Loading...
HEX PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Official Record_Police Court EXHIBIT LIST City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Staff Contact: Public Hearing: August 13, 2020 Ellen Fairleigh, Associate Planner Remote Meeting via Zoom Hearing Examiner: Sound Law Center NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Staff Report 08/06/2020 2 Master Land Use Application 10/08/2019 3 Notice of Complete Application 11/06/2019 4 Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing 11/15/2019 5 Certification of Public Notice Signed 02/04/2020 6 Certificate of Posting from Applicant Signed 01/05/2020 7 Site Plan 07/01/2019 8 Supplemental Site Plan with Critical Areas 05/19/2014 9 Floor Plans 11/12/2019 10 Renderings and Sketches 11/12/2019 11 Planting Plan 05/19/2014 12 Parking Space Needs Validation 01/06/2017 13 Trip Generation Analysis from Transpo Group 05/08/2019 14 Traffic Impact Assessment Memo from Applicant 10/06/2019 15 SEPA Checklist with Staff Response Stamped 10/09/2019 16 Issued MDNS and Adoption of Existing Document 02/05/2020 17 Public Comment Received 03/02/2020 18 Public Works Development Engineer Recommendation Memo 01/10/2020 19 Fire Marshal Memo 09/04/2019 20 Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD) Review Signed 10/24/2019 21 Design Review Board (DRB) Review and Recommendation (see below) A. DRB Review and Recommendation Minutes 12/02/2019 B. DRB Review and Recommendation Minutes 03/02/2020 EXHIBIT LIST City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Staff Contact: Public Hearing: August 13, 2020 Ellen Fairleigh, Associate Planner Remote Meeting via Zoom Hearing Examiner: Sound Law Center NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE C. DRB Review and Recommendation Minutes 05/18/2020 D. Design Review Board Final Design Review Worksheet 05/18/2020 22 Planning Commission Review and Recommendation (see below) A. Planning Commission Minutes 02/13/2020 B. Planning Commission Preliminary Recommendation Memo 02/13/2020 C. Planning Commission Minutes 06/11/2020 D. Planning Commission Recorded Motion 06/11/2020 23 Critical Area Report from Wetland Resources Environmental Consulting 04/08/2020 24 Decision of the Hearing Examiner- Right Medical Building LLC CUP14430B & SPR14430B 10/14/2008 25 Joint Notice of Administrative Decision and Notice of SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance- SPRA14430C & CUPA14430C 12/17/2013 City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 1 of 31 Prepared by: Ellen Fairleigh, Associate Planner Date: August 6, 2020 Request: Site Plan and Design Review Major Adjustment (SPRA) - PLN51524 SPRA Conditional Use Permit Major Adjustment (CUPA) - PLN51524 CUPA Applicant: City of Bainbridge Island (COBI) From: Heather Wright, Director of Planning and Community Development Location: 8804 Madison Avenue North Tax Parcel: 232502-3-083-2002 Project Description: Convert an existing health care facility to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments. The project includes exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2-story addition on the west side of the building. The City is the applicant for this project. Director’s Recommendation: Approval of the SPRA and CUPA subject to the conditions recommended in this report. The Director finds that the project is compliant with the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Part I: Process 1.Land Use Review: There are existing Site Plan Review (SPR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approvals for the subject property. Pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040.H and BIMC 2.16.110.J, the proposal to convert a health care facility to a governmental facility changes the character of the use and requires a major adjustment to both the SPR and CUP. 2.Moratorium: On January 9, 2018 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2018-02, declaring a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of certain development applications, with specified exclusions. “Government facilities” are specifically excluded from the moratorium. Exhibit 1 City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 2 of 31 3. Environmental Review: The project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as provided in Washington Administrative Code (WAC 197-11-800) due to the scope of work and the change in use. On February 5, 2020, the City, acting as lead agency, issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance and Adoption of Existing Document having found that the mitigation measures previously approved as part of the 2013 Harrison Medical Center minor adjustment (City file no. SPRA/CUPA 14430C) adequately address potential impacts from this proposal. 4. Design Review Board (DRB) Process: The land use process includes a Conceptual Proposal Review meeting and design guidance meeting before the DRB. Conceptual review is intended to provide the applicant with an understanding of the objectives of the design review process, design guidelines, and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. As provided in BIMC 2.16.040.D, the Planning Director granted a waiver from the conceptual proposal review meeting based on the applicant’s knowledge and understanding of the City’s permit processing procedures and that the building existed. The Design Guidance meeting is intended to provide input and guidance to an applicant on consistency with applicable design guidelines and Comprehensive Pan goals and policies, including recommendations for how the project could be revised to achieve greater consistency. The final Review and Recommendation meeting is to review the project for compliance with applicable design guidelines and to ensure that the project reflects any revisions recommended by the DRB at the Design Guidance meeting. Please see Part III Background and Application History below for details on the DRB’s review and recommendation. 6. Planning Commission Process: As provided in BIMC 2.16.040 and 2.16.110, the Planning Commission shall review the application prior to recommendation by the Department of Planning and Community Development Director. The Planning Commission shall review the project for consistency with applicable design guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission shall review the application based on the Design Review Board recommendation and the decision criteria, consider the application at a public meeting where public comments will be taken, and forward its recommendation to the Director. Please see Part III Background and Application History below for details on the PC’s review and recommendation to the Director. 7. Consolidated Review Process: Through the Master Land Use Application, the applicant requested consolidated permit review of the Site Plan and Design Review Major Adjustment (SPRA) and Major Conditional Use Permit Major Adjustment (CUPA) in accordance with BIMC 2.16.170. A consolidated project permit application shall follow the application and notice procedure that results in the most extensive review and decision process. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 3 of 31 8. Decision Process: Pursuant to BIMC 2.16.110.E, the Director shall review the application materials, staff report, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall prepare a report to the Hearing Examiner recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application. The Planning Commission’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the Director. Any deviation from that recommendation shall be documented in the Director’s report. The Hearing Examiner shall consider the application materials and the Director’s recommendation at a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall make compliance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission a condition of approval, unless the Hearing Examiner concludes that the recommendation reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code, exceeds the authority of the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project or conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law. 9. Appeal Process: Pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.R.2, the decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final unless, within 21 days after issuance of a decision, a person with standing appeals the decision in accordance with Chapter 36.70 RCW or its successor. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 4 of 31 Figure 1 – Proposed Site Plan The proposed addition and suspended roof overhang are indicated in blue. Existing Medical Facility Proposed addition Proposed roof overhang City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 5 of 31 Figure 2 – Vicinity Map, Surrounding Zoning, and Project Site Subject Parcel Vicinity Map Surrounding Zoning Project Site R-8 R-2 R-2.9 City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 6 of 31 Part II: General Information and Site Characteristics Basic Information Zoning District R-8 (8 units per acre) Lot Area 3.02 acres Soils and Terrain Soils consist primarily of Kapowsin gravelly ashy loam and Kitsap silt loam and slopes between 15 to 40% Critical Areas A portion of a wetland and its associated buffer encumber the southern portion of the property. Additionally, a fish-bearing stream is located on the adjacent property to the south and the prescriptive buffer extends onto the subject property. There is an erosion hazard area on the south side of the subject parcel. The property also contains 15-39% slopes and a small area of 40% or greater slopes near the southern edge of the developed parking lot. The entire island is currently designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, however the subject proposal is not on the list of prohibited activities and uses in BIMC 16.20.100.C. Existing Development The subject parcel is currently developed with a health care facility and associated parking. Access The subject parcel is currently accessed from Madison Avenue N. No change to the access is proposed. Public Services and Utilities Police City of Bainbridge Island Fire Bainbridge Island Fire District Schools Bainbridge Island School District Water City of Bainbridge Island Sewer City of Bainbridge Island Storm Drainage Raingardens and outfall fed by an onsite detention vault Part III: Background and Application History Background: The subject property contains a medical office building which was constructed in conjunction with an assisted living facility on the parcel to the west. The two properties together received Hearing Examiner approval as a health care facility through Site Plan and Design Review and Conditional Use permits in 2008 (City File No. SPR/CUP 14430B). Minor adjustment approval in 2012 allowed the facility to continue as a phased plan (City File No. SPRA/CUPA 14430B). In 2013, a second minor adjustment was approved to reduce the size of the health care facility and change the building and parking configuration (City File No. SPRA/CUPA 14430C). A special use review (SUR) was approved in 2014 to create an outfall pipe across the wetland buffer which encumbers the southern portion of the subject property. Date & Action Summary June 3, 2019 Design Guidance Review Meeting The Design Review Board (DRB) provided input and guidance to the applicant regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, focusing on City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 7 of 31 sustainability goals, and goals and policies within the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan. September 5, 2019 Public Participation Meeting Comments and concerns were primarily related to traffic and associated impacts. August 20, 2019 Pre-Application Conference City staff and the applicant discussed the permitting process and permitting requirements. October 9, 2019 Application Submitted Major Adjustment to Site Plan Review and Major Adjustment to Conditional Use Application November 6, 2019 Notice of Complete Application Application was deemed complete. November 15, 2019 Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing Published 14-day comment period November 29, 2019 End of SEPA Comment Period No public comment was received. Two agency comments were received: The Fire Marshal recommends approval provided that the project meets the International Fire Code and that a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system is installed throughout the building; the Health District submitted comment that the agency has no comment and that that statement means that no further action is required at this time. Additionally, WSDOT comments from the original project approval have been carried forward. December 2, 2019 Final DRB Review and Recommendation The DRB reviewed Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines, including site design, public realm, building design, and landscape standards (Chapter 4), the state route street type and vegetated buffer frontage type guidelines (Chapter 5), and larger sites and civic uses standards (Chapter 7). There are no proposed departures from the design standards. The DRB determined that the project is consistent with Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines and recommends approval. February 13, 2020 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and staff report, which contained suggested conditions of approval, and requested the following prior to providing their recommendation to the Planning Director: 1. An analysis of the Conditional Use Permit decision criteria and how the proposed project satisfies those criteria 2. An analysis from the Design Review Board (DRB) describing all applicable design guidelines and how the project satisfies those 3. That the statement, “The Design Review Board discussed the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan” be removed from the staff report presented to the Commission or that the Commission be provided an analysis of the DRB discussion 4. Any analyses or reports that were created by a biologist that City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 8 of 31 demonstrate that “existing permanent substantial development” functionally isolates the development from critical areas and eliminates or greatly reduces the impacts to critical areas Subsequent to the meeting, staff addressed the Commission’s comments by incorporating additional analysis of the Conditional Use Permit decision criteria, as reflected in this report, and the DRB documented their analysis and findings and confirmed their recommendation for project approval. Additionally, the applicant provided a critical area report from a biologist that identifies existing permanent substantial development which functionally isolates the development from critical areas and found no impacts to critical areas. March 2 & May 18, 2020 DRB Review and Recommendation worksheet exercise The DRB completed the Final Design Review worksheet to document their analysis and findings and confirmed the approval recommendation. June 11, 2020 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the revised staff report and supporting documentation and recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the staff report, to the Planning Director. The Planning Commission finds the project, as conditioned, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable design standards and guidelines, and BIMC Title 18, and recommends approval. Part IV: Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Urban Multi-Family R-8. The guiding principles, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, along with implementing regulations in the Municipal Code, are used to evaluate the proposal and weigh the project benefits and impacts. The following goals and policies apply to the development proposal: Elements Goals and Policies Economic Element Diversified Economy – Goal EC-1: By providing enterprises that both serve and employ local residents, Bainbridge Island will be better able to withstand fluctuations in the larger regional economy. In addition, people who live and work in their community are available to invest time and money in their families, organizations, and community life. A key to a healthy, stable and vital economy is to create and undertake business opportunities that anticipate and respond to conditions that affect our community. This would include identifying emerging needs and markets so that Bainbridge Island businesses benefit from being on the leading edge of change. Diversified Economy – Policy EC-1.5: In order to provide opportunities for business enterprise, adequate space must be provided for efficient use of existing developed areas near public transportation (e.g. ferry, bus service) and for growth that recognizes and protects the Island’s valued natural amenities, its limits of land and water and the quality of its residential neighborhoods. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 9 of 31 Sustainability – Policy EC-3.1: Encourage the use of green building materials and techniques in all types of construction, as well as design approaches that are responsive to changing conditions. Sustainability – Policy EC-3.4: Encourage public sector solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling. Environmental Element Environment – Goal EN-1: Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty and environmental quality. Environment – Goal EN-2: Encourage sustainability in City Government operations. Environment – Policy EN-2.1: In managing City government operations, take reasonable steps to reduce impacts to the environment and ecosystems upon which we depend. This includes recognizing and preparing for the impacts of climate change. Fish and Wildlife – Policy EN-5.6: Protect wetlands and riparian areas. Air Quality – Policy EN-10.5: Ensure beneficial indoor air quality in all renovations and new construction of City-owned facilities and promote design choices that enhance beneficial indoor air quality in private construction. Transportation Element Operation and Mobility – Policy TR 6.1: Set street design guidelines which establish street widths, reflecting the desired vehicle speeds, accommodating bicycle, pedestrian, wheelchair, equestrian, and transit uses, and providing for emergency vehicle access and also considering community character. State Route (SR) 305 – Policy TR 7.6: Support the construction of the STO and its branch trails. Capital Facilities Element Goal CF-1: The Capital Facilities Element and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides the public facilities needed to support orderly compact urban growth, protect and support public and private investments, maximize use of existing facilities, promote economic development and redevelopment, increase public well- being and safety, and implement the Comprehensive Plan. Policy CF 2.1: When planning for public facilities, consider expected future land use activity. Utilities Element Electrical – Policy 14.7: New taxpayer-funded buildings shall use carbon-neutral energy for heating, cooling, and operational use to the maximum extent practical within site specific and existing technology limitations. Staff Consistency Analysis The project both serves and employs local residents. The facility is located in proximity to public transportation and supports non-motorized transportation policies. The project avoids impacts to critical areas in the vicinity. The project observes sustainability practices by utilizing an existing building that complies with 2015 Washington State Energy Code and includes green stormwater infrastructure such as a rain garden, permeable pavement, and stormfilter system. The project proposes additional sustainability practices such as indoor water use efficiency by reducing the fixture count and installing low-flow fixtures, and efficient HVAC controls through the use of programmable DDC controls, occupancy and equipment runtime schedules, temperature setpoint controls, and minimum outside air requirements. In June 2020, the City Council chose not to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification because of the determination that there are more efficient ways to achieve the same carbon footprint reduction. Instead, the project was City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 10 of 31 referred to the Climate Change Advisory Committee to identify the best climate change actions to attain the desired carbon footprint reduction. Part V: Land Use Code Analysis 1. BIMC Title 16 Environment a. BIMC 16.20 Critical Areas i. BIMC 16.20.040.B Exemptions Exemption Staff Analysis Activities within a portion of a wetland buffer or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area are exempt from establishing the full required buffer width; provided, that impacts to the critical area do not increase. A wetland and wetland buffer encumber the southern portion of the subject property. The property to the south contains a fish-bearing stream and the associated prescriptive buffer extends onto the subject property. When the health care facility was approved in 2008, critical area regulations required a 100-foot wetland buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback, and the stream was classified as a non-fish bearing stream with a 50-foot buffer which was encapsulated within the 100- foot wetland buffer. Subsequent to site development a stream classification review on Bainbridge Island resulted in the stream being re- classified as a fish-bearing stream, which requires a 200-foot buffer in accordance with the 2018 critical area code update. The 200-foot buffer extends into the southerly area of the developed project. The proposal includes a 484 square foot two story addition on the west side of the building that includes enclosure of an existing exterior stairway on the southwest corner of the building. The addition extends into the prescriptive 200-foot stream buffer. The project approved in 2008 included the installation of a split rail fence to delineate and protect critical areas which were established at that time. Mitigation measures to further protect wetland and stream critical areas included the installation of a trail, protection of significant trees and wildlife habitat, and motion sensor lighting installed in the rear of the site to ensure that sensitive areas are not constantly illuminated through the night. Staff conducted a site visit on September 12, 2019 and observed that the area between the building and the wetland and stream critical areas contains permanent substantial development, use and activity, including the protective fence, a rock wall, maintained lawn, and several stormwater catch basins. Additionally, a distinct topographic break occurs between the building and the split rail fence. In conjunction with information provided by the applicant that depicts sub-surface City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 11 of 31 stormwater facilities, the Planning Department determined that the area is functionally separated from wetland and stream critical areas by existing permanent substantial development, use and activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area. As provide in this Code section, the Planning Department determined that there are no impacts to critical areas, and that the proposal is exempt from establishing the full required buffer width. At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant obtained a critical area report from a qualified wetland consultant (Wetland Resources Environmental Consulting, report dated April 8, 2020). The report assessed if the proposed 484-square foot addition would have any impact on the critical areas. The report found that the area located landward of the split-rail fence and within the 200-foot prescriptive fish bearing stream buffer provides no ecological support functions to the wetland and stream. The report concluded that this area is disturbed with permanent substantial development that establishes functional isolation from the critical areas. As stated in the report, these findings are based on the absence of hydrologic and habitat support, and the permanence of the physical separation between the critical areas and the proposed addition. Both the Planning Department and the third-party consultant conclude that the project is exempt from establishing the full required buffer width from the wetland and stream because there is no impact to the critical areas. The development area is separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area. Based on these findings, the project is exempt from critical area permit requirements for streams and wetlands in accordance with BIMC 16.20.040.B(1). Additionally, recommended conditions provide that if any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempt activity shall be considered a violation of this chapter and subject to enforcement and restoration under BIMC 16.20.170. ii. BIMC 16.20.130 Geologically hazardous areas Geologically Hazardous Areas Staff Analysis City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 12 of 31 Geologically hazardous areas include erosion hazard areas and steep slopes The property contains an area with erosion hazard and a small area of steep slopes which are approximately ten feet in height and appear to be a result of the parking lot construction. The City Engineer determined that no geotechnical analysis is required because there are no potential adverse impacts from the proposal. 2. BIMC Title 18 Zoning a. BIMC 18.09 Use Regulations Proposed Use Definition Governmental Facility (Conditional Use) “Governmental Facility” means an institution operated by a federal, state, county, or city government, or special purpose district and is a conditional use in the R-8 district. b. BIMC 18.12 Dimensional Standards Dimensional Standards Required/Allowed Existing/Proposed Lot Coverage 25 percent Proposed lot coverage is less than 13 percent and meets this standard. Front Lot Line Setback 25 feet The subject parcel has two front lot lines, fronting both State Route 305 and New Brooklyn Road. The existing/proposed building meets this requirement. Rear Lot Line Setback 15 feet N/A, in accordance with BIMC 18.12.050.N., if a property has more than one front lot line, all other lot lines are sides. Side Lot Line Setback 5 feet minimum, 15 feet total The existing/proposed building meets this requirement. Building Height 40 feet maximum for nonresidential uses if Conditional Use permit conditions are met. The proposed building addition is approximately 32 feet from average existing grade. Building height is confirmed during building permit review. c. BIMC 18.15 Development Standards and Guidelines i. BIMC 18.15.010 – Landscaping, Screening, Tree Retention, Protection and Replacement Landscaping Requirement Staff Analysis Perimeter Landscape Buffer: 25-foot wide buffer to the residential zone (R- 8) to the south 25-foot wide full screen buffer to the The project site is separated from the residential development to the south by heavily vegetated critical areas and associated buffers. The heavily vegetated critical areas and associated buffers also encompass the majority of the perimeter to the assisted living facility to the west, City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 13 of 31 assisted living facility to the west Roadside Buffer: 25-foot wide partial screen/15-foot minimum buffer along NE New Brooklyn Road and a 50-foot full screen/35-foot minimum landscape buffer along SR305 Parking Lot Landscaping: Based on the location of parking lot and the number of parking spaces Tree Units: The development parcel will contain at least the same number of tree units after the proposed development as it had before the development or redevelopment with the exception of the existing north parking lot. Therefore, the northern parking area is considered a nonconforming structure in accordance with BIMC 18.30.030. If the northern parking lot is removed, a 25-foot wide full screen landscape buffer will be required to be installed along the property’s entire western perimeter. In 2013, Harrison Medical Center was required to plant a 25-foot wide full screen landscape buffer along SR305 to provide mitigation for visual and lighting concerns. This was a more intense buffer than was prescribed by the BIMC at the time, which prescribed a 20-foot wide partial landscape screen along rights-of-ways and roads. There is an existing parking lot within the area that would encompass the current standard 50-foot wide/35-foot minimum SR305 roadside buffer. Therefore, the eastern parking area is considered a nonconforming structure in accordance with BIMC 18.30.030. If the eastern parking lot is removed, a 50-foot full screen/35-foot minimum landscape buffer will be required to be installed along the property’s SR305 frontage. In 2013, Harrison Medical Center was required to plant a 25-foot partial screen buffer along NE New Brooklyn Road. This buffer is consistent with current standards. The redevelopment does not impact or alter existing landscape perimeter and roadside buffers. The landscape perimeter and roadside buffers will stay in their present form. No new parking spaces are required or proposed and therefore no new parking lot landscaping is required. No tree removal is proposed, and the same number of tree units will exist on site after the redevelopment as before. Some vegetation will be removed from the north side of the building to allow access during construction. Recommended conditions include replanting that is in substantial conformance with the submitted Planting Plan dated stamped received November 20, 2019. ii. BIMC 18.15.020 – Parking and Loading Parking Requirements Required/Allowed Proposed Off-Street Parking Spaces For special cases not covered by the The submitted parking space City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 14 of 31 Required BIMC, parking requirements shall be established by the director. For determination by the director, the applicant shall supply (a) documentation regarding actual parking demand for the proposed use; or (b) technical studies prepared by a qualified professional relating to the parking need for the proposed use; or (c) required parking for the proposed use as determined by other comparable jurisdictions. breakdown is based on staffing, shift changes, workspaces, and public spaces for the proposed Police and Court facility, along with an analysis based on a trip generation analysis which was conducted in May 2017. Both analyses demonstrate that the existing 73 parking spaces on-site are adequate to serve the proposed use. The project meets this requirement. On-Street Parking On-street parking created or designated in conjunction with and adjacent to a project may be included in the parking space calculation upon approval of the director. Six of the 73 parking spaces existing on the subject parcel are on-street parking spaces along NE New Brooklyn Rd. The project meets this requirement. Compact Vehicle Parking Compact car spaces may total no more than 30 percent of the required number of spaces. The project is allowed a maximum of 22 compact parking spaces. Currently, 16 of the 73 parking spaces are compact parking spaces. No changes are proposed. The project meets this requirement. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations At least one parking space near the entrance must be reserved and signed for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. One shared-car program or electric vehicle charging (EVC) station is required. The project currently does not provide a EVC station and this requirement is reiterated in the recommended conditions of approval. iii. BIMC 18.15.030 – Mobility and Access Mobility Requirements Required/Allowed Proposed Circulation and Walkways Parking lots and driveways shall provide well-defined, safe and efficient circulation for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Entrances from the right-of-way and the circulation pattern shall be defined by landscaped areas with raised curbs. Pedestrian walkways should be provided around No change to the existing circulation system for motor vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians is proposed. The subject parcel currently provides well-defined circulation for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians including landscaped City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 15 of 31 iv. BIMC 18.15.040 – Outdoor Lighting Part VI: Decision Criteria 1. BIMC 2.16.040 Site Plan and Design Review buildings to assure safe access. Internal walkways shall be surfaced with nonskid hard surfaces, meet accessibility requirements and provide at least five feet of unobstructed width. Walkways that cross driving lanes shall be constructed of contrasting materials or maintained painted markings. Walkways must be curbed and raised six inches above adjacent vehicular surface grade, except where the walkway crosses vehicular driving lanes or to meet accessibility standards. areas with raised curbs and pedestrian walkways from parking lots to building access areas and between parking areas and sidewalks. A walkway that crosses the parking lot is maintained with painted markings. The project meets this requirement. Bicycle Spaces One bicycle space per five parking spaces with a minimum of four bicycle spaces. There are currently 73 parking spaces and 15 bicycle spaces are required. Bicycle spaces are existing on site, and compliance will be verified prior to building permit approval. This requirement is reiterated in the recommended conditions of approval. Lighting Requirements Required/Allowed Proposed Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting shall comply with BIMC 18.15.04. All outdoor lighting fixtures and accent lighting shall be designed, installed, located and maintained such that there is no light trespass. Outdoor fixtures and accent lighting must be shielded and aimed downward. The requirement to comply with outdoor lighting regulations is reiterated in the recommended conditions of approval. Additionally, recommended conditions include a SEPA condition which is carried forward from the health care facility approval that allows only motion sensor lighting at the rear of the site to ensure that the critical area buffers are not constantly illuminated through the night. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 16 of 31 The Director and Planning Commission shall base their recommendations on the following criteria: Decision Criteria Staff Analysis 1. The site plan and design is in conformance with applicable code provisions and development standards of the applicable zoning district; This recommendation includes conditions to ensure conformance with applicable Code provisions and development standards in the R-8 district. 2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation systems are adequate, safe, efficient and in conformance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; This project provides an outdoor entry courtyard, landscape buffers, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and a trail. Due to uncertainty in the final Sound to Olympic (STO) trail alignment/connection in the State Route 305 right of way along the eastern edge of the subject property, construction of this segment of the STO is not a required frontage improvement. However, to ensure compliance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan, the City Development Engineer’s recommendation includes a condition designed to avoid preclusion of public non- motorized improvements along State Route 305 in the future. 3. The Kitsap County Health District has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; or if the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site sewage disposal system. b. If the Health District recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection E.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director. c. If the Health District recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; The Kitsap Public Health District responded, “no comment” on the application. Approval of the building permit by KPHD is required. 4. The City Engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in The City Development Engineer determined that the site plan and design meet the applicable decision criteria and recommends approval subject to conditions to ensure conformance with drainage, water quality, and streets and City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 17 of 31 Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and c. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 18. pedestrian ways. The Development Engineer recommends a 15- foot right of way dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Rd. frontage to align with the right of way of the adjacent property (Madrona Assisted Living). The City Development Engineer finds that the provided trip generation analysis demonstrates that the proposed use results in a net decrease in trip generation from the previously approved use and does not adversely impact the City’s adopted level of service standards for transportation facilities, and that therefore a Certificate of Concurrency is not required The subject parcel is currently served by City water and sewer. A water and sewer availability application is required at the time of building permit application if any plumbing is added or changed. 5. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18; The Design Review Board determined that the project is consistent with Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines and recommends approval. 6. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; This staff report identifies the regulations and provides reviewer comments regarding public health, safety and welfare, and public use and interest. Recommended conditions ensure that no harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the development. 7. The site plan and design is in conformance with the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan and other applicable adopted community plans; The project both serves and employs local residents. The facility is located in proximity to public transportation. The project avoids impacts to critical areas in the vicinity and observes sustainability practices by utilizing an existing building. The project provides adequate transportation facilities through right-of-way dedication, an electric car charging station and bicycle parking. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 18 of 31 The Planning Commission determined that the project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. 8. Any property subject to site plan and design review that contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; The proposal conforms to all critical area regulations. There are no potential adverse impacts to geologic hazard areas. Both the Planning Department and a third party consultant concluded that the project addition is exempt from establishing the full required buffer width from the wetland and stream. As stated in the critical area report, the proposed addition will not increase impacts to the critical area relative to the existing development condition. The development area is separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area. 9. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process and open space goals. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040. The site plan and design ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the City. The project was reviewed with respect to overall site design. The proposed change of use of the existing building including the proposed addition is compatible with the existing site. The site was initially designed in a logical, safe, and attractive manner. The proposal does not require dedication of open space. 