Loading...
PLN51717 SPR CUP - Messenger House - HEX Official Record Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 1 of 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP ) ) Charles Wenzlau ) Messenger House Phase 2 ) SPR/CUP ) For Approval of Site Plan and Design ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Review and a Conditional Use Permit ) AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of site plan and design review, and a conditional use permit, to construct a three-story, 52,460 square foot addition to an existing health care facility on a 7.01- acre property located at 10861 Manitou Park Blvd NE 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 1 2, 2021, using remote access technology. Testimony: The following individuals testified under oath at the open record hearing: Kelly Tayara, City Senior Planner Paul Nylund, City Engineering Manager Charles Wenzlau, Applicant Representative Jeff Bouma Anne Corbett Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated July 28, 2021 2. Site Assessment Review, dated June 5, 2020 3. Preapplication Conference Summary Letter, dated September 22, 2020 4. Master Land Use Application, dated November 24, 2021, with Owner/Agent Agreement, dated August 4, 2020 5. Notice of Incomplete Application, dated December 21, 2020 6. Notice of Complete App lication, dated March 25, 2021 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 2 of 28 7. Notice of Application, SEPA Comment Period, and Hearing, issued April 2, 2021 a. Mailing List b. Postcard Mailer c. Affidavit of Publication, dated April 2, 2021, with Legal Invoice and Classified Proof, Bainbridge Island Review, published April 2, 2021 d. Certificate of Posting, dated April 6, 2021 e. Three (3) Posted Notice Photographs 8. SEPA Environmental Checklist, dated January 4, 2021 9. Geotechnical Engineering Report , Aspect Consulting, LLC, dated June 22, 2020 a. Slope Study (Sheet 1 of 1), MAP, Ltd., dated January 7, 2021 10. Preliminary Stormwater Design Report, MAP, Ltd., dated November 13, 2020 11. Trip Generation and Parking Analysis, Heath and Associates, Inc., dated November 2020 12. Plan Set (19 Sheets), submitted November 25, 2020 a. Basic Site P lan (Sheet A1.00), revised March 26, 2021 b. Revised Preliminary Utilities Plan (Sheet 1 of 1), dated November 12, 2020 c. Revised Tree Retention and Aquifer Recharge Protection Area Plan Set (6 Sheets), submitted February 1, 2021 d. Revised Aquifer Recharge Protection Area Plan, dated March 2021 e. Existing Native Vegetation Study, dated January 14, 2020 13. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Sheet C-3.0), dated March 3, 2021 a. Grading Plan (Sheet C4.0), dated February 25, 2021 b. Path Grading Plan (Sheet C-4.1), dated March 1, 2021 14. Comment from Mark Maxwell, dated April 8, 2021 15. Comment from David Sprinkle, dated April 13, 2021 16. Comment from Mark Freeman, dated April 15, 2021 17. Comment from Charles Schmid, dated April 15, 2021 a. Revised Comment from Charles Schmid, dated April 23, 2021 18. Comment from Anne and Hoyt Corbett, dated April 16, 2021 a. Attachment to Comment from Anne and Hoyt Corbett, dated April 16, 2021 19. Comment from Michael Coleman, dated April 16, 2021 a. Attachment to Comment from Michael Coleman, dated August 16, 2021 20. Co mment from Michael Coleman, dated May 3, 2021 a. Attachment to Comment from Michael Coleman, dated May 3, 2021 21. Tree Appraisal, Katy Bigelow, Arborist, LLC, dated November 9, 2020 22. Applicant Comprehensive Plan Narrative, Wenzlau Architects, dated November 24, 2020 23. Project Narrative and Decision Criteria, Wenzlau Architects, dated November 24, 2020 24. Hearing Examiner Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (CUP07 -22-94-1), dated March 10, 1995. 25. Water Availability Letter, dated November 9, 2020 26. Comment from Kitsap Public Health, dated December 2, 2020 27. Bainbridge Island Fire Department Recommendation, dated December 9, 2020 28. Design Review Board Recommendation, dated May 3, 2021 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 3 of 28 29. Planning Commission Recommendation, dated July 22, 2021 30. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, issued July 28, 2021 31. Revised Site Plan (Sheet A-1.X), revised July 26, 2021. The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Background 1. The Messenger House Care Center is a health care facility that has existed on the site since around 1960. In 1984, Kitsap County approved an unclassified use permit to allow construction of an 8,000 to 9,000 square foot addition to the existing facility and, in 1986, approved a revision to the unclassified use permit to allow construction of a 2,600 square foot building addition. On March 10, 1995, the former City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner (J. Robin Hunt ) approved a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new 20,500 square foot, 49-bed building addition and to replace a 70-stall parking area at the existing facility. Following the construction of the new building addition and parking area approved with the 1995 conditional use permit, no major additions to the existing facility have occurred. Some structures on the property have been removed, however, including a house that was demolished between 2009 and 2010 and a theater building that was demolished between 2017 and 2018, both of which had been located at the southeast portion of the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 4; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 23; Exhibit 24; Exhibit 28. Application and Notice 2. Charles Wenzlau, Wenzlau Architects (Applicant), requests site plan and design review (SPR) approval and approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a three-story, 52,460 square foot addition to the existing Day Hall building at the Messenger House Care Center facility. The Day Hall building was constructed in 1917 and has recently been listed on the Local Historic Register. The proposed addition would house 46 beds with assisted- and independent-living units and would replace an existing one-story, 46- bed skilled nursing building wing attached to Day Hall that was constructed in 1986 and would be demolished as part of the redevelopment . The property consists of two parcels totaling 7.01 acres that would be aggregated through a boundary line adjustment. The property is located at 10861 Manitou Park Blvd NE.1 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 3, and 9; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 23. 1 The property is identified by tax parcel number s 4156-002-0005-0203 and 4156-002-007-0003. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3. A legal description of the property is included with the plan set. Exhibit 12.c. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 4 of 28 3. The City determined that the application was complete on March 25, 2021. On April 2, 2021, the City provided notice of the application and the associated public hearing by mailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, posting notice at City Hall kiosks and on the City website, and publishing notice in the Bainbridge Island Review with a comment deadline of Apr il 16, 2021. Notice was posted at the subject property on April 6, 2021. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7. 4. The City received two reviewing agency comments in response to its notice materials. The Kitsap Public Health District did not raise any concerns about the proposal and noted that the on-site septic system serving the property is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health. The City Deputy Fire Marshal noted that the project would be required to install fire sprinklers and alarms in compliance with applicable fire code provisions, necessary fire flow would be met through existing hydrants, fire lane markings appear adequate, and gates installed across the south side fire department access road would be required to have a Knox override installed to provide emergency access to the property. The City also received several comments on the proposal from members of the public:  Mark Maxwell requested additional information regarding the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposal.  David Sprinkle noted existing issues concerning speeding vehicles impacting pedestrian safety along Manitou Beach Drive NE. He requested that an electronic speed sign be installed at the corner where NE Valley Road becomes Manitou Beach Drive NE. Mr. Sprinkle also requested that the facility operator inform staff that speeding is prohibited and develop a program for neighbors to report excessive speeders to the operator for appropriate action.  Mark Freeman noted existing issues about staff traveling to and from the facility at excessive speeds and requested that road calming measures be implemented, such as the installation of speed bumps, electronic speed monitoring, and monitoring by the City police department.  Charles Schmid submit ted a comment noting that he and his wife have lived near the facility since 1970 and are looking forward to a well-designed facility. He requested additional information about several aspects of the proposal, including the project’s phased development, any proposed boundary line changes, open space elements, traffic and road impacts, steep slopes, shoreline impacts, and light and noise impacts.  Anne and Hoyt Corbett submitted a comment noting that a condition of the 1995 Messenger House facility expansion approval required neighboring residences to be buffered by the property’s existing heavily forested vegetation. They stated a portion of the existing buffer had been cut to facilitate a new parking lot and that the replacement buffer plantings have been insufficient to mitigate for visual and noise impacts to their neighboring property. The Corbetts requested that the construction activity be limited to specified hours and that noise-proof fencing be Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 5 of 28 installed to mitigate for temporary construction noise impacts. They also requested that the Applicant be required to plant and maintain a dense vegetative buffer around the southwest parking lot and on the neighboring side of the proposed new three-story building wing, locate staff parking to the west lot to minimize noise impacts during staff shift changes, assure that ground lighting minimizes impacts to neighboring residential properties, and consider limiting the footprint of the proposed new building extension to the footprint of the existing building wing. In addition, the Corbetts raised concerns about the project’s impacts to area wildlife, opposed a public pathway bordering their property, and requested that the City vacate the right -of-way between their property and the subject property.  Michael Co leman submitted comments that generally expressed support for having memory care services and assisted living residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Coleman raised concerns, however, about the proposal exceeding the scope of the 1995 conditional use permit, use of his property for a fire lane, the proposed location of a pedestrian path, construction noise, the height and footprint of the proposed building addition, and adequate buffering to screen the facility from neighboring residential properties. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 6, and 7; Exhibits 14 through 20; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. State Environmental Policy Act 5. The City 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). The City 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 April 16, 2021. The notice materials stated that the City expected to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal. The City reviewed the Applicant’s Environmental Checklist and other information on file and determined that, with mitigation measures, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment . Accordingly, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposal on July 28, 2021, with a comment and appeal deadline of August 11, 2021. The City did not receive any comments on the MDNS, and the MDNS was not appealed. The MDNS requires the Applicant to submit with the building permit application lighting plans demonstrating compliance with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 18.15.040; incorporate soundproofing barriers for all existing and new generators and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units ; and submit with construction permit applications a management plan consistent with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) Fugitive Dust Controls. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 30; Testimony of Kelly Tayara. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 6 of 28 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 6. The property is designated Residential-2 by the City Comprehensive Plan. City staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as relevant to the proposal:  Encourage preservation of existing historic structures and sites as an important tool in building a sustainable and unique community. [Policy LU 21.1]  Engage in cooperative efforts with owners to encourage the preservation of historic resources. [Policy LU 21.6]  Collaborate with interested stakeholders to promote historic preservation on the Island. [Policy LU 22.3]  Promote on-Island access to healthcare facilities and medical services, particularly those addressing the needs of the Island’s increasing older population. [Policy EC 9.4]  Facilitat e the siting and development of housing opportunities for special needs populations. [Goal HO-8]  Preserve places where the Island’s history can be experienced, interpreted, and shared with the general public, in order to deepen an understanding of our her itage and the relationship of the past to our present and future. [Goal CUL-3]  Support programs that provide needed services for families, e.g., child or adult day care, respite care for caregivers and mental health services. [Policy HS 2.4]  Promote the creation of a mix of housing alternatives and services for people at different levels of independence. [Policy HS 3.2] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 and 9; Exhibit 22. 7. City staff determined the proposal would be consistent with the goals and polices of the Comprehensive Plan, noting: the property has contributed to the local culture for over 100 years; institutions operating the site have been important to the local economy throughout much of the twentieth century; the current property owners have be en in the process of modernizing the health care facility; the property owners have engaged in cooperative efforts with the Historic Preservation Committee and City staff to retain historic elements of the site during redevelopment despite having no requir ement to do so; the proposed redevelopment would retain and rehabilitate the Day Hall building in recognition of its historic character; the completed project would provide memory care services, along with assisted- and independent-living facilities, to serve the special needs of an aging population; and redevelopment conditions would ensure that the facility would comply with current building, health, fire code, stormwater, and environmental regulations. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9. 8. The subject property and all the surrounding properties are within the Residential 2 (R-2) zoning district. The purpose of the R-2 zoning district is “to provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with special Island character consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation of natural systems and open Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 7 of 28 space, as a somewhat higher density than the R-1 district.” BIMC 18.06.020.C. The proposed use is for a health care facility, which is allowed in the R-2 zone with a conditional use permit.2 BIMC Table 18.09.020. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 3. 9. BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 provides dimensional standards applicable to development in the R-2 zone. The Applicant’s proposal would comply with dimensional standards related to minimum lot area, minimum lot dimensions, maximum building height, and minimum setbacks for front 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. The existing building wing attached to Day Hall is currently nonconforming with the minimum side setback requirements, and the proposed new building extension would extend over both parcels that currently comprise the subject property. The Applicant would aggregate both parcels through a boundary line adjustment, which would ensure that the building addition would be contained on a single parcel and would comply with minimum side setback requirements. The existing lot coverage is 15.9 percent , as approved with the 1995 conditional use permit , and the proposed lot coverage would be 16.9 percent, exceeding the 10 percent maximum lot coverage generally applicable to health care facilities in the R-2 zone. BIMC 18.09.030.C.7.b; BIMC Table 18.12.020-2. The proposal, however, received approval for a modification from the maximum lot coverage requirement to allow for the proposed lot coverage through provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Program, Chapter 18.24 BIMC, which are applicable to properties listed on the Local Historic Register. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10. Existing Site, Surrounding Development , and Critical Areas 10. The subject property is currently developed with the Messenger House Care Center health care facility, which consists of a building complex that includes a Memory Care wing constructed in 1996, the Day Hall building and existing single-story skilled nursing building wing, and a caretaker’s house, as well as associated parking areas, landscaping, and pedestrian pathways. Properties immediately to the west of the subject property consist of undeveloped forested areas. Surrounding properties to the north, east, and south consist of residential development, apart from one property to the east that contains a parking lot for the Rolling Bay Walk community. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 12. 11. Aspect Consulting, LLC, prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for the proposed project, dated June 22, 2020. The GER notes that the site is generally flat (0 to 5 percent inclinations) over the western half of the property, contains moderate slopes (5 to 15 percent inclinations) at the center, and contains scattered steep slopes (15 to 50 2 Health care facility is defined as “a building or buildings used for human health care with more than 10,000 square feet in floor area, such as a hospital or major medical clinic.” BIMC 18.36.030. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 8 of 28 percent inclinations) in limited areas in the north and northeast. The GER determined that the scattered steep slopes do not constitute geologic hazard areas under the municipal code due to the minimal height of the slopes and the absence of seeps. The GER further determined that the proposed project would be feasible from a geotechnical perspective and provided detailed design and construction recommendations for the building foundations, slabs-on-grade, and earthwork activities. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 9. 12. The entirety of the City is classified as an aquifer recharge area. The proposed redevelopment on the R-2 zoned property requires a designation of an Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA). BIMC 16.20.100.E. The ARPA must include all existing native vegetation on-site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total site area. BIMC 16.20.100.E.2.b. ARPA design standards provide that healthy, existing trees and vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible; trees shall be retained in one or more stands or clusters; the ARPA shall be delineated to include a low perimeter - to-area ratio and a minimum width of 12 feet, and the critical root zone of all significant trees; the ARPA shall be contiguous with abutting, off-site areas of other ARPAs, open space, or critical areas to the extent feasible; and the ARPA may include landscaping or open space requirements and other critical areas and associated buffers or setbacks. BIMC 16.20.100.E.3. In accord with these requirements, the Applicant submitted site plans designat ing ARPAs along the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners of the property, which represent approximately 13 percent of the site area. No other critical areas have been identified on the property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 12.C through 12.E. Traffic, Parking, and Access 13. Primary access to the facility would be provided from a driveway extending to Manitou Beach Drive NE to the west of the property. In addition, emergency vehicle access would be provided from Manitou Park Blvd NE. In response to concerns from neighboring property owner Michael Coleman that the proposed emergency access drive would encroach on his property, the Applicant submitted a revised site plan relocating the proposed emergency access drive within the City right -of-way located on the subject property. Heath and Associates, Inc., prepared a Trip Generation and Parking Analysis report for the project , dated November 20, 2020. The report determined that the proposal to replace skilled nursing beds with assisted- and independent-living beds would result in 12 fewer average daily trips, no additional AM peak-hour trips, and 3 fewer PM peak- hour trips. Because the proposal would generate fewer trips than the existing use, the report determined that an additional traffic impact analysis would not be required for the project and that the Applicant would not be required to mitigate for the project’s anticipated traffic impacts. The report also determined that the average parking demand for the proposal would be 45 parked vehicles and, therefore, the existing 72 parking stalls on-site would be sufficient to meet this demand. City planning and engineering staff Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 9 of 28 reviewed the proposal and determined that the existing parking facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed redevelopment. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 14, 15, and 19; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 31; Testimony of Paul Nylund. 14. BIMC 18.15.030 provides requirements for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit user access. The City development engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that the project, as conditioned, would conform to City design and construction standards and specifications. City staff determined that, given the intended population, few residents of the facility would likely have the need for bicycle facilities. City staff recommends that the Applicant be required to provide an outdoor covered bicycle facility suppo rting a minimum of five bicycles for visitors of the facility, as well as indoor or outdoor bicycle storage for employees at a ratio of one bicycle space per five employees. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 and 12. Landscaping and Trees 15. Non-residential development projects in the R-2 zoning district are required to comply with the landscaping, screening, and tree retention requirements identified in BIMC 18.15.010.D. BIMC 18.15.010.B. Pursuant to these requirements, the Applicant would be required to provide full perimeter landscape screening with a minimum 25 -foot perimeter width. BIMC Table 18.15.010-3. City staff reviewed the Applicant’s site plans and determined that the required landscape screening buffer would be provided. A portion of the existing parking lot on the property, however, is located within the required 25-foot screening buffer area along the southwest side of the site. Because the Applicant does not propose to enlarge or alter the existing nonconforming parking lot, it would be allowed to remain and be used on the property under the nonconforming structure provisions of the zoning code. BIMC 18.30.040. The Applicant would also be required to have at least 40 tree units per acre following redevelopment, which equates to 280 tree units for the 7.01-acre property. The Applicant submitted a tree retention plan, as well as an appraisal report prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist, LLC, dated November 9, 2020, which ident ified 21 trees on-site that would be retained after redevelopment, constituting 171 tree units based on diameter-at -breast-height measurements of the 21 trees, consistent with BIMC Table 18.15.010-5. The Applicant’s project plans also identify the location of new tree plantings on-site that would total 109 tree units thereby satisfying the 280- tree unit requirement. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 12.c; Exhibit 21. Stormwater 16. MAP, Ltd., prepared a preliminary stormwater design report for the proposal, dated November 13, 2020. The report notes that stormwater runoff from the proposed redevelopment would be addressed by the existing stormwater management system serving the site: roof runoff from the new addition would be conveyed to the existing drainage conveyance system in the service drive area, and runoff from a new service entrance and modified fire lane would be collected by surface grading to catch basins Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 10 of 28 fitted with oil/water separator baffles and piped to the nearest existing conveyance pipe. City Engineer ing Manager Paul Nylund testified at the hearing that he reviewed the preliminary stormwater design report and determined that the existing stormwater management system appears capable of handling any additional runoff generat ed from the redevelopment in compliance with the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in 2014. The Applicant would be required to submit with the building permit application a final stormwater report detailing the project’s compliance with the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in 2014. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 16, 19, 23, and 24; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Nylund. Utilities 17. An existing on-site well supplies sufficient water to serve the existing and proposed development, with emergency backup water service provided by Kitsap Public Utility District. The property is served by an on-site wastewater treatment plant that operates under a Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The project would include replacement of numerous fixtures with new low-flow fixtures in compliance with code requirements. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 15 and 20; Exhibit 25. Site Plan and Design Review 18. 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 consolidat ed 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 with its request for a CUP. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 and 2. 19. The DRB reviewed the proposal at a meeting on May 3, 2021. The DRB determined that the proposal would be consistent with applicable City design review standards and recommended approval with conditions addressing parking lot lighting, off-street parking restrictions, delivery vehicle access limitations, and separation of a pedestrian footpath from the driving surface on Ocean View Drive. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a July 22, 2021, 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 conditions recommended by City staff, as well as an additional condition requiring the Applicant to provide affordable beds if supported under SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planning and Community Development Director (Director) determined that a condition requiring the provision of afforda ble beds would not be supported under SEPA because Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 11 of 28 the proposal does not include any change in the number of beds that would be provided by the facility. The Director also determined that there are no provisions addressing affordable beds in the Comprehensive Plan or in the municipal code. Accordingly, the Director’s recommended conditions of approval do not include any requirement for the provision of affordable beds. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7 and 8; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 29. 20. The Director and City staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the site plan and design review criteria of former BIMC 2.16.040 (2019), noting:  The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to City staff’s recommended conditions, with an additional condition requiring the Applicant to provide affordable beds if supported under SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan. The provision of affordable beds would not be supported under SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan.  The DRB recommendations were considered and incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions of approval where necessary, including the requirement for compliance with current lighting regulations and vehicular access restrictions. The conditions recommended in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner are the same conditions recommended to the Planning Commission.  The proposed development, as conditioned, would comply with all applicable provisions of the municipal code.  The DRB and the Historic Preservation Commission determined that , as conditioned, the proposed redevelopment would be context-sensitive and harmonious in design, character, and appearance with Day Hall and the additional historic elements on the property, as well as with the character of the neighborhood. The Messenger House Care Center facility has operated harmoniously within this residential district since 1960. The proposed redevelopment would be consistent with the character and quality of development in the vicinity and sensitive to the physical characteristics of the subject property.  The Kitsap Public Health District recommends approval and notes that the on-site septic system is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health.  The City Development Engineer determined: the streets and pedestrian ways, as conditioned, would be adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; the site plan, as conditioned, demonstrates conforma nce with applicable drainage regulations; the site plan would not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and would not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of downstream properties; the site would be adequately served by an existing on-site well and a backup water source provided by Kitsap Public Utility District, as well as by an on-site wastewater treatment plant; the site plan, as conditioned, would Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 12 of 28 conform with City design and construction standards and specifications; and the site plan would conform with application portions of the Comprehensive Plan addressing streets, roads, and utilities.  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines.  Recommended conditions, including conditions addressing transportation and access, water, sanitation, and stormwater, would ensure that the proposed redevelopment would not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.  The proposed redevelopment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable adopted community plans.  The City of Bainbridge Island is classified as an aquifer recharge area. Aquifer Recharge Protection Area s are designated on the property, and a recorded notice on the title would be required prior to issuance of a building permit.  The Fire Marshal recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions.  The site plan and design were prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design review process pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13 through 16. Conditional Use Permit 21. The Applicant provided a project narrative that addresses the specific criteria for approval of a CUP under BIMC 2.16.110.F. The Applicant contends that the proposal would satisfy the criteria, noting:  The proposed use has been in existence since 1960. The current facility was last enlarged in 1996 to its current 96 bed facility. The proposed plans would not enlarge or intensify the existing use. The hours of operation and types of activities would remain unchanged. The staffing would be reduced from 30 to 12 based upon the elimination of skilled nursing care.  The proposed use would be consistent with prior CUP approvals and would not intensify site activities. The prior units had two residents sharing a unit. The building height would be increased from one floor to three floors to accommodate larger, non-shared living units. The scale of the new wing would be consistent with the three-story 1917 building to the north. The site previously included a four-story theater building that was removed in 2017. The traffic to and from the site would be further restricted from current patterns by closing off the gravel fire lane and directing service vehicles to only use NE Ocean Drive.  The project would support multiple relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan. The project would include a non-motorized pedestrian path along the south edge within the unopened right-of-way.  The site design meets all applicable development standards, including dimensio nal standards, landscape requirements, ARPA, and parking.  Potential impacts to properties in the vicinity would be reduced by restrictions to vehicle access and new landscape screening. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 13 of 28  The project would comply with all local noise restrictions.  The project would comply with all required right -of-way improvements, including construction of a new non-motorized pedestrian path along the unopened right -of- way.  City engineering staff has determined that no traffic impact analysis is warranted due to the minimal changes to anticipated vehicle trips.  The project would comply with all relevant local regulations.  The Applicant has coordinated with the City Fire Department with regard to fire flow, fire protection, and fire access requirements. Exhibit 23. 22. City staff analyzed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the CUP criteria of BIMC 2.16.110.F, noting:  The DRB determined that the project would be consistent with applicable design guidelines and recommends approval with conditions. The DRB and the Historic Preservation Commission determined that, as conditioned, the proposed redevelopment would be context -sensitive and harmonious in design, character, and appearance with Day Hall and the additional historic elements o n the property, as well as with the character of the neighborhood.  The Messenger House Care Center facility has operated harmoniously within this residential district since 1960. The proposed redevelopment would be consistent with the character and quality of development in the vicinity and sensitive to the physical characteristics of the subject property.  The proposed redevelopment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Island-Wide Transportation Plan. The City Development Engineer determined that the project, as conditioned, would be consistent with application portions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to streets, roads, and utilities, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan.  The conditional use, as conditioned, would be cons istent with applicable zoning standards, including dimensional standards, design guidelines, and landscaping and parking requirements.  Recommended conditions, including conditions addressing transportation and access, water, sanitation, stormwater, light ing, noise, and bicycle and trail facilities would ensure that the conditional use would not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.  All activities on the property would be required to comply with current noise regulations.  The City Development Engineer determined: the streets and pedestrian ways, as conditioned, would be adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; the site plan, as conditioned, demonstrates conformance with applicable drainage regulations; the site plan would not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and would not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 14 of 28 downstream properties; the site would be adequately served by an existing on-site well and a backup water source provided by Kitsap Public Ut ility District, as well as by an on-site wastewater treatment plant; the site plan, as conditioned, would conform with City design and construction standards and specifications; and the site plan would conform with application portions of the Comprehensive Plan addressing streets, roads, and utilities.  The Kitsap Public Health District recommends approval and notes that the on-site septic system is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health. Kitsap Public Health District approval would also be required for building occupancy.  The Fire Marshal recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions.  City staff recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 18 through 21. Institutions in Residential Zones 23. BIMC 2.16.110.G contains additional decision criteria applicable to proposals for health care facilities in residential zones. City staff analyzed the proposal and determined that it would meet the criteria, noting:  The site fronts on residential suburban roads.  The DRB’s determination that the proposal would meet applicable design standards included an analysis of bulk, height, and architectural compatibility with the surrounding area. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 21. Testimony 24. City Senior Planner Kelly Tayara testified generally about the proposal and how, with conditions, it would meet the criteria for site plan and design review approval and approval of a conditional use permit. She noted that the proposed redevelopment would include demolition of an existing single-story building wing attached to the historic Day Hall building and the construction of a new 52,460 square foot, three-story building wing. Ms. Tayara detailed how the proposed redevelopment would comply with applicable standards for development in the R-2 zoning district. She noted that the City issued a SEPA MDNS on July 28, 2021, which was not appealed. Ms. Tayara explained that the City received several comments from members of the public that generally raised concerns about the project’s traffic impacts; the adequacy of roads to serve vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; and compliance with conditions of the previous conditional use permit approved in 1995, particularly with respect to conditions requiring a vegetative buffer to be maintained to ensure that the previously approved use would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding public concerns about a vegetative buffer that had apparently been cleared in conflict with the conditions of the previous CUP approval, she noted that the City relies on citizen complaints to investigate alleged violations and that the City had not received any complaints about improper vegetation Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 15 of 28 removal on the property. Ms. Tayara stressed that the Applicant would be required to provide full perimeter landscape screening as part of the current proposal. She also stressed that the Director recommended approval of the proposal, with conditions, after considering the concerns raised by members of the public, as well as the comments from reviewing agencies, the recommendations of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, the character of the area in which the property is located, the applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies, and the requirements of the municipal code and all other applicable law. She noted that there have been recent amendments to the municipal code and that the project vests to the code criteria in effect at the time of the complete application. Testimony of Ms. Tayara. 25. City Engineering Manager Paul Nylund testified that the City received a comment from neighboring property owner Michael Coleman that raised concerns about the location of an existing gravel path encroaching on his property, which the Applicant had proposed to utilize as an emergency fire access lane. He stated that, in response to Mr. Coleman’s concerns, the Applicant submitted a revised site plan relocating the proposed emergency access drive outside of Mr. Coleman’s property. Mr. Nylund also discussed comments from members of the public raising concerns about the location of a heavily used pedestrian pathway that abuts residential properties. He stated that the City is requiring the Applicant to retain a pedestrian pathway in the area and that the current plan to preserve the existing pathway would satisfy City requirements, but he noted that the Applicant and the City are working with neighboring property owners to potentially realign the pathway in a manner that would address their concerns. Mr. Nylund explained that the City would review any proposed realignment of the pathway with the building permit application. He stated that he reviewed the Applicant’s preliminary stormwater design report and determined that the existing stormwater management system serving the property appears capable of handling any additional runoff generated from the proposed redevelopment in compliance with the requirements of the Washington State Departme nt of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in 2014. Mr. Nylund noted that the City would review the Applicant’s final stormwater management plan at the building permit stage. Testimony of Mr. Nylund. 26. Applicant Representative Charles Wenzlau testified that the Applicant has worked with City staff, the Historic Preservation Committee, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission to ensure that the proposed redevelopment of the property would comply with all requirements for site plan and design review approval and approval of a conditional use permit. He explained that the proposed building addition would be approximately the same height as the historic Day Hall building and as the façade of the theater building that was recently demolished. Mr. Wenzlau stated that the Applicant has been working with adjacent property owners to realign a pedestrian pathway as far from their property as feasible. He noted that the Applicant has a preliminary pathway design Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 16 of 28 that appears amenable to the neighboring property owners and that the Applicant would continue to work with the neighbors and the City to finalize the design of the pathway. Testimony of Mr. Wenzlau. 27. Landscape Architect Jeff Bouma testified that the Applicant’s landscape plans depict additional vegetation that would be planted to satisfy or exceed the requirement for full perimeter landscape screening. Testimony of Mr. Bouma. 28. Anne Corbett testified that she appreciates the care with which the Applicant and City staff have responded to her concerns as a neighboring property owner and that she looks forward to the project moving forward. Testimony of Ms. Corbett. Staff Recommendation 29. Ms. Tayara testified that the Director reviewed recommendations from City staff, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission; determined that, with conditions, the project would comply with municipal code requirements and with the City Comprehensive Plan; and recommends approval of the application subject to conditions. Mr. Wenzlau testified that the Applicant has reviewed and would not have any issue complying with the recommended conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 21 through 25; Testimony of Ms. Tayara; Testimony of Mr. Wenzlau. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for 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 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 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 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 17 of 28 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 o r 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 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. A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if: 1. The conditional use is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18. The conditional use is compatible with the established and intended character of the neighborhood, considering factors that include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of activities generated by the use, and the predictable levels of any adverse impacts; and 2. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and 3. The conditional use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and 4. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC; and 5. 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 vicinity of the subject property; and 6. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and 7. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and 8. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the fo llowing decision criteria: Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 18 of 28 a. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and e. 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation to the standards; and 9. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the conditional use 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; and b. If the health district recommends approval or disapproval of the application the health district shall so advise the director; and 10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will ensure fire protection. BIMC 2.16.110.F. Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones As applicable to this proposal, applications to locate health care 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. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 19 of 28 2. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. 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 G, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC. BIMC 2.16.110.G. Under former BIMC 2.16.110.E.5 (2019): a. The hearing examiner shall consider the application materials and the director’s recommendation at a public hearing following the procedures of BIMC 2.16.100.C and applicable provisions of BIMC 2.16.020. b. The hearing examiner shall 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; or iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law. 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. As applicable to this proposal, t he following criteria apply to decisions on site plan and design review: 1. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable provisions of the BIMC; and Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 20 of 28 2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, and landscaping result in a context -sensitive design; and 3. The Kitsap public 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; and b. If the health district recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection F.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director; and c. If the health district recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; and 4. The streets and nonmotorized facilities, as proposed, are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and 5. 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 of properties downstream; and c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the island-wide transportation plan; and d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; 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 conditional use, and the required service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and 6. The site plan and design is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18; and Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 21 of 28 7. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; and 8. The site plan and design is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans; and 9. If the subject property contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and 10. If the subject property is within the shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and 11. If the applicant is providing privately owned open space and is requesting credit against dedications for park and recreation facilities required by BIMC 17.20.020.C, the requireme nts of BIMC 17.20.020.D have been met; and 12. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the site plan has been properly designed to ensure fire protections; and 13. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter. Former BIMC 2.16.040.F (2019). “The director may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for site plan and design review. Conditions may be imposed to enable the pr oposal 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 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 approval. The City provided reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on the proposal. The City received two reviewing agency comments and several comments from members of the public in response to its notice materials. The City Deputy Fire Marshal provided a comment noting that the project would be required to install fire sprinklers and alarms in compliance with applicable fire code provisions and that fire department access gates would be required to have a Knox override installed to provide emergency access to the property. Conditions, as detailed below, are included to address the Deputy Fire Marshal’s comments. The Kitsap Public Health District did not raise any concerns with the proposal. Comments from members of the public Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 22 of 28 generally raised concerns about the proposal’s traffic impacts, temporary construction noise, vegetative screening, the location of an existing pedestrian pathway next to adjacent residential properties, and t he proposed location of an emergency access driveway that would encroach on neighboring property. Heath and Associates, Inc., prepared a Trip Generation and Parking Analysis report for the project , which determined that the proposal to replace skilled nursing beds with assisted- and independent-living beds would result in fewer average daily trips and fewer PM peak-hour trips. Accordingly, the proposal would not have adverse traffic impacts as compared to the conditional use that had been previously appro ved. Construction activity on the property would be required to comply with City noise ordinances. The Applicant would be required to provide full perimeter landscape screening with a minimum 25-foot perimeter width in accord with the landscaping require ments of the municipal code. In response to concerns about the emergency access driveway and the pedestrian pathway, t he Applicant has submitted revised site plans relocating the driveway off neighboring property and is actively working with the City and neighboring property owners to realign the pedestrian pathway as far from adjacent properties as feasible. Accordingly, the concerns raised by the public have been adequately addressed. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, it would comply with City design standards and guidelines. 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 review approval, as well as all other applicable code requirements. The Planning Commission recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to provide affordable beds if supported under SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan. Because this condition is not supported under SEPA and because the Comprehensive Plan does not contain any provisions addressing affordable beds, the conditions for site plan and design review approval does not include any requirement for the provision of affordable b eds. City 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 preserving the historic Day Hall building and other historic features on-site and by providing health care facilities addressing the needs of the City’s older population. The property and all surrounding properties are located in the R-2 zoning district. With the aggregation of the two parcels comprising the property through a bo undary line adjustment, the project would comply with dimensional standards applicable to development in the R-2 zone related to minimum lot area, minimum lot dimensions, maximum building height, and minimum setbacks for front and side lot lines. The proposal has received approval for a modification from the maximum 10 percent lot coverage requirement to allow for the proposed 16.9 percent lot coverage through the City’s Historic Preservation Program. The entirety of the City is classified as an aquifer recharge area, and the Applicant has submitted site plans designating Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas on the property consistent with the requirements for redevelopment Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 23 of 28 projects in the R-2 zoning district . No other critical areas have been identified on the property. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined that, with recommended conditions, the proposal would comply with drainage, water quality, street, pedestrian way, and other applicable design standards. Water service to the property would be provided by an existing on-site well, and emergency backup water service would be provided by the Kitsap Public Utility District. Sewage service is provided by an on-site wastewater treatment plant. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan. Conditions, as detailed below, are necessary to ensure that the project complies with all local, state, and federal requirements related to the proposed redevelopment and to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria for site plan and design review approval. Findings 1 – 29. 2. With conditions, the proposed development would comply with the criteria for CUP 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; meet applicable design guidelines; be adequately served by public facilities; and, with approval of a modification from the maximum lot coverage requirements and the future boundary line adjustment, would comply with all dimensional standards for development in the R-2 zone. Environmental impacts of the proposal were considered, as required by SEPA, and the City issued an MDNS that was no t appealed. The MDNS requires the Applicant to submit with the building permit application lighting plans demonstrating compliance with municipal code lighting requirement s; incorporate soundproofing barriers for all existing and new generators and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units; and submit with construction permit applications a management plan consistent with PSCAA Fugitive Dust Controls. The MDNS requirements are incorporated into the conditions for CUP approval. The project would be required to comply with municipal noise regulations. The Applicant’s Trip Generation and Parking Analysis demonstrates that new building wing’s assisted- and independent-living units would generate fewer vehicle trips than the existing skilled nursing units that would be removed and that the existing parking stalls on-site would be adequate to meet the parking demands of the proposed use. 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. The Applicant would be required to provide full perimeter landscape screening with a minimum 25-foot perimeter width, which would ensure that the 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 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 24 of 28 approval of a conditional use permit , including criteria specific to institutions in t he City’s residential zoning districts. Findings 1, 4 – 29. DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for approval of site plan and design review, and a conditional use permit , to construct a three-story, 52,460 square foot addition to an existing health care facility on a 7.01-acre property located at 10861 Manitou Park Blvd NE is APPROVED, with the following conditions:3 SEPA Conditions: 1. To mitigate light impacts, all existing and proposed outdoor lighting, including lighting on buildings, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting, shall comply with current regulations in BIMC 18.15.040. The Applicant shall submit lighting plans which demonstrate compliance with building permit application. 2. To mitigate adverse impact from potential environmental health hazards, all existing and new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, along with generators, shall incorporate soundproofing barriers, including but not limited to soundproof panels and/or barriers. The soundproofing shall be designed to reduce, to the extent feasible, noise levels to within 55 dBa for surrounding residential r eceiving properties. 3. To mitigate air impacts, all sources and emission units are required to meet the emission and ambient air quality standards specified in Chapter 173-400 WAC and administered by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) and shall apply to all air contaminants listed in that regulation. The Applicant shall submit with application for construction associated with this approval a management plan which is consistent with PSCAA Fugitive Dust Controls. Project Conditions: 4. The authorization for construction activities automatically expires and is void if the Applicant fails to file for construction permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the decision on this application. 5. Plans submitted for construction shall substantially comply with the site, architectural, landscape and civil plans approved through this consolidated land use permit, as modified by these conditions. The Applicant and City staff have been in discussion concerning altering the location of a pedestrian pathway on-site. The City shall have the discretion to approve the location of the pedestrian pathway without further review by the Hearing Examiner. 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 Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 25 of 28 6. Any alterations to the property must observe all pertinent regulations of the Historic Preservation Program (Chapter 18.24 BIMC). Any alteration of the exterior of Local Register properties requires a Certificate of Appropriateness or a review waiver from the Historic Preservation Commission. 7. Prior to any construction, the Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the City, including but not limited to clearing, grading, and/or building permits. 8. The Applicant shall designate a contact person that can be reached at all times during construction and this contact information sha ll be provided to all area residents potentially impacted by construction of the project. 9. If any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction, work shall immediately stop, and the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be immediately notified. Construction shall only continue thereafter in compliance with the applicable provisions of law. 10. Prior to construction activity authorized through this permit, the Applicant must submit a complete application for Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) to aggregate the subject properties and obtain BLA approval from the Department of Planning and Community Development. 11. The Applicant shall record Notice on Title for the Aquifer Recharge Protection Area prior to issuance of building permit related to this proposal. 12. All plantings shall be installed, or installation financially assured, in accordance with BIMC 18.15.010.H prior to occupancy of any of the new buildings. After installation approval by the Department, maintenance financial assurance shall be required in accordance with BIMC 18.15.010.H. 13. The proposed plan depicts the full perimeter, landscape screening buffer. A section of the existing parking lot lies within the 25-foot width buffer area along the southeast side of the site: as provided in BIMC 18.30.030, existing nonconforming structures may remain and be used provided there is no change to the structure that would alter or increase the nonconformity. 14. The development must provide, at a minimum: a bicycle facility for a minimum of five bicycles that is under cover and in proximity to the visitor entrance, and indoor or covered outdoor bicycle facilities for employees at a ratio of one bicycle space per five employees. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 26 of 28 15. The project shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal: a. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code. b. Fire sprinklers and alarms will be required for the project. Fire sprinkler shall meet the requirements of NFPA 13; fire alarms shall meet the requirements of IFC 907 and NFPA 72. c. FDC and PIV are located on the west side of the structure. Applicant shall ensure systems are in good working order. d. Gates installed across the south side fire department access road will be required to have a Knox override installed to provide quick access by fire department personnel during an emergency. 16. The project shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a. Civil improvement plans, reports, and computations, prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington shall be submitted with the applications for construction permits to construct all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued for any building until all civil improvements have been completed and accepted through the final inspection process. b. A completed Transportation Impact Fee worksheet shall be due at the time of construction permit submittal and required fees shall be paid in full prior to construction permit issuance. c. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a required submittal for permitting any construction activities including clearing or grading or other civil improvements for all phases of the project. d. A final stormwater report shall be submitted with the building permit detailing compliance with all applicable minimum requirements as required by BIMC 15.20. i. New and replaced hard surfaces associated with the modified fire lane shall be subject to water quality stormwater requirements per BIMC 15.20; treatment shall be provided for these surfaces as noted in the preliminary civil utilities plan. ii. The final stormwater report shall include a final geotechnical evaluation of the stormwater system. e. The bioswale located along the southern edge of the property shall is facility shall be evaluated and maintained/repaired/upgraded to comply with the 2012 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington as amended in 2014 (BMP T7.30). Additional existing collection and conveyance systems comprising the man-made conveyance from the site to the local receiving water (Puget Sound) used to Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 27 of 28 satisfy Minimum Requirement #7 (Flow control exemption) shall be free of debris and in good working order prior to final construction inspections. f. Construction Stormwater General Permit coverage shall be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology and the site shall be monitored for discharge of pollutants and sediment offsite for the duration of the p roject. No land clearing or construction permits shall be issued prior to obtaining the State permit. g. Potential changes in sanitary sewer connections and appurtenances shall be calculated, designed, reviewed, installed, and inspected per applicable Washington Administrative Code and in compliance with any conditions in order to remain compliant with the NPDES permit covering the onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant. h. Prior to building permit final occupancy, the Applicant shall submit an operation and maintenance plan for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. i. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained. The owner(s) shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this development fo llowing construction. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. A Declaration of Covenant for stormwater system operation and maintenance will be required to be recorded before submittal. The approved language for the Declaration of Covenant is found in BIMC Chapter 15.21, Exhibit A. j. Cross connection control requirements as established by Washington Administrative Code and implemented by local water service provider shall be satisfied during the building permit review/construction process. k. The Applicant shall obtain a Right -of-Way Use permit prior to any construction activities within the right -of-way (Ocean Drive, Manitou Park Blvd, or Mountain View Drive). The permit shall be subject to separate conditions, fees, and bonding requirements. l. The existing gravel road that is located partially in the public right -of-way on the southern edge of the property shall be realigned to be fully located within the mapped/surveyed public right of way adjacent to the property. m. The port ion of realigned gravel road that is within the mapped “Ocean Drive” right of way extending north of Manitou Park Boulevard terminates at the southern property line of the project, where it becomes a fire lane on private property. Once realigned, this road shall be used as emergency vehicle access only. n. Appropriate signage/pavement marking shall be installed in conjunction with City of Bainbridge Island and Bainbridge Island Fire District standards/requirements . Signage and striping may include but is no t limited to: gates/bollards, red curbing, “no parking” signs, fire lane only signs, and authorized vehicles only signage. o. A pedestrian path consistent with City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards shall be provided to maintain the established connection Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner Messenger House Phase 2 SPR/CUP No. PLN51717 SPR/CUP Page 28 of 28 between Manitou Beach Road at the western extent of the site to Manitou Park Boulevard at the southern edge of the site. i. The path should minimize uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the existing parking lot and should be located to maximize the existing vegetated boundary between the project site and adjacent residences to the south. ii. The path should be located topographically to minimize additional vegetative disturbance or sidehill cuts. iii. The path shall provide for horizontal pedestrian/vehicle separation. iv. A public pedestrian easement shall be provided to the City for approval for those portions of the path that are located on the subject property. The easement must be drafted and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupation. v. The path in its entirety shall remain privately maintained by the Applicant for public use. p. As-built civil construction plans stamped by a civil engineer shall be p rovided by the Applicant prior to final certificate of occupancy being issued unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer. 17. All refuse which, if thrown or deposited as prohibited in BIMC 8.16, tends to create a danger to public health, safety and welfare, shall be properly transported to, and disposed of within an approved solid waste facility. The property shall be left in a clean, safe condition, protected from erosion. For information regarding solid and hazardous waste, contact the Kitsap Public Health District at (360) 728-2235. DECIDED this 26th day of August 2021. ANDREW M. REEVES Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center Exhibit List Messenger House / City File No. PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Page 1 of 2 Staff Contact: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner Public Hearing: August 12, 2021 No. Document Description Date 1 Staff Report Dated 7/28/2021 2 Site Assessment Review for LID (City Development Engineer) Dated 6/5/2020 3 Preapplication Conference Summary Letter Issued 9/22/2020 4 Land Use Application Submitted 11/25/2020 5 Notice of Incomplete Application Issued 12/21/2020 6 Notice of Complete Application Issued 3/25/2021 7 Notice of Application / SEPA Comment Period / Hearing Published 4/2/2021 7A Postcard Mailer Published 4/2/2021 7B Mailing List Dated 9/2/2020 7C Affidavit of Publication Dated 4/2/2021 7D Certificate of Posting Dated 4/6/2021 7E Posted Notice Photographs Submitted 4/6/2021 8 SEPA Checklist (Revised) Submitted 2/1/2021 9 Geotechnical Report Dated 6/22/2020 9A Slope Study Submitted 2/1/2021 10 Preliminary Engineered Stormwater Design Report Dated 11/13/2020 11 Trip Generation and Parking Analysis Dated 11/2020 12 Plan Set Submitted 11/25/2020 12A Site Plan Revised Submitted 4/19/2021 12B Preliminary Utilities Plan Revised Submitted 2/1/2021 12C Tree Retention & ARPA Revised Submitted 2/1/2021 12D ARPA Revised Submitted 12/16/2020 12E Existing Native Vegetation Survey Submitted 4/19/2021 13 SWPPP Sheet C3.0 Submitted 4/19/2021 13A Grading Plan Sheet C4.0 Submitted 4/19/2021 13B Path Grading Plan Sheet C4.1 Submitted 4/19/2021 Exhibit List Messenger House / City File No. PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Page 2 of 2 14 Public Comment - Maxwell Submitted 4/8/2021 15 Public Comment - Sprinkle Submitted 4/12/2021 16 Public Comment - Freeman Submitted 4/15/2021 17 Public Comment - Schmid Submitted 4/15/2021 17A Public Comment – Schmid Revised Submitted 4/27/2021 18 Public Comment – McNamee Corbett Submitted 4/16/2021 18A Public Comment - McNamee Corbett Attachment Submitted 4/16/2021 19 Public Comment – Colman Submitted 4/19/2021 19A Public Comment – Colman Attachment Submitted 4/19/2021 20 Public Comment – Colman Submitted 5/3/2021 20A Public Comment – Colman Attachment Submitted 5/3/2021 21 Arborist Tree Valuation Dated 11/9/2020 22 Applicant Narrative Addressing Comp Plan Elements Submitted 11/25/2020 23 Applicant Narrative Addressing Decision Criteria Submitted 11/25/2020 24 1995 CUP Decision Issued 3/10/1995 25 Water Service Letter Dated 11/9/2020 26 Kitsap Public Health District Comment Dated 12/2/2020 27 Bainbridge Island Fire District Recommendation Dated 12/9/2020 28 Design Review Board Recommendation Issued 5/3/2021 29 Planning Commission Recommendation Issued 7/22/2021 30 SEPA MDNS Issued 8/2/2021 31 Newly Proposed Pedestrian Path Submitted 8/12/2021 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 1 of 25 Date: July 28, 2021 To: Hearing Examiner From: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner Project: Messenger House Phase 2 File Number: PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Hearing Examiner Review Consolidated project review is available at the applicant’s option when the proposal will require more than one land use approvals. The intent is to provide a single process in which a single decision-maker will make all land use decisions on the application. A consolidated project permit application shall follow the application and notice procedure that results in the most extensive review and decision process. (BIMC 2.16.040.E.7 / 2.16.170) If a public hearing is required for any of the related land use applications of a consolidated project, the public hearing shall combine all the applicable permit application requests. The purpose of the public hearing is to review a proposed project for consistency with the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, appropriate elements of the Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable law, and to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the project. The public hearing shall follow the applicable general provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 and quasi-judicial procedures in BIMC 2.16.100.C. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or remand an application. In making a decision, the Examiner shall consider the applicable Municipal Code decision criteria, all other applicable laws, recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, testimony presented at the hearing, and any necessary documents and approvals. The Examiner shall issue a written decision in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.M.6, within 10 working days of the public hearing, unless a longer period is agreed upon by the Examiner and the applicant. In accordance with the provisions of BIMC 2.16.110.E.5, the Hearing Examiner shall make compliance with the Planning Commission’s recommendations a condition of approval, unless the Examiner concludes that the recommendations: 1)Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable Municipal Code provisions; 2)Exceed the authority of the Design Review Board or Planning Commission; 3)Conflict with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or 4)Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the City, subject to the appeal provisions in BIMC 2.16.020.R.2 Exhibit 1 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 2 of 25 Summary of Request The applicant requests consolidated review of applications for Site Plan and Design Review permit (major) and an amendment (major adjustment) to an existing Conditional Use permit to construct a three-story, 52,460 square foot addition to an existing health care facility. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request as conditioned Background: The applicant proposes redevelopment of a site which is comprised of two adjoining tax lots totaling 7.01 acres in size. The southern lot is undeveloped, and the northern lot contains Messenger Care House, a health care facility, which is a conditional use in the residential district. The Messenger House property includes Day Hall, the East Lawn and the caretaker cottage, all associated with the Moran School, and all recently listed on the Local Historic Register. Proposed redevelopment includes demolition of the building wing which was constructed in 1986 and is attached to Day Hall. The wing was used as a skilled nursing care / rehabilitation facility; the proposal is construction of a 52,460 square foot, 46-bed building addition with assisted and independent living units in its place. The facility remains at 96 beds, as approved in 1995. Messenger Care House has existed on the site since c.1960. In subsequent years: • In 1984, Moorehavens, Inc. received an Unclassified Use Permit from Kitsap County to add 8,000- 9,000 square feet to the existing facility on the easterly five acres of a 15-acre parcel. • In 1986, Soundcare, Inc. received approval for a revision to the Unclassified Use Permit to add a 2,600 square foot building addition on 5.5-acre site which was within the 15-acre parcel. • In 1995, Soundcare received approval through a new Conditional Use Permit for a 20,500 square foot building addition on a seven-acre site (City File No. CUP07-22-94-1). Part I: Land Use Process / Application History Date: Action: June 1, 2020 Conceptual Proposal Review meeting held July 23, 2020 Public Participation meeting held August 3, 2020 Design Guidance Review meeting held September 1, 2020 Preapplication conference held November 25, 2020 Application submitted December 21, 2020 Notice of Incomplete Application issued February / March, 2021 Additional / revised application materials submitted March 25, 2021 Notice of Complete Application issued April 2, 2021 Notice of Application / SEPA Comment Period / Public Hearing published July 28, 2021 SEPA Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) issued August 11, 2021 End of SEPA Appeal Period August 12, 2021 Tentative date for public hearing Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 3 of 25 Part II: General Information and Site Characteristics Assessor’s Record Information: Tax lot numbers 4156-002-0005-0203 and 4156-002-007-0003 Owner of record Cascadia Holdings Bainbridge LLC Site size 7.01 acres Use: The site is developed with a building complex which is used as a health care facility. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-2 zoning district (two units per acre) / Residential-2 Comprehensive Plan designation Terrain: The western half of the site is generally flat, the center of the site moderately sloped (5 – 15%), and there are steep slope areas (15-50%) scattered in the north and northeast portions of the site. Due to the minimal height of these slopes and absence of seeps, the slopes are not geologically hazardous areas, as defined in the Municipal Code. Soils: Vashon till Access: Primary access is via the Ocean Drive right-of-way from Manitou Beach Road; the site is also accessible from Mountain View Road. Public Services: Police City of Bainbridge Island Police Department Fire Bainbridge Island Fire District Schools Bainbridge Island School District Water North Bainbridge Water Company Sewer Private onsite treatment plant Surrounding Properties - Use, Zoning, and Comprehensive Plan Designation: Two properties to the west are undeveloped. The remaining surrounding properties contain residential development, with the exception of one property to the east which is a parking lot for the Rolling Bay Walk community. All surrounding properties are within the R-2 zoning district and Residential-2 Comprehensive Plan designation. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 4 of 25 Aerial Image Site Configuration Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 5 of 25 Vicinity Map Zoning Designation Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 6 of 25 Part III: Agency and Public Comment 1. Public Comment Seven public comments were received. Several commenters expressed concern about the existing excessive speed of vehicles, especially during shift changes at Messenger House, anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, and the inadequacy of the existing road surface and shoulder to accommodate vehicular traffic along with pedestrian and bicycle use. One commenter states that the property is currently out of compliance with the 1995 conditional use approval, and that the proposed development aggravates those inconsistencies: For example, the commenter states that that the 1995 approval requires a “heavily forested perimeter”, and that condition was never fulfilled. The redevelopment proposal exacerbates this situation because, a) the use will change to accommodate more mobile residential clients, and b) the proposed three- story building extends well beyond the existing single-story building and closer to adjacent residences. The commenter is concerned that neighboring properties will experience more noise, light, and traffic. The commenter states that the neighborhood was assured in 1995 that the new building would be “tucked away, not visible to the neighbors”, and that it is, but that the proposed building has windows and balconies and new social spaces that look upon existing residential development. The commenter objects to a public pathway, citing security concerns and privacy invasion. Additionally, the commenter suggests that the new building should be limited to the existing building footprint, that construction staging be limited to the west lot (or that temporary perimeter noise-proof fencing be added), that staff parking be limited to the west lot, and that dense vegetation buffering is essential to provide neighboring residences with privacy, mitigate noise, light and security concerns, and to maintain the quiet residential neighborhood. Another commenter expressed support for having memory care and assisted living residents in the neighborhood, adding that the diversity maintains a rich neighborhood community. The commenter is concerned that the current proposal well-exceeds the scope and intent of the 1995 conditional use approval, adding that the existing single-story building blends in with the neighborhood and that the required forested perimeter does not exist and therefore will not insulate surrounding homes from the impact of the proposed building size. This commenter too suggests that the new building be limited to the envelope of the existing building to match the character and zoning of the neighborhood, and cites concerns about the increased noise since the start of construction on building alterations that are currently underway (Phase I is currently under construction and involves primarily interior remodel of another building wing). Additionally, the commenter states that the proposed fire lane is mostly on his property and he has not agreed to that use, adding that pedestrians and bicyclists are welcome to use the lane. The commenter objects to locating a proposed pedestrian path within City right-of-way due to the proximity to neighboring homes, and suggests the path be located on Messenger House property. One commenter expressed gratitude that the proposal maintains existing mature trees and shrubs and the park-like setting along Manitou Park Boulevard. The commenter adds that noise and glare are often due to staff coming and going, that noise sources also include generators, heat pumps, and garbage pick-up, and that noise is not easily diminished by vegetation; the commenter suggests heavy walls and double-pane glass. The commenter suggests that a public trail connecting the end of Mountain View Road with Manitou Park Boulevard where it goes down slope to Rolling Bay Walk would be beneficial to connect to the shoreline, and that another community amenity to consider is a small meeting room to replace the now-collapsed theatre (Yates Hall, demolished in 2017). Staff recommends conditions to address lighting, noise, provisions for a contractor contact for area residents, bicycle facilities, and trail facilities. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 7 of 25 2. Agency Comment The Kitsap Public Health District recommends approval and notes that the onsite septic system is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health. The Fire Marshal recommends approval subject to the following conditions: • The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code. • Fire sprinklers and alarms will be required for the project. Fire sprinkler shall meet the requirements of NFPA 13; Fire alarm shall meet the requirements of IFC 907 and NFPA 72. FDC and PIV are located on the west side of the structure. Applicant to ensure systems are in good working order. • Fire flow is met through existing hydrants. No additional fire hydrants are required at this time. To determine existing fire flow to the site, the applicant is advised to contact Kitsap PUD. • Fire lane marking appears to be adequate. Applicant to ensure marking is visible and in good condition. Gates installed across the south side fire access road will be required to have a Knox override installed to provide quick access by fire department personnel during an emergency. Recommended conditions include all Fire Marshal conditions. Building occupancy requires the approval of the Kitsap Public Health District and the Washington State Department of Health. 3. Design Review Board Recommendation The DRB recommends approval of the proposal as follows: • Existing parking lot lighting be assessed and made compliant with existing code lighting standards, if needed • No parking on Manitou Park Boulevard • A grade-separated footpath along Ocean View Drive • Delivery vehicles be restricted to Ocean View Drive and that no delivery vehicles use Manitou Park Boulevard or Mountain View Road • The applicant provides a revised sheet A3.02 (entitled “Renderings view from the east”) Recommended conditions address lighting, the footpath, and delivery vehicle access restrictions. 4. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval subject to the staff recommended project conditions, with the following addition: If supported through SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable beds be provided. Section B.9 of the SEPA Environmental Checklist contains the following questions within the housing element: 1) Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing; 2) Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing; 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Assisted living and independent living units are classified as ‘group quarters’. Group quarters reflect something other than ordinary household life; persons living in group quarters facilities meet resident criteria if they live in the facility for the majority of the year and have no other usual place of residence.1 The number of beds pre-redevelopment and post-redevelopment remains the same at 96. Subsequent to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant provided information on Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 8 of 25 the use of the beds and commented on whether any “affordable beds” were dedicated: The applicant states, “The proposed new assisted living facility does not include any dedicated “affordable beds”. In the past, we have obtained a Medicaid contract for a limited number of beds to all allow existing residents to remain in the community should their financial resources get depleted. Depending on need, we may or may not obtain a Medicaid contract for this community.” Additionally, the existing building wing serves as a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility, and while in rare situations individuals may meet ‘resident’ criteria, most of the population are served for a short period of time. Since the project does not demonstrate a loss of “affordable beds”, and there is no change in the number of beds provided, a SEPA mitigation measure to control housing impacts is not warranted. The issued SEPA MDNS does not include a condition requiring “affordable beds”. The conditions recommended in this report are those recommended to the Planning Commission. Staff finds no specific provision for ‘affordable’ beds in the Comprehensive Plan. Since there is no opportunity to mitigate through SEPA nor specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan or the Municipal Code, and imposing a condition to provide “affordable beds” would be an inconsistent application of the Municipal Code, the staff recommendation does not include a requirement for “affordable beds”. Part IV: Comprehensive Plan Analysis Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are presented in normal font, and staff discussion in bold. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Residential-2. The Comprehensive Plan guiding principles, goals and policies, along with implementing regulations in the Municipal Code, are used to evaluate the proposal and weigh project impacts. The following Comprehensive Plan guiding principles, goals and policies apply to the proposal: 1. Land Use Element A. Policy LU 21.1: Encourage preservation of existing historic structures and sites as an important tool in building a sustainable and unique community. B. Policy LU 21.6: Engage in cooperative efforts with owners to encourage the preservation of historic resources. C. Policy LU 22.3: Collaborate with interested stakeholders to promote historic preservation on the Island. 2. Economic Element A. Policy EC 9.4: Promote on-Island access to healthcare facilities and medical services, particularly those addressing the needs of the Island’s increasing older population. 3. Housing Element A. Goal HO-8: Facilitate the siting and development of housing opportunities for special needs populations. 4. Cultural Element A. Goal CUL-3: Preserve places where the Island’s history can be experienced, interpreted, and shared with the general public, in order to deepen an understanding of our heritage and the relationship of the past to our present and future. 5. Human Services Element A. Policy HS 2.4: Support programs that provide needed services for families, e.g., child or adult day care, respite care for caregivers and mental health services. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 9 of 25 B. Policy HS 3.2: Promote the creation of a mix of housing alternatives and services for people at different levels of independence. Staff Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis: The property has contributed to local culture for over 100 years. Day Hall has been a landmark in the community since it was built in 1917 on the hillside that overlooks Puget Sound. The Moran School and the subsequent institutions which occupied this site were important to the local economy of Bainbridge Island throughout much of the twentieth century. The property owners are in the process of modernizing the health care facility. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and City staff engaged in cooperative efforts with the property owner to redevelop the site while retaining the historic elements of the site when there is otherwise no requirement to do so. The proposed redevelopment retains and rehabilitates Day Hall in recognition of its historic value to the community. Day Hall, the East Lawn and the Moran School caretaker cottage are now listed on the Local Historic Register. The completed project provides memory care services along with assisted and independent living facilities, serving the special needs of an aging population. Redevelopment conditions ensure that the facility will be compliant with current building, health, fire code, stormwater and environmental regulations. Part V: Land Use Code Analysis Municipal Code regulations are presented in normal font, and staff discussion in bold. The following Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations apply to the proposal: 1. BIMC 16.20 Critical Areas The City of Bainbridge Island is a designated Aquifer Recharge Area. Any proposed development or activity requiring a Site Assessment Review pursuant to BIMC 15.19 and 15.20 located within the R-2 zoning designations requires designation of an Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA). The ARPA shall include all existing native vegetation on a site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total site area. Healthy, existing trees and vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible. Healthy significant trees shall be priority trees for retention. Trees shall be retained in one or more stands or clusters. The ARPA shall be delineated to include a low perimeter-to-area ratio, a minimum width of 12 feet, and the critical root zone of all significant trees. The ARPA shall be contiguous with abutting, off-site areas of other ARPAs, open space or critical areas to the extent feasible. The ARPA may include landscaping or open space requirements pursuant to BIMC 18.15.010.D and E and 17.12, respectively, and other critical areas and their buffers or setbacks pursuant to other sections of this chapter. An ARPA which represents 13 percent of the site area is designated on the site plan and this incorporates the extent of native vegetation / significant tree root zones. A recorded notice on title depicting the critical area is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. BIMC Title 18 Zoning A. BIMC 18.09.020 Permitted Uses Health care facilities are a conditional use in the R-2 zoning district. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 10 of 25 B. BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 Standard Lot Dimensional Standards for Residential Zone Districts Dimensional Standard Requirement Proposed / Compliance Evaluation Lot Area 20,000 square feet minimum The aggregate lot area is 305,355 square feet in compliance with this standard. Lot Dimensions 80 feet width/depth minimum The site is approximately 550 feet by 550 feet and complies with this requirement. Lot Coverage 10% maximum Lot coverage is defined as the area covered by buildings, and in the R-2 district, is limited to 20 percent of the lot area. Health care facilities are limited to 50 percent of the standard lot coverage, or ten percent. Existing lot coverage is 15.9 percent as approved in 1995 (City File No. CUP07-22-94-1). Proposed lot coverage is 16.9 percent: Because the property is listed on the Local Historic Register, and as provided in the Historic Preservation Program (BIMC 18.24), the property received approval for a modification from this development standard to 16.9%. (City File No. PLN51717 CUP). Setback - Front Lot Line 25 feet minimum A front setback extends from a structure to right- of-way which provides the principal means of access to abutting properties. The development area is set back over 300 feet from Mountain View Road to the north and approximately 100 feet from Manitou Park Boulevard to the east in compliance with this standard. Setback - Side Lot Line 10 feet minimum For properties with multiple front lot lines, the remaining lot lines are sides in accordance with BIMC 18.12.050. At or near-grade structures which are less than four inches in height are permitted in setbacks: Existing parking facilities are within the west setback. The existing building wing is nonconforming to this standard and will be demolished. Because the proposed building extends across two lots, lot aggregations is proposed. As proposed, the project complies with this standard, as modified by permitted encroachments as provided in BIMC 18.12.040. Building Height 25 feet base / 35 feet maximum Bonus building height to 35 feet is available for non-residential use if conditional use permit conditions are met. Height is measured as the distance above grade to the midpoint of the roof. The proposed height is 35 feet and compliance is verified during building permit review. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 11 of 25 C. BIMC 18.15.010 Landscaping, Screening, and Tree Retention, Protection, Replacement Non-residential development within this district is subject to landscaping, screening and tree retention requirements identified in BIMC Table 18.15.010-1. 1) Tree Retention, Protection and Replacement a. Perimeter buffer areas require landscaping pursuant to BIMC 18.15.010.D, Perimeter Buffering and Screening: A 25-foot width Full Screen buffer is required in accordance with BIMC Table 18.15.010-3. Full screen standards are identified in BIMC 18.15.010.D.4 as follows: o Trees: At least 70 percent evergreen trees ranging in height from four feet to six feet at the time of planting with at least 50 percent being six feet high and deciduous trees with a caliper of at least two inches at the time of planting. At least 50 percent of the trees shall be native species or drought resistant. The number of trees is determined by calculating the area of the perimeter buffer and dividing by 250 square feet or one tree for every 10 feet of buffer length, whichever is greater. o Shrubs: At least 70 percent evergreen which are at least 21 inches in height at the time of planting, to achieve minimum six feet height at maturity. The number of shrubs is determined by calculating the area of the perimeter buffer and dividing by 50 square feet or one shrub for every 20 feet of buffer length, whichever is greater. o Ground cover: Living ground cover shall be planted and spaced to achieve total coverage within five years. The proposed plan depicts the required buffer. A section of the existing parking lot lies within the 25-foot width buffer area along the southeast side of the site: As provided in BIMC 18.30.030, existing nonconforming structures may remain and be used provided there is no change to the structure that would alter or increase the nonconformity. b. Total Site Tree Unit Requirements BIMC 18.15.010.G / BIMC Table 18.15.010-5 The development parcel shall have at least 40 tree units per acre following the proposed development or redevelopment (BIMC 18.15.040.G.4). The applicant may choose to retain trees or to plant new trees to meet this requirement. The total tree unit requirement is 280 tree units (7.01 x 40). The applicant elects to retain 171 tree units, and to plant additional trees to meet this requirement. D. BIMC 18.15.020 Parking Spaces Required The number of parking spaces required is identified in BIMC Table 18.15.020-1. Required parking is the number of spaces adequate to accommodate the peak shift as determined by the Director based on information submitted by the applicant. There are 71 parking spaces serving 96 beds. As there is no change to the number of beds proposed and no deficiencies identified for existing parking facilities, planning and engineering staff deem existing parking adequate to serve the proposed development. E. BIMC 18.15.030 Mobility and Access 1) Circulation and Walkways for Non-residential Development 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 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 12 of 25 be defined by landscaped areas with raised curbs. Pedestrian walkways should be provided around 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. The City Development Engineer finds that the project, subject to recommended conditions, conforms to the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. The project is conditioned to submit final civil plans with construction permit application. 2) Bicycle facilities The development must provide one bicycle space for every five vehicle parking spaces, with a minimum of four spaces provided for each parking lot. Given the intended population, few residents are likely to have need for bicycle facilities. Additionally, no additional parking spaces are being proposed. Recommended conditions include a bicycle facility for a minimum of five bicycles that is under cover and in proximity to the visitor entrance, and indoor or outdoor bicycle storage for employees at a ratio of one bicycle space per five employees. F. BIMC Chapter 18.18 Design Guidelines The project is subject to the City’s design manual, “Design for Bainbridge’’. Site redevelopment was discussed during several public meetings with the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB recommends approval of the proposal as follows: • Existing parking lot lighting be assessed and made compliant with existing code lighting standards, if needed • No parking on Manitou Park Boulevard • A grade-separated footpath along Ocean View Drive • Delivery vehicles be restricted to Ocean View Drive and that no delivery vehicles use Manitou Park Boulevard or Mountain View Road • The applicant provides a revised sheet A3.02 (entitled “Renderings view from the east”) Recommended conditions address lighting, the footpath, and delivery vehicle access restrictions. 3. Land Use Permit Review and Decision Criteria A. BIMC 2.16.170 Consolidated Project Review A consolidated project review process which encompasses any combination of land use applications is available at the applicant’s option when a proposed development requires multiple approvals listed in BIMC 2.16.010. A consolidated project permit application shall follow the application and notice procedure listed below that results in the most extensive review and decision process. For purposes of consolidated project review, the ranking of review and approval procedures, in order from least to most extensive, is: Administrative review; Planning Commission review; Hearing Examiner review. The applicant submitted a consolidated land use application. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 13 of 25 B. BIMC 2.16.040 Site Plan and Design Review 1) BIMC 2.16.040.E.6 Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission The purpose of the Planning Commission review and recommendation meeting is to review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan. In making a recommendation, the Commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria, all other applicable law, and the recommendation of the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the Commission. Any deviation from the recommendation shall be documented in their written findings of facts and conclusions. The Planning Commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the Planning Commission and DRB, to the staff planner. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff- recommended conditions, with the following addition: If supported through SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable beds be provided. 2) BIMC 2.16.040.E.6 Review and Approval by the Director The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review the application materials, information provided by the Health District and City Engineer, staff report, public comment, the recommendation of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and shall make final decision on the decision criteria below, the Planning Commission recommendation, the DRB recommendation, and consideration of public comment: The DRB and Planning Commission recommendations 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 DRB recommendations were considered and incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the recommended conditions of approval where necessary, including the requirement for compliance with current lighting regulations and vehicular access restrictions. The conditions recommended in this report are those recommended to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff recommended conditions, with the following addition: If supported through SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable beds be provided. Since the project does not demonstrate a loss of “affordable beds”, and there is no change in the number of beds provided, a SEPA mitigation measure to control housing impacts is not warranted. The issued SEPA MDNS does not include a condition requiring “affordable beds”. Additionally, staff finds no specific provision for ‘affordable’ beds in the Comprehensive Plan. Since there is no opportunity to mitigate through SEPA nor specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code, and imposing a condition to provide “affordable beds” would be an inconsistent application of the Municipal Code, the staff recommendation does not include a requirement for “affordable beds”. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 14 of 25 3) BIMC 2.16.040.F Decision Criteria a. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable provisions of the BIMC; and Consistency with zoning standards, including dimensional standards, design standards, landscaping and parking requirements, is discussed above. Compliance with standards and project conditions is ensured at time of building permit review. As conditioned, the development is consistent with all provisions of the Municipal Code. b. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, and landscaping result in a context-sensitive design; and Site redevelopment was discussed during several public meetings with the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Historic Preservation Commission. Both found that the proposed redevelopment is context-sensitive and harmonious in design, character and appearance with Day Hall and the additional historic elements on the property, as well as the neighborhood. The DRB recommends that existing parking lot lighting be assessed and, if needed, brought into compliance with existing code lighting standards, that the applicant provide a revised sheet A3.02 (entitled “Renderings view from the east”), no parking on Manitou Park Boulevard, a grade-separated footpath along Ocean Drive, and that delivery vehicles be restricted to Ocean Drive and no delivery vehicles use Manitou Park Boulevard or Mountain View Road. Messenger Care House has operated harmoniously within this residential district since 1960, and the redevelopment provides consistency with the character and quality of development in the vicinity and sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the subject property, including preservation of landscaping and public pedestrian use which has evolved over time. c. The Kitsap Public Health District has determined that the proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; and The Kitsap Public Health District recommends approval and notes that the onsite septic system is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health. Compliance is also verified through the subsequent building permit. d. The streets and nonmotorized facilities, as proposed, are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and The City Development Engineer finds that the streets and pedestrian ways as conditioned are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic. e. The City Engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria: i. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21 and will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; ii. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 15 of 25 iii. If a traffic study shows that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the City Engineer; iv. 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; v. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the City Engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; The City Development Engineer makes the following findings: • The site plan as conditioned conforms to regulations concerning drainage in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21. • 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. • The streets and pedestrian ways as conditioned are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic. • An existing well on site supplies sufficient water service to the new and existing development on site and has a backup source provided by Kitsap Public Utility District. Sewerage on site is currently provided by an onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that operates under Department of Ecology NPDES Permit #WA023469 and is operated by a licensed level 3 plant operator. The plan is licensed for 16,000 gpd, and flow data during most recent period of full operation (2012-2017) indicate a daily flow of 13,600 gpd (85% of design flow) was exceeded just four times over the five-year period with a maximum daily flow reported as 14,757 gpd. The project will replace numerous fixtures in a nursing facility that are 34+ years old with new low-flow code compliant fixtures. The civil engineer of record asserts that there will not be an increase to the daily flow beyond recorded levels (and instead likely a decrease). City Development Engineering concurs with that opinion. • The site plan conforms to the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, as conditioned, and any proposed deviation from the standards shall be approved by City Development Engineering prior to construction. • The site plan and the associated design is in conformance with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to streets, roads, and utilities. f. The site plan and design is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18; and The Design Review Board finds the conditional use is consistent with applicable design standards and recommends approval. g. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; and Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 16 of 25 Staff recommends conditions to provide for public health, safety and welfare, and public use and interest. Staff recommends conditions to provide adequately for transportation and access, including pedestrian and emergency services access, in addition to water, sanitation, and stormwater facilities. h. The site plan and design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable adopted community plans; and The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and City staff engaged in cooperative efforts with the property owner to redevelop the site while retaining the historic elements of the site when there is otherwise no requirement to do so. The redevelopment retains and rehabilitates Day Hall in recognition of its historic value to the community; Day Hall, the East Lawn and the Moran School caretaker cottage are now listed on the Local Historic Register. The completed facility provides memory care services along with assisted and independent living facilities, serving the special needs of an aging population. Redevelopment ensures that the facility will be compliant with current building, health, fire code, stormwater and environmental regulations. i. If the subject property contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and The City of Bainbridge Island is a designated Aquifer Recharge Protection Area. An Aquifer Recharge Protection Area is designated and a recorded notice on title is required prior to issuance of building permit. k. The Bainbridge Island Fire District has reviewed the application and determined that the site plan has been properly designed to ensure fire protection; and The Fire Marshal recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions in this report. l. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter. The purpose of Site Plan and Design Review 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 is to minimize land alteration, provide greater site development flexibility and consequently to 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. The proposal followed the preapplication review process identified in BIMC 2.16.040.D and thus far the application process in accordance with the provisions of BIMC 2.16.040.E. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 17 of 25 C. BIMC 2.16.110.J Amendments to an Approved Major Conditional Use Permit 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. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, and/or use. 1) BIMC 2.16.110.E.4 Review by Director The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review the application materials, staff report, and the recommendations 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 DRB recommendations were considered and incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the recommended conditions of approval where necessary, including the requirement for compliance with current lighting regulations and vehicular access restrictions. The conditions recommended in this report are those recommended to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff recommended conditions, with the following addition: If supported through SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable beds be provided. Since the project does not demonstrate a loss of “affordable beds”, and there is no change in the number of beds provided, a SEPA mitigation measure to control housing impacts is not warranted. The issued SEPA MDNS does not include a condition requiring “affordable beds”. Additionally, staff finds no specific provision for ‘affordable’ beds in the Comprehensive Plan. Since there is no opportunity to mitigate through SEPA nor specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code, and imposing a condition to provide “affordable beds” would be an inconsistent application of the Municipal Code, the staff recommendation does not include a requirement for “affordable beds”. 2) BIMC 2.16.110.E.3 Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission In making a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria, all other applicable law, and the recommendation of the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the Planning Commission. Any deviation from the recommendation shall be documented in their written findings of facts and conclusions. The Planning Commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, to the staff planner. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff- recommended conditions, with the following addition: If supported through SEPA or the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable beds be provided. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 18 of 25 3) BIMC 2.16.110.E.5 Review and Public Hearing with Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner shall consider the application materials and the Director’s recommendation at a public hearing following the procedures of BIMC 2.16.100.C and applicable provisions of BIMC 2.16.020, General Provisions. a. BIMC 2.16.100 Quasi-judicial Review by Hearing Examiner – In General In accordance with the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100.C.6, Hearing Examiner Action, the Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or remand an application. In making a decision, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the applicable decision criteria of this code, all other applicable laws, recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, testimony presented at the hearing, and any necessary documents and approvals. b. BIMC 2.16.110.E.5.b The Hearing Examiner shall make compliance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission a condition of approval, unless the Hearing Examiner concludes that the recommendations: • Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code; • Exceed the authority of the Design Review Board or Planning Commission; • Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or • Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law. 4) BIMC 2.16.110.F Decision Criteria A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions as follows below. 1) The conditional use is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18. The conditional use is compatible with the established and intended character of the neighborhood, considering factors that include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of activities generated by the use, and the predictable levels of any adverse impacts; and The Design Review Board finds the conditional use is consistent with applicable design standards and recommends approval. The DRB recommends that existing parking lot lighting be assessed and made compliant with existing code lighting standards, if needed, that the applicant provide a revised sheet A3.02 (entitled “Renderings view from the east”), no parking on Manitou Park Boulevard, a grade-separated footpath along Ocean View Drive, and that delivery vehicles be restricted to Ocean View Drive and no delivery vehicles use Manitou Park Boulevard or Mountain View Road. Site redevelopment was discussed during several public meetings with the Design Review Board and the Historic Preservation Commission. Both found that the proposed redevelopment is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance with Day Hall and the additional historic elements on the property, as well as the character of the neighborhood. 2) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 19 of 25 Messenger Care House has operated harmoniously within this residential district since 1960, and the redevelopment provides consistency with the character and quality of development in the vicinity and sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the subject property, including preservation of landscaping and public pedestrian use which has evolved over time. 3) The conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Island-Wide Transportation Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and City staff engaged in cooperative efforts with the property owner to redevelop the site while retaining the historic elements of the site when there is otherwise no requirement to do so. The redevelopment retains and rehabilitates Day Hall in recognition of its historic value to the community; Day Hall, the East Lawn and the Moran School caretaker cottage are now listed on the Local Historic Register. The proposed facility provides memory care services along with assisted and independent living facilities, serving the special needs of an aging population. Redevelopment ensures that the facility will be compliant with current building, health, fire code, stormwater and environmental regulations. The City Development Engineer finds that the project, as conditioned, is in conformance with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to streets, roads, and utilities, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan. 4) The conditional use complies with all other applicable provisions of the BIMC; and Consistency with zoning standards, including dimensional standards, design guidelines, landscaping and parking requirements, is discussed above in Part V.2. Compliance with standards and project conditions is ensured at time of building permit review. 5) 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 vicinity of the subject property; and Staff recommends conditions to provide for public health, safety and welfare, and public use and interest. Recommended conditions provide adequately for transportation and access, including pedestrian and emergency services access, in addition to water, sanitation, and stormwater facilities. Recommended conditions address lighting, noise, provisions for residents to contact the contractor, and bicycle and trail facilities. 6) Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and All activities must be compliant with current noise regulations. 7) The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and The City Development Engineer finds that the streets and pedestrian ways as conditioned are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 20 of 25 8) The City Engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: i. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21; and will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; ii. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; iii. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the City Engineer; iv. 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; v. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications” unless the City Engineer has approved a deviation to the standards; The City Development Engineer makes the following findings: • The site plan as conditioned conforms to regulations concerning drainage in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21. • 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. • The streets and pedestrian ways as conditioned are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic. • An existing well on site supplies sufficient water service to the new and existing development on site and has a backup source provided by Kitsap Public Utility District. Sewerage on site is currently provided by an onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that operates under Department of Ecology NPDES Permit #WA023469 and is operated by a licensed level 3 plant operator. The plan is licensed for 16,000 gpd, and flow data during most recent period of full operation (2012-2017) indicate a daily flow of 13,600 gpd (85% of design flow) was exceeded just four times over the five-year period with a maximum daily flow reported as 14,757 gpd. The project will replace numerous fixtures in a nursing facility that are 34+ years old with new low-flow code compliant fixtures. The civil engineer of record asserts that there will not be an increase to the daily flow beyond recorded levels (and instead likely a decrease.). City Development Engineering concurs with that opinion. • The project conforms to the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, as conditioned, and any proposed deviation from the standards shall be approved by City Development Engineering prior to construction. • As conditioned, the project is in conformance with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to streets, roads, and utilities. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 21 of 25 9) The Kitsap Public Health District has determined that the conditional use conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; and The Kitsap Public Health District recommends approval and notes that the onsite septic system is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Health. Health District approval is also required for building occupancy. 10) The Bainbridge Island Fire Department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will ensure fire protection. The Fire Marshal recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions. 11) A conditional use may be approved, or recommended for approval, with conditions. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the permit meets the decision criteria of this chapter, then the permit shall be denied. Staff recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions. 13) 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 in Table 18.09.020 in residential zones shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following criteria, in addition to those in subsection F of this section: i. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map. ii. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the surrounding area. The site fronts on residential suburban roads. The Design Review Board finds that the proposal meets design standards which include analysis of bulk, height and architectural compatibility with the surrounding area, and recommends approval of the proposed development. Part VI – CONCLUSIONS In making this recommendation, City Staff considered public comment, agency comment, the recommendations of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, the character of the area in which the property is located, the applicable decision criteria of the Municipal Code and all other applicable law, the Comprehensive Plan, and the necessary documents and approvals. The application is properly before the Hearing Examiner for decision. The Director recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Footnote 1 Office of Financial Management https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/pop/april1/ofm_april1_definitions.pdf Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 22 of 25 SEPA Conditions 1. To mitigate light impacts, all existing and proposed outdoor lighting, including lighting on buildings, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting, shall comply with current regulations in BIMC 18.15.040. The applicant shall submit lighting plans which demonstrate compliance with building permit application. 2. To mitigate adverse impact from potential environmental health hazards, all existing and new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, along with generators, shall incorporate soundproofing barriers, including but not limited to soundproof panels and/or barriers. The soundproofing shall be designed to reduce, to the extent feasible, noise levels to within 55 dBa for surrounding residential receiving properties. 3. To mitigate air impacts, all sources and emission units are required to meet the emission and ambient air quality standards specified in Chapter 173-400 WAC and administered by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) and shall apply to all air contaminants listed in that regulation. The applicant shall submit with application for construction associated with this approval a management plan which is consistent with PSCAA Fugitive Dust Controls. Project Conditions 4. The authorization for construction activities automatically expires and is void if the applicant fails to file for construction permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the decision on this application. 5. Plans submitted for construction shall substantially comply with the site, architectural, landscape and civil plans approved through this consolidated land use permit, as modified by these conditions. 6. Any alterations to the property must observe all pertinent regulations of the Historic Preservation Program (BIMC 18.24). Any alteration of the exterior of Local Register properties requires a Certificate of Appropriateness or a review waiver from the Historic Preservation Commission 7. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the City, including but not limited to clearing, grading, and/or building permits. 8. The Applicant shall designate a contact person that can be reached at all times during construction and this contact information shall be provided to all area residents potentially impacted by construction of the project. 9. If any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction, work shall immediately stop and the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be immediately notified. Construction shall only continue thereafter in compliance with the applicable provisions of law. 10. Prior to construction activity authorized through this permit, the applicant must submit complete application for Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) to aggregate the subject properties and obtain BLA approval from the Department of Planning and Community Development. 11. The applicant shall record Notice on Title for the Aquifer Recharge Protection Area prior to issuance of building permit related to this proposal. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 23 of 25 12. All plantings shall be installed or installation financially assured in accordance with BIMC 18.15.010.H. prior to occupancy of any of the new buildings. After installation approval by the Department, maintenance financial assurance shall be required in accordance with BIMC 18.15.010.H. 13. The proposed plan depicts the required buffer. A section of the existing parking lot lies within the 25-foot width buffer area along the southeast side of the site: As provided in BIMC 18.30.030, existing nonconforming structures may remain and be used provided there is no change to the structure that would alter or increase the nonconformity. 14. The development must provide, at a minimum: A bicycle facility for a minimum of five bicycles that is under cover and in proximity to the visitor entrance, and indoor or covered outdoor bicycle facilities for employees at a ratio of one bicycle space per five employees. 15. The project shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal: a. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code. b. Fire sprinklers and alarms will be required for the project. Fire sprinkler shall meet the requirements of NFPA 13; fire alarms shall meet the requirements of IFC 907 and NFPA 72. c. FDC and PIV are located on the west side of the structure. Applicant to ensure systems are in good working order. d. Gates installed across the south side fire department access road will be required to have a Knox override installed to provide quick access by fire department personnel during an emergency. 16. The project shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a. Civil improvement plans, reports, and computations, prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of Washington shall be submitted with the applications for construction permits to construct all necessary infrastructure and utilities serving the site. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued for any building until all civil improvements have been completed and accepted through the final inspection process. b. A completed Transportation Impact Fee worksheet shall be due at the time of construction permit submittal and required fees shall be paid in full prior to construction permit issuance. c. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington is a required submittal for permitting any construction activities including clearing or grading or other civil improvements for all phases of the project. d. A final stormwater report shall be submitted with the building permit detailing compliance with all applicable minimum requirements as required by BIMC 15.20. 4. New and replaced hard surfaces associated with the modified fire lane shall be subject to water quality stormwater requirements per BIMC 15.20; treatment shall be provided for these surfaces as noted in the preliminary civil utilities plan. 5. The final stormwater report shall include a final geotechnical evaluation of the stormwater system. e. The bioswale located along the southern edge of the property shall is facility shall be evaluated and maintained / repaired / upgraded to comply with the 2012 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington as amended in 2014 (BMP T7.30). Additional existing collection and conveyance systems comprising the man-made conveyance from the site to the local receiving water (Puget Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 24 of 25 Sound) used to satisfy Minimum Requirement #7 (Flow control exemption) shall be free of debris and in good working order prior to final construction inspections. f. Construction Stormwater General Permit coverage shall be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology and the site shall be monitored for discharge of pollutants and sediment offsite for the duration of the project. No land clearing or construction permits shall be issued prior to obtaining the State permit. g. Potential changes in sanitary sewer connections and appurtenances shall be calculated, designed, reviewed, installed, and inspected per applicable Washington Administrative Code and in compliance with any conditions in order to remain compliant with the NPDES permit covering the onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant. h. Prior to building permit final occupancy, the applicant shall submit an operation and maintenance plan for the on-going maintenance of the storm drainage system. i. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained. The owner(s) shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this development following construction. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be provided to the City. A Declaration of Covenant for stormwater system operation and maintenance will be required to be recorded before submittal. The approved language for the Declaration of Covenant is found in BIMC Chapter 15.21, Exhibit A. j. Cross connection control requirements as established by Washington Administrative Code and implemented by local water service provider shall be satisfied during the building permit review/construction process. k. The applicant shall obtain a Right-of-Way Use permit prior to any construction activities within the right-of-way (Ocean Drive, Manitou Park Blvd, or Mountain View Drive). The permit shall be subject to separate conditions, fees, and bonding requirements. l. The existing gravel road that is located partially in the public right-of-way on the southern edge of the property shall be realigned to be fully located within the mapped/surveyed public right of way adjacent to the property. m. The portion of realigned gravel road that is within the mapped “Ocean Drive” right of way extending north of Manitou Park Boulevard terminates at the southern property line of the project, where it becomes a fire lane on private property. Once realigned, this road shall be used as emergency vehicle access only. n. Appropriate signage/pavement marking shall be installed in conjunction with City of Bainbridge Island and Bainbridge Island Fire District standards/requirements. Signage and striping may include but is not limited to: gates/bollards, red curbing, “no parking” signs, fire lane only signs, and authorized vehicles only signage. o. A pedestrian path consistent with City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards shall be provided to maintain the established connection between Manitou Beach Road at the western extent of the site to Manitou Park Boulevard at the southern edge of the site. 1) The path should minimize uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the existing parking lot and should be located to maximize the existing vegetated boundary between the project site and adjacent residences to the south. 2) The path should be located topographically to minimize additional vegetative disturbance or sidehill cuts. Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Page 25 of 25 3) The path shall provide for horizontal pedestrian / vehicle separation. 4) A public pedestrian easement shall be provided to the City for approval for those portions of the path that are located on the subject property. The easement must be drafted and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupation. 5) The path in its entirety shall remain privately maintained by the applicant for public use. p. As-built civil construction plans stamped by a civil engineer shall be provided by the applicant prior to final certificate of occupancy being issued unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer. 17. All refuse which, if thrown or deposited as prohibited in BIMC 8.16, tends to create a danger to public health, safety and welfare, shall be properly transported to, and disposed of within an approved solid waste facility. The property shall be left in a clean, safe condition, protected from erosion. For information regarding solid and hazardous waste, contact the Kitsap Public Health District at (360) 728-2235. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 SITE ASSESSMENT REVIEW: COMPLETE Date: June 5, 2020 SmartGov Case No.: SAR80359 Owner: Cascadia Development, 509.426.2756 Mailing Address: 506 N 40th Ave Suite 100 | Yakima, WA 98903 Applicant/Agent: Wenzlau Architects, 206.780.6882; charlie@wenzlauarchitects.com Project: Messenger House Phase II Site Location: 10861 Manitou Park BLVD. | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tax Identification No.: 4156-002-005-0203, 4156-002-007-003 This completed Site Assessment Review (SAR) letter serves as an endorsement from the Department of Public Works of the project with recommendations to achieve Low Impact Development (LID) to the maximum extent practicable based on the Department of Ecology’s Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The following LID recommendations apply to the site as it has been presented in the application to reduce vegetation removal, minimize hard surface installation, and mimic natural hydrology. This assessment is non-binding, unless the recommendations are as required under BIMC 15.20. Application for permits with the City of Bainbridge Island for which a SAR is required shall be in substantial conformance with this proposal, or, else a new SAR shall be required. Project Surfaces/Thresholds: Threshold Proposed Project Proposed New/Replaced Hard Surface Total ~ 24,000 sf Proposed Land Clearing/Disturbance ~ 40,000 sf Existing Site Impervious Coverage ~125,027 sf Total Site Area 305,355 sf Site Previously Developed Under Adopted Stormwater Regulations (after 2/10/1999)NO Type of Development (New or Redevelopment) Redevelopment Recommendations This project proposes changes to an existing established health care facility that has not been operating recently. Proposed changes include demolition of an existing residential wing and subsequent reconstruction of a three story residential wing while revising and expanding existing hard surfaces to include service entrances and pedestrian access serving the facility creating 24000sf of new and replaced hard surfaces. Site disturbance for the total project may exceed 1.0 acre. Existing site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels generally surrounded by residential development. Initial analysis indicates no likely environmental critical areas on site, but the work is located within the zone of influence of a recently active landslide hazard located on the north facing slope overlooking Rolling Bay Walk approx. 175’ north of the proposed residential wing. This project is subject to both Land Use permits (Conditional Use Permit and/or Site Plan Review) and the work itself would be reviewed, approved, constructed, and inspected via a Building permit issued by COBI Planning and Community Development (PCD). The existing hard surface on the site exceeds 35% and thus the project is classified as ‘Redevelopment’ for the purpose of determining project requirements. Where the value of the proposed improvements (including interior improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements currently assessed at $684,290, all MRs shall apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. An application for any of the required follow on permits will require the project demonstrate compliance with applicable minimum requirements (MRs) # 1 through 9 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual. Exhibit 2 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 o MR#1 – Develop a Permanent Stormwater Site Plan (SSP). o MR#2 – Develop a Construction Erosion Control Plan: Also known as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). o MR#3 – Source Control of Pollution – Generally N/A for projects of a residential scope. o MR#4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls o MR#5 – On-Site Stormwater Treatment o MR#6 – Runoff Treatment (Water Quality) o MR#7 – Flow Control (Impound and control excess runoff due to larger hard surface quantity) o MR#8 – Wetlands Protection o MR#9 – Operations and Maintenance (For larger projects, an O&M manual is required to ensure installed stormwater control facilities are adequately maintained and operated properly. Develop a Permanent Stormwater Site Plan (MR #1): The SSP is the collection of all the technical information and analysis necessary for the City Development Engineer to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with state and local stormwater requirements and lays out the long term, permanent solution for the runoff generated by the project. Contents of the SSP will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics, and contain site-appropriate development principles, as required, to retain native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. o Project is more than 5,000sf of new/replaced hard surface so this plan is required and shall be created by (or under the direction of) a professional engineer licensed to practice in Washington State. The SWMMWW volume I, section I-3.1.5, Step 5 offers additional guidance on content and format of the plan and narrative. o Initial analysis and submittal documents indicate soils and conditions which are not generally feasible for infiltration or dispersion. There are existing stormwater facilities which may be utilized as part of the final stormwater solution for the proposed project. (see MR#5 for additional information). o A qualitative downstream analysis of the site outfalls shall be conducted per BIMC 15.20. o The geotechnical reports included with the SAR submittal will likely need a current update and the project will require geotechnical engineer evaluation of the stormwater site plan based on the proximity of the geological hazard to the north. MR#2 Develop a Construction Erosion Control Plan requires submittal and approval of a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the building permit application, also called an Erosion Control Plan. The SWPPP applies to all land-disturbing activities and temporary impacts associated with construction of the project. A well followed SWPPP with established clearing and disturbance limits and clearly thought out phasing helps to minimize unnecessary destruction of healthy soils during the construction process. o Erosion control devices shall be installed to prevent sedimentation of any existing drainage system and to retain sediment on-site during site preparation operations, both airborne (dust) and water borne (sediment laden runoff). o Temporary construction entrances and access roads shall be constructed of inert materials. Recycled concrete is strictly prohibited. o Construction laydown, parking and material storage areas should be carefully located and maintained to minimize vehicular and pedestrian traffic through exposed soil areas. o Applicant should complete COBI form B109D (available online) or equivalent and annotate the location of intended erosion control elements on the stormwater site plan drawing and maintain that with the building permit when issued by COBI Planning and Community Development. o In addition to the SWPPPP submitted for City review and approval the project will require General Stormwater Construction Permit (GSWCP) coverage from the Washington State Department of Ecology for earth disturbance in excess of 1 acre. If required, a copy of the Notice of Coverage letter shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the building permits. MR#3 Source Control of Pollution – This project likely considered N/A due to projected absence of point source pollutants. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 MR#4 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls. Existing drainage patterns are anticipated to continue to occur at the natural location to the max extent practicable as a result of this project. The manner by which any runoff is discharged from the project site shall not cause a significant adverse impact (or increase the risk of such impact beyond professionally acceptable levels) to downstream receiving waters, environmental critical areas, or downgradient properties. MR#5 – On-Site Stormwater Management. Project shall employ on site BMP’s to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on-site to a feasible extent without causing flooding or erosion impacts. Use list #2 (SWMMWW Vol I, I-2.5.5) for each runoff generating surface (Lawn, Roofs or Other Hard Surfaces) and select the first BMP that is considered feasible or optionally the consulting engineer may choose to show that the drainage plan meets the LID standard in the 2015 SWMMWW via an approved stormwater management model. o Selection rationale and Infeasibility criteria per the SWMMWW shall be documented in the SSP overview, especially when a BMP is deemed infeasible and the next lowest priority BMP is considered. Submitted COBI Form B109b may be included as part of the final SSP submittal. Supporting geotechnical documents will need to be updated by current geotechnical engineer of record. o The privately maintained existing conveyance and outfall serving the site may be considered part of the final stormwater site plan for this project but only if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the system has sufficient capacity at its discharge point, currently complies with, and will continue to comply with, the currently adopted stormwater management manual (BIMC 15.20 and DOE 2014 SWMMWW) surfaces without adversely affecting the current drained basin or downstream property/discharge.. Contractor will be expected to protect existing drainage and to demonstrate it is in good working order prior to Final Occupancy (to include the outfall offsite). o Site soils and areas that support infiltration (i.e. shown not to meet the infeasibility criteria of the stormwater manual) would require full-downspout infiltration or a rain garden sized per the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington meeting the ‘GOOD’ performance standard. MR#6 – Runoff Treatment (Water Quality). If the hard pollution generating surface exceeds 5,000 sf, water quality treatment will be required as part of the engineered stormwater drainage plan. SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.6 addresses sizing, selection, design, and other considerations of water quality BMPs. MR#7 - Flow Control (Impound and control excess runoff due to larger hard surface quantity). The required engineered drainage plan shall address the flow control requirements (or exemption from) as part of the SSP. SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.7 provides the relevant information. MR#8 – Wetlands Protection Stormwater from the proposed hard surfaces will likely discharge into a wetland (either directly or through conveyance/stream). The engineered drainage plan shall address wetland protection requirements per SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.8. MR#9 – Operations and Maintenance manual. An O&M manual shall be provided for proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. As this project is a private facility, a copy of the O&M manual shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and shall be transferred with the property to any subsequent new owner. In addition, a Declaration of Covenant for the maintenance and operation of stormwater facilities will be required for recording to title prior to any issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) Any proposed development or activity requiring a site assessment review (SAR), located within the R-0.4, R-1 or R-2 zoning designation, requires designation of an Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (unless exempt under BIMC 16.20.100.E.1(a-d)). Initial Public Works evaluation is that this property will likely require designation of an ARPA, based on the work proposed being located in the shoreline jurisdiction which is exempt from ARPA. o COBI Planning and Community Development holds the final determination authority for ARPA designation and compliance and will address this requirement during the permit review process. If you have questions about the Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) or other critical areas requirements for critical areas located on or adjacent to your property, please contact the Planning Department at PCD@bainbridgewa.gov or (206) 780-3770. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 Other Low Impact Development design considerations Location of survey elements (property corners/lines) and existing surface features (driveway, drain fields, wetlands, etc.) shall be derived from survey completed by a Public Land Surveyor certified to practice in Washington State for the building permit application submittal documentation. Placement of any onsite stormwater management systems shall comply with the Kitsap County Health Ordinance 2008A-01 for setbacks from wells, primary septic fields and reserve areas, and septic system components. (see Table 1B of the ordinance). BIMC 15.20.060.A(9) requires that a geotechnical engineer evaluate all stormwater or infiltration facilities within the zone of influence (200’) of a geologically hazardous area. (steep slope >40% and more than 10’ of vertical relief). Geotechnical engineer concurrence on the drainage plan as designed will be submitted via a COBI “Step 2 form”, and on the drainage system as installed post construction submitted via a COBI “Step 3 form”. Retaining or planting trees within 20 feet of hard surfaces where feasible is recommended to reduce peak stormwater runoff amounts. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater. Summary These recommendations are not fully inclusive of all requirements for the site proposal and do not constitute an approval, permit or a planning level review (or an endorsement of any required land use approval/plat amendment request required for approval). They represent a site-specific analysis and review of low impact development principles based on the project proposal and define some of the civil site design and documentation requirements going forward in the permitting process for this project. Please don’t hesitate to contact COBI Development Engineering with any questions or concerns. This letter will be required as a submittal with the follow-on application for the Building Permit Application associated with the Commercial Healthcare project on this site. Paul Nylund, P.E. Development Engineer Public Works, Engineering Page 1 of 8 September 22, 2020 Wenzlau Architects Attn: Charles Wenzlau 490 Madison Avenue N, Suite 105 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Re: Preapplication Conference Summary: Messenger House Phase 2 / PLN51717 PRE Dear Mr. Wenzlau, This letter provides a summary of the conference held on September 1. The summary reflects the information and level of detail provided for the conference, existing codes and standards, and generally available information about the site and environs. This redevelopment proposal is to remodel both the interior and exterior of an existing building which was constructed c.1917, and to replace a single-story building wing with a three-story assisted living- independent-living facility. No increase in parking is proposed. The proposal requires Site Plan and Design Review permit, a major adjustment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and a Boundary Line Adjustment. It appears to me that the proposal also requires a variance: Subsequent to the conference, you communicated that the proposal exceeds allowable lot coverage for a Health Care Facility in this residential district, and the Planning Director has indicated that you are in direct communication with you regarding this. As you reached out to her directly, I encourage you to complete that discussion directly as she may determine a course of action which I am unable to anticipate. In response to her request for information, I provided the following facts: •I conducted additional research by reading the Hearing Examiner’s report. •I verified that the 1995 approval covered a seven acre site, and that this proposal also covers a seven acre site. •Heather alluded to previously approved lot coverage of 16%, and I stated that to my knowledge, the 1995 CUP doesn’t approve 16% lot coverage per se: I haven’t found any reference to lot coverage in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. •I haven’t researched what the lot coverage limitations (if any) were in 1994 / 1995, but I can do that if she would like me to. •In the preapplication proposal, it states that existing lot coverage is 11% (i.e. not 16% as Heather indicated in her communication), but that if she let me know the source of her information I can look into it further if she’d like), and proposed lot coverage is 15%. •The preapplication proposal is to demolish an existing single-story building which was constructed in 1986 and construct a new three-story building. The 1986 approval was for a 2,600 square feet addition to an “8,000 – 9,000” square foot building which was approved in 1984. The preapplication proposal is for a 60,000 square foot building. Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 8 • You contacted me via email after the conference, and provided several scenarios which are not part of the preapplication proposal, including various lot sizes and various lot coverage figures as follows: Here is a quick summary of lot coverage depending on lot aggregation: Lot Coverage: Allowable: 10% (27,747sf) based on 6.37ac lot (no aggregation) Existing: 14% (39,350sf) based on 6.37ac lot (note that this doesn’t include caretakers or previous theater building) Allowable: 10% (35,935sf) based on 8.25ac (3 lot aggregation) Proposed: 12.5% (45,000sf) based on 3 lot aggregation We are asking for a 1% increase above existing lot coverage. The proposal is also subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Additionally, during the conference the project engineer discussed the possibility of modifications to the stormwater outfall which is located within shoreline jurisdiction; please note that any modification, including intensification, may require a shoreline permit or exemption. In the request for this conference, you asked if there are conditions from the earlier CUP which will need to be addressed in the proposal. Subsequent to receiving an Unclassified Use Permit in 1984 (Kitsap County Resolution 256-1984 Hearing Examiner File 840426383) and a revision to that permit in 1986 (Kitsap County Resolution 231-1986 / Hearing Examiner File 860612682), Messenger House received Conditional Use Permit approval in 1995 (City of Bainbridge Island File CUP07-22-94-1). A major adjustment to an existing CUP requires the applicant to address all conditions of the existing CUP; alternately, the applicant may apply for a new CUP as opposed to an amendment. • See additional setbacks for three story buildings • The proposed Aquifer Recharge Protection Area does not appear to meet the general requirements nor design standards (BIMC 16.20.100) • Documentation of Kitsap Public Health District Concurrent Review is required for submittal of the land use application • Please be sure to address the Basic Site Plan requirements, including: o Please clearly delineate / dimension rights-of-way / access drives and include all proposals for modifications to rights-of-way / access drives (e.g. a gate to limit vehicular access on Ocean Drive) and clearly show traffic circulation (e.g. for service/delivery vehicles). o Depict the area within a 150-foot radius of the property. o Depict critical areas and their setbacks: Label top/toe of slopes greater than 15 percent and top/toe of slopes 40 percent or greater and dimension prescriptive setbacks and any proposed modifications. Please depict off-site critical areas with setbacks that encumber the site. Please extend the topographic lines off-site in a manner that allows staff to evaluate geologic hazard areas and their setbacks for consistency with critical area regulations. o Delineate and dimension existing areas of native vegetation. o Clearly indicate, for the entire site, all existing significant trees (e.g. with a general legend). Page 3 of 8 o Depict existing (e.g. from the prior conditional use permits) and proposed vegetation protection areas (e.g. “no-build zones”, perimeter and roadside landscape buffers, designated wildlife corridors) Please note that information provided at the pre-application conference and in this letter reflects existing codes and standards, currently available information about the site and environs, and the level of detail provided in the pre-application conference submittal. Comments provided pursuant to pre-application 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. While we have attempted to cover as many of the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire related aspects of your proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your land use permit application may reveal issues not identified during this initial review. If the City’s pre-application review indicates that the City intends to recommend or impose one or more conditions of permit approval, and if the applicant objects to any of said conditions, the applicant is hereby requested and advised to provide written notice to the City of which conditions the applicant objects to and the reasons for the applicant’s objections. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or the staff members that attended the conference, in the event you have any questions: Contact information is provided at the bottom of the attached checklist. Sincerely, Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner 206.780.3737 ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov cc: Justin Younker justin@cascadiadevelopment.com Page 4 of 8 General Information Pre-Application Conference Date: September 1, 2020 Project Name and Number: Messenger House Phase 2 PLN51717 Project Description: “Project is to remodel existing 1917 Building (interior and limited exterior restoration work) and replace existing 1 story skilled nursing wing (46 beds) with three story assisted living-independent- living facility (46 beds). No increase in parking is anticipated.” Project Address: 10861 Manitou Park Blvd Tax Parcel Number: 4156-002-005-0203 / 4156-002-007-0003 Lot Size: 6.37 acres / .64 acres Total 7.01 acres Zoning / Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-2 District / Residential-2 City Project Manager: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov 206.780.3787 Land Use Review Process Required Land Use Application / Review Within 28 days after receiving a land use permit application the applicant will receive Notice of Complete Application, or Notice of Incomplete Application which identifies what is necessary to make the application complete. Application timeframes are found in BIMC 2.16.020 Review / Permit Process Recommendation / Decision Fee $ Preapplication Design Review Board* Conceptual & Design Guidance Completed N/A 250.00 Public Participation Meeting* Completed N/A 250.00 Preapplication Conference Completed See Summary Letter 1,000.00 Site Plan and Design Review (Major) + BIMC 2.16.040 DRB & Planning Commission / PCD Director 8,586.00 Variance? BIMC 2.16.060/120 Boundary Line Adjustment + BIMC 2.16.090 / PCD Director 954.00 Conditional Use Permit – Major Adjustment + BIMC 2.16.110 DRB & Planning Commission & PCD Director / Hearing Examiner 2,160.00 Shoreline permit or exemption? * One-time fee due with preapplication or prior to application submittal + Please note the provisions for consolidated review of permits in BIMC 16.20.170 Page 5 of 8 A consolidated project permit application shall follow the application and notice procedure that results in the most extensive review and decision process. The fee for consolidated review is the highest permit applied for plus one-third of all other applications. To Submit Application • You may schedule application submittal appointment by following this link to Online Appointments • If you have any questions about the appointment, please contact the Planning Technician at 206.780.3770. • Please be prepared to submit all information identified in the Administrative Manual for Land Use Permits along with any submittal documents identified in this summary letter to avoid having to reschedule the submittal appointment. • Please let the Planning Technician know whether the applicant is opting for consolidated permit review. • Additional required plans, studies, reports, and any other requirements for application submittal / complete application: o Master Land Use Application o SEPA checklist o Site Specific Evaluation of Total Impact on Tree Coverage BIMC 18.15.010.G.3 o Include trash / recycling areas and outdoor structures / equipment, whether on the ground or on the rooftop or otherwise attached to a building, including fences and exterior walls, on the site plan. o Exterior lighting plans o Parking documentation BIMC Table 18.15.020-1 Municipal Code Requirements Critical Areas BIMC 16.20 • Aquifer Recharge Areas BIMC 16.20.100 An Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) is required. The proposed Aquifer Recharge Protection Area does not appear to meet the general requirements nor design standards • Geologically Hazardous Areas BIMC 16.20.130 o A Hazards Assessment is advised and may be required – see Development Engineer comment o Landslide Hazard Areas include any area with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of competent consolidated rock. o Standard Setbacks BIMC 16.20.130.E.4 o Zone of Influence BIMC 16.20.130.E.7 A zone of influence shall be established 300 feet upslope from slopes greater than 40% and 200 feet upslope from slopes greater than 15% but less than 40% that are determined to be geologically hazardous areas to assess changes in land use and hydrology that may affect the stability of the geologically hazardous area. Protection of Landmark Trees BIMC 16.32 N/A – outside Winslow Master Plan Study Area Page 6 of 8 Dimensional Standards BIMC 18.12 • Tables of Dimensional Standards BIMC 18.12.020 see BIMC Table 18.12.020-2 o Lot Coverage - 10% of the Lot Area (Health Care facility in R-2 is limited to 50% of standard) o Setbacks ▪ Front Lot Line Setback - 25 feet Add 4 feet for each story over two stories ❖ “Front lot line” means the lot line abutting any street. ❖ “Street” means a public way of travel that affords the principal means of access to abutting properties or a private way of travel that affords the principal means of access to four or more lots or to property that is, under existing laws, capable of division into four or more lots. ▪ Side Lot Line Setback - 5 feet minimum, 15 feet total Add 5 feet on each side, and 10 feet to the total setback for each story over two stories. If there is only one side yard, it is increased by 5 feet for each story over two. ▪ Rear Lot Line Setback - 15 feet Add 4 feet for each story over two stories o Building Height - 30 feet / Bonus height of 35 feet for Nonresidential Uses If Conditional Use Permit conditions are met – see Rules of Measurement for height calculation • Modifications to required setbacks and height BIMC 18.12.040 • Rules of Measurement BIMC 18.12.050 Development Standards and Guidelines BIMC 18.15 • Landscaping, Screening and Tree Retention, Protection and Replacement BIMC 18.15.010 o Tree Retention, Protection and Replacement BIMC 18.15.010.C: For nonresidential uses, the intent is to retain the natural landscape qualities of the Island by retaining existing vegetated buffers to screen views of structures and parking areas and to buffer between areas of high and low intensity uses. o Perimeter Buffering and Screening BIMC 18.15.010.D Full Screen 25’ minimum width BIMC Table 18.15.010-3 o Full Screen requirements BIMC 18.15.010.D.4 o Street Frontage Landscaping BIMC 18.15.010.E Partial Screen 25’ width / 15’ minimum / BIMC Table 18.15.010-4 o Parking Lot Landscaping BIMC 18.15.010.F.1 See tree, shrub and groundcover requirements based on location of parking lots in relation to buildings / right-of-way. o Total Site Tree Unit Requirements BIMC 18.15.010.G / BIMC Table 18.15.010-5 ▪ Provide same number of tree units after redevelopment as before or provide 40 tree units per acre (the choice is the applicant’s). ▪ Site Specific Evaluation of Total Impact on Tree Coverage BIMC 18.15.010.G.3 Page 7 of 8 ❖ Identify and survey all trees to be retained ❖ Provide valuation of all trees required to be retained using the valuation standards of the International Society of Arboriculture. ❖ If providing the same number of units after redevelopment as before, identify species and DBH of trees to be removed. ❖ If providing the same number of units after redevelopment as before, do not count existing or new trees in roadside and perimeter buffers and critical area setbacks areas in the pre-development or post-development calculation. o Planting, Irrigation, and Maintenance Requirements BIMC 18.15.010 H – J o Screening for trash dumpsters, outdoor equipment, loading docks o See also the Administrative Manual for Land Use Permits (p.8/9) for detailed information regarding landscape / planting plans and tree valuation. • Parking and Loading BIMC 18.15.020 o General Requirements BIMC 18.15.020.B o Number of Automobile Spaces Required BIMC Table 18.15.020-1 A number of spaces adequate to accommodate the peak shift as determined by the Director based on information submitted by the applicant: 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. o Location of Spaces BIMC 18.15.020.D ▪ Parking is encouraged to be located behind, to the side, or under buildings ▪ Parking spaces and driving aisles serving adjacent parking spaces shall not be located within required front, rear or side setbacks. o Parking Space Design Standards BIMC Table 18.15.020-3 o Mobility and Access (including bicycle facilities) BIMC 18.15.030 o Outdoor Lighting BIMC 18.15.040 o Signs BIMC 18.15.050 BIMC 18.18.030 – Design Standards and Guidelines Design Review Manual Design for Bainbridge Worksheet The intent of the historic preservation commission’s review is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to perform work that is consistent with the property’s historic character so as to not foreclose a future prospect of adding the property to the local register. The historic preservation commission provides these comments and suggestions through their review of a building permit application. BIMC 18.24 – Historic Preservation Program The intent of the historic preservation commission’s review is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to perform work that is consistent with the property’s historic character so as to not foreclose a future prospect of adding the property to the local register. Department/Agency Comments Public Works Department Comment: Page 8 of 8 Development Engineer Paul Nylund provided comment during the conference. Please contact him directly for written comment. Mr. Nylund can be reached at 206.780.3783 or pnylund@bainbridgewa.gov and Mr. Corelis can be reached at 206.780.3759 or pcorelis@bainbridgewa.gov Building Division: Building Official Todd Cunningham 206.780-3755 or tcunningham@bainbridgewa.gov or Bainbridge Island Fire District Comment: Deputy Fire Marshal Jackie Purviance provided comment during the conference and the attached comment and can be reached at 206.842.7686 or jpurviance@bifd.org E x h i b i t 4 Exhibit 4A CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 280 Madison Ave N, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: 206-780-3750 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Messenger House Phase 2 APPLICATION RECEIVED: November 25, 2020 PLN51717 SPR / CUPA PERMIT NUMBER: APPLICANT: Charles Wenzlau , CASCADIA HOLDINGS BAINBRIDGE LLC 4120 ENGLEWOOD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 OWNER: PROJECT MANAGER: Kelly Tayara New 46 bed health care facility with assisted and independent living units. Proposed new addition will replace existing skilled nursing facility which will be demoli shed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: 10861 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND DATE DETERMINATION MAILED: December 21, 2020 TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED: See attached – Please schedule an appointment with the permit technician and to submit the requested documents, along with the required revision form. Land Use Permit Revision Appointment Revision to a Permit Application Please note: Please submit the information requested within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in cancelation of the application in accordance with the following provision: BIMC 2.16.020.J.3. Voiding the application due to inactivity. A land use application, whether determined to be complete or incomplete, for which approval has not been granted, may be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to respond to the department's written request for revisions, corrections, or additional information within 60 days of the request. The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time per iod the applicant provides and subsequently adheres to an approved schedule within specific target dates for submitting the full revisions, corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department. (ORD 2004-12 § 1, 2004) Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. I may be reached by telephone at 206 -780-3750 (Main) 206-780-3787 (Direct) or email pcd@bainbridgewa.gov (Main) ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov(Direct). Sincerely, Kelly Tayara Senior Planner Exhibit 5 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 SEPA is missing signature See p. 3 below for missing elements I’m not able to read the utilities plans – the uploaded copy is too blurry See p. 5 below for missing element Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 It is fine to just show this on the civil plan, but the uploaded civil plan is too blurry to read The existing native vegetation must shown on the plan. There is no site plan with existing conditions / accurate depiction of existing vegetation (e.g. On L-05 treees 401-403 are both native and significant). ARPA standards include: “Healthy, existing trees and vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible” Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 The uploaded civil plan is too blurry to read – please just make sure all of these elements are present Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 Messenger House PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submittal: 11/25/2020 Incomplete application: 12/21/2020 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 280 Madison Ave N, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: 206-780-3750 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal Notice of Complete Application/ Information Request March 25, 2021 WENZLAU ARCHITECTS 490 MADISON AVENUE NORTH #105 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA Re: Site Plan Review File Name: Messenger House Phase 2 File Number: PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Submitted: November 25, 2020 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. The following additional information is requested at this time. Please schedule an appointment with the permit technician and to submit the requested documents, along with the required revision form. Land Use Permit Revision Appointment Revision to a Permit Application A. Terms, conditions, covenants and agreements under which the subject property is bound (e.g. from prior unclassified use permit and conditional use permit) B. Site Plan (revised) with the following elements: 1.Critical areas and their buffers and setbacks: Dimension required buffers / setbacks and any proposed modifications. Label top/toe of slopes greater than 15 percent and top/toe of slopes 40% or greater 2.Dimension existing areas of native vegetation 3.Document the ARPA development standards in BIMC 16.20.100 4.Area of disturbance: Separately delineate and dimension earth disturbance areas Please note: Please submit the information requested within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in cancelation of the application in accordance with the following provision: BIMC 2.16.020.J.3. Voiding the application due to inactivity. A land use application, whether determined to be complete or incomplete, for which approval has not been granted, may be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to respond to the department's written request for revisions, corrections, or additional Exhibit 6 information within 60 days of the request. The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time period the applicant provides and subsequently adheres to an approved schedule within specific target dates for submitting the full revisions, corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department. (ORD 2004-12 § 1, 2004) 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. Administrative staff will contact you when the notice boards are prepared. Correspondence concerning this application should reference both the file number and file name shown above. Thank you, Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner / Project Manager ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov 206-780-3787 NOTICE OF APPLICATION / SEPA COMMENT PERIOD / HEARING The City of Bainbridge has received an application for the following project. The public has the right to view and request copies of the official file, provide written comments, and participate in any public meetings or hearings. This notice is posted at the project site, on City Hall kiosks, on the City website, mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and contiguous properties under the same ownership, and published in the Bainbridge Island Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace a one-story building wing with a 52,460 sq ft three-story building to serve a health care facility which was previously approved through a Conditional Use Permit PROJECT NAME: Messenger House Phase 2 PROJECT NUMBER: PLN51717 SPR/CUPA PERMIT TYPE: Site Plan and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Amendment TAX PARCEL: 41560020050203 / 41560020070003 PROJECT SITE: 10861 NE Manitou Park Blvd DATE SUBMITTED: November 25, 2020 DATE COMPLETE: March 25, 2021 DATE NOTICED: April 2, 2021 COMMENT PERIOD: 14 Days Comments must be submitted no later than 4:00pm on Friday, April 16, 2021. Public comments may be mailed, emailed or personally delivered to the City using the staff name and contact information provided on this notice. The City will not act on the application before the comment period has ended. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner pcd@bainbridgewa.gov or (206) 780-3780 PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Date June 24, 2021 at 10:00 am Hearings are generally held at Bainbridge Island City Hall, Council Chambers, 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, but may be remote (e.g. via Zoom). Hearing schedule updates may be viewed using this link https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/434/Hearing-Examiner PROJECT DOCUMENTS: PLN51717 SPR / CUPA To view 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 number. Public records requests may be made through the Open Public Records Portal https://bainbridgewa.nextrequest.com/ Instructions for alternate request methods are here https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/243/Public-Records-Requests Subject Properties Exhibit 7 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, has reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and 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 EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the proposal may be obtained upon request. REQUIRED PERMITS: STUDIES / ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Site Plan and Design Review; Conditional Use Permit Amendment; Building Permit Geotechnical Engineering Report DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS USED FOR PROJECT MITIGATION DECISION PROCESS: Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, Design and Construction Standards, Comprehensive Plan The land use application requires a quasi-judicial decision by a hearing examiner pursuant to BIMC 2.16.010 and requires a public hearing pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020. 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. PLN51717 SPR CUPA Messenger House April 2, 2021 Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip AKENSON TRACY L & MILTON J 10821 SUNSET RIDGE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92131 ANTONOVITZ FRANCES A 10768 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BAHIA AZUL LLC PO BOX 4783 ROLLINGBAY WA 98061 BANG KNUDSEN PETER & JILL PO BOX 10568 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-0568 BJORNSON TERRY L & KLIMEK PATRICIA L 10980 FALK RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BLANK OSCAR THEODORE & EMILY 10738 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BOCKUS DAWN E 10994 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BOGRAND JENINE & TYRRELL KENNETH 10989 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1356 BORG ERIKA & REICHER MICHAEL 10744 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BRINKMANN ANNA K 11071 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1375 BULL GREGORY WILLIAM & CHRISTINE ELISE TRUSTEES10658 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 CAMERON RICHARD W TRUSTEE 11059 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3393 CAMERON RICHARD W TRUSTEE 11059 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3393 CASCADIA HOLDINGS BAINBRIDGE LLC 4120 ENGLEWOOD AVE YAKIMA WA 98908 CHAPMAN DONALD RESIDENCE TRUST 4210 MUIRFIELD CIR PRESTO PA 15142 CLAPS MATTHEW C & PROCTOR BRILEY 11021 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3373 CLARE MARY C PO BOX 4658 ROLLING BAY WA 98061-0658 COLEMAN MICHAEL LAWRENCE 10717 MANITOU PARK BLVD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 CONROY WILLIAM R CO 10313 RAVENNA AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98125 COUSINS NINA L & ROBERT F 11027 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3373 DMB HOLDINGS LLC 929 108TH AVE NE STE 1200 BELLEVUE WA 98004-4787 DONBECK JOHN P & PATRICIA K 10985 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1356 DOW EVERETT J 1012 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE DUNEDIN FL 34698-5054 DUFRESNE MARGARET A 3866 NE STATE HIGHWAY 104 POULSBO WA 98370-6825 DUNNING ADIN 10705 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1336 GERAGHTY JOAN C PO BOX 11166 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 GIBSON DAVID LEWIS & CHERYL 10883 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 GRANSTROM PETER M & SUZANNE E 10871 MANITOU BEACH DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 GREENBERG ROLLING BAY LLC 3053 NE 97TH ST SEATTLE WA 98115 HADDON MARGARET J 1501 35TH AVE SW MINOT ND 58701 HARM DAVID WILLIAM &10810 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 HOFFMANN MARY K 10971 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3372 HOWELL DANIEL JOAQUIN & NAOKA NAKANO 10834 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 Exhibit 7A PLN51717 SPR CUPA Messenger House April 2, 2021 Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip IRISH SUSAN I 10745 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 JENNESS ROBERT 10661 MANITOU PARK BLVD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 JOMOJO HAWAII LLC 4823 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE STE 2 KIRKLAND WA 98033 JONES TERRY L & YUND WALTER J 10901 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 KARCH MARGARET RUTH &10799 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 KAWAGUCHI GLEN H & FIEDLER CAROL A 11117 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3374 KIERKEGAARDE ELISABETH J &10798 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1336 KOBE LAURA J & THOMAS G 12434 AMBAUM BLVD SW APT 202 BURIEN WA 98146 KULISH MICHAEL & MARY PO BOX 65 KINGSTON WA 98346-0065 LARSON FREEMAN THEODORE J & SANDRA J 10844 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3371 LESSER JOHN R & JULIE K 10756 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 LOCKE LAUREN JANE & SEARS FREDERICK J 16410 AGATE POINT RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 LOZIER PAUL F 11056 NE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1331 LUKA VINCENT 825 BLAIR AVE APT 3 SUNNYVALE CA 94087-1107 MAIER DAVID R & PAULA R TRUSTEES 11010 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 MAIER WILLIAM S 11027 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 MANITOU BEACH LLC PO BOX 1825 SEATTLE WA 98111 MARTIN CHRISSIE 1300 NE PAULSON POULSBO WA 98370 MAXWELL MARK & GUINEVERE K 11153 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 MCNAMEE-CORBETT ANNE M 10705 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1336 MILLER FRANK & JANICE 11048 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 MILLER ROBERT PO BOX 1825 SEATTLE WA 98111 MIMS BI LLC 10893 MAIDEN LN NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1520 NEILS JULIUS J & ALYSON M 10638 MANITOU PK BLVD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3375 NELSON MICHAEL & CHERYL 11122 MANITOU BEACH DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 NETT CHEWELAH & FRITCHMAN BRUCE PO BOX 4795 ROLLING BAY WA 98061-0795 NETT EMILY M & NETT CHEWELAH PO BOX 4795 ROLLINGBAY WA 98061-0795 NGHIEM DAVID K & KIRSTEN 10784 FALK RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 NOWADNICK JAMES R & CAROLYN G PO BOX 4609 ROLLING BAY WA 98061 OMG LLC 7023 BROOKLYN AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98155 OOSTERVELD JAN & THERESA 7080 LONG LAKE RD SE PORT ORCHARD WA 98367 PARKER MARY L PO BOX 4728 ROLLING BAY WA 98061-0728 PERRY S & K 10734 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3370 PLN51717 SPR CUPA Messenger House April 2, 2021 Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip PETERSEN DANIEL WILLIAM & SANDRA LEE 11008 NE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 PHELPS DANIEL J & AZURAE P 10773 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 PRONGAY D M & JOAN 10652 MANITOU PK BLVD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3375 REINHALTER GOVINDA R &10741 NE VALLEY RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-4325 REISSIG MARC W & BRUNNER KRISTIN L 11015 MANITOU BEACH RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 REJZEK EDWARD V & CICHOWSKI RACHEL A 5226 38TH AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98105-3034 ROLAND O BJORNSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST PO BOX 155 ROLLINGBAY WA 98061-0155 ROLLING BAY LAND CO LLC PO BOX 4713 ROLLINGBAY WA 98061 ROSENBERG LESLIE A 11064 NE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 RUYS THEODORUS & OGA FMLY LTD PSHP 10726 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 SCHMID CHARLES &10677 MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3375 SHATZEL ALAN J JR & WEI SHATZEL JULIE PO BOX 1067 FORESTHILL CA 95631-1067 SHEETS KRISTIN A & THIMGAN MATTHEW D 11040 NE MOUNTAIN VIEW RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1331 SHEPHERD BLAINE NELP 10750 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1336 SINGEL MARCUS J & NADINE 11077 EVVIE LN LAS VEGAS NV 89135-7837 SNAGOVSKY PAVEL & TIMME MELISSA 10790 FALK RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 SPRINKLE DAVID 10891 MANITOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 STATE OF WA DNR PO BOX 47027 OLYMPIA WA 98504 STEARNS LELAND & SHARON 11025 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 STOCK MICHAEL & HELLSTROM LORI 1139 DETROIT ST DENVER CO 80206 SWEENY DANIEL N & ALISON C 11060 FALK RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 THEODORUS & OLGA RUYS FAMILY LP 10726 MAINTOU BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 VITTIG GORDON & RIVAS VITTIG SIENNA M 11149 ROLLING BAY WALK N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WAGNER MARK D & SUZANNE D 10672 MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WALTHALL JOHN 11172 ROLLING BAY WALK NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WILLEMS BRENT K TRUSTEE 10822 MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WOOTEN EMILY & GARZA ALEXANDER III 10788 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1336 WORTLEY JEFFREY S & NICOLE A 5250 NE OLD MILL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3135 WYMAN CHRISTOPHER W & MELANIE A 10716 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WYMAN ROBERT D & PATRICIA W 10702 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 Notice of Application (NOA) Permit Number: PLN51717 SPR CUPA Project Name: Messenger House Phase 2 Publication Date: April 2, 2021 Comment period ends 14 days from the publication date. Comments can be submitted to pcd@bainbridgewa.gov. Dear Property Owner: This is to notify you that the City of Bainbridge Island has received a Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing for a location in your neighborhood. Site Location: 10861 NE Manitou Park Blvd Project Description: Replace a one-story building with a 52,460 sq ft three-story building to serve a health care facility which was previously approved through a Conditional Use Permit. For more information on this project or to view the published legal notice, visit our website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/433/Proposed-Land-Use-Actions To request a paper copy of this notice, you can: > Call us at 206.780.3750 > Email us at pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Staff Contact: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner (206) 780-3780 Exhibit 7B AKENSON TRACY L & MILTON J 10821 Sunset Ridge Dr San Diego, CA 92131-2393 City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812 PRESORTED FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID C2M LLC 22202 Notice of Application (NOA) Permit Number: PLN51717 SPR CUPA Project Name: Messenger House Phase 2 Publication Date: April 2, 2021 Comment period ends 14 days from the publication date. Comments can be submitted to pcd@bainbridgewa.gov. Dear Property Owner: This is to notify you that the City of Bainbridge Island has received a Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing for a location in your neighborhood. Site Location: 10861 NE Manitou Park Blvd Project Description: Replace a one-story building with a 52,460 sq ft three-story building to serve a health care facility which was previously approved through a Conditional Use Permit. For more information on this project or to view the published legal notice, visit our website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/433/Proposed-Land-Use-Actions To request a paper copy of this notice, you can: > Call us at 206.780.3750 > Email us at pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Staff Contact: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner (206) 780-3780 MAIER WILLIAM S 11027 Rolling Bay Walk NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-3393 City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812 PRESORTED FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID C2M LLC 22202 Notice of Application (NOA) Permit Number: PLN51717 SPR CUPA Project Name: Messenger House Phase 2 Publication Date: April 2, 2021 Comment period ends 14 days from the publication date. Comments can be submitted to pcd@bainbridgewa.gov. Dear Property Owner: This is to notify you that the City of Bainbridge Island has received a Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period/Hearing for a location in your neighborhood. Site Location: 10861 NE Manitou Park Blvd Project Description: Replace a one-story building with a 52,460 sq ft three-story building to serve a health care facility which was previously approved through a Conditional Use Permit. For more information on this project or to view the published legal notice, visit our website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/433/Proposed-Land-Use-Actions To request a paper copy of this notice, you can: > Call us at 206.780.3750 > Email us at pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Staff Contact: Kelly Tayara, Senior Planner (206) 780-3780 WYMAN ROBERT D & PATRICIA W 10702 NE Manitou Park Blvd Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1336 City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812 PRESORTED FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID C2M LLC 22202 Accounts Payable Approval Stamp Amount approved for payment: Reviewed by (e-sign): Approved by (e-sign): Date Approved (mm/dd/yyyy): ORG: OBJ: PRJ: Contract #: PO#: Rev. 04/01/20 CEM For Internal Use Only Received by: _____________________________ Comments or Questions: _____________________________ _____________________________ Initial if unable to e-sign: Initial if uable to e-sign: Vendor Name:Vendor Number: (If Available) Exhibit 7C Leg a l Inv o ic e Date:04/02/2021 sagest9es pa ssnear ess eaasassarvae s ssaascaassas sassassaaer ss acaaaesas sereaar aascz ssan.sMa ssauaaraa sees gee S ound Publishing,Inc. Unit Attn:AIR PO B ox 930 E verett WA 98206-0930 Bill To: City of Bainbridge Island-LEGALS 280 Madison A ve N B ainbridge Island WA 98110 Legal Description:City Notices Desc:PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Ordered By:CARLA LUNDGREN Issues Ordered:1 Bainbridge Island Review Customer Account #:80604980 Legal Description:BIR923372 Legal#:BIR923372 Ad Cost:$76.80 Published:Bainbridge Island Review Start Date:04/02/2021 End Date:04/02/2021 Due:$76.80 1-800-485-4920 City of Bainbridge Island-LEGALS 280 Madison Ave N Bainbridge Island WA 98110 Account#:80604980 Invoice#:BIR923372 Due:$76.80 Bainbridge Island Review Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Kitsap }ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn,upon oath deposes and says:that he/she is the legal representative of the Bainbridge Island Review a weekly newspaper.The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Kitsap County,Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Bainbridge Island Review and is of general circulation in said County,and is a legal newspaper,in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921,as amended by Chapter 213,Laws of 1941,and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Kitsap County,State of Washington,by order dated June 16,1941,and that the annexed is a true copy of BIR923372 P LN51717 SP R/CUPA as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of l issue(s),such publication comm encing on 04/02/2021 and ending on 04/02/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. ISTheamountofthe $76.80.b Subscrib~and sworn 2 rs 22- =iiNotaryPublicinandfort= Washington. City ofBainbri dge Island-LEGALS [80604980 CARL A L UNDGREN Classified Proof N O TI C E O F APPLIC AT I O N N o t ice is h e re b y g iv e n tha t the C ity o f Ba in - b rid g e Isla n d Pla n n in g & C om mu nity D e ve lop- me n t h a s re ce ive d a N o - tice of Application /SEP A C o mm e n t Pe ri o d/H e ar - in g for t h e f o ll o w in g d e - vel o p men t p ro p o sal(s). Pro je ct N ame:Me ssen - g e r H o u se Pha se 2 Pro - je ct N um ber :PL N 5 1 7 1 7 SPRIC U PASite L o ca - tion :1 0 8 6 1 NE Ma n ito u Pa rk Blv d Pro je ct D e - script io n :R ep la ce o n e - st o ry b u ild in g w in g w it h 5 2,4 6 0 sq ft t h re e -st o ry b u ild in g T e n t a t ive Pu b lic H e a rin g D a t e /T ime : June 2 4,2 0 2 1 @ 1 0 :0 0 A4M L o catio n of H e a rin g :O n lin e via Z o o - mC O BI St a ff Pla n n e r:K elly T a yar a An y p e rso n ma y co m- me n t on the p ropo se d app lica tion and /o r re - q u e st a co p y o f any d e - cisio n .O n ly p e rso n s o f re co rd ma y a p pe a l t h e d e cisi o n .C on t a ct the G O BI St a ff Pla n n e r list - e d a b o ve w ith q u e stio n s, co n ce rn s a n d /o r a re - q u e st to re ce ive f u rt h e r n o t ice in re f e re n ce t o th is p ro je ct.Comments must besubmittednolaterthan4:00pm on Friday, April 16,2021.C om- me n t s ca n be su b mitt e d to p cd @b a in b ri d g e - w a .g o y o r Pla n n in g & C o mmu n it y D e ve lo p - men t -2 8 0 Ma di so n Ave N ,Ba in b rid g e Isla n d , WA 98110. F o r more in fo rmatio n o n t h is p ro je ct o r t o vie w t h e p u b lish e d le g a l n o t ice , visit h tt p s://www .b a in - b rid g e w a .g o v/4 3 3 /Pro - p o se d -L a n d -U se -Ac- t io n s. Proofed b y Sheppard,D i cy ,04/02/2021 09:19:04 am Page:2 Classified Pro o f Proofed by Sheppard,Dicy,04/02/2021 09:19:04 am D a te o f first p u b lica tio n : April 2,2021 D a te o f la st p u b lica tio n : April 2,2021 (BIR ) Page:3 Exhibit 7D Exhibit 7E CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST - UPDATED 2014 FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: [help] This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: [help] For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. Department of Planning and Community Development 280 Madison Avenue North • Bainbridge Island, WA • 98110-1812 Phone: (206) 842-2552 • Fax: (206) 780-0955 • Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY BEFORE FILLING OUT THE CHECKLIST Exhibit 8 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 2 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY A. background [help] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: [help] Messenger House Phase 2 2. Name of applicant: [help] Charles Wenzlau – Wenzlau Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: [help] 490 Madison Ave. North Suite 105, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-780-6882 Contact: Charles Wenzlau 4. Date checklist prepared: [help] November 24, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: [help] City of Bainbridge Island 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): [help] Construction completion around Spring/Summer of 2022 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. [help] NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. [help] Geotech Report, Traffic Impact Analysis 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. [help] None known CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 3 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. [help] Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Boundary Line Adjustment, Building Permit, Clearing and Grading Permit, Ecology Construction Stormwater Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) [help] Project consists of a new 46 bed health care facility which contains assisted and independent living units. Proposed new addition will replace existing skilled nursing facility to be demolished. Exiting parking spaces will remain unchanged. Project site is approx. 7 acres. Current use was approved under prior CUP. New addition is floor area 52,460sf. Total area for existing area plus proposed addition is 93,255sf. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. [help] MANITOU PARK #4156-002-005-0203 RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9511130231; >>THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 2, 3 AND 5 OF THE PLAT OF MANITOU PARK, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 31, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD NE, S65*33'10 E 1033.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, N65*33'10 W 436.93 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, S0*30'24 W 137.00 FEET; THENCE S46*23'02 W 97.51 FEET; THENCE S0*30'24 W 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE N MANITOU PARK #4156-002-007-003 RESULTANT PARCEL B OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9511130231; A PORTION OF BLOCKS 3 & 5 PLAT OF MANITOU PARK, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 31, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, LYING WITHIN SECTION 14, TOWNSHP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:>> BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 OF SAID MANITOU PARK; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW BOULEVARD, S65*33'10 E 596.57 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, S00*30'24 W 440.00 FEET; THENCE S75*04'47 E 301.14 FEET; THENCE S75*04'47 E 29.37 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 4 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE S53*11'54 W 63.66 FEET; THENCE S26*18'12 W 65.30 FEET; THENCE S43*05'10 E 172 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [help] 1. Earth a. General description of the site [help] (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 5 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? [help] Site is generally flat with 10% slope on easterly portion. Small areas exceed 15% slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. [help] See Aspect geotechnical report dated June 20,2020. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. [help] See Aspect geotechnical report dated June 20,2020. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [help] Excavation is limited to foundation installation. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. [help] Yes, erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction, but not use, as the site will be stabilized prior to use. Best Management Practices will be designed and implemented during construction to minimize the risk of turbid water and sediments leaving the site. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? [help] Total impervious area = 33%. LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 6 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: [help] A detailed erosion control plan will be developed during design and implemented during construction. The plan will include best management practices to provide a stabilized construction access, stabilization of disturbed soils, prevent offsite movement of sediment by trapping and perimeter fencing, and schedule construction to minimize erosion potential. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. [help] Emissions from construction equipment in unknown quantities. Some additional dust prior to stabilization of soil on site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. [help] None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: [help] Construction equipment will be well maintained, and dust control measures will be taken to reduce dust. 3. Water a. Surface Water: [help] 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. [help] Project will continue to utilize existing stormwater conveyance facilities which discharge directly to Puget Sound is approximately 400 feet to the east of the new Assisted Living building. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 7 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 8 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. [help] No work is proposed within 200 feet of the shoreline 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. [help] None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. [help] No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. [help] No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. [help] No CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 9 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. [help] No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. [help] None. All waste will be discharged into private on-site sewer system. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. [help] Runoff from the proposed building rooftop, the modified fire lane, and the revised service entrance will be collected and conveyed to the existing stormwater system which serves the site and discharges directly to Puget Sound. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. [help] No CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 10 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with Minimum Requirements #1-#9 of the 2012 Ecology SMMWW, as amended in 2014, and comply with BIMC 15.20. The final construction plans will specify BMP’s where determined feasible for the new and replaced hard surface areas as well as the site disturbed areas, and be reviewed and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island prior to any site disturbance. 4. Plants [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: [help] x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? [help] Vegetation will be removed where in direct proximity to proposed new building. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] None known CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 11 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: [help] New plantings will include native species and regionally adapted ornamental species. The former will be planted to supplement more natural areas and provide screening as required by City code. The latter will be planted near the new building and within main open space. Specifically, the landscape for this site has been defined by various planting categories and contains prescriptions for planting in each as found in BIMC Section 18.15.010. These categories include the Perimeter Full Screen Planting, Parking Lot Landscaping and Street Frontage Landscaping. In each of these categories native vegetation, drought resistant plant material, and adapted ornamentals will be specified to promote plant establishment, increase the likelihood of long-term planting success, reduce water consumption, and promote habitat. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed, or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: [help] birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other : Songbirds and raptors are likely to use the site. Small urban-adapted mammals such as racoon, opossum, coyote and rodents are also likely to use the site. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. [help] Not known d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: [help] Use of native planting and enhancements to proposed infiltration swale. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 12 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 13 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. [help] Electric, propane b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. [help] No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: [help] Building envelope will be built to code combined with other energy conservation strategies, including LED lighting, low use water fixtures and energy efficient appliances. Site will include an electric vehicle charging station and bicycle parking. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. [help] None 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 14 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY vicinity. None 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? [help] Traffic, neighboring business operations 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. [help] Traffic, Equipment operation, construction 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: [help] Construction noise (operation hours to be limited) would occur as a short- term noise issue. Long-term noise types would include auto traffic & landscape maintenance. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. [help] CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 15 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Project site has been continuously developed since early 1900s. The site has 2 existing buildings; the health care facility and a caretaker’s house. Site is surrounded by single family residences and wooded areas (to the west). Project intensity will remain unchanged from prior use as health care facility. Potential visual impacts impacts may be due to added building height. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? [help] No. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. c. Describe any structures on the site. [help] There are 2 existing buildings; health care facility and caretakers house. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? [help] Caretakers house may be removed since it is in poor condition. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? [help] R-2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? [help] R-2 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? [help] N/A CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 16 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. [help] A portion of the project site has slopes exceeding 15%. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? [help] 95 residents plus 12 staff j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? [help] None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: [help] None L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: [help] Comply with existing land use regulations and design guidelines. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. [help] None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. [help] CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 17 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: [help] None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? [help] 35ft. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? [help] No views would be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: [help] Project is designed to comply with COBI design guidelines. A variety of building forms and materials will help add variety and break up project scale. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? [help] Illumination from project site will occur at night due to interior lighting, site signage and outdoor lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? [help] No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? [help] None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: [help] All exterior lighting will comply with city’s dark sky guidelines to minimize light spill off-site and upward to sky. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 18 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? [help] Water access at Murden Cove b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. [help] No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: [help] Project site will have outdoor sitting areas, ADA compliant pathways, and outdoor recreation such as miniature gold, etc. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. [help] Yes. The Moran School (1917) and caretakers house (1936?). Applicant is currently pursuing local listing for Moran School building. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. [help] None known. A historic preservation report is in progress at this time. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 19 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. [help] A historic preservation report is in progress at this time. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Applicant proposes to restore portions of the 1917 building and have it placed on local register. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. [help] Site is served by three roads; Ocean Drive (west), Mountain View Road (north) and Manitou Park Blvd (east). b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? [help] Yes. Closest transit is along Manitou Beach Drive c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non- project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? [help] 71 spaces. No spaces will be eliminated d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). [help] Yes. Proposal includes new public pedestrian path between Ocean Drive and Manitou Park Blvd. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 20 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. [help] No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? [help] Refer to traffic study prepared by Heath Associates. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: [help] On site residents will have limited use of automobiles. Site will be served by local Access bus service. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. [help] No. There is no change in land use or intensity of use. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. [help] None CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 22 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [help] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This project will not discharge toxic or hazardous substances. Production of noise will increase due to construction of buildings and noise associated with normal uses. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Water quality treatment, storm water facilities and buffers. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No affect known CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 23 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Project will meet all required buffer protection and water quality requirements. Landscape planting will rely primarily on drought tolerant native plantings. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Buildings will use a variety of energy sources, including propane, electricity and water. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Energy consumption will be reduced due to compliance with state energy codes. Water consumption will be reduced due to use of drought tolerant plants and water conserving fixtures. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No use proposed. No affect known. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No measures proposed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No use proposed. No affect known. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) CHECKLIST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 24 of 21 UPDATED MAY 2014 LEFT COLUMN TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No measures proposed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Yes, due to commuting, health services, services associated with residential living. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Site is served by Kitsap Transit and will have bicycle parking facilities. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts known. MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE II Geotechnical Engineering Report Prepared for: Cascadia Senior Living & Fieldstone Communities Project No. 200104  June 22, 2020  FINAL e a r t h w a t e r + ppeecc tt C O N S U L T I N G Exhibit 9 earth +water Aspect Consulting, LLC 350 Madison Avenue N. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206.780.9370 www.aspectconsulting.com MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE II Geotechnical Engineering Report Prepared for: Cascadia Senior Living & Fieldstone Communities Project No. 200104  June 22, 2020  FINAL Aspect Consulting, LLC Andrew J. Holmson, PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer aholmson@aspectconsulting.com Mari Otto, EIT Project Engineer motto@aspectconsulting.com V:\200104 Messenger House Phase 2\Deliverables\Messenger House, Phase II - Geotech Report\Final\200104 Messenger House Phase 2_FINAL_20200622.docx 06/22/2020 ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL i i Contents 1 Project Description ..................................................................................... 1 2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 1 2.1 General Geology ........................................................................................ 2 2.2 Geologic Hazard Mapping .......................................................................... 2 2.3 Surface Conditions and Topography .......................................................... 2 2.4 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................... 3 2.4.1 Field Investigations by Aspect .............................................................. 3 2.4.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing by Aspect .......................................... 3 2.4.3 Previous On-Site Investigation .............................................................. 3 2.4.4 Soil Units .............................................................................................. 3 3 Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................ 5 3.1 Earthquake Engineering ............................................................................. 5 3.1.1 Ground Response................................................................................. 6 3.1.2 Surficial Ground Rupture ...................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Liquefaction .......................................................................................... 6 3.2 Landslide Hazards ...................................................................................... 7 4 Geotechnical Engineering Conclusions and Recommendations ........... 7 4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations ..................................................... 8 4.1.1 Minimum Footing Size and Embedment ............................................. 10 4.1.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure ................................................................ 10 4.1.3 Settlement .......................................................................................... 10 4.1.4 Lateral Resistance .............................................................................. 10 4.2 Concrete Slab-On-Grade .......................................................................... 10 4.3 Drainage Considerations .......................................................................... 11 4.4 Stormwater Infiltration ............................................................................... 11 4.5 Retaining Walls......................................................................................... 11 4.6 Earthwork Considerations ......................................................................... 12 4.6.1 Temporary Erosion Control ................................................................. 12 4.6.2 Subgrade Preparation ......................................................................... 12 4.6.3 Structural Fill ....................................................................................... 13 4.6.4 Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill ................................................... 13 4.6.5 Imported Structural Fill ........................................................................ 14 4.6.6 Compaction Requirements ................................................................. 14 4.6.7 Temporary Excavations and Slopes ................................................... 15 4.6.8 Permanent Slopes .............................................................................. 15 4.6.9 Wet Weather Construction .................................................................. 16 ASPECT CONSULTING ii FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 4.6.10 Construction Dewatering .................................................................... 16 5 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ................................. 17 5.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services ........................................... 17 5.2 Additional Construction Services .............................................................. 17 6 References ................................................................................................. 18 7 Limitations .................................................................................................. 20 List of Tables 1 Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................6 2 Depth to Bearing Stratum by Exploration ...................................................9 3 Temporary Excavation Cut Slope Recommendations .............................. 