Decision Preliminary Plat -- Summit at Steel LakePhil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Summit at Steel Lake
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
21-102770-SU and 21-102841-SE LAW AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant seeks preliminary plat approval of a 24-lot subdivision of a 5.94-acre parcel located at the
intersection of S 304th St and llth Avenue South. The application is approved subject to conditions.
Condition No. 6, regarding boundary line encroachments, has been revised as recommended by staff at
hearing for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 6 below.
ORAL TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript has been prepared for the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
The December 5, 2022 staff report along with its Exhibits A-U were admitted into evidence during the
December 1.2, 2022 public hearing as Exhibit 1. A memo dated December 12, 2022 from Natalie
Kamieniecki to the Examiner was admitted as Exhibit 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Copper Ridge LLC, Atten: Evan Mann, PO Box 73790, Puyallup, WA 98373.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on December 1.2, 2022.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant seeks preliminary plat approval of a 24-lot
subdivision of a 5.94-acre parcel located at the intersection of S 304th St and llth Avenue South. The
minimum proposed lot size is 7,200 square feet.
Preliminary Plat
P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project is surrounded on all sides by single-family residential
development.
5. Adverse lmpacts. No significant adverse impacts are associated with the proposal. A
determination of non -significance under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act was issued on
September 16, 2022 and that determination has not been appealed. Pertinent impacts are more
specifically addressed as follows:
• Critical Areas. Staff have determined that the project site does not contain mapped critical
areas. The applicant submitted a critical areas report titled, 304th Street Property Critical
Areas Report, prepared by EnviroVector, dated September 27, 2021 verifying the absence of
critical areas (Exhibit F).
• Tree and Vegetation Removal. The applicants submitted a tree and vegetation retention plan
pursuant to FWRC 19.120.020. The applicant is required to retain or plant 25 tree units per
acre in accordance with FWRC 19.120.130. Trees located within any proposed public or
private streets are not included in the gross site acreage. As such, the applicant is required to
maintain 117.75 tree units (4.71 net acres x 25 tree unit) for this site. According to the
Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by Core Design, LLC., dated received February 2, 2021
(Exhibit B, pg. 11) a total of 3 tree units will be retained onsite and 115 tree credits will be
planted to satisfy this criterion. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to clearing and
grading activities. Final landscape plan to be submitted concurrent with engineering review.
• Aesthetics. The City's landscaping and buffering requirements address the aesthetics impacts
of preliminary plat applications. No landscape buffer is required for this project. FWRC
18.60.030 requires landscape buffering along arterials. Since the proposal doesn't adjoin an
arterial no landscape buffer is required.
• Cultural Resources. No cultural resources at the project location have been indicated to be at
or near the site through review of the DAHP WIIZARD mapping system. No studies have
been requested from environmental review through agency notification. If ground disturbing
or other construction activities result in the inadvertent discovery of buried archaeology, the
development work should cease, and immediate contact should be made with the appropriate
Tribal contacts, as well as the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
• Tacoma Smelter Plume. The former Asarco copper smelter in. Tacoma caused widespread
soil contamination with lead and arsenic in parts of King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Thurston
counties. This 1,000 square mile area is known as the Tacoma Smelter Plume. The state
cleanup level for arsenic is 20 parts per million (ppm). According to the Department of
Ecology map checked in 2022, the subject property is located in the Tacoma Smelter Plume
detect area containing under 20 ppm arsenic; therefore, testing of site soils and cleanup is not
applicable.
Preliminary Plat
p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. As mitigated by the conditions of approval,
adequate and appropriate infrastructure will serve development as follows:
• Drainage: The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities.
Storm drainage facilities are being designed in accordance with the 2021 King County
Surface Water Design Manual and city amendments. The Applicant's Technical Information
Report (TIR) (Exhibit G) was reviewed by the city's Public Works Department and found to
be consistent with these standards for the purposes of preliminary plat review. Ultimately,
conformance to the City's stormwater standards assures no adverse drainage impacts to
surrounding properties, since the standards require that off -site drainage be limited to the
volumes and velocities of pre -developed, forested conditions.
Stormwater from the project site will be directed into a detention pond that will discharge
into an existing conveyance system on 101h Avenue South that in turn discharges into an
unnamed creek, which is the natural discharge point for the project area. Due to the site
being located within the Basic Enhanced Water Quality treatment area as shown in the
Federal Way Addendum Water Quality Applications Map, the project will provide an
ecology approved technology to treat stormwater that meets, at a minimum, Enhanced Basic
Water Quality Area standards.
A Surface and Stormwater Utility System Development Charge is required. The charge is a
one-time fee that will be paid at the time of development and is intended to recover a share
of the cost of the system capacity needed to serve growth.
Transportation: The proposal will be served by adequate, appropriate and safe
transportation infrastructure.
The city's Traffic Division has issued an approved Capacity Reserve Certificate dated March
24, 2022 (Exhibit U). The certificate constitutes a finding that the trips generated by the
proposal, which are 24 new peak hour trips, meets the City's congestion standards.
To pay for its proportionate share impacts to the City's transportation network, the Applicant
is required to pay transportation impact fees. The fees will be calculated based on the fee
rate in effect at the time a complete building permit application is submitted and must be
paid prior to building permit issuance.
