RES 2012-12 GROW COMMUNITY SUBDIVISIONRESOLUTION NO. 2012-12
A RESOLUTION of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington
approving the Grow Community subdivision (File No. SUB13551)
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2012, the preliminary subdivision application was submitted
by Bainbridge Community Development, LLC to the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary subdivision application facilitated the creation of 26 (22
single family and 4 multifamily) residential lots on a 2.6 acre site; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development reviewed and
forwarded its recommendation for conditional approval to the Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2012, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record public
hearing on the preliminary subdivision upon proper notice; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2012, a notice of continuance briefing deadline was ordered
on August 7, 2012; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2012, the deadline for submitting briefing comments ended;
and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2012, the Hearing Examiner (incorrectly) issued a
recommendation of approval to the City Council for the preliminary subdivision; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2012, the Hearing Examiner issued a correction notice
making his decision the final decision on the preliminary subdivision and correcting various
clerical citations; and
WHEREAS, in response to a condition from the Hearing Examiner and interested
purchasers of the lots, the applicant made minor changes to the final subdivision to reduce the
number of single family lots by one and to simplify lot lines throughout the plat to create fewer
lot corners; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2012, the final subdivision application was submitted by
Bainbridge Community Development, LLC to facilitate the creation of 24 (20 single family and
4 multifamily) residential lots to the Department of Planning and Community Development;
now, therefore
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON,
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner (File No. FSUB13551), together with the correction notice dated August 29,
2012, as set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached and incorporated by reference, is adopted as
the final decision of the Bainbridge Island City Council.
Section 1. The conditions imposed through the preliminary subdivision have been met.
Section 2. The Grow Community subdivision (File No. FSUB13551) proposed for final
subdivision is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, the
subdivision regulations and standards, and all applicable land use ordinances and applicable state
1!1 \I1 ;"
7i f"1
f;"l P
v ]I +
I"VV 111
UL lll\
Llllll+
V1 T./1�11111111L11 y
FICAL
CtjJjJ1vvG.1.
Section 3. In accordance with BIMC 2.16.160.H, the City Council finds that bonds and
assurance devices submitted by the applicant adequately assure completion of all required
subdivision improvements.
Section 4. The Mayor is authorized to sign the original of the final plat for recordation
with the Kitsap County Auditor.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, this 7th day of
November, 2012.
APPROVED by the Mayor on the 7th day of November ?.01 ?.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
REcnT T ITIO.T T\TT JMQUR:
wl V i/ lJ . . t/
November 2, 2012
November 7, 2012
2012 -12
Attached: Exhibit A
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Hearing Examiner
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
CORRECTION NOTICE
Project: Grow Community Subdivision
File number: SUB13551
Applicant; Bainbridge Community Development, LLC
Location: Corner of Wyatt Way and Grow Avenue
The City's Planning Director has pointed out that the Hearing Examiner decision issued on August
24, 2012, was incorrectly denominated a recommendation to the Bainbridge City Council. The
currently adopted procedure identifies preliminary subdivision applications as final decisions
appealable directly to Superior Court. In addition, both the Hearing Examiner decision and
Planning Department conditions contain clerical citation errors, mostly arising out of the recently
completed recodification process. These mislabeling errors require the following minor revisions
to the August 24, 2012, decision:
1.
The document title is
corrected
to
read "Findings,
Conclusions and Decision ".
2.
Conclusion number 2
on page 6
is
revised to read
as follows:
2. But what we have here is in reality an intramural debate - a discussion among the
different departments and offices within a single municipal agency. The entire discussion is
internal to a single agency, the City of Bainbridge Island. The final decision of the City, by
whomever made, is entitled to deference if the matter is ultimately appealed to Superior
Court. But no single element of the internal City dialogue that preceded its final decision is
subject to such deference.
3. The phrase "for purposes of making a recommendation to the City Council" is deleted from
the first sentence of conclusion number 13 on page 8.
4. The following citations are corrected: p. 7, #7 - 2.16.040, not 20.16.040; p.8, # 14 & 15 -
2.16.020 (Q), not 18.38; p.8, #18 - 2.16.125, not 17.04.094; p.10, condition 8 - 18.18.030,
not 18.41.
In all other respects the August 24, 2012 decision is affirmed as issued. Any appeals of the decision
must be made to Superior Court, not to the City Council. This minor corrections notice does not
revise or extend applicable deadlines for filing appeals or requests for reconsideration.
ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2012.