2. BIMC 2.16.110.F Major Conditional Use Permit A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if: Decision Criteria Staff Analysis a. The conditional use is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; provided, that in the case of a housing design demonstration project any differences in design, character or appearance that are in furtherance of the purpose and decision Recommended conditions ensure that the use is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property. Other uses in the vicinity include a fire station, church and assisted living facility. The south side of the subject property is heavily vegetated to provide an ample buffer to residential uses. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 19 of 31 criteria of BIMC 2.16.020.Q shall not result in denial of a conditional use permit for the project; and b. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; and The project is served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire, sewer, and storm drainage. The streets and pedestrian ways coordinate with existing streets and conform to the Island Wide Transportation Plan and the “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards.” The property is currently served by City sewer and water. Recommended Fire District and Public Works conditions are incorporated in this report. c. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and Recommended conditions are provided to ensure that the use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property. d. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and The project both serves and employs local residents. The facility is located in proximity to public transportation. The project avoids impacts to critical areas in the vicinity and observes sustainability practices by utilizing an existing building. The project provides adequate transportation facilities through right-of-way dedication, an electric car charging station and bicycle parking. The proposed development is in conformance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan. The project is conditioned to require a 15-foot right of way dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Rd. frontage. The existing pedestrian trail through the wetlands/wetland and stream buffer will continue to allow for public access and shall be maintained by the applicant. The Planning Commission determined that the project is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. e. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC; and Recommended conditions ensure that the conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC. f. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the proposed use All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the use may have on City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 20 of 31 may have on the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and the immediate vicinity. SEPA conditions imposed for the 2013 health care facility approval, along with recommended project conditions specific to this proposal, adequately address potential impacts of this proposal. No comments on this proposal were received from SEPA agencies. Occasional siren noise may occur on site from emergency vehicles. Expected traffic fits within the City’s adopted level of service standards. As part of the 2013 approval for the previous use on the subject parcel (City file no. SPRA/CUPA14430C), traffic impacts from Harrison Medical Center were mitigated by a $40,000 to the State Department of Transportation for intersection improvements along the SR305 corridor. g. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and The project is required to comply with noise regulations in BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A. h. The vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation meets all applicable city standards, unless the city engineer has modified the requirements of BIMC 18.15.020.B.4 and B.5, allows alternate driveway and parking area surfaces, and confirmed that those surfaces meet city requirements for handling surface water and pollutants in accordance with Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and The recommended conditions include those that address pedestrian and bicycle circulation and are provided to ensure that the project meets all applicable City standards and the “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards. i. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: i. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and ii. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and iii. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and iv. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate The City Development Engineer determined that the site plan and design meet the applicable decision criteria and recommends approval subject to conditions to ensure conformance with drainage, water quality, and streets and pedestrian ways. The Development Engineer recommends a 15- foot right of way dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Rd. frontage to align with the right of way of the adjacent property (Madrona Assisted Living). The City Development Engineer finds that the provided trip generation analysis demonstrates that the proposed use results in a net decrease in trip generation from the previously approved use City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 21 of 31 anticipated traffic; and v. If the conditional use will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the conditional use, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and vi. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Development Standards Manual,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 17. and does not adversely impact the City’s adopted level of service standards for transportation facilities, and that a Certificate of Concurrency is therefore not required. The subject parcel is currently served by City water and sewer. A water and sewer availability application is required at the time of building permit application if any plumbing is added or changed. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria of this chapter, then the application shall be denied. This report contains recommended conditions to ensure the project meets the decision criteria of this chapter. 3. BIMC 2.16.110.G Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones Applications to locate any of those uses categorized as educational facilities, governmental facilities, religious facilities, health care facilities, cultural facilities, or clubs shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following: Decision Criteria Staff Analysis a. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map.; and The site fronts on State Route 305, which is classified as a primary arterial in the Island Wide Transportation Plan. b. If the traffic study shows an impact on the level of service, those impacts have been mitigated as required by the city engineer.; and The City Development Engineer finds that the provided trip generation analysis demonstrates that the proposed use results in a net decrease in trip generation from the previously approved use and does not adversely impact the City’s adopted level of service standards for transportation facilities. c. If the application is located outside of Winslow study area, the project shall provide vegetated perimeter buffers in compliance with BIMC 18.15.010.; and The proposal does not impact or alter existing previously approved landscape perimeter and roadside buffers. d. The proposal meets the requirements in BIMC 18.18.030; and The Design Review Board determined that the project is consistent with Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines and recommends approval. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 22 of 31 e. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the immediately surrounding area; and The building is existing and compatible with the immediately surrounding area. The bulk, height, and architectural design features of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing building and the immediately surrounding area. f. If the facility will have attendees and employees numbering fewer than 50 or an assembly seating area of less than 50, the director may waive any or all the above requirements in this subsection E, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC; and The facility includes an assembly seating area (courtroom) that has a maximum seating capacity of 48 occupants. The project is in compliance with the requirements of this Code section. g. Lot coverage does not exceed 50 percent of the allowable lot coverage in the zone in which the institution is located, except that public schools and governmental facilities, as defined in BIMC Title 18, that are located in the R-0.4 zoning district shall be allowed 150 percent of the lot coverage established in the R-0.4 zoning district, and such public schools and governmental facilities located in other zoning districts shall be allowed 100 percent of the lot coverage established in the underlying zoning district in which the facility is located, unless, regardless of which zoning district such a facility is located, conditions are required to limit the lot coverage to mitigate impacts of the use. The maximum lot coverage in the R-8 zoning district is 25%. Under this provision, the maximum lot coverage for a governmental facility is 25%. The proposed lot coverage is below this maximum. Part VII: Exhibits See Exhibit List Part VIII: Recommended Conditions of Approval This report includes the standards of review, relevant Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan provisions and provisions of other permitting agencies. The staff report includes findings based on evidence in the record. The project file contains the official record and basis for findings, including technical information and documentation. Appropriate notice of application and SEPA comment period was provided, and no comments were received. For continuity, all of the conditions from previously approved SPRs and CUPs have been carried forward, with any new conditions/modifications underlined and any revised or no longer applicable language struck through. City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 23 of 31 The Director recommends approval with the following conditions: SEPA Conditions: 1. No clearing, grading or other construction activities shall occur until a building permit or site development permit has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. 2. All graded materials removed from the development shall be hauled to and deposited at city approved locations. 3. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) for the proposed development shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.20. The plans must be approved, the improvements constructed (or a construction bond provided if applicable), and an acceptable final inspection obtained prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The design submittal shall incorporate all proposed project improvements including complete civil plans, grading and erosion control plans, roadway plans and profiles, and storm drainage facilities and drainage report. These reports shall be prepared by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Washington. A construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) will be required prior to construction approval in accordance with BIMC Section 15.20.030.B (4). More information about this permit can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwwater/constrution/ or by contacting Charles Gilman at (360) 407-7451, email chgi461@ecy.wa.gov. This permit is required prior to any construction activities. 5. During the construction of the proposed infiltration facilities, the Project Engineer shall provide an inspection report to verify that the facilities are installed in accordance with the design documents and the actual soil conditions encountered meet the design assumptions. The Project Engineer shall submit the inspection report properly stamped and sealed with a professional engineer's stamp to Public Works Engineering. 6. An easement to COBI for access and maintenance of the proposed public stormwater facilities will be required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The applicant's engineer shall provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPP to protect the public stormwater infiltration facilities during construction of the development. 8. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall improve the roadway section for New Brooklyn Road to provide a minimum 18-foot wide paved driving surface, with appropriate storm drainage facilities per COBI Design Standards. The roadway shall be built to COBI Design standards, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 24 of 31 along the property's north frontage. 9. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall improve the property's Madison Avenue frontage with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per COBI Design Standards. 10. To mitigate anticipated traffic impacts, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall construct a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue in accordance with the technical appendix diagram submitted in the Island Medical Traffic Impact Analysis date stamped received April 1, 2008 by the Department of Planning and Community Development unless an alternative plan is recommended for approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation and approved by the City's Development Engineer. 11. In order to provide recreation and access to the adjacent open space to the south, a trail network, consisting of four to six foot wide trails, shall be developed and maintained by the applicant within wetlands/wetland buffer in the southern portion of the site. The network shall extend from the Madison Avenue to the east, towards State Route 305, and terminate at the southern property line. A public access easement shall be granted over the trail network. 12. Within the wetlands/wetland buffer unless approved under a subsequent permit, removal of vegetation shall be limited to development of a trail network. No soil disturbance shall occur outside of the six foot wide trail construction corridor. The trails shall be "field-fit" between or around existing trees, so that significant tree removal shall be avoided. Limbs and branches up to nine feet over the trail and within one foot of the trail edges shall be removed. The four to six foot wide trail shall be constructed with a four inch layer of crushed 3/4 inch gravel over a geotextile mat barrier. All pedestrian improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Prior to final plat submittal, an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Declaration of Covenant for all constructed stormwater facilities shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.21. 14. A minimum two-year maintenance bond period for the stormwater facilities is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The maintenance period will begin after final construction acceptance of the improvements and shall run for a minimum period of two years. Regular maintenance of the stormwater system is required during this period. Documentation of maintenance shall be provided to the city on an annual basis. 15. In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85.060 (C) 18.15.010 and to discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from designated protection areas without City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 25 of 31 prior City approval will be replaced with new trees as follows: New trees measuring 1.5 inches in caliper if deciduous and four to six feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of the removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of replacement trees. The tree removed shall be replaced with trees of the same type, evergreen or deciduous. The replacement trees shall also be replaced in the same general location as the trees removed. 16. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of the Island Medical Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 14430B, shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit. 17. On-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the applicant provides and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location, duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2. Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 201, see Volume IV "Source Control BIMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".) (Chapter 173-304 WAC). 18. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC Section 15.15.025 16.16.025 Limitation of Construction Activities. 19. All lighting within the development shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 15.34 18.15. Compliance will require exterior lighting to be shielded and directed downward. 20. Contractors are required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction. 21. To protect the wetland buffer, the applicant shall only install motion sensor lighting in the rear of the site to ensure that the buffer is not constantly illuminated through the night. Project Conditions 22. Except as modified by conditions of approval, the project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plans date stamped June 26, 2008 for the assisted living facility and July 9, 2013 for the medical building October 9, 2019 for the Police and Court facility. 23. Prior to submittal of any building permit applications, the applicant shall contact planning staff to schedule a pre-submittal meeting to review the necessary components for a complete building permit application. In addition, with the building permit application submittal, the applicant shall attach a narrative detailing how each condition of approval is City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 26 of 31 addressed by the building plans. 24. To verify that the buildings comply with the 35-foot 40-foot height limit, the site plans submitted as part of the building permit shall contain existing contours overlain with the building footprints. The submitted material shall include surveyed benchmark information to verify the actual height during construction. 25. Prior to any clearing and/or construction activities, fencing delineating the northern boundary of the wetland buffer shall be installed by the applicant and inspected by planning staff. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the construction fencing shall be replaced with split-rail fencing and signage. The signs shall inform readers of the boundary and its significance. Any disturbed buffer setback area shall be re-planted with native vegetation upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the building's Certificate of Occupancy. 26. Any required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The project's state licensed landscape architect, certified nursery professional, or certified landscaper shall submit a landscaping declaration to the department to verify installation in accordance with approved plans. The time limit for compliance may be extended to allow installation of landscaping during the next appropriate planting season if the director determines that a performance assurance device, for a period of not more than one year, will adequately protect the interests of the city. The performance assurance device shall be for 150 percent of the cost of the work or improvements covered by the assurance device. 27. The landscape plans submitted with the building permit shall depict the items listed in BIMC Chapter 18.85 including partial landscape screens along the site's Madison Avenue and New Brooklyn frontage with the following exceptions: a) within the 25-foot zoning setback along the parking lot adjoining New Brooklyn, a more intense screen, as stipulated in BIMC 18.85.070(E)(l )(b) shall be installed and b) within the 29 foot front setbacks along the assisted living facility, landscaping shall substantially conform to the plans date-stamped September 8, 2008. Along the sites' highway frontage, a full landscaping screen, as defined in BIMC l 8.85.070(B) 1) shall be installed in the 25-foot zoning setback. All significant trees, as defined in BIMC 18.85.010 and located within the required perimeter landscape buffer areas, shall be retained and incorporated into the required landscape screen. All required landscaping shall be maintained and retained for the life of the project. 28. As the code -required New Brooklyn landscaping screens are located within areas shown as being developed with rain gardens, the applicant must demonstrate that the dual purposes, perimeter landscape screening and stormwater treatment faculty, are compatible. If not, the rain gardens would need to be relocated. Proof of compatibility or relocation of the raingardens shall be submitted as part of the building permit application. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy final inspection, the applicant shall City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 27 of 31 secure the landscape maintenance assurance required by BIMC Section 18.85.090(D). 30. The service area, including trash and recycling enclosures, for the medical office Police and Court facility must be located as far away as possible from the assisted living facility and shall be properly screened with fencing. 31. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install bicycle racks or hangers supplying parking for at least 20 bicycles. Of those spaces, a portion shall be located near the front entrance of the medical building Police and Court facility. 32. Civil construction plans for all roads, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and water facilities, and appurtenances shall be prepared by a professional engineer and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. All civil improvement plans, reports, and computations shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted with the application(s) for a construction permit (building, grading, right of way use, etc.) to the City for review and approval to construct of all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued for new building until all civil improvements are completed. 33. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained that are specific to the Madrona House Assisted Living property. All on-site stormwater facilities that are specific to the Police and Court facility property shall be owned and maintained by the City. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this development following construction. Before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this development, the person or persons holding title to the subject property for which the storm drainage facilities are required shall record a Declaration of Covenant that guarantees to the City that the system will be properly maintained. Wording must be included in the covenant that will allow the City to inspect the system and perform the necessary maintenance in the event the system is not performing properly. This will be done only after notifying the owner and giving him a reasonable time to do the necessary work. Should City crews be required to do the work, the owner will be billed the maximum amount allowed by law. 34. The property owner shall dedicate, as right-of-way, 25 feet of property fronting along New Brooklyn as shown on the preliminary civil drawings date-stamped June 2, 2009. In addition, a pedestrian easement shall be dedicated for the sidewalk along the proposed on-street parking along New Brooklyn to make them public throughways. 35. A right-of-way (ROW) construction permit will be required prior to any construction activities within the ROW. The ROW permit will be subject to conditions and coding bonding requirements. 36. The water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed in conformance with BIMC Title 13 and the City's adopted Design Standard and Specifications. The utilities plans submitted City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 28 of 31 with building permit's civil drawings shall include profile and detail and shall demonstrate compatibility of the facilities with future street improvements currently proposed by the City. Specifications for water and sewer facilities include the following: a. An eight-inch diameter ductile iron class 52 water main shall be installed along the site's New Brooklyn frontage. b. A 15 foot wide easement for the on-site water main extension shall be provided from the right- of-way to the proposed buildings. c. An isolation valve shall be provided at the connection to the force main located in Madison Avenue. 37. Binding water and sewer service letters from the City's Public Works Department shall be submitted with the building permit application. 38. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the project shall meet all applicable requirements of the 2006 2015 International Fire Code. 39. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed throughout the buildings. 40. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the proposed hydrant in front of the assisted living facility shall be relocated to the west parking lot entrance, a fire hydrant must be installed at the east parking lot entrance, and the proposed hydrant in front of the medical office building shall be relocated to the entrance of the parking garage. 41. Building overhangs covering the main entrances shall provide at least 13' 6" of clearance. 42. The driving lanes within the project are considered fire lanes and shall be labeled as such to the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. 43. To the satisfaction of the Kitsap County Health District, the applicant shall: a. Abandon the site's existing septic tank per that agency's code b. Have the site's existing well decommissioned by a certified well driller. c. Apply for a sewered building clearance accompanied by a water and sewer availability letter from the water purveyor. 44. To the satisfaction of planning staff, all exterior building surfaces shall be sided with non- reflective materials. 45. To the satisfaction of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the following provisions must be followed: a. WSDOT will only accept stormwater runoff from the project site that currently enters SR 305 right-of-way. Any proposal by the applicant to discharge stormwater runoff to the right-of-way either during construction or upon completion will require appropriate stormwater treatment in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 29 of 31 Manual. If such discharge is proposed, a drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by WSDOT prior to any earth disturbance. b. No excavation, grading, filling, landscaping or any other activity associated with the proposal may occur within state right-of-way without prior approval by WSDOT. c. No lighting from the site may be directed towards the state highway and no glare from the completed project shall impact the state highway. d. No signs shall be placed in the highway right-of-way (unless otherwise approved). 46. The applicant shall coordinate with the Washington Department of transportation (WSDOT) to determine if signage can be added to the highway that indicates the location of the urgent care facility. The applicant shall coordinate with staff to ensure that said signage meets the sign code requirements of BIMC 15.18. 47. As most of the dining terrace is located within the building setback associated with the wetland buffer, it must be constructed with a pervious surface (wood decking, pavers, permeable concrete, etc) to the satisfaction of planning staff. 48. The mechanical units shall be screened from SR 305 and New Brooklyn. as indicated on the site plans submitted by the applicant on November 26, 2013. The mechanical units shall be inspected during the permit review and found to be screened prior to the issuance of occupancy. 49. Prior to directly discharging any stormwater into the wetland and/or its buffer, the applicant shall secure a Special Use Review permit from the City of Bainbridge Island. 50. At the time of building permit application, the applicant must indicate on the site plan which vegetation will be disturbed to gain access to the building during construction of the Police and Court facility. Any vegetation disturbance shall be re-planted prior to final on the building permit. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City prior to replanting and if any trees are removed, the project shall continue meet the applicable tree unit requirements. 51. At least one parking space near the entrance of the Police and Court facility must be reserved and signed for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. This condition will be verified prior to final on the building permit. 52. Any portion of the security fence that is within a setback shall be a maximum of eight feet high. Within a setback, a fence may be screened up to six feet high with an additional two feet of nonscreening material for a total of eight feet. This condition will be verified at the time of building permit review. 53. 15’ of Public Right of Way (ROW) shall be dedicated on the north frontage with NE New Brooklyn Road from the northwest property corner east until it meets the SR305 ROW, to align with the existing ROW of the adjacent property to the west (Madrona Assisted Living). This City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 30 of 31 ROW dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Frontage shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of any construction permit (to include Building, ROW, and Grade and Fill) or no later than 12 months from the date of SPRA/CUPA approval, whichever occurs first. 54. This project shall not result in any action that would preclude the future construction of the STO trail along the eastern frontage with SR305. 55. Prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy, an updated Operation and Maintenance plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system shall be provided to City of Bainbridge Public Works Department (Operations and Maintenance) for use of the personnel responsible for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. 56. Applicant shall provide updated Drainage Fixture Unit count and comparative analysis between existing and proposed conditions to ensure water service meter is appropriately sized for the new use. 57. Sanitary sewer connections shall be protected during construction. Prior to returning the sanitary sewer lateral connection to service, applicant shall demonstrate via video inspection or equivalent methods that the lateral is free of obstruction/debris and is in good working order. 58. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempt activity shall be considered a violation of this chapter and subject to enforcement and restoration under BIMC 16.20.170. 59. A land use permit automatically expires and is void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the permit unless (a) the applicant has received an extension for the permit; or (b) the permit provides for an extended time period. The director may grant one extension to the permit, in writing, for a period not to exceed one year if the applicant can demonstrate, (a) unforeseen circumstances or conditions necessitate the extension of the permit; and (b) termination of the permit would result in unreasonable hardship to the applicant, and the applicant is not responsible for the delay; and (c) the extension of the permit will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and (d) the extension request is received by the department no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the permit. 60. Minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review may be made after review and approval by the Director. Minor adjustments are those that include minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not include changes to the intensity or character of the use. Minor adjustments are processed through a written request from the applicant and a written response from department staff. The City response is placed in the project file and is effective to modify the approval as described in the response. Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a City Police and Court Facility – PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 31 of 31 new or amended application as determined by the Director. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use. Exhibit 2 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 280 Madison Ave North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal Notice of Complete Application November 06, 2019 Robert Hutchinson, Architect 900 Winslow Way E, Suite 210 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Re: Conditional Use Permit Adjustment and Site Plan Review Adjustment File Name: Police and Court Facility CUP Major Adjustment and SPR Major Adjustment File Number: PLN51524 CUPA and PLN51524 SPRA Submitted: October 09, 2019 Dear City of Bainbridge Island: The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies. Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(M), the applicant must post a legal notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. I will contact you when the notice boards are prepared. Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and file name shown above. Regards, _____________________________________ Ellen Fairleigh, Project Manager efairleigh@bainbridgewa.gov 206-780-3767 cc: Barry Loveless, Project Manager, City of Bainbridge Island Ellen Fairleigh Exhibit 3 NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA COMMENT PERIOD/HEARING The City of Bainbridge Island has received a Master Land Use Permit Application for the following project. The public has the right to review contents of the official file, provide written comments, participate in any public meetings or hearings, and request a copy of the decision. This notice is posted at the project site, in City Hall kiosks, the City of Bainbridge Island website, mailed to property owners within 500 feet of any boundary of the subject property and including any property within 500 feet of any contiguous property in the applicant’s ownership and published in the Bainbridge Island Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remodel existing medical office building for repurposing as space for the City of Bainbridge Island Police and Court. PROJECT NAME: Police and Court Facility PROJECT NUMBER: PLN51524 CUPA PLN51524 SPRA PERMIT TYPE: Conditional Use Permit Major Adjustment Site Plan Review Major Adjustment TAX PARCEL: 23250230832002 PROJECT SITE: 8804 MADISON AVE N DATE SUBMITTED: October 9, 2019 DATE COMPLETE: November 6, 2019 DATE NOTICED: November 15, 2019 COMMENT PERIOD: November 15, 2019 – November 29, 2019 Comments must be submitted no later than 4:00pm on Friday, November 29, 2019. Public comments may be mailed, emailed or personally delivered to the City using the staff name and contact information provided on this notice. The public comment period for this application is 14 days and the City will not act on the application nor make a threshold determination until the comment period has ended. Any person may comment on the proposed application, request notice of and participate in the public hearing and request a copy of the decision. Only those persons who submit written comments pr ior to the decision or participate in the public hearing will be parties of record and only parties of record will have the right to appeal. STAFF CONTACT: Ellen Fairleigh, Planner pcd@bainbridgewa.gov or 206.780.3767 DATE OF HEARING: February 13, 2020 at 10:00 am (tentative) This is a tentative date only. Please go to the City website at bainbridgewa.gov and search 'Project Hearing Schedule' to view any updates on the date/time of the hearing. Hearings are held at Bainbridge Island City Hall, Council Chambers, 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island. PROJECT DOCUMENTS: https://ci-bainbridgeisland- wa.smartgovcommunity.com/PermittingPublic/PermitDetailPublic/Index/7b8935c8- c31b-4735-bf58-aae10159eb1d?_conv=1 Subject Parcel Exhibit 4 To review documents and environmental studies submitted with this proposal, please follow the link above or go to the City website at bainbridgewa.gov, select 'Online Permit Center' and search using the project information noted above. Files are also available at the Planning & Community Development Department at City Hall (M-F 8:00am-12:00pm). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This proposal is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as provided in WAC 197-11-800. The City, acting as lead agency, expects to issue a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) threshold determination for this proposal. Utilizing the optional DNS process provided in WAC 197-11-355, the comment period specified in this notice may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of this proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the proposal may be obtained upon request. Note: Notices of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) were previously issued for the previous use of this parcel on May 1, 2008 and December 17, 2013 respectively. A new SEPA review is required due to the proposed scope of work and change in use under this proposal. REGULATIONS/POLICIES: Applicable development regulations and policies to be used for project mitigation and consistency include, but may not be limited to, the City of Bainbridge Island 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) Chapter 2.16 (Land Use Review Procedures), Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), Title 16 (Environment) and Title 18 (Zoning). OTHER PERMITS: Other permits not included in this application but known at this time include Building permits. DECISION PROCESS: This type of land use application is classified as a 'Quasi-Judicial Decision by a Hearing Examiner' pursuant to BIMC 2.16.010-1 and requires a public hearing pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.C. Following the close of the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision and a notice of the decision will be sent to those parties who comment on this notice or participate in the public hearing. Appeal provisions will be included with the notice of decision. Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 100'-0 " addition addition areas landward of the split rail fence determined to be permanent substantial development and establish functional isolation from the critical areas per the Wetland Resources Environmental Report dated April 8, 2020. approximate line of perscriptive 200' type F stream buffer t the split rail fence is the existing wetland and stream edge buffer 3 A4.11 1 A4.00 2 A4.01 2 A4.00 (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5)(6) (6) (9) (9)(10) (10) (1) (1)(7) (7) (8) (8) (C)(C) (D)(D) (E)(E) (F)(F) (G)(G) (1a) (2a) (3a) (5a) (7a) (4a) (LL) (JJ.1) (GG.9) (DD) (CC) (BB) (AA) (C.3)(C.3) (D.4)(D.4) (D.5)(D.5) (C.5)(C.5) 3 A4.01 3' - 9" 17' - 6 1/2" 18' - 6 1/8" 11' - 4 1/8" 5' - 10 1/2" 11' - 4 1/4" 18' - 6 1/4" 17' - 6 1/2" 6' - 0 3/4" T Y P 9' - 6 3 / 4 " 9' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 6 5 / 8 " 6 ' - 5 1 / 8 " 5 ' - 3 5 / 8 " 3' - 1 3 / 8 " 3' - 0 7 / 8 " 1' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 3' - 9" 17' - 6 1/2" 18' - 6 1/4" 11' - 4 1/4" 5' - 10 1/2" 11' - 4 1/4" 18' - 6 1/4" 17' - 6 1/2" 6' - 0 3/4" 3 3 ' - 1 1 " 9' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 6 5 / 8 " 1 1 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 3 ' - 1 3 / 8 " 3' - 0 7 / 8 " 65 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 9' - 1 7 / 8 " 8 " 9' - 2 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 1 " 7 ' - 5 7 /8 " 2 3 ' - 0 1 /2 " 6 ' - 1 1 5 /8 " 6 ' - 4 7 /8 " 7 ' - 4 1 /4 " 8 ' - 4 " 2 ' - 7 " 7 ' - 9 5 / 8 " 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 8 " 1 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 6 ' - 4 3 / 8 " (EE) (FF) (GG) (HH) (JJ) (KK) (6a)(EE.7) (DD.8) 1 A4.12 10 ' - 4 3 / 4 " (2.5)(3.5)(4.5) (B.7) (C.6) 4 A4.11 41' - 10 3/4"53' - 1 5/8" F.O. CONC/FRAMING CTR OF COL/CONC F. O . C O N C F. O . C O N C F .O. C O NC F . O. CON C CTR OF COL F. O . C O N C CT R O F C O L CT R O F C O L F ACE OF CON C F ACE OF CON C 53' - 3 1/4" OFFICER ENTRY NEW STAIRWELL FROM BASEMENT COVERED AREA 42 FIELD BAG LCKR 3/WIGN SUSPECT ENTRY (E) ROOF CANOPY ABOVE WEAPONS MAINTENANCE CO P Y BAC/DRE D ISPL A Y LI VE S CA N CO F F E E 621 SF OFFICER'S/ BRIEFING / REPORTS 141 72 SF CRO 146 70 SF SGT 2 144 68 SF JUV. LOUNGE 142 42 SF ELECT. 126 39 SF NON ADA RR 140 215 SF (N) STAIR 3 147 244 SF LOCKER ROOM 148 92 SF PATROL EQUIP. 138 94 SF INTERVIEW 137 52 SF RR 135 205 SF PD ADMIN 132 106 SF ADMIN SUP. 129 211 SF CHIEF OF POLICE 134 230 SF ADMIN CONF. 133 132 SF DEPUTY CHIEF 130 147 SF VESTIBULE 136 587 SF CORRIDOR 125 418 SF IN-TAKE / CORRIDOR 118 231 SF BAG & TAG 124 102 SF UNIFORM ST. / ARMORY 123 66 SF EQUIP. ST. 120 76 SF NARC 119 67 SF WEAPONS ST. 121 44 SF MONITOR RM 122 48 SF INT/REPORT TAKING 109 51 SF RR 110 45 SF RR 111 70 SF DISCOVERY EVID. RETURN 112 314 SF (E) HALLWAY 105 60 SF (E) RR 106 58 SF INT/REPORT TAKING 107 542 SF RECEPTION 102 413 SF CORRIDOR 108 220 SF CORRIDOR 131 242 SF CORRIDOR 128 404 SF GENERAL EVIDENCE 114 139 SF H.D. FILES 113 71 SF SGT 3 145 72 SF SGT 1 143 188 SF (E)STAIR 2 116 236 SF H.D. RACKS 115 214 SF DETECTIVES 127 64 SF ELEVATOR 104 30 SF (E) ELEV MACHINE ROOM 103 127 SF VESTIBULE 100 408 SF LOBBY 101 4' - 9" 4' - 9 " 4' - 9 " EYE WASH BOOT WASH JAN. 139 FEC 3' - 4" 3' - 9 1/4" 9' - 10 3/4" 9' - 5 5 / 8 " 5' - 10 1/2" 4' - 2 1 / 2 " CL E A R 6' - 6 " 7' - 1 1 / 4 " CLEAR 8' - 0 1/8" 8' - 0 3/4" 5 1/2" 23' - 11" 5 1/2" 7' - 7 5/8" CL E A R 4' - 8 1 / 4 " FEC ROOF BELOW SMOKE SEAL PARTITION 1-HR RATED ASSEMBLY LINE TYPE LEGEND: GENERAL PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL GRIDLINES ARE DIMENSIONED TO CENTER OF COLUMN, U.N.O. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH, U.N.O. 3. NOT USED. 4. DIMENSIONS AT PUNCHED WINDOW OPENINGS ARE INDICATED AT 1/4" PLANS.STC 40 STC 50 STC 60 ACOUSTICAL LEGEND WALLS WITH INSULATION SHOWN HAVE STD REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED. WALLS WITHOUT INSULATION NEED TO MATCH F.O.W. DATE:ISSUED FOR: 900 WINSLOW WAY E SUITE 210 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 P 206.780.0876 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 3 2 : 5 3 A M \ \ c o a t e s \ F o l d e r R e d i r e c t i o n \ a n n e t t e \ D o c u m e n t s \ B I P D S D 2 0 1 9 - 1 0 - 1 7 I N 2 0 2 0 _ a n n e t t e 5 H 3 4 F . r v t A2.01 MAIN LEVEL - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D P O L I C E A N D C O U R T - BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT 8804 MADISON AVE. N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 11/12/2019 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN 3 A4.11 1 A4.00 2 A4.01 2 A4.00 1 A4.01 (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5)(6) (6) (9)(10) (10) (1) (1)(7) (7) (8) (8) (C)(C) (D)(D) (E)(E) (F)(F) (G)(G) (1a) (2a) (3a) (5a) (7a) (4a) (LL) (JJ.1) (GG.9) (DD) (CC) (BB) (AA) (C.3)(C.3) (D.4)(D.4) (D.5)(D.5) (C.5)(C.5) 3 A4.01 9' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 6 5 / 8 " 1 1 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 3' - 1 3 / 8 " 3' - 0 7 / 8 " 3' - 9" 17' - 6 1/2" 18' - 6 1/8" 11' - 4 1/8" 5' - 10 1/2" 11' - 4 1/4" 18' - 6 1/4" 23' - 7 1/4" 41' - 10 3/4"30' - 5 1/8"22' - 8 5/8" 5' - 10 7/8" 3' - 11 3/8" 65 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 9' - 1 7 / 8 " 9 3 / 4 " 9' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 0 5 / 8 " 5 ' - 6 5 / 8 " 1 1 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 3' - 1 3 / 8 " 3' - 0 7 / 8 " 3' - 9" 17' - 6 1/2" 18' - 6 1/4" 11' - 4 1/4" 5' - 10 1/2" 11' - 4 1/4" 18' - 6 1/4" 23' - 7 1/4" 6 ' - 0 5 /8 " 5 ' - 1 1 1 /8 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 1 " 7 ' - 5 7 /8 " 2 3 ' - 0 1 /2 " 6 ' - 1 1 5 /8 " 6 ' - 4 7 /8 " 7 ' - 4 1 /4 " 8 ' - 4 " 2 ' - 7 " 7 ' - 9 5 / 8 " 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 8 " 8 ' - 4 " 3 3 / 8 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 7 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 4 7 / 8 " 3 4 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 12 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 5' - 11" 5' - 6" 5' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 10 ' - 4 3 / 4 " (EE) (FF) (GG) (HH) (JJ) (KK) (6a)(EE.7) (DD.8) 1 A4.12 (2.5)(3.5)(4.5) (B.7) (C.6) 4 A4.11 C.9 C.9 F.O. CONC/COL CTR OF COL/CONC F. O . C O N C F. O . C O N C F . O. CON C F . O. CON C CTR OF COL F. O . C O N C CT R O F C O L CT R O F C O L 1 2 3 4 (1 3 ) L O C K E R S (1 3 ) L O C K E R S 1 2 3 REMOVABLE BAR JURY AREA BENCH WITNESS CLERK EMERGENCY EXIT MAXIMUM SEATING= 48 C O U RT SEC . S CR E E NI N G OBSCURE GLAZING ROBING 141 SF COURT ADMIN 239 397 SF WORK STATIONS 236 78 SF RR / CHANGING 233 68 SF RR / CHANGING 234 58 SF STAFF RR 237 64 SF RR 212 62 SF RR 213 216 SF POLICE CONF. / JURY DELIB. 216 277 SF POLICE LUNCH 231 75 SF 1st AID / LACT. 228 76 SF 1st AID 227 74 SF RR / CHANGING 226 64 SF RR / CHANGING 225 165 SF YMCA 218 155 SF PROSECUTOR 219 259 SF AV/TABLE/ CHAIR ST. 220 95 SF SECURITY / HOLDING 208 64 SF ROOM 207 84 SF PUBLIC DEFENDER 206 57 SF JUDGE RR 205 1292 SF COURT 215 177 SF JUDGES CHAMBERS 204 255 SF JURY CONFERENC/ALT COURTS LUNCH RM. 203 23 SF CL. 203A 147 SF COURT WAITING 209 65 SF COURT FILES 238 1054 SF FITNESS 232 284 SF CORRIDOR 223 133 SF CORRIDOR 221 210 SF CORRIDOR 214 205 SF VESTIBULE 210 97 SF RECEPTION 211 151 SF COURTS LUNCH 235 177 SF CORRIDOR 229 186 SF (E) STAIR 2 222 53 SF IT ROOM 224 183 SF (N) STAIR 3 230 ELEVATOR 278 SF (E) UPPER LANDING 201 170 SF CORRIDOR 202 (10) LOCKERS (12) LOCKERS ELECTRIC RM 217 FEC 8' - 4 1/4" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 7' - 9" CL E A R 4' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 5' - 5 7 / 8 " 28 ' - 9 " 9 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 4' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 2 3/4"11' - 11 1/2" 8' - 6" 11' - 9 3/4" 8' - 0" FEC 5' - 6 1/4" 5' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 10' - 8 7/8" FEC SMOKE SEAL PARTITION 1-HR RATED ASSEMBLY LINE TYPE LEGEND: GENERAL PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL GRIDLINES ARE DIMENSIONED TO CENTER OF COLUMN, U.N.O. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH, U.N.O. 3. NOT USED. 4. DIMENSIONS AT PUNCHED WINDOW OPENINGS ARE INDICATED AT 1/4" PLANS. STC 40 STC 50 STC 60 ACOUSTICAL LEGEND WALLS WITH INSULATION SHOWN HAVE STD REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED. WALLS WITHOUT INSULATION NEED TO MATCH F.O.W. DATE:ISSUED FOR: 900 WINSLOW WAY E SUITE 210 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 P 206.780.0876 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 3 3 : 0 7 A M \ \ c o a t e s \ F o l d e r R e d i r e c t i o n \ a n n e t t e \ D o c u m e n t s \ B I P D S D 2 0 1 9 - 1 0 - 1 7 I N 2 0 2 0 _ a n n e t t e 5 H 3 4 F . r v t A2.05 UPPER LEVEL - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D P O L I C E A N D C O U R T - BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT 8804 MADISON AVE. N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 11/12/2019 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 1 UPPER LEVEL - OVERALL FLOOR PLAN C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT NORTH ELEVATION CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT SE ELEVATION CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT SW ELEVATION CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT NW ELEVATION CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT BIRDS-EYE VIEW CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 9 b y COATES DESIGN INC. Scale: BAINBRIDGE ISLAND POLICE AND COURT FRONT ELEVATION CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 11/12/2019 Existing planting in this area will be replaced in kind after construction. All other landscaping preexisting and preserved Existing rain garden 25’ setback No landmark trees are within boundaries of property linesProperty line New Brooklyn Road Existing trail 15’ setback Line of potential future addition 100’ wetland bufferLine of existing wetlands Police Exterior Spaces All Parking At Grade City of Bainbridge Island, Washington Police and Municipal Court Police - Space Needs Validation • Site Summary 2 Story W/Out Firearms Range • January 6, 2017 Coates Design Architects McClaren, Wilson + Lawrie, Inc. 15 Valid. Remarks 4 AUTO 1,400 3 AUTO 1,050 4 FLEET 3,200 2 FLEET 1,600 3 AUTO 1,750 1 AUTO 350 6 AUTO 2,100 200 8 AUTO 3,500 31 15,150 Vacation / Sick Factor (Deduction)-5 AUTO -2,153 Fenced Perimeter- Controlled Access 26 12,998 19 AUTO 8,750 Assume shared rides 23 AUTO 8,750 Assume shared rides 42 17,500 68 30,498 1.4 42,697 15,303 800 2,000 800 200 61,800 9,765 12,360 6,180 90,104 2.07 Valid. Secure Staff Parking (Day Shift) Police Administration Police Records Police Patrol • On-coming Take Home (future build-out) • 1/2 build-out Shift Overlap Detectives Property Evidence • Impound Spaces • Bicycle Cage Municipal Courts Staff Subtotal 15% Secure (Motorcourt) Parking 26 12,998 Total Secure Motorcourt Parking Allowance Current Police Multi-purpose rm. Courtroom Total Non-Secure Parking Subtotal Circulation Factor Subtotal: Parking and Circulation Area in SF Building footprints (2-story - w/out firearms range) Outdoor Break Area Controlled Motorcourt Entry and Exit Emergency Generator & Fuel Tanks Trash Dumpster Enclosure / Loading Area Subtotal: Site Area Need in SF Allowance - Setback Allowance - Surface Water Retention 20%25,30,15,15 Allowance - Landscaping Area 10% Total Site Area Need (SF) Total Site Area Need (Acres) From:Jane Rein To:PCD; Leslie Schneider Subject:Fwd: Review of Police and Court Facility Date:Monday, March 2, 2020 3:52:42 PM Get Outlook for Android From: Ron Peltier <peppermelly@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 4:25:16 PM Subject: Review of Police and Court Facility Members of the Design Review Board, Your 3/2/20 meeting agenda includes a review of plans for the City's new police and court facility, which as you know involves an extensive renovation of the Harrison building. I have some concerns that I hope you will take into considering during your review. No Sally Port It is my understanding that the current police and court facility design does not include a sally port. These are secure entry points that allow for the safe transport of prisoners in and out of a police facility. It is mind boggling to me that after all the process and deliberations in selecting a site for the City's new police and court facility that the renovation design for the Harrison building would not include a sally port. For this reason, alone, I hope you will consider not recommending approval of the design. Inadequate stormwater facility Though this may be beyond your purview, the existing stormwater detention pond on the Harrison property evidently was overflowing after the heavy rains this past December. No private spaces for attorneys and clients to confer prior to court proceedings There apparently are no private spaces to allow confidential conversations between individuals and their attorneys involved in court proceedings. I believe this is a functional design flaw that should be addressed as an issue of fairness and due process. Lack of security regarding long gravel driveway One of the criteria for a court facility, identified in the 2006 Dana Weber report, is secure access for persons involved in judicial proceeding where safety may be of concern. The Harrison building is located down a long one-way gravel driveway. A person using transit will likely be dropped off at the head of that long driveway, where they will then need to walk a fair distance to the court. I've brought this up a number of times and consistently been "blown off". This is a flaw that somehow needs to be addressed, if possible. It could be the City's poor choice of location makes this flaw unavoidable, and really says more about the site selection process than issues of design. In closing, please don't be shy about expressing your concerns regarding the proposed court and police facility design. Given the amount of time and money the City is spending on it, we should not end up with a second rate facility. Best Regards, Ron Peltier Page 1 of 3 Department of Public Works - Engineering Memorandum Date: January 10, 2020 To: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development Ellen Fairleigh, Planner, Planning and Community Development From: Paul Nylund, P.E., Development Engineer, Public Works Subject: PLN51524 PRE – City of Bainbridge Island (COBI) Police and Court Facility: DE Recommendations and SPR Conditions of Approval Brief Project Description: Project proposes to remodel an existing medical service building to convert it for use by COBI Police and Court staff as a police station and court facility. Submitted plans indicate the vast majority of this project will be internal renovation of the existing building, creating less than 800sf of new/replaced hard surfaces external to the existing building. Project has been reviewed as a Major Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit. Recommendation for Approval: I have completed a review of the above-referenced project materials received by COBI on October 9, 2019 and deemed complete on November 6, 2019. The site plan is recommended for APPROVAL based on the following findings and subject to the conditions. 1. The site plan as conditioned conforms to regulations concerning drainage in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21; 2. The site plan will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; 3. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties. 4. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic. 5. The site is currently receiving City of Bainbridge Island Water and Sewer service and the proposed use (Police and Court Facility) is not anticipated to exceed demands of the current use (Medical Facility), therefore there is adequate capacity in the public system available on-site. 6. The site plan conforms to the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, “the Standards”, as conditioned; Page 2 of 3 Recommended Public Works Development Engineering Conditions of Approval General 1. All civil improvement plans, reports, and computations shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted with the application(s) for a construction permit (building, grading, right of way use, etc.) to the City for review and approval to construct of all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued for new building until all civil improvements are completed. Streets and Ways 2. 15’ of Public Right of Way (ROW) shall be dedicated on the north frontage with New Brooklyn Road from the northwest property corner east until it meets the SR305 ROW, to align with the existing ROW of the adjacent property to the west (Madrona Assisted Living). This ROW dedication along the New Brooklyn Frontage shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of any construction permit (to include Building, ROW, and Grade and Fill) or no later than 12 months from the date of SPR approval, whichever occurs first. 3. Due to uncertainty in the final Sound to Olympic (STO) Trail alignment/connection in the SR305 ROW along the eastern edge of the subject property, construction of this segment of the STO shall not be a required frontage improvement. However, this project shall not result in any condition that would preclude the future construction of the STO trail along the eastern frontage with SR305. 4. An appropriate trip generation analysis has been provided that indicates the proposed use will result in a net decrease in trip generation from the previously approved use and does not reach the threshold required for the City Engineer to conduct a concurrency test. A certificate of concurrency shall not be required. Stormwater 5. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required prior to construction activities including clearing or grading or civil improvements for all phases of the project to comply with BIMC 15.20. 6. As proposed, project is eligible for a Site Assessment Review exemption based on the creation of less than 800 sf of new/replaced hard surfaces. This exemption shall be issued by COBI Development Engineering upon review of the building permit submittals. 7. Prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy, an updated Operation and Maintenance plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system shall be provided to City of Bainbridge Public Works Department (Operations and Maintenance) for use of the personnel responsible for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. Water/Sewer Utility 8. Applicant shall provide updated Drainage Fixture Unit count and comparative analysis between existing and proposed conditions to ensure water service meter is appropriately sized for the new use. 9. Sanitary sewer connections shall be protected during construction. Prior to returning the sanitary sewer lateral connection to service, applicant shall demonstrate via video inspection or equivalent methods that the lateral is free of obstruction/debris and is in good working order. Additional Permitting Page 3 of 3 10. A right-of-way (ROW) construction permit will be required prior to any construction activities within the right-of-way. The ROW permit will be subject to separate conditions and bonding requirements. Please note that information provided in this letter reflects existing codes and standards, currently available information about the site and the nature of the immediate environs. Comments provided pursuant to preapplication review shall not be construed to relieve the applicant of conformance with all applicable fees, codes, policies, and standards in effect at the time of complete land use permit application. The comments on this proposal do not represent or guarantee approval of any project or permit. Comments above cover many Engineering related aspects of your proposal at this preliminary review, but please be advised that subsequent review of your land use permit application may reveal issues not identified during this initial review. 1 Ellen Fairleigh From:Jackie Purviance <jpurviance@bifd.org>Sent:Monday, January 6, 2020 7:44 AMTo:Ellen Fairleigh Subject:RE: PLN51524 CUPA and SPRA- Police and Court Facility I’ŵ sorrLJ….use the preapp ĐoŵŵeŶts      Jackie Purviance Deputy Fire Marshal BaiŶďridge IslaŶd Fire DepartŵeŶt  ϴϴϵϱ MadisoŶ Aǀe NE  BaiŶďridge IslaŶd, WA ϵϴϭϭϬ  PhoŶe ϮϬϲ‐ϰϱϭ‐ϮϬϯϯ  Fadž ϮϬϲ‐ϴϰϮ‐ϳϲϵϱ  www.bifd.org         Froŵ: ElleŶ Fairleigh <efairleigh@ďaiŶďridgeǁa.goǀ>   SeŶt: MoŶdaLJ, JaŶuarLJ ϲ, ϮϬϮϬ ϳ:ϮϮ AM  To: JaĐkie PurǀiaŶĐe <jpurǀiaŶĐe@ďifd.org>; Jared MoraǀeĐ <jŵoraǀeĐ@ďifd.org>  SuďjeĐt: RE: PLNϱϭϱϮϰ CUPA aŶd SPRA‐ PoliĐe aŶd Court FaĐilitLJ    Hi JaĐkie,    Just to ĐlarifLJ, do LJou ǁaŶt ŵe to use the pre‐app ĐoŵŵeŶts for the staff report or does Fire Ŷot haǀe aŶLJ ĐoŵŵeŶts?    ThaŶk LJou for LJour help!    ElleŶ    Froŵ: JaĐkie PurǀiaŶĐe <jpurǀiaŶĐe@ďifd.org>   SeŶt: MoŶdaLJ, JaŶuarLJ ϲ, ϮϬϮϬ ϲ:ϰϯ AM  To: ElleŶ Fairleigh <efairleigh@ďaiŶďridgeǁa.goǀ>; Jared MoraǀeĐ <jŵoraǀeĐ@ďifd.org>  SuďjeĐt: RE: PLNϱϭϱϮϰ CUPA aŶd SPRA‐ PoliĐe aŶd Court FaĐilitLJ    ElleŶ,    There are Ŷo additioŶal ĐoŵŵeŶts to add oŶ this projeĐt.    JaĐkie  2   Jackie Purviance Deputy Fire Marshal BaiŶďridge IslaŶd Fire DepartŵeŶt  ϴϴϵϱ MadisoŶ Aǀe NE  BaiŶďridge IslaŶd, WA ϵϴϭϭϬ  PhoŶe ϮϬϲ‐ϰϱϭ‐ϮϬϯϯ  Fadž ϮϬϲ‐ϴϰϮ‐ϳϲϵϱ  www.bifd.org         Froŵ: ElleŶ Fairleigh <efairleigh@ďaiŶďridgeǁa.goǀ>   SeŶt: FridaLJ, JaŶuarLJ ϯ, ϮϬϮϬ ϱ:ϰϰ PM  To: Jared MoraǀeĐ <jŵoraǀeĐ@ďifd.org>; JaĐkie PurǀiaŶĐe <jpurǀiaŶĐe@ďifd.org>  SuďjeĐt: PLNϱϭϱϮϰ CUPA aŶd SPRA‐ PoliĐe aŶd Court FaĐilitLJ    Hi Jared aŶd JaĐkie,    I aŵ ǁorkiŶg oŶ ĐoŵpletiŶg the staff report for the PoliĐe aŶd Court projeĐt at ϴϴϬϰ MadisoŶ AǀeŶue North.  Did Fire  haǀe aŶLJ additioŶal ĐoŵŵeŶts oŶ the appliĐatioŶ?  I haǀe Jared’s pre‐app ĐoŵŵeŶts ďut didŶ’t see aŶLJ Fire ĐoŵŵeŶts  iŶ the appliĐatioŶ file.  The priŵarLJ file for the projeĐt is PLNϱϭϱϮϰ CUPA.    ThaŶk LJou!    ElleŶ    Ellen Fairleigh City Planner www.bainbridgewa.gov facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/ 206.780.3767 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax) PlaŶŶiŶg aŶd CoŵŵuŶity DevelopŵeŶt serviĐe hours are:    Walk‐iŶ Đustoŵers: ϴ a.ŵ. ‐ ϭϮ p.ŵ. MoŶdaLJ‐FridaLJ   AppoiŶtŵeŶts: ϴ a.ŵ. – ϯ p.ŵ. MoŶdaLJ‐FridaLJ    AppoiŶtŵeŶts ŵaLJ ďe sĐheduled here: PlaŶŶiŶg aŶd BuildiŶg Suďŵittal AppoiŶtŵeŶt CaleŶdar    BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMO Date: September 4, 2019 To: Kelly Tayara, Planning Department From: Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal Re: COBI Police and Court Facility PLN51524PRE The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code. 2. Fire sprinklers and alarms will be required for the project. 3. Fire flow is met through existing hydrants. Design Review Board Regularly Scheduled Meeting Minutes Monday, March 2, 2020 Design Review Board Minutes March 2, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Review and Approval of Amended Minutes – January 6, 2020 Review and Approval of Minutes – February 3, 2020 PBV Fairyland (SPRA13880B-1) Police Court Facility (PLN51524 CUPA/SPRA) My Office (PLN51683 DRB-DG) New/Old Business Adjourn Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Chair Joseph Dunstan called the meeting to order at 2:04 PM. Design Review Board members in attendance were Jane Rein, Michael Loverich, Todd Theil, Shawn Parks and Laurel Wilson. Planning Commissioners Don Doman and John Quitslund were present. City Council member Leslie Schneider was present. City Staff present were Planning Manager David Greetham, Senior Planners Kelly Tayara and Peter Best, Associate Planners Annie Hillier and Ellen Farleigh and Administrative Specialist Marlene Schubert who monitored recording and prepared minutes. The agenda was reviewed, and no conflicts were disclosed. Review and Approval of Amended Minutes – January 6, 2020 Motion: I move to approve. Thiel/Rein: Passed Unanimously Review and Approval of Minutes – February 3, 2020 Motion: I move to approve. Thiel/Loverich: Passed Unanimously PBV Fairyland (SPRA13880B-1) Review & Recommendation Meeting – Annie Hillier, Planner See attached DRB Recorded Motion Motion: I move to approve Rein/Thiel – Passed Unanimously Police Court Facility (PLN51524 CUPA/SPRA) Confirm Recommendation for Planning Commission – Ellen Farleigh, Planner Discussion Only – DRB Recorded Motion will be completed at 04/06/2020 meeting Design Review Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 18, 2020 Design Review Board Minutes May 18, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Review and Approval of Minutes – March 2, 2020 Fraik Short Plat (PLN51709 DRB) KBA Short Plat (PLN51711 DRB-DG) Police Court Facility (PLN51524 CUPA/SPRA) New/Old Business Adjourn Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Chair Joseph Dunstan called the meeting to order at 2:01 PM. Design Review Board members in attendance were Jane Rein, Michael Loverich, Todd Theil, Shawn Parks, Vicki Clayton and Laurel Wilson. Planning Commissioner Jon Quitslund was present. City Council member Leslie Schneider was present. City Staff present were Planning Manager David Greetham, Senior Planner Kelly Tayara, Associate Planner Ellen Fairleigh, Administrative Specialist Jane Rasely and Administrative Specialist Marlene Schubert who monitored recording and prepared minutes. The agenda was reviewed. No conflicts were disclosed. Review and Approval of Minutes – March 2, 2020 Motion: I move to approve. Loverich/Rein: Passed Unanimously Fraik Short Plat (PLN51709 DRB) Conceptual Review Meeting – Review only KBA Short Plat (PLN51711 DRB-DG) Design Guidance Review Meeting (type of meeting corrected from agenda) Discussion only Police Court Facility (PLN51524 CUPA/SPRA) Confirm Recommendation for Planning Commission – Ellen Fairleigh, Planner See attached Design for Bainbridge Final Design Review-PLN51524 CUPA SPRA 05182020 Motion: I move that the DRB approve the Police & Court Facility without conditions. Rein/Loverich: Passed Unanimously Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 1 of 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Bainbridge Island, Washington PROJECT: COBI Police Court Facility (PLN51524 CUPA SPRA) DATE: May 18, 2020 PROJECT PLANNER: Ellen Fairleigh Design Review Board Meeting Dates: 06/03/2019 (Design Guidance); 12/02/2019 (Review & Recommendation); 03/02/2020 (Confirm Review & Recommendation) CONTEXT ANALYSIS C1 ANALYZE NATURAL RESOURCES C2 IDENTIFY EXTENT AND VALUE OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CORRIDORS C3 ASSESS UNIQUE AND PROMINENT FEATURES C4 CONSIDER THE DEFINING ATTRIBUTES OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT C5 ANALYZE SYSTEMS OF MOVEMENT AND ACCESS C6 STUDY HOW THE SITE RELATES TO/CONTRIBUTES TO THE PUBLIC REALM. Context Discussion: 1. Project will require a conditional use permit. It’s an institution/government facility in the R8, which is a residential district. SITE DESIGN STANDARDS S1 PROTECT AND REPAIR NATURAL SYSTEMS S2 PRESERVE, RESTORE AND ENRICH WILDLIFE HABITAT S3 RESPECT AND MAGNIFY UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT S4 COMPLEMENT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL IDENTITY Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 2 of 8 S5 FIT THE PROJECT INTO THE SYSTEMS OF ACCESS AND MOVEMENT, PRIORITIZING PEOPLE Site Design Findings: Project meets S1 through S5. Site Design Discussion: 1. Should the ecological report demonstrate that the addition to the building is functionally isolated from the critical area, then the following DRB determination stands. Otherwise, the proposal will return to the DRB for further review. 2. Project proposal is an existing building. New addition(s) are small and will not impact natural systems. 3. Exterior landscaping remains the same. 4. There would be no changes to any hardscape for the parking other than there will be a secure parking area in the back for police use. While this parking will be fenced, it will not be seen by people entering the front. 5. Existing parking remains unchanged and is for the public and a few staff positions. 6. There is a designated critical area on site. 7. All landscape areas disturbed during construction will be replanted and enhanced. 8. Bike Storage racks are included for the public 9. S5 - Security concerns for visitors: it was noted that there might be security concerns walking from the bus stop on Madison to the court facility. See Public Realm discussion. 10. Regarding ADA walks; all sidewalks and concrete walks are ADA compliant and will not change. 11. There is a trail behind the building that is gravel and is referenced and required in the land title for a connection to Sakai. It has no programmatic relevance to this project. PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS P1 CREATE A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR WALKING AND CYCYLING Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 3 of 8 P2 THE IMPACT OF VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC REALM P3 DESIGN TO CREATE A LEDGIBLE HEIRARCHY OF PUBLIC SPACES P4 STRENGHTEN PUBLIC SPACE CONNECTIONS P5 DRAW FROM AND ENHANCE EXISTING BLOCK AND FRONTAGE PATTERNS P6 FOSTER INTEREST AND ACTIVITY ALONG COMMERCIAL STREETS Public Realm Findings: 1. Project meets Standards P1 through P5 2. Standard P6 is not applicable to this project as proposed. Public Realm Discussion: 1. P1 - Bike racks will be located at building front entrance. 2. P1 - Safety: A bus stop is located at Madison Avenue with a short walk uphill to the facility. Safety was a concern. People who show up for restraining orders ought to feel safe walking to the courts. A person has to walk up the street and the person she/he is trying to get a restraining order on can drive right up the same street and they are exposed. This was not resolved as it was deemed outside of the project by the design team. 3. P2 - “Minimize the impact of vehicles on the public realm”: This facility by function is auto-oriented. It was stated that traffic generated by the proposed use would be similar to or less than that of the previous use as a health care facility. There are no planned changes or enlargements to the existing parking or access points/circulation 4. P2 - Noise from police sirens: It was stated by the design team that 85 - 90% of the time, officers are not on the site when they get a call. They are out on patrol. In addition, officers do not generally turn the sirens on until they are in traffic or intersections. Therefore, noise from sirens are expected to be minimal. 5. P3 - “Design to support a legible hierarchy of public spaces.” Existing building accomplishes this well. When you drive up the street there, you know where the entry is. You know where the building is. This is very successful. No changes to existing circulation, drive entry, or front door are proposed. 6. P4 - “Strengthen public space connection” New development shall have careful attention to how the building will interact with public realms. The building is Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 4 of 8 connected by existing roads and parking and sidewalks. Existing building and proposed remodel stand alone. 7. P4 - Public Space: A court and police facility should have a certain amount of significance or signaling there that this is an important public or civic building now. A well defined public space with a flagpole and lighting/benches would accomplish this. There is an existing small plaza in front of the building that is well landscaped with benches. A good place for a flagpole, sign and lighting. 8. P5 and P6: Discussion of “Departure from standards” or “Not Applicable”: The project meets two of the guidelines in standard P5, where the intent is to create a pedestrian oriented design that is safe and allows travel through the site. There is an existing walking path that will be maintained that connects to other sites. The building is existing and while a stand alone structure, is scaled to fit between the church and the senior living center. It “breaks down the massing of the building the scale of long façades to fit the rhythm of the surrounding block.” The small plaza and front entry at scaled for people. COBI planning staff believes a departure has to relate to a variance from a standard in the municipal code that impacts the applicants ability to meet the design standard. 9. P6 - This project is a civic building not a commercial building and is not located on a commercial street. Therefore, standard P6 does not apply. DESIGN STANDARDS B1 EXPRESS A CLEAR ORGANIZING ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT B2 USE AN ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE TO BAINBRIDGE ISLAND B3 CREATE WELL COMPOSED FACADES AT ALL SCALES B4 CELEBRATE AND PROMINENTLY FEATURE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN B5 USE HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS AND WELL‐CRAFTED DESIGN Building Design Findings: Project meets standards B1 through B5. Building Design Discussion: 1. Original building is 17,000 SF. The program for the police and courts requires 24,000 SF. The design team was able to bring the program inline with existing SF with two small additions. Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 5 of 8 2. As a police and court building “bullet resistivity requirement” becomes very important in terms of windows, bullet resistant glazing and exterior materials. Existing wood comes off and bullet resistant material will be used. Smaller windows will be used on first floor. From a character standpoint, these are the elements that changes the most on the building. 3. B1 - Clear and organizing concept: Existing building has a distinct concept to it. The remodel will keep the circulation pattern and entry. The remodel has a pretty clear and organizing concept. 4. B2 - Existing building did not borrow from nearby buildings, but is a stand alone structure that looked distinctive and different. 5. B3 - “Well composed facades at all scales.” Existing building, exterior materials have been revised. See discussion on standard P3 above. There is some human scale to this building. 6. B3 - “Integrate utilities and service functions into the architectural concept, screening mechanical equipment and trash can facilities from view”: Trash and recycling are located in the back of the building. The nearest neighbor is the Madrona House and by putting it across the site, there will be less impact on the Madrona house residents. 7. B4 - “Celebrate and prominently feature sustainable design”. The Comp Plan calls for sustainable design. Building exterior will be metal materials. Metal siding and roofing are always a recyclable material. Architect stated that they do everything they can within a normal budget to accomplish what we can but terms of a sustainability there has not been a goal set for that on this project. It was pointed out that top priorities for 2019 for the climate action plan and green energy code creates an opportunity for the city to be great leaders here in terms of sustainability. Especially with a project that intended to protect and maintain safety and security for the whole island. 8. B5 - “High quality materials and well crafted design”: Existing wood siding will be replaced as the building needs to be essentially bulletproof. Building will be armored and the building needs to meet “essential facility” structural requirements. It will require shear diaphragms to structurally re-enforce the building. Therefore, the window configuration will change and become smaller. Exterior will be a box rib - a variation of thick and thin. There will be no pattern and from the road you will see this new material. Everything else is essentially the same. First floor windows got a little smaller. 9. Utilities: No communications structures will be on the roof or surrounding area. That includes any towers or microwaves. Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 6 of 8 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS L1 INTEGRATE THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT TO COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT L2 SUPPORT THE PUBLIC REALM WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN L3 INTEGRATE SUSTAINABLE FEATURES INTO THE LANDSCAPE AND MAKE THEM VISIBLE L4 INTEGRATE AND HIGHLIGHT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICES L5 SUPPORT HEALTHY HABITAT IN THE LANDSCAPE L6 PRESERVE AND ENHANCE IMPORTANT VIEWS AND CORRIDORS Landscape Findings: Project meets standards L1 through L-6 Landscape Discussion: 1. All existing landscaping will be maintained and where impacted by building construction, replaced and enhanced. 2. Green infrastructure: There is an existing back-parking lot that is pervious pavement. There is a rain garden that will be maintained. STREET TYPES AND FRONTAGES Street Type: State Route Findings: Project meets street type and frontage Discussion: During the Design Review Board Meeting in December, this was discussed and only state routes would apply. The vegetated buffer would be the only guideline that applies. The police/court is not changing its vegetated buffer along the state route. Rural by Design did not apply. LARGER SITES Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 7 of 8 STANDARD1 DESIGN THE SITE BY CLUSTERING BUILDINGS AND ARRANGING THEM WITH FRONTAGES ON PUBLIC STREETS, PUBLIC SPACES, OR OPEN SPACE. STANDARD2 DESIGN SITES TO MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF PARKING ON THE PUBLIC REALM. Larger Sites Findings: Standard 1 is not applicable. Project meets Standard 2. Larger Sites Discussion: STANDARD 1: This standard is not applicable; the standard relates to clustering buildings and frontages. This is existing project does not have this. The building is existing, nothing is being changed that is impactive to the neighborhood. STANDARD 2: This standard has been met; the parking is not visible until you enter the parking lot. The existing parking is not changing and does not impact the public realm. CIVIC USES STANDARD1 DESIGN CIVIC USES AND SITES TO REFLECT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR FUNCTION AND ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHILE BEING CLEARLY INDENTIFIABLE AS A CIVIC USE. STANDARD2 DESIGN CIVIC SITES AND BUILDINGS TO SERVE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS PUBLIC SPACE, COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, PUBLIC ART, AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES. Civic Uses Findings: Project meets Standard 1. Project meets Standard 2 with an indoor and outdoor public gathering area. Civic Uses Discussion: Standard 1) The building was not originally designed as a civic building. It becomes clear it is a public building because of police/court signage, flagpole. Civic buildings are generally in the downtown area. In this case, city council chose this building and it is outside the purview of the Design Review Board. Civic signage is important. Three signs are proposed: one on the building addressing SR305, one at Madison Ave intersection and a monument sign as you enter the project site. Final Design Review. Design Review Board City of Bainbridge Island, WA. 8 of 8 Standard 2) There is an existing plaza that can serve as a public plaza. Interior lobby facing SR305 with chairs where people can wait. Art will be added to the walls of the lobby and possibly on the exterior. Public art is budgeted for all city projects. This project is recommended for: Approval ____X____ Approval with the following conditions: _____N/A____ 1. 2. Denial: __________ APPROVED BY: _/s/___________________ DATE: ______05/18/2020_________ Chair, Design Review Board 1 Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 13, 2020 Meeting Minutes 1) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE 2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Cover Page Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT 111419.pdf 3) PUBLIC COMMENT 4) NEW BUSINESS Cover Page PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Staff Report to Planning Commission.pdf 1. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Site Plan.pdf 2. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Floor Plans.pdf 3. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Renderings and Sketches.pdf 4. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Planting Plan.pdf 5. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Parking Space Needs Validation.pdf 6. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Trip Generation Analysis from Transpo Group.pdf 7. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Traffic Impact Assessment Memo from Project Manager.pdf 8. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA SEPA Checklist.pdf 9. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Issued MDNS and Adoption of Existing Document.pdf 10. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Design Review Board Review and Recommendation Minutes.pdf 2 Cover Page Sign Code - Introduction - PowerPoint Staff Memo - Sign Code Matrix and Q&A (2-13-20 PCM) Ordinance No. 2020-05, Updating The City's Sign Code - Chapter 15.08 BIMC - for 2-13-20 PCM Reed v. Town of Gilbert Article Public Comment 5) OLD BUSINESS Cover Page Public Comment Discussion of Winslow Hotel by Planning Commission. 6) Cover Page PC Staff Memo on PSRC Vision 2050 Plan.docx 3 7) ADJOURNMENT ___/s/_____________________________ William Chester, Chair ___/s/_____________________________ Jane Rasely, Administrative Specialist 1 Planning Commission Preliminary Recommendation for Police & Court Facility Major Adjustment to Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit February 13, 2020 1. Revise Staff Report to add analysis of Conditional Use Permit decision criteria and how the proposed project satisfies those criteria. 2. Send project back to Design Review Board to provide detailed analysis describing all applicable design guidelines and how the project satisfies or does not satisfy each of those. Under BIMC 2.16.110.E (3)(b), the purpose of the PC review and recommendation meeting is to “review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines, BIMC Title 17, and the comprehensive plan.” To satisfy this purpose, the PC needs to know the applicable design guidelines and then determine whether the project is consistent with those guidelines. 3. Revise Staff Report to either remove the statement on pg. 5 of 29 (pg. 12 of the PC packet) that “The Design Review Board discussed the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan” or provide a detailed analysis of the DRB discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan consistency. 4. The Staff Report states that the City is seeking an exemption to the Critical Areas Ordinance under BIMC Section 16.20.040.B(1) to allow the construction of a 484 sf two story addition on the west side to enclose an existing exterior stairway. This structure would be located inside a 200’ buffer established for a Class F fish bearing stream located on the adjacent property. Section 16.20.040.B(1) states “Activities within a portion of a wetland buffer or fish and wildlife conservation area buffer separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area are exempt from establishing the full required buffer width; provided, that impacts to the critical area do not increase.” The Staff Report discussion focuses primarily on wetlands located within t he 200’ buffer. The functions and values of a fish bearing stream are different from the functions and values of wetlands. At least some of the existing studies cited by the PCD Staff Memorandum dated February 13, 2020 regarding the Police & Court Facility – Critical Area Review were created before the stream was reclassified as Class F fish bearing and at least one of them is dated 2006. To demonstrate that the project qualifies for the CAO exemption, the PC requests that the City provide (1) any critical areas analyses or reports that were created by a qualified professional (biologist) that demonstrate that the “existing permanent substantial development” functionally isolates the proposed 484 sf addition from the fish bearing stream and wetlands; and (2) any analyses that demonstrate the “existing permanent substantial development” eliminates or greatly reduces the impact of the proposed project on the critical area (fish bearing stream and wetlands). 2 The Staff Report describes the “existing permanent substantial development” as “a rock wall, existing lawn, and additional stormwater catch basins between the proposed addition on the southwest side of the existing building and the stream and wetland buffers. These features occur in an established mowed grassy area that creates a distinct topographical break between the building and the split rail fence located at the outer edge of the previously established buffer. The existing development in this area serves to separate the buffer from the proposed developed area.” Some or all of these features are located within the 200’ buffer for the Type F fish bearing stream. If the City determines that the CAO exemption applies because these features constitute “existing permanent substantial development” that “e liminate or greatly reduces the impact” to the critical areas, the PC requests a Director’s opinion or decision that other properties with similar features may also qualify for such an exemption, to ensure that similarly situated properties are treated consistently. 1 Planning Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2020 Meeting Minutes 1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE 2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Cover Page Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT 052820.pdf 3) PUBLIC COMMENT Cover Page 4) UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cover Page PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Revised Staff Report to Planning Commission.pdf 1. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Site Plan.pdf 2. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Floor Plans.pdf 3. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Renderings and Sketches.pdf 4. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Planting Plan.pdf 5. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Parking Space Needs Validation.pdf 6. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Trip Generation Analysis from Transpo Group.pdf 7. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Traffic Impact Assessment Memo from Project Manager.pdf 8. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA SEPA Checklist.pdf 9. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Issued MDNS and Adoption of Existing Document.pdf 10. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Design Review Board Review and Recommendation Agenda and Notes dtd 12.02.2019.pdf 11. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Design Review Board Transcript from 6.3.2019 Meeting.pdf 12. Planning Commission Preliminary Recommendation for Police & Court Facility Major Adjustment to Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit February 13, 2020.pdf 2 13. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Design Review Board Final Design Review Worksheet.pdf 14. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Critical Area Report from Wetland Resources Environmental Consulting.pdf 15. PLN51524 SPRA CUPA Supplemental Site Plan with Critical Areas.pdf Cover Page Memo - Changes to Ordinance No 2020-04 Since May 28, 2020 PCM Ordinance No. 2020-04, Adopting Small Wireless Facility Design Standards - 6-11-20 - Track Changes Commissioner Osmond - Discussion Points from 5-28-2020 PCM Ordinance No. 2020-04, Adopting Small Wireless Facility Design Standards - 6-11-20 - Clean Copy Small Wireless Facilities - Sample Photos of Actual Deployments Cover Page BIMC_1812.030_FAR_BONUS_OPTIONS.pdf RES_2003- 25_FULL_CITY_COUNCIL_FOR_DECISION_MAKING_RE__FLOOR_AREA_RATIO_BONUS ES.pdf RES_2001- 54_DISTRIBUTION_OF_FUNDS_FROM_PURCHASE_OF_FLOOR_AREA_RATIO_BONUSE S.pdf MUTC Zoning Districts Map.pdf Planning Commission Minutes and Addendum DRAFT 031220.pdf 20200424_CC_Staff_Memo (10).docx FAR_USAGE_BY_PROJECT.pdf FAR Usage Winslow Hotel Quitslund request for Info in the PC Packet FAR Discussion 5.12.2020.docx P C Subcommittee Recommendations on FAR Policies, 4.27.2020.docx Comp_Plan_Goals___Policies_Related_to_FAR.pdf Chapter 2 WMP.pdf Admin Manual .pdf Ordinance_No._2020-10_Adopting_Interim_Zoning_Control_Related_to_Bonus_Density BIMC Table 18.12.020-3.docx Subcommittee Recommendation - Changes to Base & Bonus FAR policies, 5.22.2020.docx Subcommittee Recommendations on FAR 6.5.2020.pdf 3 5) 6) ADJOURNMENT _____/s/___________________________ William Chester, Chair _____/s/______________________________ Jane Rasely, Administrative Specialist 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106, Everett, WA 98208 425.337.3174 www.wetlandresources.com April 8, 2020 City of Bainbridge Island Attn: Barry Loveless 280 Madison Ave N Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Re: Critical Area Review for the Proposed Police & Court Facility Located at 8804 Madison Ave N in the City of Bainbridge Island Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) was contracted to assess critical area impacts that could result from a proposed 484 square-foot addition to an existing structure located at 8804 Madison Ave N, the future Bainbridge Island Police and Court Facility. WRI staff conducted a site visit on March 17, 2020 to better understand existing conditions. This letter assesses site conditions in the context of the exemptions described in section 16.20.040 of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC). Site background was provided by City staff, which included the reports titled Buffer Mitigation Plan for Harrison Urgent Care (date: October 2013, author: Ecological Land Services), and Critical Areas Report for Sakai Park (date: October 2018, author: Ecological Land Services). Among other things, these reports describe the methodology used to delineate on-site and nearby critical area features. Based on physical observation during the March site visit, WRI staff agrees with the surveyed critical boundaries delineated by Ecological Land Services in 2013 and 2018. Critical area boundaries are expected to remain consistent over time given the steep topographic transition from wetland to upland conditions. The on-site wetland was classified as a Category II wetland, and requires a 110-foot standard buffer. The off-site stream is now classified as a Type F stream, which requires a 200-foot buffer. Strict application of a 200-foot buffer would create nonconforming development within the subject property, including the 484 square-foot addition area. The 2013 Buffer Mitigation Plan was needed to accommodate a stormwater outfall pipe within the wetland buffer. The plan included demarcation of the limits of the critical area buffer with split-rail fencing. All areas landward of the split-rail fence are developed in some form, including the proposed building addition area. The building addition area consists of a rockery and maintained lawn over existing stormwater infrastructure, which includes a gravel-filled dispersion trench with drain covers that provide overflow protection. Figure 1 below depicts the proposed building addition area. Wetland Resources, Inc. City of Bainbridge - Police & Court Facility April 8, 2020 WRI #20042 2 Proposed Building Addition Area The 484 square-foot building addition is proposed between the existing structure and a stormwater outfall system, in a steep area that consists of maintained lawn above stormwater infrastructure. Vegetation over the stormwater system is regularly maintained grass, and periodic maintenance related to the structure occurs in this area. The developed condition of the site prevents establishment of native plants, which would provide wildlife habitat value through screening and forage. Steep topography eliminates the potential to perform or support hydrologic control or water quality improvement functions. Overall, the area landward of the split-rail fence provides no ecological support functions to protect the nearby wetland and stream complex. Section 16.20.040(B)(1) of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) provides relief for non- conforming areas such as the proposed building addition area. This code section appears to support the applicant’s proposal to expand the existing structure, and reads as follows: 1. Actions within a portion of a wetland buffer or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area are exempt from establishing the full required buffer width; provided, that impacts to the critical area do not increase. Wetland Resources, Inc. City of Bainbridge - Police & Court Facility April 8, 2020 WRI #20042 3 Based on WRI staff findings during the March site visit, all areas located landward of the split-rail fence and within 200 feet of the off-site stream are considered permanent substantial development, and establish functional isolation from the critical area. This assertion is based on the demonstrated absence of hydrologic and habitat support, and the permanence of the physical separation. The proposed addition will not increase impacts to the critical area relative to the existing developed condition. The proposed project does not require mitigation because it does not impact critical areas, and is not expected to create incidental damage to the critical area because the split- rail fence clearly demarcates the limits of the buffer. If vegetation removal does occur inside of the split-rail fence, a restoration plan will be drafted and submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island for review and approval. Wetland Resources, Inc. Niels Pedersen, PWS Senior Ecologist Alia Richardson Associate Ecologist and Wildlife Biologist CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 1 of 15 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of Right Medical Building LLC, CUP14430B & SPR14430B For Approval of a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Introduction Right Medical Building LLC applied for a conditional use permit and site plan review for a medical complex to be located at 8812 Casey Street. An open record public hearing was held on September 26, 2008. The applicant was represented by Rolf Hogger, MJR Constructors, and the Department of Planning and Community Development was represented by Bob Katai, Division Manager. Witnesses, in addition to the representatives were: Jim Morse, John Anisoglu, Jay Webster, Olaf Ribeiro for the Murden Cove Preservation Association, and Vince Mattson. All references to sections in this decision are to the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, unless otherwise indicated. After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following shall constitute the findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings 1. Two applications, one for a 27,700 square foot medical office building and second for a 47,300 square foot, 53-unit assisted living facility building, have been consolidated for Site Plan Review and a conditional use permit approval. The property for the “Island Medical Center” is located at 8812 Casey Street which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Madison Avenue and Casey Street. 2. The subject site comprises three parcels and is 5.42 acres in size. A single-family residence, barn and several accessory buildings currently occupy the eastern part of the site. A boundary line adjustment is proposed and being processed to create two lots with the medical office building on one and the assisted living facility on the other. The northern portion of the site is relatively flat and then the site slopes down to Category II wetlands on the southern portion and the headwaters of the Winslow Ravine, identified as non-fish bearing, crosses the southwestern portion of the property. The unoccupied part of the site is forested. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 2 of 15 3. The subject property in shown as Urban Multi-family Residential, 8-14 units per acre, on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. It is zoned R-8—8 units per acre. The R-8 zoning continues to the south of the site and the closest development on that side is some 700 ft away, a three-story multifamily development, Sakai Village Condominiums. Land to the north is zoned R-2. The nearest development on that side is the Bainbridge First Baptist Church. To the east is State Route 305 and R-2.9 zoning. A single-family house is on the east side of the highway. To the west is Madison Avenue and R-2--2 units per acre and LM-Light Manufacturing zoning developed with a fire station and mini-warehouse. 4. The Comprehensive Plan, Goal 7, indicates that the Urban Multi-family District is intended for moderate to high-density residential development but it may include certain office and governmental uses. The zoning code, adopted to implement this goal, allows health care facilities as conditional uses. Policy W 7.1 is to have residential development within the Urban Multi-family District be served by public facilities and services normally associated with urban area development. Public water and sewer services are available to the site. Policy W 7.3 is to provide landscape buffers between multi-family and existing single-family homes. Single-family residences are located across SR 305 and screening, described below, will be provided. And Policy W 7.4 is to have design standards for building height, bulk, massing and articulation, parking requirements, landscaping, lighting, screening of service areas, open space and pedestrian linkages in order to ensure the compatibility of development with adjacent uses and retain the scale of development in Winslow. Design guidelines have been adopted that are applicable to this proposal. 5. A City Attorney opinion that an assisted living facility is a health care facility was issued in 1998. Health care facilities are permitted in the R-8 zone as conditional uses. Section 18.15.030. 6. Access to the site is proposed to be from Casey Street, an unclassified street to which local suburban street standards would apply, that connects to Madison Avenue and provides access also to the church. The site also fronts on Madison Avenue, classified as a secondary arterial. The application proposes the dedication of 15 ft. of additional right of way for Casey Street. 7. State Route 305 is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway system pursuant to RCW 47.39.020. Mr. Mattson explained that the intent of the designation is to protect and preserve the scenic resource, which requires managing land use outside of the right of way. 8. The medical office building is to be two stories over an underground garage located on the northeasterly portion of the site. The basement parking garage would provide 36 parking spaces. The assisted living facility would be three stories plus a basement and sited parallel to NE Casey Street in the northwest corner of the site. About 30 ft. of the frontage would be along Madison Avenue. The buildings would be separated by 160 ft. A 96 space surface parking lot would be located to the east of that facility parallel to the street and parallel to SR 305 to the east of the medical office building. Up to 8 additional spaces would be created on Casey Street. In total, the complex would provide 140 parking spaces. 9. An office building is required by Section 18.81.030 to provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet for the office building or 111 for the proposed building. Since parking requirements are not established by the code for assisted living facilities, the Director approved the provision of .5 space per unit for the assisted living facility based on the demand experience at other assisted living centers on Bainbridge Island. The other facilities have found that parking demand is generated by CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 3 of 15 staff and visitors since few residents own or drive cars. The proposal includes sufficient parking to meet the requirements. No parking is proposed within the required 25 ft. setbacks in compliance with Section 18.81.100, and the dimensions proposed satisfy the requirements of Section 18.81.070 but both will be confirmed during building permit review. 10. Parking facilities are required to provide parking for bicycles at a rate of one bicycle space for every five parking spaces. Section 18.81.140. The project would be required to provide 28 spaces. A condition is recommended by planning staff to ensure compliance. 11. Circulation plans for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycles were submitted with the application. While generally only one access point to the public right-of-way is allowed for a lot, the Director may allow more to improve traffic flow if adverse impacts are mitigated. The Director determined that two access points would improve on-site traffic flow where the Casey Street frontage is over 60 ft. long and there are two separate buildings. 12. The service area for the assisted living facility would be within the building. Planning staff recommend that the service area for the medical office building be located away from the assisted living facility and be screened. 13. Though the code requires a fencing plan or other method to protect public health and safety, that requirement was waived pursuant to Section 18.108.040C(2) as it was not necessary or appropriate for a health care facility. 14. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the zone is 25 percent, except that when the use is a health care facility in a residential zone, the maximum permitted is half the standard, or 12.5 percent. Section 18.108.040D(1)(g). The proposed lot coverage would be 11 percent plus canopies. That the maximum is not exceeded by the addition of canopies will be a part of the building permit review. 15. The minimum setback along the three street sides of the site, all front setbacks, is 25 ft. The proposal meets that requirement. However, a structure over two stories requires an increase in the setback for additional stories by four feet so applies to the third story of the assisted living facility. The plans show a 29 ft. setback in conformance with this requirement. 16. The minimum side setback required, the south side in this case, is at least five feet. At its narrowest, the setback from the south property line is over 60 ft. 17. Section 18.15.070 establishes a maximum height in the zone of 35 ft. for buildings unless additional height is approved under the conditional use permit. The application proposes 35 ft. for both buildings after substantial grading. The actual height will be verified during building permit review. 18. A 20 ft. wide partial landscape screen, one that provides a moderately vegetated separation between uses and districts, is required by Section 18.85.070(D) along rights-of-way and roads in Urban Multi-family Districts. Landscaping in a full landscape screen is also required between parking lots and adjoining streets. Section 18.85.070(E). Along SR 305, only a 20 ft. partial landscape screen would be required, but because additional screening is needed to address lighting, privacy and aesthetic concerns, staff proposes that a full landscape screen 25 ft. wide be required. The code requires a 15 ft. filtered landscape screen along the south boundary of the site because of the multi-family development adjoining and the wetlands provide that screening. In CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 4 of 15 general, the setback requirements exceed the perimeter landscape buffer requirements. The Design Review Board (DRB) recommended that the landscape screen shown in plans submitted at the DRB’s September 8, 2008, meeting be installed along the street side of the assisted living facility. With the proposed conditions, the landscaping would meet and exceed the code requirements. 19. At least 30 percent of significant tree canopy or 15 percent of the total number of significant trees on the site must be retained along with all significant trees in the perimeter landscape buffer. Section 18.85.060. A condition is recommended to assure that all trees in the perimeter be retained. With the forested wetlands and buffer, the tree canopy retention requirement will be met. 20. A 50 ft. buffer is required along non-fish bearing streams, Section 16.20.130, and a 100 ft. buffer is required for a Category II wetland that does not have high or moderate levels of function for habitat and will be surrounded by an urban non-residential use. Section 16.20.160. The wetlands analysis report submitted by the applicant notes that the wetlands provide low habitat functions. In addition to the buffer, a 15 ft. setback from the buffer is required for impervious surfaces and buildings. The design observes the appropriate wetland buffer and setback from the buffer, except for a minor intrusion by the patio for the assisted living facility. A condition is recommended to ensure that that portion of the patio be pervious. 21. Jay Webster described utilizing trails and exploring the wetland on the site as a child. The proponents propose to expand and enhance the trails in the wetland buffer for use of both facilities. Trails are permitted within wetland buffers under guidelines in Section 16.20.160. The trail system will provide connection from Madison Avenue to the SR 305 side. A condition of the MDNS requires a public access easement over the trails. 22. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was performed by Heath & Associates and provided to the City. The TIA predicted that the traffic generated during the peak hours would not reduce the level of service (LOS) at the studied intersections. Mr. Mattson, a retired traffic engineer with considerable experience, questioned the reliability of the data and the conclusions of the TIA. He pointed out that the counts were made in the summer when school traffic would not be affecting the intersection. According to Mr. Heath, the project’s traffic consultant, traffic volumes on Bainbridge Island actually may be greater in the summer when the counts were made than in the school year. Even if that were not the case, because the peak hour for the medical facility would not coincide with the school peak hours, data gathered while the school was not operating would be acceptable for this project. Though a 2002 study showed higher volumes at the intersection than the numbers used by Heath for 2006, Heath testified that the counts he utilized were reliable. He opined that a traffic signal at Madison might account for some of the difference in volumes found by Mr. Mattson. Mr. Mattson conducted counts and found a higher volume of traffic than used in the TIA and he did an independent analysis of the traffic impacts. This information and his concerns were presented to the City in writing and in a meeting, but the Department of Public Works, which reviewed the TIA, was satisfied with the methodology and concluded that, with the improvements required by the MDNS, the level of service would not drop below acceptable levels. The information introduced by Mr. Mattson certainly raised questions about reliability of the TIA data in the hearing examiner’s mind, however the City’s traffic experts who reviewed it found it sufficiently reliable for the purpose so the hearing examiner accepts the City’s conclusion. The CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 5 of 15 new traffic is likely to increase the volume of traffic turning right from Madison onto SR 305, so the MDNS requires the applicant to construct a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue. 23. The Department of Public Works determined that the transportation facilities affected by the proposed development has capacity equal to or greater than required to maintain the level of service standard and issued a certificate of concurrency for the proposal for 1,096 average daily trips. 24. A non-binding commitment for water and sewer system capacity was issued by the Department of Public Works. Planning staff proposes conditions to ensure binding approvals are obtained prior to building permit issuance. 25. The storm water drainage plan for the site includes a detention facility, storm filter, green roofs, pervious pavers in the parking areas, and rain gardens. Runoff from the roofs is to be stored for watering the roof in the summer if necessary or collected in dispersion trenches and discharged toward their natural discharge location. Runoff from the street will be directed to the City’s drain systems. The parking areas are to have pervious surfaces so that storm water can be absorbed into the ground or go to the rain gardens. 26. The proponents are exploring the use of geothermal energy as a heat source for the buildings. 27. The Kitsap County Health District notified the City that the project meets the Kitsap County Health District Code. 28. The Bainbridge Island Fire Department reviewed the proposal and provided comments regarding compliance with the 2006 International Fire Code, sprinklers and alarms for the buildings, modification of fire hydrant locations needed, height of the building overhang, labeling of the fire lanes, clarification of the access point needed, and a requirement that Casey Street be renamed. Conditions of approval are proposed to assure compliance. 29. The Department of Public Works reviewed the application and provided comments and conditions of approval including a storm water pollution prevention plan prior to the start of construction, civil plan design for proposed storm water facilities, the dedication of 15 ft. of property fronting Casey Street for right of way as proposed, street improvements, etc., as detailed in its memorandum dated July 17, 2008, Exhibit 21. 30. The lighting of the buildings and site are required to conform to the standards of Chapter 15.34 that were adopted to preserve and enhance the view of the dark sky, among other purposes. Section 15.34.010. A condition of approval to require compliance was recommended. 31. The Design Review Board (DRB) met several times to review the proposed project for compliance with the design guidelines of Chapter 18.41. The DRB found some of the guidelines inapplicable due to the nature and location of the use and was largely concerned with addressing the scale of the buildings. After requesting various modifications to the design, the DRB recommended approval subject to a condition requiring that the landscaping plans submitted at its September 9, 2008, meeting be implemented. 32. The location is seen as desirable for an assisted living facility given its proximity to emergency facilities and churches and the availability of shuttle service to the town center. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 6 of 15 33. Written public comment included concern about traffic, light pollution, and scale of the buildings. 34. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the proposal on May 1, 2008. The MDNS included a series of twenty conditions to mitigate the impacts of the proposal on the environment. Among the conditions are those requiring improvement of the Casey Street and Madison Avenue frontage with curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage, addition of a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue at SR 305, development of a trail network within the wetlands and wetland buffer, etc. Those conditions are to be attached to approval of the underlying permits. The MDNS was not appealed. 35. The Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposed development as part of the regular site plan review process. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications subject to the conditions proposed by Planning staff and an additional condition to require that all exterior building surfaces be non-reflective materials. 36. Notice of the application and SEPA comment period was initially provided October 6, 2007, and a second notice issued on October 31, 2007. Notice of the amended application to add Phase 2 was issued July 12, 2008. Notice of the public hearing was mailed and posted August 27, 2008, and published September 10, 2008. 37. The basis for site plan and design review for the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the Hearing Examiner’s decision is the list of criteria in Section 18.105.060. Criteria relevant to the proposal are: A. The site plan and design is in conformance with applicable code provisions and development standards of the applicable zoning district; ** * C. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation systems are adequate, safe, efficient and in conformance with the nonmotorized transportation plan; D. The proposal will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, transit, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; E. The site plan and design is consistent with the design guidelines of Chapter 18.41 BIMC, or other applicable design guidelines of the zoning district; F. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; G. The site plan and design is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans; and H. Property subject to site plan and design review which contains a critical area, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter. 38. The criteria for conditional use approval are as follows: CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 7 of 15 1. The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; 2. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewer disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; 3. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; 4. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the nonmotorized transportation plan; 5. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of this code; 6. The conditional use will not adversely affect the area or alter the area’s predominantly residential nature; and 7. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate the impacts that the proposed use may have on the surrounding area. Section 18.108.040A. 39. In addition to the criteria listed above, health care facilities in residential zones must meet these criteria: a. Applicants are required to submit a traffic report, showing the effects on level of service on affected roads. Proposed mitigations for degradation of the LOS must be submitted as part of the application. b. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban or above on the Bainbridge Island Functional Road Classification Map. c. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040A. d. The appropriate approvals of sewer and water supply must be submitted at the time of application. e. A fencing plan or alternative methods to protect the public health, safety and welfare must be submitted at the time of application. f. The applicant shall provide perimeter buffers of vegetation either retaining existing or planting a new one in compliance with BIMC 218.85.070D.4…. g. These conditional uses are limited in lot coverage to only 50 percent of the allowable lot coverage in the zone in which they are located. * * * h. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access and site circulation must be submitted at the time of application and approved by the city…. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 8 of 15 i. The applicant shall submit a site and building design proposal that meets the design principles and guidelines found in BIMC 18.41.070, Light manufacturing design guidelines, and incorporates conditions deemed applicable by the director in accordance with this chapter. Each proposal will be evaluated for adequate vegetated roadside views, landscaping buffers for parking and service areas, scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and harmonious architectural design features compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 18.108.040C.1. 40. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits and conduct site plan and design review by Sections 2.16.150, 18.105.010 and 18.108.020. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter. 2. The notice of application and of public hearing complied with the requirements of the code for notice. 3. With the conditions proposed by the agencies, departments, and board who reviewed the proposal, the site plan and design will be in conformance with the applicable code provisions, Design Guidelines and development standards; the building locations, open spaces, landscaping and circulation will be adequate, safe and efficient; it will be served by adequate public facilities; no harmful or unhealthful conditions should result and the site plan design is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. While the proposed buildings will be of a different scale and design than neighboring structures, the mix of types and styles of buildings in the immediate neighborhood does not suggest a consistent style. The Design Review Board’s careful review resulted in buildings that are designed with modulations and materials and are adequately screened that they should be compatible. The site plan review shows that the plans are consistent with the criteria and the site plan should be approved subject to the proposed conditions. 4. With appropriate conditions, the criteria for conditional uses are met by the proposal. The character of the subject site has been taken into consideration in the site plan design for the uses and the design and appearance of the structures and grounds will be compatible with their surrounding uses. With compliance with the proposed conditions for improvements and approvals, the uses will be served by adequate public facilities. The health care facilities will not be detrimental to uses or properties in the vicinity and though the use is not residential, the area is not predominantly residential and the use will be well separated from any residential use. The proposed use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and with the proposed conditions will comply with all provisions of the code. The mitigation measures in the MDNS, code requirements and proposed conditions will mitigate the impacts of the uses on the environment and surrounding area. 5. As to the additional criteria for a health care facility, the project’s traffic analysis shows that the level of service will remain at an acceptable level, the site fronts on roads classified as residential suburban or above, noise levels will be controlled by regulations, conditions will assure CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 9 of 15 adequate levels of sewer and water supply, conditions will assure appropriate perimeter landscape buffers, lot coverage will be below the maximum allowed, and circulation plans have been submitted, reviewed and conditions proposed. 6. With imposition of conditions proposed, all criteria for approval of the conditional use are met and the conditional use permit should be granted. Decision The application for a conditional use permit for the health care facility and site plan approval is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: SEPA Conditions 1. No clearing, grading or other construction activities shall occur until a building permit or site development permit has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. 2. All graded materials removed from the development shall be hauled to and deposited at city-approved locations. 3. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. (BIMC Section 16.08.040) 4. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed development shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.20. The plans must be approved, the improvements constructed (o r a construction bond provided if applicable), and an acceptable final inspection obtained prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The design submittal shall incorporate all proposed project improvements including complete civil plans, grading and erosion control plans, roadway plans and profiles, and storm drainage facilities and drainage report. These reports shall be prepared by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Washington. A Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) will be required prior to construction plan approval in accordance with BIMC Section 15.20.030.B (4). More information about this permit can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/ or by calling Charles Gilman at (360) 407-7451, email chgi461@ecy.wa.gov. This permit is required prior to any construction activities. 