City staff have found that, with required dedications, the proposed preliminary street design
meets City design standards. The site gains access from S 304th Street along the south
property line. South 304th Street is a minor collector and planned as a Type "R" street. This
roadway consists of a 40-foot street with curb and gutter, 5-foot planter with street trees, 6-
foot sidewalks and street lights within a 66-foot right-of-way. Half of the required
improvements and 33-feet of right-of-way dedication are required to be constructed along
the development frontage of S 304th Street. The existing speed hump on S 304th Street west
of the site is to be converted to a raised crosswalk and a rapid flashing beacon may need to
be installed as part of this development.
Preliminary Plat
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
Newly created lots will access from a new type "W" internal roadway with cul-de-sac
extending in a northerly direction into the development from S 304th Street. The new
internal roadway will be constructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape planting strip.
Lots 12, 13, 1.4, and 15 will access from private tract "C" extending the cul—de-sac end. Lots
20, 21 and 22 will access from private tract "B" located at approximately the mid -point of
the new internal roadway.
• Open Space: The proposed plat provides for appropriate open space as it complies with the
City's open space standards. To provide adequate recreational opportunities commensurate
with new residential development, FWRC Chapter 18.55, "Design Criteria," requires
dedication of land on site for open space, or a fee in lieu payment. The applicant has
requested that the open space requirement be fulfilled through the fee -in -lieu option (Exhibit
H). The fee -in -lieu open space payment will be 15 percent of the most recent assessed value
of the property and due at time of final plat approval. The applicant must provide a voluntary
agreement letter authorizing the city to use the open space fee -in -lieu in any of the Parks
Planning Areas within the city per FWRC 18.55.060(2).
• Water and Sewer: The proposal provides for appropriate and adequate water and sewer.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Lakehaven Water & Sewer District and are
adequate to serve the proposed development. It is the applicant's responsibility to secure all
necessary water and sewer services from the utility provider. Certificates of sewer and water
availability from Lakehaven have been submitted by the Applicant establishing adequate
capacity to serve the proposal. See Ex. I and J.
• Schools. Nautilius Elementary, Sacajawea Middle School, and Federal Way High School
will serve the proposed subdivision. The applicant provided a school access analysis with the
preliminary plat application (Exhibit E). All elementary school students from this
development will receive bus transportation to and from school, as Nautilus Elementary
school is over one mile from the subject site. Students attending Federal Way High School
and Sacajawea Middle School are candidates for walking to school. Students will be able to
walk or bike to along an identified route within the Federal Way Public School Suggested
Safe Walking Route. The proposed development will provide for additional safe waking
conditions including sidewalks required through half street improvements along S 304th
Street and new raised sidewalk in place of existing speed hump. Federal Way School District
did not provide comment regarding the proposal.
School impact fees, as authorized by city ordinance, provide mitigation for the students of
this development. School impact fees are based on the district's Capital Facilities Plan and
are subject to annual adjustment and update and are due at the time of the building permit
issuance for the new dwelling units.
• Police and Fire Protection — South King Fire and Rescue and the Federal Way Police
Department currently provide services to the site. Proposed access and fire hydrant locations
must meet all requirements of South King Fire & Rescue. Final internal hydrant locations
will be determined during engineering and site development review.
Preliminary Plat
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: Chapter 18.35.010 FWRC authorizes the Examiner to conduct a
hearing and make a final decision on preliminary plat applications.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation: Single -Family Residential, RS7.2.
3. Review Criteria and Application. FWRC 18.35.170(3) governs the review criteria for preliminary
plat applications. Applicable permit review criteria for preliminary plat review are quoted in italics
below and applied to the application under corresponding Conclusions of Law.
Substantive:
FWCC 18.35170(3): Decisional Criteria. A Hearing Examiner shall use the following criteria in
reviewing the preliminary plat and may recommend approval of the plat to the City Council if
(a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
3. The criterion is met. The application is subject to the adopted Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP), which designates the property as Single Family, High Density. The proposed land use, Single -
Family Residential, with 7,200 square -foot minimum lot size is consistent with density allowances and
policies applicable to this land use as established in the comprehensive plan. As proposed, the project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
FWCC 18.35.170(3)(b): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the title, including those
adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan:
4. The criterion is met. City planning and engineering staff have reviewed the preliminary proposal
and found its preliminary design to conform with applicable requirements of Title 1.8 if their
recommended conditions are implemented, which have been adopted by this Decision. More detailed
review will occur for final plat and building permit approval. Development of the site in accordance
with these requirements and the recommended conditions of approval will ensure compliance with all
applicable codes, policies, and regulations.
FWCC (18.35.170(3)(c): It is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare.
Preliminary Plat
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
5. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for in -fill development as encouraged by the Growth
Management Act while also creating no significant adverse impacts and being fully served by adequate
and appropriate infrastructure as determined in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Under these circumstances the
proposal is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
FWCC 18.35.170(3) (d): It is consistent with the criteria listed in FWRC 18.05.020; and
6. The criterion is met. FWRC 18.05.020, the purpose clause for the City's subdivision
regulations, identifies ten purposes, including establishing appropriate infrastructure, protecting
environmentally sensitive areas and promoting public health, safety and welfare. All of these objectives
are met for the reasons identified in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6 and also due to the proposal's
compliance with all applicable development standards as determined by City staff. In addition, to make
the findings required by RCW 58.1.7.110, which is in line with the objectives of FWRC 18.05.020, the
proposal is specifically found to make appropriate provision for public health, safety, and general
welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable
water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and safe
walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school and to be in the public interest for the
reasons identified in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6.