/s/ Stafford L. Smith
Stafford L. Smith, Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Project: Grow Community Subdivision
File number: SUB13551
Applicant: Bainbridge Community Development, LLC
Location: Corner of Wyatt Way and Grow Avenue
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Procedural History
1. The applicant has requested approval for a Tier II, Built Green 5 Housing Design
Demonstration Project (HDDP) subdivision. The proposal is to subdivide a 2.6 acre parcel into
26 lots to accommodate 45 dwelling units (21 single family, one accessory building and 24
multifamily units). On March 9, 2012, this 2.6 acre parcel received site plan and design review
(SPR) approval as part of a larger, 8 acre project (Exhibit 1). Overall SPR approval was granted
as a phased, Tier II, Built Green 5 Housing Design Demonstration Project (HDDP) for the
development of 13I residential units, a school and a community building. Under the SPR the
project received HDDP approval to modify the residential parking requirements, increase the
density, reduce setbacks and road side buffers and increase the height. Under the SPR, the layout of
the site was approved, including the size, type, amount and design of the residential units, pedestrian
amenities, and the location of pea patches, park nodes and parking spaces.
^1 1_t _ 1_ Al- � 1J T. /_..!_ City 1 A n
L. A puunc nearing on irks application was neaa at Bainbridge City Hall on August 2, 2012,
where testimony was received and eleven exhibits entered into the record. The hearing was
continued to provide parties an opportunity to brief a code interpretation issue. The record was
closed administratively on August 24, 2012, at which time a further six exhibits (nos. 12 through 17)
were admitted to the record by the Hearing Examiner. Because the parties have not had an
opportunity to review and offer objections to the receipt of these exhibits, they have been admitted
provisionally; parties may file a timely motion for reconsideration to lodge objections to any of the
newly admitted exhibits. The list of exhibits is attached at the end of this report, and copies are
available for inspection at the Hearing Examiner's office.
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council I
3. The subdivision project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as
provided in Washington Administrative Code (WAC 197 -11). Utilizing the optional DNS process
provided in WAC 197 -11 -355, the City issued a combined Notice of Application /SEPA comment
period on June 22, 2012 (Exhibit 2). The 14 -day comment period ended on July 6, 2012. The City,
acting as lead agency, issued. a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) threshold
determination (Exhibit 3) on July 10, 2012; the appeal period ended on July 25, 2012 and no appeal
of the SEPA determination was received.
4. In addition to the relief from standards already granted under the SPR, the applicant is now
proposing a second HDDP modification of development standards through the subdivision review
process to alter lot dimensions, sizes and buffers and project open space on the 2.6 acre parcel
subject to this application. The City's planning staff concluded that multiple HDDP applications
are appropriate for this project because the regulatory standards being varied are different for the
current subdivision application than for the prior SPR approval.
5. At the public hearing held on August 2, 2012 the Hearing Examiner opined that this
multiple HDDP approach seemed problematic, for the following reasons:
A proliferation of review procedures tends to confuse members of the public and dilutes
their opportunities for effective participation in the decision making process.
Procedural proliferation simply adds another layer of complexity to an already arcane
process, increasing the expenditure of time and resources for all involved without adding
any resultant public benefit.
The stated intent of the SPR procedures is to provide a comprehensive project design
process. Unproductive fragmentation of the review process undermines the fundamental
purpose of the SPR.
6. Both the applicant's representative, Marja Preston, and City planning staff explained their
rationale for deeming multiple HDDP applications for a single project to be acceptable. They
emphasized that no standards previously altered under the SPR process were again being
modified as part of the subdivision review. Even so, the Examiner concluded that an interpretive
question involving multiple code sections merited a briefing opportunity. Accordingly, the
hearing was continued to allow parties to submit written comments. Timely statements on
HDDP issues were received from attorney Ryan Vancil, representing the applicant; Katharine
Cook, City Planning Director; the Chair and Vice -chair of the City's Design Review Board; and
residents Larry Koss, Charles Schmid and Sally Adams. The matters raised by the continuance
are issues of legal interpretation that will be discussed below in the Conclusions section.
B. Regulatory review
7. The subject property is located within the Winslow Master Plan Study Area as designated
by the Comprehensive Plan and is currently served by urban infrastructure and facilities; these
will be upgraded as necessary to meet the needs of the project. As proposed, the overall
development will be a pedestrian - oriented, energy efficient, multi - generational neighborhood
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 2
comprised of 131 residential units, 45_ of which will be located in the proposed subdivision on 26
lots. To reduce reliance on the automobile and encourage pedestrian activity, the project will
include a car sharing program and will provide pedestrian trails through the site, connecting to
Madison Avenue. The project will also include multiple electric charging stations to further
offset the impacts of automobile use.
Land Use Element. The Urban Multifamily. District is intended to provide for moderate
to high - density residential development that may include some office and governmental
ncPC The nrnnncerl snhdivkinn nrniect will nrnvide. mnderateafn-hiuh intensity
residential development at a density of one unit per 2,516 square feet. The project is
serviced by city water and sewer and is in close proximity to schools and a fire station.