5. During the construction of the proposed infiltration facilities, the Project Engineer shall provide an inspection to verify that the facilities are installed in accordance with the design documents and that actual soil conditions encountered meet the design assumptions. The Project Engineer shall submit the inspection report properly stamped and sealed with a professional engineer’s stamp to Public Works Engineering. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 10 of 15 6. An easement to COBI for access and maintenance of the proposed public stormwater facilities will be required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The applicant’s engineer shall provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPPP to protect the public stormwater infiltration facilities during construction of the development. 8. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall improve the roadway section for Casey Street to provide a minimum 18-foot wide paved driving surface, with appropriate storm drainage facilities per COBI Design Standards. The roadway shall be built to COBI Design standards, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property’s north frontage. 9. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall improve the property’s Madison Avenue frontage with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per COBI Design Standards. 10. To mitigate anticipated traffic impacts, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall construct a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue in accordance with the technical appendix diagram submitted in the Island Medical Traffic Impact Analysis date-stamped received April 1, 2008 by the Department of Planning and Community Development. 11. In order to provide recreation and access to the adjacent open space to the south, a trail network, consisting of four to six foot wide trails, shall be developed within wetlands/ wetland buffer in the southern portion of the site. The network shall extend from the Madison Avenue to the east, towards State Route 305, and terminate at the southern property line. A public access easement shall be granted over the trail network. 12. Within the wetlands/wetland buffer, unless approved under a subsequent permit, removal of vegetation shall be limited to development of a trail network. No soil disturbance shall occur outside of the six foot wide trail construction corridor. The trails shall be “field-fit” between or around existing trees, so that significant tree removal shall be avoided. Limbs and branches up to nine feet over the trail and within one foot of the trail edges shall be removed. The four to six foot wide trail shall be constructed with a four inch layer of crushed ¾ inch gravel over a geotextile mat barrier. All pedestrian improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Prior to final plat submittal, an Operations and Maintenance Plan and De claration of Covenant for all constructed stormwater facilities shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.21. 14. A minimum two-year maintenance bond period for the stormwater facilities is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The maintenance period will begin CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 11 of 15 after final construction acceptance of the improvements and shall run for a minimum period of two years. Regular maintenance of the stormwater system is required during this period. Documentation of maintenance shall be provided to the city on an annual basis. 15. In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85060 (C) and to discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from designated protection areas without prior City approval will be replaced with new trees as follows: New trees measuring 1.5 inches in caliper if deciduous and four to six feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of the removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of replacement trees. The trees removed shall be replaced with trees of the same type, evergreen or deciduous. The replacement trees shall also replaced in the same general location as the trees removed. 16. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural resources. The conditions of the Island Medical Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 14430B, shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit. 17. On-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the applicant provides and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location, duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2. Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 2001, see Volume IV “Source Control BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment”.) (Chapter 173-304 WAC) 18. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC Section 16.16.025 Limitation of Construction Activities. 19. All lighting within the development shall comply with the City’s Lighting Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 15.34. Compliance will require exterior lighting to be shielded and directed downward. 20. Contractors are required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction. Project Conditions 21. Except as modified by conditions of approval, the project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plans date-stamped June 26, 2008. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 12 of 15 22. Prior to submittal of any building permit applications, the applicant shall contact planning staff to schedule a pre-submittal meeting to review the necessary components for a complete building permit application. In addition, with the building permit application submittal, the applicant shall attach a narrative detailing how each condition of approval is addressed by the building plans. 23. To verify that the buildings comply with the 35-foot height limit, the site plans submitted as part of the building permit shall contain existing contours overlain with the building footprints. The submitted material shall include surveyed benchmark information to verify the actual height during construction. 24. Prior to any clearing and/or construction activities, fencing delineating the northern boundary of the wetland buffer shall be installed by the applicant and inspected by planning staff. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the construction fencing shall be replaced with split-rail fencing and signage. The signs shall inform readers of the boundary and its significance. Any disturbed buffer setback area shall be re-planted with native vegetation upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the building’s Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Any required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The project’s state licensed landscape architect, certified nursery professional, or certified landscaper shall submit a landscaping declaration to the department to verify installation in accordance with approved plans. The time limit for compliance may be extended to allow installation of landscaping during the next appropriate planting season if the director determines that a performance assurance device, for a period of not more than one year, will adequately protect the interests of the city. The performance assurance device shall be for 150 percent of the cost of the work or improvements covered by the assurance device. 26. The landscape plans submitted with the building permit shall depict the items listed in BIMC Chapter 18.85, including partial landscape screens along the site’s Madison Avenue and Casey Street frontages with the following exceptions: a) within the 25-foot zoning setback along the parking lot adjoining Casey Street, a more intense screen, as stipulated in BIMC 18.85.070(E)(1)(b) shall be installed and b) within the 29-foot front setbacks along the assisted living facility, landscaping shall substantially conform to the plans date-stamped September 8, 2008. Along the site’s highway frontage a full landscaping screen, as defined in BIMC 18.85.070(B)(1), shall be installed in the 25-foot zoning setback. All significant trees, as defined in BIMC 18.85.010 and located within required perimeter landscape buffer areas, shall be retained and incorporated into the required landscape screen. All required landscaping shall be maintained and retained for the life of the project 27. As the code-required Casey Street landscaping screens are located within areas shown as being developed with rain gardens, the applicant must demonstrate that the dual CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 13 of 15 purposes, perimeter landscape screening and stormwater treatment facility, are compatible. If not, the rain gardens would need to be relocated. Proof of compatibility or relocation of the stormwater facilities shall be submitted as part of the building permit application. 28. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (final inspection), the applicant shall secure the landscape maintenance assurance required by BIMC Section 18.85.090(D). 29. The service area, including trash and recycling enclosures, for the medical office facility must be located as far away as possible from the assisted living facility and shall be property screened with fencing. 30. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install bicycle racks or hangers supplying parking for at least 28 bicycles. 31. Civil construction plans for all roads, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and water facilities, and appurtenances shall be prepared by a professional engineer and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 32. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this development following construction. Before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this development, the person or persons holding title to the subject property for which the storm drainage facilities are required shall record a Declaration of Covenant that guarantees to the City that the system will be properly maintained. Wording must be included in the covenant that will allow the City to inspect the system and perform the necessary maintenance in the event the system is not performing properly. This will be done only after notifying the owner and giving him a reaso nable time to do the necessary work. Should City crews be required to do the work, the owner will be billed the maximum amount allowed by law. 33. The property owner shall dedicate, as right-of-way, 15 feet of property fronting along Casey Street as shown on the preliminary civil drawings date-stamped June 26, 2008. In addition, a pedestrian easement shall be dedicated for the sidewalk along the proposed on-street parking along Casey Street to make them public throughways. 34. A right-of-way (ROW) construction permit will be required prior to any construction activities within the ROW. The ROW permit will be subject to conditions and bonding requirements. 35. The water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed in conformance with BIMC Title 13 and the City’s adopted Design Standards and Specifications. The utilities plans submitted with building permit’s civil drawings shall include profiles and details and shall demonstrate compatibility of the facilities with future street improvements CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 14 of 15 currently proposed by the City. Specifications for water and sewer facilities include the following: a. An eight-inch diameter ductile iron class 52 water main shall be installed along the site’s Casey Street frontage. b. A 15 foot wide easement for the on-site water main extension shall be provided from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings. c. On-site sanitary sewer facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained. d. An isolation valve shall be provided at the connection to the force main located in Madison Avenue. 36. Binding water and sewer service letters from the city’s Public Works Department shall be submitted with the building permit application. 37. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the project shall meet all applicable requirements of the 2006 International Fire Code. 38. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed throughout the buildings. 39. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the proposed hydrant in front of the assisted living facility shall be relocated to the west parking lot entrance, a fire hydrant must be installed at the east parking lot entrance, and the proposed hydrant in front of the medical office building shall be relocated to the entrance of the parking garage. 40. Building overhangs covering the main entrances shall provide at least 13’ 6” of clearance. 41. The driving lanes within the project are considered fire lanes and shall be labeled as such to the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. 42. The applicant shall file the necessary paperwork to rename Casey Street. The Bainbridge Island Fire Department reviews street names for conformance with established county-wide standards. 43. To the satisfaction of the Kitsap County Health District, the applicant shall: a) abandon the site’s existing septic tank per that agency’s code b) have the site’s existing well decommissioned by a certified well driller c) apply for a sewered building clearance accompanied by a water and sewer availability letter from the water purveyor. 44. To the satisfaction of planning staff, all exterior building surfaces shall be sided with non-reflective materials. CUP14430B & SPR14430B Page 15 of 15 45. To the satisfaction of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the following provisions must be followed: a) WSDOT will only accept stormwater runoff from the project site that currently enters the State Route 305 right-of-way. Any proposal by the applicant to discharge stormwater runoff to the right-of-way either during construction or upon completion will require appropriate stormwater treatment in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/hydraulics/. If such discharge is proposed, a drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by WSDOT prior to any earth disturbance. b) No excavation, grading, filling, landscaping or any other activity associated with the proposal may occur within state right-of-way without prior review and approval by WSDOT. c) No lighting from the site may be directed towards the state highway and no glare from the completed project shall impact the state highway. d) No signs may be placed in the highway right-of-way. 46. As most of the dining terrace is located within the building setback associated with the wetland buffer, it must be constructed with a pervious surface (wood decking, pavers, permeable concrete, etc.) to the satisfaction of planning staff. Entered this 14th day of October 2008. /s/ Margaret Klockars __________________________ Margaret Klockars City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner pro tem Concerning Further Review NOTE: It is the responsibility of a person seeking review of a Hearing Examiner decision to consult applicable Code sections and other appropriate sources, including State law, to determine his/her rights and responsibilities relative to appeal. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the City in this matter. A person with standing may make appeal of this decision to the Kitsap County Superior Court. To be timely, a petition for review must be filed within the 21-day appeal period [see RCW Ch. 36.70]. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 1 of 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN 51524 SPRA/CUPA ) Barry Loveless, on behalf of ) City Police and Court Facility the City of Bainbridge Island, ) SPRA/CUPA ) For Approval of a Site Plan/Design Review ) Major Adjustment and Approval of a ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Conditional Use Permit Major Adjustment ) AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment to convert an existing health care facility to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2-story addition on the west side of the building, at 8804 Madison Avenue North is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to address specific impacts of the proposal. SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on August 13, 2020, using remote technology in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Testimony: The following individuals testified under oath at the open record hearing: Ellen Fairleig h, City Associate Planner Barry Loveless, Applicant Representative Matthew Coates, Project Architect Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated August 6, 2020 2. Master Land Use Application, dated October 8, 2019 3. Notice of Complete Application, dated November 6, 2019 4. Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing, dated November 15, 2019 5. Certification of Public Notice, dated February 4, 2020 6. Certificate of Posting, dated January 5, 2020 7. Site Plan (Sheet A1.00), dated July 1, 2019 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 2 of 28 8. Call Out Plan (Sheet L1.1), revised May 19, 2014 9. Floor Plans A. Main Level-Overall Floor Plan (Sheet A2.01), dated November 12, 2019 B. Upper Level-Overall Floor Plan (Sheet A2.05), dated November 12, 2019 10. Six (6) elevation renderings and sketches (North, SE, SW, NW, Birds-Eye View, Front), dated November 12, 2019 11. Planting Plan (Sheet L4.1), revised May 19, 2014 12. Parking Space Needs Validation, dated January 6, 2017 13. Trip Generation Analysis, Transpo Group, dated May 8, 2019 14. Traffic Impact Assessment Memorandum, dated October 6, 2019 15. SEPA Environmental Checklist with staff response, received October 9, 2019 16. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance & Adoption of Existing Document, dated February 5, 2020; Joint Notice of Administrative Decision and Notice of SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated December 17, 2013 17. Comment from Ron Peltier, dated March 1, 2020 18. City Department of Public Works-Engineering Recommendations, dated January 10, 2020 19. Comments from Bainbridge Island Fire Department, dated January 6, 2020, with email string; Memo randum from Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal, to Kelly Tayara, dated September 4, 2019 20. Letter of Transmittal, Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD), dated October 24, 2019 21. Design Review Board (DRB) Review and Recommendation A. DRB Review and Recommendation Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2019 B. DRB Review and Recommendation Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2020 C. DRB Review and Recommendation Special Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2020 D. DRB Final Design Review, dated May 18, 2020 22. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 13, 2020 B. Planning Commission Pre liminary Recommendation, dated February 13, 2020 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2020 D. Planning Commission Recorded Motion, Meeting of June 11, 2020 23. Critical Area Review, Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2020 24. Hearing Examiner’s Findings, Conclusions, and Decision, Right Medical Building , LLC, (CUP14430B and SPR14430B), dated October 14, 2008 25. Joint Notice of Administrative Decision and Notice of SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated December 17, 2013; email from Theresa Rice to reviewing agencies, dated December 18, 2013 26. PowerPoint Presentation The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 3 of 28 FINDINGS Background 1. On October 14, 2008, the former City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner pro tem (Margaret Klockars) approved consolidated applications for a conditional use permit and site plan review to develop a medical complex on two lots, with a 47,300 square foot, 53- unit assisted-living facility to be constructed on one lot and a 27,700 square foot medical office building to be constructed on the other adjacent lot. In 2013, a minor adjustment was approved to reduce the size of the health care facility and change the building and parking configuration. A special use review was approved in 2014 to create an outfall pipe across a wetland buffer on the southern portion of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 24. Application and Notice 2. Barry Loveless, on behalf of t he City of Bainbridge Island (City, or Applicant), requests approval of a site plan/design review major adjustment (SPRA) and a conditional use permit major adjustment (CUPA) to convert the existing medical office building and associated parking area to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2-story addition on the west side of the building. The property is located at 8804 Madison Avenue North.1 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 2; Exhibits 7 through 11. 3. The City Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD) determined that the application was complete on November 6, 2019. On November 15, 2019, PCDD provided notice of the application and the associated public hearing by mailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and to reviewing City departments and government agencies, posting notice at City Hall kiosks and on the City website, and publishing notice in the Bainbridge Island Review. The Applicant posted notice at the subject property on November 13, 2019. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 6. 4. PCDD received reviewing agency comments in response to its notice materials. The City Fire Marshal noted that fire flow would be met through existing hydrants and recommended approval provided that the project would be required to comply with the International Fire Code and that a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system be installed. PCDD staff recommended conditions addressing the Fire Marshal’s concerns. Kitsap Public Health District notified PCDD that it did not have any comment on the proposal. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7, 28, and 29; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20. 1 The property is identified by tax parcel number 232502-3-083-2002. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 4 of 28 State Environmental Policy Act 5. PCDD acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impact s of the proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington (RCW). PCDD consolidated notice of the SEPA review and application comment periods under the optional process provided for by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355, with a comment deadline of November 15, 2019. The notice materials stated that the City expected to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for t he proposal. No comments were received. PCDD reviewed the Applicant’s Environmental Checklist and other information on file and determined that, with several mitigation measures that were included in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the original project, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment . Accordingly, PCDD Director Heather Wright issued an MDNS for the proposal on February 2, 2020, with an appeal deadline of February 2, 2020. The MDNS requires the Applicant to obtain a building permit or site development permit prior to construction activities and to conform with clean air regulations, provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPPP , obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit , ma intain a trail network, limit removal of vegetation within the wetland and wetland buffer to trail network development , obtain City approval prior to removal of any significant trees, obtain approval prior to any on-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks, comply with construction noise ordinances, comply with lighting ordinances, stop work and notify PCDD and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any artifacts are discovered on-site; and install motion sensor lighting in the rear of the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 7; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 24. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 6. The property is designated Urban Multi-Family R-8 by the City Comprehensive Plan. PCDD staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as relevant to the proposal:  By providing enterprises that both serve and employ local residents, Bainbridge Island will be better able to withstand fluctuations in the larger regional economy. In addition, people who live and work in their community are available to invest time and money in their families, organizations, and community life. A key to a healthy, stable, and vital economy is to create and undertake business opportunities that anticipate and respond to conditions that affect our community. This would include identifying emerging needs and markets so that Bainbridge Island businesses benefit from being on the leading edge of change. [Goal EC-1]  In order to provide opportunities for business enterprise, adequate space must be provided for efficient use of existing developed areas near public transportation (e.g., ferry, bus service) and for growth that reco gnizes and protects the Island’s Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 5 of 28 valued natural amenities, its limits of land and water , and the quality of its residential neighborhoods. [Policy EC-1.5]  Encourage the use of green building materials and techniques in all types of construction, as well as design approaches that are responsive to changing conditions. [Policy EC-3.1]  Encourage public sector solid waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. [Policy EC- 3.4]  Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty, and environment al quality. [Goal EN-1]  Encourage sustainability in City government operations. [Goal EN-2]  In managing City government operations, take reasonable steps to reduce impacts to the environment and ecosystems upon which we depend. This includes recognizing and preparing for the impacts of climate change. [Policy EN-2.1]  Protect wetlands and riparian areas. [Policy EN-5.6]  Ensure beneficial indoor air quality in all renovations and new construction of City-owned facilities and promote design choices that enhance beneficial indoor air quality in private construction. [Policy EN-10.5]  Set street design guidelines that establish street widths, reflecting the desired vehicle speeds; accommodating bicycle, pedestrian, wheelchair, equestrian, and transit uses; and providing for emergency vehicle access, considering community character. [Policy TR 6.1]  Support the construction of the STO and its branch trails. [Policy TR 7.6]  The Capital Facilities Element and Capital Improvement Plan provides the public facilit ies needed to support orderly compact urban growth, protect and support public and private investments, maximize use of existing facilities, promote economic development and redevelopment, increase public well-being and safety, and implement the Comprehensive Plan. [Goal CF-1]  When planning for public facilities, consider expected future land use activity. [Policy CF 2.1]  New taxpayer-funded buildings shall use carbon-neutral energy for heating, cooling, and operational use to the maximum extent practical within site specific and existing technology limitations. [Policy 14.7] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 through 10. 7. PCDD staff determined that the proposal would be consistent with the goals and polices of the Comprehensive Plan by serving and employing local residents; being located near public transportation and supporting non-motorized transportation; avoiding impacts to critical areas; utilizing an existing building that complies with the 2015 Washington State Energy Code; utilizing green stormwater infrastructure, such as a rain garden, permeable pavement, and a storm filter system; and proposing additional sustainability practices, such as reducing indoor water fixtures, installing low-flow fixtures, and installing efficient HVAC controls. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 9 and 10. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 6 of 28 8. The subject property is within the Residential 8 (R-8) zoning district. The purpose of the R-8 zoning district is “to provide for medium-density residential areas in pleasant, uncongested surroundings allowing for the maximum amenities for the occupants.” Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 18.06.020.I. The proposed use is for a governmental facility, which is allowed in the R-8 zone with a conditional use permit.2 BIMC 18.09.020. BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 provides dimensional standards applicable to development in the R-8 zone. The Applicant’s proposal would comply with dimensional standards for development in the R-8 zone related to lot coverage, building height, and setbacks for front and side lot lines. Because the property has more than one front lot line, all other lot lines are considered side lot lines and, thus, the minimum rear lot line setback requirements of BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 would not apply. BIMC 18.12.050.N. Existing Site and Surrounding Development 9. As noted above, the subject property is currently developed with a medical office building and associated parking. Property to the west is zoned R-8 and is developed with the assisted-living facility that was approved in conjunction with the medical office building. Property to the south is zoned R-8 and consists of undeveloped forested area containing wetlands and a fish bearing stream. Property to the north is zoned R-2 and is developed with a church facility. The property is bordered to the east by SR-305. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4, 5, 12, and 13. Critical Areas 10. A wetland and associated buffer cover the southern portion of the project site. When the health care facility project was originally approved in 2008, applicable critical area regulations required a 100-foot wetland buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback. Additionally, at the time of original project approval, a stream located to the south of the site was classified as non-fish-bearing, with a required 50-foot buffer that was subsumed within the 100-foot wetland buffer. A later stream classification review determined that the stream was fish-bearing and required a 200-foot buffer, which extends into the southern portion of the project site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 10, and 11; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 23. 11. The Applicant ’s proposed addition to the west side of the existing building would be located within a portion of the 200-foot stream buffer. BIMC 16.20.040.B provides an exemption, however, for activities within a critical area buffer when the buffer area is “separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area,” provided that proposed activities within the buffer would not 2 Governmental facility is defined as “an institution operated by a federal, state, county, or city government, or special purpose districts.” BIMC 18.36.030(107). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 7 of 28 increase impacts to the critical area. PCDD staff conducted a site visit and determined that the area between the existing building and the wetland and stream critical areas contains permanent substantial development, including a protective fence, rock wall, maintained lawn, and several stormwater catch basins, all of which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area. At the request of the Planning Commission, Wetland Resources, Inc., prepared a critical area report on behalf of the Applicant, dated April 8, 2020. The report determined that the area landward of the protective fence and within the 200-foot stream buffer is disturbed with permanent substantial development and provides no ecological support functions to the wetland and stream. The report further determined that the proposed building addition would not increase impacts to the critical areas relative to the existing developed conditions. Accordingly, PCDD staff, the Planning Commission, and a third-party consultant concur that the proposed development would be exempt from critical area per mit requirements under BIMC 16.20.040.B’s exemption provisions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 10, and 11; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 23. 12. The property contains an erosion hazard area and a small area of steep slopes that are approximately 10 feet high. The City Engineer determined that the proposal would not have any potential adverse impacts to the erosion hazard and steep slope areas and recommends approval without requiring the Applicant to submit a geotechnical analysis. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 and 12; Exhibit 18. Traffic, Parking, and Access 13. Transpo Group prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) on behalf of the Applicant, dated May 8, 2019. The TIA determined that the proposed police and court facility would generate 20 AM peak-hour trips and 6 PM peak-hour trips, which is less than the 76 AM peak-hour trips and 95 PM peak-hour trips generated by the existing medical office building. Because the proposal would generate fewer trips than the existing building use, the TIA determined that the Applicant would not be required to pay traffic impact fees. Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14. 14. BIMC 18.15.020 provides the minimum off-street parking space requirements for development in residential zoning districts and allows for on-street parking spaces that are created or designated in conjunction with and adjacent to a project to be included in the parking space calculation, with approval from the Director. Because governmental facilities do not have specified minimum off-street parking requirement s, the number of required off-street parking spaces is established by the Director based on an evaluation of actual parking demand for the proposed use. BIMC Table 18.15.020-1. The existing medical office building has 73 parking spaces, including 6 on-street parking spaces. The Director reviewed a parking demand analysis prepared by Coates Design Architects, together with the Applicant’s TIA, and determined that the existing 73 parking spaces would be adequate to serve the proposed use. The Director also determined that the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 8 of 28 proposal would meet requirements for maximum compact parking spaces. The Applicant would be required to provide one parking space near the building entrance for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. BIMC 18.15.020.B(11). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13 and 14; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14. 15. The existing medical office building is currently accessed from Madison Avenue North, with no change of access proposed for the project. BIMC 18.15.030 provides requirements for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit user access. PCDD staff reviewed the proposal and determined that the subject property currently provides well-defined circulat ion for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in compliance with code requirements. The subject property also currently provides the required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces, and compliance with this requirement would be verified prior to building permit approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 14 and 15. Landscaping 16. The Applicant does not propose any changes to the existing landscape perimeter or roadside buffers. In 2013, the existing medical office building was required to install a 25-foot-wide full screen landscape buffer along SR-305 to provide mitigation for visual and lighting impacts, as well a 25-foot-wide partial screen landscape buffer along NE New Brooklyn Road. Although the 25-foot-wide landscape buffer along SR-305 exceeded code requirement s at that time, the existing eastern parking lot is now legally nonconforming with the current code requirement for a 50-foot full screen and 35-foot minimum landscape buffer along SR-305. Accordingly, if the nonconforming eastern parking lot is removed, a landscape buffer would be required to be installed along the property’s SR-305 frontage in compliance with current code requirements. A parking lot area in the northern portion of the property adjacent to the assisted-living facility is also legally nonconforming with current code requirement s for a 25-foot-wide full screen landscape buffer along the western property line. Accordingly, if the nonconforming northern parking lot is removed, a landscape buffer would be required to be installed along the property’s western property line in compliance with current code requirements. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 12 and 13; Exhibit 7. Stormwater 17. The proposed police and court facility would be served by the existing stormwater management system. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that it would be eligible for a site assessment review exemption based on the creation of less than 800 square feet of new or replaced hard surfaces. The exemption would be issued upon review of building permit submittals. The City Engineer also recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to provide an updated operation and maintenance plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy. As noted above, the MDNS issued for the proposal included conditions requiring the Applicant to provide a Storm Water Pollution Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 9 of 28 Prevention Plan prior to construction activities. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 16, 17, 23, and 30; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 18. Utilities 18. The City currently provides water and sewer services to the property. A water and sewer availability application would be required at the time of building permit application if any plumbing is added or changed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6 and 21. Site Plan and Design Review 19. A proposal requiring site plan/design review must be reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB), as well as by the City’s Planning Commission, to ensure the proposal complies with City design review guidelines. BIMC 2.16.040; BIMC 2.16.110. An applicant may request that review of a site plan and design be consolidated with review of other land use permits, such as a CUP. BIMC 2.16.040.E.7; BIMC 2.16.170. The Applicant requested consolidated review of its site plan and design review major adjustment with its request for a CUP major adjustment . Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 20. The DRB reviewed the proposal at a meeting on December 2, 2019. The DRB determined that the proposal would be consistent with City design review guidelines and recommended approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a February 13, 2020, meeting and requested additional materials, including an analysis of how the project would comply with CUP criteria, analysis from the DRB describing how the project would comply with applicable design guidelines, and a critical areas analysis. Following the Planning Commission’s request , the DRB again reviewed the proposal at meetings on March 2 and May 18, 2020. Ron Peltier submitted a pu blic comment to the DRB, dated March 2, 2020, expressing concerns with the lack of a proposed sally port for the transport of inmates, inadequate stormwater facilities, lack of private spaces for attorneys and clients to confer, and lack of security regard ing the long gravel driveway. The DRB completed a final design review worksheet documenting how the project would comply with applicable design guidelines and again recommended approval. The Planning Commission reviewed additional submitted materials at a June 11, 2020, meeting; determined that the project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations, and applicable design standard s; and recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 6 through 8; Exhibit 17; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22. 21. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the site plan and design review criteria of BIMC 2.16.040, noting:  The Director’s recommendation and report includes conditions to ensure the proposal’s conformance with applicable code provisions and development standards in the R-8 zoning district. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 10 of 28  Due to uncertainty in the final Sound to Olympic (STO) trail alignment, construction of the STO segment along the eastern edge of the property is not a required frontage improvement. To ensure compliance with the Island -Wide Transportation Plan, the City Engineer recommends a condition designed to avoid preclusion of public non-motorized improvements along SR-305 in the future.  The Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD) did not comment on the application. Approval of the building permit from KPHD would be required.  The City Engineer determined that a concurrency cert ificate would not be required because the proposed use would result in a net decrease in trip generation. The City Engineer recommends a 15-foot right-of-way dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Road frontage to align with the right -of-way of the adjacent property and recommends approval of the proposal, subject to conditions to ensure conformance with drainage, water quality, and street and pedestrian ways.  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines.  Recommended conditions would ensure that no harmful or unhealthful conditions would likely result from the development.  The Planning Commission determined that the project would comply with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval.  The proposal conforms to all critical area regulations. There are no potential adverse impacts to geologic hazard areas. As stated in the critical area report, the proposed addition would not increase impacts to the critical area relative to the existing developed condition.  The site plan and design were prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040. The proposed change of use of the existing building is compatible with the existing site. The site was initially designed in a log ical, safe, and attractive manner. The proposal does not require dedication of open space. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 16 through 18. Conditional Use Permit 22. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the criteria for amending a CUP, under BIMC 2.16.110.F, noting:  Other uses in the vicinity include a fire station, church, and assisted-living facility. Recommended conditions ensure that the use would be harmonious and compatible in design, character, and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property.  The project would be served by adequate public facilities, including roads, water, fire, sewer, and storm drainage. The streets and pedestrian ways coordinate with Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 11 of 28 existing streets and conform to the Island Wide Transportation Plan and the City Design and Construction Standards.  Recommended conditions would ensure that the use would not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property.  The Planning Commission determined that the project is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval.  Recommended conditions would ensure that the conditional use would comply with all other provisions of municipal code.  SEPA conditions would adequately address potential environmental impacts of the proposal. Occasional siren noise may occur on-site from emergency vehicles. The expected traffic volume fits within the City’s adopted level of service standards.  The project would be required to comply with code noise regulations.  Recommended conditions address pedestrian and bicycle circulation.  The City Engineer recommends approval, subject to conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 18 through 21. Institutions in Residential Zones 23. Former BIMC 2.16.110.G contains additional decision criteria applicable to proposals for governmental facilities in residential zones. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that it would meet the criteria, noting:  The site fronts SR-305, which is classified as a primary arterial in the Island Wide Transportation Plan.  The City Engineer determined that the proposed use would result in a net decrease in trip generat ion and would not impact the City’s adopted level of service standards.  The proposal would not impact or alter existing previously approved perimeter and roadside buffers.  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines.  The existing building is compatible with the immediately surrounding area. The bulk, height, and architectural design features of the proposed additional would be compatible with the existing building and the immediately surrounding area.  The facility would include an assembly seating area (courtroom) that has a maximum seating capacity of 48 occupants.  The proposed lot coverage is below the required 25 percent maximum for the R-8 zone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 21 and 22. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 12 of 28 Testimony 24. City Associate Planner Ellen Fairleigh testified generally about the proposal and how, with conditions, it would meet the criteria for a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment. She noted that there have been recent amendments to City code and that the project vests to the code criteria in effect at the time of the complete application. Ms. Fairleigh explained that the proposal to convert the existing health care facility to a governmental facility would change the character of the use and, therefore, would require major adjustment s to the previously approved site plan/design review and conditional use permit. She noted that the changes to the existing building would include construction of a 484 square foot 2-story addition to enclose an existing stairway and to add a locker room and lunchroom, as well as adding a roof overhang for covered impound storage. Ms. Fairleigh stated that the addition would fall within a critical area buffer under current critical area regulations, but that City code would allow for the proposed development within this area because it is functionally isolated from the critical area through existing permanent substantial development. She detailed how PCDD provided notice of the application, the associated public hearing, and the SEPA determination consistent with code requirements. Testimony of Ms. Fairleigh. 25. Applicant Representative Barry Loveless testified about the Applicant’s response to public comments submit ted by Ron Peltier to the Design Review Board regarding the lack of a proposed sally port and private spaces for attorneys and clients, as well as stormwater management and security concerns. He noted that the Applicant had to make certain compromises whe n choosing to develop City police and court facilities within an existing building. Mr. Loveless explained that, although the building would not include a sally port, it would have a secure fenced location in which to transport inmates. Regarding stormwater concerns, he noted that the existing stormwater management system for the site is functioning as designed. Mr. Loveless stated that the building would have one or two private rooms for attorneys to meet with clients. Regarding security concerns, he noted that there would be a large police presence in the building. Testimony of Mr. Loveless. 26. The project architect, Matthew Coates, testified generally about how the existing building would be redesigned to meet the needs of the proposed City police and court facilities. He noted the structure would largely remain the same, apart from se ismic improvements that would be required for an essential facility. Mr. Coates stated that bullet -resistive cladding would be added to certain areas of the building exterior to provide a safe environment inside the building. He noted that the lobby area and the suspect intake area would be able to be locked down in response to security issues. Testimony of Mr. Coates. Staff Recommendation 27. Ms. Fairleigh testified that the PCDD Director reviewed recommendations from PCDD staff, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission; determined that the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 13 of 28 project would comply with municipal code requirements and with the Comprehe nsive Plan; and recommends approval of the application subject to conditions. Testimony of Ms. Fairleigh; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 22 through 31. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for major adjustments to conditional use permits, under BMIC 2.14.030 and BMIC 2.16.110. The Hearing Examiner is also granted jurisdiction to hear and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for major adjustments to approved site plan and design review through a consolidated review process under BIMC 2.16.040 and BIMC 2.16.170. In a major conditional use permit or major adjustment application, the planning commission reviews the application prior to the review and final decision. The planning commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application. BIMC 2.16.110.E.3. The planning commission’s recommendation is given substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the Director when preparing a staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner . The Director must review the application materials, staff report, and recommendations of the planning commission and prepare a report to the Hearing Examiner recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application. BIMC 2.16.110.E.4. The Hearing Examiner is directed to consider the application materials and the Director’s recommendation at a public he aring. The Hearing Examiner must “make compliance with the recommendations of the planning commission a condition of approval,” unless the Hearing Examiner concludes that the recommendations: i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code; ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission; iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law. BIMC 2.16.110.E.5. Criteria for Review Conditional Use Permit A major conditional use permit is a mechanism by which the city may require specific conditions on development or the use of land to ensure that designated uses or activities are compatible with other uses in the same zone and in the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 14 of 28 vicinity of the subject property. If imposition of conditions will not make a specific proposal compatible the proposal shall be denied. BIMC 2.16.110.A. “Major adjustments to an approved major conditional use permit require an amended application and shall be processed in the same manner as a new conditional use permit application.” BIMC 2.16.110.J.2. Under the decision criteria applicable to this proposal, a conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if: a. The conditional use is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; provided, that in the case of a housing design demonstration project any differences in design, character or appearance that are in furtherance of the purpose and decision criteria of BIMC 2.16.020.Q shall not result in denial of a conditional use permit for the project; and b. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; and c. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and d. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and e. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC, . . .; and f. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the proposed use may have on the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and g. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and h. The vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation meets all applicable city standards, unless the city engineer has modified the requirements of BIMC 18.15.020.B.4 and B.5, allows alternate driveway and parking area surfaces, and confirmed that those surfaces meet city requirements for handling surface water and pollutants in accordance with Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and i. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 15 of 28 i. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and ii. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and iii. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and iv. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and v. If the conditional use will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the conditional use, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and vi. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Development Standards Manual,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 17. Former BIMC 2.16.110.F.1. Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones As applicable to this proposal, applications to locate governmental facilities in residential zones shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following criteria: 1. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map. 2. If the traffic study shows an impact on the level of service, those impacts have been mitigated as required by the city engineer. 3. If the application is located outside of Winslow study area, the project shall provide vegetated perimeter buffers in compliance with BIMC 18.15.010. 4. The proposal meets the requirements in BIMC 18.18.030. 5. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the immediately surrounding area. 6. If the facility will have attendees and employees numbering fewer than 50 or an assembly seating area of less than 50, the director may waive any or all the above requirements in this subsection E, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC. 7. Lot coverage does not exceed 50 percent of the allowable lot coverage in the zone in which the institution is located, except that public schools and governmental facilities, as defined in BIMC Title 18, that are located in Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 16 of 28 the R-0.4 zoning district shall be allowed 150 percent of the lot coverage established in the R-0.4 zoning district, and such public schools and governmental facilities located in other zoning districts shall be allowed 100 percent of the lot coverage established in the underlying zoning district in which the facility is located, unless, regardless of which zoning district such a facility is located, conditions are required to limit the lot coverage to mitigate impacts of the use. Former BIMC 2.16.110.G.1. Site Plan and Design Review The stated purpose of the City’s site plan and design review code provisions is: to establish a comprehensive site plan and design review process that ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the city. The overall goal of this chapter is to minimize land alteration, provide greater site development flexibility and consequently provide more creative and imaginative design than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to provide for the review of development proposals with respect to overall site design and to provide a means for guiding development in a logical, safe, attractive, and expedient manner, while also allowing property to be developed in phases. An additional purpose is to promote those specific purposes for each zoning district stated in Chapter 18.06 BIMC. BIMC 2.16.040.A. “Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by the director.” BIMC 2.16.040.H.2. As applicable to this proposal, t he following criteria apply to recommendations or decisions on site plan and design review or major adjustment applications: 1. The site plan and design is in conformance with applicable code provisions and development standards of the applicable zoning district . . . ; 2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation systems are adequate, safe, efficient and in conformance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; 3. The Kitsap County Health District has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; or if the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site sewage disposal system. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 17 of 28 b. If the Health District recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection E.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director. c. If the Health District recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the direct or; 4. The City Engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and c. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 18. 5. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18 . . . ; 6. No harmful or unhealthful co nditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; 7. The site plan and design is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans; 8. Any property subject to site plan and design review that contains a crit ical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; 9. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process and open space goals. Former BIMC 2.16.040.F. “The director may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for site plan and design review. Conditions may be imposed to enable the proposal to meet the standards of the decision criteria.” BIMC 2.16.040.G. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 18 of 28 The criteria for review adopted by the City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure c onsistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions, the proposed development would comply with the criteria for site plan and design review major adjustment approval. The City Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD) provided reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on the proposal. PCDD received two reviewing agency comments in response to its notice materials. The City Fire Marshal provided a comment noting that the project would be required to comply with the International Fire Code and would be required to install a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. Conditions, as detailed below, are included to address the Fire Marshal’s concerns. The Kitsap Public Health District responded that it did not have any comment on the application. PCDD staff reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, it would be consistent with several identified goals and polices of the City Comprehensive Plan by serving and providing employment opportunities to local residents, supporting non-motorized transportation, utilizing an existing building that complies with the 2015 Washington State Energy Code, and utilizing green stormwater infrastructure and additional sustainability practices. The Planning Commission also reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would comply with the criteria for a site plan and design major adjustment and all other applicable code requirements, including requirements under the City critical area regulations. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposal would comply with City design standards and guidelines. The DRB received one public comment that raised concerns regarding the lack of a proposed sally port for the transport of inmates, inadequate stormwater facilities, lack of private spaces for attorneys and clients to confer, and lack of security regarding the long gravel driveway. Applicant Representative Barry Loveless testified that the existing stormwater management system for the site is functioning as designed and that the building would include private spaces for attorneys to meet with clients, and he also testified about how specific security features of the proposal would ensure public safety. Accordingly, the concerns raised by the public have been addressed. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that, with recommended conditions, the proposal would conform with drainage, water quality, street, pedestrian way, and other applicable design standards. Water and sewage services would be provided by the City. The proposed change of use of the existing building and the proposed changes to the existing building, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 19 of 28 two-story addition, would be compatible with the existing site and surrounding development. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan major adjustment. Conditions, as detailed below, are necessary to ensure that the project complies with all local, state, and feder al requirements related to the proposed development and to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria for approval of a site plan and design review major adjustment. Findings 1 – 27. 2. With conditions, the proposed development would comply with the criteria for CUP major adjustment approval, including the specific criteria applicable to institutions located in residential zones. As addressed in Conclusion 1, above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, would meet applicable design guidelines, and would be adequately served by public facilities. The proposal would comply with dimensional standards for development in the R-8 zone. Environmental impacts of the proposal were considered, as required by SEPA, and PCDD issued an MDNS that was not appealed. The MDNS conditions are incorporated into the conditions for CUP major adjustment approval. The project would be required to comply with municipal noise regulations. The Applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis demonstrates that the proposed change of use would generate fewer trips than the existing medical office building. PCDD staff reviewed the proposal and determined that the subject property currently provides well-defined circulation for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in compliance with code requirements. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the project would meet requirements for drainage, water quality, street, pedestrian ways, and other applicable design standards. Existing perimeter and street buffer landscaping provides screening to surrounding development. As conditioned, the proposed use would be harmonious with the character of the subject property and with surrounding development , and would not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property. Conditions, as detailed below, are necessary to ensure that the project would comply with all local, state, and federal requirements related to the proposed development and to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria for approval of a conditional use permit adjustment. Findings 1 – 27. DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for approval of a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment to convert an existing health care facility to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2 -story addition on the west side of the building, at 8804 Madison Avenue North is APPROVED, with the following conditions:3 3 Conditions include both ordinance requirements applicable to all developments and requirements to mitigate the specific impacts of this development. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 20 of 28 [For continuity, all of the conditions from the previously approved SPRs and CUPs associated with the project site have been carried forward, with any new conditions/modifications underlined and any revised or no longer applicable language struck through.] SEPA Conditions: 1. No clearing, grading or other construction activities shall occur until a building permit or site development permit has been submitted by the Applicant and approved by the city. 2. All graded materials removed from the development shall be hauled to and deposited at city approved locations. 3. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) for the proposed development shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.20. The plans must be approved, the improvements constructed (or a co nstruction bond provided if applicable), and an acceptable final inspection obtained prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The design submittal shall incorporate all proposed project improvements including complete civil plans, grading and erosion control plans, roadway plans and profiles, and storm drainage facilities and drainage report. These reports shall be prepared by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Washington. A construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) will be requir ed prior to construction approval in accordance with BIMC Section 15.20.030.B (4). More information about this permit can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwwater/constrution/ or by contacting Charles Gilman at (360) 407-7451, email chgi461@ecy.wa.gov. This permit is required prior to any construction activities. 5. During the construction of the proposed infiltration facilities, the Project Engineer shall provide an inspection report to verify that the facilities are installed in accordance with the design documents and the actual soil conditions encountered meet the design assumptions. The Project Engineer shall submit the inspection report properly stamped and sealed with a professional engineer's stamp to Public Works Engineering. 6. An easement to COBI for access and maintenance of the proposed public stormwater facilities will be required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The Applicant's engineer shall provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPP to protect the public stormwater infiltration facilities during construction of the development. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 21 of 28 8. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall improve the roadway section for New Brooklyn Road to provide a minimum 18-foot wide paved driving surface, with appropriate storm drainage facilities per COBI Design Standards. The roadway shall be built to COBI Design standards, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property's north frontage. 9. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall improve the property's Madison Avenue frontage with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per COBI Design Standards. 10. To mitigate anticipated traffic impacts, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall construct a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue in accordance with the technical appendix diagram submitted in the Island Medical Traffic Impact Analysis date stamped received April 1, 2008 by the Department of Planning and Community Development unless an alternative plan is recommended for approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation and approved by the City's Development Engineer. 11. In order to provide recreation and access to the adjacent open space to the south, a trail network, consisting of four to six-foot wide trails, shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant within wetlands/wetland buffer in the southern portion of the site. The network shall extend fro m the Madison Avenue to the east, towards State Route 305, and terminate at the southern property line. A public access easement shall be granted over the trail network. 12. Within the wetlands/wetland buffer unless approved under a subsequent permit, r emoval of vegetation shall be limited to development of a trail network. No soil disturbance shall occur outside of the six-foot wide trail construction corridor. The trails shall be "field-fit" between or around existing trees, so that significant tree re moval shall be avoided. Limbs and branches up to nine feet over the trail and within one foot of the trail edges shall be removed. The four to six foot wide trail shall be constructed with a four inch layer of crushed 3/4 inch gravel over a geotextile mat barrier. All pedestrian improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Prior to final plat submittal, an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Declaration of Covenant for all constructed stormwater facilities shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.21. 14. A minimum two-year maintenance bond period for the stormwater facilities is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The maintenance period will begin after final construction acceptance of the improvements and shall run for a minimum period of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 22 of 28 two years. Regular maintenance of the stormwater system is required during this period. Documentation of maintenance shall be provided to the city on an annu al basis. 15. In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85.060 (C) 18.15.010 and to discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from designated protection areas without prior City approval will be replaced with new trees as follows: New trees measuring 1.5 inches in caliper if deciduous and four to six feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of the removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of replacement trees. The tree removed shall be replaced with trees of the same type, evergreen or deciduous. The replacement trees shall also be replaced in the same general location as the trees removed. 16. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of the Island Medical Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 14430B, shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit. 17. On-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the Applicant provides and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location, duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2. Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 201, see Volume IV "Source Control BIMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".) (Chapter 173-304 WAC). 18. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC Section 15.15.025 16.16.025 Limitation of Construction Activities. 19. All lighting within the development shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 15.34 18.15. Compliance will require exterior lighting to be shielded and directed downward. 20. Contractors are required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction. 21. To protect the wetland buffer, the Applicant shall only install motion sensor lighting in the rear of the site to ensure that the buffer is not constantly illuminated through the night. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 23 of 28 Project Conditions 22. Except as modified by conditions of approval, the project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plans date stamped June 26, 2008 for the assisted- living facility and July 9, 2013 for the medical building October 9, 2019 for the Police and Court facility. 23. Prior to submittal of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall contact planning staff to schedule a pre-submittal meeting to review the necessary components for a complete building permit application. In addition, with t he building permit application submittal, the Applicant shall attach a narrative detailing how each condition of approval is addressed by the building plans. 24. To verify that the buildings comply with the 35-foot 40-foot height limit, the site plans submitted as part of the building permit shall contain existing contours overlain with the building footprints. The submitted material shall include surveyed benchmark information to verify the actual height during construction. 25. Prior to any clearing and/or construction activities, fencing delineating the northern boundary of the wetland buffer shall be installed by the Applicant and inspected by planning staff. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the construction fencing shall be replaced with split -rail fencing and signage. The signs shall inform readers of the boundary and its significance. Any disturbed buffer setback area shall be re-planted with native vegetation upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the building's Certificate of Occupancy. 26. Any required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The project's state licensed landscape architect, certified nursery professional, or certified landscaper shall submit a landscaping declaration to the department to verify installation in accordance with approved plans. The time limit for compliance may be extended to allow installation of landscaping during the next appropriate planting season if the director determines that a performance assurance device, for a period of not more than one year, will adequately protect the interests of the city. The performance assurance device shall be for 150 percent of the cost of the work or improvements covered by the assurance device. 27. The landscape plans submitted with the building permit shall depict the items listed in BIMC Chapter 18.85 including partial landscape screens along the site's Madison Avenue and New Brooklyn frontage with the following exceptions: a) within the 25 -foot zoning setback along the parking lot adjoining New Brooklyn, a more intense screen, as stipulated in BIMC 18.85.070(E)(l )(b) shall be installed and b) within the 29 foot front setbacks alo ng the assisted-living facility, landscaping shall substantially conform to the plans date-stamped September 8, 2008. Along the sites' highway frontage, a full Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 24 of 28 landscaping screen, as defined in BIMC l 8.85.070(B) 1) shall be installed in the 25 -foot zoning setback. All significant trees, as defined in BIMC 18.85.010 and located within the required perimeter landscape buffer areas, shall be retained and incorporated into the required landscape screen. All required landscaping shall be maintained and retained for the life of the project. 28. As the code-required New Brooklyn landscaping screens are located within areas shown as being developed with rain gardens, the Applicant must demonstrate that the dual purposes, perimeter landscape screening and stormwat er treatment faculty, are compatible. If not, the rain gardens would need to be relocated. Proof of compatibility or relocation of the raingardens shall be submitted as part of the building permit application. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Certificat e of Occupancy final inspection, the Applicant shall secure the landscape maintenance assurance required by BIMC Section 18.85.090(D). 30. The service area, including trash and recycling enclosures, for the medical office Police and Court facility must be located as far away as possible from the assisted-living facility and shall be properly screened with fencing. 31. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install bicycle racks or hangers supplying parking for at least 20 bicycles. Of those spaces, a portion shall be located near the front entrance of the medical building Police and Court facility. 32. Civil construction plans for all roads, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and water facilities, and appurtenances shall be prepared by a professional engineer and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. All civil improvement plans, reports, and computations shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted with the application(s) for a construction permit (building, grading, right of way use, etc.) to the City for review and approval to construct of all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of o ccupancy will not be issued for new building until all civil improvements are completed. 33. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained that are specific to the Madrona House Assisted Living property. All on-site stormwater facilities that are specific to the Police and Court facility property shall be owned and maintained by the City. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the sto rm drainage facilities for this development following construction. Before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this development, the person or persons holding title to the subject property for which the storm drainage facilities are required shall record a Declaration of Covenant that guarantees to the City that the system will be properly maintained. Wording must be included in the covenant that will allow the City to inspect the system and perform the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 25 of 28 necessary maintenance in the event the syst em is not performing properly. This will be done only after notifying the owner and giving him a reasonable time to do the necessary work. Should City crews be required to do the work, the owner will be billed the maximum amount allowed by law. 34. The property owner shall dedicate, as right -of-way, 25 feet of property fronting along New Brooklyn as shown on the preliminary civil drawings date-stamped June 2, 2009. In addition, a pedestrian easement shall be dedicated for the sidewalk along the propo sed on-street parking along New Brooklyn to make them public throughways. 35. A right -of-way (ROW) construction permit will be required prior to any construction activities within the ROW. The ROW permit will be subject to conditions and coding bonding requirements. 36. The water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed in conformance with BIMC Title 13 and the City's adopted Design Standard and Specifications. The utilities plans submitted with building permit's civil drawings shall include profile and detail and shall demonstrate compatibility of the facilities with future street improvements currently proposed by the City. Specifications for water and sewer facilities include the following: a. An eight -inch diameter ductile iron class 52 water main shall be installed along the site's New Brooklyn frontage. b. A 15 foot wide easement for the on-site water main extension shall be provided from the right -of-way to the proposed buildings. c. An isolation valve shall be provided at the connection to the force main located in Madison Avenue. 37. Binding water and sewer service letters from the City's Public Works Department shall be submitted with the building permit application. 38. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the project shall meet all applicable requirements of the 2006 2015 International Fire Code. 39. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed throughout the buildings. 40. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the proposed hydrant in front of the assisted-living facility shall be relocated to the west parking lot entrance, a fire hydrant must be installed at the east parking lot entrance, and the proposed hydrant in front of the medical office building shall be relocated to the entrance of the parking garage. 