At hearing, staff and Applicant disagreed over the wording of staff recommended condition No. 6.
Condition No. 6 requires that all encroachments be resolved prior to final plat approval. Staff and
applicant disagree over a requirement in Condition No. 6 that prohibits resolution of the encroachments
with use of tracts. The Applicant asserts that they should have this option available. Staff believes that
such tracts create problems because they could fall into litigation later on.
The staff recommendation for Condition No. 6 is adopted by this Decision. Tracts will be prohibited by
Condition No. 6 as a resolution of potential encroachments. There are several reasons for this
conclusion, all found necessary to assure that the proposal is consistent with public welfare and
appropriate provision is made for open space. As noted by staff, use of tracts simply defers
encroachment issue and can lead to litigation down the road. The tracts would also have to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association, which may not have significant incentive to take on this
responsibility, leading to costly enforcement actions by the City at taxpayer expense.
The tracts also make preliminary plat approval vulnerable to invalidation. As noted in an older case, a
preliminary plat application requires the signature of all owners of property subject to the proposed
subdivision. Failure to include the signatures of persons who have a valid claim to portions of the plat
can result in invalidation of preliminary plat approval. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457
(1985)( A person who acquired title to land by adverse possession has an "ownership interest" in the land
for purposes of RCW 58.17.165, which requires a certificate of dedication to be signed by all parties
having any "ownership interest" in the land subdivided.). Of particular significance in Halverson was an
argument made by the City and applicant that the encroachment at issue was nominal and the court could
have just excised it without affecting the rest of the plat. This argument is similar to that made by Mr.
Mann at hearing, who noted that the encroachment tracts could be excised without affecting the validity
of the plat. The Halverson court disagreed with this strategy, finding that only the City itself had the
authority to amend plats. 41 Wn. App. At 460-61.
Preliminary Plat
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
FWCC 18.35.170(3) (e): It is consistent with the development standards listed in Chapter 18.55 FWRC,
and FWRC 18.60.030 through 18.60.120.
7. The criterion is met. The City's planning and engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary
proposal and found it to comply with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations if the conditions
adopted by this Decision are implemented. The primary focus of these development standards is
adequate and appropriate provision of infrastructure, which as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6 has been
met for the proposal. These regulations also focus upon compliance with zoning code standards that
address lot size, density and open space. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6, the project complies with
City open space standards. The proposed 7,200 square foot minimum lot size meets the 7,200 square
foot minimum lot size imposed by FWRC 19.200.010. City staff have found conformance with all
applicable zoning code standards as pertinent to preliminary plat review and these findings are consistent
with the information provided in the record.
DECISION
The preliminary plat as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 3 and depicted in Ex. B are approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording, the applicant shall provide the city's Parks Department a fee -in -lieu payment for
open space in the amount of 15 percent of the most recent assessed land value of the subject
property, and provide a voluntary letter authorizing the city to use the open space fee -in -lieu in any
of the Parks Planning Areas of the city per FWRC 18.55.060(2).
2. The applicant is required to pay a transportation impact fee (TIF) for each lot. The fee will be
assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule
then in effect.
3. The applicant is required to pay a school impact fee for each lot. The school impact fee is due at the
time of the building permit issuance for the new dwelling units. This fee amount is subject to change
as determined annually by the Federal Way School District and the City of Federal Way.
4. This preliminary plat approval does not constitute a building permit or authorize clearing/grading
activities.
5. All pervious surfacing shall have a minimum of 8-inches of amended soil, in accordance with
KCSWDM Reference 11-c.
6. Prior to final plat approval all encroachments shall be resolved. Tracts shall not be accepted to
resolve encroachments.
DATED this 16th day of December 2022.
Preliminary Plat
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
Hearing Examiner for Federal Way
RIGHT OF APPEAL
This decision may be appealed to superior court within 21 days of issuance as governed by the Land Use
Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
CHANGE IN VALUATION
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may
request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Preliminary Plat
p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Final Decision
Appendix A
Summit at Steel Lake Preliminary Plat
Federal Way Files: 21-102770-SU and 21-102841-SE
Summary of December 12, 2022 Hearing Testimony
Note: This is a computer -generated transcript of the hearing. No assurances are made as to accuracy.
The transcript is just provided as a courtesy to those who want a detailed depiction of what was
discussed at the hearing. For a fully accurate rendition of what was said, a recording of the hearing is
available from the City Clerk's Office.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
The hearing format will consist of first, staff giving us an overview of the project and what it's about.
They're also here to answer any questions you might have. And once staff is done, we'll allow the
applicant to make some comments in favor of their project. And once we get all that out of the way,
then we'll allow the public to come up, and if you have any concerns or want to be heard on the project,
that'll be your opportunity to speak. You just need to go to the podium over there, state your name,
state how to spell it, so we get that right for the transcripts and let me know what your concerns are and
they'll be duly noted. So after public comments, then we'll move back to staff rebuttal and that's a
chance for staff to answer any questions you had and provide any additional evidence they think is
necessary to complete the record.