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the buffering requirements of the
Zoning Code and has been conditioned accordingly. During the SPR review phase, the
City's Design Review Board (DRB) and staff reviewed the project over a series of seven
meetings to ensure compliance with the City's adopted design guidelines for multifamily
development. Since the SPR approval, the DRD has reviewed the project at three
additional meetings for changes to the row house buildings and for the landscape plans
specific to Grow and Wyatt.
Housing Element.
This
subdivision
project
is utilizing the
Housing Design
Development Program,
which
in alignment
with the
housing policies
requires the use of
innovative site development practices. The development increases the variety of housing
choices suitable to a range of household sizes and incomes in a way compatible with the
character of existing neighborhoods by providing a mixture of unit sizes and types. The
subdivision proposes 26 lots, which will provide for 45 of the approved 131 SPR housing
units. Housing types include small detached homes, townhomes, cottages, lofts and
apartments. The single family home sizes range from 882 square feet to a maximum of
1,565 square feet. The multifamily rowhouse units will provide ground floor flats of 477
square feet, ground floor two bedroom flats of 866 square feet, and two story townhouses
of 989 square feet. While none of the homes will be mandated to serve income-qualified
residents, the smaller unit size may result in housing that is more affordable relative to
other choices on the island.
Nonmoiorized Iransportation Element. To conform to noninotorized goals and
policies, improvements approved as part of the SPR for Grow Avenue include a bicycle
lane and a sidewalk. Improvements for Wyatt Way include a 10' dedication of right -of-
way, a sidewalk and a bicycle lane. ADA compliant, publicly accessible trails throughout
the development will provide a continuous connection from the corner of Wyatt Way and
Grow Avenue to Madison Avenue. The trails easements shall be recorded prior to final
plat approval.
80
un August 12, 2009 the
City Council passed Ordinance 20009 -06
establishing the Housing
Design
Demonstration Project
(HDDP) Program as a pilot procedure
for the development of
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council
K
projects designed to increase the variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic
segments and to encourage sustainable development through the use of regulatory incentives. If
a second round of HDDP modifications is permitted, the proposed subdivision can meet the
purpose and the goals of the HDDP by providing a variety of housing choices to all economic
segments and implement innovative building design and practices by incorporating Built Green
standards into the development. The project was originally reviewed and approved as an HDDP
through the SPR process, but as part of its effort to qualify as a new HDDP subdivision the
applicant submitted a new HDDP checklist, and on June 12, 2012, the applicant and staff hosted
another public participation meeting.
94 The largely pro forma character of the second HDDP application is underscored by the
fact that the development standard modifications requested all appear to have been tacit
assumptions of the original SPR review, where the project sought relief from standard residential
parking requirements, setbacks, roadside buffers, and height and density limits. Now, in addition
to the relief granted by the SPR, the applicant is proposing to further modify development
standards through the HDDP subdivision process for lot dimensions and size and for open space,
and to formalize setback reductions. These latter set of modifications appears to have been
disclosed as part of the SPR review but were not approved at that time in their entirety. The
feasibility of smaller lot sizes and widths is largely a function of having urban utility services
available and providing stonnwater facilities for increased impervious surfaces; these issues have
been addressed within the technical review process.
10. There are also differences between the proposal now before us and the one approved as an
SPR that are not directly implicated in the second round of HDDP review. A comparison of the
originally proposed April 10, 2012 preliminary plat map with the December 12, 2011 site plan
submitted to the Planning Commission (as illuminated by a short letter on project phasing from
Brown Engineering, Inc., dated January 13, 2012) demonstrates some significant design changes.
What the Browne letter described as Phases 1 and 2 are now melded into a single first phase.
11. More significantly, the number of single family lots proposed for the northwest corner was
increased from 20 to 24 within the April plat map. And the multi - family units, while still totaling 24
as in the SPR site plan, were concentrated entirely in two buildings fronting on Wyatt Avenue. This
potentially increased the proposed intensity of multi - family development on Wyatt directly across
from a single4amily zone from 19 to 24 units. But more recently a site plan modification dated July
5, 2012, (exhibit 10, attachment 16) was approved by the Planning Department as a minor site plan
adjustment. This adjustment represents a lesser deviation from the approved SPR than did the
original April plat map. It would create 22 single family lots (now 21 with elimination of the
orphan "accessory" lot) and restore 4 of the rowhouse units to a location away from the Wyatt
Avenue frontage. It is noted that the July 3, 2012, revised plat open space lot coverage drawing
(exhibit 7) does not incorporate new the layout shown in the July 5, 2012 site plan modification. For
our purposes, however, the July 5, 2012, minor adjustment describes the currently approved
configuration of the project's northwest corner and provides the basis for current review.