41. Building overhangs covering the main entrances shall provide at least 13' 6" of clearanc e. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 26 of 28 42. The driving lanes within the project are considered fire lanes and shall be labeled as such to the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. 43. To the satisfaction of the Kitsap County Health District, the Applicant shall: a. Abandon the site's existing septic tank per that agency's code. b. Have the site's existing well decommissioned by a certified well driller. c. Apply for a sewered building clearance accompanied by a water and sewer availability letter from the water purveyor. 44. To the satisfaction of planning staff, all exterior building surfaces shall be sided with non-reflective materials. 45. To the satisfaction of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the following provisions must be followed: a. WSDOT will only accept stormwater runoff from the project site that currently enters SR 305 right -of-way. Any proposal by the Applicant to discharge stormwater runoff to the right -of-way either during construction or upon completion will require appropriate stormwater treatment in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. If such discharge is proposed, a drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by WSDOT prior to any earth disturbance. b. No excavation, grading, filling, landscaping or any other activity associated with the proposal may occur within state right -of-way without prior approval by WSDOT. c. No lighting from the site may be directed towar ds the state highway and no glare from the completed project shall impact the state highway. d. No signs shall be placed in the highway right -of-way (unless otherwise approved). 46. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Washington Department of transportation (WSDOT) to determine if signage can be added to the highway that indicates the location of the urgent care facility. The Applicant shall coordinate with staff to ensure that said signage meets the sign code requirements of BIMC 15.18. 47. As most of the dining terrace is located within the building setback associated with the wetland buffer, it must be constructed with a pervious surface (wood decking, pavers, permeable concrete, etc) to the satisfaction of planning staff. 48. The mechanical units shall be screened from SR 305 and New Brooklyn. as indicated on the site plans submitted by the Applicant on November 26, 2013. The mechanical units shall be inspected during the permit review and found to be screened prior to the issuance of occupancy. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 27 of 28 49. Prior to directly discharging any stormwater into the wetland and/or its buffer, the Applicant shall secure a Special Use Review permit from the City of Bainbridge Island. 50. At the time of building permit application, the Applicant must indicate on the site plan which vegetation will be disturbed to gain access to the building during construction of the Police and Court facility. Any vegetation disturbance shall be re -planted prior to final on the building permit. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City prior to replanting and if any trees are removed, the project shall continue meet the applicable tree unit requirements. 51. At least one parking space near the entrance of the Police and Court facility must be reserved and signed for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. This condition will be verified prior to final on the building permit. 52. Any portion of the security fence that is within a setback shall be a maximum of eight feet high. Within a setback, a fence may be screened up to six feet high with an additional two feet of nonscreening material for a total of eight feet. This condition will be verified at the time of building permit review. 53. 15’ of Public Right of Way (ROW) shall be dedicated on the north frontage with NE New Brooklyn Road from the northwest property corner east until it meets the SR305 ROW, to align with the existing ROW of the adjacent property to the west (Madrona Assisted Living). This ROW dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Frontage shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of any construction permit (to include Building, ROW, and Grade and Fill) or no later than 12 months from the date of SPRA/CUPA approval, whichever occurs first. 54. This project shall not result in any action that would preclude the future construction of the STO trail along the eastern frontage with SR305. 55. Prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy, an updated Operation and Maintenance plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system shall be provided to City of Bainbridge Public Works Department (Operations and Maintenance) for use of the personnel responsible for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. 56. Applicant shall provide updated Drainage Fixture Unit count and comparative analysis between existing and proposed conditions to ensure water service meter is appropriately sized for the new use. 57. Sanitary sewer connections shall be protect ed during construction. Prior to returning the sanitary sewer lateral connection to service, Applicant shall demonstrate via video Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 28 of 28 inspection or equivalent methods that the lateral is free of obstruction/debris and is in good working order. 58. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempt activity shall be considered a violation of this chapter and subject to enforcement and restoration under BIMC 16.20.170. 59. A land use permit automatically expires and is void if the Applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the permit unless (a) the Applicant has received an extension for the permit; or (b) the permit provides for an extended time period. The director may grant one extension to the permit, in writing, for a period not to exceed one year if the Applicant can demonstrate, (a) unforeseen circumstances or conditions necessitate the extension of the permit; and (b) termination of the permit would result in unreasonable hardship to the Applicant, and the Applicant is not responsible for the delay; and (c) the extension of the permit will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and (d) the extension request is received by the department no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the permit. 60. Minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review may be made after review and approval by t he Director. Minor adjustments are those that include minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not include changes to the intensity or character of the use. Minor adjustments are processed through a written request from the Applicant and a written response from department staff. The City response is placed in the project file and is effective to modify the approval as described in the response. Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved sit e plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by the Director. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use. DECIDED this 27th day of August 2020. ANDREW M. REEVES Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 1 of 29 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN 51524 SPRA/CUPA ) Barry Loveless, on behalf of ) City Police and Court Facility the City of Bainbridge Island ) SPRA/CUPA ) For Approval of a Site Plan/Design Review ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Major Adjustment and Approval of a ) AND DECISION Conditional Use Permit Major Adjustment ) (Corrected September 3, 2020)1 SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval o f a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment to convert an existing health care facility to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2-story addition on the west side of the building, at 8804 Madison Avenue North is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to address specific impacts of the proposal. SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on August 13, 2020, using remote technology in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Testimony: The following individuals testified under oath at the open record hearing: Ellen Fairleigh, City Associate Planner Barry Loveless, Applicant Representative Matthew Coates, Project Architect Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated August 6, 2020 2. Master Land Use Application, dated October 8, 2019 1 On September 3, 2020, the City requested corrections to non-substantive errors in Finding 5, noting that the comment deadline for the consolidated notice was November 29, 2020; that the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on February 5, 2020; and the deadline to appeal the MDNS was February 19, 2020. The Hearing Examiner has corrected th ese errors, which do not affect the remaining findings, conclusions, or decision. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 2 of 29 3. Notice of Complete Application, dated November 6, 2019 4. Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing, dated November 15, 2019 5. Certification of Public Notice, dated February 4, 2020 6. Certificate of Posting, dated January 5, 2020 7. Site Plan (Sheet A1.00), dated July 1, 2019 8. Call Out Plan (Sheet L1.1), revised May 19, 2014 9. Floor Plans A. Main Level-Overall Floor Plan (Sheet A2.01), dated November 12, 2019 B. Upper Level-Overall Floor Plan (Sheet A2.05), dated November 12, 2019 10. Six (6) elevation renderings and sketches (North, SE, SW, NW, Birds-Eye View, Front), dated November 12, 2019 11. Planting Plan (Sheet L4.1), revised May 19, 2014 12. Parking Space Needs Validatio n, dated January 6, 2017 13. Trip Generation Analysis, Transpo Group, dated May 8, 2019 14. Traffic Impact Assessment Memorandum, dated October 6, 2019 15. SEPA Environmental Checklist with staff response, received October 9, 2019 16. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance & Adoption of Existing Document, dated February 5, 2020; Joint Notice of Administrative Decision and Notice of SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated December 17, 2013 17. Comment from Ron Peltier, dated March 1, 2020 18. City Department of Public Works-Engineering Recommendations, dated January 10, 2020 19. Comments from Bainbridge Island Fire Department, dated January 6, 2020, with email string; Memo randum from Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal, to Kelly Tayara, dated September 4, 2019 20. Letter of Transmittal, Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD), dated October 24, 2019 21. Design Review Board (DRB) Review and Recommendation A. DRB Review and Recommendation Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2019 B. DRB Review and Recommendation Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2020 C. DRB Review and Recommendation Special Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2020 D. DRB Final Design Review, dated May 18, 2020 22. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 13, 2020 B. Planning Commission Preliminary Recommendation, dated February 13, 2020 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2020 D. Planning Commission Recorded Motion, Meeting of June 11, 2020 23. Critical Area Review, Wet land Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2020 24. Hearing Examiner’s Findings, Conclusions, and Decision, Right Medical Building , LLC, (CUP14430B and SPR14430B), dated October 14, 2008 25. Joint Notice of Administrative Decision and Notice of SEPA Mitigated De termination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated December 17, 2013; email from Theresa Rice to reviewing agencies, dated December 18, 2013 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 3 of 29 26. PowerPoint Presentation The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Background 1. On October 14, 2008, the former City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner pro tem (Margaret Klockars) approved consolidated applications for a conditional use permit and site plan review to develop a medical complex on two lots, with a 47,300 square foot, 53- unit assisted-living facility to be constructed on one lot and a 27,700 square foot medical office building to be constructed on the other adjacent lot. In 2013, a minor adjustment was approved to reduce the size of the health care facility and change the building and parking configuration. A special use review was approved in 2014 to create an outfall pipe across a wetland buffer on the southern portion of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 24. Application and Notice 2. Barry Loveless, on behalf of t he City of Bainbridge Island (City, or Applicant), requests approval of a site plan/design review major adjustment (SPRA) and a conditional use permit major adjustment (CUPA) to convert the existing medical office building and associated parking area to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2-story addition on the west side of the building. The property is located at 8804 Madison Avenue North.2 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 2; Exhibits 7 through 11. 3. The City Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD) determined that the application was complete on November 6, 2019. On November 15, 2019, PCDD provided notice of the application and the associated public hearing by mailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and to reviewing City departments and government agencies, posting notice at City Hall kiosks and on the City website, and publishing notice in the Bainbridge Island Review. The Applicant posted notice at the subject property on November 13, 2019. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 6. 4. PCDD received reviewing agency comments in response to its notice materials. The City Fire Marshal noted that fire flow would be met through existing hydrants and recommended approval provided that the project would be required to comply with the 2 The property is identified by tax parcel number 232502-3-083-2002. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 4 of 29 International Fire Code and that a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system be installed. PCDD staff recommended conditions addressing the Fire Marshal’s concerns. Kitsap Public Health District notified PCDD that it did not have any comment on the proposal. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7, 28, and 29; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20. State Environmental Policy Act 5. PCDD acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington (RCW). PCDD consolidated notice of the SEPA review and application comment periods under the optional process provided for by Wash ington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355, with a comment deadline of November 29, 2019. The notice materials stated that the City expected to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal. No comments were received. PCDD reviewed the Applicant’s Environmental Checklist and other information on file and determined that, with several mitigation measures that were included in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the original project, the proposal would not ha ve a probable significant adverse impact on the environment . Accordingly, PCDD Director Heather Wright issued an MDNS for the proposal on February 5, 2020, with an appeal deadline of February 19, 2020. The MDNS requires the Applicant to obtain a building permit or site development permit prior to construction activities and to conform with clean air regulations, provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPPP , obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit , maintain a trail network, limit removal of vegetation within the wetland and wetland buffer to trail network development , obtain City approval prior to removal of any significant trees, obtain approval prior to any on-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks, comply with construction noise ordinances, comply with lighting ordinances, stop work and notify PCDD and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any artifacts are discovered on-site; and install motion sensor lighting in the rear of the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 7; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 24. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 6. The property is designated Urban Multi-Family R-8 by the City Comprehensive Plan. PCDD staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as relevant to the proposal:  By providing enterprises that both serve and employ local residents, Bainbridge Island will be better able to withstand fluctuations in the larger regional economy. In addition, people who live and work in their community are available to invest time and money in their families, organizations, and community life. A key to a healthy, stable, and vital economy is to create and undertake business opportunities that anticipate and respond to conditions that affect our community. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 5 of 29 This would include identifying emerging needs and markets so that Bainbridge Island businesses benefit from being on the leading edge of change. [Goal EC-1]  In order to provide opportunities for business enterprise, adequate space must be provided for efficient use of existing developed areas near public transportation (e.g., ferry, bus service) and for growth that recognizes and protects the Island’s valued natural amenities, its limits of land and water , and the quality of its residential neighborhoods. [Policy EC-1.5]  Encourage the use of green building materials and techniques in all types of construction, as well as design approaches that are responsive to changing conditions. [Policy EC-3.1]  Encourage public sector solid waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. [Policy EC- 3.4]  Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty, and environmental quality. [Goal EN-1]  Encourage sustainability in City government operations. [Goal EN-2]  In managing City government operations, take reasonable steps to reduce impacts to the environment and ecosystems upon which we depend. This includes recognizing and preparing for the impacts of climate change. [Policy EN-2.1]  Protect wetlands and riparian areas. [Policy EN-5.6]  Ensure beneficial indoor air quality in all renovations and new construction of City-owned facilities and promote design choices that enhance benef icial indoor air quality in private construction. [Policy EN-10.5]  Set street design guidelines that establish street widths, reflecting the desired vehicle speeds; accommodating bicycle, pedestrian, wheelchair, equestrian, and transit uses; and providing for emergency vehicle access, considering community character. [Policy TR 6.1]  Support the construction of the STO and its branch trails. [Policy TR 7.6]  The Capital Facilities Element and Capital Improvement Plan provides the public facilities needed t o support orderly compact urban growth, protect and support public and private investments, maximize use of existing facilities, promote economic development and redevelopment, increase public well-being and safety, and implement the Comprehensive Plan. [Goal CF-1]  When planning for public facilities, consider expected future land use activity. [Policy CF 2.1]  New taxpayer-funded buildings shall use carbon-neutral energy for heating, cooling, and operational use to the maximum extent practical within site specific and existing technology limitations. [Policy 14.7] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 through 10. 7. PCDD staff determined that the proposal would be consistent with the goals and polices of the Comprehensive Plan by serving and employing local residents; being located near public transportation and supporting non-motorized transportation; avoiding impacts to Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 6 of 29 critical areas; utilizing an existing building that complies with the 2015 Washington State Energy Code; utilizing green stormwater infrastruct ure, such as a rain garden, permeable pavement, and a storm filter system; and proposing additional sustainability practices, such as reducing indoor water fixtures, installing low-flow fixtures, and installing efficient HVAC controls. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 9 and 10. 8. The subject property is within the Residential 8 (R-8) zoning district. The purpose of the R-8 zoning district is “to provide for medium-density residential areas in pleasant, uncongested surroundings allowing for the maximum a menities for the occupants.” Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 18.06.020.I. The proposed use is for a governmental facility, which is allowed in the R-8 zone with a conditional use permit.3 BIMC 18.09.020. BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 provides dimensional standards applicable to development in the R-8 zone. The Applicant’s proposal would comply with dimensional standards for development in the R-8 zone related to lot coverage, building height, and setbacks for front and side lot lines. Because the property has more than one front lot line, all other lot lines are considered side lot lines and, thus, the minimum rear lot line setback requirements of BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 would not apply. BIMC 18.12.050.N. Existing Site and Surrounding Development 9. As noted above, the subject property is currently developed with a medical office building and associated parking. Property to the west is zoned R-8 and is developed with the assisted-living facility that was approved in conjunction with the medical office building. Property to the south is zoned R-8 and consists of undeveloped forested area containing wetlands and a fish bearing stream. Property to the north is zoned R-2 and is developed with a church facility. The property is bordered to the east by SR-305. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4, 5, 12, and 13. Critical Areas 10. A wetland and associated buffer cover the southern portion of the project site. When the health care facility project was originally approved in 2008, applicable critical area regulat ions required a 100-foot wetland buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback. Additionally, at the time of original project approval, a stream located to the south of the site was classified as non-fish-bearing, with a required 50-foot buffer that was subsumed within the 100-foot wetland buffer. A later stream classification review determined that the stream was fish-bearing and required a 200-foot buffer, which extends into the southern portion of the project site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 10, and 11; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 23. 3 Governmental facility is defined as “an institution operated by a federal, state, county, or city government, or special purpose districts.” BIMC 18.36.030(107). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 7 of 29 11. The Applicant ’s proposed addition to the west side of the existing building would be located within a portion of the 200-foot stream buffer. BIMC 16.20.040.B provides an exemption, however, for activit ies within a critical area buffer when the buffer area is “separated from the critical area by an existing permanent substantial development, use or activity which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area,” provided that proposed activities within the buffer would not increase impacts to the critical area. PCDD staff conducted a site visit and determined that the area between the existing building and the wetland and stream critical areas contains permanent substantial development, including a protective fence, rock wall, maintained lawn, and several stormwater catch basins, all of which serves to eliminate or greatly reduce the impact of the proposed activity on the critical area. At the request of the Planning Commission, Wetland Resources, Inc., prepared a critical area report on behalf of the Applicant, dated April 8, 2020. The report determined that the area landward of the protective fence and within the 200-foot stream buffer is disturbed with permanent substantial development and provides no ecological support functions to the wetland and stream. The report further determined that the proposed building addition would not increase impacts to the critical areas relative to the existing developed conditions. Accordingly, PCDD staff, the Planning Commission, and a third-party consultant concur that the proposed development would be exempt from critical area permit requirements under BIMC 16.20.040.B’s exemption provisions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 10, and 11; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 23. 12. The property contains an erosion hazard area and a small area of steep slopes that are approximately 10 feet high. The City Engineer determined that the proposal would not have any potential adverse impacts to the erosion hazard and steep slope areas and recommends approval without requiring the Applicant to submit a geotechnical analysis. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 and 12; Exhibit 18. Traffic, Parking, and Access 13. Transpo Group prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) on behalf of the Applicant, dated May 8, 2019. The TIA determined that the proposed police and court facility would generate 20 AM peak-hour trips and 6 PM peak-hour trips, which is less than the 76 AM peak-hour trips and 95 PM peak-hour trips generated by the existing medical office building. Because the proposal would generate fewer trips than the existing building use, the TIA determined that the Applicant would not be required to pay traffic impact fees. Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14. 14. BIMC 18.15.020 provides the minimum off-street parking space requirements for development in residential zoning districts and allows for on-street parking spaces that are created or designated in conjunction with and adjacent to a project to be included in the parking space calculation, with approval from the Director. Because governmental facilities do not have specified minimum off-street parking requirement s, the number of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 8 of 29 required off-street parking spaces is established by the Director based on an evaluation of actual parking demand for the proposed use. BIMC Table 18.15.020-1. The existing medical office building has 73 parking spaces, including 6 on-street parking spaces. The Director reviewed a parking demand analysis prepared by Coates Design Architects, together with the Applicant’s TIA, and determined that the existing 73 parking spaces would be adequate to serve the proposed use. The Director also determined that the proposal would meet requirements for maximum compact parking spaces. The Applicant would be required to provide one parking space near the building entrance for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. BIMC 18.15.020.B(11). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13 and 14; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14. 15. The existing medical office building is currently accessed from Madison Avenue North, with no change of access proposed for the project. BIMC 18.15.030 provides requirements for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit user access. PCDD staff reviewed the proposal and determined that the subject property currently provides well-defined circulation for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in compliance with code requirements. The subject property also currently provides the required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces, and compliance with this requirement would be verified prior to building permit approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 14 and 15. Landscaping 16. The Applicant does not propose any changes to the existing landscape perimeter or roadside buffers. In 2013, the existing medical office building was required to install a 25-foot-wide full screen landscape buffer along SR-305 to provide mitigation for visual and lighting impacts, as well a 25-foot-wide partial screen landscape buffer along NE New Brooklyn Road. Although the 25-foot-wide landscape buffer along SR-305 exceeded code requirement s at that time, the existing eastern parking lot is now legally nonconforming with the current code requirement for a 50-foot full screen and 35-foot minimum landscape buffer along SR-305. Accordingly, if the nonconforming eastern parking lot is removed, a landscape buffer would be required to be installed along the property’s SR-305 frontage in compliance with current code requirements. A parking lot area in the northern portion of the property adjacent to the assisted-living facility is also legally nonconforming with current code requirement s for a 25-foot-wide full screen landscape buffer along the western property line. Accordingly, if the nonconforming northern parking lot is removed, a landscape buffer would be required to be installed along the property’s western property line in compliance with current code requirements. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 12 and 13; Exhibit 7. Stormwater 17. The proposed police and court facility would be served by the existing stormwater management system. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that it would be eligible for a site assessment review exemption based on the crea tion of less Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 9 of 29 than 800 square feet of new or replaced hard surfaces. The exemption would be issued upon review of building permit submittals. The City Engineer also recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to provide an updated operation and mainte nance plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy. As noted above, the MDNS issued for the proposal included conditions requiring the Applicant to provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction activities. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 16, 17, 23, and 30; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 18. Utilities 18. The City currently provides water and sewer services to the property. A water and sewer availability applicat ion would be required at the time of building permit application if any plumbing is added or changed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6 and 21. Site Plan and Design Review 19. A proposal requiring site plan/design review must be reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB), as well as by the City’s Planning Commission, to ensure the proposal complies with City design review guidelines. BIMC 2.16.040; BIMC 2.16.110. An applicant may request that review of a site plan and design be consolidated with review of other land use permits, such as a CUP. BIMC 2.16.040.E.7; BIMC 2.16.170. The Applicant requested consolidated review of its site plan and design review major adjustment with its request for a CUP major adjustment . Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 20. The DRB reviewed the proposal at a meeting on December 2, 2019. The DRB determined that the proposal would be consistent with City design review guidelines and recommended approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a February 13, 2020, meeting and requested additional materials, including an analysis of how the project would comply with CUP criteria, analysis from the DRB describing how the project would comply with applicable design guidelines, and a critical areas analysis. Following the Planning Commission’s request , the DRB again reviewed the proposal at meetings on March 2 and May 18, 2020. Ron Peltier submitted a public comment to the DRB, dated March 2, 2020, expressing concerns with the lack of a proposed sally port for the transport of inmates, inadequate stormwater facilities, lack of private spaces for attorneys and clients to confer, and lack of security regarding the long gravel driveway. The DRB completed a final design review worksheet documenting how the project would comply with applicable design guidelines and again recommended approval. The Planning Commission reviewed additional submitted materials at a June 11, 2020, meeting; determined that the project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations, and applicable design standards; and recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 6 through 8; Exhibit 17; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 10 of 29 21. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the site plan and design review criteria of BIMC 2.16.040, noting:  The Director’s recommendation and report includes conditions to ensure the proposal’s conformance with applica ble code provisions and development standards in the R-8 zoning district.  Due to uncertainty in the final Sound to Olympic (STO) trail alignment, construction of the STO segment along the eastern edge of the property is not a required frontage improvement. To ensure compliance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan, the City Engineer recommends a condition designed to avoid preclusion of public non-motorized improvements along SR-305 in the future.  The Kitsap Public Health District (KPHD) did not comment on the application. Approval of the building permit from KPHD would be required.  The City Engineer determined that a concurrency certificate would not be required because the proposed use would result in a net decrease in trip generation. The City Engineer recommends a 15-foot right-of-way dedication along the NE New Brooklyn Road frontage to align with the right -of-way of the adjacent property and recommends approval of the proposal, subject to conditions to ensure conformance with drainage, water quality, and street and pedestrian ways.  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines.  Recommended conditions would ensure that no harmful or unhealthful conditions would likely result from the development.  The Planning Commission determined that the project would comply with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval.  The proposal conforms to all critical area regulations. There are no potential adverse impacts to geologic hazard areas. As stated in the critical area report, the proposed addition would not increase impacts to the critical area relative to the existing developed condition.  The site plan and design were prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040. The proposed change of use of the existing building is compatible with the existing site. The site was initially designed in a logical, safe, and attractive manner. The proposal does not require dedication of open space. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 16 through 18. Conditional Use Permit 22. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the criteria for amending a CUP, under BIMC 2.16.110.F, noting:  Other uses in the vicinity include a fire station, church, and assisted-living facility. Recommended conditions ensure that the use would be harmonious and Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 11 of 29 compatible in design, character, and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property.  The project would be served by adequate public facilities, including roads, water, fire, sewer, and storm drainage. The streets and pedestrian ways coordinate with existing streets and conform to the Isla nd Wide Transportation Plan and the City Design and Construction Standards.  Recommended conditions would ensure that the use would not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property.  The Planning Commission determined that the project is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval.  Recommended conditions would ensure that the conditional use would comply with all other provisions of municipal code.  SEPA conditions would adequately address potential environmental impacts of the proposal. Occasional siren noise may occur on-site from emergency vehicles. The expected traffic volume fits within the City’s adopted level of service standards.  The project would be required to comply with code noise regulations.  Recommended conditions address pedestrian and bicycle circulation.  The City Engineer recommends approval, subject to conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 18 through 21. Institutions in Residential Zones 23. Former BIMC 2.16.110.G contains additional decision criteria applicable to proposals for governmental facilities in residential zones. PCDD staff analyzed the proposal and determined that it would meet the criteria, noting:  The site fronts SR-305, which is classified as a primary arterial in the Island Wide Transportation Plan.  The City Engineer determined that the proposed use would result in a net decrease in trip generation and would not impact the City’s adopted level of service standards.  The proposal would not impact or alter existing pr eviously approved perimeter and roadside buffers.  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines.  The existing building is compatible with the immediately surrounding area. The bulk, height, and architectural des ign features of the proposed additional would be compatible with the existing building and the immediately surrounding area.  The facility would include an assembly seating area (courtroom) that has a maximum seating capacity of 48 occupants. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 12 of 29  The proposed lot coverage is below the required 25 percent maximum for the R-8 zone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 21 and 22. Testimony 24. City Associate Planner Ellen Fairleigh testified generally about the proposal and how, with conditions, it would meet the criteria for a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment. She noted that there have been recent amendments to City code and that the project vests to the code criteria in effect at the time of the complete application. Ms. Fairleigh explained that the proposal to convert the existing health care facility to a governmental facility would change the character of the use and, therefore, would require major adjustment s to the previously approved site plan/design review and conditional use permit. She noted that the changes to the existing building would include construction of a 484 square foot 2-story addition to enclose an existing stairway and to add a locker room and lunchroom, as well as adding a roof overhang for covered impound storage. Ms. Fairleigh stated that the addition would fall within a critical area buffer under current critical area regulations, but that City code would allow for the proposed development within this area because it is functionally isolated from the critical area through existing permanent substantial development. She detailed how PCDD provided notice of the application, the associated public hearing, and the SEPA determination consistent with code requirements. Testimony of Ms. Fairleigh. 