And then the application gets final word and I get 10 business days to issue a final decision. So now by
state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put into the record today. That way you all know
exactly what information is being considered. I don't get to talk to staff or the applicant or anyone else
about this project in advance. I pretty much know if you've seen the staff report, you have as much
information as I do at this point. And the staff report identifies several reports that staff wanted me to
review in consideration of this hearing. And you could take a look on the first page of the staff report, or
excuse me, let's see. Actually I think it's the last page of the staff report. There we go. Yeah, the staff
report has a bunch of exhibits A through U that are composed of the plan set and the reports, school
access analysis, critical area, those are the wetlands, that kind of stuff.
Drainage reports and open space analysis, environmental review, that kind of thing. There's a lot of work
that goes into these projects to make sure all the impacts are adequately addressed. Does anyone need
to see the staff report or any of its attachments or does anyone have any objections to its entry in the
record? All right, hearing none then I'll admit the staff report as exhibit one with its attachments A
through U. So, who's going to be doing the staff report today? All right. And I'm never quite sure how to
spell your last name. Is that Kamieniecki or...
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Kamieniecki.
Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Pretty close. Let me swear you in. Ms. Kamieniecki, do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 1 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Good afternoon everyone. For the record, my name is Natalie Kamieniecki
and I'm an associate planner with the city of Federal Way. And I did the review of the summit at Steel
Lake Preliminary Plat. As noted in this first slide, which is the hearing examiner 22001 case for this year.
The proposal is for a subdivision, it's approximately a parcel size of 5.94 acres, and the resulting proposal
would generate 24 single family residential lots, and also associated improvements for street access,
frontage improvements, storm drainage, utility and landscaping. As we can see from this vicinity map,
it's located just west of Pacific Highway and just east of Dash Point Road. Another quick parcel look, you
can see the site is surrounded by other single family dwellings and neighborhoods, which would be
consistent with the proposed 24 lot preliminary plat. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet and the
project is located within the RS 7.2 zone.
The site is currently on add rest, but it is located along South 304th Street, basically at the intersection
of 11th Avenue South, which runs down to the south. Some dates of interest include the preliminary
plat application date was filed July 22nd, 2021. The application was determined complete October 18th
of 21. The notice of application was published October 22nd of 2021. The city issued this SEPA
determination of non significance on September 16th of 2022. And a notice of the public hearing was
published on November 25th of 2022. During the initial land use comment period, there were no
comments received. The city did receive one comment from the Department of Ecology during the SEPA
comment period. There were no appeals or changes to the SEPA DNS file. So in general, the site is
rectangular in shape and again it's just shy of six acres, located at the north intersection of South 304th
and 11th Avenue South.
Access to the lots will be via individual driveways from a new internal access roadway, with a few of the
lots accessing private tracks that spur off to the west on the roadway. The lots that are created out of
this subdivision are also generally rectangular in shape and are of sufficient size to accommodate zoning
development standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, off street parking, et cetera. There are no
geologically hazardous areas mapped or found on site. There's no critical fish and wildlife habitat
mapped or located on site and no wetlands were determined to be present on the property.
There's an existing fire hydrant located at the corner of 11th Avenue South. An additional fire hydrants
would be located within the new internal roadway as determined at the engineering review state. Some
of the lots will likely require sprinkling due to lack of turnaround, specifically the ones that access the
tracks and that and any other spring clearing requirement would be determined at the time of building
permit.
The open space requirement, the applicants proposed to fulfill that with the fee in lieu option, which is a
payment of 15% of the most recently assessed land value provided to the parks department prior to
final clap. Lake Haven Water and Sewer District indicate that there is capacity and availability to serve
the site through the developer extension agreement, and police services and fire services are available
to respond to the site. The application was required to go through traffic and currency, and the
concurrency certificate was issued March 24th of 2022 and this project would propose would add 24
new PM work trips in accordance with the capacity reserve certificate. Access and street frontage
improvements are required along 304th. 304th is a minor collector and type R street. This would be a 40
foot street right of way, curb, gutter sidewalk, planter strip and trees. At this property there would be
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 2 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
approximately 33 feet of right of way dedication in order to accommodate the frontage improvements
for the property.
There will also be a new raised crosswalk in the location of the speed hump along 304th as part of the
Plat development. The advocates submitted a school access analysis. The elementary scholars would be
bused to Nautilus Elementary and scholars that would be potentially that would be attending the
Sacajawea Middle School and Federal Way High school are candidates to walk to school. Federal Way
High school is directly across the street from the project and Sacajawea High school or Sacajawea middle
school is just north of the project site. The school district did not provide comment regarding the
proposal.
Site development is also subject to the 2021 King County Surface water design manual and city
addendums. The storm water improvements are required to meet conservation flow control and
enhance basic water quality. In addition, condition is attached to the approval. All pervious servicing
shall have a minimum of eight inch of amended soil as recommended by the Development Services
Division. And prior to connecting to the city drainage system, a development system discharge fee
would be collected. Preliminary landscape plan for tree and vegetation retention. The applicants
proposed to replant the site in order to meet this criteria. Primarily there's maybe three tree credit units
that are proposed to be retained on site and a final landscape plan would be submitted concurrent with
the engineering review. So let's go into the staff report being issued. The applicant reached out and
requested revised language that is pertaining to finding of fact 25 and condition of approval number six.