12. Compliance with BIMC 18.15 development standards is mostly about providing adequate
parking. Citizen complaints are endemic about overflow parking impacts from smaller municipal
center living units where everyone is assumed to walk to shopping and the ferries but somehow
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 4
have failed to get the eco- friendly message. The SPR process first authorized reduction of the
standard zoning code parking requirements under the HDDP and then reduced the resultant figure
another 25% for ferry proximity -- an exercise in double - dipping in this observer's opinion. But
there is also a safety -net condition that allows the City to require increased parking requirements
after issuance of the 36' residential unit building permit if a "guest parking demand study" warrants
it. Since one does not know how reliable a data base will exist to inform that study, it remains
unclear how effective such a condition will actually prove to be. On a more concrete level, both the
Design Review Board and Planning Commission expressed a strong sense that the project's
na.o�ataia a4vr roor�on#wanw «aoa.1 -oA .�o a�n w+ An po edn %v " w..xvr Avi . +Up raa.FG.v. ni 4.-. ..bi.. . .,4
V1VUAM11LJ' as V1 ULraLAXCUI- UAI%AALFU Ul4V bAVpIIIVllL U%wJJ%eAALLJ %4VVll'J1VYlUAAAS1 Lll%+ 11VLLAAYYcaL LV JVULIAGaaL
diagonal pathway connection at Phase 1; the conditions regulating this requirement (nos. 7, 11
and 19) have been further elaborated.
13. No new internal roads are proposed as part of this subdivision. Area residents Fred
McGinnis, Louis Richard and Sally Adams all testified as to the traffic problems currently
experienced in the neighborhood, which this development will no doubt exacerbate. Neither Grow
Avenue nor Wyatt Way were designed for the arterial loads they now carry. Wyatt has become a
major commuter access route to the ferry from the south end of the .Island, with increasing amounts
of Wyatt traffic now cutting south along Grow to Winslow Way to avoid the congestion at the
Wyatt/Madison intersection. Neither the Wyatt/Madison nor the Wyatt/Grow intersections are
projected to degrade to LOS F with the additinn of project traii_c, hilt the leisurely ambience of a 1.
small community can be compromised long before LOS F is reached. As Mr. McGinnis suggested,
the ultimate solution to the ferry cut -through traffic along Grow Avenue might be to restrict right -
turns from Winslow Way into the ferfy lane; that would also lessen congestion on Winslow Way and
Booth the irritation of ferry commuters queued patiently on SR 305. Engineering staff also agreed to
consider the need for a traffic- calming stop sign at the Grow Avenue /Shepard Drive intersection, as
suggested by public testimony.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Relationship between the subdivision application and the existing SIR
T . Both Ryan Vancil, the applicant's attorney, and City Planning Director Kathy Cook offered a
variety of arguments why multiple HDDP applications for a single project are appropriate
procedures. The least tenable contention is probably Mr. Vancil's suggestion that the Hearing
Examiner is obligated to confer "considerable judicial deference" on the code interpretation of the
Planning Deparhnent as. representing the special expertise of the administrative agency charged with
enforcement of the City's zoning code. The fatal flaw with this argument is that the case law that
gives rise to it deals with a completely different institutional framework -- the relationship between a
state court and a local municipality. The municipality is the agency to whom deference is owed by a
state court,
D.
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council
5
2. But what we have here is in reality an intramural debate — a discussion among the different
departments and offices within a single municipal agency. The entire discussion is internal to a
single agency, the City of Bainbridge Island. The final decision of the City, by whomever made, is
entitled to deference if the matter is ultimately appealed to Superior Court. But no single element of
the internal City dialogue that preceded its final decision is subject to such deference. The difficulty
with Mr. Vancil's position becomes immediately clear when one recognizes that in this instance the
Hearing Examiner merely supplies .a recommendation to the City Council. If it were to be taken
seriously, the implication of Mr. Vancil's position would be that the City Council could not overrule
a code interpretation made by the Planning Director. One notes that the Planning Department itself
has not embraced Mr. Vancil's position and adopted his argument. There is a sound reason for that.
39 In her memo Planning Director Cook points out that BIMC 2.16.170 provides generically
that projects needing multiple permits have the option (indeed are encouraged) to consolidate
review procedures but are not required to do so. And more specifically, 13IMC 2.16.040(D)(5)
provides for optional consolidated project review in the context of a SPR application. Based on
these optional review consolidation procedures, she argues that the code establishes that multiple
HDDP applications are authorized. The essential logic of her position is this: both the SPR and
subdivision provisions authorize HDDP applications to modify certain development standards; if
review consolidation is not mandatory, then multiple HDDP applications _must be contemplated.
4. This argument could carry the day if all the other relevant code materials are silent on the
subject. But it needs to be appreciated that consolidation provisions are at bottom simply
processing pathways. They only are required to answer the question about what to do if you have
multiple applications. They are not normally intended to tell you whether you need multiple
applications or how they interrelate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or unfair about a code
saying that while you are not forced to consolidate applications, if you fail to do so certain
consequences may follow. So the relevant question becomes one of ascertaining whether other code
sections supply substantive content bearing on the relationship among multiple applications that
overcomes a rather weak inference arising out of what is essentially a processing provision.