15 List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site and Exploration Map List of Appendices A Subsurface Explorations by Aspect B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing C Previous Geotechnical Report D Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 1 1 1 Project Description This report presents the results of Aspect Consulting, LLC’s (Aspect) geotechnical engineering evaluation in support of the Phase II improvements at the Messenger House Care Center (Project) at 10861 NE Manitou Park Boulevard, Bainbridge Island, Washington, Kitsap County Parcels 4156-002-005-0203 and 4156-002-007-00003 (Site). The Project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. Our understanding of the Project was derived through conversations with the Project architect, Wenzlau Architects, and review of a conceptual redevelopment plan. The Project will include the demolition and replacement of the existing south wing of Messenger House (built in 1986) with a new three-story building totaling approximately 60,000 square feet in area. The existing south wing is an above grade structure and the proposed replacement building will also be above grade. Existing Site features and the approximate footprint of the proposed building are shown on Figure 2. Exterior improvements for the Project will include new hardscapes including patios, covered plazas, entrances, fire pits, and sidewalks in the southern portion of the Site. The existing central wing (built in 1917) will undergo an interior remodel as part of the Project but will not change the structural footprint or include significant foundation alterations. No changes are proposed at the existing north wing (built in 1997). No significant cuts, fills, or retaining walls are planned for the Project. Aspect has completed a geotechnical engineering evaluation to inform the new building foundation and hardscapes design, provide a soil infiltration feasibility assessment, and satisfy the City’s requirements related to the redevelopment of the Site given mapped landslide hazard areas (a subset of critical areas) at the Site. Our scope of work included a literature review, subsurface explorations to characterize the shallow subsurface soil and groundwater conditions underlying the Site, geotechnical laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses and production of this report. Our work was completed in general accordance with our approved contract, authorized on March 23, 2020. 2 Site Conditions This section presents the Site conditions, including geologic setting, Site surface conditions, and subsurface conditions encountered in our field investigation program and previous field investigations. This information provides context for the discussion of types and distribution of geologic soil units and a basis for our geotechnical engineering recommendations. ASPECT CONSULTING 2 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 2.1 General Geology The Site is located within the Puget Lowland, a broad area of tectonic subsidence flanked by two mountain ranges: the Cascades to the east and the Olympics to the west. The sediments within the Puget Lowland are the result of repeated cycles of glacial and nonglacial deposition and erosion. The most recent cycle, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation (about 13,000 to 16,000 years ago), is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. During the Vashon Stade, the 1,000-foot-thick, Cordilleran Glacier advanced into the Puget Lowland. As the Cordilleran Glacier advanced southward, lacustrine and fluvial sediments were deposited in front of the glacier. Preglacial and proglacial sediments were overridden and consolidated by the advancing glacier, creating dense and hard soil deposits. At the interface between the advance soils and the glacial ice, the Cordilleran Glacier sculpted and smoothed the surface, and then deposited a consolidated basal till. As the Cordilleran Glacier retreated northward from Puget Lowlands to British Columbia, it left an unconsolidated sediment veneer over glacially consolidated deposits. The available geologic mapping (Haugerud, 2011) indicates that subsurface conditions at the Site consist of Pleistocene-age, Vashon till (Qvt). Vashon till is described as a matrix- supported, dense, sandy diamict composed of a mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. These sediments have been compressed and consolidated by glacial ice , creating a dense/hard configuration. 2.2 Geologic Hazard Mapping Portions of the Site are mapped as landslide hazard areas, a subset of critical areas, by the City of Bainbridge Island (COBI, 2018). The landslide hazard areas are categorized as 15 to 40 percent slopes (Moderate Slopes) and greater than 40 percent slopes (Steep Slopes). The mapped landslide hazard areas are shown on Figure 2. 2.3 Surface Conditions and Topography The Site is bordered by NE Ocean Drive at the south, Manitou Park Boulevard NE at the east, by residential parcels to the north, and by privately owned undeveloped land at the west. The Site is generally flat (0 to 5 percent inclinations) over the western half, moderately sloped (5 to15 percent) in the center, and steeply sloped (15 to 50 percent) in limited areas in the north and northeast portions of the Site. The Site includes an asphalt- paved parking lot and driveway at the southwest and three existing buildings (the “north wing”, “central wing” and “south wing”). The remainder of the Site is moderately vegetated with non-deciduous trees and landscaped areas, with some garden areas that are likely fed by rainfall. At the time of our Site visit (April 27, 2020), we observed no standing water or groundwater seepage at the Site or signs of erosion or slope instability such as tension cracks at the ground surface. Final grades around the existing structures appear to generally slope away from the structures such that surface water would drain away from the structures. Downspouts and roof drains connect to a substructure system; it was unclear where the outlets to these systems were. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 3 3 Based on historical aerial imagery and Site maps, a theater and house used to exist in the southeast portion of the Site. Based on historical aerial imagery, the theater building was demolished between 2017 and 2018, and the house was demolished between 2009 and 2010. The approximate footprints of the demolished theater and house are shown on Figure 2. 2.4 Subsurface Conditions Our understanding of subsurface conditions at the Site is based on our review of aerial photos, historical topographic maps, published geologic mapping of the area, and previous subsurface explorations at the Site. Our understanding is also based on our experience with local geology and our own subsurface exploration data collected for this Project. 2.4.1 Field Investigations by Aspect On April 27, 2020, Aspect completed 8 test pit explorations, designated ATP-01 through ATP-08, at the Site surrounding the existing south wing. The locations of our test pit explorations were chosen to inform geotechnical analyses and recommendations for the proposed building, hardscapes, and stormwater infiltration feasibility; the test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. A more detailed description of the field exploration methods and exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. 2.4.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing by Aspect Aspect subcontracted geotechnical laboratory testing services, including moisture content, grain-size analyses, and modified Proctor tests on select soil samples obtained from our subsurface explorations. Detailed descriptions of the tests and results are presented in Appendix B and were incorporated into the exploration logs in Appendix A. 2.4.3 Previous On-Site Investigation The Site was previously explored for geotechnical purposes by Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (Myers) in 1994. We referenced their geotechnical report, which included data from their subsurface explorations and geotechnical laboratory testing to support our characterization of the Site and subsurface conditions (Myers, 1994). The subsurface explorations they performed included six borings (designated B-1 through B-6) and eight test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-8). The geotechnical report by Myers Biodynamics, Inc. is included as Appendix C. The approximate locations of their subsurface explorations are shown on Figure 2. Based on its location, boring B-6 is the most relevant exploration by Myers for the proposed building. 2.4.4 Soil Units The soils encountered in the borings (starting at the ground surface) include topsoil, fill, and Vashon Till. Detailed descriptions of these soils are included below. ASPECT CONSULTING 4 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 2.4.4.1 Topsoil Topsoil refers to a unit that contains a high percentage of organics, generally found at the ground surface and containing grass, mulch, and roots. We encountered up to 6 inches of topsoil within our explorations, with the exception of ATP-05, ATP-07, and ATP-08, where fill was encountered at the ground surface. 2.4.4.2 Fill Fill refers to material placed by human activity. Beneath the topsoil in ATP-02, ATP-03, ATP-04, and ATP-06 and at the ground surface in ATP-05, ATP-07, and ATP-08 we encountered fill that varied in composition and relative density/consistency. The fill was generally loose to dense sand with varying amounts of gravel (SM, SP)1. The fill in ATP- 02 through ATP-04 and ATP-06 was relatively limited, extending to depths of 0.75 to 1.25 feet bgs. We encountered metal and concrete debris to the depths explored in ATP-05, ATP-07, and ATP-08, which were advanced within the footprint of the demolished theater building. The bottom of the fill was not encountered in these explorations. Based on the locations of these explorations within the old theater footprint, we infer that the old theater had at least one level of basement, which was filled with undocumented fill after the theater building was demolished. Assuming one level of basement was filled, we anticipate that the fill may extend approximately 10 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs)2. Of note, a basement wall of the old theater building was encountered in ATP-08. Based on the location of this test pit within the old theater footprint, we infer that this was an internal basement wall. Because of the presence of concrete and metal debris, we consider the fill encountered at ATP-05, ATP-07, and ATP-08 to be nonengineered, meaning that its composition is not fully known, and it was not placed to a specified compaction rate. Experience has shown that nonengineered fill often contains other oversize materials such as concentrated organics, timbers, wood debris, and rocks. The fill is anticipated to exhibit moderate to high compressibility and low shear strength. 2.4.4.3 Vashon Till Below the topsoil and fill in all explorations except ATP-05, ATP-07, and ATP-08, we encountered sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel (SM, SP-SM) extending to the bottom of the explorations. We interpreted these deposits to be weathered to unweathered Vashon Till. The weathered Vashon till typically comprised the upper 1 to 2.5 feet of the unit and was generally medium dense to dense, slightly moist to wet, and brown. The unweathered Vashon till was generally dense to very dense, dry to slightly moist, and gray. The weathered Vashon till is anticipated to exhibit moderate compressibility and moderate shear strength. The unweathered Vashon till is anticipated to exhibit very low compressibility and high shear strength. 1 Soils classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM D2488. 2 This inference is based on limited subsurface data. The actual depth of nonengineered fill may extend deeper than anticipated. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 5 5 2.4.4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was generally not encountered in the explorations, except for groundwater seepage encountered in ATP-02 at approximately 3 feet bgs, within weathered Vashon till. Based on the relative moisture content of the underlying unweathered Vashon till deposits, we infer that the groundwater we encountered here was perched atop the unweathered Vashon Till. We observed consistent iron-oxide staining within the weathered till deposits, indicating that perched water may be seasonally present in this unit. Groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally with precipitation, as well as with changes in Site and near-Site usage. 3 Geologic Hazards In this section, we describe the relevant geologic hazards to the Site and the Project. This section provides context for the City’s requirements related to the redevelopment of the Site given typical earthquake engineering considerations and mapped landslide hazard areas (a subset of critical areas) at the Site. 3.1 Earthquake Engineering The Site is located within the Puget Lowland physiographic province, an area of active seismicity that is subject to earthquakes on shallow crustal faults and deeper subduction zone earthquakes. The Site area lies about 3 miles north of the Seattle fault zone, which consists of shallow crustal tectonic structures that are considered active (evidence for movement within the Holocene [since about 15,000 years ago]) and is believed to be capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 7.3 or greater. The recurrence interval of earthquakes on this fault zone is believed to be on the order of 1,000 years or more. The most recent large earthquake on the Seattle fault occurred about 1,100 years ago (Pratt et al., 2015). There are also several other shallow crustal faults in the region capable of producing earthquakes and strong ground shaking. The Site area also lies within the zone of strong ground shaking from earthquakes associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Subduction zone earthquakes occur due to rupture between the subducting oceanic plate and the overlying continental plate. The CSZ can produce earthquakes up to magnitude 9.3 and the recurrence interval is thought to be on the order of about 500 years. A recent study estimates the most recent subduction zone earthquake occurred around 1700 (Atwater et al., 2015). Deep intraslab earthquakes, which occur from tensional rupture of the sinking oceanic plate, are also associated with the CSZ. An example of this type of seismicity is the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Deep intraslab earthquakes typically are magnitude 7.5 or less and occur approximately every 10 to 30 years. The following sections present descriptions of seismic design considerations for the Project. ASPECT CONSULTING 6 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 3.1.1 Ground Response The International Building Code (IBC) seismic design is based on the “Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)” with a 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (2,475-year return period; ICC, 2015). The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) created a hazard tool (ASCE, 2018) as a quick reliable way to look up key design parameters using the probabilistic ground motion studies and maps for Washington prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. Seismic design should be completed with the specific ground motion parameters listed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters Design Parameter Recommended Value Site Class C Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.555g(1) Short Period Spectral Acceleration (Ss) 1.354g 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (S1) 0.532g Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0 Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.3 Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration (SDS) 0.903g Design 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (SD1) 0.461g Notes: 1. g = gravitational force 2. Based on the latitude and longitude of the Site: 47.661803°N, 122.501841°W. 3.1.2 Surficial Ground Rupture A trace of an east-west trending thrust fault zone (Seattle fault zone) projects through Bainbridge Island, with the nearest known active fault trace (an unnamed fault) located approximately 3 miles south of the Site (Gower et al., 1985). Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and the proximity of the Site to the mapped fault trace, the potential for surficial ground rupture at the Site is considered low during the expected life of the Project. 3.1.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits temporarily lose strength from seismic shaking. The primary factors controlling the onset of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maps the Site as having very low liquefaction susceptibility (DNR, 2004). Given the relative density, grain size distribution, and geologic origin of the soils at the Site, we do not consider liquefaction to be a significant hazard for the Project. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 7 7 3.2 Landslide Hazards Landslides may be triggered by natural causes, such as precipitation, freeze-thaw cycles, or a seismic event, or be man-made (e.g., broken water pipes). Three types of landslides are common on steep slopes in the Puget Sound: topples, deep-seated rotational slides, and shallow flows (Varnes, 1978). The City maps the Site as containing scattered Moderate Slopes with isolated areas of Steep Slopes. The Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington maps the Site as “Stable” (Ecology, 2020). Recent LiDAR studies (McKenna et al., 2008) do not map landslide headscarps or deposits at or near the Site. We did not observe evidence of historical, recent, or incipient landslide activity at or near the Site. We also did not observe evidence of ongoing erosion, scour, or prominent groundwater seepage along the slopes. The stratigraphy of the Site soils is also not prone to landslide activity in the context of the Site and Project. In addition, the isolated sections of Steep Slopes are less than 10 feet tall. Given these observations, it is our opinion that landslide hazard at the Site is low and that the Site does not contain landslid e hazard areas as defined by the City (COBI, 2018). 4 Geotechnical Engineering Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our geotechnical evaluation of the Site that included reviewing the previous geotechnical report (Myers, 1994), data review, a Site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and geotechnical engineering analyses, the Project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations in this geotechnical report are properly incorporated into the Project design and construction. The key findings and conclusions include:  The landslide hazard areas mapped at the Site do not exhibit evidence of historical, recent, or incipient landslide activity and the isolated areas of sections of Steep Slopes are less than 10 feet tall; therefore, it is our opinion that the Site does not contain landslide hazard areas as defined by the City and landslide hazard mitigation is not required for the Project.  The proposed building may be supported on conventional spread and strip footings and slabs-on-grade overlying the native Vashon Till, or structural fill directly overlying Vashon Till, that is properly prepared and compacted. We do not recommend placing the building foundations and slabs-on-grade over existing fill or topsoil materials.  Some overexcavation of the fill in the vicinity of the former theater and house in the southeast part of the proposed building will be required to replace the existing nonengineered fill and debris with new structural fill and to achieve foundation support from the Vashon Till. The overexcavation should be backfilled with ASPECT CONSULTING 8 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 well-compacted structural fill to the foundation subgrade elevation to facilitate the use of conventional spread and strip footings and slabs-on-grade.  We encountered an old basement wall within the former theater footprint and fill extending to depths in excess of 10 feet bgs.  The Site subsurface conditions are not suitable for on-Site stormwater infiltration due to the presence of low permeability Vashon till underlying the Site. The Site stormwater should be collected and conveyed to an appropriate outlet in a controlled manner. Detailed design and construction recommendations for the building foundations and slabs-on-grade and key earthwork activities anticipated for the Project are presented in the following sections. 4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site, the proposed building may be supported using conventional spread or continuous (strip) footing foundations founded on undisturbed, firm and unyielding Vashon Till (bearing stratum) or structural fill directly overlying Vashon Till, that is properly prepared and compacted. The subsurface information at the Site suggests that the suitable bearing stratum for the new building foundations will generally be found within 4 feet of the ground surface with the exception of the demolished theater building footprint, where we encountered nonengineered fill and debris to the maximum depth of exploration at 10 feet bgs (in ATP-08). Where nonengineered fill is encountered, we recommend that it be overexcavated beneath foundation and slab-on-grade elements and replaced with compacted structural fill placed in accordance with our recommendations in Section 4.6.3. The approximate depth to the bearing stratum and respective elevations of the bearing stratum from our Site explorations and previous explorations by Myers (Myers, 1994) are presented below in Table 2. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 9 9 Table 2. Depth to Bearing Stratum by Exploration Exploration Exploration Performed By Approximate Ground Surface Elevation* Approximate Depth of Bearing Stratum Approximate Elevation of Bearing Stratum* ATP-01 Aspect (2020) 90 1.5 EL. 88.5 ATP-02 Aspect (2020) 86 3.5 EL. 82.5 ATP-03 Aspect (2020) 82 1.5 EL. 80.5 ATP-04 Aspect (2020) 79 4 EL. 75 ATP-05** Aspect (2020) 81 >8.5 ft bgs < EL.72.5 ATP-06 Aspect (2020) 76 1.5 EL. 74.5 ATP-07** Aspect (2020) 72 >5.2 ft bgs < EL. 66.8 ATP-08** Aspect (2020) 72 >10 ft bgs < EL. 62 B-1 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 10 n/a B-2 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 5 n/a B-3 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 2 n/a B-4 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 2.5 n/a B-5 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 3 n/a B-6 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 2 n/a TP-4 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 3 n/a TP-5 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 3 n/a TP-6 Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (1994) n/a 12.5 n/a Notes: *The elevation datum used in the geotechnical report by Myers was not documented. We have omitted reference to elevations for the explorations by Myers in this table to avoid inconsistency. **These test pits were advanced through fill within the historical theater footprint. Native soils were not encountered within these explorations. ASPECT CONSULTING 10 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 4.1.1 Minimum Footing Size and Embedment Continuous strip footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. We recommend exterior footings be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and interior footings be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the slab. 4.1.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure For shallow spread footing foundations founded atop unweathered Vashon Till, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For shallow spread footing foundations founded atop compact structural fill overlying unweathered Vashon Till, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for temporary loading conditions such as wind or seismic loading. 4.1.3 Settlement For spread footing foundations, and assuming the subgrade conditions described in the introduction to Section 4.1 and prepared as described in Section 4.6.2, we estimate the applied loads discussed in Section 4.1.2 will result in maximum total settlement of about 1 inch and ½ inch of differential settlement over a 50-foot length. Foundation settlement is expected to occur as the loads are applied. 4.1.4 Lateral Resistance Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structure to lateral forces. Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding resistance of its base or footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the buried portions of the structure. For use in design, an ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the footing and subgrade soils. An ultimate passive earth pressure of 440 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be assumed for compact structural fill or undisturbed native soils adjacent to below-grade elements. The upper 1 foot of passive resistance should be neglected in design, unless the adjacent ground is protected/surfaced by pavement. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive pressure value assume unsaturated conditions and are ultimate values that do not include a safety factor. We recommend applying a factor of safety of at least 1.5 in design to determine allowable values for coefficient of friction and passive pressure. 4.2 Concrete Slab-On-Grade We recommend overexcavation of the loose zones of nonengineered fill and any deleterious matter and replacement with structural fill beneath al l slabs. To provide uniform support for the floor slab and to provide a capillary break, we recommend the floor slab be underlain by a minimum 6-inch-thick layer of free-draining, crushed rock or well-graded sand and gravel compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density (MDD). The capillary break material should have a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch, with no more than 80 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve). ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 11 11 For slabs that are designed as a beam on elastic foundation, a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be utilized. The exterior of the below-grade foundation elements should also be waterproofed, and a vapor barrier membrane should be installed beneath the floor slabs. Waterproofing and membranes should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 4.3 Drainage Considerations The outside edge of all perimeter footings and embedded walls should be provided with a drainage system consisting of a 4-inch-diameter (minimum), perforated, rigid pipe embedded in free-draining gravel meeting the requirements of Section 9-03.12(4) of the Standard Specifications, Gravel Backfill for Drains (WSDOT, 2020). The footing and wall drains should be a minimum of 1 foot thick, and a layer of low permeability soils should be used over the upper foot of the drain section to reduce the potential for surface water to enter the drain curtain. Prefabricated drain mats combined with relatively free - draining backfill may be used as an alternative to washed-rock footings and wall drains. Final grades around the proposed structure should be sloped such that surface water drains away from the structures. Downspouts and roof drains should not be connected to the foundation drains in order to reduce the potential for flooding foundation drains and clogging. The footing drains should include cleanouts to allow for periodic maintenance and inspection. 4.4 Stormwater Infiltration The presence of relatively impermeable Vashon till deposits indicates that concentrated stormwater infiltration is not practicable at the Site. We recommend stormwater management be accomplished using Low Impact Development (LID) methods combined with conventional methods, including catch basins and storm drainpipes that discharge into an appropriate system. LID methods, such as small rain gardens, bioswales, and permeable pavements, are feasible provided the systems incorporate underdrains and/or overflow redundancy to account for the low permeability and low infiltration capacity of the Site soils. 4.5 Retaining Walls We understand that relatively short retaining walls may be required for the Project. Assuming cantilevered, cast-in-place retaining walls will retain less than 10 feet of soil and will retain compacted structural fill as described in Section 4.6.5 or native soils in a level configuration, we recommend the following design parameters:  Active lateral earth pressures of 35 pcf, at-rest lateral earth pressures of 55 pcf, and allowable passive lateral earth pressures of 300 pcf (recommended passive earth pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5)  Active lateral earth pressures should be used to design retain ing walls that will be allowed to yield laterally and at-rest lateral earth pressures should be used to design retaining walls that are not allowed to yield ASPECT CONSULTING 12 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020  Passive earth pressures should be neglected within the upper two feet of the ground surface in front of the wall Over-compaction of the backfill behind walls should be avoided. In this regard, we recommend compacting the backfill to about 90 percent of the MMD (ASTM D1557). Heavy compactors and large pieces of construction equipment should not operate within 5 feet of any embedded wall to avoid the buildup of excessive lateral pressures. Compaction close to the walls should be accomplished using hand-operated vibratory plate compactors. Lateral forces that may be induced on the walls due to other surcharge loads should be considered by the Project structural engineer. We are available to review retaining wall design plans if conditions or wall types differ from our assumptions. 4.6 Earthwork Considerations Based on the explorations performed across the Site and our understanding of the Project, it is our opinion that the Contractor should be able to complete earthwork and excavations with standard construction equipment. The soils encountered at the Site contain a significant percentage of fines material (particles passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve), making them moisture sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. We recommend planning the earthwork portions of the Project during the drier summer months. We recommend that earthwork activities be specified in accordance with the following Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2020). Appropriate erosion control measures should be in accordance with Section 8-01.3 Erosion Control and Water Pollution Control, Construction Requirements. 4.6.1 Temporary Erosion Control To prevent Site erosion during construction, appropriate temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures should be used in accordance with our recommendations and local best management practices (BMPs). Specific TESC measures may include appropriately placed silt fencing, straw wattles, rock check dams, and plastic covering of soil stockpiles. 4.6.2 Subgrade Preparation Subgrade preparation within the proposed foundation areas and hardscapes should include removal of all topsoil, debris, loose fill soils, and any other deleterious materials. For the proposed foundations, we recommend that the bearing soils consist of undisturbed, dense to very dense, unweathered Vashon Till or compacted structural fill. Hardscapes may be placed over the weathered Vashon Till, provided it can be compacted to a relatively firm and unyielding condition. Based on our explorations, we estimate suitable bearing soils to be generally near the existing ground surface, typically 2 to 4 feet bgs. Within the old theater footprint, we anticipate some amount of overexcavation and ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 13 13 replacement of the existing nonengineered fill (anticipated up to 12 feet bgs)3 will be required to reach the suitable bearing soils. The on-Site soils contain variable amounts of fine-grained particles, which makes them moisture sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The Contractor must use care during Site preparation and excavation operations so that any bearing surfaces are not disturbed. If this occurs, the disturbed material should be removed to expose undisturbed material. All bearing surfaces should be trimmed neat and carefully prepared. All loose or softened soil should be removed from the bearing surface or compacted in-place prior to placing concrete or structural fill. We recommend that all bearing surfaces be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer to verify that the recommendations of this report have been followed. If bearing surfaces are exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it may be helpful to provide a layer of crushed rock or gravel to help preserve the subgrade. If gravel is used to protect the bearing surfaces, it should meet the gradation requirements for Class A Gravel Backfill for Foundations, as described in Section 9-03.12(1)A of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2020). 4.6.3 Structural Fill For purposes of this report, material placed under structures, pavement, sidewalks, as wall backfill, or as utility trench backfill, should be considered structural fill. We anticipate structural fill will be required primarily where overexcavation of existing nonengineered fill is required. 4.6.4 Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill From a geotechnical standpoint, the existing native Vashon Till soils appear suitable for reuse as structural fill under hardscapes, provided the materials are excavated during the dry season and are screened to ensure they are relatively free of organics and other deleterious debris, and can be moisture-conditioned for compaction and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. We do not recommend reusing reworked Vashon till as structural fill beneath foundations or slabs-on-grade. Due to the presence of debris within the existing nonengineered fill, we do not recommend it for reuse as structural fill. Excavated material should be visually inspected by Aspect to determine its potential use as structural fill. Excavated material that is unsuitable as structural fill may be suitable as backfill for unimproved areas (i.e., landscaped areas) that are not sensitive to differential settlement over time. Based on laboratory testing, the MDD and optimum moisture content of the native Vashon till are 135 pcf and 6 percent, respectively. 3 This inference is based on limited subsurface data. The actual depth of nonengineered fill may extend deeper than anticipated. ASPECT CONSULTING 14 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 4.6.5 Imported Structural Fill Imported structural fill should consist of relatively clean, free-draining, nonplastic, uniformly graded sand and gravel free from organic matter or other deleterious materials.  For imported structural fill beneath foundation elements, Class A Gravel Backfill for Foundations, as specified in Section 9-03.12(1)A of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2020), is appropriate. Alternatively, controlled density fill (CDF) can be used.  For imported structural fill beneath new hardscapes, Crushed Surfacing Base Course (CSBC), as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2020), is acceptable.  For imported structural fill behind retaining walls, Gravel Backfill for Walls as specified in Section 9-03.912(2), is appropriate. 4.6.6 Compaction Requirements Structural fill should be at or near optimum moisture content at the time of placement and should be compacted to a percentage of the MDD as determined by test method ASTM International (ASTM) D1557, in accordance with the following recommendations:  Structural fill beneath foundations and hardscapes should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD  In nonstructural areas, fill should be placed and compacted to a moderately firm/dense condition.  Wall backfill compaction within 5 feet of any wall should be limited to 90 percent of the MDD to avoid damage to the structure. Compaction within 5 feet of a wall should be achieved using small hand-operated equipment in conjunction with thinner soil lifts to achieve the required compaction. The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and certain soil properties. When the size of the excavation restricts the use of heavy equipment, smaller equipment can be used, but the soil must be placed in thin enough lifts to achieve the required compaction. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is placed to verify the required relative compaction is being achieved. The frequency of the in-place density testing can be determined at the time of final design, when more details of the Project grading and backfilling plans are available. Generally, loosely compacted soils are a result of poor construction technique or improper moisture content. Soils with a high percentage of silt or clay are particularly susceptible to becoming too wet, and coarse-grained materials easily become too dry, for proper compaction. Silty or clayey soils with a moisture content too high for adequate compaction should be dried as necessary, or moisture conditioned by mixing with drier materials, or other methods. When the first fill is placed in a given area, and/or any time the fill material changes, the area should be considered a test section. The test section should be used to establish fill placement and compaction procedures required to achieve proper compaction. Aspect or ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 15 15 qualified materials inspection personnel should observe placement and compaction of the test section to assist in establishing an appropriate compaction procedure. Once a placement and compaction procedure is established, the Contractor’s operations should be monitored, and periodic density tests performed to verify that proper compaction is being achieved. 4.6.7 Temporary Excavations and Slopes Temporary excavations may be required where excavation to bearing stratum is needed or where existing nonengineered fill should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the Contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height that are not protected by trench boxes or otherwise shored should be sloped in accordance with Part N of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155 (WAC, 2020) as shown in the table below: Table 3. Temporary Excavation Cut Slope Recommendations Soil Unit OSHA Soil Classification Maximum Temporary Slope Maximum Height (ft) Existing Nonengineered Fill C 1.5H:1V 20 Vashon Till B 1H:1V 20 Notes: OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration H:V = Horizontal : Vertical The estimated maximum cut slope inclinations are provided for planning purposes only and are applicable to excavations without groundwater seepage or runoff, and assume dry to moist conditions. Flatter slopes will likely be necessary in areas where groundwater seepage exists, or where construction equipment surcharges are placed in close proximity with the crest of the excavation. With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation, the stability of temporary unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes should be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at the top of the slope. In addition, the Contractor should monitor the stability of the temporary cut slopes, and adjust the construction schedule and slope inclination accordingly. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause caving and raveling of the temporary slopes. In such an event, lateral support for the temporary slopes should be provided by the Contractor to prevent loss of ground support. 4.6.8 Permanent Slopes In our opinion, permanent cut and fill slopes within Vashon till deposits up to 2H:1V are possible provided best management practices are followed. We recommend that cut and fill slopes be permanently seeded. Permanent seeding may be native plants and grasses (applied by hydroseed with tackifier) with a temporary biodegradable erosion control ASPECT CONSULTING 16 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 blanket to cover the hydroseed and provide temporary protection until the grasses grow through the blanket. Where possible, the native topsoil should be retained and incorporated into the slopes prior to seeding. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington recommends permanent seeding and erosion control blankets be designed and installed in accordance with its Best Management Practices C120 and C122, respectively (Ecology, 2019). 4.6.9 Wet Weather Construction The soils encountered across the Site are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle, prepare, or compact with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications:  Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may need to be limited to prevent soil disturbance.  Materials used as structural fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less than 7 percent fines. The fines should be nonplastic.  The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller (or equivalent) and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials.  Excavation and placement of structural fill should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed, and suitable compaction is achieved.  Local BMPs for erosion protection should be strictly followed. 4.6.10 Construction Dewatering Significant groundwater was not encountered in the Site explorations; however, minor seepage and surficial runoff may be encountered at shallow depths. The Contractor should be prepared to adequately dewater foundation subgrade and excavations. We anticipate that strategically placed sumps and pumps will sufficiently control water inflow. Sumps are often constructed by placing a short section of perforated corrugated steel pipe (or surplus 8- to 12-inch well screen) in a small hole excavated below the subgrade elevation/excavation. The annular space around the pipe is backfilled with drain rock, with several inches placed inside the casing to help control the pumping of fines. Submersible pumps (trash pumps) are then placed inside the casing and connected to a central discharge pipe. The Contractor should be responsible for design, implementation, and any necessary permits associated with any construction dewatering system used for the Project. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 17 17 5 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services At the time of this report, Site grading, utilities, civil plans, and construction methods have not been finalized, and the recommendations presented herein are based on preliminary Project design information. If Project developments result in changes to the assumptions made herein, we should be contacted to determine if our recommendations should be revised. Throughout this report, we have provided recommendations where we consider it would be appropriate for Aspect to provide additional geotechnical input to the design and construction process. Additional recommendations are summarized in this section. 5.1 Additional Design and Consultation Services Before construction begins, we recommend that Aspect:  Continue to meet with the design team as needed to address geotechnical questions that may arise throughout the remainder of the design process.  Review the geotechnical elements of the Project plans to see that the geotechnical engineering recommendations are properly interpreted 5.2 Additional Construction Services We are available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the geotechnical elements depends on proper Site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. During the construction phase of the Project, we recommend that Aspect be retained to perform the following tasks:  Review applicable submittals  Observe and evaluate subgrade and structural fill placement for all footings and slabs-on-grade  Attend meetings, as needed  Address other geotechnical engineering considerations that may arise during construction The purpose of our observations is to verify compliance with design concepts and recommendations and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction methods in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. ASPECT CONSULTING 18 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 6 References American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2018, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/, accessed January 14, 2019. ASTM International (ASTM), 2012, American Society for Testing Materials Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Atwater, B.F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, D. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D.K. Yamaguci (Atwater et al.), 2015, The orphan tsunami of 1700—Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in North America, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1707. City of Bainbridge Island (COBI), 2018, Critical Areas Web Application, City of Bainbridge Island (COBI), 2018, GIS Mapping & Map Gallery, 2ftTopo, https://cityofbi.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?layers=1cb05de9c25 44b81aef61622f42b4ead, accessed May 18, 2020. Gower H.D., J.C. Yount, and R.S. Crosson (Gower et al.), 1985, Seismotectonic map of the Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1613, p. 15, plate 1, scale 1:250,000. Haugerud, R.A. and K.G. Troost, 2011, Geologic map of the Suquamish 7.5’ Quadrangle and part of the Seattle North 7.5’ x 15’ Quadrangle, Kitsap County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3181, scale 1:24,000. International Code Council (ICC), 2015, International Building Code (IBC), Prepared by International Code Council, January 2015. McKenna, J.P., Lidke, D.J., Coe, J.A., 2008, Landslides Mapped from LIDAR Imagery, Kitsap County, Washington, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1292, 81p. Myers Biodynamics Inc. (Myers), 1994, Geotechnical Design Report: Messenger House Addition, 10861 NE Manitou Park Boulevard, Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110. Pratt, T.L., K.G. Troost, J.K. Odum, and W.J. Stephenson (Pratt et al.), 2015, Kinematics of shallow backthrusts in the Seattle fault zone, Washington State, Geosphere, v. 11, no. 6, p. 1–27, doi:10.1130/GES01179.1. Varnes, D.J. (1978), Slope movement types and processes, Special Report 176: Landslides: Analysis and Controls, Transportation and Road Research Board, National Academy of Science, Washington D.C., 11-33. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2019, 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/Content/T opics/FrontCover.htm?tocpath=2019%20SWMMWW%7C_____0, accessed January 1, 2020. ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL 19 19 Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2020, Washington State Coastal Atlas Map, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx, accessed May 21, 2020. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2004, Liquefaction Susceptibility and Site Class Maps of Washington State, By County, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2004-20, by Palmer, S.P., S.L. Magsino, E.L. Bilderback, J.L. Poelstra, D.S. Folger, and R.A. Niggemann, 2004, September 2004. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2018, Washington Geologic Information Portal, https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/, accessed May 14, 2020. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2020, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, Document M 41-10. Washington State Legislature, 2009, Washington Administrative Code (WAC), April 1, 2009. ASPECT CONSULTING 20 FINAL PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 7 Limitations Work for this project was performed for Cascadia Senior Living & Fieldstone Communities (Client), and this report was prepared consistent with recognized standards of professionals in the same locality and involving similar conditions, at the time the work was performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect). Recommendations presented herein are based on our interpretation of site conditions, geotechnical engineering calculations, and judgment in accordance with our mutually agreed-upon scope of work. Our recommendations are unique and specific to the project, site, and Client. Application of this report for any purpose other than the project should be done only after consultation with Aspect. Variations may exist between the soil and groundwater conditions reported and those actually underlying the site. The nature and extent of such soil variations may change over time and may not be evident before construction begins. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, Aspect should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations. Risks are inherent with any site involving slopes and no recommendations, geologic analysis, or engineering design can assure slope stability. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the Client. It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, and agents, are made aware of this report in its entirety. At the time of this report, design plans and construction methods have not been finalized, and the recommendations presented herein are based on preliminary project information. If project developments result in changes from the preliminary project information, Aspect should be contacted to determine if our recommendations contained in this report should be revised and/or expanded upon. The scope of work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Site safety is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s site safety methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures. The scope of our work also does not include the assessment of environmental characteristics, particularly those involving potentially hazardous substances in soil or groundwater. All reports prepared by Aspect for the Client apply only to the services described in the Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect. Aspect’s original files/reports shall govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents furnished to others. Please refer to Appendix D titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information governing the use of this report. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please call Andrew J. Holmson, Associate Geotechnical Engineer, 206.780.7731. i FIGURES ^ SITE LOCATION P u g e tSou n d G I S P a t h : T : \ p r o j e c t s _ 8 \ M e s s e n g e r H o u s e P h a s e I I _ 2 0 0 1 0 4 \ D e l i v e r e d \ 0 1 S i t e L o c a t i o n M a p . m x d | | C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e W a s h i n g t o n N o r t h F I P S 4 6 0 1 F e e t | | D a t e S a v e d : 5 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 0 | | U s e r : b g r i m m | | P r i n t D a t e : 5 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 0 Site Location MapGeotechnical Engineering ReportMessenger House Phase II10861 Manitou Park Boulevard NEBainbridge Island, Washington FIGURE NO.1MAY-2020 PROJECT N O.200104 BY :MOO / WEG REVISED BY:- - - 0 2,000 4,000 Feet ! ! ! #! ! ! ! !( W A S H I N G T O N SITELOCATION Bellingham Olympia Port Angeles Seattle Spokane Tacoma Wenatchee Yakima ! ! ! ! # !( SITELOCATION UV307 UV99 §¨¦5 ElliottBay P u g e tSound BainbridgeIsland Bremerton Edmonds Poulsbo Seattle Basemap Layer Credits || Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityCopyright:(c) 2014 Esri ED ED ED ED ED ED EDED ÈA ÈA ÈA ÈA ÈA ÈA ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED Approximate Locationof Former Theater Approximate Locationof Former House M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D N ENEOCEANDR M A N I T O U B E A C H D R N E ATP-01 ATP-02 ATP-03 ATP-04 ATP-05 ATP-06 ATP-07 ATP-08 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 TP-7 TP-8 FIGURE NO.2JUN-2020 PROJECT N O.200104 BY :MOO / WEG REVISED BY:- - - Site and Exploration PlanGeotechnical Engineering ReportMessenger House Phase II10861 Manitou Park Boulevard NEBainbridge Island, Washington Basemap Layer Credits || HxGN Content Program G I S P a t h : T : \ p r o j e c t s _ 8 \ M e s s e n g e r H o u s e P h a s e I I _ 2 0 0 1 0 4 \ D e l i v e r e d \ 0 2 S i t e a n d E x p l o r a t i o n P l a n . m x d | | C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e W a s h i n g t o n N o r t h F I P S 4 6 0 1 F e e t | | D a t e S a v e d : 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 | | U s e r : b g r i m m | | P r i n t D a t e : 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 0 125 250 Feet Exploration Location ED Test P it, Aspect(This Study) ED Test P it, MyersBiodynamics Inc. (1994) ÈA Boring, MyersBiodynamics Inc. (1994) Building L ocation Proposed Demolished Kitsap C ounty Tax Parcel Greater than 40%Slope (C OBI, 2018) 15% - 40%Slope (C OBI, 2018) Note: - Proposed building location based on drawing from Wenzlau Architects; location approximate. i APPENDIX A Subsurface Explorations by Aspect ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL A-1 1 A. Subsurface Explorations Methodology Test pits ATP-01 through ATP-08 were dug using a track-mounted excavator on April 27, 2020. The excavation was performed by High Meadows Excavating, an experienced and licensed local excavator under subcontract to Aspect. The test pits were advanced to depths ranging from 4 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Disturbed soil samples were obtained by hand at select intervals. Relative density/consistency of the soils was estimated using a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test. DCP blow count refers to the number of blows required to achieve 1.75 inches of penetration with a 1.5-inch, 45-degree cone driven using a 15- pound mass falling 20 inches to strike an anvil. DCP blow counts have been calibrated with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values to quantitively estimate relative density or consistency of soil. Additional relative density/consistency observations were made using a 0.5-inch-diameter steel T-probe and through visual observations (such as resistance of the soil to the excavator bucket and stand-up time of the test-pit sidewalls, etc.). The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2. An Aspect geologist was present throughout the field exploration program to observe the drilling procedure, assist in sampling, and to prepare descriptive logs of the exploration. Soils were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The summary exploration log represents our interpretation of the contents of the field logs. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The subsurface conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations reported ; therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. AI P a t h : Q: \ _ A C A D S t a n d a r d s \ F I E L D R E F E R E N C E \ M A S T E R S \ E x p l o r a t i o n L o g K e y - 2 0 1 8 . a i / / u s e r : j i n m a n / / l a s t s a v e d : 0 9 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 8 “WITH SILT” or “WITH CLAY” means 5 to 15% silt and clay, denoted by a “-“ in the group name; e.g., SP-SM ● “SILTY” or “CLAYEY” means >15% silt and clay ● “WITH SAND” or “WITH GRAVEL” means 15 to 30% sand and gravel. ● “SANDY” or “GRAVELLY” means >30% sand and gravel. ● “Well-graded” means approximately equal amounts of fine to coarse grain sizes ● “Poorly graded” means unequal amounts of grain sizes ● Group names separated by “/” means soil contains layers of the two soil types; e.g., SM/ML. Soils were described and identified in the field in general accordance with the methods described in ASTM D2488. Where indicated in the log, soils were classified using ASTM D2487 or other laboratory tests as appropriate. Refer to the report accompanying these exploration logs for details. % by Weight Density³SPT² Blows/Foot Hi g h l y Or g a n i c So i l s Fi n e - G r a i n e d S o i l s - 5 0 % 1 o r M o r e P a s s e s N o . 2 0 0 S i e v e Co a r s e - G r a i n e d S o i l s - M o r e t h a n 5 0 % 1 R e t a i n e d o n N o . 2 0 0 S i e v e Gr a v e l s - M o r e t h a n 5 0 % 1 o f C o a r s e F r a c t i o n Re t a i n e d o n N o . 4 S i e v e 15 % F i n e s 5% F i n e s Sa n d s - 5 0 % 1 o r M o r e o f C o a r s e F r a c t i o n Pa s s e s N o . 4 S i e v e Si l t s a n d C l a y s Li q u i d L i m i t L e s s t h a n 5 0 % Si l t s a n d C l a y s Li q u i d L i m i t 5 0 % o r M o r e 15 % F i n e s 5% F i n e s Well-graded GRAVEL Well-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND Poorly-graded GRAVEL Poorly-graded GRAVEL WITH SAND SILTY GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND Well-graded SAND Well-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL Poorly-graded SAND Poorly-graded SAND WITH GRAVEL SILTY SAND SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL SILT SANDY or GRAVELLY SILT SILT WITH SAND SILT WITH GRAVEL LEAN CLAY SANDY or GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL ORGANIC SILT SANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL ELASTIC SILT SANDY or GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILT ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND ELASTIC SILT WITH GRAVEL FAT CLAY SANDY or GRAVELLY FAT CLAY FAT CLAY WITH SAND FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL ORGANIC CLAY SANDY or GRAVELLY ORGANIC CLAY ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL PEAT and other mostly organic soils GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Modifier Organic Chemicals BTEX =Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes TPH-Dx =Diesel and Oil-Range Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH-G =Gasoline-Range Petroleum Hydrocarbons VOCs =Volatile Organic Compounds SVOCs =Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PAHs =Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds PCBs =Polychlorinated Biphenyls GEOTECHNICAL LAB TESTSMC=Natural Moisture Content GS =Grain Size Distribution FC =Fines Content (% < 0.075 mm)GH =Hydrometer TestAL=Atterberg Limits C =Consolidation Test Str =Strength Test OC =Organic Content (% Loss by Ignition) Comp =Proctor Test K =Hydraulic Conductivity Test SG =Specific Gravity Test RCRA8 =As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag, (d = dissolved, t = total) MTCA5 =As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb (d = dissolved, t = total) PP-13 =Ag, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, Zn (d=dissolved, t=total) CHEMICAL LAB TESTS PID =Photoionization Detector Sheen =Oil Sheen Test SPT 2 =Standard Penetration Test NSPT =Non-Standard Penetration Test DCPT =Dynamic Cone Penetration Test <1 =Subtrace 1 to <5 =Trace 5 to 10 =Few Dry =Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Slightly Moist =Perceptible moisture Moist =Damp but no visible water Very Moist =Water visible but not free draining Wet = Visible free water, usually from below water table COMPONENT DEFINITIONSDescriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number Boulders = Larger than 12 inches Cobbles =3 inches to 12 inches Coarse Gravel =3 inches to 3/4 inches Fine Gravel =3/4 inches to No. 4 (4.75 mm) Coarse Sand =No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) Medium Sand =No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) Fine Sand =No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) Silt and Clay =Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm) Metals ESTIMATED1 PERCENTAGE MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY GEOLOGIC CONTACTS Very Loose =0 to 4 ≥2' Loose =5 to 10 1' to 2' Medium Dense =11 to 30 3" to 1' Dense =31 to 50 1" to 3" Very Dense => 50 < 1" Consistency³ Very Soft =0 to 1 Penetrated >1" easily by thumb. Extrudes between thumb & fingers. Soft =2 to 4 Penetrated 1/4" to 1" easily by thumb. Easily molded. Medium Stiff =5 to 8 Penetrated >1/4" with effort by thumb. Molded with strong pressure. Stiff =9 to 15 Indented ~1/4" with effort by thumb. Very Stiff =16 to 30 Indented easily by thumbnail. Hard => 30 Indented with difficulty by thumbnail. Non-Cohesive or Coarse-Grained Soils SPT² Blows/Foot Observed and Distinct Observed and Gradual Inferred 1.Estimated or measured percentage by dry weight 2.(SPT) Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) 3.Determined by SPT, DCPT (ASTM STP399) or other field methods. See report text for details. % by Weight Modifier 15 to 25 =Little 30 to 45 =Some >50 =Mostly Penetration with 1/2" Diameter Rod Manual Test FIELD TESTS Cohesive or Fine-Grained Soils Exploration Log Key Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. Excavator notes harder digging. TOPSOIL TOPSOIL; loose, moist, dark brown; trace to few fine sand; few roots. WEATHERED VASHON TILL SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense, moist, gray brown; fine to coarse sand; trace to few fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; silt pockets with gravel; trace to few roots. VASHON TILL SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense to very dense, slightly moist, gray; fine sand; trace to few gravel; gravel socketing. Bottom of exploration at 5.6 ft. bgs. DCPT =5-11-17 GS, MC FC=26% D50=0.213mm DCPT =9-16-20 DCPT =4-10-19 S1 S2 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-01Equipment Legend Contractor 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 ATP-01 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 90' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6615, -122.5019 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. TOPSOIL TOPSOIL; loose, moist, dark brown; fine to coarse sand; fine, subrounded gravel; few to little roots. FILL SILTY SAND (SM); loose, moist, gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; trace roots. Buried topsoil (loose, moist, dark brown) observed from 0.8 to 1 ft bgs. WEATHERED VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to dense, moist to wet, brown yellow; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; gravel socketing; few to little roots. VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to very dense, moist, gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; gravel socketing. Bottom of exploration at 4.2 ft. bgs. DCPT =7-9-10 DCPT => 30 4/27/2020 S1 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-02Equipment Legend Contractor 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 ATP-02 Water Level (Seepage) Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 86' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample 47.6613, -122.5018 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog 3' (Seep) Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. TOPSOIL TOPSOIL; loose, moist, dark brown; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; few roots. FILL SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense, moist, gray brown; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; trace roots. WEATHERED VASHON TILL SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense, moist to very moist, brown yellow; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; gravel socketing; trace roots. VASHON TILL SILTY SAND (SM); dense to very dense, slightly moist, gray; fine sand; trace medium to coarse sand; few rounded to subangular gravel; gravel socketing; light iron-oxide staining. Bottom of exploration at 4 ft. bgs. DCPT =25, > 30 Bulk sample GS, MC, and Proctor FC=23% D50=0.278mm DCPT => 30 S1 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-03Equipment Legend Contractor 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 ATP-03 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 82' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6617, -122.5013 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. Excavator notes hard digging. TOPSOIL TOPSOIL; loose, moist, dark brown; fine to coarse silty sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; few roots. FILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); loose, moist, dark brown and brown yellow; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; trace to few roots; trace charcoal. Buried topsoil (loose, moist, dark brown) observed from 1.2 to 1.3 ft bgs. WEATHERED VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); very loose to medium dense, moist, brown yellow; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; trace charcoal; trace roots; root approximately 1 inch in diameter. VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to very dense, slightly moist, gray; fine sand; trace medium to coarse sand; rounded to subangular gravel; gravel socketing. Bottom of exploration at 5 ft. bgs. Note: Encountered 1.5-inch clean crushed rock in east side of pit at approximately 1 ft bgs. Replaced clean crushed rock as close to the original elevation and location as possible. DCPT =4-3-4 DCPT =21-> 30 DCPT =21-> 30 S1 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-04Equipment Legend Contractor 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 ATP-04 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 79' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6615, -122.5012 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Excavator indicates difficult digging at 0.3 ft. bgs. Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. FILL SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM); medium dense to dense, moist, dark gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to angular gravel; roots and few organics to 0.4 ft. bgs. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to dense, moist, gray; fine sand; trace medium sand; few coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to angular gravel; possible concrete dust. Encountered small chunks of Vashon till. Encountered concrete chunks, bricks. Subtrace medium sand; trace coarse sand; Vashon till chunks with gravel socketing; brick chunks. Bottom of exploration at 8.5 ft. bgs. DCPT =11-26-39 DCPT =10-20-25 DCPT =38-84-178 S1 S2 S3 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-05Equipment Legend Contractor 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 ATP-05 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 81' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6613, -122.5013 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. Excavator notes hard digging. TOPSOIL TOPSOIL; loose, moist, dark brown; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; trace roots; brick chunk. FILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown; fine to coarse sand; fine, rounded to subrounded gravel; iron-oxide staining; trace woodchips and organics. VASHON TILL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense to dense, slightly moist, gray; fine sand; trace medium to coarse sand; fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; gravel socketing. Bottom of exploration at 4.2 ft. bgs. DCPT => 30 DCPT =13-> 30 S1 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-06Equipment Legend Contractor 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 ATP-06 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 76' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6611, -122.5014 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. Excavator notes hard digging. FILL SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP); loose to medium dense, moist, gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; trace silt. Encountered metal wire debris. CONCRETE; slab and concrete chunks. SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP); very loose, moist, gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to angular gravel; trace silt; silt chunks. Trace roots up to 1 inch in diameter. Bottom of exploration at 5.2 ft. bgs. Note: Refusal on concrete debris at 5.2 ft bgs. DCPT =31-62-86 DCPT =2-2-2 S1 S2 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-07Equipment Legend Contractor 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 ATP-07 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 72' (est) Plastic Limit NA Grab sample No Water Encountered 47.6612, -122.5011 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 Test pit backfilled with excavated soil. FILL SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP); loose to medium dense, moist, gray; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; few silt; few roots and organics to 0.3 ft. bgs. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM); medium dense, moist, brown yellow; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular gravel; trace roots; brick pipe fragments. CONCRETE; encountered 8-inch-thick concrete basement wall from 3.5 to the depth explored. Encountered metal pipe debris. Bottom of exploration at 10 ft. bgs. Note: Excavator reach limited to 10 ft bgs. DCPT =9-11-16 DCPT =12-18-19 Operator Work Start/Completion Dates Blows/foot Water Content (%) ATP-08Equipment Legend Contractor 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 ATP-08 Tests Deere 35D Excavator Trackhoe High Meadows Excavating, Inc. Exploration Method(s) See Exploration Log Key for explanation of symbols Exploration Completion and Notes Sample Type/ID Depth to Water (Below GS) Description NE W S T A N D A R D E X P L O R A T I O N L O G T E M P L A T E P : \ G I N T W \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 1 0 4 - M E S S E N G E R H O U S E P H A S E I I . G P J J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 2 0 Top of Casing Elev. (NAVD88) Blows/6" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4/27/2020 Project Address & Site Specific Location 72' (est) Plastic Limit NA No Water Encountered 47.6612, -122.5011 (est) Ground Surface Elev. (NAVD88) Coordinates (Lat,Lon WGS84) Grab Logged by: WEG Approved by: AJH Messenger House Phase II - 200104 Depth (feet) Material Type Andrew Monsaas Sa m p l e Ty p e Elev. (feet) No Water Encountered Liquid Limit Geotechnical Exploration Log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 10861 Manitou Park Blvd. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, See Figure 2 ExplorationLog Exploration Number Wa t e r Le v e l Sheet 1 of 1 Depth (ft) Sampling Method 10 20 30 400 50 1 APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. 200104  JUNE 22, 2020 FINAL B-1 B. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Aspect subcontracted a licensed materials-testing laboratory, Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc., to perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples to characterize certain engineering (physical) properties of the Site soils. Laboratory testing included determination of natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and optimum moisture content and maximum dry density in general accordance with appropriate ASTM test methods. Test procedures are discussed below. The moisture content of selected samples was analyzed in general accordance with ASTM D-2216, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. The grain-size distribution of selected samples was analyzed in general accordance with ASTM D-6913, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils without hydrometer determination of fines content. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of a selected sample was analyzed in general accordance with ASTM D-4718, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (commonly known as the ‘Modified Proctor Test’), and included corrections for oversize particles. The results of the moisture content tests are presented in tabular form in this appendix; moisture content results are also presented graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the grain-size distribution tests are presented as curves in this appendix, plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. The results of the Modified Proctor test is presented graphically in this appendix, plotting dry density with varying moistu re contents. Date Revised:Date Sampled: Test(s) Performed:Test(s) Performed: X X X Respectfully Submitted, WABO Supervising Laboratory Technician Client: Sample #: Date: Project: Aspect Consulting 701 2nd Ave Suite 550 Attn: Sulfate SoundnessSieve Analysis April 27, 2020 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Test Results Seattle, WA 98104 Mari Otto May 11, 2020 20B014-13 B20-0475 - 0476 Project #: Q.C. - Messenger House Ph. IIAddress: As requested MTC, Inc. has performed the following test(s) on the sample referenced above. The testing was performed in accordance with current applicable AASHTO or ASTM standards as indicated below. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows below or on the attached pages: Test Results Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo If you have any questions concerning the test results, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at the number below. Rice Density Proctor Sand Equivalent Fracture Count See Attached Reports 135.3 pcf at 5.9% WSDOT Degradation Bulk Density & Voids Atterberg Limits Asphalt Extraction/Gradation Moisture Content See Attached Report Specific Gravity, Coarse Specific Gravity, Fine Hydrometer Analysis Project:Q.C. - Messenger House Phase II Client: Project #:20B014-13 Date Received:May 7, 2020 Sampled by: Date Tested:May 7, 2020 Tested by: Sample #Location Tare Wet + Tare Dry + Tare Wgt. Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture B20-0475 ATP-1 S-1 @ 3ft 686.9 3175.8 2906.4 269.4 2219.5 12.1% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! B20-0476 ATP-3 S-1 @ 3.5ft 760.1 1274.2 1240.0 34.2 479.9 7.1% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! Reviewed by:Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Aspect Consulting Client M. Carrillo Moisture Content - ASTM C-566, ASTM D-2216 & AASHTO T-265 Project:Date Received:7-May-20 Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:8-May-20 Source:Tested By:C. Kriss Sample#:B20-0475 D(5) =0.014 mm % Gravel =2.8%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =1.09 Specifications D(10) =0.029 mm % Sand =71.3%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =9.89 No Specs D(15) =0.043 mm % Silt & Clay =26.0%Fineness Modulus =1.36 Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.095 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/a D(50) =0.213 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =12.1% D(60) =0.286 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =1.425 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =21/64 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces = Actual Interpolated Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0% 10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0% 8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0% 6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0% 4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0% 3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0% 2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0% 2.00"50.00 100%100.0%0.0% 1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0% 1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0% 1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0% 1.00"25.00 100%100.0%0.0% 3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0% 5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0% 1/2"12.50 99%99%100.0%0.0% 3/8"9.50 99%99%100.0%0.0% 1/4"6.30 98%100.0%0.0% #4 4.75 97%97%100.0%0.0% #8 2.36 96%100.0%0.0% #10 2.00 96%96%100.0%0.0% #16 1.18 87%100.0%0.0% #20 0.850 84%100.0%0.0% #30 0.600 81%100.0%0.0% #40 0.425 79%79%100.0%0.0% #50 0.300 62%100.0%0.0% #60 0.250 55%100.0%0.0% #80 0.180 45%100.0%0.0% #100 0.150 41%41%100.0%0.0% #140 0.106 32%100.0%0.0% #170 0.090 29%100.0%0.0% #200 0.075 26.0%26.0%100.0%0.0% Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98 Comments: Reviewed by: Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974 Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Sieve Report ASTM C-136, ASTM D-6913 20B014-13 Aspect Consulting ATP-1 S-1 @ 3ft ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System ASTM D-2216, ASTM D-2419, ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-5821 SM, Silty Sand gray Sample Color: Q.C. - Messenger House Ph. II 8"6"4"2"3" 1½ " 1¼ " 10 " 1" ¾" 5/ 8 " ½" 3/ 8 " ¼" #4 #8 #1 0 #1 6 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #5 0 #6 0 #8 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #1 7 0 #2 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 % P a s s i n g % P a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Grain Size Distribution Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results Project:Date Received:7-May-20 Project #:Sampled By:Client Client:Date Tested:8-May-20 Source:Tested By:C. Kriss Sample#:B20-0476 D(5) =0.016 mm % Gravel =16.8%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =1.16 Specifications D(10) =0.033 mm % Sand =60.2%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =12.24 No Specs D(15) =0.049 mm % Silt & Clay =23.0%Fineness Modulus =2.30 Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.123 mm Liquid Limit =n/a Plastic Limit =n/a D(50) =0.278 mm Plasticity Index =n/a Moisture %, as sampled =7.1% D(60) =0.400 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent = D(90) =9.463 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face = Dust Ratio =27/73 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces = Actual Interpolated Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Passing Max Min 12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0% 10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0% 8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0% 6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0% 4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0% 3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0% 2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0% 2.00"50.00 100%100%100.0%0.0% 1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0% 1.50"37.50 99%100.0%0.0% 1.25"31.50 98%100.0%0.0% 1.00"25.00 98%98%100.0%0.0% 3/4"19.00 96%96%100.0%0.0% 5/8"16.00 94%100.0%0.0% 1/2"12.50 92%92%100.0%0.0% 3/8"9.50 90%90%100.0%0.0% 1/4"6.30 85%100.0%0.0% #4 4.75 83%83%100.0%0.0% #8 2.36 78%100.0%0.0% #10 2.00 77%77%100.0%0.0% #16 1.18 72%100.0%0.0% #20 0.850 71%71%100.0%0.0% #30 0.600 66%100.0%0.0% #40 0.425 62%62%100.0%0.0% #50 0.300 52%100.0%0.0% #60 0.250 48%48%100.0%0.0% #80 0.180 38%100.0%0.0% #100 0.150 34%34%100.0%0.0% #140 0.106 27%100.0%0.0% #170 0.090 25%100.0%0.0% #200 0.075 23.0%23.0%100.0%0.0% Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98 Comments: Reviewed by: Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo ATP-3 S-1 @ 3.5ft ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System ASTM D-2216, ASTM D-2419, ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-5821 SM, Silty Sand with Gravel grayish-brown Sample Color: Q.C. - Messenger House Ph. II Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974 Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Sieve Report ASTM C-136, ASTM D-6913 20B014-13 Aspect Consulting 8"6"4"2"3" 1½ " 1¼ " 10 " 1" ¾" 5/ 8 " ½" 3/ 8 " ¼" #4 #8 #1 0 #1 6 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #5 0 #6 0 #8 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #1 7 0 #2 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 % P a s s i n g % P a s s i n g Particle Size (mm) Grain Size Distribution Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results Project:Date Received:7-May-20 Project #:Sampled By:Client Sieve Size PercentClient:Date Tested:8-May-20 Sample Color US mm Passing Max Min Source:Tested By:C. Kriss 12.00"300.00 100.0 %0.0 %Sample#:10.00"250.00 100.0 %0.0 % Sample Prepared:Moist:X Manual:8.00"200.00 100.0 %0.0 %Dry:Mechanical:X 6.00"150.00 100.0 %0.0 % Test Standard:ASTM D698:AASHTO T 99:Method 4.00"100.00 100.0 %0.0 % ASTM D 1557:X AASHTO T 180:A 3.00"75.00 100.0 %0.0 % Point Percent Dry 2.50"63.00 100.0 %0.0 %Number Moisture Density Optimum Moist.2.00"50.00 100 %100.0 %0.0 % 1 3.4 %124.7 130.1 lbs/ft3 7.0 %1.75"45.00 100.0 %0.0 % 2 5.3 %128.6 1.50"37.50 100.0 %0.0 % 3 7.4 %130.4 1.25"31.50 100.0 %0.0 % 4 9.4 %127.5 Optimum Moist.1.00"25.00 98 %100.0 %0.0 % 135.3 lbs/ft3 5.9%3/4"19.00 96 %100.0 %0.0 % 5/8"16.00 100.0 %0.0 % 1/2"12.50 92 %100.0 %0.0 % 3/8"9.50 90 %100.0 %0.0 % 1/4"6.30 100.0 %0.0 % #4 4.75 83 %100.0 %0.0 % #8 2.36 100.0 %0.0 % #10 2.00 77 %100.0 %0.0 % #16 1.18 100.0 %0.0 % #20 0.850 71 %100.0 %0.0 % #30 0.600 100.0 %0.0 % #40 0.425 62 %100.0 %0.0 % #50 0.300 100.0 %0.0 % #60 0.250 48 %100.0 %0.0 % #80 0.180 100.0 %0.0 % #100 0.150 34 %100.0 %0.0 % #140 0.106 100.0 %0.0 % #170 0.090 100.0 %0.0 %#200 0.075 23.0 %100.0 %0.0 % Specs:Meets Specs?N/A % Oversize Mat'l:17%% Gravel:16.8%CC:1.16 D(10):0.033 % Oversize Corrected Optimum % Sand:60.2%CU:12.24 D(30):0.123 Retained Density Moisture % Silt&Clay:23.0%FM:2.30 D(60):0.400 5%131.6 6.6% 10%133.2 6.3%LL:n/a PL:n/a PI:n/a 15%134.7 6.0% 20%136.3 5.7%Sand Equivalent:n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent: 25%138.0 5.3% 30%139.7 5.0%Fracture %, 1 Face:n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face: Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98 Fracture %, 2+ Faces:n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces: Comments: Reviewed by: Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 2.70 Max. Dry Density Max. Dry Density No Specs B20-0476 Specifications Uncorrected Proctor Value All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. Value w/ Oversize Correction Applied Assumed Sp. Gr. ASTM D-4718, Misc. Oversize Correction Values grayish-brownATP-3 S-1 @ 3.5ft 20B014-13 SM, Silty Sand with Gravel Aspect Consulting Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Proctor Report ASTM C-136Q.C. - Messenger House Ph. II Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D-2487 120.0 122.0 124.0 126.0 128.0 130.0 132.0 134.0 136.0 138.0 140.0 2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%13%14% Dr y D e n s i t y Percent Moisture Moisture Density Relationship Data Points Zero Air Voids Curve Curve Fit APPENDIX C Previous Geotechnical Report APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ASPECT CONSULTING REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE This Report and Project-Specific Factors Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the Scope of Work for this project and report. You should not rely on this report if it was: •Not prepared for you •Not prepared for the specific purpose identified in the Agreement •Not prepared for the specific real property assessed •Completed before important changes occurred concerning the subject property, project or governmental regulatory actions Geoscience Interpretations The geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science) require interpretation of spatial information that can make them less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. It is important to recognize this limitation in evaluating the content of the report. If you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Use Guidelines" apply to your project or site, you should contact Aspect. Reliance Conditions for Third Parties This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limitations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and recognized geoscience practices in the same locality and involving similar conditions at the time this report was prepared. Property Conditions Change Over Time This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by events such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability, or groundwater fluctuations. If any of the described events may have occurred following the issuance of the report, you should contact Aspect so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. ASPECT CONSULTING Discipline-Specific Reports Are Not Interchangeable The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study differ significantly from those used to perform an environmental study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually address any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations (e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants). Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding the subject property. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please contact the Aspect Project Manager for this project. Ex h i b i t 9 A P.O. Box 720 10045 Old Frontier Road NW Silverdale, Washington 98383 (360) 692-5525 Seattle (206) 682-5574 www.map-limited.com ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 Bainbridge Island, Washington SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M. PREPARED FOR: Cascadia Development 506 N 40th Ave Suite 100 Yakima, WA 98903 CONTACT:Justin Younker (509) 426-2756 PREPARED BY: K. Pat Fuhrer, P.E. J# 6800 DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2020 11-13-20 Exhibit 10 Engineering • Surveying • Planning REFERENCES Messenger House Care Center Evaluation of Wastewater Drainfield and Stormwater Management Report, Gray and Osborne, Inc., G & O Job #14599, March 2015. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019 Geotechnical Design Report Messenger House Addition, Myers Biodynamics, Inc., November 16, 1994. Site Assessment Review: Complete, City of Bainbridge Island, June 5, 2020. Engineering • Surveying • Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................2 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN...............................................................................................................4 III. STORMWATER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................7 IV. PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM......................................................................................15 A. PRELIMINARY STORMWATER SITE PLAN .........................................................................................16 V. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................17 VI. QUALITATIVE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ...........................................................................17 VII. SANITARY SEWER NARRATIVE.............................................................................................17 VIII. WATER DISTRIBUTION NARRATIVE..................................................................................17 APPENDIX A SITE ASSESSMENT REVIEW......................................................................................18 Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 1 Engineering • Surveying • Planning PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the existing Messenger House Care Center by remodeling the interior and exterior of an existing building that was constructed in 1917, and also to remove/replace a single-story Assisted Living wing with a three-story Assisted Living and Independent Living facility. The replacement building will have no increase in the number of beds, and no additional parking is proposed. Other ancillary improvements include modifying a portion of the existing fire lane, adding a new service entry, and providing an updated pedestrian entrance to the facility. Additionally, a non-motorized public trail frontage improvement will be constructed to connect Manitou Park Blvd at the west side of the project to the lower eastern side of the site. The existing access to the site is from Ocean Drive off of Manitou Beach Road east of Rolling Bay. Site Address: 10861 Manitou Park Boulevard Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tax Parcel no.’s: 4156-002-005-0203 and 4156-002-007-0003 The project is located outside of the City of Bainbridge Island Sewer and Water service boundaries. The project has it’s own Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility and operates under Dept of Ecology NPDES Permit #WA0023469 and is maintained by a licensed Washington State Group 3 operator. An existing well provides potable water supply to the use, with a backup supply from the Kitsap Public Utility District. Site Fire flow is also available from KPUD through existing fire hydrants on-site. COBI Permits needed for this portion of the project will include the following: Site Plan Review and SEPA Boundary Line Adjustment to aggregate lots Clearing/Grading and Building Permits Construction Stormwater Permit (DOE) Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 2 Engineering • Surveying • Planning II. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Messenger House Care Center facility is located at 10861 NE Manitou Park Boulevard on the east side of Bainbridge Island in Kitsap County, Washington. The site vicinity map is shown below. The site is comprised of two tax parcels 4156-002-005-0203 and 4156-002-007-0003, and covers 7.01 acres of land. The existing hard surface area of the property is approximately 125,000 sf, which consists of the memory care wing, the 1917 building, and the assisted living wing proposed to be removed, as well as parking and pedestrian improvements. A former theatre building (4,550 s.f. rooftop) and a house (2,400 s.f. rooftop) were also located on the property prior to their removal after 1994, along with some other associated hardscape. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 3 Engineering • Surveying • Planning In 1996, improvements constructed included the Memory Care Wing and an additional parking area on the southwest side of the project. Below are copies of the 1994 topo survey of the site prior to those improvements: Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 4 Engineering • Surveying • Planning A.Existing Conditions Plan An updated topo survey was performed for the portion of the project site that comprises the Phase 2 application work area, and is shown below: Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 5 Engineering • Surveying • Planning The majority of the site topography is generally level to gently sloping within the project area. The site slopes down towards the east, with elevation ranging from elevation 124 to elevation 46 along NE Manitou Park Boulevard. North of the proposed Phase 2 improvements, there are some manmade slopes on the order of 30%. The site is well-vegetated with many trees and landscaped ground covers, and many of the significant trees will be retained by the Phase 2 addition. Stormwater runoff from the site has been modified over the years, with the latest improvements constructed in 1996 as part of the Memory Care Addition and parking improvements. Stormwater runoff from the parking addition was collected and stored in an underground detention pipe, which was then connected to a biofiltration swale to filter the runoff. Downstream of the biofiltration swale, the runoff enters a catch basin which is connected by a 6” siphon pipe to the site’s Wastewater Treatment outfall pipe to Puget Sound. Provisions for overflow at this catch were made for the runoff to “bubble-up” if the capacity of the 6” siphon was exceeded, and an overflow would enter a drainage ditch alongside Manitou Park Boulevard and flow to Puget Sound. No evidence of erosion scour was observed in the downstream drainage course by the Project Engineer in several site inspections during 2020. Sanitary Sewer service is provided by an on-site wastewater treatment plant, which operates under license from the Department of Ecology NPDES Permit # WA0023469 and is managed by a license Group 3 operator. An on-site well provides potable water to the site, with a backup meter connection to KPUD and a metered fireflow connection to KPUD. The civil utility plan from the 1996 project is shown on the next page. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 6 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 7 Engineering • Surveying • Planning III. STORMWATER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS This redevelopment project will result in approximately 24,000 s.f. of new and replaced hard surface areas consisting of rooftops, pollution generating impervious surfaces, concrete and paved pedestrian walkways/patios, and new gravel pedestrian paths. The total site disturbance for construction of these proposed improvements and landscaping features will be approximately 1.94 Acres. This project is required to demonstrate compliance with Minimum Requirements #1 - #9 in accordance with BIMC 15.20 and the attached Site Assessment Review dated June 5, 2020 by the City of Bainbridge Island. 1. Minimum Requirements Compliance Narrative A Stormwater Site plan will be prepared for this project which retains native vegetation and minimizes impervious surfaces to the extent feasible, while implementing other required components of the code. Compliance with the 13 SWPP elements will be demonstrated in narrative form and the future project’s Civil Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 8 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Source control BMP’s for this project will include spill-control oil-water separation within the Type 1 catch basins proposed for the new service entrance drive and the modified fire lane. This project will maintain the existing discharges to the on-site and downstream man-made drainage system to Puget Sound and creates no new discharge location. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 9 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 10 Engineering • Surveying • Planning This BMP is feasible and will be specified on all pervious disturbed areas (in conjunction with the final landscape plans) that are less than 33% sloped on the final civil construction plans. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 11 Engineering • Surveying • Planning BMP T5.10A is considered infeasible for this project in my professional opinion and that of previous Geotechnical studies due to the disturbed nature of the on-site soils, the seasonal high groundwater table, the potential for flooding and/or erosion potential on downstream foundations, slopes and infrastructure, and the lack of a vegetated flow path length and finish grade slope less than 15%. Once precise downspout locations are identified at the time of final design, BMP T5.10B downspout dispersion and/or BMP T5.10C perforated stub-out connections can be evaluated and specified. Both of these BMP’s are considered infeasible for this project in my professional opinion due to the lack of a vegetated slope with a flowpath of 25-50 feet adjacent to the new service entrance and the modified fire access lane. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 12 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Since this project proposes to construct 3,670 s.f. of new PGHS surfaces with the new service entrance and the modified fire lane, MR #6 is not applicable. There is not more than ¾ acre of PGPS associated with the Phase 2 Messenger House project, therefore MR #6 is not applicable. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 13 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 14 Engineering • Surveying • Planning Flow Control is not required for this project since the downstream conveyance system is comprised entirely of man-made elements which extend to the OHWM of the receiving water of Puget Sound. This conveyance system has demonstrated sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey discharges from this site without causing any observable-impact, and given the fact that the amount impervious surface coverage is not increasing beyond what was included in the 1996 improvement plans. This project does not discharge stormwater directly or indirectly to a wetland, therefore MR #8 is not applicable. A stormwater Operation and Maintenance Manual will be prepared by the Project Engineer prior to completion of the project meeting the requirements above and submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island and the project owner’s to ensure that MR #9 is achieved. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 15 Engineering • Surveying • Planning IV. PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM Rooftop runoff from the west side of the Phase 2 Assisted Living Wing will most likely be connected to the existing storm drainage conveyance system in the service drive area, and the downslope-eastern side will be able to either use downspout dispersion and/or perforated stubouts daylighting to the landscaped areas below. Runoff generated from the new service entrance and the modified fire Lane will be collected by surface grading to catch basins fitted with SC-type oil/water separator baffles and piped to the nearest existing conveyance pipe. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 16 Engineering • Surveying • Planning A.Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan S CO N N E C T A L L N E W R O O F D R A I N LE A D E R S T O E X I S T I N G S T O R M S Y S T E M , SP L A S H B L O C K S W H E R E F E A S I B L E NE W C B T O T I E R U N O F F F R O M MO D I F I E D F I R E L A N E T O E X I S T I N G ST O R M T I G H T L I N E I N F I R E L A N E NE W C B T O T I E R U N O F F F R O M NE W S E R V I C E E N T R A N C E T O EX I S T I N G S T O R M L O C A T I O N T B D S S S S S S S S S S S S S PR O P O S E D A S S I S T E D LI V I N G 19 1 7 B U I L D I N G ME M O R Y C A R E WI N G ( 1 9 9 6 ) NE W S I D E S E W E R CO N N E C T I O N T O E X I S T I N G EX . F I R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R BU I L D I N G & F I R E D E P A R T M E N T CO N N E C T I O N F O R C E M A I N RE L O C A T E H Y D R A N T S U P P L Y PO S S I B L E P R O P A N E TA N K R E L O C A T I O N MO D I F I E D F I R E L A N E 6' W I D E G R A V E T R A I L FR O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T GR A V E L T R A I L F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T TO E X T E N D T O M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D PR O P E R T Y L I N E T O B E AG G R E G A T E D T H R O U G H BO U N D A R Y L I N E A D J U S T M E N T K. P . U . D . M E T E R V A U L T F O R H Y D R A N T AN D B U I L D I N G F I R E S P R I N K L E R S S NE W B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 1 2 , 7 5 4 RE P L A C E D B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 7 NE W A S P H A L T P G I S = 3 , 6 7 0 s . f . TO T A L D I S T U R B E D A R E A ~ 8 4 , 6 0 0 s . f . 19 8 6 A S S I S T E D L I V I N G F O O T P R I N T = 1 1 , 4 3 1 s 11 - 1 3 - 2 0 Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 17 Engineering • Surveying • Planning V. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS There are no sources of upstream basin runoff onto the project. VI. QUALITATIVE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Referring to the 1995 Civil Site Utility Plan on Page 6, all of the stormwater runoff from this Phase 2 portion of the site is conveyed to the existing biofiltration swale and/or an interceptor swale that ultimately flows to a catch basin located in Manitou Park Boulevard NE. This catch basin has a 6” siphon pipe that connects to the sanitary sewer submerged outfall into Puget Sound. If the capacity of this siphon pipe is exceeded, the catch basin will bubble-up and overflow into an existing roadside ditch which daylights onto a gravel parking area and sheet flows into Puget Sound. No erosion of the existing ditch or real evidence of overland flow downstream of the catch basin has been observed in the downstream overflow route after several inspections during rainfall events in 2020. VII. SANITARY SEWER NARRATIVE Sanitary Sewer connection from the Phase 2 Assisted Living building will connect to the existing sewer conveyance system that serves the existing nursing wing. The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that services this project was upgraded and improved in 1999 to a design flow of 16,000 gallons per day. The WWTP operates under WA State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit #WA023469 and conditions of approval with regards to operation and maintenance. The WWTP is under contract with a licensed Operator, who reports flows and other testing requirements and parameters directly to Ecology. Historically, a total of 96 beds were licensed for this project, and that total will not be exceeded after completion of the Phase 2 Assisted Living wing. Flow data between 2012 and the cessation of the previous population in 2017 show that a daily flow of greater than 13,600 gpd (85% of design) was exceeded 4 times over the 5-yr period, with the highest daily flow reported of 14,757 gpd. This project replaces water fixtures in a nursing facility that are over 34 years old, with new low-flow code compliant water fixtures, which studies have shown reduces water consumption by 30%. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that this addition to the project will not cause an increase in the historical record of daily flow to the WWTP. VIII. WATER DISTRIBUTION NARRATIVE The project potable water supply is from an existing well on the property, with a backup source from the Kitsap Public Utility District. The site fire hydrants and the building’s fire sprinkler system are fed from the KPUD public main as well. Messenger House Care Center Job #6800 Preliminary Design Report Page 18 Engineering • Surveying • Planning APPENDIX A SITE ASSESSMENT REVIEW 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 SITE ASSESSMENT REVIEW: COMPLETE Date: June 5, 2020 SmartGov Case No.: SAR80359 Owner: Cascadia Development, 509.426.2756 Mailing Address: 506 N 40th Ave Suite 100 | Yakima, WA 98903 Applicant/Agent: Wenzlau Architects, 206.780.6882; charlie@wenzlauarchitects.com Project: Messenger House Phase II Site Location: 10861 Manitou Park BLVD. | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tax Identification No.: 4156-002-005-0203, 4156-002-007-003 This completed Site Assessment Review (SAR) letter serves as an endorsement from the Department of Public Works of the project with recommendations to achieve Low Impact Development (LID) to the maximum extent practicable based on the Department of Ecology’s Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The following LID recommendations apply to the site as it has been presented in the application to reduce vegetation removal, minimize hard surface installation, and mimic natural hydrology. This assessment is non-binding, unless the recommendations are as required under BIMC 15.20. Application for permits with the City of Bainbridge Island for which a SAR is required shall be in substantial conformance with this proposal, or, else a new SAR shall be required. Project Surfaces/Thresholds: Threshold Proposed Project Proposed New/Replaced Hard Surface Total ~ 24,000 sf Proposed Land Clearing/Disturbance ~ 40,000 sf Existing Site Impervious Coverage ~125,027 sf Total Site Area 305,355 sf Site Previously Developed Under Adopted Stormwater Regulations (after 2/10/1999)NO Type of Development (New or Redevelopment) Redevelopment Recommendations This project proposes changes to an existing established health care facility that has not been operating recently. Proposed changes include demolition of an existing residential wing and subsequent reconstruction of a three story residential wing while revising and expanding existing hard surfaces to include service entrances and pedestrian access serving the facility creating 24000sf of new and replaced hard surfaces. Site disturbance for the total project may exceed 1.0 acre. Existing site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels generally surrounded by residential development. Initial analysis indicates no likely environmental critical areas on site, but the work is located within the zone of influence of a recently active landslide hazard located on the north facing slope overlooking Rolling Bay Walk approx. 175’ north of the proposed residential wing. This project is subject to both Land Use permits (Conditional Use Permit and/or Site Plan Review) and the work itself would be reviewed, approved, constructed, and inspected via a Building permit issued by COBI Planning and Community Development (PCD). The existing hard surface on the site exceeds 35% and thus the project is classified as ‘Redevelopment’ for the purpose of determining project requirements. Where the value of the proposed improvements (including interior improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements currently assessed at $684,290, all MRs shall apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. An application for any of the required follow on permits will require the project demonstrate compliance with applicable minimum requirements (MRs) # 1 through 9 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 o MR#1 – Develop a Permanent Stormwater Site Plan (SSP). o MR#2 – Develop a Construction Erosion Control Plan: Also known as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). o MR#3 – Source Control of Pollution – Generally N/A for projects of a residential scope. o MR#4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls o MR#5 – On-Site Stormwater Treatment o MR#6 – Runoff Treatment (Water Quality) o MR#7 – Flow Control (Impound and control excess runoff due to larger hard surface quantity) o MR#8 – Wetlands Protection o MR#9 – Operations and Maintenance (For larger projects, an O&M manual is required to ensure installed stormwater control facilities are adequately maintained and operated properly. Develop a Permanent Stormwater Site Plan (MR #1): The SSP is the collection of all the technical information and analysis necessary for the City Development Engineer to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with state and local stormwater requirements and lays out the long term, permanent solution for the runoff generated by the project. Contents of the SSP will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics, and contain site-appropriate development principles, as required, to retain native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. o Project is more than 5,000sf of new/replaced hard surface so this plan is required and shall be created by (or under the direction of) a professional engineer licensed to practice in Washington State. The SWMMWW volume I, section I-3.1.5, Step 5 offers additional guidance on content and format of the plan and narrative. o Initial analysis and submittal documents indicate soils and conditions which are not generally feasible for infiltration or dispersion. There are existing stormwater facilities which may be utilized as part of the final stormwater solution for the proposed project. (see MR#5 for additional information). o A qualitative downstream analysis of the site outfalls shall be conducted per BIMC 15.20. o The geotechnical reports included with the SAR submittal will likely need a current update and the project will require geotechnical engineer evaluation of the stormwater site plan based on the proximity of the geological hazard to the north. MR#2 Develop a Construction Erosion Control Plan requires submittal and approval of a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the building permit application, also called an Erosion Control Plan. The SWPPP applies to all land-disturbing activities and temporary impacts associated with construction of the project. A well followed SWPPP with established clearing and disturbance limits and clearly thought out phasing helps to minimize unnecessary destruction of healthy soils during the construction process. o Erosion control devices shall be installed to prevent sedimentation of any existing drainage system and to retain sediment on-site during site preparation operations, both airborne (dust) and water borne (sediment laden runoff). o Temporary construction entrances and access roads shall be constructed of inert materials. Recycled concrete is strictly prohibited. o Construction laydown, parking and material storage areas should be carefully located and maintained to minimize vehicular and pedestrian traffic through exposed soil areas. o Applicant should complete COBI form B109D (available online) or equivalent and annotate the location of intended erosion control elements on the stormwater site plan drawing and maintain that with the building permit when issued by COBI Planning and Community Development. o In addition to the SWPPPP submitted for City review and approval the project will require General Stormwater Construction Permit (GSWCP) coverage from the Washington State Department of Ecology for earth disturbance in excess of 1 acre. If required, a copy of the Notice of Coverage letter shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the building permits. MR#3 Source Control of Pollution – This project likely considered N/A due to projected absence of point source pollutants. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 MR#4 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls. Existing drainage patterns are anticipated to continue to occur at the natural location to the max extent practicable as a result of this project. The manner by which any runoff is discharged from the project site shall not cause a significant adverse impact (or increase the risk of such impact beyond professionally acceptable levels) to downstream receiving waters, environmental critical areas, or downgradient properties. MR#5 – On-Site Stormwater Management. Project shall employ on site BMP’s to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on-site to a feasible extent without causing flooding or erosion impacts. Use list #2 (SWMMWW Vol I, I-2.5.5) for each runoff generating surface (Lawn, Roofs or Other Hard Surfaces) and select the first BMP that is considered feasible or optionally the consulting engineer may choose to show that the drainage plan meets the LID standard in the 2015 SWMMWW via an approved stormwater management model. o Selection rationale and Infeasibility criteria per the SWMMWW shall be documented in the SSP overview, especially when a BMP is deemed infeasible and the next lowest priority BMP is considered. Submitted COBI Form B109b may be included as part of the final SSP submittal. Supporting geotechnical documents will need to be updated by current geotechnical engineer of record. o The privately maintained existing conveyance and outfall serving the site may be considered part of the final stormwater site plan for this project but only if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the system has sufficient capacity at its discharge point, currently complies with, and will continue to comply with, the currently adopted stormwater management manual (BIMC 15.20 and DOE 2014 SWMMWW) surfaces without adversely affecting the current drained basin or downstream property/discharge.. Contractor will be expected to protect existing drainage and to demonstrate it is in good working order prior to Final Occupancy (to include the outfall offsite). o Site soils and areas that support infiltration (i.e. shown not to meet the infeasibility criteria of the stormwater manual) would require full-downspout infiltration or a rain garden sized per the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington meeting the ‘GOOD’ performance standard. MR#6 – Runoff Treatment (Water Quality). If the hard pollution generating surface exceeds 5,000 sf, water quality treatment will be required as part of the engineered stormwater drainage plan. SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.6 addresses sizing, selection, design, and other considerations of water quality BMPs. MR#7 - Flow Control (Impound and control excess runoff due to larger hard surface quantity). The required engineered drainage plan shall address the flow control requirements (or exemption from) as part of the SSP. SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.7 provides the relevant information. MR#8 – Wetlands Protection Stormwater from the proposed hard surfaces will likely discharge into a wetland (either directly or through conveyance/stream). The engineered drainage plan shall address wetland protection requirements per SWMMWW Volume I, section I-2.5.8. MR#9 – Operations and Maintenance manual. An O&M manual shall be provided for proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. As this project is a private facility, a copy of the O&M manual shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and shall be transferred with the property to any subsequent new owner. In addition, a Declaration of Covenant for the maintenance and operation of stormwater facilities will be required for recording to title prior to any issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) Any proposed development or activity requiring a site assessment review (SAR), located within the R-0.4, R-1 or R-2 zoning designation, requires designation of an Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (unless exempt under BIMC 16.20.100.E.1(a-d)). Initial Public Works evaluation is that this property will likely require designation of an ARPA, based on the work proposed being located in the shoreline jurisdiction which is exempt from ARPA. o COBI Planning and Community Development holds the final determination authority for ARPA designation and compliance and will address this requirement during the permit review process. If you have questions about the Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA) or other critical areas requirements for critical areas located on or adjacent to your property, please contact the Planning Department at PCD@bainbridgewa.gov or (206) 780-3770. 280 Madison Avenue N Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 www.bainbridgewa.gov 206.842.2016 Other Low Impact Development design considerations Location of survey elements (property corners/lines) and existing surface features (driveway, drain fields, wetlands, etc.) shall be derived from survey completed by a Public Land Surveyor certified to practice in Washington State for the building permit application submittal documentation. Placement of any onsite stormwater management systems shall comply with the Kitsap County Health Ordinance 2008A-01 for setbacks from wells, primary septic fields and reserve areas, and septic system components. (see Table 1B of the ordinance). BIMC 15.20.060.A(9) requires that a geotechnical engineer evaluate all stormwater or infiltration facilities within the zone of influence (200’) of a geologically hazardous area. (steep slope >40% and more than 10’ of vertical relief). Geotechnical engineer concurrence on the drainage plan as designed will be submitted via a COBI “Step 2 form”, and on the drainage system as installed post construction submitted via a COBI “Step 3 form”. Retaining or planting trees within 20 feet of hard surfaces where feasible is recommended to reduce peak stormwater runoff amounts. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater. Summary These recommendations are not fully inclusive of all requirements for the site proposal and do not constitute an approval, permit or a planning level review (or an endorsement of any required land use approval/plat amendment request required for approval). They represent a site-specific analysis and review of low impact development principles based on the project proposal and define some of the civil site design and documentation requirements going forward in the permitting process for this project. Please don’t hesitate to contact COBI Development Engineering with any questions or concerns. This letter will be required as a submittal with the follow-on application for the Building Permit Application associated with the Commercial Healthcare project on this site. Paul Nylund, P.E. Development Engineer Public Works, Engineering MESSENGER HOUSE TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS Bainbridge Island, WA Prepared for: Mr. Justin Younker Cascadia Development November 2020 HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC Transportation and Civil Engineering 11/20/2020 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com Exhibit 11 MESSENGER HOUSE TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Messenger House project proposes to convert an existing senior housing facility containing a total of 96 beds with 50 beds associated with memory care and 46 beds associated with skilled nursing in the city of Bainbridge Island. The subject property is associated with two tax parcels 4156-002-005-0203 and 4156-002-007-0003. The building will be reconfigured to provide the following type of care: 39 beds for memory care, 43 beds for assisted living and 14 beds for independent living. The site currently has 72 parking stalls which are proposed to be maintained. Access to the site is proposed via one primary driveway extending east from Manitou Beach Drive NE which is existing and is the signed main entrance. In addition, right of way for NE Ocean Drive extends through the site to NE Manitou Park Boulevard where it is graveled and as a secondary access for emergency purposes. Surrounding land use is a mixture of residential with some commercial located north and west in the Rolling Bay area of Bainbridge Island. A conceptual site plan illustrating the proposed site layout is presented in Figure 1. A site aerial is provided below locating the project. Site Aerial Fr a n z A n d e r s o n R d S E 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 2 FIGURE 1 HEATH & ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC AND CIVIL ENGINEERING SITE PLAN MESSENGER HOUSE N 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 3 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation is used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding street system. This is usually denoted by the quantity or specific number of new trips that enter and exit a project during a designated time period, such as a specific peak hour (AM or PM) or an entire day. Data presented in this report was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Existing Trip Generation The current facility would be defined as a Land Use Code 620 for both the memory care and the skilled nursing. The excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition are added to the appendix. Table 1 below summarizes anticipated vehicular trips for the average weekday daily trips (AWDT), AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Table 1: Existing Trip Generation Land Use Units AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Memory Care 50 153 6 3 9 4 7 11 Skilled Nurs. 46 141 6 2 8 3 7 10 Total 96 294 12 5 17 7 14 21 Based on the data presented in Table 2, the project is anticipated to generate 21 new AM peak hour trips (5 in/16 out) and 26 new PM peak hour trips (16 in/10 out). Proposed Trip Generation The new configuration modifies the trip generation slightly as the following unit counts are proposed along with the designated land uses from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition which are also added to the appendix. The new configuration proposes: 39 beds of memory care (LUC 620 – Nursing Home 43 beds of assisted living (LUC 254 – Assisted Living) 14 units of independent living (LUC 252 – Senior Adult Housing Attached) Table 2 on the following page summarizes anticipated vehicular trips for the new configuration. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 4 Table 2: Proposed Trip Generation Land Use Units AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Memory Care 39 119 5 1 6 3 6 9 Asst. Living 43 112 5 3 8 4 7 11 Sr. Housing 14 51 1 2 3 2 2 4 Total 96 282 11 6 17 9 15 24 Net Difference between the current configuration and the new configuration shows a 12 trip daily reduction with a net zero difference for the AM peak hour and a 3 trip increase in the PM peak hour. The trip threshold for Bainbridge Island in terms of additional traffic analysis is a net 50 trip increase in daily traffic or a 5 trip increase in peak hour traffic. Neither of these thresholds are met with the new configuration proposed for the Messenger House. PARKING ANALYSIS Chapter 18.15 of the Bainbridge Island Development Standards and Guidelines was reviewed for parking requirements as established in Table 18.15.020-1. The uses proposed at Messenger House are not listed therefore the guidelines stipulate that a parking analysis be provided for city review. The parking analysis should be based on a review of local jurisdictions along with any analysis that can be determined by a literature search of accepted practices. PARKING GENERATION MANUAL, 5TH EDITION Forecast parking demands associated with the Messenger House project were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineering publication, Parking Generation 5th Edition (2019). The Land Use Code as shown were used for determining peak parking demands. Table 3 summarizes projected rates for both average rates and 85th percentile rates. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 5 Table 3: Parking Demands Land Use Peak Period Unit of Measure Size Avg. (veh/unit) Parked Veh. 85th %-tile (veh/unit) Parked Veh. Memory Care LUC 620 9 AM – 3 PM beds 39 0.48 19 0.68 27 Assisted Living LUC 254 11 AM - 3 PM beds 43 0.39 17 0.58 25 Sr. Housing LUC 252 10 PM – 8 AM units 14 0.61 9 0.67 10 Average 45 62 Based on ITE data, an average parking demand for the Messenger House is expected to be approximately 45 parked vehicles. A more conservative estimation, using the 85th percentile from the data set, indicates approximately 62 parked vehicles. The Messenger House has proposed an on-site parking supply on 72 stalls with additional parking available in the circular driveway serving the porte cochere. Given the 72 car availability and the 85th percentile need of 62 stalls adequate parking based on the Parking Generation Manual is met using the latest parking generation information. JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISONS Three nearby jurisdictions were reviewed in terms of on-site parking requirements to provide an additional parking metric. Requirements were obtained through the respective municipal codes. The largest shift proposed at Messenger House would incorporate 18 employees at stabilization. Kitsap County: Minimum Parking – 0.5 per unit plus 1 per each on-duty employee.1 Applying the above requirements would yield: 0.5 x 96 + 18 = 64 spaces. Gig Harbor: Minimum Parking – 1 for each four beds.2 Applying the above requirements would yield: 96/4 = 24 spaces. Poulsbo: Minimum Parking – 1 for each two beds plus one space for every two full-time employees on the largest shift.3 Applying the above requirements would yield: 96/2 + 18/2 = 57 spaces. 1 Kitsap County Municipal Code: Table 17.490.030 2 Gig Harbor Municipal Code: Table 17.72.030 3 Poulsbo Municipal Code: 18.70.080 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 6 Messenger House proposes a parking supply of 72 spaces, exceeding that which would be required from three nearby jurisdictions. SUMMARY Messenger House proposes to modify the existing 96 bed memory bed/skilled nursing facility to 39 memory care, 43 assisted living and 14 units of independent living. The site would have 72 on-site parking spaces. Trip generation was analyzed for the change in uses of the Messenger House site. Estimated parking demands were obtained from published ITE parking literature. In addition, two nearby jurisdiction’s minimum parking requirements for day car uses were examined for reference. 1.The project is not exceeding city of Bainbridge Island trip generation threshold criteria of 50 additional daily trips or 5 peak hour trips therefore no further analysis is needed. 2.The parking proposed for the site of 72 stalls is adequate to serve the project including the change in uses. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 7 MESSENGER HOUSE TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS APPENDIX ITE TRIP GENERATION SHEETS LUC 620 – NURSING HOME 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 8 Land Use: 620 Nursing Home Description A nursing home is any facility whose primary function is to provide care for persons who are unable to care for themselves. Examples of such facilities include rest homes and chronic care and convalescent homes. Skilled nurses and nursing aides are present 24 hours a day at these sites. Nursing homes are occupied by residents who do little or no driving; traffic is primarily generated by employees, visitors, and deliveries. Assisted living (Land Use 254) and continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255) are related uses. Additional Data Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the four general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 and 2:30 p.m., respectively. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the three general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: •1.03 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. •1.12 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator •1.46 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), Florida, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ontario, Canada, and Texas. Source Numbers 436, 502, 598, 734, 878, 971, 972 41 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 9 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=620&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/S… Nursing Home (620) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:3 Avg. Num. of Beds:160 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.06 2.60 - 3.25 0.33 Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 200 250 3000 200 400 600 800 1,000 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 10 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=620&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/Su… Nursing Home (620) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:3 Avg. Num. of Beds:134 Directional Distribution:72% entering, 28% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.17 0.16 - 0.20 0.02 Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 200 250 3000 10 20 30 40 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 11 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=620&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/Su… Nursing Home (620) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:3 Avg. Num. of Beds:100 Directional Distribution:33% entering, 67% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.22 0.12 - 0.27 0.07 Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 2000 10 20 30 40 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 12 APPENDIX ITE TRIP GENERATION SHEETS LUC 254 – ASSISTED LIVING 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 13 Land Use: 254 Assisted Living Description An assisted living complex is a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited persons. It commonly has separate living quarters for residents. Its services typically include dining, housekeeping, social and physical activities, medication administration, and transportation. Alzheimer’s and ALS care are commonly offered by these facilities, though the living quarters for these patients may be located separately from the other residents. Assisted care commonly bridges the gap between independent living and nursing homes. In some areas of the country, assisted living residences may be called personal care, residential care, or domiciliary care. Staff may be available at an assisted care facility 24 hours a day, but skilled medical care—which is limited in nature—is not required. Congregate care facility (Land Use 253), continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255), and nursing home (Land Use 620) are related uses. Additional Data The rooms in these facilities may be private or shared accommodations, consisting of either a single room or a small apartment-style unit with a kitchenette and living space. Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the four general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and 12:30 and 1:30 p.m., respectively. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. Source Numbers 244, 573, 581, 611, 725, 876, 877, 912 387 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 14 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=254&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/S… Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:2 Avg. Num. of Beds:135 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.60 1.86 - 4.14 * Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 2000 100 200 300 400 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 15 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=254&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/Su… Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:9 Avg. Num. of Beds:123 Directional Distribution:63% entering, 37% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.19 0.08 - 0.43 0.12 Data Plot and Equation T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 2000 10 20 30 40 50 60 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 16 10/29/2020 https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=254&ivlabel=BEDS&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=544&locationCode=General Urban/Su… Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Beds On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:9 Avg. Num. of Beds:123 Directional Distribution:38% entering, 62% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.26 0.11 - 0.53 0.13 Data Plot and Equation T = T r i p E n d s X = Number of Beds Study Site Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= **** Trip Gen Manual,10th Ed + Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 50 100 150 2000 20 40 60 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 17 APPENDIX ITE TRIP GENERATION SHEETS LUC 252 – SENIOR ADULT HOUSING – ATTACHED 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 18 352 Land Use: 252 Senior Adult Housing—Attached Description Senior adult housing consists of attached independent living developments, including retirement communities, age-restricted housing, and active adult communities. These developments may include limited social or recreational services. However, they generally lack centralized dining and onsite medical facilities. Residents in these communities live independently, are typically active (requiring little to no medical supervision) and may or may not be retired. Senior adult housing— detached (Land Use 251), congregate care facility (Land Use 253), assisted living (Land Use 254), and continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255) are related uses. Additional Data Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the one general urban/suburban site with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. and 12:00 and 1:00 p.m., respectively. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s in Alberta (CAN), California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Source Numbers 272, 501, 576, 602, 703, 734, 741, 902, 970 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 19 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 20 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 21 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 22 MESSENGER HOUSE TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS APPENDIX ITE PARKING DEMAND SHEET LUC 620 – NURSING HOME 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 23 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 24 APPENDIX ITE PARKING DEMAND SHEET LUC 254 – ASSISTED LIVING 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 25 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 26 APPENDIX ITE PARKING DEMAND SHEET LUC 252 – SENIOR ADULT HOUSING – ATTACHED 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 27 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 28 APPENDIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS KITSAP COUNTY 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 23 17.490.030 Number of spaces required. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided as follows: Land Use Parking Spaces Required in All Zones (Except as Modified to the Right) High Capacity Transit Station Area Modifications Residential Single-Family (attached or detached) During subdivision, 2 per unit +0.5 per unit on street or set aside; for historical lots or lots with no standing requirement, 3 per unit. 1 additional space for accessory dwelling units or accessory living quarters. Garages are not calculated towards any parking requirement. 2 per unit, 1 additional space per guest house, accessory dwelling unit or accessory living quarter. Garages are calculated towards parking requirement. Multifamily (Condos/Townhouses/Apartments) and Cottage Housing 1.5 per unit + 0.5 per unit on street or set aside Units with 1 or fewer bedrooms: 1 space per unit + 0.5 spaces per unit set aside. Units with 2 or more bedrooms: 1.5 spaces per unit + 0.5 spaces per unit set aside. Senior Housing 0.5 per unit; 1 per on-duty employee 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 24 APPENDIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS GIG HARBOR 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 25 17.72.030 Number of off-street parking spaces. The following is the number of off-street parking spaces required for each of the uses identified below: Use Required Parking Dwelling, single-family Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.3 Dwelling, duplex Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.3 Dwelling, triplex One off-street parking space for each studio unit, 1.5 off-street parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit, and two off-street parking spaces for units with two or more bedrooms.3 Dwelling, fourplex One off-street parking space for each studio unit, 1.5 off-street parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit, and two off-street parking spaces for units with two or more bedrooms.3 Dwelling, multiple-family One off-street parking space for each studio unit, 1.5 off-street parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit, and two off-street parking spaces for units with two or more bedrooms.3 Accessory apartment One off-street parking space per accessory apartment in addition to parking required for primary dwelling unit. Family day care provider Two off-street parking spaces. Home occupation One off-street parking space in addition to parking required for any other use; two parking spaces shall be required if the occupation requires customers or clients to visit the premises at any time. Adult family home Two off-street parking spaces. Independent living facility One off-street parking space for every four beds based on maximum capacity as determined by the International Building Code.1 Assisted living facility One off-street parking space for every four beds based on maximum capacity as determined by the International Building Code.1 Skilled nursing facility One off-street parking space for every four beds based on maximum capacity as determined by the International Building Code.1 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 26 APPENDIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS POULSBO 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 27 18.70.080 Parking. The following standards apply to parking in the RL, RM and RH zoning districts. All other applicable provisions from Chapter 18.140 also apply. The minimum off-street parking spaces required are as set forth below; on-street parking does not contribute towards the following requirements: A. Residential. 1. Single-family detached: two spaces per dwelling unit. 2. Accessory dwelling unit: one space in addition to spaces required for primary residence. 3. Multifamily attached: one and one-half spaces; provided, that studio apartments (apartments with one room enclosing all activities) may provide one space. Guest parking shall be provided at one space per four units. 4. Cottage: two spaces per unit with a minimum of one space provided on site; remaining may be allowed (but not required) to be accommodated in a shared on- site parking area. 5. Rooming or boarding home: one per sleeping unit, plus one per employee and/or owner(s). 6. Residential units restricted to use for seniors (sixty-five years and older): one and one-quarter spaces per dwelling unit. B. Assisted living, senior congregate care, residential care center: one for each two regular beds (or units), plus one space for every two full-time employees on largest shift. C. Bed and breakfast: one space per room, plus spaces required for residential unit. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax (253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com 28 VICINITY MAP * BUILDING OWNER: DESIGN ARCHITECT: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: CASCADIA SENIOR LIVING & FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES 506 N 40TH AVE, STE 100 YAKIMA, WA 98908 TEL: (509) 480-0642 JUSTIN@CASCADIADEVELOPMENT.COM DOUG@CASCADIADEVELOPMENT.COM WENZLAU ARCHITECTS 490 MADISON AVENUE NORTH #105 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 TEL: (206) 780.6882 FAX: (206) 780.9288 CHARLIE@WENZLAUARHCITECTS.COM JEFF@WENZLAUARCHITECTS.COM CARLETTI ARCHITECTS 116 E FIR ST #A MT VERNON, WA 98273 TEL: (360) 424.0394 DAVID@CARLETTIARCHITECTS FISCHER BOUMA 9141 SALMON RUN LANE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 TEL: (206) 780.5651 JEFF@FBPARTNERSHIP.COM MAP, LTD. 11309 CLEAR CREEK ROAD SILVERDALE, WA 98383 TEL: (360) 692.5525 x-116 PATF@MAP-LIMITED.COM PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION PARCEL INFORMATION PARCELS AND DESCRIPTIONS: ZONING DESIGNATION: PARCEL SIZE: 4156-002-005-0203 (SEC 14, TWP 25, RNG 2E (NE/4)) MANITOU PARK RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9511130231; >>THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 2, 3 AND 5 OF THE PLAT OF MANITOU PARK, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 31, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD NE, S65*33'10 E 1033.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, N65*33'10 W 436.93 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, S0*30'24 W 137.00 FEET; THENCE S46*23'02 W 97.51 FEET; THENCE S0*30'24 W 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE N 4156-002-007-0003 (SEC 14, TWP 25, RNG 2E (NE/4) MANITOU PARK RESULTANT PARCEL B OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9511130231; A PORTION OF BLOCKS 3 & 5 PLAT OF MANITOU PARK, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 31, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, LYING WITHIN SECTION 14, TOWNSHP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:>> BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 OF SAID MANITOU PARK; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW BOULEVARD, S65*33'10 E 596.57 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, S00*30'24 W 440.00 FEET; THENCE S75*04'47 E 301.14 FEET; THENCE S75*04'47 E 29.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE S53*11'54 W 63.66 FEET; THENCE S26*18'12 W 65.30 FEET; THENCE S43*05'10 E 172 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY R-2 4156-002-005-0203= 6.37 (277,477 sq. ft.) 4156-002-007-0203=0.64 (27,878 sq. ft.) TOTAL:7.01 ACRES (305,355 sf. ft) PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 2 6 P M COVER SHEET ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 C1.00 MESSENGER HOUSE ASSITED LIVING ADDITION : PHASE II N0. DESCRIPTION DATE SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME C1.00 COVER SHEET 1 OF 1 PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN L-01 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L-02 LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY PLAN L-03 LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS & SPECIES L-04 ARPA PLAN L-05 TREE RETENTION PLAN L-06 ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM L-07 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION DIAGRAM L-08 SITE LIGHTING CONCEPT PLAN A1.00 BASIC SITE PLAN A1.01 GARDEN LEVEL A1.02 MAIN LEVEL A1.03 SECOND LEVEL A2.01 ELEVATIONS A2.02 ELEVATIONS A3.01 RENDERINGS - FRONT ENTRY A3.02 RENDERINGS - VIEW FROM THE EAST A3.03 RENDERINGS - VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST Exhibit 12 S C O N N E C T A L L N E W R O O F D R A I N L E A D E R S T O E X I S T I N G S T O R M S Y S T E M , S P L A S H B L O C K S W H E R E F E A S I B L E N E W C B T O T I E R U N O F F F R O M M O D I F I E D F I R E L A N E T O E X I S T I N G S T O R M T I G H T L I N E I N F I R E L A N E NEW CB TO TIE RUNOFF FROMNEW SERVICE ENTRANCE TOEXISTING STORM LOCATION TBD S S S S S S S S S S S S S P R O P O S E D A S S I S T E D L I V I N G 1 9 1 7 B U I L D I N G MEMORY CAREWING (1996) N E W S I D E S E W E R C O N N E C T I O N T O E X I S T I N G E X . F I R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R B U I L D I N G & F I R E D E P A R T M E N T C O N N E C T I O N F O R C E M A I N R E L O C A T E H Y D R A N T S U P P L Y POSSIBL E P R O P A N E TANK RE L O C A T I O N M O D I F I E D F I R E L A N E 6 ' W I D E G R A V E T R A I L F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T G R A V E L T R A I L F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T T O E X T E N D T O M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D P R O P E R T Y L I N E T O B E A G G R E G A T E D T H R O U G H B O U N D A R Y L I N E A D J U S T M E N T K . P . U . D . M E T E R V A U L T F O R H Y D R A N T A N D B U I L D I N G F I R E S P R I N K L E R S S N E W B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 1 2 , 7 5 4 s . f . R E P L A C E D B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 7 , 4 6 4 s . f . N E W A S P H A L T P G I S = 3 , 6 7 0 s . f . T O T A L D I S T U R B E D A R E A ~ 8 4 , 6 0 0 s . f . 1 9 8 6 A S S I S T E D L I V I N G F O O T P R I N T = 1 1 , 4 3 1 s . f . 