And if, at this time I'd like to present a memo to the examiner, which further identifies the city's position
on the chain of language.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Before we get into this particular slide.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Alrighty. So we'll mark this exhibit as or document as Exhibit two. Has the applicant already received a
copy of this?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Does anyone have any objections over entry of staff memo addressing the proposed provisions to
the conditions of approval? All right then. Memo dated December 12th, 202022 is admitted as Exhibit
two.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
So the property has a few property line encroachments from neighboring residences, which would need
to be resolved in some manner prior to final plat. The original language reads as prior to final approval,
all encroachments shall be resolved via boundary line adjustment, boundary line agreement or
recording of easements. Tracts shall not be accepted to resolve encroachments. The applicant, Mr.
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 3 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Mann reached out and proposed slightly different wording for that condition and originally read prior to
firefighter approval all encroachments shall be resolved. The city doesn't have issue with revising the
language but proposes to maintain that tracts would not be accepted to resolve encroachments. And
the recommended condition six would read as follows, prior to final plat approval, all encroachments
shall be resolved. Tracts shall not be accepted to resolve encroachment. Other than that, the plat is
meeting the standards for recommending for the examiner to recommend conditions of approval. The
project's consistent with the comprehensive plan, all chapters of relevant code, it is in the best interest
of public health, safety and Welfare.
And based on the staff report and findings effect, Community Development Department recommends
approval of the summit at Steel and Preliminary plat.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
And that concludes my presentation at this time.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Just a couple questions. On the staff recommended resolution of the difference of opinion
between applicant and staff over condition six. I mean I take it as the first sentence there. Prior to final
plat approval, will all encroachment shall be resolved. Is that something that's to be determined as
resolved by staff? In other words, to be resolved as accepted by staff or something of that nature?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
It would be resolved by the applicant either by...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Right, but I mean the applicant might have a different opinion of what's resolved as opposed to what
staff thinks is resolved. So I'm just kind of curious how you would deal with that difference of opinion.
Normally in a condition like this, I see something that says shall be resolved as determined by staff or
something of that nature.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
That's a good point. And that potentially maybe should be added.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
I don't have objection to that, but there are, I think several ways that the applicant could resolve these
encroachments.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 4 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
And I wasn't quite sure, how would they, I mean, the sentence added by staff tract should not be
accepted to resolve encroachments. How would a track be used? I mean, what did staff have in mind
there that they saw that it was objectionable?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
We don't want any tracts falling into potential foreclosure or be sold to anybody else that...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. What's, okay. Okay. Okay.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Maybe pick this up and some kind of scenario.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
1 see. Okay. So what you're thinking of is if there was an area that's in dispute that the applicant might
just slap a label on a track D or something and then leave it at that and then that could be subject to
litigation later on. That's kind of what you're trying to avoid?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
It is.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Could you go back to the slide on the safe walking conditions to and from
school? So I was just kind of curious on that site plan. Basically both the, 1 mean the pathways to, sorry.
Oh sorry. Yeah.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
There we go. The pathways to the middle school there, I guess, that are on either side of the project
site, are both of those pathways on the school safe walking map or whatever it's called, is that correct?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
They are.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Yeah, I a little surprised 'cause they both don't have sidewalks, but it looks like it's, these are,
especially 13th is a pretty low volume street. Is that what...
That's correct.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 5 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Considerations I went into it. Okay. Okay. All right. Makes sense. Okay, thanks Ms. Kamieniecki,
appreciate your comments. All right, let's move on to applicants. Do the applicants want to add anything
at this point? Okay,
Mr. Mann:
[inaudible 00:14:54] That's fine. Okay, thank You.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
All right, sir, if you could tell us your name for the record, how to spell it
Mr. Mann:
To, sure, yeah. My name is Evan Mann, spelled Evan Mann.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear in. Do you swear or affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
So I represent Copper Ridge LLC, the contract purchaser on this site and we are posing the plat. So
Natalie's been fantastic to work with. She's done a great job of presenting the plat to for the hearing. As
you know, we're seeking 24 lot preliminary plat in the city of Federal Way, accommodating for water,
sewer, storm, and meeting all of the standards and requirements of the city of Federal Way to include
open space through the purchase of [inaudible 00:15:52] credits. Really the only item that came up in
the staff report of concern or of question was how to resolve the encroachments. And our approach to
that was that essentially all legal methods to resolve encroachments should be available to the applicant
regardless of the city's take on it. And that there really isn't a codified standard or RCW that would limit
us from being able to use encroachments to set aside and then either quick claim deed to an adjacent
property as necessary or to allow for that process to work separately. So again...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
You mentioned encroachments, did you mean tracks? Is that what you were talking about?
TIM 8A
So again, where there are encroachments, the idea would be if, and again, I'm not even saying, I guess
first off, we haven't gotten to the point where we're determined the best route to resolve each of these
encroachments. Each encroachment with each property adjacent to ours could be resolved in a
completely different manner. So it just really depends on how our negotiates go with those neighboring
properties. So having all legal avenues available to us is critical and that's why we ask for that to be
removed and just say that they shall be resolved prior to final plat. Now the city's resolution or review
actually isn't the planner, it's typically their surveyor at the final plat review stage who would determine
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 6 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
if the encroachment is resolved properly or not. So again, I believe that the condition we propose leaves
open any legal method for resolving encroachments to RCW and city of Federal Way available to us,
which we request just for flexibility to work with the owners and the neighboring properties that may
have encroachments.