5. Among the many informative submissions received in response to the Examiner's briefing
notice, perhaps the most thorough review of the relevant code provisions was provided by Sally
Adams, who also testified at the public hearing. Her comment letter was the only one to identify the
importance of BIMC 2.16040(B)(3), which reads as follows:
The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the
application is for site plan or design review. In the event of a conflict between the provisions
of BIMC 2,16,020 or 2.16. 030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.
BIMC Section 2.16.040 contains the City's site plan and design review provisions, while BIMC
Sections 2.16.020 and .030 supply general review and administrative procedures. As noted by Ms
Adams, the HDDP regulations are a subsection of BIMC 2.16.0206
6. In short, the code structures the interpretation process. There is a code- mandated hierarchy:
the SPR provisions trump procedures found in other related sections if there is a conflict. More
specifically, Ms Cook's assertion that the "HDDP program simply functions as an overlay process to
the City's other land use applications, including site plan reviews, subdivisions and conditional use
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 6
permits is not correct. - First, an overlay zone is - -a geographic designation, not a processing
construct (see BIMC 18.36.030(175)). Second, in the event of conflict or inconsistency between
HDDP and SPR provisions, the SPR provisions control.
7, The primary task is thus to ascertain whether BIMC Section 20,16.040 answers our central
question about whether an SPR approval containing an HDDP element also contemplates later
HDDP approvals affecting the same project. If BIMC 20.16.040 provides a satisfactory answer to
that question, one need look no further. If the answer is vague or incomplete, one may look to other
related code sections for guidance consistent with the .040 framework.
8. Within BIMC Section 2.16.040 the principal elements bearing on our discussion seem to be
subsections (A) dealing with purpose; (B)(3), which specifies the regulatory hierarchy described
above; (D ){5), providing the optional consolidation procedure; decision criteria (E)(1) and (5),
which acknowledge the availability within a site plan review of the HDDP process; and (G), which
places rather strict limitations on modifying an approved SPR without a further City review and
approval of a major adjustment application.
9. Of these the most critical appear to be subsections (A) and (G). The former identifies the
main purpose of the SPR process as being " to establish a comprehensive site plan and design
review process that ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the city."
A further stated purpose is to create an "overall site design" to guide future development in an
orderly and expedient manner. The purpose subsection (A) thus emphasizes the desirability of
establishing some sort of co- ordinated site master planning process.
10. Once a SPR is approved for a project site, BIMC 2.16.040(G) discourages alterations by
means other than a formal new or amended SPR application. Small adjustments, described as
"minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities," can be
approved by the Planning Director upon request. But anything more than that is deemed a major
adjustment requiring a new or amended SPR application: "Major adjustments are those that
change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use."
11. The propa.reading of BIMC 2.16.040 is that it does not directly prohibit multiple HDDP
approvals on a single SPR site, but the window of opportunity provided for such procedures is
rather small. In the absence of a formal minor adjustment application, one could arguably take
the view that a subdivision -based HDDP application that proposes minor adjustments to an SPR
has been granted de facto approval by the Planning Department if it goes to public hearing
accompanied by a favorable Department recommendation. But if the proposed alterations
involve major adjustments to an approved site plan, BIMC 2.16.040(G) prevents them from
being approved by any path other than an SPR amendment.
12. The Planning Department has maintained from the outset that the subdivision HDDP.
under review is little more than a procedural formality and does not alter the approved site plan.
The record supports this viewpoint. Approval of subdivision standard modifications for lot sizes,
buffers and dimensions cannot violate the integrity of a site plan that as yet has no lot lines on it.
7� aL �,� r t - aL 1'.�'._ 1 a- 1 �L.. , s' O b 1L.. .,d' .e 1
111 the COD, text of comparing the cur ent preliminar�j' plat. propUS[U to the existing SPR, the Ll itl(�aM
issue is whether the northwestern site quadrant has been reconfigured by the plat in a way that
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 7
fundamentally changes the approved SPR's basic design, character or intensity. This is not a
question of lot line placement so much as the composition and arrangement of uses, particularly
with reference to increasing offsite impacts. While the original April 10, 2012, preliminary plat
map did indeed raise questions about whether it might constitute an unauthorized major
adjustment of the SPR, the relatively smaller changes documented in the July 5, 2012, minor
adjustment present no similar concerns. As for the open space waiver, the situation is slightly
more convoluted. The site plan provides a substantial quantity of open space but none is actually
required for SPR approval. The subdivision HDDP allows a more generic open space criterion to
be applied and thus offers the applicant some regulatory relief. But the bottom line remains that
the subdivision HDDP approval for open space does not in itself alter the approved SPR and
accordingly does not involve an unpermitted adjustment to it.
B. Subdivision review
130 The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this proceeding for purposes of making a
recommendation to the City Council. Public hearing notice requirements have been met.