1 1 - 1 3 - 2 0 MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L-01 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING REMODEL PORTE-COCHERE ENTRY TERRACE WATER FEATURE PROPOSED NEW TREES ON ISLAND HISTORIC INFORMATION PRIMARY PAVED PATH SECONDARY GRAVEL PATH BIOSWALE AND BRIDGE THE “PARK” “THE GATEWAY GARDEN” EXPANDED TERRACE NEW SERVICE ACCESS EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREE CANOPY 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREE CANOPY “ESPLANADE” RENOVATED MAIN STAIRS RELOCATED FIRE LANE 6’ WIDE GRAVEL PUBLIC ACCESS TRAIL FROM MANITOU BEACH DR. 6’ WIDE GRAVEL PUBLIC ACCESS TRAIL FROM MANITOU BEACH DR. EXISTING FIRE LANE TO REMAIN 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) TREES SHOWN IN PARKING LOT ARE EXISTING EXISTING TREE CANOPY RESTORED NATIVE LANDSCAPE COMMON AREA TERRACE 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) THE “ARBOR” GARDEN TERRACE GARDENS MANITOU PARK ROAD HILLSIDE GARDEN AND GAME SPACE (REMOVE EXISTING SERVICE DRIVE) RELOCATED PROPANE TANKS 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN SEWER PLANT (E) 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N NOTE: MOST TREES SHOWN ON PLAN ARE EXISTING AND WILL BE RETAINED. REFER TO THE TREE RETENTION PLAN. UTILITY BUILDING (E) CARETAKER (E) 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) - EXISTING VEGETATION MEETS INTENT OF FULL SCREEN BUFFER TRASH/RECYCLE IN BASEMENT ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY MAIN ENTRY ROAD COBI RIGHT-OF-WAY MODIFIED DRIVE MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY PLAN L-02 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL ORNAMENTAL THE PARK MEADOW NATIVE SCREEN (FULL) BIOSWALE EXISTING NATIVE LANDSCAPE (TO REMAIN) EXISTING ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE (SOME ENHANCEMENT) PROPOSED TYPOLOGIES 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N NOTE: REFER TO SHEET L-03 FOR SUMMARY OF EACH AREA AND A LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES. 1 1 1 1 1 2 43 3 3 6D 6C 6E 6F 5 7B 7B 7B 7A 7A 7B 7B 6B 6A 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) COBI RIGHT-OF-WAY C O B I R I G H T - O F - W A Y 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) 25’ PERIMETER SCREEN (FULL) - EXISTING VEGETATION MEETS INTENT OF FULL SCREEN BUFFER 1 2 4 3 6 5 7A 7B PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) MANITOU PARK ROAD MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS & SPECIES L-03 Restorative. Light/pastel colors. Flowers. Airy textures. Fragrance. Calmness. Coherence. 4 seasons of stimulation. These planting areas are concentrated around the new builidng for residents to be able to enjoy from their windows, outdoor patios, or from a short stroll out into the gardens. Plants will be primarily regionally adpated, water tolerant species that are typically found at local nurseries. Native plants will also be included where appropriate within these areas. There will be more woody shrubs and groundcovers than trees in these areas due to their proximiy to the building. The ground plane will be either organic mulch or groundcover. Sample Representative Species: • Serviceberry • Fringetree • Compact Deutzia • Summersweet • Pennisetum • Magnolia • Dwarf Fothergilla • Hydrangea ORNAMENTAL1 This area, called “the park”, takes advantage of the decades old canopy trees growing in this space. Elm, Oak, Chesnut and Beech are a few of these large canopy trees east of the proposed new building. We will ensure a new generation of trees by planting several more within strategic locations between the existing giants. The understory is mowed turf, providing a simplicity to the landscape and maintaning open views beneath the branches. While the lawn will be maintained as such, large mulch rings will be placed around the trunks of trees to improve their health. Sample Representative Species: • White Oak • European Horsechestnut • Sweetgum • Purple Beech THE PARK2 The meadow will be located to the east of the southeast corner of the new building and be comprosed of primarily grass species that will be mowed 1-2 times per year. The grass will be supplemented with perennials for color throughout the season. This area is a transistion between the grass- dominated park in the center of the site and the restored native forest on the south side of the site. This area will provide yet another habitat type for ground-nesting birds and pollinating insects. Sample Representative Species: • Red Fescue • Roemers Fescue • Tall Fescue • Orchardgrass • Blue wildrye • White clover • Hairy vetch MEADOW4 Native vegetation is proposed for the periphery (north and south sides) of the project where remnants remain of the Douglas fir forest that typically dominates the island. These areas will have invasive species, such as blackberry, removed and will be supplemented with native trees, woody shrubs and groundcover to provide improved habitat and an aesthtic backdrop to the near-view ornamental gardens that will be in front of the restored areas. The groundplane wil likely be seeded with an herbaceous seed mix and mulch rings provided around all new vegetation. Sample Representative Species: • Vine Maple • Evergreen Huckleberry • Salal • Western Azalea • Red Flowering Currant • Tall Oregon Grape • Sword Fern • Elderberry NEW NATIVE3 Per BIMC section 18.15.010-3 this development is required to have full screen perimeter buffers, 25 feet in depth. For the most part, these buffers already exsting around the western and nothern boundaries of the site. New screens, utilizing native shrubs and trees, will be added to the south and portions of the eastern boundary of the site. We are proposing that existing large trees and vegetation in the “park” area be considered as meeting the intent of the full screen to the due east in order to preserve a semi-visual connection between the community and the park area. Sample Representative Species: • Western Red Cedar • Douglas Fir • Incense Cedar • Silk Tassel Bush • Tall Oregon Grape • Strawberry Tree • Hazelnut • California Wax Myrtle SCREEN6BIOSWALE No minor improvements are currently proposed for these areas under this specific project permitting. These areas consist of existing native vegetation on the west and north sides of the site, parking lot planting (deciduous trees and grass) and the courtyard on the northwest corner of the Memory Care building which is being designed by others. Trees may be planted in these areas to satisfy the tree retention requirements and as shown on sheet L-05. EXISTING NATIVE EXISTING ORNAMENTAL 5 An existing bioswale runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site. We propose to enhance this utilitatrian strucure by extending it and adding more diversity to this mown grass basin. Plants, both herbaceous and woody shrubs will be added for visual interest and to attract birds and pollinators. This planting would also help meet the intent of the screening required in this area (see note under #5). A path with benches and a bridge crossing this feature would enhance the user’s experience. Sample Representative Species: • Dwarf Arctic Willow • Yellow Dogwood • Elderberry • Slough Sedge • Compact Oregon Grape • Pacific Ninebark • Rush • Variegated Dogwood 7A 7B BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 25’ PERIMETER FULL SCREEN (AREAS CALCULATED AS LABELED ON TYPOLOGY PLAN, AREAS NOT LABELED ARE CONSIDERED AS CURRENTLY SATISFYING COBI 18.15.010.D.4.A) PERIMETER SCREEN 6A TOTAL LF: 150 TOTAL SF: 3,300 TOTAL TREES: 13 • MIN. 9 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 66 • MIN. 46 EVERGREEN PERIMETER SCREEN 6B TOTAL LF: 223 TOTAL SF: 3,345 TOTAL TREES: 13 • MIN. 9 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 67 • MIN. 47 EVERGREEN PERIMETER SCREEN 6C TOTAL LF: 240 TOTAL SF: 6,000 TOTAL TREES: 24 • MIN. 17 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 120 • MIN. 84 EVERGREEN PERIMETER SCREEN 6D TOTAL LF: 198 TOTAL SF: 4,950 TOTAL TREES: 20 • MIN. 14 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 99 • MIN. 69 EVERGREEN PERIMETER SCREEN 6E TOTAL LF: 133 TOTAL SF: 3,325 TOTAL TREES: 13 • MIN. 9 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 67 • MIN. 47 EVERGREEN PERIMETER SCREEN 6F TOTAL LF: 385 TOTAL SF: 9,625 TOTAL TREES: 39 • MIN. 27 EVERGREEN TOTAL SHRUBS: 193 • MIN. 135 EVERGREEN Note: Min. 50% of all trees need to be native. All shrubs need to be 6’ height at maturity. 100% groundcover within 5 years. MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - ARPA PLAN L-04 MANITOU PARK ROAD 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL AQUIFER RECHARGE PROTECTION AREA (ARPA) SUMMARY TOTAL PARCEL AREA 7.0 ACRES ARPA AREA 23,155 SQUARE FEET (.53 ACRES) ARPA AREA OF TOTAL PARCEL 7% AREAS OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO CONSIDER AS ARPA. THE REMAINDER OF THE VEGETATION ON SITE HAS BEEN DISTURBED AND DOES NOT CONSIST OF NATIVE VEGETATION. LEGEND PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - TREE RETENTION PLAN L-05 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL TREE RETENTION SUMMARY TOTAL PARCEL AREA (7.0 ACRES) TREE UNITS REQUIRED 40 T.U.’s/ACRE = 280 T.U.’s REQUIRED TREE UNITS RETAINED = 171 (PER TABLE BELOW) NEW TREE UNITS (PROPOSED) = 109 (POTENTIAL LOCATIONS) TOTAL TREE UNITS = 280 1. TOTAL AREA OF 7.0 ACRES INCLUDES BUFFER AREAS. NO TREES IN BUFFERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE T.U. QUANTITIES ABOVE. 2. SEVERAL EXISTING TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF PARKING LOT AND FIRE ACCESS ROAD WILL NOT BE IMPACTED AND ARE NOT CURRENTLY SHOWN. 3. TREE RETENTION PER COBI 18.15.010.G 4. TREE SYMBOLS WITHOUT NUMBERS WERE NOT ASSESSED BY THE ARBORIST. TREE RETENTION DATA TREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (INCHES) TREE UNITS 401 DOUGLAS FIR 32 9.0 402 DOUGLAS FIR 43 12.0 403 DOUGLAS FIR 18 3.2 404 AMERICAN ELM 22.5 4.6 408 COPPER BEECH 50 13.8 409 WESTERN RED CEDAR 55 13.8 410 AMERICAN ELM 45 12.6 411 CRYPTOMERIA 25 6.2 412 SYCAMORE 39 10.8 413 AMERICAN ELM 45 12.6 416 SCARLET OAK 26 6.2 418 SUGAR MAPLE 28 7.0 419 DOUGLAS FIR 30 7.8 420 DOUGLAS FIR 30 7.8 421 DOUGLAS FIR 35 9.6 424 LAWSONS CYPRESS 45 12.6 425 LAWSONS CYPRESS 28 7.0 428 LIQUIDAMBAR 11.5 1.4 429 CYPRESS 18 3.2 430 CHAMAECYPARIS 17 3.2 435 THREADBRANCH CYPRESS 25 6.2 TREES TO BE RETAINED TREES WITHIN BUFFERS OR OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE THAT WILL BE PROTECTED (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) ELECTIVE RETENTION TREES (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) TREES TO BE REMOVED DUE TO POOR TREE HEALTH - SEE ARBORIST REPORT DATED 6/24/2020. TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR DEVELOPMENT (34 TOTAL) NOT SHOWN NOT ALL TREES IN THESE AREAS WERE SURVEYED. THEY ARE IN THE BUFFER AND/OR OUT OF THE LIMIT OF WORK. THEY ARE BEING RETAINED PER BUFFER AND/OR ARPA REQUIREMENT/ FUNCTION. TOTAL 171.0 LEGEND 401402 403 405 434 435 433 432 406407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 430 421 419 420 UNTAGGED BIGLEAF MAPLES 431 428 429 427 426 425 424 404 MANITOU PARK ROAD PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAM L-06 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N MANITOU PARK ROAD PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES -BARRIER-FREE -PAVED SURFACE -<5% SLOPE BARRIER FREE ROUTES -NO STEPS -SEGMENT MAY BE OVER 5% LONGITUDINAL SLOPE -GRAVEL OR PAVED SURFACES LEGEND M A N I T O U P A R K R O A D MANITOU BEACH DRIVE NE 0’ 1”=60’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=120’ on 11”x17” sheet 120’60’ Scale N PEDESTRIAN PATH -6’ WIDE GRAVEL SURFACE NOTES: 1. EXACT LOCATION WITHIN R.O.W. WILL BE DETERMINED PER ADDITIONAL SURVEY (CURRENTLY BEING COMPLETED) DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 2. PATH WILL UTILIZE EXISTING FIRE LANE AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY. LEGEND BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION DIAGRAM L-07 EXISTING R.O.W. EXISTING ENTRY ROAD EXISTING FIRE LANE MONUMENT SIGN LIGHTING MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - SITE LIGHTING CONCEPT PLAN L-08 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 13, 2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL PATH LIGHTING STAIR/SHORT WALL LIGHTING EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING TYPE 1 (PER ARCH.) EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING TYPE 2 (PER ARCH.) POLE LIGHTS (EXISTING) POLE LIGHTS (PROPOSED) LEGEND MANITOU PARK ROAD PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) PROPERTY LINE SETBACK EXISTING 1917 BUIDLING EXISTING MEMORY CARE BUILDING PAVED ENTRANCE RE- ALIGNED, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS PARKING LOT TO REMAIN PARKING LOT TO REMAIN NEW WALKING PATHS AND LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS NEW MONUMENT SIGN NEW ASISSTED LIVING BUILDING REMODELED PORTE COCHERE A.L. ENTRY REMODELDED PATIO M A N I T O U D R O C E A N D R -F I R E A C C E S S L A N E EXISTING SEWER TREATMENT PLANT TO REMAIN LP TANKS NEW SERVICE ENTRY FORE EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND NEW LANDSCAPING, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 5 -0 2 0 3 M O U N T A I N V I E W R D 22 STALLS 28 STALLS 13 STALLS P R O P E R T Y D R I V E W A Y / E N T R A N C E ROW ROW EXISTING PROPERTY LINES TO BE REMOVED VIA BLA 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 5 -0 2 0 3 P R O P E R T Y L I N E4156-002 -005 -0203 P ROP E RTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 5 -0 2 0 3 4156-002-007-0203 PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 7 -0 2 0 3 P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 5 -0 2 0 3 41 5 6 -00 2 -00 7 -02 0 3 41 5 6 -00 2 -00 5 -02 0 3 MEMORY CARE ENTRY EXCERCISE PATIO NEW ACTIVITY PATIO GARDEN LEVEL PATIOS ROW EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN EXISTING GENERATOR TO REMAIN 139'-1"98'-6" 1 4 4 ' - 1 0 " 190'-1" 21 ' - 0 " 57 ' - 6 " 88 ' - 9 " GARDEN LEVEL PATIOS GARDEN LEVEL PATIOS CROSS-HATCHED AREA IS AREAS OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO CONSIDER AS ARPA HATCHED AREA = ARPA CROSS-HATCHED AREA IS AREAS OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO CONSIDER AS ARPA CROSS-HATCHED AREA IS AREAS OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO CONSIDER AS ARPA EXISITNG LP TANKS AND GENERATOR TO REMAIN 9 STALLS CHARLES PETER WENZLAU STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED ARCHITECT 7163 PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 22 " x 3 4 " 10 8 6 1 M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D N E BA I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 OW N E R : C A S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T SITE PLAN REVIEW ME S S E N G E R H O U S E AS S I S T E D L I V I N G 11/18/2020 2001 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 7 : 2 9 P M BASIC SITE PLAN A1.00 1/32" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN 0 32' - 0" 64' - 0" 96' - 0"128' - 0" GRAPHIC SCALE N0. DESCRIPTION DATE DN UP A2.02 A2.01 2 A2.02 2 A2.02 1 A2.02 3 4 A2.01 3 2-A2-A 3-A3-A 4-A4-A 5-A5-A 2B 2B 2C 2C 2D 2D 1B 1B C C D B B A A AA AA CC CC BB BB 1-A1-A 2-A 3-A 4-A 5-A 2B 2C 2D 1B C DBA AA CC 1-A CLEAN LAUNDRYDIRTY LAUNDRY ELECTRICAL HALLWAY EXCERCISE THEATER ART DIRECTOR STUDIO AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT HALLWAY H A L L W A Y SALON / SPA ART STUDIO VESTIBULE PT DIRECTOR ELE MACH 1 BR AL UNIT ELEV ELEC SUB LINEN 2 3 .0 0 ° 2 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT RR RR OUTDOOR TERRACE A2.01 1 26 ' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 26 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 0 " 49' - 0"0' - 0"25' - 0"117' - 0" 9 6 ' - 0 " ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO O N G R A D E P A T I O O N G R A D E P A T I O O N G R A D E P A T I O O N G R A D E P A T I O O N G R A D E P A T I O O N G R A D E P A T I O PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 7 : 3 1 P M GARDEN LEVEL ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A1.01 3/32" = 1'-0"1 GARDEN LEVEL 0 10' - 8" 21' - 4" 32' - 0" 42' - 8" GRAPHIC SCALE N0. DESCRIPTION DATE A DN A2.02 A2.01 2 A2.02 2 A2.02 1 - - A2.02 3 4 A2.01 3 2-A2-A 3-A3-A 4-A4-A 5-A5-A 2B 2B 2C 2C 2D 2D 1B 1B C C D B B AA AA CC CC BB BB 1-A1-A 2-A 3-A 4-A 5-A 2B 2C 2D 1B C DBA AA CCBB 1-A GAME ROOM Wii BOWLING STORAGE RECEPTION SEATING AREA / LOUNGE HALLWAY H A L L W A Y HALLWAY VIEWING DECK 1 BR AL UNIT - ACC 1 BR AL UNIT - ACC 1 BR AL UNIT - ACC 2 BR AL UNIT - ACC 2 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT MAIL JAN COFFEE BISTRO FIRESIDE RES LAUNDRY ? ELEC COFFEE/TEA CONFERENCE ELEV LINEN RES CARE 26 ' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 26 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 0 " 2 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 6 " 2 6 ' - 0 " 49' - 0" 25' - 0"117' - 0" 9 6 ' - 0 " 1 BR AL UNIT - ACC 1 BR AL UNIT STUDIO AL UNIT - ACC ENTRY TERRACE A2.014 A2.02 5 VISITOR CONFERENCE MARKETING OFFICE ELEV. VESTIBULE STORAGE MC EXEC. OFFICE MC RECEPTION ELEV. 1 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 7 : 3 4 P M MAIN LEVEL ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A1.02 3/32" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL 0 8' - 0" 16' - 0" 24' - 0" 32' - 0" GRAPHIC SCALE N0. DESCRIPTION DATE A2.02 A2.01 2 A2.02 2 A2.02 1 A2.02 3 4 A2.01 3 2-A2-A 3-A3-A 4-A4-A 5-A5-A 2B 2B 2C 2C 2D 2D 1B 1B C C D B B A A AA AA CC CC BB BB 1-A1-A 2-A 3-A 4-A 5-A 2B 2C 2D 1B C DBA AA CCBB 1-A RR OPEN TO BELOW 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT STUDIO AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT STUDIO AL UNIT 1 BR + DEN AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 2 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT 1 BR AL UNIT HALLWAYHALLWAY H A L L W A Y RR JAN LIBRARY BISTRO SKY LOUNGE ELEV LINEN 26 ' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 26 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 0 " 25' - 0"117' - 0"49' - 0" 9 5 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 6 " 2 6 ' - 0 " OPEN TO BELOW 2 BR AL UNIT FIRESIDE ROOF OVER ENTRY AREA GLAZED CANOPY SYSTEM OVER DECK ELEC LINEN ELEC SUB EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 7 : 4 0 P M SECOND LEVEL ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A1.03 3/32" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL 0 8' - 0" 16' - 0" 24' - 0" 32' - 0" GRAPHIC SCALE N0. DESCRIPTION DATE SHOU SUGI BAN SIDING DOUBLE STORY HIGH WINDOWS AT ENTRANCE FOYER 1917 BUILDING PAINTED TO MATCH LITE CEMENT PANEL STEEL CANOPY WITH CEDAR CEILING STEEL STRUCTURE CONOPIES W/CEDAR CEILING MATERIAL SHOU SUGI BAN SIDING DARK CEMENT BOARD SIDING AT BUILDING ELEMENTS THAT CONNECT FUCNTIONAL ELEMENTS. DARK GREY EQUITONE VERTICAL GROOVED CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN SMOOTH CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN PICTURE WINDOW ABOVE AWNING WINDOW, WHITE WOOD BASE, GLASS UPPER GAURDRAILS AT BALCONIES, SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS STEEL STRUCTURE CONOPIES W/CEDAR CEILING MATERIAL GLASS RAILINGS TO PRESERVE VIEWS STOREFRONT WINDOWS FOR EXPANSIVE VIEWS SHOU SUGI BAN SIDING DARK CEMENT BOARD SIDING AT BUILDING ELEMENTS THAT CONNECT FUCNTIONAL ELEMENTS. MODELED AS CEMBRIT PATINA PANEL, CHARCOAL COLOR SHOU SUGI BAN SIDING DOUBLE STORY HIGH WINDOWS AT ENTRANCE FOYER SLIDING PATIO DOORS STEEL ARCH CANOPIES WITH WOOD SLATS 1917 BUILDING PAINTED TO MATCH LITE CEMENT PANEL DARK CEMENT BOARD BAND TO GROUND BUILDING FACADE 1917 BUILDING IN BACKGROUND 8' - 6 " STEEL SUPPORT STRUCTURE CANOPY, TPO ROOF CEDAR SLAT SCREEN WALL PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 0 5 P M ELEVATIONS ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A2.01 1/8" = 1'-0"3 ELEVATION - NORTH @ FITNESS 1/8" = 1'-0"2 ELEVATION - NORTH AL, WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATION - NORTH AL, EAST ELEVATION Copy 1 Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"4 ENTRY CANOPY ELEVATION N0. DESCRIPTION DATE EXISTING PORT COCHERE STRUCTURE EXTENTS WOOD SLATS AT WING WALLS CEMENT PANEL CEILING SHOA SUGI BAN SIDING A.L. WALKWAY CANOPY NEW MEMORY CARE/1917 ENTRY CANOPY 3' - 0 " 14 ' - 6 " SHOA SUGI BAN SIDING WOOD SLATS MEMORY CARE/1917 ENTRY CANOPY SHOWN IN BACKGROUND 17 ' - 0 " PICTURE WINDOW ABOVE AWNING WINDOW, WHITE MODELED AS ANDERSON 100 SERIES FLANGE STYLE STEEL STRUCTURE CONOPIES W/CEDAR CEILING MATERIAL GLASS RAILINGS TO PRESERVE VIEWS STOREFRONT WINDOWS FOR EXPANSIVE VIEWS DARK CEMENT BOARD SIDING AT BUILDING ELEMENTS THAT CONNECT FUCNTIONAL ELEMENTS. DARK GREY EQUITONE SLIDING PATIO DOORS, MODELED AS ANDERSON 100 SERIES VERTICAL GROOVED CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN SMOOTH CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN BALCONIES ON UPPER LEVEL. GLASS GUARDRAIL MOUNTED TO LOWER WOOD BOX BASE, STL FRAME STEEL FRAMED ARCHED PATIO CANOPY WITH WOOD SLATS FULL STAIR HEIGHT WINDOWS VERTICAL SIDING CHANGE @ STAIR VERTICAL GROOVED CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN SMOOTH CEMENT PANEL SIDING, HORIZONTAL PATTERN PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 2 6 P M ELEVATIONS ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A2.02 1/8" = 1'-0"5 PORT COCHERE ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"6 PORT COCHERE ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATION - SOUTH AL, SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 ELEVATION - SOUTH AL, NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3 ELEVATION - SOUTH AL, WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4 ELEVATION - NORTH COMM 200 N0. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 2 6 P M RENDERINGS - FRONT ENTRY ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A3.01 N0. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 2 6 P M RENDERINGS - VIEW FROM THE EAST ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A3.02 N0. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS. 4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 1 1 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 SH E E T S I Z E - 24 " x 3 6 " PRE-APPLICATION 8/06/2020 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 4 8 : 2 6 P M RENDERINGS - VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST ME S S E N G E R H O U S E A L CA S C A D I A D E V E L O P M E N T 10 8 6 1 M a n i t o u P a r k B l v d N E Ba i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 1 1 0 A3.03 N0. DESCRIPTION DATE PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K EX I S T I N G 1 9 1 7 B U I D L I N G EX I S T I N G M E M O R Y C A R E B U I L D I N G PA V E D E N T R A N C E R E - AL I G N E D , S E E L A N D S C A P E DR A W I N G S PA R K I N G L O T T O RE M A I N PA R K I N G L O T T O RE M A I N NE W W A L K I N G P A T H S A N D L A N D S C A P E , S E E L A N D S C A P E D R A W I N G S NE W M O N U M E N T SI G N NE W A S I S S T E D L I V I N G BU I L D I N G RE M O D E L E D PO R T E C O C H E R E A. L . E N T R Y RE M O D E L D E D PA T I O M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D O C E A N D R - F I R E A C C E S S L A N E EX I S T I N G S E W E R TR E A T M E N T P L A N T TO R E M A I N LP T A N K S NE W S E R V I C E E N T R Y FO R E E X I S T I N G T R E E S T O R E M A I N A N D N E W LA N D S C A P I N G , S E E L A N D S C A P E D R A W I N G P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 5 - 0 2 0 3 M O U N T A I N V I E W R D 22 S T A L L S 28 S T A L L S 13 S T A L L S N E O C E A N D R I V E EX I S T I N G PR O P E R T Y L I N E S TO B E R E M O V E D VI A B L A 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 5 - 0 2 0 3 P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4156 -002 -005 -0203 P ROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 5 - 0 2 0 3 4 1 5 6 -0 0 2 -0 0 7 -0 2 0 3 P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 7 - 0 2 0 3 P R O P E R T Y L I N E 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 5 - 0 2 0 3 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 7 - 0 2 0 3 4 1 5 6 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 5 - 0 2 0 3 ME M O R Y C A R E E N T R Y EX C E R C I S E PA T I O NE W A C T I V I T Y PA T I O GA R D E N L E V E L PA T I O S RO W EXISTING BUILDING TO R E M A I N EX I S T I N G GE N E R A T O R T O RE M A I N 13 9 ' - 1 " 98 ' - 6 " 19 0 ' - 1 " 2 1 ' - 0 " 5 7 ' - 6 " 8 8 ' - 9 " GA R D E N L E V E L P A T I O S GA R D E N L E V E L P A T I O S CR O S S -HATCHED AR E A I S A R E A S O F EX I S T I N G N A T I V E VE G E T A T I O N T O CO N S I D E R A S A R P A CR O S S -HA T C H E D A R E A I S AR E A S O F E X I S T I N G N A T I V E VE G E T A T I O N T O C O N S I D E R AS A R P A CR O S S -HA T C H E D AR E A I S A R E A S O F EX I S T I N G N A T I V E VE G E T A T I O N T O CO N S I D E R A S A R P A EX I S I T N G L P T A N K S A N D GE N E R A T O R T O R E M A I N 9 S T A L L S S E T B A C K29' - 0 " S E T B A C K 1 5 ' - 0 " 1 1 1 S E T B A C K 1 9 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K19' - 0 " S E T B A CK 1 5 '-0 " S E T B A C K 1 5 ' - 0 " U N O P E N E D R . O . W . 1 MA I N S I T E E N T R Y 1 S E T B A C K19'-0 " S E T B A C K 1 9 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K19'-0 " S E T B A C K 2 9 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K29'-0 " 1 1 S H O R E L I N E 4 0 % + T O P O F S L O P E 7 5 ' S E T B A C K 7 5'-0" 7 5 ' S E T B A C K 4 0 %+ T O P O F S L O P E PROJECT DATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF FORM, SHALL REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS.WENZLAU ARCHITECTS DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPLETE, OR THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROJECT, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE FULL AND UNHINDERED PARTICIPATION OF WENZLAU ARCHITECTS.4 9 0 M A D I S O N A V E N . , S U I T E 1 0 5 B A I N B R I D G E I S L A N D , W A 9 8 11 0 W W W . W E N Z L A U A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 2 0 6 . 7 8 0 . 6 8 8 2 S H E E T S I Z E - 2 2 " x 3 4 " 10861 MANITOU PARK BLVD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 OWNER: CASCADIA DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN REVIEWMESSENGER HOUSE ASSISTED LIVING 11/18/20202001 3 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 1 1 1 : 3 8 : 5 6 A M BASIC SITE PLAN A1.00 1" = 5 0 ' - 0 " 1 SI T E P L A N N0. D E S C R I P T I O N DATE 1 S P R R e s p o n s e 02/22/21 2 S P R R e s p o n s e # 3 03/26/212Exhibit 12A S C O N N E C T A L L N E W R O O F D R A I N L E A D E R S T O E X I S T I N G S T O R M S Y S T E M , S P L A S H B L O C K S W H E R E F E A S I B L E N E W C B T O T I E R U N O F F F R O M M O D I F I E D F I R E L A N E T O E X I S T I N G S T O R M T I G H T L I N E I N F I R E L A N E NEW CB TO TIE RUNOFF FROMNEW SERVICE ENTRANCE TOEXISTING STORM LOCATION TBD S S S S S S S S S S S S S P R O P O S E D A S S I S T E D L I V I N G 1 9 1 7 B U I L D I N G MEMORY CAREWING (1996) N E W S I D E S E W E R C O N N E C T I O N T O E X I S T I N G E X . F I R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R B U I L D I N G & F I R E D E P A R T M E N T C O N N E C T I O N F O R C E M A I N R E L O C A T E H Y D R A N T S U P P L Y POSSIBL E P R O P A N E TANK RE L O C A T I O N M O D I F I E D F I R E L A N E 6 ' W I D E G R A V E T R A I L F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T G R A V E L T R A I L F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T T O E X T E N D T O M A N I T O U P A R K B L V D P R O P E R T Y L I N E T O B E A G G R E G A T E D T H R O U G H B O U N D A R Y L I N E A D J U S T M E N T K . P . U . D . M E T E R V A U L T F O R H Y D R A N T A N D B U I L D I N G F I R E S P R I N K L E R S S N E W B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 1 2 , 7 5 4 s . f . R E P L A C E D B U I L D I N G H A R D S U R F A C E A R E A = 7 , 4 6 4 s . f . N E W A S P H A L T P G I S = 3 , 6 7 0 s . f . T O T A L D I S T U R B E D A R E A ~ 8 4 , 6 0 0 s . f . 1 9 8 6 A S S I S T E D L I V I N G F O O T P R I N T = 1 1 , 4 3 1 s . f . 1 1 - 1 3 - 2 0 E x h i b i t 1 2 B EXISTING NATIVE TREE CANOPY -VARIED NATIVE UNDERSTORY VEGETATION, INCLUDES SOME ORNAMENTAL AND INVASIVE SPECIES EXISTING ORNAMENTAL TREE CANOPY -NO NATIVE UNDERSTORY VEGETATION, LAWN ONLY NOTE: THE INTENT OF THIS SHEET IS TO SHOW EXISTING TREE STANDS. DETAILED TREE LOCATION INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON SUBSEQUENT PAGES. EXISTING TREE CANOPY ON SURVEY Exhibit 12C TREES TO BE RETAINED TREES TO BE RETAINED WITHIN BUFFERS OR OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) ELECTIVE RETENTION TREES (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) TREES TO BE REMOVED EITHER DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OR POOR HEALTH NOTES: -REFER TO L005 FOR TREE RETENTION DATA AND CALCULATIONS. -TREE SYMBOLS WERE ASSESSED BY ARBORIST (SEE REPORT). 402 403 404 432 433 435 409 410 411 412 408 413 415 414 405 434 407 406 TREE RETENTION PLAN ON EXISTING SURVEY PHASE 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 401 416 429 417 418 430 421 420 419 431 402 403 TREES TO BE RETAINED TREES TO BE RETAINED WITHIN BUFFERS OR OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) ELECTIVE RETENTION TREES (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) TREES TO BE REMOVED EITHER DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OR POOR HEALTH NOTES: -REFER TO L005 FOR TREE RETENTION DATA AND CALCULATIONS. -TREE SYMBOLS WERE ASSESSED BY ARBORIST (SEE REPORT). TREE RETENTION PLAN ON EXISTING SURVEY 424 425 429 TREES TO BE RETAINED TREES TO BE RETAINED WITHIN BUFFERS OR OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) ELECTIVE RETENTION TREES (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) TREES TO BE REMOVED EITHER DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OR POOR HEALTH NOTES: -REFER TO L005 FOR TREE RETENTION DATA AND CALCULATIONS. -TREE SYMBOLS WERE ASSESSED BY ARBORIST (SEE REPORT). TREE RETENTION PLAN ON EXISTING SURVEY MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - TREE RETENTION PLAN PER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON FEBRUARY, 2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL TREE RETENTION SUMMARY TOTAL PARCEL AREA (7.0 ACRES) TREE UNITS REQUIRED 40 T.U.’s/ACRE = 280 T.U.’s REQUIRED TREE UNITS RETAINED = 171 (PER TABLE BELOW) NEW TREE UNITS (PROPOSED) = 109 (POTENTIAL LOCATIONS) TOTAL TREE UNITS (POST-DEVELOPMENT)= 280 1. TOTAL AREA OF 7.0 ACRES INCLUDES BUFFER AREAS. NO TREES IN BUFFERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE T.U. QUANTITIES ABOVE. 2. SEVERAL EXISTING TREES ON NORTH SIDE OF PARKING LOT AND FIRE ACCESS ROAD WILL NOT BE IMPACTED AND WERE NOT SURVEYED (GREEN AREAS). 3. TREE RETENTION PER COBI 18.15.010.G. 4. REFER TO SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY SHEETS FOR RETENTION/REMOVAL OF EACH TREE. TREE RETENTION DATA (SEE DETAILED SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS) TREE #SPECIES DIAMETER (INCHES) TREE UNITS 401 DOUGLAS FIR 32 9.0 402 DOUGLAS FIR 43 12.0 403 DOUGLAS FIR 18 3.2 404 AMERICAN ELM 22.5 4.6 408 COPPER BEECH 50 13.8 409 WESTERN RED CEDAR 55 13.8 410 AMERICAN ELM 45 12.6 411 CRYPTOMERIA 25 6.2 412 SYCAMORE 39 10.8 413 AMERICAN ELM 45 12.6 416 SCARLET OAK 26 6.2 418 SUGAR MAPLE 28 7.0 419 DOUGLAS FIR 30 7.8 420 DOUGLAS FIR 30 7.8 421 DOUGLAS FIR 35 9.6 424 LAWSONS CYPRESS 45 12.6 425 LAWSONS CYPRESS 28 7.0 428 LIQUIDAMBAR 11.5 1.4 429 CYPRESS 18 3.2 430 CHAMAECYPARIS 17 3.2 435 THREADBRANCH CYPRESS 25 6.2 TREES TO BE RETAINED (SEE TABLE BELOW) TREES WITHIN BUFFERS OR OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE THAT WILL BE PROTECTED (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED) ELECTIVE RETENTION TREES (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS) NOT ALL TREES IN THESE AREAS WERE SURVEYED. THEY ARE IN THE BUFFER AND/OR OUT OF THE LIMIT OF WORK. THEY ARE BEING RETAINED PER BUFFER AND/OR ARPA REQUIREMENT/ FUNCTION. (TREE UNITS NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS) NEW TREE UNITS PROPOSED TOTAL 171.0 LEGEND MANITOU PARK ROAD 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING PHASE 1 MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - ARPA PLAN MANITOU PARK ROAD 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON FEBRUARY, 2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL AQUIFER RECHARGE PROTECTION AREA (ARPA) SUMMARY TOTAL PARCEL AREA 7.0 ACRES ARPA AREA 40,700 SQUARE FEET (.93 ACRES) ARPA AREA OF TOTAL PARCEL 13% NOTE: DESIGN TO MEET ARPA GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (COBI 16.20.100.E.2) AND DESIGN STANDARDS (COBI 16.20.100.E.3). PROPOSED ARPA BOUNDARY NATIVE TREE CANOPY ORNAMENTAL TREE CANOPY TO REMAIN LEGENDPROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 4 NATIVE CONIFER TREES ONLY. NO NATIVE UNDERSTORY. NATIVE TREES ONLY. NO NATIVE UNDERSTORY. MINIMAL NATIVE UNDERSTORY, INVASIVES AND IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT MINIMAL NATIVE UNDERSTORY, TOO NARROW FOR ARPA 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) MESSENGER HOUSE PHASE 2 - ARPA PLAN MANITOU PARK ROAD 0’ 1”=30’ on 24”x36” sheet 1”=60’ on 11”x17” sheet 60’30’ Scale N BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON MARCH, 2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL AQUIFER RECHARGE PROTECTION AREA (ARPA) SUMMARY TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 7.0 ACRES ARPA AREA: 40,700 SQUARE FEET (0.93 ACRES) ARPA AREA OF TOTAL PARCEL: 13% AREA OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION: 40, 700 SQUARE FEET (0.93 ACRES) NOTE: DESIGN TO MEET ARPA GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (COBI 16.20.100.E.2) AND DESIGN STANDARDS (COBI 16.20.100.E.3). PROPOSED ARPA BOUNDARY NATIVE TREE CANOPY TO REMAIN ORNAMENTAL TREE CANOPY TO REMAIN LEGENDPROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING 1917 BUILDING MEMORY CARE (1996) Exhibit 12D EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION INCLUDING: - NATIVE CONIFER/MAPLE TREES - VARIED UNDERSTORY OF NATIVE VEGETATION, INCLUDING SOME ORNAMENTAL AND INVASIVE SPECIES - EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION: 40,700 SF (0.93 ACRES) EXISTING ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION: - LARGE ORNAMENTAL TREE CANOPY UNDERSTORY THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY NON-NATIVE OR INVASIVE SPECIES OR LAWN NOTES: - DIAGRAM DOES NOT SHOW EVERY ORNAMENTAL TREE AROUND THE BUILDING OR IN THE PARKING LOT - DETAILED TREE LOCATION INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON SUBSEQUENT PAGES. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION ON SURVEY SPR SUBMITTAL MARCH, 2021 Exhibit 12E X X X X E x h i b i t 1 3 E x h i b i t 1 3 A E x h i b i t 1 3 B From:Mark M To:PCD Cc:Mark M Subject:Messenger House Phase 2 Comments Date:Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:57:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kelly, Just following up concerning the number of new employees and associated increase in car/truck traffic from a one-story building to a 52,460 sq ft three- story building. This project will undeniably increase vehicle traffic through local neighborhoods for the foreseeable future, but how much? I believe zoning requires a traffic study of some type if daily traffic increases by five or more vehicles. Can you please confirm the expected increase in vehicle traffic. Regards, Mark Maxwell Exhibit 14 From:David Sprinkle To:PCD Subject:Fwd: [Permit #PLN51717 SPR] Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:34:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Sprinkle, David" <David.Sprinkle@fnf.com> To: David Sprinkle <david.sprinkle1@comcast.net> Date: 04/12/2021 8:13 AM Subject: [Permit #PLN51717 SPR] This message was sent securely using Zix® pcd@bainbridgewa.gov To whom it may concern— I live on Manitou Beach Dr. NE. This street is a narrow, two-lane road with no shoulders and no lighting. The road is heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists, many of whom do not walk single file. The corner where NE Valley Rd. becomes Manitou Beach Dr. NE is particularly hazardous as it is a blind corner. While the speed on that corner is posted 15 mph and the speed on Manitou Beach Dr. NE is posted 25 mph speeding on these stretches if very common, particularly since there is a downhill grade starting at Mtn. View. I have never observed speed enforcement along these stretches by BIPD or electronic speed signs. It is undeniable that traffic will increase along these roads and, while the roads can no doubt accommodate the increase, Messenger House history shows that staff shift changes lead to excessive speeds as staff are either running late to get to work or are anxious to get home after their shift is over. I cannot find anything in the submittals that mitigates that eventuality. I would like to see at the minimum: Exhibit 15 1. A commitment by the operator to keep staff informed that speeding is prohibited and a program to let neighbors report license plates of excessive speeders to the operator for further action. 2. An electronic speed sign at the corner where Valley turns in to Manitou (probably the SE side of the corner before Mtn. View. Thank you for listening and we are excited to welcome this addition to the neighborhood. David J. Sprinkle David.Sprinkle1@comcast.net NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was secured by Zix®. From:Mark Freeman To:PCD Subject:Messenger House Phase 2 PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Date:Thursday, April 15, 2021 9:11:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to submit one comment about the Planned replacement of the Messenger House… TRAFFIC: The roads to and from the Messenger House are narrow and without adequate shoulders. The Speed limit is 25 MPH; however, pass experience has seen many cars going to and from the Messenger House in excess of this limit…in fact sometimes substantially higher than this limit. These roads are shared by walkers… a very dangerous situation. It is the worst at beginning and ending of shift changes. You can almost set your watch when at 8:05 am a speedy car late for work is traveling well over the 25 mph. The same is true when an employee leaves work and in a hurry to go home. I propose some type of road calming devices such as table bumps; electronic speed monitoring and regular speed monitoring by the Police Department. Thanks for your consideration.. Mark D Freeman 10700 NE Valley Rd 206-399-8665 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Exhibit 16 1 Kelly Tayara From:Linda Schmid <lindadexterschmid@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 15, 2021 3:27 PM To:Kelly Tayara Cc:Charles Schmid Subject:Draft sepa CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Exhibit 17 2 Sent from my iPad To : Fro m: D a t e : Su bj e ct : K e lly Ta y a ra ,Se nio r Pl a nner kt a y ara@b a i n b ri d g ew a .g ov C h a rle s Sc hm i d 1 0 6 7 7 M an i t ou Pk. B l vd . B a inb ri dg e Isl and A p ri l 2 3 ,2 0 2 1 (rev i se d an d u pd at ed v ersi o n ) C o mmen t s o n SEPA Perm i t for M esseng er H o u se WE A RE LOOK IN G FO R W ARD t o a w ell-d esi g n ed facil i t y .Fi rst o f all,I w o u l d li k e t o st at e t h at my w i fe an d I are ex ci t ed ab o u t t h e ren o v at i o n o f t h e M essen g er H o u se .W e h av e l i v e d n earb y si n ce Feb ruary 1 9 70 .O v er fiv e d ecad es w e h av e se en a w i d e ran g e o f p at i en t s an d ad mi nistrat i o n s. W e rece i v ed t h e p ro p o sed SEP A d o cum en t and h ave ma ny q u est i o n s,sev eral o f w h i ch co u l d n o t be an sw ered d u e t h e q u aran t i n e an d l a ck o f access t o t h e Ci ty o f B a i n b ri d g e Pl a nni n g D ep artmen t ;t h i s resu l t ed i n u s n o t recei v i n g t h e p ro po sed SEPA d o c u men t o n A p ri l 8 -a n d t h erefore w e requ e st ed t h at t h e cl o si n g b e ex t en d e d o n e w e ek l at er (o n A p ri l 2 0 )for ea si er read i n g si n ce w e were o n l y ab l e t o acce ss i t o n mo b ile dev i ce s. FILLIN G IN THE B LANKS.I w as so mew h at co n fuse d b y t h e v ari o u s referen c e s t o Ph a se 1 an d Ph a se 2 fo r t h e p roj e ct. W h ere i s t h e Ph ase 1 d e scri p t i o n ?D i d Ph a se 2 g o t hro u gh t h e p ro po sa l p erio d for t h e p roj e ct ? Th ere al so were h ea d co un t s aro un d 5 6 and 9 0 .I t h i nk t h ese n u mb ers j u st requ i re so me p ro o fr ea d i n g .A s I recall,p h a si n g follo w s cl o se-set rul es si n ce i t h as w i d e ap p li ca t i o n s.I h a v e a n u mb er o f n o t eboo k s co v eri ng p a st p l an s w h i ch mi gh t h el p cl a ri fy t hi s. I al so se e t h at t h e ap p li ca n t s st at ed th ey w ill n o t ex p and o n t h e p resen t d esi g n o f t h e p roj e ct -thi s mu st b e ex p l i ci t l y st ated - an d n o t j u st an ad d -on l ackin g d u e p ro ce ss.D o e s t h e p ro p e rty l i n e ex t en d t o all t h e p resent p ro p erty ?Ar e any b ou n d a ry ch an g e s b e i ng p ro p o sed as p art o f Ph a se 2 ?Any ch ang es sho u l d b e mad e cl e a r an d j u st i fie d i n my o p i n i o n .If n o n e are,d esi g n at i n g t h i s as o p en sp ace w i ll ma k e a w o nd erful p a rk -li k e sp a ce area al o n g M an i t o u Pa rk B l vd .and t h e o w n ers sh o u l d b e cong ratul at ed for l ea v i n g i t n atural.Th i s co u l d b e acco mp l i sh ed b y Exhibit 17A 90c e 2 S co +i, compressing buildings into more floors and 35-foot buildings.Passers-by now are always impressed with the magnificent historic trees and bushes on the property. TRAFFIC.The proposed SEP A says a traffic analysis was done;however due to lack of access (and time)my wife and I not have a chance to review it.We hope plans were included to take into account the failing steep banks which could hinder an escape route along Murden Cove Rd.We,along with neighbors,appreciated the Messenger House staff who started using the road though the woods years ago rather than driving by residential homes and pedestrians -the number of which has grown over the years.That back access road has made our streets much quieter and safer. PROPOSED MITIGATION AND SHORELINE.A geotech report by Aspec reviewed some steepness in the slopes.One steep area connects the end of Mountain View Road with the other end of Manitou Park Blvd as it goes down the very steep slope to Rolling Bay Walk.Does the proponent own this property?If so,this would make a wonderful trail since it goes through a forest.Even though this area is steep and hidden,its also wonderful.It is not clear if Shoreline is part of the proposal or how it will be handled.In the draft Shoreline Plan I seem to recall that the terminus described above was a narrow strip of land commencing with the waters of Puget Sound.Some evidence of this are old steps along the right side of the road (when walking down it).It divides the routes into three paths 1) The Ocean Drive easement,2 )Manitou Pk.Blvd,and 3)Mountain View Drive (north) Has the sewer system been improved -which I believe is a pump system? ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS.Two important reports on sources of pollution are light glare and late night noise.We brought these up during previous remodels of the Messenger House since noise and glare are often due to staff coming and going along with bright parking lot lamps.Noise is not easily diminished by vegetation.Possible quieting could be achieved by heavy walls /fences buffering the parking lot,and double paned glass in neighbors'houses.Other noise sources include noise generators,heat pumps and the dumping waste into large bins and cans,which most architects are aware of MISCELLANEOUS.The City has included a good section on vegetation and plantings. CONCLUSION.I h o p e m y "c itiz e n 's v ie w"o f th e d ra ft S EP A p ro v id e s so m e b e n e fit fo r th e re a d e r.I fo u n d it in te re stin g with g o o d se c tio n s (e .g . p la n tin g s)an d se c tio n s m issin g im p o rta n t e le m e n ts (su c h a s p ro p e rty d e sc rip tio n s)a n d so m e h a lf-g o o d &b a d (sh o re lin e s)Th e re a re so m e g re at p o ssib le o p p o rtu n itie s,su c h a s a tra il o n th e n o rth e n d o f th e u n d e v e lo p e d se c tio n o f th e p ro p e rty ,a n d a lso th e p o te n tia l fo r a sm a ll c o m m u n ity m e e tin g ro o m to re p la c e th e th e ate r wh ic h wa s to m d o wn , c o u n te r to p re se rv a tio n ists'p la n s (se e th e F e b ru a ry 1 8 ,2 0 1 5 article in th e Kitsap S u n title d "Ba inb rid g e's M or a n S c h o o l Ha s Ric h Histo ry ,b u t Do e s It H a v e a F u tu re ?") Th ank y o u fo r c o n sid e rin g m y c o m m e n ts a n d I h o p e th is re v ise d le tte r c a n b e c o n sid e re d a s p art o f th e o ffic ia l re c o rd . -Ch a rle s S c hm id From:Anne McNamee Corbett To:PCD Cc:Heather Wright; Kelly Tayara; PWAdmin; Joseph Dunstan; Vicki Clayton; Bob Russell; Joe Deets; Brenda Fantroy- Johnson; Charlie Wenzlau Subject:Messenger House Phase 2 - SEPA public comment Date:Friday, April 16, 2021 12:27:02 PM Attachments:SEPA comments re Messenger House (4-18-21).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi — We’re immediate neighbors of Messenger House, and submit the following (Word PDF) as part of our ongoing effort to balance our concerns with this Messenger House update. We’ve cc’d you all to assure we’re working from the same info. Please let us know that you've received and read this. Thanks! Anne and Hoyt Corbett 10705 NE Manitou Park Blvd. Exhibit 18 re: Messenger House Phase 2 – SEPA Public Comment Period April 16, 2021 Dear All, Some of you have read and viewed our previous comments and photos/maps on the Messenger House Phase II development relative to our home next door. Please forgive any repeats! We thought it best to include all of you who may be involved in the decision-making, knowing Messenger House is eager to move forward, and we are equally eager to have our needs as an immediate neighbor taken into account. This way, we’ll all be on the same page. As reference, we have correspondence, documents, photos and maps regarding both the 1994/95 CUP and related property updates, and this proposed current remodel/upgrade. Please let us know if you’d like copies of this communications trail. On to the issues and proposed remedies… Conditional Use Permit: ongoing non-compliance 1995. The 1995 expansion of the Messenger House facility, including a new wing to the north and a new parking lot to the southwest, grossly violated the requirement that neighboring residences be buffered by the property’s existing heavily forested perimeter. In 1995, the forest between us was totally clear-cut, and the gently sloped lot was re-graded and elevated for the new parking lot, to an altitude parallel to our living space and leaving us wide open to noise, light, traffic, noisy late night shift changes – a complete loss of privacy: a significant impact, not a subtle insert. The parking lot sits just 110’ from our home. Over the next years, in response, Messenger House partially recreated a replacement buffer, adding some Leland Cypress and replacing tall commercial parking lot lights with lower ones. But the “buffer” never did shut out sound or headlights, and most of it has since died. We were, and remain, aware this is not a private residence next door to us. They never fully complied. Now. The new upgrade to Messenger House references the same CUP; it does not meet these guidelines, either. This is a high impact project, not benign: a wholly new building, not only of greater height (3 stories vs. 1), but extending beyond the existing footprint (closer to its bordering residences to the west/south [us ~25 feet closer as designed] and south/east [Coleman], extending east down the historically gracious hillside, cutting into the elegant grounds and lawn), and serving a more mobile range of residential clients, beyond nursing and memory care—sure to make it a livelier place. Which is not bad. But it is a different use. Thus, as adjacent neighbors we will have even more noise, more light, more traffic. The 1995 expansion, in its CUP review, assured the neighborhood that its new building would be “tucked away, not visible to the neighbors” (the Alzheimer’s wing, recently Exhibit 18A refurbished). It was. By contrast, this new assisted living building will definitely not be tucked away! Three stories with windows and balconies facing our property, new public social spaces near us, indoors and out, set further east down the hillside toward Manitou Park Boulevard, and further south toward us. Adequate buffering is essential – for privacy, noise, light, and security–to maintain the quiet residential nature of our home and this neighborhood. REQUESTS: Construction Period • Limit work to M-F, 7am – 7pm (audible work on Saturdays, and/or beyond 7pm) • Re-locate this construction parking/staging if possible (west side vs. south) • If not, please add temporary noise-proof fencing around the parking lot, on both sides (buffering both sides of Corbett, and Coleman). This will offset: - Large trucks in and out with constant deliveries - Constant back-up beeps (hearing loss = 70db, these are 97-112db) - The mobile home on site 24/7 with crew/music/generator running - Fencing may also prevent the cans, bottles, and trash tossed our way - Phase II (construction much closer to us) will be even more impactful REQUESTS: The Overall Project • A new CUP. This project deviates from the 1990s CUP both in scale and detail; and the previous Messenger House update was never fully in compliance (buffers) • Plant and maintain a dense 6’+ green buffer (ie Thuja) around the southwest parking lot on the sides bordering both adjacent residences – Corbett and Coleman • Locate staff parking to the west lot (opposite entry) to minimize shift change noise • Consider re-locating the new building within the existing footprint/distance (the new building is ~25’ closer to us; we don’t know the Coleman proximity difference) • Also assure tall/dense vegetative screening on neighboring side of the 3-story wing, given the new residence windows (light) and balconies (noise) face our homes • Assure grounds lighting is residential-neighborhood-compliant; not too tall or bright. A NOTE: Noise from Messenger House has a greater effect on us than might be apparent from looking at a map, or standing in the parking lot and looking our way. Our lot is contoured in something of a bowl shape that directs and focuses sound toward our house. Guests on our deck are surprised to hear clearly conversations taking place in the parking lot, be they staff, construction workers, or children learning to bicycle during this past Covid summer. Leyland Cypress have proven extremely ineffective as sound barriers. Even our neighbor the next lot over, retired acoustic engineer Charles Schmid, hears this parking lot noise loud and clearly. SEPA: Wildlife habitat concerns While we’re tucked away from Manitou Park Boulevard, our property borders Messenger House on two sides, both to the south and to the west. Half of our one-acre lot is natural forest with a seasonal pond, adjacent to another forested half-acre open space lot we co-own. We’re also adjacent to a undeveloped forested parcel belonging to Messenger House. And further north across the Messenger House access road is another large protected forested parcel owned by the Rolling Bay Land Co. In other words, this is a richly forested patch of the island. Our property is home to wildlife (both transient and permanent) increasingly squeezed by Island development: deer, otter, bald eagles, Barred Owls, water fowl, frogs, birds (many!), rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, etc. We’re trying to be good stewards. Public path (proposed) We do not want a public pathway bordering our two properties (Corbett and Coleman), as proposed in January site drawings. This proposed 6’-wide gravel path was drawn along the outside/our side of the never-used (1910) city right-of-way that jags between our property and Michael Coleman’s: a border we share with Messenger House. This path would render buffering moot, and pose security concerns; it would be a huge public invasion of our privacy. It would also disrupt the wildlife we’ve allowed to thrive here. The Messenger House developers’ idea of enhancing the property to feature it as an Island destination was an unpopular notion with area residents during a 2020 project walk-through. And this path would be redundant: locals already use the existing route between Manitou Beach Road and Manitou Park Boulevard. They wouldn’t choose this awkward potential trail. Besides, the Messenger House site plan includes a diverse and accessible trail network. Request to vacate right-of-way Both adjacent property owners (Corbetts and Coleman) plan to apply for vacation of the never-used, 111-year-old, 30’ right-of-way between us and the Messenger House property. It is wholly unusable as a roadway. We would purchase it, if necessary, as an additional privacy assurance, allowing us to landscape for better buffering, and to steward this buffer ourselves. If the City chooses to initiate this vacation, we would accept a grant of this property to append to each of ours, respectively. We would similarly landscape and steward this buffering border to help keep the new Messenger House project in better CUP compliance, knowing how the City values the prospect of this quality senior/care community. We hope the architect and Cascade Holdings are supportive of this application for vacation, in recognition that this current large-impact project, along with its previous remodel, has a significant effect on the quiet residential nature of both this neighborhood and our two homes. Thank you for considering our input. We’re happy to answer any questions, and look forward to working with you to see this through. All the best, Anne McNamee Corbett Hoyt Corbett anne@islandfilmworks.com inventivedevelopment@yahoo.com 206-714-7321 206-369-1458 10705 NE Manitou Park Blvd. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 1 Marlene Schubert From:Michael Coleman <michael@motiongfx.com> Sent:Friday, April 16, 2021 6:54 PM To:PCD; Heather Wright; Kelly Tayara; PWAdmin; Joseph Dunstan; Vicki Clayton; Bob Russell; Joe Deets; Brenda Fantroy-Johnson; Charlie Wenzlau; Anne McNamee Corbett Subject:Messenger House Phase 2 -- Public Comment Attachments:Coleman comments Messenger House.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear neighbors, I’m writing to submit a few comments to be considered for the upcoming Messenger House Phase 2 / SEPA Hearing. I have communicated some of these comments in other forums, but I am taking this opportunity to ensure that everyone has the same information. I’m a relatively new resident here on Bainbridge Island, but I have been made to feel welcome by my neighbors and I already feel a sense of stewardship towards my small part of this unique place. I am eager to see the Messenger House property return to a sustainable use for our senior citizens rather than its current vacant state. I believe that having memory care and assisted living residents in the neighborhood provides a kind of diversity that is vital to maintaining a rich neighborhood community. I am concerned, however, with several aspects of the current development plans. To summarize, my main concerns are: Non-compliance with the 1995 Conditional Use Permit — The proposed construction significantly exceeds the scope of the 1995 permit. No rights to fire lane — Messenger House proposes to use my private property as a fire lane without my permission. A poorly-located pedestrian path — An oddly-located pedestrian path has a large impact to adjacent properties (there’s an easy solution, though!) Construction noise Lack of buffer between properties — We have an idea to make a more sustainable buffer between the commercial property and the neighborhood Please read my full comments in the attached PDF for details on these concerns. Regards, Michael Coleman Exhibit 19 August 16th, 2021 Dear neighbors, I’m writing to submit a few comments to be considered for the upcoming Messenger House Phase 2 / SEPA Hearing. I have communicated some of these comments in other forums, but I am taking this opportunity to ensure that everyone has the same information. I’m a relatively new resident here on Bainbridge Island, but I have been made to feel welcome by my neighbors and I already feel a sense of stewardship towards my small part of this unique place. I am eager to see the Messenger House property return to a sustainable use for our senior citizens rather than its current vacant state. I believe that having memory care and assisted living residents in the neighborhood provides a kind of diversity that is vital to maintaining a rich neighborhood community. I am concerned, however, with several aspects of the current development plans. To summarize, my main concerns are: •Non-compliance with the 1995 Conditional Use Permit — The proposed construction significantly exceeds the scope of the 1995 permit. •No rights to fire lane — Messenger House proposes to use my private property as a fire lane without my permission. •A poorly-located pedestrian path — An oddly-located pedestrian path has a large impact to adjacent properties (there’s an easy solution, though!) •Construction noise •Lack of buffer between properties — We have an idea to make a more sustainable buffer between the commercial property and the neighborhood Please read on for full details. Non-compliance with Conditional Use Permit The expansion of the Messenger House development has been proposed under an existing Conditional Use Permit issued in 1995. This 1994/1995 CUP was only intended for the construction portion of the building known as the “memory care wing”. It does not mention any modification of the southern wing, which was built prior to the 1995 permit. The CUP states as a finding of fact, that “The new building, parking lots and driveway would be constructed behind or to the west of the existing buildings. The new building [memory care wing] has been designed to tie in visually with the existing structures.” … “The front of the Exhibit 19A building will not be altered, so that the appearance will remain essentially the same to the residents across Manitou Park Boulevard to the east. lt is possible that the rooftop of the new building will protrude somewhat above the old building, but for the most part, the new development will be tucked out of sight.” The current scope of proposed construction is a significant increase beyond the original intent of the CUP, including demolishing the southern wing and dramatically increasing in square footage, from 20,500 to over 52,460 square feet. In order to accomplish this increase, the footprint of the building will increase accordingly. The position of the new building would be much closer to the edge of the property closest to my home. In order to expand and move the footprint of the building, deep excavation and re-grading will be required. It is unclear what the environmental impact of this will be, but it is clear that it is not within the scope of the 1995 CUP. At 3 stories tall, the proposed new structure will reach a much greater height and take on the appearance of an urban apartment building with outdoor decks and rooftop terraces. The existing one-story building blends with the neighborhood in an unobtrusive way and fits the semi-rural designation of the neighborhood and the 1995 permit. The size, height, and position of the new building were not proposed as part of the 1995 CUP. The proposed site would also continue to violate the original 1995 CUP requirement that all neighboring residences be buffered by a heavily forested perimeter on Messenger House property. That heavily forested perimeter does not exist, although I understand that it once did before the parking lot expansion in 1995. This buffer has never been restored and therefore will not insulate the surrounding homes from the impact of increasing the building size. RECCOMENDATION: I would be happy to see the Messenger House return to good use for the residents of Bainbridge Island. I would like to see this happen within the envelop of the existing structure in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. I would also like to see the original forestation buffer re-created as intended by the 1995 CUP. At a minimum, I would request that the developers obtain a new CUP that addresses the expansion of the Messenger House development, particularly the South wing. This is reasonable given the scale of the changes proposed by the current plans and given the fact that the 1995 CUP was only applicable to construction of the memory care wing. Fire Lane Messenger House plans currently show a fire lane along the side edge of my property. There is no question that this lane is mostly within my property. I have not agreed to allowing part of my property to be used as a fire lane and I do not believe that it meets the relevant building code requirements for a fire lane anyway. I currently happily offer this lane as a pedestrian path between the Messenger House property and Manitou Park Blvd. I enjoy seeing neighbors walking through the neighborhood and I and intend to limit the use of my property to the pedestrians, dogs walkers and bicyclists circulating throughout the neighborhood. Members of the Bainbridge Island Design Review Board have agreed that Messenger House should have full responsibility to comply with fire code regulations within the boundary of their own commercial property. I have mentioned this in a few public meetings, but so far, but I have seen no change to the plan of record. Proposed Pedestrian Path During initial presentations by the architects, I was encouraged to hear that the messenger house was supportive of maintaining the neighborhood pedestrian circulation through the Messenger House property. This spirit of openness was a major consideration in my decision to allow my gravel lane to be used as a pedestrian path. Unfortunately, the most recent architect’s plan shows a regression from the promise of keeping their property open for circulation. They have proposed a public pathway along the outer edge of the city buffer, on the opposite side from the Messenger House property and closest to my property and the Corbetts’. This would divert pedestrians off of the Messenger House property and within a few feet of our homes. We do not want this. I am in favor of walking paths – just a different option. I would suggest that the same benefit can easily be achieved with no impact to the neighbors by placing the path along the inside edge of the Messenger House property. This allows Messenger house to fulfill their promise to the neighborhood walkability while avoiding a detrimental effect on the privacy of adjacent properties. Construction Noise & Nuisance There has been a significant increase in the amount of noise since the start of construction -- delivery trucks, construction vehicles, backup beeping, etc. There are also 2 large RVs housing site workers that contribute some music and generators to the sounds at odd hours. All of this has been in service of the largely indoor remodeling taking place in Phase 1. Phase 2 is a much larger project with a represents a substantial increase in activity. I would request limiting construction noise to Monday-Friday 7 am to 7 pm. This would return the neighborhood to its normal, peaceful state on the weekends and reduce the impact of construction period. Using the city land to better effect My next-door neighbors, Ann & Hoyt Corbett, and I plan to apply for vacation of the never- used, 111-year-old, 30’ city right-of-way between us and the Messenger House property. It is unusable as a roadway. If the city chooses to allow this vacation, we intend to use this as additional privacy buffer and to steward it ourselves. The city is currently facing the expense of clean up and dead tree removal. We propose to take on these expenses and improvements as new caretakers of this property. This vacation to would be a win for all. Allowing us to maintain this buffer would help keep the Messenger House in better compliance with the buffer requirements of the 1995 CUP. We hope the architect and Cascade Holdings are supportive of this application for vacation. Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues & requests. Michael Coleman 10717 NE Manitou Park Blvd Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 1 Kelly Tayara From:Michael Coleman <michael@motiongfx.com> Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 11:33 AM To:Heather Wright; Kelly Tayara; Paul Nylund; Joseph Dunstan; Kimberly McCormick Osmond; Joe Deets; Brenda Fantroy-Johnson; Anne Gregory; Hoyt Corbett; Bob Russell; Vicki Clayton Subject:Messenger House Development -- Example photos attached. Attachments:Coleman view BEFORE.jpg; Coleman View AFTER.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings all, I live directly adjacent to the Messenger House property. It's my understanding that the Design Review board is meeting today on this development. I have studied the messenger house plans in order to understand how it will affect the neighborhood. I would like to invite you all to walk around my property to get a sense for how the current plan will impact the neighborhood. But because time is short for today's meeting, I have attached BEFORE & AFTER photos based on the drawings of the Messenger House architects. In short, I'm very concerned with the location and size of the proposed construction. At 3 stories tall, the proposed new structure will reach a much greater height and take on the appearance of an urban apartment building with outdoor decks and terraces. The existing one-story building blends w ith the neighborhood in an unobtrusive way and fits the semi-rural designation of the neighborhood. The proposed construction includes demolishing the southern wing and building a huge new wing, increasing square footage from 20,500 to over 52,460 square feet. The footprint of the building will increase accordingly and the position of the new building would be much closer to the edge of the property closest to my home. There is currently minimal natural foliage to screen this development from the neighbors. The plans also call for the removal of several tall, mature trees which currently block the view of the existing one-story southern wing of the facility. I would like to ask that the Messenger House developers revise their plans to reduce the scale and impact of their development by building further from the boundary of their property and to build a structure that matches the character and zoning of the neighborhood. I would also ask for a comprehensive screening and landscaping plan to be provided to the neighbors. Iti's my understanding that screening promised in 1995 was either missing or ineffective, even to this day. Please have a look at the attached photos and, again, I would like to invite you to visit my property to get a visual sense for what this development means for the Messenger House neighbors. Regards, Michael Coleman Exhibit 20 2 10717 NE Manitou Park Blvd. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 909-0300 Exhibit 20A Coleman public comment 30MAY2021 Attachments ”Coleman View Before” “Coleman View After” Katy Bigelow 206.351.1375 arboristkaty@gmail.com November 9, 2020 Justin Younker Cascadia Senior Living & Development Messenger House Tree Appraisal Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Dear Mr. Younker: Thank you for asking me to provide the values for 21 trees to be retained through the Messenger House redevelopment. To assess and provide values for the trees addressed in this letter I combined my field experience and education with current accepted practices as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the methods dictated by the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition. The tools I used to make the tree assessment were limited to a rubber mallet, binoculars, compass, laser pointer, diameter tape and hand trowel unless otherwise noted. A visual tree assessment and other methods are only conclusive for the day of inspection and do not guarantee that conditions will remain the same in the future. Summary Using the Trunk Formula method, the individual reproduction costs (value) of the 21 individual trees to be retained are shown in the table below. Exhibit 21 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 2 Reproduction Method/Trunk Formula Technique Appraisal - Summary Client: Younker/Messenger House Date: 11/9/2020 Tree #Species Value Tree 401 Douglas-fir $3,313.00 Tree 402 Douglas-fir $5,982.00 Tree 403 Douglas-fir $1,049.00 Tree 404 American elm $2,506.00 Tree 408 Copper beech $41,274.00 Tree 409 Western red cedar $10,455.00 Tree 410 American elm $39,816.00 Tree 411 Cryptomeria $14,700.00 Tree 412 Sycamore $11,311.00 Tree 413 American elm $12,099.00 Tree 416 Scarlet oak $9,809.00 Tree 418 Sugar maple $4,317.00 Tree 419 Douglas-fir $10,748.00 Tree 420 Douglas-fir $10,748.00 Tree 421 Douglas-fir $14,629.00 Tree 424 Lawson cypress $14,875.00 Tree 425 Lawson cypress $5,759.00 Tree 428 Liquidambar $2,109.00 Tree 429 Cypress $5,068.00 Tree 430 Chamaecyparis $4,255.00 Tree 435 Threadbranch cypress $6,667.00 Background In July 2020 I was asked by Mr. Younker to assess a number of trees growing close to the redevelopment area at the Messenger House on Bainbridge Island. I completed a Level 2 tree assessment to provide this information. All levels of tree assessment are explained in an attachment to this report. The development team then determined which trees would be retained relevant to their plan and identified 21 trees to retain. This report provides the data to comply with the BIMC requiring valuation of trees to be retained in this type and size of development site. The Site Map shows the location of trees that will be retained and subsequently, those that were valued. Appraisal Methodology To determine the value of the 21 trees I utilized the protocol of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers in The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition, by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The 10th Edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal was published and released for the public in August of 2018. 