That was really the only reason we kind of wanted to remove that tracks because there may be that may
the route that a particular person who's encroaching those property may seek and maybe the most cost
effective for those neighbors. So the concern that a property or that a track would fall into disarray and
potentially be sold, those tracks still remain part of the plat, still in the control of the plat after it's
recorded. And so if that's a concern, I mean they're still maintained and managed by the plat, which we
have CCRs and a Plat Homeowners Association to make sure that those things are maintained and kept
in order. That is the only really real comment. Otherwise, I believe Natalie and the city have done a great
job in the review and we agree with staff conditions.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you Mr. Mann, appreciate your comments. All right, let's move on to public
comments at this point. And Mr. Ms. Kamieniecki, do you have the sign -in sheet? I think what I'm going
to do is I'm going to go down the persons who sign up in the signup list first in order, and then when I'm
done with that, I'll ask if anyone else wants to speak. So if you didn't happen to sign in, don't worry
about it. You'll still get a chance to talk. I'll leave it open-ended for that. So let's take a look here. All
right. What? It looks like nobody who signed up wants to speak. So how about, does anyone out there
want to speak at this point? Anybody out in the public want to make a comment? Now's your chance.
Once the hearing's closed, I'm not allowed to take any comment, so, okay, ma'am, come on up to the
podium if you will.
All right, let's start off, just swear or raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Corfman:
1 do.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. And then if you could tell us your name and how to spell it for the record.
My name is Darryl Corfman. Darryl Corfman.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Ms. Corfman:
Just so you understand where I'm coming from, it's not on that map, but my dad's house, which is in a
trust in my name, is on 11th Avenue. So I grew up right there, and that was our field for building our
forts. Okay. So I'm very familiar with that lot before all those other houses were even built around it.
Okay. So I just have a couple questions because of the, I mean, the houses on 11th Avenue were built in
1960s, 66. And so I'm now looking at this going, whoa, this is going to be completely different than
what's on those streets around it. They don't have any HOAs, they don't have any the other houses
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 7 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
there. And so my question, I just want to get to understand it more since I own that house, is one, is it,
you mentioned, I think it will be an HOA. Is that correct? Okay. And do you know what size houses? It
just seems like, I mean, it seems like that's a lot of houses in that little area, and I know it's changed over
the years of how many they allow, but I'm just looking at the one way in one way out and a lot of traffic
right at the end of that street. So I guess my question is what kind of size housing are they...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Corfman:
What do they know?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Mr. Mann, it's your turn to speak again at the end of the hearing if you could be prepared to answer her
questions. And just for the record, Mr. Mann did wave his head Yes. When he was asked about the
homeowners. Yeah, I saw that.
Ms. Corfman:
I guess...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
The recording didn't pick that up.
Ms. Corfman:
Okay. So I'm just more curious on what's going in and what kind of traffic. 'Cause that's always been just
a dead end, right?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Right.
Ms. Corfman:
And there's people coming up from this way and this way. And like you say, with the high school right
behind us, there's a lot of cars that come down that street. I mean, on 11th Avenue, it's ridiculous now
compared to what it used to.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Corfman:
So my concern is that.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 8 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Ms. Corfman:
With the traffic and the size of the houses or how many more people we're looking at going in there.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. All right, Mrs corfman.
Ms. Corfman:
Yeah, that was it.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Yeah. And then I asked that Ms. Kamieniecki, maybe if
you could go over when it's your turn to speak, about how the city addresses traffic mitigation with its
concurrency program and SEPA and all that kind of thing. So was there anyone else who wanted to
speak at this point? Anyone from the public? Again, this is your one chance to speak. Okay, sir, going up.
Let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. You swear affirm and tell the truth, nothing but the truth
in this proceeding.
Mr. Cleaver:
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, sir, what's your name for the record? How to spell it?
Mr. Cleaver:
Tim Cleaver. Tim Cleaver.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Cleaver:
Yeah, no, I live right on the edge of that green belt that's right there. So I'll definitely be impacted by the
noise and all sort of stuff. So 1 guess my two main questions, I'm sure probably maybe talk to Evan too,
but just make sure they respect that boundary that's right there. I guess that's called an encroachment,
right?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
If there's a boundary dispute. Yeah.
Mr. Cleaver:
And the boundary guys came out of what, maybe a year ago and put the stakes down, little orange
ribbons there and stuff. And I just want to make sure that they honor that. And just noise levels for
myself and tenants that they're, and I'm sure it's going to be noisy, you can't avoid that. But just times
would be nice to keep the, it's not late later in the evening night and early in the morning, that's going to
be kind of a pain. It'd be nice to keep that reasonable. And it'd just be cool just to be there hands on
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 9 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
when the guys come in, start to tear into those, tear into that lot, tear down trees and all that and kind
of fun to be there and say, no, no, you can have that tree, but don't take that kind of simple stuff. And
I'm sure that the contractor guys are probably done this a ton of times, so they'd be aware of that.
That's just my main two things, just times of construction's going on and just make sure that they're
careful with honoring those boundaries.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Thank you sir. All right.
Mr. Cleaver:
Okay, thanks.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah, yeah. And I guess, yeah, those are your questions, Ms. Kamieniecki, I'm pretty sure the city
probably has construction hours and that kind of thing to address that. But first let me just make sure
that anyone else from the public want to speak at this point. We got all the takers. All right. Then I guess
Ms. Kamieniecki, it's your turn and had a few questions to answer there.