14. The provisions of BIMC Chapter 18.38 creating Housing Design Demonstration Projects
overlay applicable subdivision requirements and authorize modification of such requirements to
achieve Chapter goals for housing diversity and innovative site development and design.
Planning staff has evaluated the proposal and determined that it qualifies for treatment as a Tier
II Green 5 Housing Design project under the HDDP.
15. The applicant has requested modification under HDDP authority of subdivision standards
for minimum lot size and dimensions, open space and buffers, HDDP approval requires
compliance with the applicable general criteria stated at BIMC 18.38.070. These criteria are met
by the application, and due to their largely pro forma character the modifications requested do
not constitute an unauthorized major adjustment to the underlying SPR. All other applicable
zoning and subdivision standards will be met.
16. Adequate urban public services already exist in the neighborhood and, as upgraded, will
possess the capacity to accommodate the proposal without significantly impacting current
service levels.
17. The City Engineer has determined that the preliminary subdivision will meet the City's
drainage, road and traffic requirements, including applicable design and construction standards.
These determinations are supported by the evidence of record.
184 The underlying preliminary subdivision application meets the decision criteria stated at
BIMC 17.04.094, except as modified pursuant to HDDP approval. As conditioned, the
preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provision for the public health and safety and serves
the public use and interest. The dedications and easements required as a condition of plat
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 8
approval are necessary-to meet applicable subdivision and zoning code standards and the goals
and policies of the comprehensive plan.
RECOMMENDED DECISION
The Hearing
Examiner
recommends that the Bainbridge City
Council APPROVE the Grow
Community
Subdivision
(file no. SUB13551) as a Tier II Built Green 5 Housing Design
Demonstration Project in the configuration generally depicted
on the July 5, 2012 site plan
rv,leiiaivnn +v r,v,
/'>y Utah I n
n++nn16mnnt I Ail ov, Iii csn4 fn 4lia 4:'%Ilnii /„Sly
nnnri i6inne�
1AAVU111VL,L1V11
kVA A1V1L 1V,
pLLGL/11111 V11L SVJ, OL,VJVVL LV LA1V 1VA1V TV lll£.,
VValMU,viaJ.
SEPA CONDITIONS,
1. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required prior to building and civil
construction activates. Stormwater quality treatment, erosion and sedimentation control shall
be designed in accordance with BIMC 15.20. The submittal documents shall be prepared by a
civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The SWPP shall include off-street
accommodation for construction vehicle parking.
2. To ensure the survivability of the significant trees designated to be preserved, the applicant
shall follow the recommendations as provided in BI1 C 18.15.010.C.2.b;
L An area of prohibited disturbance, generally corresponding to the dripline of the
significant trees and/or tree canopy of tree stands shall be identified by the applicant
and
approved by the department before commencement of site plan preparation; and
ii. A temporary four -foot high chain link or four-foot high plastic net fence shall delineate
the area; and
iii. No impervious surfaces, fall, excavation, vehicle operations, compaction, removal of
native soil or storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the area
defined by such fencing; and
lyY. A a "t3�1: well ,r/hail be 4VllOtr iieted if 4,1e grade level al VSL,nd the tr eV Rtcn to be ralJed mole
than one foot. The inside diameter of the well shall be equal to the diameter of the
dripline of the tree or tree canopy of tree stands; and
v. The grade level shall not be lowered within the larger of (a) the dripline of the tree, or
the tree canopy of tree stands, or (b) the area recommended by a consulting arborist
certified by the International Society ofArboriculture.
3. All construction activities are subject to noise regulations in BIMC Chapter 16.16,
4. To limit the impact on lighting, any proposed lighting shall comply with BIMC Chapter
Findings, Conclusions and ~
Recommendation to City Council 9
15.34.
5. To ensure appropriate recreational opportunities, park nodes and associated facilities shall be
created for each phase of development as indicated on the site plan (page 10A of the Site
Plan packet).
6. To reduce car dependency and mitigate the impacts of traffic, the applicant shall provide a
car sharing program, electric charging stations and covered bicycle storage areas.
7. The applicant shall provide pedestrian connectivity improvements as indicated in SPR13551
for this 2.6 acre portion of the project proposed to be subdivided, including but not limited to
those improvements along Grow Avenue, Wyatt Way, through the 2.6 acre portion of the site
and the trail connectivity from Shepard to the Pavilion development. The Shepard to Pavilion
development shall include a five foot wide trail at a minimum and the removal of the fencing
between the Pavilion development and the 8 acre project site. The applicant shall record
public access easements and signages indicating the pathways are public.
NON.SEPA CONDITIONS (specific to this subdivision application)
8. Any variations to the proposed multifamily dwelling units are subject to the regulations
contained in "Design Guidelines for Multifamily" (BIMC 18.41) and may be subject to
review by the City's Design Review Board. This shall be noted on the final plat.
