he try to get ahold of
them?
Jonathan:
Yeah, so normally, we don't. During the review process, we don't post the drawings on our website.
They only get posted once they've been approved. So if he would want a copy, he can reach out to me
and I can send him a copy.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thanks.
Jonathan:
[inaudible 01:03:04] submittal drawings. That way he can have an opportunity to make comments if he
would like. So yeah, that's how that would be.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Jonathan:
With respect to the low point, so it's an 18-inch culvert, that's the outfall to the ditch, and so the idea is
this project would take that point and then rehabilitate south, I think two properties south. So that,
again, up to the applicant's engineer, how they want to propose that mitigation, whether it be a
relocation of the ditch, straightening it out, changing the capacity, the volume of the ditch, or tight-
lining, whether that be another 18-inch pipe connecting off of that or whatever the capacity calculations
that they come up with show is what we would review.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So the capacity of that area of discharge is going to be with the scope of review that you're going
to be looking at, and the applicant has to show through engineering calculations that it'll be sufficient
for the 100-year storm events, that kind of thing? Is that...
Jonathan:
Yep. Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Thanks Mr. Chavez. Okay. Let's see. Anybody else? No, no, I
don't see any more takers. Now, if any of you have been trying to connect and for some reason have
been unable to, I know Ms. Cisneros has a phone number and an email address that you can use to
contact her. Go ahead and give her a call right now if you want to say something and you're not able to.
That's 425-430-6583 or a shoot her an email. I'll also leave the record open until 5:00 PM tomorrow in
case you were unable to connect today due to technical reasons, identify what your technical problem
was, the internet wasn't working, or something like that, and then go ahead and write up your
comments, and then I'll give staff and the applicant a chance to respond to those. Just make sure they
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 27 of 30
get in there by 5:00 tomorrow. Okay, so not hearing any takers then for additional comments, I'll go
back to Mr. Van Gordon. Any rebuttal comments or concluding comments at this point?
Mr. Van Gordon:
Yeah, so [inaudible 01:05:17] Mr. Bettes comment about the retaining wall would need to be built at
least a foot off... [inaudible 01:05:24] would need to be built at least a foot off of the property line so
that there is room for the property owner for maintenance of that wall. With regards to the arborist
report, I want to share my screen again real quickly here. So we did receive the a arborist report that
Mr. Golden is referring to. The report... We didn't see where the report says that trees 97 through 101
have to be removed. It does identify that building within the drip lines is not recommended. It does
provide some caution about removal of trees within the grove, but then it also provides root pruning
recommendations for how to remove roots up to certain sizes, how to excavate around them.
Also, some mitigation measures related to growing conditions of the tree. So it's a pretty short little
addendum letter there on the arborist report, but it provides general methods that can be used to
retain those trees. So we didn't see anywhere in there that says the trees 97 through 101 have to be
removed. Those trees may conflict with the applicants' preferred housing designs, but there's still
definitely the still buildable area on the lot. So that's why we're asking for the arborist reports to do
those additional reconnaissance and provide those additional measures so that we can have that
additional information to make a determination about whether the lot is reasonably buildable and
maintaining those trees.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. What about the applicant's request to modify the CEPA mitigation measure? Like I said, I
don't think I really have any authority to change the wording of that, but I mean, I suspect staff has a
kind of process where they sometimes modify CEPA mitigation measures and I would guess that would
be done through an addendum. But how, I mean is staff opening to revising that and how would they do
that?
Matt Herrera:
Yeah, Mr. Examiner.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Oh, sorry. Mr. Herrera?
Matt Herrera:
Mr. Examiner, Matt Herrera, current planning manager.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Matt Herrera:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 28 of 30
Matt Herrera:
Thank you. Mr. Examiner. Again, Matt Herrera, City of Renton current planning manager. Yes. Altering a
SEPA mitigation measure that is no longer timely with regard to appeal or reconsideration, we can do
that with an addendum and in conversations that we've had this morning after we received the email
from the applicant's counsel, we would be amenable to considering that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right.
Matt Herrera:
SEPA addendum would be the avenue.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. That's what I thought. Yeah, so I'll leave that for you guys to work out then, you and staff
and the applicant. So, all right. Mr. Van Gordon, anything else? Mr. Van Gordon, you're muted for some
reason again.