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 3 The appraisal process includes factors that contribute to the value of plants such as size, species, condition, and location. Three approaches and three techniques can be used to develop a basic cost. Methods include: Cost approach Within this approach, three techniques can be used: Repair Cost – primarily used when there is damage to a plant or other landscape feature and the assignment focuses on correcting damage(s) or mitigating further losses, • This was not the assignment in this case. Reproduction Cost – Commonly used where a landscape item has been destroyed, removed or significantly damaged. This is widely used for tree inventories, preconstruction bonding and some insurance claims. • As this assignment was virtually a tree inventory I chose to use this method. Functional Replacement Cost – This is the cost of substitute items that provide equivalent utility, benefits or functions rather than the cost to produce an exact replica. • Although this method could have been used for some of the trees due to tree functions or limitations being significant factors, I chose to use one method to find value as these trees are not likely to be significantly impacted by development and, unlikely to need replacement. In this case the income and market approaches were rejected because, • It would be very difficult to find comparable properties with similar value influenced solely by the presence or absence of the subject trees • ecological benefits as represented by a calculator such as iTree Eco do not fully illustrate the benefits provided by the intended function(s) of the trees, • in my opinion the value of diminution of this property’s real estate market value is not relevant to this case. This appraisal does not include removal, cleanup or other associated replacements costs if they become applicable in the future as the assignment was to find a value for the trees whether they needed to be replaced or not. Discussion Direct Replacement Technique calculates the cost to reproduce an identical copy of the subject tree and install it in the same site as the former tree at the present time. If this method is used, there would be no delay in the benefits provided by the tree because, in theory, it will match those benefits provided by the subject of the appraisal. No time would be necessary to allow the replacement tree to grow to parity if an identical reproduction is installed. When an identical size is not available, the largest actually available size is used. Two methods can be used: The Direct Replacement without depreciation - Direct replacement is the cost of procuring a tree of identical species and size or the next largest available (not necessarily commonly available) if 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 4 one of an identical size is not available. It includes cost of procuring the tree, transporting it to site, installing it, and any incidentals that may be incurred in the installation process. • I did not use this method as the trees are too large to be identically or approximately replaced (potential costs for tree replacement however, are detailed below). Direct Replacement with depreciation: This method combines the aforementioned direct replacement method with depreciation attributes. • I used this method and in this case found the initial cost of the tree by Tree Acquisition: I obtaining tree acquisition quotes from three nurseries. I took the average of the cost of these trees to use for the valuations of the 21 trees (or in some cases where a specific species was only available at one of the nurseries, used the single cost as it was the most local source). Depreciation Factors The basic cost of a tree calculated in each of the techniques above represents the cost to procure a notionally ideal replacement that is free of any defects. Since some of the subject trees had sub-optimal attributes, depreciating factors were introduced to account for this reduction in value. There are three depreciation ratings: Condition, Functional Limitations, and External Limitations. The appraised cost of the tree is the product of the basic cost and these three depreciation ratings. The Condition rating reflects defects in health, structure, and form. The Condition rating is a subjective rating between 0% and 100% as determined by the appraising arborist. Functional Limitations reflect the features of the tree/site interaction that restrict or constrain growth or function due to poor placement or size. External Limitations reflect restrictions to the tree involving legal, biological, or environmental conditions external to the property (CTLA 2018, p. 9). Functional Limitations and External Limitations are also subjective ratings ranging between 0% and 100% as determined by the appraising arborist, with similar guidance provid ed. Condition Rating Condition has three subcomponents: health, structure, and form. The health subcomponent encompasses the attributes that limit the ability of the tree to undergo the processes of photosynthesis, including attributes of the vascular system, leaf density, wound closure, insect infestation, and abiotic disorders. Structure is the ability of the tree to support itself from falling or breaking apart. Form describes the tree’s habit, shape, or silhouette as it develops from the interaction between the tree’s genetics, site, and management. Health, Structure, and Form are subjectively rated on a total scale of 0% to 100% by the appraising arborist according to Table 4.1 in the Guide for Plant Appraisal (CTLA, p. 44). Functional Limitations and External Limitations Functional Limitations reflect the restriction on tree growth or intended use in the landscape based on the interaction of site and species. From a functional benefits 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 5 perspective, the placement of the trees varied and this is reflected in the limitations for each tree valued. External Limitations are the restrictions on tree growth or intended use with respect to attributes outside the control of the property owner. Known fatal pests, drought restrictions, invasive species status, and utility easement conflict are all examples of external limitations. The external limitations are again different for each tree and that is reflected in each tree’s valuation. All of the following costs would be necessary to return the site to its pre-loss condition. None of these costs were included in my appraisal as the assignment was to provide only a valuation of the tree itself though, they should be noted as extra costs for the project if tree replacement is necessary. • Delivery Cost: Transporting larger trees would require special equipment. The three nurseries in our area normally have a set delivery fee based on the location of where trees are needed. • Site Preparation Cost: Several tasks may have to be performed prior to the installation of the replacement tree: o The remaining portion of the existing tree (if it exists or needs to be removed) and stump must be removed to prep the site for replanting. o Excavation and site preparation potentially performed with large machinery or by several tree or landscape crew members. o Stump(s) ground. o New soil added. • Tree Installation: Installation should be specified or supervised by a certified arborist to increase the likelihood of establishment after planting. After the tree is placed in the hole and its container is removed, the rest of the hole will be backfilled with new soil and topped with mulch to assist in establishment. • Cleanup Cost: Debris from the remainder of the removed tree(s) and planting ball and burlap etc. will need to be removed from site. • Post-Installation Maintenance: Maintenance beyond the regular maintenance required of an established tree is included because these are additional costs that must be borne over the course of the establishment period. • Irrigation: Supplemental irrigation is necessary during the establishment phase to assist plant establishment in the new soil. Such irrigation will require additional water that would not have been necessary if the tree was already established. • Monitoring: Installation of a mature tree may require periodic reinspection to ensure that the tree’s needs are met through the sensitive establishment period. Monitoring efforts 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 6 may include visual inspection for pests and pathogens and evaluation of available water. Appropriate actions may be taken to mitigate any discovered problems. Reconciliation Since my assignment was only to provide a cost for replacing the damaged trees, I did not perform reconciliation as part of this assignment. I was instructed to simply provide my results for the technique of the reproduction cost method and an explanation of how I arrived at this result. It was not within the scope of this assignment to aggregate the results of each method and to conclude a final value. Conclusion All data forms, photos or further information can be produced upon request but are not included with this report. Works Cited Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. ©2018 CTLA. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 7 Levels of Tree Assessment LEVEL 1: The Level 1 assessment is a visual assessment from a specified perspective of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. A limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying trees with an imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure. Limited visual assessments are the fastest but least thorough means of assessment and are intended primarily for large populations of trees. LEVEL 2: This is a basic assessment completing a detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. This assessment requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree—looking at the site, buttress roots, trunk, and branches. A basic assessment may include the use of simple tools to gain additional information about the tree or defects. Basic is the standard assessment that is performed by arborists in response to a client’s request for tree risk assessment. Simple tools may be used for measuring the tree and acquiring more information about the tree or defects. However, the use of these tools is not mandatory unless specified in the Scope of Work. LEVEL 3: Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. They are usually conducted in conjunction with or after a basic assessment if the tree risk assessor needs additional information and the client approves the additional service. Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more expensive. 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 8 Site Map 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 9 Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and General Waiver I, Katy Bigelow, certify that: I have personally inspected the tree(s) and or the property referred to in this report; I have no current or prospective financial or other interest in the vegetation or the property which is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias in favor of or against any of the involved parties or their respective position(s), if any; The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are the product of my independent professional judgment and based on current scientific procedures and facts, and the foregoing report was prepared according to commercially reasonable and generally accepted arboricultural standards and practices for the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound areas; The information included in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of the trees as of the time and date of inspection; This report and the opinions expressed herein are not intended, nor should they be construed, as any type of warranty or guarantee regarding the condition of the subject trees in the future; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) may restrict the number, type and height of vegetation on the subject property, and I have made no investigation regarding whether the property is subject to such CC&Rs; and To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct and information provided by others is assumed to be true and correct. I am not an attorney or engineer. This report does not cover these areas of expertise and represents advice only of arboricultural nature. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, it is specifically understood that nothing contained in this report is intended as legal advice, or advice or opinions regarding soil stability or zoning laws, and this report should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. My investigation was limited to above-ground observations of the subject tree and the surrounding site – no excavation was performed. My investigation was based solely upon my site inspection. All of the information provided to me regarding the history of the site and the subject tree was assumed to be true. If any information is found to be false, the conclusions in this report may be invalidated. My expertise in this matter is limited to arboriculture, and this report is not intended to b e legal advice. I do not guarantee the safety, health, or condition of the subject tree. 11/9/20 Messenger House – Younker Tree Appraisal - Valuation Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 10 There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies in the subject tree may not arise in the future. Arborists are tree specialist s who use their knowledge, education, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of r isk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Attn: Planning and Community Development From: Charles Wenzlau, Wenzlau Architects Date: November 24, 2020 RE: Messenger House Phase 2 – COMP PLAN NARRATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy LU 4.11 To the greatest degree practical, prohibit clearcutting and grading of the natural landscape. Policy LU 20.5 Define and identify “iconic” structures and sites (those intended for permanent preservation) which are deemed essential elements of the community’s character, history and identity. Policy LU 21.1 Encourage preservation of existing historic structures and sites as an important tool in building a sustainable and unique community Policy LU 22.3 Collaborate with interested stakeholders to promote histor ic preservation on the Island GOAL EC-1 Promote economic vitality, growth and stability. Bainbridge Island has the opportunity to create a robust, resilient and durable economy by demonstrating early leadership and acknowledging the changes that will affect our economy. Planning for these changes and taking actions that support and encourage a local economy will help reduce community vulnerability to issues such as aging demographics, housing availability, transportation constraints, and climate change. 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 Policy EC 9.4 Promote on-Island access to healthcare facilities and medical services, particularly those addressing the needs of the Island’s increasing older population Policy EN 4.1 Employ conservation design methods and principles such as low impact development techniques for managing storm and waste water, green building materials, high-efficiency heating and lighting systems Policy EN 10.2 Encourage the retention of existing trees and vegetation and the planting of new trees and vegetation that provides natural filtration of suspended particulate matter, removes car bon dioxide and improves air quality. Policy EN 19.1 Encourage protection, restoration and maintenance of existing vegetation that has environmental, wildlife habitat and aesthetic qualities including tree groves, significant tree stands, forested hillsides and vegetation associated with wetlands, stream corridors, riparian areas, steep slopes and areas subject to erosion. Exhibit 22 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Policy EN 19.3 In pre-application conferences and as part of the review of development applications, encourage property owners to maximize the preservation of trees and to maintain and enhance the cohesive quality of tree groves through appropriate site design and construction methods as well as open space dedication of areas that contain these resources. Policy CUL 3.2 Support the City’s Historic Preservation program to identify and preserve historic and cultural resources, including historic farms and heritage trees. Policy TR 2.1 Provide a non-motorized transportation system that effectively serves the needs of people of all ages and abilities who walk, bike, or ride horses, or use wheel chairs; encourages nonmotorized travel; and provides continuous networks of safe, efficient and attractive shoulders, sidewalks, pathways (footpaths), and multi-purpose trails throughout the Island that are also connecting to regional systems. Policy TR 2.6 Develop a trail system to serve non-motorized users across the Island. As envisioned, the network will include the Waterfront Trail in Winslow, the Sound to Olympics Trail (STO, a regional trail connecting the Ferry Terminal to the Agate Pass Bridge), intra -island multi-use trails, unopened City rights-of-way, shoreline trails, and connecting pathways within neighborhoods. The goal is to provide walkability within neighborhoods and Island-wide connectivity for both pedestrians and cyclists. Multi-use trails accommodate users of all ages and abilities. Such trails provide an alternative to the shoulder network along arterial streets and connect with other non-motorized facilities to form an integrated non-motorized system. Policy TR 8.1 Protect residential neighborhoods from the impacts of cut -through motor vehicle traffic by providing appropriate connecting routes and applying appropriate traffic-calming measures to control vehicle volumes while maintaining emergency vehicle response times. Policy TR 8.5 Consider closing or restricting streets to motorized traffic and devote those streets to nonmotorized and other neighborhood uses. Policy HS 2.4 Support programs that provide needed services for families, e.g., child or adult day care, respite care for caregivers and mental health services. Policy HS 3.2 Promote the creation of a mix of housing alternatives and services for people at different levels of independence. 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Attn: Planning and Community Development From: Charles Wenzlau, Wenzlau Architects Date: November 24, 2020 RE: Messenger House Phase 2 PROJECT NARRATIVE & DECISION CRITERIA The primary goals of this project to create a comfortable residential enclave that creates a sense of community both for the residents and surrounding neighborhood . The design approach results from breaking the overall new wing into multiple forms, to maintain the proper scale alongside the 1917 building. The new wing will complement the older buildings with their Mediterranean style, while being of its own time. The new layout will take advantage of its orientation to Seattle and water views to the east, as well as more local views within the surrounding open space. The project will employ a variety of sustainability strategies, including adaptive re-use of the historic buildings, focusing new construction within previously disturbed areas, minimizing new impervious surfaces, and restoring native plantings. Project is within walking distance to neighborhood commercial services. The existing south wing built in 1997 no longer meets the level of care and services provided by contemporary Assisted Living facilities. Due to code changes and enhanced services provided by care providers, a single-story wing could not provide the space needed without being exceptionally sprawling and would take up a large portion of the overall site. PLANNING APPROVALS The project applications will include the following: Site Plan and design Review, Major CUP and Minor CUP (related to nomination of 1917 Building onto historic register). The property consists of two parcels which will be aggregated through a Boundary Line adjustment (to be applied for after CUP/SPR decision). The Messenger House Facility has been realized over several decades and the related approvals for the various phases of construction. PROJECT USES Messenger House has been providing assisted living and memory care for Island residents since the 1980’s. The facility was closed and resold last year and is undergoing a significant rehabilitation itself. The phase one improvements include interior remodeling of the 1996 memory care win g. Phase two, the focus of this application includes the demolition and reconstruction of the 1986 assisted living wing as well as improvements to the original 1917 building (previously known as the Moran School). The new wing will contain both assisted and independent living units and related common area functions. The combined number of beds will remain unchanged at 96, consistent with the original CUP approvals. No expansion is planned for the parking areas. The existing 1996 wing, currently one story, will be replaced with a three-floor building (approx. 60,000sf) which will contain living units and common areas for residents. Exhibit 23 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com PHASING The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase one, currently in building permit review, will include interior renovations to the memory care wing (50 beds). There will also be limited exterior work with landscaping. This portion of the project will begin Summer/Fall 2020 with a construction period lasting eight months. Phase two will replace the 46bed skilled nursing wing (one floor) with an assisted living facility (3 floors). The assisted living wing will combine assisted living (75% of the beds) with independent living units (25% of the beds). The construction is expected to begin summer 2021 with a construction period lasting eighteen months. OWNERSHIP The property is owned by Cascadia Senior Living and Fieldstone Communities. COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS The project will maintain a total of 96 beds. The facility, as described above, is divided into three main areas; existing memory care wing, proposed assisted/independent living wing and the existing 1917 building which will contain common area and administrative functions. The memory care and assisted living wings have separate common areas to serve each areas residents. The outdoor sp aces are designed to support a range of activities including walking, sitting areas, outdoor terraces, and small active area amenities. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP Decision Criteria: A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if: 1. The conditional use is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18. The conditional use is compatible with the established and intended character of the neighborhood, considering factors that include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of activities generated by the use, and the predictable levels of any adverse impacts; and Response: The proposed use has been in existence since 1960. The current facility was last enlarged in 1996 to its current 96 bed facility. The proposed plans will not enlarge or intensify the existing use. The hours of operation will remain unchanged. The types of activities will remain unchanged. The staffing will be reduced from 30 to 12 based upon the elimination of skilled nursing care. No new adverse impacts are known except for a slight increase in the daily vehicle patterns. 2. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and Response: The proposed use is consistent with prior CUP approvals and will not intensify site activities. The visual impacts are reduced since the proposed addition will be located in the same location as the existing wing to be replaced. The building height will be increased from 1 floor to three floors to accommodate the larger (non-shared) living units. The prior units had two residents sharing a unit. The scale of the new wing will be consistent with the three floor 1917 building to the north. The site previously included a four floor theater building which was removed in 2017. The traffic to and from the site will be further restricted from current patterns by closing off the gravel fire lane and directing service vehicles to use Ocean Drive. 3. The conditional use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and Response: Based upon review of the Comprehensive Plan, the project supports multiple relevant sections. Project will include a non-motorized facility along the south edge within the unopened ROW. 4. The conditional use complies with all other applicable provisions of the BIMC; and 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Response: The site design meets all applicable development standards including dimensional standards, landscape requirements, ARPA, parking, etc. 5. 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 vicinity of the subject property; and Response: Restrictions to vehicle access and new landscape screening will reduce potential impacts. 6. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and Response: Project will comply with all local noise restrictions. 7. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and Response: The project will comply with all required ROW improvements including construction of a new non-motorized pedestrian path along the unopened ROW. 8. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: a. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, s afe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and e. 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation to the standards; and Response: The applicant has been following and responding to all information and requirements form Engineering staff. Engineering has determined no traffic impact analysis is warranted due to minimal changes to anticipated vehicle trips. 9. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the conditional use 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; and 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com b. If the health district recommends approval or disapproval of the application the health district shall so advise the director; and Response: The project is under review by local health authorities and will comply will all relevant local regulations. 10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will ensure fire protection. Response: Applicant has coordinated with BIFD on fire flow, fire protection and fire access. G. Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones. Applications to locate any of those uses categorized as educational facilities, governmental facilities, religious facilities, hea lth care facilities, cultural facilities, or clubs in Table 18.09.020 in residential zones shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following criteria, in addition to those in subsection F of this section: 1. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map. Response: See Prior CUP approvals 1994/1995 2. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the surrounding area. Response: See Prior CUP approvals 1994/1995 The visual impacts are compatible due in part the proposed addition will be in the same location as the existing wing to be replaced. The scale of the new wing will be consistent with the three floor 1917 building to the north. The site previously included a four-floor theater building which was removed in 2017. The scale of the facility is within the 35’ allowable height limit. Lastly, the new wing will exceed setback requirements, will maintain existing mature trees to provide screening, and will supplement landscape screening with new plantings. 3. 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 G, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC. Response: See Prior CUP approvals 1994/1995. The project will have approx. 12 employees and will not have assembly seating areas which exceed 50. SITE PLAN REVIEW SPR Decision Criteria. The director and planning commission shall base their respective recommendations or decisions on site plan and design review applications on the following criteria: 1. The site plan and design are consistent with all applicable provisions of the BIMC; and Response: The site design meets all applicable development standards including dimensional standards, landscape requirements, ARPA, parking, etc. 2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, and landscaping result in a context - sensitive design; and 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Response: The siting of the proposed new wing is located where the prior wing was located. The new wing has a larger footprint to provide patient services consistent with today’s standard of care. The new wing will be connected to the existing 1917 building in such a manner that will restore the primary east facing façade currently obscured in part by the prior addition. The massing of the new wing is broken into three main portions to help breakup the overall mass. The common areas are expressed as transparent facades to provide views and light and are oriented to capture views of Puget Sound. The existing porte-cochere will also be renovated to reflect the spirit of the new building. The materials proposed for the new addition will harmonize with the renovated 1917 building and remodeled memory care. The east facing open space will be largely maintained as is with the addition of new accessible walkways, and outdoor terraces. The west facing open spaces will be replanned to take advantage of relocation of the existing service drive. 3. The Kitsap public 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; and b. If the health district recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection F.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the directo r; and c. If the health district recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; and Response: The project is under review by local health authorities and will comply will all relevant local regulations. 4. The streets and nonmotorized facilities, as proposed, are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and Response: The project will comply with all required ROW improvements including construction of a new non-motorized pedestrian path along the unopened ROW. 5. 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 of properties downstream; and c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adeq uate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and d. If a traffic study shows that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required b y the city engineer; 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and Response: The applicant has been following and responding to all information and requirements form Engineering staff. Engineering has determined no traffic impact analysis is warranted due to minimal changes to anticipated vehicle trips. 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com 6. The site plan and design is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18; and Response: The site design meets all applicable development standards including dimensional standards, landscape requirements, ARPA, parking, etc. 7. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; and Response: No harmful conditions are known to occur. 8. The site plan and design is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans; and Response: Based upon review of the Comprehensive Plan, the project supports multiple relevant sections. 9. If the subject property contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and Response: The site is subject to ARPA and will meet protection requirements. 10. If the subject property is within the shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and Response: While project is not within shoreline jurisdiction, the stormwater out to Puget Sound has been evaluated to avoid adverse impacts. 11. If the applicant is providing privately owned open space and is requesting credit against dedications for park and recreation facilities required by BIMC 17.20.020.C, the requirements of BIMC 17.20.020.D have been met; Response: No credits are requested for open space 12. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the site plan has been properly designed to ensure fire protection; and Response: Applicant has coordinated with BIFD on fire flow, fire protection and fire access. 13. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter. Response: The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter MINOR CUP I. Local Register of Historic Places Conditional Use Decision Criteria. A proposal to modify development standards (such as setbacks, open space, lot coverage, landscape buffers, and parking requirements) and/or to allow for a use otherwise permitted for a structure on the local register (including exclusive residential in the mixed use town center) shall meet the following criteria: 1. Subsections D.1 through 10 of this section, Nonagricultural Minor Conditional Use Decision Criteria, including a review and recommendation from the historic preservation commission as to whether the proposal is compatible with the historic nature of the building and/or site; and Response: see D 1 thru 10 below. 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com 3. The use shall be compatible with the existing design and/or construction of the structure without significant alteration. (Ord. 2019-24 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 2017-02 §§ 3, 4, 2017; Ord. 2016-11 § 1, 20161; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011) Response: The proposed use will remain largely unchanged from its most recent use, that being used for administrative related functions. The interiors are considered non-significant (see attached report) due to the significant degree of alteration over the last 100 years. The propose nomination will place its emphasis on the east facing primary façade and related east open space. The proposed alterations will restore the east façade, including removal of a non-original addition in 1986 which obscures a portion of the façade. The new wing will attach to the south façade considered secondary in its importance. This façade has been significantly altered by the addition of an elevator and service access. D. Nonagricultural Minor Conditional Use Decision Criteria. A nonagricultural minor conditional use or an agricultural research facility may be approved if: 1. The conditional use is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18. The conditional use is compatible with the established and intended character of the neighborhood, considering f actors that include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of activities generated by the use, and the predictable levels of any adverse impacts; and The project received a favorable review by the Design Review Board and is not requesting any departures from applicable design guidelines. The proposed use has been in existence since 1960. The current facility was last enlarged in 1996 to its current 96 bed facility. The proposed plans will not enlarge or intensify the existing use. The hours of operation will remain unchanged. The types of activities will remain unchanged. The staffing will be reduced from 30 to 12 based upon the elimination of skilled nursing care. No new adverse impacts are known except for a slight increase in the daily vehicle patterns. 2. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and Response: The proposed use is consistent with prior CUP approvals and will not intensify site activities. The visual impacts are reduced since the proposed addition will be located in the same location as the existing wing to be replaced. The building height will be increased from 1 floor to three floors to accommodate the larger (non-shared) living units. The prior units had two residents sharing a unit. The scale of the new wing will be consistent with the three floor 1917 building to the north. The site previously included a four floor theater building which was removed in 2017. The traffic to and from the site will be further restricted from current patterns by closing off the gravel fire lane and directing service vehicles to use Ocean Drive 3. The conditional use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and Response: Based upon review of the Comprehensive Plan, the project supports multiple relevant sections. Project will include a non-motorized facility along the south edge within the unopened ROW. 4. The conditional use complies with all other applicable provisions of the BIMC; and Response: The site design meets all applicable development standards including dimensional standards, landscape requirements, ARPA, parking, etc. 5. 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 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Response: Restrictions to vehicle access and new landscape screening will reduce potential impacts. 6. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and Response: Project will comply with all local noise restrictions. 7. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and Response: The project will comply with all required ROW improvements including construction of a new non-motorized pedestrian path along the unopened ROW. 8. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria: a. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and b. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and c. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and e. 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 required service(s) can be made available at the site; and f. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and Response: The applicant has been following and responding to all information and requirements form Engineering staff. Engineering has determined no traffic impact analysis is warranted due to minimal changes to anticipated vehicle trips. 9. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the conditional use 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; and b. If the health district recommends approval or disapproval of the application the health district shall so advise the director; and 10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will be properly designed to ensure fire protection; and Response: The project is under review by local health authorities and will comply will all relevant local regulations. /-\ CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ) cuP0t-22-94-1 RECEIVED MAR I 0 1995 UTY $ Bni\efli{.t. lstAND ln the Matter of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Construct an Addition to the Messenger House Care Center, Soundcare, lnc., Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 0n March 2, 1995, at g:30 a.m., City of Bainbridge lsland Hearing Examiner J. Robin Hunt conducted a public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to construct a new 20,500 square'foot, 49-bed addition and to replace the seventy-stall parking area at the Messenger House Care Center located at 1086'l NE Manitou Park Boulevard in the Skiff Point area 0n the east side of Bainbridge lsland. Applicant Soundcare, lnc. proposes to move 49 patients from the existing old building into the new structure; the old structure would be refurbished into offices and storage, as it is no longer suitable for patient care. The number of residents would not increase. Ten persons attended the public hearing. George Johnston, Assistant Planner with the City of Bainbridge lsland ("the City') Department of Planning and Community Development ("DPCD'), testified on behalf of the City. Ray Ramsdell, the pro.iect manager for Messenger House, testified on behalf of Applicant. Both Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ramsdell answered questions frorn the Hearing Examiner and the audience concerning the following issues: 1. Drainage, particularly during heavy storms with water running down Mountain View Road on the north side of the propefi; 2. Treatment of sewage and discharge of treated seu,age and stormwater into Puget Sound, sewage-related smells, and disposal of infectious wastes; I 1 3. The cgtting of trees; / / J , . . irr'^* :HiI)',"7*,./o,r,4 &?,w ,ezwota, ,uxz'z /a'p9 irlk,,lo+l ne<ci"or**4 E7' u J/-v <L" Exhibit 24 4. The routing of traffic into and out of the site; 5. The presence or absence of any significant nesting or perching sites for such birds as eagles and herons; 6. Parking lot landscaping and screening; 7. lmpact on the steep slope above a ravine off the northeast corner of the new building; 8. Emergency access, fire hydrants and sprinklers'; 9. The height of new structures and their visibility from Manitou Park Boulevard, to the east of the site; 10. Protection of the well on site; and 1 1. Lot coverage, and the size of the various side, front and rear yards. Based upon a view of the site, the exhibits in the file, and testimony at the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT l. Applicant Soundcare, lnc. owns and operates a private, 96-bed, skilled nursing facility located at 10861 NE Manitou Park Boulevard, Bainbridge lsland, Washington. A legal description can be found in Exhibit IC, attached to the Conditional Use Permit Application, and is incorporated by reference herein. Applicant seeks to build a new 20,596 square-foo! two-story facility, northwest of the existing buildings on rMr. Ramsdell promised the Mountain View residents that he would check with North Bainbridge Water Company concerning the periodic emptying of the fire hydrant at the north side of the properly along Mountain View Road to see if the resultant gushing of water therefrom could be eliminated or minimized. , '] the seven-acre site. Forty-nine patients would be moved from the old facility to the new facility. The old facility would be refurbished into office and storage. No new patients would be added. There would be two additional employees (Ex. 18, p. 14). It is not anticipated that the new addition will cause traffic to increase, aside from the traffic associated with construction. Construction vehicles ulill be routed from the Manitou Beach Drive access, except insofar as is necessary for the paving and routing of the driveway connection with Mountain View Road NE. lt. The existing buitding was constructed as a hotel in the early 1900's. Around 1914 it became the Moran School for Boys. The buildingwas usedforvariousotheractivities until about 1960, when Messenger House was established. ln 1986 a classified use permit was obtained from Kitsap County for the addition of a 1,200 square foot wing to the south;this permitted Messenger House to increase its capacity from 76 patients, housed in the 1914 structure, to the current 96 patients. ln addition to the more typical nursing home residents, Messenger House provides care for Alzheimer patients and other 'cognitively impaired persons." The new facility would have a fenced-in courtyard area to provide security for the latter residents, providing maximum mobility. ilt. The western boundary line has been adjusted, moving its midsection westward in order to permit the relocation of the driveway and parking. (The black broken line on the colorized version of the site plan, Exhibit lG, depicts the original property line before the boundary line adlustment.) Currently there are seventy undifferentiated parking smces in a large, gravel lo! the new parking would be segregated into three paved lots with defined stalls, and the requisite interior landscaping. The gravel driveway now FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . 3 leading to Mountain View Road Nt would be paved. However, the main access would continue to be along the asphalt driveway connecting the site to Manitou Beach Drive NE on the west. See Preliminary Site Plan, Exhibit 1G. tv. Some 47 significant trees will be marked and probably removed in the building process. Any such trees removed will each be replaced with three trees. The bulk of the clearing would occur in the southwest portion of the site where some of the parking would be relocated. The two new southwestern parking lots will be reconfigured to meet the fifteen-foot side yard setback requirement for the western property line.2 V. The western portion of the site is generally flat. The property slopes downward to the east by 30 to 40 percent. There are small localized areas 0n the site with slopes in excess of 70 percent. The area of the proposed new building is generally flat and well vegetated. The northern portion of the proposed building would be located in an area with average slopes of approximately 30 percent. There would be no disturbance of the steep sloped area. The City Engineer has determined that the slopes are stable enough so that allowing some portion of the new building to protrude into what othenroise might be a required buffer would not disturb the slopes. vl. There is a well on site and also a sewage treatment facility. Protective measures, such as extra 2looking at the site plan, there was originally some confusion by about whether or not the new adjusted boundary line continued along the southern side of the asphalt driveway leading to Manitou Beach Drive NE. The boundary line adjustment did not continue south along that southwestern portion of the property, even though the site plan depicts a broken line there. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER .4 concrete under some p0rtions of the parking area, will be required to protect the well. The on-site sewage treatment facility will meet requirements of the Army Corp of Engineers, the State Departments of Fisheries and Ecology, and the City Engineer for effluent quality prior to discharge into Puget Sound at Skiff Point.3 Stormwater would not mix with the effluent until after it had left the sewage treatment plant, thus avoiding the problem of overburdening the sewage treatment system in the event of a larqe storm. A drainage system has been proposed for the site and will be approved by the City Engineer. See Exhibit 1G-2. vil. Neighbors along Mountain View Drive northwest of the site testified concerning gushing waters running down the road during times of heavy storms and when the North Bainbridge Water Company empties the fire hydrant in that location. They are concerned that the water be allowed to continue to run on down to the ravine to the northeast of the site and not be diverted onto the neighbors' property. Mr. Ramsdell, on behalf of Applicanf took note of their concerns and promised to check with North Bainbridge Water Company about the fire hydrant openings. vilt. The new building, parking lots and driveway would be constructed behind or to the west of the existing buildings. The new building has been designed to tie in visually with the existing structures. See Elevations on Exhibit 34A. There is a large, sweeping green lawn between the east side of the existing main building and Manitou Park Boulevard to the east. The front of the building will not be altered, so 3The fact that there are sometimes 'sewage odor" near the treatment plant and warning signs prohibiting shellfish gathering near the sewer outfall does not mean that harmful sewage is being emptied into Puget Sound. Apparently, this is standard hearth department practice. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . 5 that the appearance will remain essentially the same to the residents across Manitou Park Boulevard to the east. lt is possible that the rooftop of the new building will protrude somewhat above the old building, but for the most part, the new development will be tucked out of sight. There will be vegetation along the driveway from Mountain View Drive and vegetation in and around the parking lots. lx. There are two fire hydrants on site. An additional, new fire hydrant would be added. There have been some problems with low fire flow, which will be corrected and approved prior to the final building permit approval. The existing fire lane along the south side of the site to Manitou Park Boulevard would remain open, but used only in emergencies. There will also be access from the two paved driveways, the primary one to Manitou Beach Drive NE, and the other to Mountain View Drive NE. The circular driveway would provide close, on-site access to both the new building and the old building in case of an emergency. There will also be sprinklers in the new building. X. The old structure is no longer adequate to provide a safe, efficient, and healthy environment for the residents. ln fact, Messenger House does not currently have its full 96 beds set up. Various governmental agencies have had to issue 'waiverso in the past because the old facility no longer meets the current requirements for a nursing care facility. Applicant has filed a detailed report entitled, 'Functional Program for the Replacement of 49 Existing Nursing Home Beds,' included in the file as Exhibit 1H. This report contains details of the service that the new facility would provide. xt. This area is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designation is semi- rural. The surrounding area is also zoned Singte Family Residential, R-2 or semi-rural in the FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - 6 Comprehensive Plan. There are single-family residences to the north, south and east of the site. These residences have co-existed with Messenger House for many years in a well-settled neighborhood. The land to the west is vacant with a single-family residence further to the west. lt is alonq this land to the west that the boundary line adjustment was accomplished. xil. Applicants filed their Conditional Use Permit application on July 22,1994. For a time it was thought that a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit might be required because of the proposed sewage and stormwater outfall into Puget Sound. The City ultimately determined that a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was not required. xilt. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued on December g, 1994, with seven mitigating conditions: 1. Proposed drainage control measures shall be devetoped and approved prior to the issuance of building permit. 2- The project shall comply with City landscaping regulations per BIMC 18.81 and I8.84. 3. The parking lot shall comply with City parking regulations per BIMC 18.81. 4. The height of the structures shall not exceed 35 feet per BIMC 18.30. 5. Approved erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any grading activity. 6. All significant trees (as defined in Section 18.06.090 BIMC) cteared during construction, shall be replaced at a ratio of 3 new trees for every I tree cleared. size and species of new trees to be pranted shall be approved by the Planning Department and can be included in the overall landscape plan. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - 7 7. Development in the slope-area of the building site (located at the northeast corner of the proposed new addition), shall comply with the recommendations listed in the Slope Evaluation Report prepared by Myers Biodynamics, September 29, 1994. Exhibit 15. Trrvo comments were received, one questioning whether or not blue heron, which had been seen flying over the general area, had nests on the site, and the possible affect of removal of large trees (Ex. 30-D). Mr. Johnston testified at the public hearing the he had checked with the Bainbridge lsland map for the significant wildlife populations, including eagle and heron, and had found no nesting or perching sites to be located on this piece of property. xtv. 0n February 21, 1995, the City recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with three conditions in addition to the previously-mentioned SEPA conditions: 8. The applicant shall provide fire protection systems adequate to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall. 9. 0utdoor lighting shall be designed so that light is directed away from ad.ioining properties, ln addition, lighting for parking areas and driveways shall comply with the provisions of Ch.18.81.130 (BIMC), Lighting for Multifamily and Nonresidential Developments. 10. Approval is limited to the proposal as depicted in the August 31, 1994 site plan and related CUP application. Approval is not to be construed as implied approval for more extensive utilization of the subiect site. XV. Noticeof thepublichearingwaspublishedinthe BremertonSunonFebruaryl5, 1995(Ex.3l), and in lhe Bainbridge Reviewon February l5 and 22, 1995 (Ex.32). Notice was posted at the Bainbridge lsland Chamber of Commerce, City Hall and Winslow Ferry Terminal on February 7, 1995 (Ex. 25), and on FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . 8 the subject propefi on February 15, 1995 (Ex. 29). A copy of the Notice was also sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and parties of interest on February 8, 1995 (Ex. 27). coNclustoNs 0F LAI,Y l. This matter is properly before the Hearing Examiner at this time, pursuant to BIMC 18..l088, oregular" conditional use permit procedure. il. Notice of the public hearing was legal and adequate. ilt. A health care facility is a conditional use in an R-2 residential zone pursuant to BIMC 18.30.030F. tv. Under BIMC 18.108.080(8), major changes to an existing conditional use permit require a new conditional use permit: For both administrative and regular conditional use permits, adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved conditional use permit require an amended application as a new conditional use permit application. Major adjustments are those which change the basic design, intensity, density and/or use. The Messenger House care facility was approved as a 96-bed care facility on July 26, 1986 by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners. Although this project represents an adjustment to an approved Kitsap County Unclassified Use Permit, the use is considered "conditional'for the R-2 zone and is processed the same as a major adjustment to a conditional use permit. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - 9 v. The Hearing Examiner may approve a conditional use permit application if the following criteria are met: 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, sewage disposal facilities, and storm water 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; 5) The conditional use complies with all other provisions of this code; 6) The conditional use will not adversely affect the area $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. B|MC 18.108.040A. vt. The above conditional use criteria are met as follows: 1- The proposed project is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The scale and design of the proposed facility will be very similar to the existing building, even though of larger scale than nearby residences. The sweeping front lawn from the front of the old building to Manitou Park Boulevard will remain essentially the same. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . 1O 2. The proposed development, as conditioned, will be served adequately by public facilities. The City Engineer has given preliminary approval of the stormwater detention/drainage plan. A final stormwater drainage plan is required as a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Fire flow will be upgraded and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The development will not materially affect the surrounding property. Most of the area around the proposed new building and parking area is heavily wooded which acts as a buffer from neighboring residences. Traffic is not expected to change. 4- The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan. The area is designated semi-rural in the Bainbridge lsland Subarea Plan.4 This semi-rural area was designated suitable for residential development without the full provision of full public services. ln accordance with the plan, the bulk of the neighborhood is single-family residential, which, as previously mentioned, has coexisted for many years with the quiet, private nursing home facility. 5- The proiect as conditioned, will be in compliance with all other provisions of the code: a- BIMC 16.20.080 regulates development in environmentally-sensitive areas, such as geologically hazardous areas and slopes. Although slopes in the northeast portion of this site range from thifi to forty percent, no part of the new huilding would protrude into this slope; it would, however, occur within a slope buffer area. The City Engineer has evaluated this slope and has concurred with the report from Myers Biodynamics, lnc., that the slope is stable and the proposed development will not impact the overall slope stability. See Exhibits l3A and 30F. aThe Bainbridge lsland Subarea Plan applies because the date of application preceded adoption of the new Bainbridge lsland comprehensive pran in september, 1994. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . II b. No additional parking spaces will be required because the use is not expanding. The number of spaces provided appear to be adequate to accommodate the peak shift, as required by BIMC 18.81.030K. The proposed parking lots, exceptforthesouthwest parking lot protruding into the side yard, meet design standards of BIMC 18.8'1.070 and 18.81.100. The southwest lot will be reconfigured to meet the side yard requirement. Testimony at the public hearing indicated that the parking lot landscaping will meet or exceed the ten percent requirement of BIMC 18.84.050. ln addition, a vegetative buffer rarill be maintained around the parking areas; much of the existing heavy vegetation will be retained for screening pursuant to BIMC 18.81.120 and 18.81.1 10. c. BIMC 18.84.050 requires preserving existing significant vegetation in the perimeter/buffer areas. ln the interior, at least fifteen percent of significant trees are encouraged to be retained. The existing vegetation will be retained in the front and side yards. Approximately 47 significant trees will be removed, mostly to create the new parking area in the southwest. All of these trees will be flagged prior to construction and mapped. Three new trees of similar species will be planted for every significant tree removed. See SEPA Conditions. Replacement trees will be replanted around the sloped areas to the northeast of the proposed building as well as along the access roads and parking areas. An approved landscaping plan prior to construction is a condition of approval. 6. The proposed project will not adversely affect the surrounding area. The Messenger House Care facility has been at this location since 1960. The proposed project will not expand the use of the facility; n0 new beds will be added. lncreased traffic or other significant environmental impacts will not occur as result as a of the proposed project. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - 12 7. All necessary measures have been taken or will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit to mitigate possible impacts (see SEPA Conditions of Approval). ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Conditional Use Permit is granted, allowing construction of a new 20,596 square-foot structure to replace the old 49-bed unit at the Messenger House Care Center and development of a new 70-stall parking lot to replace the existing parking area, as proposed, on the following conditions: 1. Proposed drainage control measures shall be developed and approved prior to the issuance of building permit. 2. The proiect shall comply with City landscaping regulations per BIMC 18.81 and 18.84. 3. The parking lot shall comply with City parking regulations per BIMC 18.81. 4. The height of the structures shall not exceed 35 feet per BIMC 18.30. 5. Approved erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any grading activity. 6. All significant trees (as defined in Section 18.06.090 BIMC) cleared during construction, shall be replaced at a ratio of three new trees for every one tree cleared. Size and species of new trees to be planted shall be approved by the Planning Department and can be included in the overall landscape plan. 7. Development in the slope-area of the building site (located at the northeast corner of the proposed new addition), shall comply with the recommendations listed in the Slope Evaluation Report prepared by Myers Biodynamics, September 29, 1994, as follows: Site drainage discharges such as roof downspouts, foundation drains, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - 13 g. r0. driveway drainage or other site drainage features shourd be introduced along the contours of natural site grades and away from existing steep slopes if infiltration systems are used. site drainage discharges should be maintained within the natural site drainage basins wherever possible or tightlined to a suitable discharge location. Maintenance of existing vegetation on the site srope is encouraged. cut and filled slopes should be revegetated and exposed soil slopes protected from erosion until vegetation is reestablished. Materials, heavy equipment, etc., should not be stockpired at the top of steep slopes. Vegetation, woody debris, or other natural or man-made materials should not be disposed of onto steep slopes. These materials can create an unstable mass 0n the slope which is subject to sliding. Signs of erosion on natural or fill slopes shourd be repaired before they develop into significant features. Future geotechnical design recommendations for the project development should be followed. Recommendations for foundation support, soil bearing, cut and fill slopes, and fill placement will be presented with consideration given to the existing natural steep slope condition. Applicant shall provide fire protection systems, including a new fire hydrant and sprinkler system, adequate to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall. 0utdoor lighting shall be designed so that light is directed away from adjoining properties. ln addition, lighting for parking areas and driveways shall comply with the provisions of BIMC i8.81.130, Lighting for Multifamily and Nonresidential Developments. Approval is limited to the proposal as depicted in the August 3'1, lgg4, site plan and related CUP application. Approval is not to be construed as implied approval for more extensive utilization of the subject site. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER . 14 ll' No construction actiuities shatl commence untilApplicant receives the requisite grading and building and other associated permits from the City. tL DATED this i 0 day of March, lgg5. A lril^ l/_/ Hdaring Examiner for the city of Bainbridge rsrand Motion for Reconsideration A Motion for Reconsideration to corrdt'obvious error' may be filed within ten (10) calendar days pursuant to BIMC 2.16.0S0H. Rioht of Appeal (B!MC 18.1il.080). The Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed to the city council within ten (10) calendar days in accordance with the provisions of BIMC 2..l6.ffi0. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER - I5 Exhibit 25 1 Kelly Tayara From:Lara Lant Sent:Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:40 AM To:Kelly Tayara Subject:FW: Messenger House Phase 2 Conditional Use Permit Application (PLN51717 CUP) Hi Kelly, I reached out to Richard B/KPHD about Health review of Messenger House and he sent me the response below. It doesn’t sound like KPHD needs to review, but if WE require something stating that formally then the applicant should apply for a sewered exemption. So my questions is, do we need something formal or will this email suffice as a sewer “sign off.” Thanks, Lara Lara Lant Due to the City’s COVID-19 response, the Planning and Community Development Department (PCD) has modified its operations. Please see the PCD webpage (https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/154/Planning-Community-Development) for current information. From: Richard Bazzell <Richard.Bazzell@kitsappublichealth.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:29 AM To: Lara Lant <llant@bainbridgewa.gov> Subject: RE: Messenger House Phase 2 Conditional Use Permit Application (PLN51717 CUP) CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Bainbridge Island organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I’m well, however I’m on standby for COVID Source tracking. There will likely be delays in my review times because of it. How about you? Make in through the Holiday? As for the Messenger House, good question. This is one of those scenarios were there would be no reason for a Commercial Building Clearance. Everything is existing and the use of the building is not changing. If COBI would like some formal clearance from us, the appropriate mechanism would be a sewered exemption. You can direct the customer to the below link…. https://www.skipthepaper.com/myApplication.aspx?myApp=41933731-50AF-4A37-ADEC-B92F5F349D36 Exhibit 26 2 Sound appropriate? From: Lara Lant <llant@bainbridgewa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:19 PM To: Richard Bazzell <Richard.Bazzell@kitsappublichealth.org> Subject: Messenger House Phase 2 Conditional Use Permit Application (PLN51717 CUP) |CAUTION|: This email originated from outside Kitsap Public Health District. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email. If you are unsure please contact IT. Hi Richard! How are things? I took in a big project last week and I’m not sure how Kitsap Public Health will review (or even if you will or the State will?) Messenger House has its own sewer system (I’m not positive but I think KPUD provides water) - they had a commercial TI earlier this summer which received approvals from WA State DOH and DOE – I think you signed off on the building permit application, knowing it was being reviewed on the State level. Messenger House is now applying for a CUP : New 46 bed health care facility with assisted and independent living units. Proposed new addition will replace existing skilled nursing facility which will be demolished. Existing parking spaces will remain unchanged. Current use approved under prior CUP - new addition is 52,460 sf bringing the total area of existing and proposed structure to 93,255 sf. Who will review this CUP? Or do the earlier approvals satisfy this new work? Shall I have the applicant reach out directly to discuss? I’m trying to find the simplest solution to water & sewer review. What do you think? Thank you, Lara Lara Lant Due to the City’s COVID-19 response, the Planning and Community Development Department (PCD) has modified its operations. Please see the PCD webpage (https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/154/Planning-Community-Development) for current information. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMO Date: December 9, 2020 To: Kelly Tayara, Planning Department From: Jackie Purviance, Deputy Fire Marshal Re: Messenger House Phase 2 PLN51717 CUPA PLN51717 CUP PLN51717 SPR The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments: 1.The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted FireCode. 2.Fire sprinklers and alarms will be required for the project. Fire sprinkler shallmeet the requirements of NFPA 13; Fire alarm shall meet the requirements ofIFC 907 and NFPA 72. FDC and PIV are located on the west side of thestructure. Applicant to ensure systems are in good working order. 3. Fire flow is met through existing hydrants. No additional fire hydrants arerequired at this time. To determine existing fire flow to the site, the applicant isadvised to contact Kitsap PUD. 4.Fire lane marking appears to be adequate. Applicant to ensure marking isvisible and in good condition. Gates installed across the south side firedepartment access road will be required to have a Knox override installed toprovide quick access by fire department personnel during an emergency. Exhibit 27 Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, May 3, 2021 Design Review Board Minutes May 3, 2021 Page 1 of 2 Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Review and Approval of Minutes – April 19, 2021 Buxton Center for Performing Arts (PLN51828 SPRA) Messenger House (PLN51717 SPR) New/Old Business Adjourn Call to Order (Attendance, Agenda, Ethics) Chair Joseph Dunstan called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Design Review Board members in attendance were Michael Loverich, Vicki Clayton, Shawn Parks, Bob Russell, and Todd Thiel. Laurel Wilson was absent and excused. Planning Commissioners Jon Quitslund and Ashley Mathews were present. City Council members Leslie Schneider and Michael Pollock were present. City Staff present were Planning Manager David Greetham, Senior Planner Kelly Tayara, and Administrative Specialist Marlene Schubert who monitored recording and prepared minutes. The agenda was reviewed. No conflicts were disclosed. Review and Approval of Minutes – April 19, 2021 Motion: I make a motion to approve the minutes Clayton/ Loverich: Passed Unanimously Buxton Center for Performing Arts (PLN51828 SPRA) #3 Final Design Review Meeting See attached 05-03-2021 FINAL Design for Bainbridge Worksheet-Buxton Center for BPA Messenger House (PLN51717 SPR) #3 Final Design Review Meeting See attached 05-03-2021 FINAL Design for Bainbridge Worksheet-Messenger House New/Old Business •Update-Subcommittee “code changes” for project review process – David Greetham •General Project Update-David Greetham •Board Member Issues/Concerns Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 PM. Exhibit 28 Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, May 3, 2021 Design Review Board Minutes May 3, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Approved by: Attendee Report Report Generated:5/13/2021 11:56 Topic Webinar ID Actual Start Time Actual Duration (minutes)# Registered Unique Viewers Design Review Board Regular Meeting 934 5342 5990 5/3/2021 13:51 242 18 17 Total Users Max Concurrent Views 44 0 Host Details User Name (Original Name)Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (minutes) Marlene Schubert mschubert@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 13:51 5/3/2021 17:53 242 Panelist Details User Name (Original Name)Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (minutes) Jeff Bouma jeff.bouma9@gmail.com 5/3/2021 14:55 5/3/2021 17:51 176 Mark Tumiski mtumiski@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 49 Shawn shawn.parks@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 14:02 5/3/2021 17:53 232 Kelly ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 13:57 5/3/2021 15:36 100 Kelly ktayara@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 15:39 5/3/2021 17:53 134 Michael michael.loverich@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 13:58 5/3/2021 17:53 236 Todd todd.thiel@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 17:53 233 Ashley ashley.mathews@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 13:57 5/3/2021 17:08 191 JUSTIN YOUNKER justin@cascadiadevelopment.com 5/3/2021 15:01 5/3/2021 17:53 172 Dominique Cantwell dcantwell@bainbridgeperformingarts.org 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 49 Vicki vicki.clayton@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 13:54 5/3/2021 17:53 239 Michael P mpollock@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 13:52 5/3/2021 16:59 187 David david@carlettiarcitects.com 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 17:51 228 Joseph joseph.dunstan@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 13:56 5/3/2021 17:53 238 charlie charlie@wenzlauarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:55 5/3/2021 17:51 176 Josh Saitelbach - Groundswell josh@groundswell.studio 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 50 Leslie lschneider@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 14:02 5/3/2021 14:35 34 Bob bob.russell@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 13:54 5/3/2021 17:53 239 David dgreetham@bainbridgewa.gov 5/3/2021 15:06 5/3/2021 17:53 167 Erik Perka eperka@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 50 Erik Perka eperka@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 49 Wendy Pautz wpautz@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:03 5/3/2021 14:52 50 Jon Quitslund jonquitslund@att.net 5/3/2021 14:55 5/3/2021 16:56 121 Attendee Details User Name (Original Name)Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (minutes) Jeff Bouma jeff.bouma9@gmail.com 5/3/2021 14:06 5/3/2021 14:10 5 Jeff Bouma jeff.bouma9@gmail.com 5/3/2021 14:39 5/3/2021 14:55 17 Mark Tumiski mtumiski@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:01 5/3/2021 14:03 3 William Langemack langemack@icloud.