9. The preliminary plat map shall be revised to conform with the July 5, 20125 site plan
modification (exhibit 10, attachment 16). Proposed Lot 1 (the "accessory" lot) shall be
deleted and its area incorporated into the adjacent open space tract. The total number of
single- family lots approved hereunder is 21. Lot coverage shall be recorded on the face of
the final plat generally as indicated on Sheet 7 (exhibit 7) but may be reconfigured with
Planning Department approval so long as the 40% maximum coverage total is not exceeded.
10. Approved setbacks shall be recorded on the face of the final plat.
All interior subdivision setbacks 0 feet
Builkl to exterior subdivision boundary 5 feet
Building to right -of- -way 10 feet
I1. The traffic and parking assumptions plus the basic credibility of the subdivision as a
pedestrian- oriented development require provision within Phase 1 of a functional diagonal
path between the northwest and southeast corners of the entire 8 -acre project site as depicted
in the December 12, 2011 approved site plans. If construction of this diagonal route in the
locations shown in the December 12, 2011, site plans is shown to be infeasible during Phase
1, the Planning Director may approve an alternative temporary route (pending completion of
the entire project) that provides comparable pedestrian connectivity. Construction of the
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 10
diagonal pathway, either as shown in the - December -12, 2011, site plans or along an
alternative route approved by the Planning Director, shall be completed prior to final plat
recording. An approved open space management plan also shall be recorded with the final
plat that indicates the maintenance and allowed uses within the open space areas that reflect
the open space requirements of the HDDP Ordinance (BIMC 2.16.020.Q).
12. The location of mailboxes and bicycle storage areas shall be provided on the final plat
submittal along with the pedestrian signage. Prior to final plat submittal, the applicant shall -
revice the nlat nian to nnntnin the hicvcie ctnrnae area completely within Trnnt A-
13. The applicant shall coordinate with the City's Design Review Board on the design of the bus
shelter and shall indicate its location prior to submittal for final subdivision.
14. The applicant shall comply with applicable recording requirements as provided in RCW Title
58. Approval of the preliminary subdivision shall constitute authorization for the applicant to
develop the facilities and improvements in strict accordance with the standards established by
BIMC 2.16,125, as modified by BIMC 2.16.020, including approvals related to bonus density
and modified development standards, subject to the conditions imposed herein. As provided
in RCW 58.17, if a final subdivision application meeting all of the requirements of BIMC
17 (ltl ciao not �1PLJn t1-,1P,t v iilliri ePi�/Pn yPare of flip .�GiP ref t1�P prelirrlina♦ry et hrlivisinn
L l .V J4 V ♦ VV 1 VN within !l VV VlA years VL •JV MYiYV L J V LJLI JLL V YJNJ YVJV /1
approval, such approval shall expire and become void.
15. Prior to the final occupancy of any building, a final plat utility is required for that building.
16. All lot corners shall be staked with three - quarter inch galvanized iron pipe and locator stakes
along with all other applicable survey provisions.
17. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application.
NON -SEPA CONDITIONS (from the approved SPR)
18. The following note shall be included on the face of the plat: Pursuant to BIMC 18.15.010, the
installation of landscaping shall be verified by a Landscape Professional or owner and a
landscaping declaration signed. Landscape buffers shall be maintained with a maintenance
assurance device for a period of three years. No vegetation within the buffers shall be
disturbed without approval of the Department of Planning and Community Development
through an approved clearing, grading or civil plan.
19. The development shall provide non - motorized public trail right -of- -way easements for the
trails as depicted in the site plan drawings, with the addition of an casement from the
southeast corner of the site from Shepard through the Pavilion to Madison.
20. Any ofd site location(s) for community solar arrays shall require a separate permit review and
are not approved as part of this application.
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 11
21. Storm drainage facilities are to be maintained by the applicant. The applicant shall provide a
declaration of covenant prior to final occupancy that guarantees that the system will be
properly maintained. The covenant shall include language that will allow the City to inspect
the system to ensure is properly performing.
22. The 15 designated guest parking spaces shall have adequate `guest parking' signage.
23. The applicant shall submit a report that analyzes the demand for guest parking prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the 37' unit. The City shall analyze the report to determine
the appropriate amount of guest parking spaces needed to meet the guest parking demands of
the development. Any changes to the parking requirement will require an amendment to the
subdivision to accommodate the additional parking demand. Prior to final plat approval, the
applicant shall indicate the location for the additional off -site guest parking spaces. This
condition shall be noted on the face of the plat.
24. To address the requests of the Fire Marshal, the applicant shall install residential sprinklers to
the units, as found necessary.
25. To address the requests of the Health District, the applicant shall have a licensed well driller
decommission any existing wells prior to final plat approval.
26. As conditioned by the plat utility permits, the applicant shall install signage that indicates the
trails are public at each entry point on the perimeter of the site.