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Sure. Natalie Kamieniecki for the record. We do have a noise ordinance that there's a certain amount of
time construction can go from 7:00 AM to, I was just going to look this up really quick, but just our
standard noise ordinance. And we would be, if there would be anything that would be outside of that
particular timeframe, the applicants would need to apply for a variance to that. And we would need to
consider the surrounding properties and the use of those properties being residential before we would
ever issue something like that. And there would be additional notice requirements for that work hour
variance is what it's called. So there would be something posted on the site and potentially provided
individually to people within that area. So at this time it's just standard noise. It's allowed construction
under federal way revised code.
As far as the size of the houses, that is not part of this particular type of approval. But there are some
limitations just in general on the property, including required setbacks and impervious surface coverage
that limit a certain developable area within those newly created lots. But there isn't a limit on a size of a
single family dwelling as far as bedrooms and things of that nature, especially since it's on sewer, there's
no, it's not septic system and bedroom driven. Traffic. Again, we went through the review of
concurrency, which was issued. We do have our traffic engineer also here, Mr. Sarady Long, if he would
like to expand on what the process is that...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
They maybe kind of clarify just for the public, what standards apply to concurrency and just for the
public's knowledge, concurrency is kind of the city's congestion standards. What level of traffic is
acceptable to the city. And Mr. Long, maybe if you could address that. Let me swear you in real quick
and you can speak from there if you're on mic, let me just swear you in. Do you swear Affirm tell the
truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Long:
I do.
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 10 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Mr. Long:
Concurrency process is adopted by the city to ensure that the roadway infrastructure can accommodate
additional traffic. For a typical single family lot, the trip generations about one during the PMP peak
hour or rush hour, in this case at our standard, and for a daily its about 10 as part of this process, public
works traffic division review being 24 additional trips generated by the project and determined that all
intersection impacting by one or more trips during the rush hour meet our local service standard. And
there was no level of service standard failure part of this development.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
And again, just for the public's benefit, can you kind of describe what the level of service is and what
that standard is in federal Way? How it's measured.
Mr. Long:
Level service, it's almost like a grading system for intersection, intersection or standards. Believe it's 1.1
PC ratio. It's not your standard ABC. So it's volume to capacity ratio. And any intersections that fall
below that threshold, that volume to capacity ratio, it's determined figure there. For this project, there's
no failure at all.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. So volume to capacity basically means if you're at 90% of the capacity with the intersection,
that might be your adopted standard. And if a project contributes to that failure, then the developer's
made to mitigate against it, right? Make some improvements. Is that how it works?
Mr. Long:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Mr. Long:
The volume capacity ratio for the city is a little bit higher than 0.9 is 1.1. So city center is an average of
all the city center intersection. And like I stated, there's no level service failure on this project. And
mitigation is handled through a traffic impact fee as part of billing permit. So when the app can come in
for billing improvement application, and they would be subject to traffic impact fee at the time.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Long.
Mr. Long:
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 11 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Would be collect to use for any road reconstruction or any construction projects on the TIP.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Yeah, the TIP Mr. Long was referring to as the city's transportation
improvement program. The city figures out which improvements it needs to construct for a good level of
service for the community. And then it figures out how much each developer should pay in terms of
their proportionate contribution to the whole traffic system of the city. So it's part of the city's efforts to
make growth pay for growth as they go along and something that most cities and counties I think in the
state are using these days. So anything else, Ms. Kamieniecki?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
I don't have anything else unless I'm missing...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah, did she answer all your questions? Was there anything else that she needed to address? And also,
once the hearing is closed, there's nothing wrong in approaching Ms. Kamieniecki or the staff there and
asking additional questions. I mean, if you want your question and answer to be part of the record and
for me to consider it in issuing the decision you need to ask your question now. But otherwise we're
done with the questions. So appreciate all your participation at that. Oh ma'am yeah.
Speaker 7:
Can I just ask one thing in addition to the traffic thing?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Speaker 7:
Will they have a stop sign coming out, just like 11th Avenue has a stop sign coming to 304th?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Sorry. Where would you want the stop sign placed?
Speaker 7:
Well, 11th Avenue has a stop sign at 304th.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Speaker 7:
And that's right across the street from it. Will they have a stop sign coming out too?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. So the question is, will the project site have a stop sign coming out, I guess for egress?
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 12 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Long:
That would be reviewed as the department engineering process. And typically we would put a stop sign
if there's a site is the issue.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. And that's still under evaluation, that'll be done at the next stage of review, is that
correct? Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right then 1 guess Mr. Mann, you get final
word if you want to add anything, and maybe you might want to clarify what your plans are for the size
of the homes, just for public knowledge. If you have any idea at this point. I think like Ms. Kamieniecki
made clear the city doesn't really put restrictions on the housing size, but you might have plans and the
neighbors might be interested in knowing what your plans are at this point.
Mr. Mann:
Absolutely. I tried to track the items as they came out. So I'll speak the first then HOA. Yes. The plat will
have an HOA that will be responsible for all open spaces and shared facilities, and the HOA typically
include what are called covenants, codes and restrictions, which would ensure that properties are
maintained, parking is maintained, that the community is well managed. Size of the homes. So at this
point, my side of the development is the land. So we don't have home sites or home lots or what do you
call it, product picked specifically. I can tell you it's typically between about 2,500 square feet and 3000
square feet, which could range anywhere from a three bedroom, all the way up a to five bedroom,
depending on the configuration. So they will be typically with this type development will be determined
at the building permit stage, but usually somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet.