Matt Herrera:
Mr. Examiner, if I may just close, just because we're having some problems with Mr. Van Gordon's
connection, if I could just quick little rebuttal here. Regarding the trees and the applicant's submittal, I
know that we had planned on leaving the record open so applicant's counsel can respond to the
updated code sections or I guess really the previous code, but I just wanted to say that city staff really
was compromising with this condition with regard to the previous code. The previous code really said
priority one trees are required, that's required to stay with 30% retention. What we saw in reviewing
this plat was the ability to save more trees. So we compromised with the applicant with the ability to
save priority two trees along the northern portion of the parcel there, and then attempt to save that
grove of significant priority one trees.
We mentioned to the applicant that we would be flexible with regard to or consider being flexible with
regard to setbacks to do what we can to save those trees. However, if it sounds like the applicant is
looking for some kind of certainty with regard to how we implement the tree regulations, and I think if
certainty is what the applicant is requesting, then potentially we need to go back and look at those
priority one trees for retention, which would be lots five and six.
Phil Olbrechts:
Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Herrera. Yeah, so yeah, that sounds like a difficult issue and like I
said, probably, yeah, best leave the record open and see what they want to do there to negotiate
further or leave it as is. Yeah, so leave it at that. Mr. Golden, any final comments?
Mr. Golden:
No.
Phil Olbrechts:
No?
Mr. Golden:
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 29 of 30
Can you hear me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yep, now I can hear you. Yeah.
Mr. Golden:
Okay, great. Well thanks everybody. Thank you, Mr. Examiner and staff. I better cut those. So sorry.
Hopefully it goes away. We'll do it like this. The arborist report, just to clarify, that went in on November
1st, it may not have been written the in the clearest manner, but it does state that trees one through 28
can be retained and that the rest of the trees on site would conflict the building footprints and would
not survive. So that's in the second paragraph of that memo. That said, yes, certainty is the biggest
issue. If there's a potential to having further arborist study of those root systems presently and getting
certainty in that matter rather than waiting until posing the property and preparing civil plans, maybe
that's a route to satisfying those.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And Mr. Herrera, how much time do you think you'll need or Mr. Golden, sorry, how much time
do you think you'll need to work this out with staff?
Mr. Golden:
I don't know if I can answer that question. We'll start with staff [inaudible 01:12:25].
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, well, how about I leave the record open until, I don't know, next Tuesday maybe, and then if you
need additional time, just request it by email. I suspect, it sounds like maybe you need to come up with
you want more certainty or something that you come up with some language and see if staff likes it or
not and start off that way. I'll let you guys figure out how to do that.
Mr. Golden:
Mr. Examiner?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah?
Mr. Golden:
If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make sure...
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh sure. No, I understand.
Mr. Golden:
... we're [inaudible 01:12:51] the record that we're just requesting time to respond to the applicant's
counsel's written documents.
Maple Highlands (Completed 01/18/23)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 30 of 30
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. So maybe, Mr. Golden, get your written comments at it's a staff by this Friday, and then give
staff until next Wednesday to respond. How's that? Then, like I said, if it turns out you need more time,
we can always extend it. Is that a good starting point? Then I'll just say for anyone else who's listening
out there who wants to get a copy of that, if you want to be part of that email chain, go ahead and email
Ms. Cisneros there and I'll let her flash her email address and then you'll be included in all that
correspondence so that anyone who has an interest in the tree issue will have an opportunity to see
what's going on. Then if you want to provide a written response yourself, if you're a member of the
public to what's going on with the trees, just go ahead and email Ms. Cisneros as well and I'll set up a
time that you can provide a response and give a chance for staff and applicant to reply to that.
So any questions from anybody about what's going on at this point so that in sum, I'm going to give the
applicant, Mr. Goldman, and his counsel until this Friday to email some proposed solution to staff and
then give staff until the Wednesday after to provide a response. Hopefully, you guys can just get
together and mutually agree on something. If you don't and you need more time, just let me know and
I'll extend that out. Again, if any members of the public want to be privy to all these communications, let
Ms. Cisneros know and we'll include you in all those emails too. So any questions and concerns at this
point? Okay, then. Well, I appreciate all your comments and concerns and, of course, I'll take them real
seriously. I'm going to have the hearing transcribed so that ensures that I address everything that
everyone had an issue with, and we'll get that decision then out two weeks essentially after the whole
tree issue is resolved. So thanks for your participation today, and we're adjourned for now. See you next
time. Bye-bye.
Mr. Golden:
Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right.