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:52 52 Steve Powell spowell@soundpublishing.com 5/3/2021 14:02 5/3/2021 14:54 53 JUSTIN YOUNKER justin@cascadiadevelopment.com 5/3/2021 14:01 5/3/2021 15:01 61 Dominique Cantwell dcantwell@bainbridgeperformingarts.org 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:03 3 Matt Longmire mlongmire@bainbridgeperformingarts.org 5/3/2021 14:37 5/3/2021 14:53 16 David david@carlettiarcitects.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:03 3 charlie charlie@wenzlauarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:46 5/3/2021 14:55 10 Josh Saitelbach - Groundswell josh@groundswell.studio 5/3/2021 14:01 5/3/2021 14:03 3 Erik Perka eperka@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:03 3 Erik Perka eperka@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:03 3 Anne McNamee Corbett anne@islandfilmworks.com 5/3/2021 14:07 5/3/2021 17:51 225 Wendy Pautz wpautz@lmnarchitects.com 5/3/2021 14:01 5/3/2021 14:03 3 Joe Dunstan joseph.dunstan@cobicommitte.email ------ Jon Quitslund jonquitslund@att.net 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:55 56 Kim McCormick Osmond kimberly.mccormick.osmond@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 14:36 5/3/2021 14:46 11 kim osmond kimberly.mccormick.osmond@cobicommittee.email 5/3/2021 14:46 5/3/2021 16:33 107 ralphspillinger ralphspil@aol.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 14:52 52 Mark markf53@msn.com 5/3/2021 14:00 5/3/2021 17:05 185 Other Attended User Name Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (minutes) 12067180799 5/3/2021 14:43 5/3/2021 14:55 12 12067180799 5/3/2021 14:55 5/3/2021 17:51 176 DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 1 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA INTRODUCTION Design for Bainbridge (DforB) provides guidance for applicants to successfully navigate the design review process. The design review process, standards, and guidelines are structured to support good design and a deliberate design process from context and site down to design detailing. Design review is an iterative process intended to help applicants apply relevant standards and guidelines and develop designs for the project that fit Bainbridge Island and the unique context of the site. This iterative process contains three touch points with the Design Review Board (DRB). This worksheet is used to capture design information to be presented to the DRB at each step in the iterative process. #1 Conceptual Proposal Review Meeting The conceptual proposal review meeting is an informal meeting between the applicant and the Design Review Board to review site-specific conditions and contextual considerations for the design of development on site. This discussion is intended to inform strategies for site planning and massing that respond sensitively to the neighborhood context. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB pages 12 & 16 #2 Design Guidance Review Meeting Design guidance review meetings with the Design Review Board offer guidance to potential applicants during the design process on conceptual alternatives. The purpose of the design guidance review meeting is to review how the proposed alternatives fit the surrounding context with a focus on the development’s program, uses, site plan, and massing. The DRB will also consider any requested departures, the rationale for those departures and their consistency with the intent and principles of the guidelines. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB page 13 ▪ Initial Design for Bainbridge Worksheet (below) DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 2 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA #3 Final Design Review Meeting At this meeting, the Board will review the application plans for compliance with Design Standards and Design Guidelines and ensure that the project reflects any revisions recommended by the Board at previous meetings. The Board will document its findings and transmit a written recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Board's recommendation may include conditions to ensure compliance with all standards. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB page 15 ▪ Final Design for Bainbridge Worksheet (below) NOTE: Submittal materials should be transmitted as individual pdfs, not as one large file. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 3 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA PROJECT: Buxton Center for Bainbridge Performing Arts (PLN51828) PROJECT ADDRESS or PARCEL: 200 Madison Ave N / 26250231432007 DATE: 05/03/2021 PROJECT PLANNER: Kelly Tayara Design Review Board Meeting Dates: 11/02/2020; 11/16/2020; 05/03/2021 CONTEXT ANALYSIS C1 ANALYZE NATURAL SYSTEMS C2 IDENTIFY THE 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 AND CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC REALM Context Analysis Complete: Yes: ☒ No: ☐ If no, required additional information: DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 4 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SITE DESIGN STANDARDS S1 PROTECT AND REPAIR NATURAL SYSTEMS S2 PRESERVE AND ENRICH WILDLIFE HABITAT S3 RESPECT AND MAGNIFY UNIQUE ASPECTS OF SITE AND CONTEXT S4 COMPLEMENT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL IDENTITY S5 FIT THE PROJECT INTO THE SYSTEMS OF ACCESS AND MOVEMENT, PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES S6 SUPPORT AND CONTRIBUTE TO A VIBRANT PUBLIC REALM Applicant Response: S1) Vegetation - The new addition has been placed to avoid the two large conifer trees that are directly west of the existing building and maple and birch trees to the southwest. A cluster of smaller hazelnut trees to the north will be removed to make room for the new studio. Solar Access - The building has good solar exposure and the new addition is being made "solar-ready" with the ability to add photovoltaic panels on the south-facing roof and the existing west-facing roof should BPA be able to find an interested donor. Wind - Prevailing winds at the site are southwest and northwest. Other than structural bracing to counter it, wind is not a significant issue for the project. Stormwater - There is an existing storm drainage swale that lies to the southwest of the building and the hope was to enlarge the swale to serve the enlarged building. However, the geotechnical engineer has assessed the infiltration capacity of the underlying soil and has indicated that the soil has little ability to receive anything more than incidental storm water. The swale will be maintained but the project will need to rely on the piped storm drainage system for the added roof runoff. Other - Below grade soils are stable and there is no known history of flooding at the site. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 5 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA S2) A variety of trees on the site are being preserved and they can serve as habitat for wildlife, primarily including birds, squirrels and insects. S3) The unique aspect of the project site is its mid-block location with frontage onto an important civic open space ("Town Square"). The project will improve the function of the performing arts center while enhancing its connection to the open space. S4) The scale, form, and materiality of the new addition will be compatible with the existing BPA building and the neighboring buildings. It's expression, which features an iconic roof shape, large windows connecting the lobby to the exterior, a main entry that is aligned with the adjacent open space, and extensive use of wood in the structure and finishes, will be appropriate to its function as an important civic gathering place. S5) The project will align the new main entry of the building with the centerline of Town Square, thus strengthening the system of access and movement between the public open spaces and the community spaces inside the building. S6) By its nature, a performing arts center supports a vibrant public realm, providing numerous opportunities for community gatherings, learning, arts and entertainment. By improving the function of the center and strengthening the connection between the Town Square and BPA, the opportunities for vibrancy will be enhanced. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 6 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: S1) The standard has been met. S2) Landscape using native plants, as warranted. Food for thought, how the big leaf maples will interact with the birch trees over time. The standard has been met. S3) The standard has been met. S4) The standard has been met. S5) The standard has been met on the west side, certainly, and overall. S6) The standard has been met. Like the benches! DRB Findings: This project meets S1-S6 guidelines. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 7 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS P1 CREATE A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR WALKING AND CYCYLING P2 MINIMIZE IMPACT OF VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC REALM P3 DESIGN TO SUPPORT A LEGIBLE HIERARCHY OF PUBLIC SPACES P4 STRENGTHEN PUBLIC SPACE CONNECTIONS P5 DRAW FROM AND ENHANCE EXISTING BLOCK PATTERNS P6 FOSTER INTEREST AND ACTIVITY ALONG COMMERCIAL STREETS Applicant Response: P1) The current safe and comfortable environment for walking and cycling adjacent to the building will be kept intact and improved by the project. To the west, the buildings connection to the pedestrian zone that is part of Town Square will be enhanced by the new entry that is on axis with the centerline of Town Square and a new stair and a new accessible ramp that provide very direct pathways to the public space. To the east, the existing paved pedestrian walk that is adjacent to the south wall of the performing arts center connects to an existing paved walk that runs along the south side of the historical museum; this existing pedestrian walk will not be affected by the project. P2) The project does not alter the existing drive aisles or parking stalls in the vicinity of the BPA building. P3) The existing hierarchy of public spaces is respected by the project. The approach to the main building entry features a deliberate sequence as it passes through (1) the open public space of Town Square, (2) a landscaped forecourt in which the paved way is narrowed and supplemented by adjacent planting, (3) a short stairway and ramp to a raised "porch" that provides a sense of arrival, and (4) passage through entry doors into the lobby vestibule. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 8 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA P4) The public connection between the performing arts center and the Town Square open space will be strengthened and enhanced by the creation of an axial relationship between Town Square and the building entry that is more obvious and direct than the existing condition. The new walkway will be enhanced with new vegetation and benches. P5) The block pattern in which the project resides is unique in the city. The mid-block location of the building, highlighted by its relationship to the Town Square open space, helps make the site a special place in the city and emphasizes its importance as a civic facility. The new addition will not alter the nature of the block pattern. P6) Since the existing building is not located close to any streets, it does not have much of an opportunity to foster interest and activity along commercial streets. The west facade of the expanded building will be visible at a distance from Madison Avenue North and the iconic nature of the new roof will add visual interest. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 9 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: P1) This standard has been met. P2) This standard has been met. P3) This guideline has been met. P4) This guideline has been met. P5) This guideline has been met. P6) This guideline is not applicable. DRB Findings: This project meets P1-P5 standards, P6 standard is not applicable. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 10 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA BUILDING 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 DETAILS Applicant Response: B1) The expansion seeks to create a clear axial connection with Town Square, and the primary building entrance is derived from this alignment. Each piece of program is located to maximize connectivity, patron experience, and visual connection to the woodland landscape. Directly off the entry and flowing north, an appropriately scaled new lobby welcomes patrons, and features a large wall of glazing that allows porosity to the large fir tree and woodland planting just beyond. Bookending the lobby are the remaining program spaces, a multipurpose studio embedded in the hillside to the north, and administrative offices at the south to allow daylight and privacy. A second level connection to the rear of the auditorium sets the high point of the new massing. The studio is also a double-height space, and its roof slopes down toward the lower-scaled residential neighborhood to the north. The offices require less volume, so the lobby roof slopes toward the south to a low point corresponding with existing structure, before lifting in a welcoming gesture to the south. This wave-like form is both iconic and unifying, providing a single fluid connector between the different programs, yet allowing each to satisfy its unique requirements. B2) Several of the buildings in the immediate context are broken down into multiple volumes and roof forms, creating a more human scale within the civic and cultural campus. The new addition will be lower than the existing gable-roofed auditorium, and retain the hierarchy of the current facility. However, given its prominent siting and orientation toward Town Square, the new massing will benefit from the coherent and unified expression and its own distinct roof form. Expressed wood structure and cedar cladding reference neighboring City Hall and the Historical Museum, while being regenerative and regionally sourced. The clear glass lobby wall is articulated with glulam wood columns and mullions, and separates the more solid masses of the studio and offices. The roof beams create rhythm and scale in the interior and support a tongue and groove open wood ceiling that connects each of the program DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 11 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA spaces. A large cantilevered eave at the west façade provides outdoor cover, shade, and weather protection, bringing the wood ceiling material to the exterior. These materials and their use are representative of Pacific Northwest typologies and surrounding buildings. B3) The west expansion balances opaqueness and porosity, with the wood-clad volumes holding the perimeter, proud of a transparent, gasket-like lobby showcasing the texture of wood structure. Punched windows in these opaque volumes add scale, rhythm, and depth, with the entry doors creating a glassy portal in the southern mass, and a large picture window bringing daylight and views to the studio. Consistently detailed benches in the lobby and the porch tie the indoor and outdoor spaces together. Along the length of the porch, the wave-like roof form is legible as a continuous wood soffit that adds warmth and frames an outdoor room. Primarily opaque facades are limited to the north and east, based on the theatrical and back of house functions and the site condition of a vegetated slope and parking. Mechanical units are located to the north of the existing building and naturally screened from view. B4) The project embraces sustainability in preserving much of the existing building, while siting the new addition to preserve prominent trees and the existing stormwater-infiltrating rain garden. The addition will feature deep roof overhangs for shade and rain protection, and a primarily south-facing slope to allow future or near-term installation of solar photovoltaic panels. Operable windows will be provided at offices for user comfort and natural ventilation. The use of renewable materials such as wood for the primary structure and interior detailing connects the project to a regional vocabulary and limits the project’s carbon footprint. B5) The project utilizes a refined material palette that emphasizes the overall design concept with thoughtful details. Expressed glulam wood structure is evident throughout in the open ceiling, which parallels the roof form. The opaque volumes clad in a more finely textured wood siding material bookend the openness of the lobby, which features more metal and glass. A lacey, open metal stair with wood treads and perforated rises appears to float in the lobby, and the metal detailing and colors are carried throughout the window frames, door hardware and concessions area. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 12 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: B1) This standard has been met. This is one of the standards that is strongly addressed. B2) This standard has been met. Appreciate the nice use and mix of older materials blended with modern materials. B3) This standard has been met. B4) This standard has been met. B5) This standard has been met. DRB Findings: B1-B5 standards have been met. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 13 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS L1 INTEGRATE THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT TO COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS L2 SUPPORT THE PUBLIC REALM WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN L3 INTEGRATE SUSTAINABLE FEATURES INTO THE LANDSCAPE AND MAKE THEM VISIBLE WHEREVER POSSIBLE L4 INTEGRATE AND HIGHLIGHT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICES L5 SUPPORT HEALTHY HABITAT IN THE LANDSCAPE L6 PRESERVE AND ENHANCE IMPORTANT VIEWS AND VIEW CORRIDORS Applicant Response: L1) The proposed landscape concept will respond to and complement the architectural concepts. Taking cues from existing plant palette, additional native and climate adaptive plans will strengthen the architectural concept and better integrate building and site. L2) The public realm will be respected and improved by maintaining and responding to the existing organization of public spaces. The public connection between the performing arts center and the Town Square open space will be strengthened and enhanced by the creation of an axial relationship between Town Square and the building entry that is more direct than the existing condition. New plantings within the forecourt area will create a more comfortable sense of space for the community to gather and find respite. A small stair and accessible ramp will create an equitable entry experience to the "porch" that provides a stronger sense of arrival. L3) Refer to L4 and L5 below. Sustainable stormwater strategies were explored to celebrate stormwater conveyance in the landscape, however, as previously noted, the underlying soils are not suitable for stormwater infiltration. L4) Low Impact Development strategies are being explored to highlight green infrastructure practices. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 14 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA L5) The project will incorporate native plants in order to support and improve healthy habitat on site. L6) The project will better connect the indoor experience with the native woodland landscape on the west side of the building. The visual connection to Town Square will also be enhanced. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 15 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: L1) This standard has been met. L2) This standard has been met. L3) This standard has been met. L4) This standard has been met. Doing a good job expanding the rain garden. Appreciative that landscaping is native and using climate-adaptive plants and ultimately will not have to be irrigated. L5) This standard has been met. They are preserving and saving existing trees on the property. L6) This standard has been met. Credit for connecting the “civicness” of the site. DRB Findings: L1-L6 standards have been met. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 16 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA STREET TYPES AND FRONTAGES Street Types: State Route, Main Street, Neighborhood Main Street, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Mixed Use Arterial, Rural by Design, Green Street Rural Green Street Applicant Response: The project does not have any street frontage. It is located mid-block between Madison Avenue North and Erickson Avenue NE. To the west, the building fronts on "Town Square", which is the location of a weekend public market and is a parklike open space with surface parking that serves BPA, City Hall and other adjacent enterprises. DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 17 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA Frontages: Linear / Storefront, Landscape, Plaza, Forecourt, Stoop / Terrace, Vegetated Buffer, Parking Applicant Response: As noted above, the project site has no street frontage, so the typologies shown in Design for Bainbridge are not applicable to the project. A 20-foot vegetated buffer is planned for the northern edge of the site, which is adjacent to a single-family residential property that has a series of modular houses that back up to the project site. DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 18 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES ISLAND CHARACTER PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ISLAND CHARACTER Applicant Response: Not applicable. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 19 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT TO REFLECT AND/OR ENHANCE THE CONTEXT PROVIDED BY EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTER AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES Applicant Response: The performing arts center is part of the city's civic complex that includes City Hall to the west, Town Square to the immediate west, and the Bainbridge Historical Museum to the east. The project does not materially alter the center's relationship to the neighboring elements. It uses common gable roof forms and materials to respect the context, while providing a larger presence through tall windows and a strong roof form that convey a sense of civic importance befitting an important community building. The project also includes a 20' planting buffer on the north side of the property to enhance the natural landscape between the single-family residential development. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 20 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NATURAL AREA TO INCORPORATE FORESTED AND/OR OTHER NATURAL AREAS INTO SITE DESIGN IN SUCH A WAY THAT ECOLOGICAL AND AESTHETIC INTERGRITY, QUALITIES, AND VALUES ARE PRESERVED OR RESTORED Applicant Response: As previously noted, significant trees will be preserved by the project and the existing storm drainage swale will be retained. One of the project’s site goals is to better connect the existing forested landscape with the indoor experience. The project considers the existing 28" fir and 18" pine trees directly west of the building to be a unique site amenity, crucial to creating a rich indoor experience that engages the native forested landscape. Additional native plants will supplement the existing planting area to create a richer and healthier landscape furthering the sites ecological and aesthetic integrity. The remaining site areas, less any proposed lawn areas, will also be restored to a native landscape condition in order to establish beneficial habitat. The 20' plant buffer on the north side of the property will be planted with native plants. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 21 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS TO PRESERVE AND INTEGRATE EXISTING NATURAL SITE PATTERNS AND FEATURES THROUGHOUT THE SITE Applicant Response: Significant trees and healthy native vegetation will be preserved by the project. Except for the existing vegetation, there are minimal natural site patterns throughout this developed urban site. Stormwater runoff will infiltrate to the largest extent possible. As previously noted, the existing forested landscape will be preserved to create a richer indoor/outdoor experience. Additional native plants will supplement the existing planting areas to create a richer plant community and further the sites ecological and aesthetic integrity. The remaining site areas, less any proposed lawn areas, will also be restored to a native plant community in order to establish beneficial habitat. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 22 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES TO PRESERVE IMPORTANT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Applicant Response: The performing arts center is an important cultural resource. This project will improve the function of the center and extend its useful life, which are important ways to ensure the preservation of the resource. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 23 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA STORMWATER INTEGRATE STORMWATER FACILITIES IN SITE DESIGN WITH EMPHASIS ON INFILTRATION AND DISPERSION PRACTICES Applicant Response: As previously noted, it was hoped that the existing storm drainage swale that lies to the southwest of the building could be enhanced to serve the enlarged building, however, the underlying soils do not have the capacity to accept infiltrated stormwater. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 24 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SEPTIC SYSTEMS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT OF SEPTIC FACILITIES Applicant Response: Not Applicable. The project is connected to the sanitary sewer system. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 25 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA WATER CONSERVATION TO PROTECT THE ISLAND’S FINITE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND ADAPT TO THE IMPACTS OF A CHANGING CLIMATES Applicant Response: The major restrooms in the building are being remodeled and enlarged to meet the requirements of the Washington State Building Code. Low flow plumbing fixtures will be employed to conserve water. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 26 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA COMMUNITY SPACE TO PROMOTE A SHARED SENSE OF COMMUNITY Applicant Response: The fundamental mission of the Bainbridge Performing Arts (BPA) is to provide a community space for cultural and educational functions. As stated on BPA's website: "Our mission is to promote appreciation of and participation in the performing arts to build, educate and inspire our vibrant, creative community. We envision an inclusive and connected community in which we spark joy and change lives by creating a 'brave space' for the pursuit of equitable, creative, and educational experiences." The expansion project will allow BPA to further its mission in a facility that promotes a shared sense of community. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 27 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA CLUSTER HOMESITES TO PROMOTE INTERACTION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND FACILITATE THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND BY REDUCING DISTURBED AREAS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, UTILITY EXTENSIONS AND ROADWAYS Applicant Response: Not Applicable. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 28 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SOLAR ACCESS TO PROVIDE SOLAR ACCESS FOR WELLBEING AND ENERGY PRODUCTION Applicant Response: The building has relatively good solar exposure and the new addition is being made "solar- ready" with the ability to add photovoltaic panels on the south-facing roof and the existing west-facing roof should BPA be able to find an interested donor. Large windows in the new addition will bring daylight to the studio, lobby and offices. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 29 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA ACCESS AND CIRCULATION TO PROVIDE A PRACTICAL AND PLEASANT NETWORK OF MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION Applicant Response: Being in the heart of downtown Winslow, the project site has ready access to buses and ferries. Pedestrian, bicycle, wheelchair and vehicular traffic are accommodated through the existing paved pathways on the City's campus. The project seeks to maintain the existing access and circulation pathways and improve them in the area immediately to the west of the building. A stronger connection to Town Square, including a new stairway and a new ramp to provide universal access from Town Square to the building are included in the project. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 30 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA MOTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE PROMINENCE OF MOTOR VEHICLE USE AND STORAGE Applicant Response: Parking and parking access in the vicinity of the performing arts center will not be modified by this project. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 31 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HOMESITE DESIGN TO EFFICIENTLY CONFIGURE BUILDING FOOTPRINT(S) AND ALLOWED USES WITHIN A HOMESITE Applicant Response: Not Applicable. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 32 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DIVERSITY IN HOUSE DESIGN TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOME SIZES AND DESIGNS TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY IN VISUAL APPEARANCE AND AFFORDABILITY Applicant Response: Not Applicable. DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 33 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA FACING PUBLIC STREETS TO REINFORCE NEIGHBORLINESS OF HOMES ALONG A PUBLIC STREET Applicant Response: Not Applicable. DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 34 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA LARGER SITES 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. Applicant Response: Standard 1) The project will maintain the performing arts center’s frontage on Town Square. It does not have street frontage. Standard 2) The project is not altering the existing parking. DRB Discussion: Standard 1) N/A Standard 2) N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 35 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HISTORIC PLACES STANDARD1 DESIGN THE SITE, BUILDING(s), AND LANDSCAPE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHOUT DIRECTLY MIMICKING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. STANDARD2 MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF BUILDINGS OVER 50 YEARS OLD LISTED OR ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL OR LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Applicant Response: Standard 1) The adjacent Bainbridge Historical Museum, which lies to the east of the performing arts center, is a historic building. Because the new addition to the performing arts center is on the west side of the existing building, it will not be visible from the museum. The new addition is thought to be compatible with the museum through the use of gable roof forms and similar scale. Standard 2) Not Applicable. The performing arts center is 27 years old. DRB Discussion: Standard 1) N/A Standard 2) N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 36 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA 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. Applicant Response: Standard 1) The performing arts center will continue to be located in its current prominent location in downtown Winslow. The building’s presence will be enhanced through enlargement of the lobby/entry portion of the building, an iconic roof form, tall windows in the lobby, and a strong connection to Town Square. The enhanced presence will gently signal the importance of the building as a civic gathering place. Standard 2) The performing arts center currently serves multiple community functions. With its improvements to the existing main hall, the addition of a studio space, and an enhanced lobby and support facilities, the expansion project will allow the center to serve an even broader range of community events and purposes. Part of the plan for the project is to improve the site area immediately west of the building for outdoor gatherings and educational uses. DRB Discussion: Standard 1) This standard has been met. Standard 2) This standard has been met. This is one of the strong pieces of this project. DRB Findings: Standard 1 and Standard 2 have been met. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 37 of 37 City of Bainbridge Island, WA This project is recommended for: Approval ☐ Approval with the following conditions: ☒ •In support of the portable classrooms and the averaging of the buffers. Denial with the following deficiencies: ☐ SIGNATURE: ____________________________________ DATE: Chair, Design Review Board 05-03-2021 ` DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 1 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA INTRODUCTION Design for Bainbridge (DforB) provides guidance for applicants to successfully navigate the design review process. The design review process, standards, and guidelines are structured to support good design and a deliberate design process from context and site down to design detailing. Design review is an iterative process intended to help applicants apply relevant standards and guidelines and develop designs for the project that fit Bainbridge Island and the unique context of the site. This iterative process contains three touch points with the Design Review Board (DRB). This worksheet is used to capture design information to be presented to the DRB at each step in the iterative process. #1 Conceptual Proposal Review Meeting The conceptual proposal review meeting is an informal meeting between the applicant and the Design Review Board to review site-specific conditions and contextual considerations for the design of development on site. This discussion is intended to inform strategies for site planning and massing that respond sensitively to the neighborhood context. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB pages 12 & 16 #2 Design Guidance Review Meeting Design guidance review meetings with the Design Review Board offer guidance to potential applicants during the design process on conceptual alternatives. The purpose of the design guidance review meeting is to review how the proposed alternatives fit the surrounding context with a focus on the development’s program, uses, site plan, and massing. The DRB will also consider any requested departures, the rationale for those departures and their consistency with the intent and principles of the guidelines. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB page 13 ▪ Initial Design for Bainbridge Worksheet (below) DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 2 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA #3 Final Design Review Meeting At this meeting, the Board will review the application plans for compliance with Design Standards and Design Guidelines and ensure that the project reflects any revisions recommended by the Board at previous meetings. The Board will document its findings and transmit a written recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Board's recommendation may include conditions to ensure compliance with all standards. Applicant Submittal Requirements ▪ See DforB page 15 ▪ Final Design for Bainbridge Worksheet (below) NOTE: Submittal materials should be transmitted as individual pdfs, not as one large file. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 3 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA PROJECT: Messenger House Phase II PROJECT ADDRESS or PARCEL: 41560020070003 DATE: 05/03/2021 PROJECT PLANNER: Kelly Tayara Design Review Board Meeting Dates: 06-01-20 (Conceptual); 07-06-2020 & 08-03- 20 (Design Guidance); 05-03-2021 (Final) CONTEXT ANALYSIS C1 ANALYZE NATURAL SYSTEMS C2 IDENTIFY THE 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 AND CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC REALM Context Analysis Complete: Yes: ☒ No: ☐ If no, required additional information: DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 4 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SITE DESIGN STANDARDS S1 PROTECT AND REPAIR NATURAL SYSTEMS S2 PRESERVE AND ENRICH WILDLIFE HABITAT S3 RESPECT AND MAGNIFY UNIQUE ASPECTS OF SITE AND CONTEXT S4 COMPLEMENT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL IDENTITY S5 FIT THE PROJECT INTO THE SYSTEMS OF ACCESS AND MOVEMENT, PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES S6 SUPPORT AND CONTRIBUTE TO A VIBRANT PUBLIC REALM Applicant Response: S1) The proposed new addition is located largely where the prior building was located. The grade level of the addition is set to match the existing 1917 building. Soil disturbance and impacts to the hydrological functions have been minimized by utilizing portions of the original footprint. Portions of existing paving will be removed (service drive, access lane) and replanted as new gardens. Native plantings will be used to restore wooded portions of the site. New impervious surfaces will be limited to outdoor patios and proposed relocated service access lane. The project site has developed over the last one hundred years. While there are remnant natural areas, much of the site has been altered from its natural condition. The proposed improvements will however provide some opportunities to enhance the existing conditions. Currently most of the onsite water is discharged directly to Puget Sound. Proposed LID strategies will investigate increased ability to infiltrate on site. One strategy is to enlarge and restore rain garden along the lower east frontage. The site has multiple mature trees, particularly in the main east facing open spaces. We are assessing the health of these trees and if any will be placed at risk from proposed new footprint. The footprint is primarily located to overlap with the wing it is replacing. The building form has multiple orientations to take advantage of views, shape outdoor spaces and break the building into multiple forms. The building will be able to take advantage of solar access, providing for solar gain for residential units and photovoltaic rooftop arrays. The outdoor spaces are located to get solar access depending on time of day (morning, mid-day, afternoon). DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 5 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA S2) The site has several large, wooded areas which can be restored with native planting to improve habitat capacity and enhanced infiltration. No new fencing is proposed at project perimeter and none currently exists. The existing natural areas will be maintained and enhanced with native vegetation. S3) The site has the look and feel of a large park due to mature trees and expansive lawn and woodland areas. This is one of the defining characteristics of the site and one of its key assets for both neighbors and residents. The site, located on an east facing slope, also enjoys unobstructed views of Puget Sound. The site has a well know history as the Moran School, and still retains the original 1917 School Building, which overlooks the main lawn area. The building will be restored as part of the new project. The open space will be improved as a shared use space for both residents and the neighborhood. The site has several unique attributes, perhaps most the most significant being its long history. The original school building is existing and will continue to feature prominently on the site. The proposed work will include restoring portions of the exterior, particularly the east facing façade where the existing addition will be removed. Another feature is the dramatic parklike with its views to Puget Sound. The site design will preserve the parklike setting and enhance its accessibility for residents and neighbors. S4) The new project will continue to sustain the sense of place which has characterized the site for over 100 years. The Old theater, which was recently demolished due to years of neglect, helped define the large open space with its three-story façade. The proposed new addition seeks to recall the scale of the theater and continue its role in shaping the open space, as viewed by the public. The intent is to break the new wing into multiple masses, similar in scale to the original theater. The overall composition will be comprised of multiple building segments appearing as something which has grown over time. Each segment is further broken-down using changes in materials, glazing patterns, and offsets. Perhaps most importantly, the new addition is not meant to compete with original architecture and its role should be a quiet backdrop to the grand open spaces. The proposed design replaces the existing assisted living wing. The addition will express itself as distinct from the historic 1917 building and will not attempt to copy it. To achieve this delicate fit, the new wing is separated by a glass pavilion, where the visitors will arrive. The residential portions of the new wing, are a new interpretation of the older Mediterranean architecture, expressed with simple solid massing, vertically composed windows, and smooth cement surfaces, to emulate the stucco facades. The building is carefully broken into discrete wings, each with a specific orientation with existing or historic forms. The building materials also express the internal uses DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 6 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA (residential vs common). The main common area is positioned to take advantage of views to Seattle skyline and aligns with the orientation of the Old Theater Building. Lastly the overall building shape helps shape a variety of outdoors spaces while breaking up the overall building massing. S5) The primary access to the facility will be from the west using NE ocean Drive. New entry signage will be added to make the point of access more apparent (there is no signage at present). The new entry to the Assisted 490 Madison Ave. N., Suite 105 ⬧ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ⬧ 206.780.6882 ⬧ www.wenzlauarchitects.com Living wing will be co-located with the existing Memory Care entry and porte-cochere. This will become the main entry for vehicular drop and for visitor/resident parking. Additional outdoor spaces will be placed to overlook the large east facing open space. A smaller more contemplative garden will be on the west side where the service ramp is being removed. A network of accessible pathways will be created around the new wing to encourage walking and interactions. A shared gathering space for residents and neighbors is proposed at the main open space frontage along Manitou Park Blvd. No new parking is proposed. S6) While the west facing entry is the formal public entry, the true public face is to the east as viewed from the Manitou Park neighborhood. This open space has been a neighborhood asset for decades. A pergola set near the street edge will serve as a meeting place as well as an informal boundary between the public street and semi- private gardens to ensure safety. Where the west entry side is defined by its expansive parking (all existing), the east side is free of vehicles. This open space will be programed to support a variety of activities, ranging from passive (sitting and strolling) to active (yoga, art, etc.). There will be several entries facing the park which would be accessible to residents, adding life to the park areas. Although the site is not located in town, it still projects a civic quality, primarily due to the large parklike setting residents have enjoyed for decades. As described above, the intent is to maintain and enhance the park and continue the legacy of the site as a public institution. The landscape design along Manitou Park Blvd. is the most prominent public interface for the neighborhood and will be improved to promote opportunities for interaction between neighbors and residents alike. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 7 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: S1) This standard has been met. All new lights will conform to city code dark sky standards. If there is any existing lighting, suggestions will be made to conform to dark sky standards. See Landscape section comments. S2) This standard has been met. See Landscape section comments. S3) This standard has been met. The building has 4 different contexts: historical, entry & main visitor approach, campus, and residential neighborhood. The building is a huge mass but needs to relate to all of these different contexts. The historical and entry are covered well. The campus context is mixed, good and not so good. The residential context is the weakest portion. The restoration of the park will be an asset to the neighborhood and public. See comments in Building Design section. S4) This standard has been met. The architect has worked hard with the neighbors to achieve a balance. Preserving east-facing open space is important. S5) This standard has been met. Appreciate that the owner continues to allow public to use trail around the property. Prioritizing pedestrians is also appreciated. S6) This standard has been met. The park is part of the public realm. There is a public presence in the lobby. Doing a good job of setting up spaces for people to visit with relatives. DRB Findings: S1-S6 standards have been met. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 8 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS P1 CREATE A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR WALKING AND CYCYLING P2 MINIMIZE IMPACT OF VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC REALM P3 DESIGN TO SUPPORT A LEDGIBLE HEIRARCHY OF PUBLIC SPACES P4 STRENGHTEN PUBLIC SPACE CONNECTIONS P5 DRAW FROM AND ENHANCE EXISTING BLOCK PATTERNS P6 FOSTER INTEREST AND ACTIVITY ALONG COMMERCIAL STREETS Applicant Response: P1) The pedestrian network is established by a series of connected of accessible walking paths. The paths will link from the public street edge (Manitou Park) through the open spaces, linking outdoor spaces at the base of the new addition. The sitting area, set along the street edge, has the potential to serve as an informal public meeting place, where neighbors can meet their new neighbors. P2) There will be no new parking added to the project. The service access is currently located in a prominent position, highly visible from the current and proposed entry. The service access and related service area will be relocated to minimize its visibility. P3) The new project will evoke the prior assemblage of buildings which have occupied the hillside over 100 years. The Old theater, which was recently demolished due to years of neglect, helped define the large open space with its three-story façade. The proposed new addition seeks to recall the scale and presence of the theater and continue its role in shaping the open space, as viewed by the public. P4) While the west facing entry is the formal public entry, the true public face is to the east as viewed from the Manitou Park neighborhood. This open space has been a neighborhood asset for decades. A pergola set near the street edge will serve as a meeting place as well as an informal boundary between the public street and semi- private gardens to ensure safety. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 9 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA P5) The new project will evoke the prior assemblage of buildings which have occupied the hillside over 100 years. The Old theater, which was recently demolished due to years of neglect, helped define the large open space with its three-story façade. The proposed new addition seeks to recall the scale and presence of the theater and continue its role in shaping the open space, as viewed by the public. The intent is to break the new wing into multiple masses, similar in scale to the original theater. P6) The guideline is non-applicable since the project does not contain commercial uses and is not along a commercial street. However, some of the common areas will be located on the lower floors to help activate outdoor spaces. The upper floor common areas will project out to the east and overlook the park spaces and Puget Sound. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 10 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: P1) This standard has been met. Project is allowing safe walking, bicycling. P2) This standard has been met. Looking to the city to put no parking signs on Manitou Beach. The shoulder will also be reduced to discourage parking. With the removal of eastern propane tanks, all service deliveries are focused on the loading dock area on the west. Restrict all deliveries to Ocean View only. P3) This standard has been met. Different scales and uses of public space have been addressed. P4) This standard has been met. We support the notion of the pergola as an integral part of the public space. P5) This standard has been met. The site already had some of the qualities prior to the project and the project is enhancing these. P6) This standard is not applicable to this project. DRB Findings: The project meets standards P1-P5 and P6 is not applicable to this project. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 11 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA BUILDING 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 DETAILS Applicant Response: B1) The site plan has evolved over the decades and transformed itself from a Boys school, to an officer’s school to a health care facility. The current site plan is an amalgamation of these uses as they have evolved over time. Presently, the site has two wings which radiate from the last vestige of the original use, the 1917 building. While the proposed addition largely follows the footprint of the current wing, its form is shaped to take advantage of the existing contours and shape outdoor spaces. The architectural concept uses a simple palette of contemporary northwest materials (wood, metal, cement) while emulating the scale and proportions of adjacent buildings on site (three story with parapet). The internal common area uses are positioned in relationship to the site planning/outdoor spaces (site entry, north and south terraces) and are also expressed architecturally with extensive glazing. B2) While the new building will be reflective of its time, it will take cues from the original 1917 building, and its Mediterranean style. The shared elements include a formal fenestration where window groupings are aligned, and the windows share vertical proportions. Th materials will emulate the plaster aesthetic by using coursed cement board. The proposed roof line is flat to match the original buildings. The common areas will be modern in character acting as transparent glazed screens in contrast to more solid portions housing the residences. The entry porte-cochere will be remodeled to be complementary to the newer architecture. See multiple other guidelines for supporting information. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 12 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA B3) The facades of the addition are composed to form a balanced composition with the original 1917 building. The façade is broken into discrete segments, forming a pattern of solid (plaster)-void (glass)-solid (plaster). The glazing is expressed in relationship to the internal program, with expansive glass used at common areas, and more discrete openings at individual living units. The formal fenestration will emulate the older building, while the more modern sections open to the view and light. The building materials are related to the building massing to present a coherent graphic when viewed from afar. Detailing will include window fenestration, metal balconies, and expressed structural members at outdoor porches. Mechanical and trash facilities will be screened from public view. B4) The existing 1917 building and 1996 memory care portions will be re- used/remodeled. The buildings will seek green building certification (BUILT Green or similar) and will be constructed with a high-performance envelope, that will maximize natural lighting, and natural ventilation. Management of direct sunlight (particularly west facing façade) will be mitigated by use of deciduous trees. Specific sustainability strategies have not been established at this time. B5) The exterior materials will include cement panels, metal windows and curtain walls, and exposed structural elements (wood and steel) at covered outdoor areas. In keeping with the Mediterranean style and its emphasis on simple overall forms, the window openings will be the main feature on facades. The detailing will express the transitions between materials versus relying on trim boards. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 13 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: B1) This standard has been met. Within the landscape and building, there is a clear concept. It would be desirable to have the windows align with the corridors and should have a view out. B2) This standard has been met. The building has 4 different contexts: historical, entry & main visitor approach, campus, and residential neighborhood. The landscape portion is nice. The campus massing looks much larger than it really is, look at using colors and materials to reduce visual massing. On the east façade the terrace seems to have a 4-5’ concrete wall. The landscaping can help soften this. On the SE corner, look for an alternate material color. B3) This standard has been met. B4) This standard has been met. The volume height has been lowered as per previous meeting discussions. Sheet A3.02 drawing will be revised to show this change. B5) This standard has been met. The glass railings could be problematic to how they relate to the façade changes. The view through the glass railing could be blocked by equipment. It might be nice to have planters on the terraces. DRB Findings: The project has met B1-B5 standards. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 14 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA LANDSCAPE STANDARDS L1 INTEGRATE THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT TO COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS L2 SUPPORT THE PUBLIC REALM WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN L3 INTEGRATE SUSTAINABLE FEATURES INTO THE LANDSCAPE AND MAKE THEM VISIBLE WHEREVER POSSIBLE L4 INTEGRATE AND HIGHLIGHT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICES L5 SUPPORT HEALTHY HABITAT IN THE LANDSCAPE L6 PRESERVE AND ENHANCE IMPORTANT VIEWS AND VIEW CORRIDORS Applicant Response: L1) The east facing park will be the foreground to the redesigned facility. Like an old hotel, the building will have terraces overlooking the park, integrating the building with the landscape. Other garden features, including the pergolas, will provide a shared architectural language, blending the building with the land. The site benefits from multiple mature plantings which have been retained in the new plan. L2) The landscape plan will provide a network of pathways linking outdoor spaces throughout the site. The most likely public face is to the east where the park meets the existing residential neighborhood. A shared use space with pergola will provide a meeting place encouraging interaction. The open space has historically been visually connected to the street since there is no fence or perimeter screening. We believe this is a quality that is valued and should be maintained. L3) The site has several wooded areas which will make a good opportunity to enhance the native landscape, infiltrations and habitat restoration. The site plan will limit lawn areas to those which support the historic open space to the east of the facility. Most of the trees are existing, although the restored areas may see additional tree plantings. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 15 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA L4) The existing stormwater allows water to treated and discharged to the Sound. New impervious areas may require on-site infiltration, within a raingarden. No new parking areas are planned. Pervious paving will be used at new paved areas. The site appears to have open sky allowing opportunity for future photovoltaic panels. L5) The site plan will preserve the existing mature trees and vegetation. Native plantings within wooded areas will enhance infiltration and habitat. Habitat biodiversity will be promoted through the planting of a variety of plants that are attractive to pollinators or have seeds or berries that are a food source for local birds and mammals. L6) As described above, the buildings are composed to capture the views to Puget Sound. Most of the existing landscaping will remain unchanged. No views will be blocked by the new building. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 16 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: L1) This project strongly met this standard. L2) This project strongly met this standard. Appreciate allowing the public to access the property and walking trail. L3) This standard has been met. The stormwater design will be guided by civil engineering consultant. We acknowledge that the applicant is retaining the existing landscape grass area (east lawn – is on the local historic register). L4) This standard has been met. L5) This standard has been met. On the north and south side, the grass park-like area will transition to shrubs and trees that are predominantly native species which will support the natural area. L6) This standard has been met. By maintaining the landscape, the project is maintaining and possibly enhancing the view corridor. The landscape plan is sensitive to the historical context. DRB Findings: The project has met L1-L6 standards. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 17 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA STREET TYPES AND FRONTAGES Street Types: State Route, Main Street, Neighborhood Main Street, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Mixed Use Arterial, Rural by Design, Green Street Rural Green Street Applicant Response: Not applicable DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 18 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA Frontages: Linear / Storefront, Landscape, Plaza, Forecourt, Stoop / Terrace, Vegetated Buffer, Parking Applicant Response: Not applicable DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 19 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES ISLAND CHARACTER PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ISLAND CHARACTER Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 20 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT TO REFLECT AND/OR ENHANCE THE CONTEXT PROVIDED BY EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTER AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 21 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NATURAL AREA TO INCORPORATE FORESTED AND/OR OTHER NATURAL AREAS INTO SITE DESIGN IN SUCH A WAY THAT ECOLOGICAL AND AESTHETIC INTERGRITY, QUALITIES, AND VALUES ARE PRESERVED OR RESTORED Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 22 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS TO PRESERVE AND INTEGRATE EXISTING NATURAL SITE PATTERNS AND FEATURES THROUGHOUT THE SITE Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 23 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES TO PRESERVE IMPORTANT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 24 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA STORMWATER INTEGRATE STORMWATER FACILITIES IN SITE DESIGN WITH EMPHASIS ON INFILTRATION AND DISPERSION PRACTICES Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 25 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SEPTIC SYSTEMS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT OF SEPTIC FACILITIES Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 26 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA WATER CONSERVATION TO PROTECT THE ISLAND’S FINITE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND ADAPT TO THE IMPACTS OF A CHANGING CLIMATES Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 27 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA COMMUNITY SPACE TO PROMOTE A SHARED SENSE OF COMMUNITY Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 28 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA CLUSTER HOMESITES TO PROMOTE INTERACTION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND FACILITATE THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND BY REDUCING DISTURBED AREAS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, UTILITY EXTENSIONS AND ROADWAYS Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 29 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA SOLAR ACCESS TO PROVIDE SOLAR ACCESS FOR WELLBEING AND ENERGY PRODUCTION Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 30 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA ACCESS AND CIRCULATION TO PROVIDE A PRACTICAL AND PLEASANT NETWORK OF MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 31 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA MOTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE PROMINENCE OF MOTOR VEHICLE USE AND STORAGE Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 32 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HOMESITE DESIGN TO EFFICIENTLY CONFIGURE BUILDING FOOTPRINT(S) AND ALLOWED USES WITHIN A HOMESITE Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 33 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DIVERSITY IN HOUSE DESIGN TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOME SIZES AND DESIGNS TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY IN VISUAL APPEARANCE AND AFFORDABILITY Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 34 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA FACING PUBLIC STREETS TO REINFORCE NEIGHBORLINESS OF HOMES ALONG A PUBLIC STREET Applicant Response: DRB Discussion: N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 35 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA LARGER SITES 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. Applicant Response: Standard 1) Proposed new building addition faces onto public street and primary site open spaces. Standard 2) Parking is existing and is located behind buildings as viewed from public way. DRB Discussion: Standard 1) N/A Standard 2) No parking is being added. By maintaining historic nature of the property and by reducing shoulder and parking on Manitou Beach Blvd NE, they have met this standard. DRB supports standard P2 “MINIMIZE IMPACT OF VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC REALM”. The street is very narrow and is unsafe with cars parked on the shoulder. DRB Findings: Larger Site Standard 1 and Standard 2 have been met. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 36 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA HISTORIC PLACES STANDARD1 DESIGN THE SITE, BUILDING(s), AND LANDSCAPE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHOUT DIRECTLY MIMICKING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. STANDARD2 MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF BUILDINGS OVER 50 YEARS OLD LISTED OR ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL OR LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Applicant Response: Standard 1) The new building will complement the existing 1917 building by visually separating the new building with a glass link. The facade of the new building will capture the simple formal language of its predecessor, without copying it. Material choices will be complementary (color and texture) but not identical. The new addition will feature a glass enclosed wing to celebrate the common areas and their connection to the landscape and views. The historic open space and 1917 building will be maintained intact. Limited exterior repair will be made to the historic building consistent with its original design. Standard 2) Limited exterior repair will be made to the historic building consistent with its original design. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 37 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA DRB Discussion: Standard 1) In meeting the Secretary of Interior standards, this project meets this standard. Standard 2) By working with the Historic Preservation Commission, the building, east lawn, day hall and caretaker’s cottage are on the historic register and therefore this project meets this standard. DRB Findings: Project meets Historic Places Standard 1 and Standard 2. DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 38 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA 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 PULIC SPACE, COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, PUBLIC ART, AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES. Applicant Response: Standard 1) Not applicable Standard 2) Not applicable DRB Discussion: Standard 1) N/A Standard 2) N/A DRB Findings: N/A DESIGN for BAINBRIDGE WORKSHEET Bainbridge Island, Washington Design for Bainbridge 39 of 39 City of Bainbridge Island, WA This project is recommended for: Approval ☐ Approval with the following condition(s): ☒ •DRB recommends that existing park lot lighting be assessed and made compliant with existing code lighting standards, if needed. •Provide revised sheet A3.02 •Recommend no parking on Manitou Park Blvd NE •Require the footpath be separate from the driving surface on Ocean View Dr - a grade-separated path. •Recommend that no delivery vehicles use Manitou Park Blvd NE or Mountain View Rd, restricted use to Ocean View Dr. Denial with the following deficiencies: ☐ SIGNATURE: ____________________________________ DATE: Chair, Design Review Board 05/03/2021 Planning Commission Recorded Motion Planning Commission Recorded Motion Messenger House/PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Purpose: The purpose of the Planning Commission’s review and recommendation is to determine if a proposed project is consisten t with the comprehensive plan and applicable design guidelines, BIMC Titles 17 and 18. C onsideration: The Planning Commission shall consider the project application at a public meeting where public comment will be taken. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the proposed project. The Planning Commission will adopt written findings of facts and conclusions and determine if the project is consistent with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and the comprehensive plan. This motion will be included in the staff report transmitted to the reviewing bodies and decision maker. Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action 1.The project, as conditioned, is found to meet all the applicable decision criteria.2.The project, as conditioned, is found to be compliant and consistent with the comprehensive plan.3.The project, as conditioned, is found to meet all other applicable laws.4.The project is either : ___X___ Found to meet the recommendations by the Design Review Board ; OR Recommended for deviation from the Design Review Board ’s recommendation for the following reasons: a. b. c. Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 22, 2021 Project Proposal Name and Number: Messenger House/PLN51717 SPR/CUPA Documents available at: Online Permit Portal Decision Maker: Hearing Examiner Exhibit 29 LEGAL NOTICES To: Publication Date: NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) The City of Bainbridge Island has made a decision concerning the following land use application: Date of Issuance: Project Name & Number: Project Type: Applicant: Owner: Project Site & Tax Parcel: July 28, 2021 Messenger House Phase 2 PLN51717 SPR / CUPA Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Amendment CASCADIA HOLDINGS BAINBRIDGE LLC 10861 NE MANITOU PARK BLVD, TA# 41560020050203 Project Description: Building addition to a health care facility of 52,460 square feet: 46 beds / assisted and independent living. The building addition replaces a skilled nursing facility building wing. Existing parking remains unchanged. SEPA Decision: The City of Bainbridge Island (lead agency) has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant impact on the environment if measures to mitigate the proposal are used. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2) & WAC 197-11-350. This determination was made and mitigation measures were applied after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) c. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days. Comments must be submitted by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. Responsible Offical: Address: Heather Wright, AICP City of Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community Development 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, (206) 842 - 2552 Signature:___Heather Wright ______Date:___7/28/2021_________ APPEAL: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal and paying the $530.00 appeal fee to the City Clerk, at 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, Section 16.04.170 by no later than 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 11, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections Exhibit 30 SEPA mitigation measures for Messenger House Phase 2 PLN51717 SPR / CUPA SEPA A threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act in no way allows construction work to commence without appropriate construction permits, such as a building or grading permit. Mitigation measures become conditions of approval for the permit. Mitigation measures to ensure no probable adverse environmental impact will occur during project construction: SEPA Conditions 1. To mitigate light impacts, all existing and proposed outdoor lighting, including lighting on buildings, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting, shall comply with current regulations in BIMC 18.15.040. The applicant shall submit lighting plans which demonstrate compliance with building permit application. 2. To mitigate adverse impact from potential environmental health hazards, all existing and new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, along with generators, shall incorporate soundproofing barriers, including but not limited to soundproof panels and/or barriers. The soundproofing shall be designed to reduce, to the extent feasible, noise levels to within 55 dBa for surrounding residential receiving properties. 3. To mitigate air impacts, all sources and emission units are required to meet the emission and ambient air quality standards specified in Chapter 173-400 WAC and administered by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) and shall apply to all air contaminants listed in that regulation. The applicant shall submit with application for construction associated with this approval a management plan which is consistent with PSCAA Fugitive Dust Controls. E x h i b i t 3 1