As for encroachment. So Mr. Cleaver mentioned he had some questions about his encroachment. That is
a unique case in that we are encroaching on Mr. Cleaver's property with our fence, so he will gain that
back. We don't enforce encroachments that on our current property, on adjacent property. So that's
typically passed back to them, whether that's through a fence or through our final plat. In his particular
case, he's on the east side of the project, about 150 feet north of 304th Street. And the fence actually
jogs onto his property what appears to be eight to 10 feet. And then at the end of his property, it comes
back to our property one. So the fence is on his property, it technically looks like we are our
encroachment, so that will be resolved with him. As for other encroachments, again, work with each of
the neighbors as needed to resolve those set aside and make sure that those are managed and cleared.
The configuration of the plat, just to be clear, does not rely on that land for the development. So at no
point, if we give those encroachments away, at least we just completely write them off from a project,
would that impact the configuration or the development of project. If anything, if we were able to
successfully resolve and maintain our ownership of those, it would add property to the plat. So just to
be clear, we anticipated not having those encroachments as part of the plat. As for noise, those are all
types of noise are controlled by the city, by ordinance. So typically during site development, you're going
to hear larger vehicle traffic, compaction vehicles usually are something of a noise generator where
you're got a rolling drum. Those are limited to daytime hours, I believe, non weekend, maybe some
Saturday depending on code. But our contractors typically don't work on Saturday unless they're under
time crunch. And then once you get the home building, typically saw, saws, hammers, and hammers and
nailing some. for, let's see, stop sign. Yeah, we plan another stop sign. I think that was the extent of it.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. What's your development horizon? How long do you think it'll take to build this out with all the
homes?
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 13 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Mann:
Well, city of Federal Way has promised me site development permits in about three weeks. I'm just
kidding. That's a joke for the record.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
That's pretty funny. Yeah, no,
Mr. Mann:
For the record, no. We will get through, go through site development first, which could be anywhere
from six months to a year. More than likely, this will be a construction start in the spring of 24, at this
point. Just looking at our current schedule, more than likely that's when the start would happen.
Construction likely would take one season, be done by winter of 24, and home building would start likely
January one of 25. Okay. That's just a rough idea. But yeah.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
No, not set in stone, especially these economic times. But does anyone else have any questions of Mr.
Mann while he's up there? And again, I'm sure if you have questions after the hearing, you can ask then
too. All right. Well Mr Mann, thank you for your comments. It was a really good response. So at this
point, I'm going to then close the hearing, and like I said, I have 10 business days to issue that decision.
And Ms. Kamieniecki, how does Federal Way distribute the decisions? Do you do email them to whoever
gave you an email address or mail them out? Or how do you do that?
Ms. Kamieniecki:
Via email.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Via email. Okay. So be sure that your email address is on the sign -in sheet if you haven't done that
already, if you want to get a copy of it. My decisions are pretty thorough, they address all the impacts of
concern, that kind of thing. I don't know if many of you had a chance to go through some of the exhibits
on the staff report, but if you have, I think you can appreciate how much work and analysis goes into
these projects.
Because cities and counties have been doing this kind of work for decades now. They have regulations
designed to address just about anything that comes up, especially in the areas of drainage and traffic
and that kind of thing. It's not always done to the way that people want though, because there's a lot of
conflicting laws that apply here under the State's Growth Management Act, Federal Way is required to
accommodate a population increase of a certain amount every 20 years, which means that they have to
allow developments like this to occur, to absorb that population growth. Because the legislature has
determined that it's not good for the environment and it's not efficient to allow that growth to occur
outside of cities and urbanized areas.
They want to, for efficiency sake and to reduce impacts, what they call urban sprawl, they try to focus
on cities and places of that nature. And so that's why Federal Way and the other cities of Washington
State tend to, they're kind of forced to allow this kind of high density development. And obviously it's
housing that we need. We have a big shortage in this state. And also at the same time, we are required
by the State Growth Management Act to basically deny development if it doesn't meet local traffic
congestion standards. But a lot of cities have responded to that mandate by adopting standards that are
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 14 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com
pretty low bar. And the reason for that is that if you adopt a really high standard, you have to be able to
fund it. And you can't make developers pay for more than their proportionate share. And so that's why
we still have traffic jams in this state.
There's, there's no way getting around the fact that these things cost money and it's just not enough
there to have intersections where there's no delay. But anyway, beyond all that, this is a pretty
straightforward application and I will be approving it. The only thing I have to think about is the title
issue. And I, having been a city attorney myself for a few decades, I can sympathize a little bit with the
cities position that they don't want to have these tracks just sitting there and rely on the homeowner's
association, take care of them, and having that subject to litigation years down the road. Because a lot
of times, I mean, cities don't have the resources to make homeowners associations take care of their
common areas and it just becomes a headache. This is, if you want to incentivize a developer to do
something, now's the time to do it before they get their project approved. Anyway, but I'll take a look at
that, figure it out. And again, appreciate your participation today and we're adjourned. So thanks for
coming.
Steel Lake (Completed 12/15/22) Page 15 of 15
Transcript by Rev.com