25. Applicant Representative Barry Loveless testified about the Applicant’s response to public comments submitted by Ron Peltier to the Design Review Board regarding the lack of a proposed sally port and private spaces for attorneys and clients, as well as stormwater management and security concerns. He noted that the Applicant had to make certain compromises when choosing to develop City police and court facilities within an existing building. Mr. Loveless explained that, although the building would not include a sally port, it would have a secure fenced location in which to transport inmates. Regarding stormwater concerns, he noted that the existing stormwater management system for the site is functioning as designed. Mr. Loveless stated that the building would have one or two private rooms for attorneys to meet with clients. Regarding security concerns, he noted that there would be a large police presence in the building. Testimony of Mr. Loveless. 26. The project architect, Matthew Coates, testified gener ally about how the existing building would be redesigned to meet the needs of the proposed City police and court facilities. He noted the structure would largely remain the same, apart from se ismic improvements that would be required for an essential facility. Mr. Coates stated that bullet -resistive cladding would be added to certain areas of the building exterior to provide a safe environment inside the building. He noted that the lobby area and the suspect intake area would be able to be locked down in response to security issues. Testimony of Mr. Coates. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 13 of 29 Staff Recommendation 27. Ms. Fairleigh testified that the PCDD Director reviewed recommendations from PCDD staff, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission; determined that the project would comply with municipal code requirements and with the Comprehensive Plan; and recommends approval of the application subject to conditions. Testimony of Ms. Fairleigh; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 22 through 31. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for major adjustments to conditional use permits, under BMIC 2.14.030 and BMIC 2.16.110. The Hearing Examiner is also granted jurisdiction to hear and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for major adjustments to approved site plan and design review through a consolidated review process under BIMC 2.16.040 and BIMC 2.16.170. In a major conditional use permit or major adjustment application, the planning commission reviews the application prior to the review and final decision. The planning commission recommends approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application. BIMC 2.16.110.E.3. The planning commission’s recommendation is given substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the Director when preparing a staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner . The Director must review the application materials, staff report, and recommendations of the planning commission and prepare a report to the Hearing Examiner recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application. BIMC 2.16.110.E.4. The Hearing Examiner is directed to consider the application materials and the Director’s recommendation at a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner must “make compliance with the recommendations of the planning commission a condition of approval,” unless the Hearing Examiner concludes that the recommendations: i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code; ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission; iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law. BIMC 2.16.110.E.5. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 14 of 29 Criteria for Review Conditional Use Permit A major conditional use permit is a mechanism by which the city may require specific conditions on development or the use of land to ensure that designated uses or activities are compatible with other uses in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. If imposition of conditions will not make a specific proposal compatible the proposal shall be denied. BIMC 2.16.110.A. “Major adjustments to an approved major conditional use permit require an amended application and shall be processed in the same manner as a new conditional use permit application.” BIMC 2.16.110.J.2. Under the decision criteria applicable to this proposal, a conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if: a. The conditional use is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; provided, that in the case of a housing design demonstration project any differences in design, character or appearance that are in furtherance of the purpose and decision criteria of BIMC 2.16.020.Q shall not result in denial of a conditional use permit for the project; and b. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; and c. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and d. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and e. The conditio nal use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC, . . .; and f. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the proposed use may have on the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and g. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and h. The vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation meets all applicable city standards, unless the city engineer has modified the requirements of BIMC Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 15 of 29 18.15.020.B.4 and B.5, allows alternate driveway and parking area surfaces, and confirmed that those surfaces meet city requirements for handling surface water and pollutants in accordance with Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and i. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: i. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and ii. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and iii. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and iv. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and v. If the conditional use will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the conditional use, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and vi. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Development Standards Manual,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 17. Former BIMC 2.16.110.F.1. Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones As applicable to this proposal, applications to locate governmental facilities in residential zones shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following criteria: 1. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map. 2. If the traffic study shows an impact on the level of service, those impacts have been mitigated as required by the city engineer. 3. If the application is located outside of Winslow study area, the project shall provide vegetated perimeter buffers in compliance with BIMC 18.15.010. 4. The proposal meets the requirements in BIMC 18.18.030. 5. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the immediately surrounding area. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 16 of 29 6. If the facility will have attendees and employees numbering fewer than 50 or an assembly seating area of less than 50, the director may waive any or all the above requirements in this subsection E, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC. 7. Lot coverage does not exceed 50 percent of the allowable lot coverage in the zone in which the institution is located, except that public schools and governmental facilities, as defined in BIMC Title 18, that are located in the R-0.4 zoning district shall be allowed 150 percent of the lot coverage established in the R-0.4 zoning district, and such public schools and governmental facilities located in other zoning districts shall be allowed 100 percent of the lot coverage established in the underlying zoning district in which the facility is located, unless, regardless of which zoning district such a facility is located, conditions are required to limit the lot coverage to mitigate impacts of the use. Former BIMC 2.16.110.G.1. Site Plan and Design Review The stated purpose of the City’s site plan and design review code provisions is: to establish a comprehensive site plan and design review process that ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the city. The overall goal of this chapter is to minimize land alteration, provide greater site development flexibility and consequently provide more creative and imaginative design than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to pro vide for the review of development proposals with respect to overall site design and to provide a means for guiding development in a logical, safe, attractive, and expedient manner, while also allowing property to be developed in phases. An additional purpose is to promote those specific purposes for each zoning district stated in Chapter 18.06 BIMC. BIMC 2.16.040.A. “Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by t he director.” BIMC 2.16.040.H.2. As applicable to this proposal, t he following criteria apply to recommendations or decisions on site plan and design review or major adjustment applications: 1. The site plan and design is in conformance with applicable code provisions and development standards of the applicable zoning district . . . ; 2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation systems are adequate, safe, efficient and in conformance with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 17 of 29 3. The Kitsap County Health District has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; or if the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site sewage disposal system. b. If the Health District recommends approval of the app lication with respect to those items in subsection E.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director. c. If the Health District recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; 4. The City Engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and c. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards,” unless the city engineer has approved a variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 18. 5. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18 . . . ; 6. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; 7. The site plan and design is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans; 8. Any property subject to site plan and design review that contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 18 of 29 9. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process and open space goals. Former BIMC 2.16.040.F. “The direct or may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for site plan and design review. Conditions may be imposed to enable the proposal to meet the standards of the decision criteria.” BIMC 2.16.040.G. The criteria for review adopted by the City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions, the proposed development would comply with the criteria for site plan and design review major adjustment approval. The City Planning and Community Development Department (PCDD) provided reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on the proposal. PCDD received two reviewing agency comments in response to its notice materials. The City Fire Marshal provided a comment noting that the project would be required to comply with the International Fire Code and would be required to install a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. Conditions, as detailed below, are included to address the Fire Marshal’s concerns. The Kitsap Public Health District responded that it did not have any comment on the application. PCDD staff reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, it would be consistent with several identified goals and polices of the City Comprehensive Plan by serving and providing employment opportunities to local residents, supporting non-motorized transportation, utilizing an existing building that complies with the 2015 Washington State Energy Code, and ut ilizing green stormwater infrastructure and additional sustainability practices. The Planning Commission also reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would comply with the criteria for a site plan and design major adjustment and all other applicable code requirements, including requirements under the City critical area regulations. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposal would comply with City design standards and guidelines. The DRB received one public comment that raised concerns regarding the lack of a proposed sally port for the transport of inmates, inadequate stormwater facilities, lack of private spaces for attorneys and clients to confer, and lack of security regarding the long gravel driveway. Applicant Representative Barry Loveless testified that the existing stormwater management system Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 19 of 29 for the site is functioning as designed and that the building would include private spaces for attorneys to meet with clients, and he also testified about how specific security features of the proposal would ensure public safety. Accordingly, the concerns raised by the public have been addressed. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that, with recommended conditions, the proposal would conform with drainage, water quality, street, pedestrian way, and other applicable design standards. Water and sewage services would be provided by the City. The proposed change of use of the existing building and the proposed changes to the existing building, including the two-story addition, would be compatible with the existing site and surrounding development. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan major adjustment. Conditions, as detailed below, are necessary to ensure that the project complies with all local, state, and federal requirements related to the proposed development and to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria for approval of a site plan and design review major adjustment. Findings 1 – 27. 2. With conditions, the proposed development would comply with the criteria for CUP major adjustment approval, including the specific criteria applicable to institutions located in residential zones. As addressed in Conclusion 1, above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, would meet applicable design guidelines, and would be adequately served by public facilities. The proposal would comply with dimensional standards for development in the R-8 zone. Environmental impacts of the proposal were considered, as required by SEPA, and PCDD issued an MDNS that was not appealed. The MDNS conditions are incorporated into the conditions for CUP major adjustment approval. The project would be required to comply with municipal noise regulations. The Applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis demonstrates that the proposed change of use would generate fewer trips than the existing medical office building. PCDD staff review ed the proposal and determined that the subject property currently provides well-defined circulation for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in compliance with code requirements. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that, with cond itions, the project would meet requirements for drainage, water quality, street, pedestrian ways, and other applicable design standards. Existing perimeter and street buffer landscaping provides screening to surrounding development. As conditioned, the proposed use would be harmonious with the character of the subject property and with surrounding development , and would not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property. Conditions, as detailed below, are necessary to ensure that the project would comply with all local, state, and federal requirements related to the proposed development and to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria for approval of a conditional use permit adjustment. Findings 1 – 27. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 20 of 29 DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for approval of a site plan/design review major adjustment and a conditional use permit major adjustment to convert an existing health care facility to a governmental facility to house the City Police and Court departments, including exterior changes to the façade of the existing building, a new roof overhang on the south side of the building for covered impound storage, and a 484 square foot 2 -story addition on the west side of the building, at 8804 Madison Avenue North is APPROVED, with the following conditions:4 [For continuity, all of the conditions from the previously approved SPRs and CUPs associated with the project site have been carried forward, with any new conditions/modifications underlined and any revised or no longer applicable language struck through.] SEPA Conditions: 1. No clearing, grading or other construction activities shall occur until a building permit or site development permit has been submitted by the Applicant and approved by the city. 2. All graded materials removed from the development shall be hauled to and deposited at city approved locations. 3. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) for the proposed development shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.20. The plans must be approved, the improvements constructed (or a construction bond provided if applicable), and an acceptable final inspection obtained prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The design submittal shall incorporate all pro posed project improvements including complete civil plans, grading and erosion control plans, roadway plans and profiles, and storm drainage facilities and drainage report. These reports shall be prepared by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Washington. A construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) will be required prior to construction approval in accordance with BIMC Section 15.20.030.B (4). More information about this permit can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwwat er/constrution/ or by contacting Charles Gilman at (360) 407-7451, email chgi461@ecy.wa.gov. This permit is required prior to any construction activities. 5. During the construction of the proposed infiltration facilities, the Project Engineer shall provide an inspection report to verify that the facilities are installed in accordance with 4 Conditions include both ordinance requirements applicable to all developments and requirements to mitigate the specific impacts of this development. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 21 of 29 the design documents and the actual soil conditions encountered meet the design assumptions. The Project Engineer shall submit the inspection report properly stamped and sealed with a professional engineer's stamp to Public Works Engineering. 6. An easement to COBI for access and maintenance of the proposed public stormwater facilities will be required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The Applicant's engineer shall provide specific erosion and sedimentation control design measures as part of the SWPP to protect the public stormwater infiltration facilities during construction of the development. 8. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall improve the roadway section for New Brooklyn Road to provide a minimum 18-foot wide paved driving surface, with appropriate storm drainage facilities per COBI Design Standards. The roadway shall be built to COBI Design standards, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property's north frontage. 9. To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall improve the property's Madison Avenue frontage with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per COBI Design Standards. 10. To mitigate anticipated traffic impacts, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall construct a right turn lane on the south leg of Madison Avenue in accordance with the technical appendix diagram submitted in the I sland Medical Traffic Impact Analysis date stamped received April 1, 2008 by the Department of Planning and Community Development unless an alternative plan is recommended for approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation and approved by the City's Development Engineer. 11. In order to provide recreation and access to the adjacent open space to the south, a trail network, consisting of four to six-foot wide trails, shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant within wetlands/wetland buffer in the southern portion of the site. The network shall extend from the Madison Avenue to the east, towards State Route 305, and terminate at the southern property line. A public access easement shall be granted over the trail network. 12. Within the wetlands/wetland buffer unless approved under a subsequent permit, removal of vegetation shall be limited to development of a trail network. No soil disturbance shall occur outside of the six-foot wide trail construction corridor. The trails shall be "field-fit" between or around existing trees, so that significant tree removal shall be avoided. Limbs and branches up to nine feet over the trail and within one foot of the trail edges shall be removed. The four to six foot wide trail shall be constructed with a four inch layer of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 22 of 29 crushed 3/4 inch gravel over a geotextile mat barrier. All pedestrian improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Prior to final plat submittal, an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Declaration of Covenant for all constructed stormwater facilities shall be provided for city review and approval in accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.21. 14. A minimum two-year maintenance bond period for the stormwater facilities is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The maintenance period will begin after final construction acceptance of the improvements and shall run for a minimum period of two years. Regular maintenance of the stormwater system is required during this period. Documentation of maintenance shall be provided to the city on an annual basis. 15. In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85.060 (C) 18.15.010 and to discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from designated protection areas without prior City approval will be replaced with new trees as follows: New trees measuring 1.5 inches in caliper if deciduous and four to six feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of the removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of replacement trees. The tree removed shall be replaced with trees of the same type, evergreen or deciduous. The replacement trees shall also be replaced in the same general location as the trees removed. 16. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of the Island Medical Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 14430B, shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit. 17. On-site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the Applicant provides and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location, duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2. Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 201, see Volume IV "Source Control BIMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".) (Chapter 173-304 WAC). 18. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC Section 15.15.025 16.16.025 Limitation of Construction Activities. 19. All lighting within the development shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 15.34 18.15. Compliance will require exterior lighting to be shielded and directed downward. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 23 of 29 20. Contractors are required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction. 21. To protect the wetland buffer, the Applicant shall only install motion sensor lighting in the rear of the site to ensure that the buffer is not constantly illuminated through the night. Project Conditions 22. Except as modified by conditions of approval, the project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plans date stamped June 26, 2008 for the assisted- living facility and July 9, 2013 for the medical building October 9, 2019 for the Police and Court facility. 23. Prior to submittal of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall contact planning staff to schedule a pre-submittal meeting to review the necessary components for a complete building permit application. In addition, with the building permit application submittal, the Applicant shall attach a narrative detailing how each condition of approval is addressed by the building plans. 24. To verify that the buildings comply with the 35-foot 40-foot height limit, the site plans submitted as part of the building permit shall contain existing contours overlain with the building footprints. The submitted material shall include surveyed benchmark information to verify the actual height during construction. 25. Prior to any clearing and/or construction activities, fencing delineating the northern boundary of the wetland buffer shall be installed by the Applicant and inspected by planning staff. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the construction fencing shall be replaced with split -rail fencing and signage. The signs shall inform readers of the boundary and its significance. Any disturbed buffer setback area shall be re-planted with native vegetation upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of the building's Certificate of Occupancy. 26. Any required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The project's state licensed landscape architect, certified nursery professional, or certified landscaper shall submit a landscaping declaration to the department to verify installation in accordance with approved plans. The time limit for compliance may be extended to allow installation of landscaping during the next appropriate planting season if the director determines that a performance assurance device, for a period of not more than one year, will adequately protect the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 24 of 29 interests of the city. The performance assurance device shall be for 150 percent of the cost of the work or improvements covered by the assurance device. 27. The landscape plans submitted with the building permit shall depict the items listed in BIMC Chapter 18.85 including partial landscape screens along the site's Madison Avenue and New Brooklyn frontage with the following exceptions: a) within the 25 -foot zoning setback along the parking lot adjoining New Brooklyn, a more intense screen, as stipulated in BIMC 18.85.070(E)(l )(b) shall be installed and b) within the 29 foot front setbacks along the assisted-living facility, landscaping shall substantially conform to the plans date-stamped September 8, 2008. Along the sites' highway frontage, a full landscaping screen, as defined in BIMC l 8.85.070(B) 1) shall be installed in the 25 -foot zoning setback. All significant trees, as defined in BIMC 18.85.010 and located within the required perimeter landscape buffer areas, shall be retained and incorporated into the required landscape screen. All required landscaping shall be maintained and retained for the life of the project. 28. As the code-required New Brooklyn landscaping screens are located within areas shown as being developed with rain gardens, the Applicant must demonstrate that the dual purposes, perimeter landscape screening and stormwater treatment faculty, are compatible. If not, the rain gardens would need to be relocated. Proof of compatibility o r relocation of the raingardens shall be submitted as part of the building permit application. 29. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy final inspection, the Applicant shall secure the landscape maintenance assurance required by BIMC Section 18.85.090(D). 30. The service area, including trash and recycling enclosures, for the medical office Police and Court facility must be located as far away as possible from the assisted-living facility and shall be properly screened with fencing. 31. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install bicycle racks or hangers supplying parking for at least 20 bicycles. Of those spaces, a portion shall be located near the front entrance of the medical building Police and Court facility. 32. Civil construction plans for all roads, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and water facilities, and appurtenances shall be prepared by a professional engineer and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. All civil improvement plans, reports, and computations shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted with the application(s) for a construction permit (building, grading, right of way use, et c.) to the City for review and approval to construct of all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued for new building until all civil improvements are completed. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 25 of 29 33. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained that are specific to the Madrona House Assisted Living property. All on-site stormwater facilities that are specific to the Police and Court facility property shall be owned and maintained by the City. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this development following construction. Before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this development, the person or persons holding title to the subject property for which the storm drainage facilities are required shall record a Declaration of Covenant that guarantees to the City that the system will be properly maintained. Wording must be included in the covenant that will allow the City to inspect the system and perform the necessary maintenance in the event the system is not performing properly. This will be done only after notifying the owner and giving him a reasonable time to do the nec essary work. Should City crews be required to do the work, the owner will be billed the maximum amount allowed by law. 34. The property owner shall dedicate, as right -of-way, 25 feet of property fronting along New Brooklyn as shown on the preliminary civil drawings date-stamped June 2, 2009. In addition, a pedestrian easement shall be dedicated for the sidewalk along the proposed on-street parking along New Brooklyn to make them public throughways. 35. A right -of-way (ROW) construction permit will be required prior to any construction activities within the ROW. The ROW permit will be subject to conditions and coding bonding requirements. 36. The water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed in conformance with BIMC Title 13 and the City's adopted Design Standard and Specifications. The utilities plans submitted with building permit's civil drawings shall include profile and detail and shall demonstrate compatibility of the facilities with future street improvements currently proposed by the City. Specifications for water and sewer facilities include the following: a. An eight -inch diameter ductile iron class 52 water main shall be installed along the site's New Brooklyn frontage. b. A 15 foot wide easement for the on-site water main extension shall be provided from the right -of-way to the proposed buildings. c. An isolation valve shall be provided at the connection to the force main located in Madison Avenue. 37. Binding water and sewer service letters from the City's Public Work s Department shall be submitted with the building permit application. 38. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the project shall meet all applicable requirements of the 2006 2015 International Fire Code. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 26 of 29 39. To the satisfact ion of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed throughout the buildings. 40. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the proposed hydrant in front of the assisted-living facility shall be relocated to the west parking lot entrance, a fire hydrant must be installed at the east parking lot entrance, and the proposed hydrant in front of the medical office building shall be relocated to the entrance of the parking garage. 41. Bu ilding overhangs covering the main entrances shall provide at least 13' 6" of clearance. 42. The driving lanes within the project are considered fire lanes and shall be labeled as such to the satisfaction of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. 43. To the satisfaction of the Kitsap County Health District, the Applicant shall: a. Abandon the site's existing septic tank per that agency's code. b. Have the site's existing well decommissioned by a certified well driller. c. Apply for a sewered building clearance accompanied by a water and sewer availability letter from the water purveyor. 44. To the satisfaction of planning staff, all exterior building surfaces shall be sided with non-reflective materials. 45. To the satisfaction of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the following provisions must be followed: a. WSDOT will only accept stormwater runoff from the project site that currently enters SR 305 right -of-way. Any proposal by the Applicant to discharge stormwater runo ff to the right-of-way either during construction or upon completion will require appropriate stormwater treatment in accordance with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. If such discharge is proposed, a drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by WSDOT pr ior to any earth disturbance. b. No excavation, grading, filling, landscaping or any other activity associated with the proposal may occur within state right -of-way without prior approval by WSDOT. c. No lighting from the site may be directed towards the state highway and no glare from the completed project shall impact the state highway. d. No signs shall be placed in the highway right -of-way (unless otherwise approved). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 27 of 29 46. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Washington Department of transp ortation (WSDOT) to determine if signage can be added to the highway that indicates the location of the urgent care facility. The Applicant shall coordinate with staff to ensure that said signage meets the sign code requirements of BIMC 15.18. 47. As most of the dining terrace is located within the building setback associated with the wetland buffer, it must be constructed with a pervious surface (wood decking, pavers, permeable concrete, etc) to the satisfaction of planning staff. 48. The mechanical units shall be screened from SR 305 and New Brooklyn. as indicated on the site plans submitted by the Applicant on November 26, 2013. The mechanical units shall be inspected during the permit review and found to be screened prior to the issuance of occupancy. 49. Prior to directly discharging any stormwater into the wetland and/or its buffer, the Applicant shall secure a Special Use Review permit from the City of Bainbridge Island. 50. At the time of building permit application, the Applicant must indicate on the site plan which vegetation will be disturbed to gain access to the building during construction of the Police and Court facility. Any vegetation disturbance shall be re -planted prior to final on the building permit. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City prior to replanting and if any trees are removed, the project shall continue meet the applicable tree unit requirements. 51. At least one parking space near the entrance of the Police and Court facility must be reserved and signed for use by a shared-car program or electric vehicle charging station. This condition will be verified prior to final on the building permit. 52. Any portion of the security fence that is within a setback shall be a maximum of eight feet high. Within a setback, a fence may be screened up to six feet high with an additional two feet of nonscreening material for a total of eight feet. This condition will be verified at the time of building permit review. 53. 15’ of Public Right of Way (ROW) shall be dedicated on the north frontage with NE New Brooklyn Road from the northwest property corner east until it meets the SR305 ROW, to align with the existing ROW of the adjacent property to the west (Madrona Assisted Living). This ROW dedication alo ng the NE New Brooklyn Frontage shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of any construction permit (to include Building, ROW, and Grade and Fill) or no later than 12 months from the date of SPRA/CUPA approval, whichever occurs first. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 28 of 29 54. This project shall not result in any action that would preclude the future construction of the STO trail along the eastern frontage with SR305. 55. Prior to building permit final inspections for certificate of occupancy, an updated Operation and Maintena nce plan reflecting any changes in the storm drainage system shall be provided to City of Bainbridge Public Works Department (Operations and Maintenance) for use of the personnel responsible for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. 56. Applicant shall provide updated Drainage Fixture Unit count and comparative analysis between existing and proposed conditions to ensure water service meter is appropriately sized for the new use. 57. Sanitary sewer connections shall be protected during construction. Prior to returning the sanitary sewer lateral connection to service, Applicant shall demonstrate via video inspection or equivalent methods that the lateral is free of obstruction/debris and is in good working order. 58. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempt activity shall be considered a violation of this chapter and subject to enforcement and restoration under BIMC 16.20.170. 59. A land use permit automatically expires and is void if the Applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the permit unless (a) the Applicant has received an extension for the permit; or (b) the permit provides fo r an extended time period. The director may grant one extension to the permit, in writing, for a period not to exceed one year if the Applicant can demonstrate, (a) unforeseen circumstances or conditions necessitate the extension of the permit; and (b) termination of the permit would result in unreasonable hardship to the Applicant, and the Applicant is not responsible for the delay; and (c) the extension of the permit will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and (d) the extension request is received by the department no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the permit. 60. Minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review may be made after review and approval by the Direct or. Minor adjustments are those that include minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not include changes to the intensity or character of the use. Minor adjustments are processed through a written request from the Applicant and a written response from department staff. The City response is placed in the project file and is effective to modify the approval as described in the response. Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (Corrected September 3, 2020) City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner City Police and Court Facility SPRA/CUPA No. PLN51524 SPRA/CUPA Page 29 of 29 Director. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use. DECIDED this 27th day of August 2020. ANDREW M. REEVES Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center