27. The subdivision shall conform to the HDDP program criteria for housing diversity,
innovative site development and innovative building design. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for a residential unit, the application will be reviewed for compliance with
the following:
a. The dwelling units shall be at or below 1,600 square feet of floor area;
b. 20 -30% water use reduction;
C. 25 -35% improved energy performance;
d. Innovative building design elements including alternative energy, energy
efficiency, water efficiency, green building materials and accessibility;
e. Landscaping, recreational opportunities, open space and transportation elements
that substantially conform to the plat utility permits,
f. Built Green 5. Building permit applications, construction and final occupancy shall
comply with the certification provisions of BIMC 2.16.020.34f;
g. Proof of ongoing certification with the Built Green building rating system shall be
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 12
required during construction and project certification shall be completed prior to
final occupancy.
This condition shall be recorded on the face of the final plat.
28. Following the completion of a microneighborhood, Staff shall be able to access the site for
tours no more than once every three months with permission and cooperation of the property
owner.
nn cY:_ : L._ _a...:.,...x . A :1:.. .,.a s......, ..1,.... ..t,...it 1%. .o «,. Y *A...l . A ,,.,....,�.3^A
G7. algialludnL L1cub bawl UU lutnulcu a11U a s1611111CMIL Llcc plan 011[311 UG 1l1VVlu4u auu 1000IUCLI
as part of the final plat. Only diseased, dying and /or hazard significant trees can be removed
with a report by a certified arborist. Any removed significant tree must be replaced with three
native trees of at least 6 inches in caliber and 6 feet in height. These conditions shall be
recorded on the face of the final plat.
30. Each building shall meet the height requirement and shall not exceed 40' above average
existing grade.
31. One covered bicycle space for every five parking spaces for the multifamily development
Aall bc% t%rot ?;,JA i for a min; lin tntal of rive graces
Ull 1A VV l/AV 1.tMV M, 1V1 4141+ ++ J.l VVN 1+.+J Jam♦
32. Pursuant to BiMC 15.08, the applicant shall apply for a permit for any regulated signs.
33. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project shall be reviewed for compliance
with the lighting guidelines.
Recommended this 24" t day of August, 2011:
city of Damonage island
The public hearing exhibit list is attached to this report. Parties wishing to object to admission of
any or all of exhibits 12 through 17 may do so by filing a motion for reconsideration within 10
days of the date of this recommended decision. Such motions shall be filed in writing with the
Hearing Examiners Office at Bainbridge City Hall and state the basis for the objections. Please
note that filing a motion for reconsideration does not stay applicable deadlines for bringing any
administrative or judicial appeal.
Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation to City Council 13
EXHIBIT: LIST
Application
Preliminary Subdivision
Grow Community SUB13551
Applicant: Asani LLC
Location of Proposal: Corner of Wyatt and Grow
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: August 2, 2012, at 9:00 am
Heather Beckmann, Associate Planner Location: City of Bainbridge Island
City Hail Council Conference Room
Hearing Examiner:
Stafford Smith
.
EX.
..............
DATE
NO. OF
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED
PAGES
1
Application and COBI Letter of Receipt
04/10/2012
12
2
COB! Letters of Transmittal for Review
000!2012
4
3
Open Space Management Plan
04/10/2012
4
4
Title Report
04/10/2012
79
5
_ ..
'Lot Closures
04/10/2012
23.
6
Preliminary Site Plat Drawings
04/1012012
8
7
Open Space & Lot Coverage Drawing
04/0312012
1
(Revised sheet 7 only)
8
Certificate of Posting (Signs)
.07/19/2012
. 2
9 `
` Certification of Distribution and Posting
07/20/2012
12
10
:Qty's Project Report Re Grow Community Subdivision with
0713012012
34
Attachments as follows:
Attachment 1 Project Report Re Grow Community Site Plan
(plus
Review (3/1/12)
130
Attachment 2 NOA and SEPA Checklist (6122112)
pages
• Attachment 3 MDNS (7/11/12)
Attach
lo Attachment 4 Preliminary Plat Drawings (4/10/12)
ments)
Attachment 5 Summary of Community Meeting (6/12/12)
• Attachment 6 Comment Letters (715/12 to 7122/12)
»: Attachment 7 BIFD Memo (4/26/12)
Attachment 8 Health District Approval (4127112)
• Attachment 9 Applicant's HDDP Checklist
•: Attachment 10 City's HDDP Checklist
+, Attachment 11 Applicant's Ltr Re Relief Description (4/27/12)
Attachment 12 Tree Retention Plan Phase 2 (6/29/12)
o. Attachment 13 Kitsap Transit Memo (7/12/12)
Attachment 14 Title RCW 58
•. Attachment 15 City Development Engineer Memo (715112)
Attachment 16 Site Plan Modification. 7/5/12 ,
1
EXHIBIT LIST
Application
Preliminary Subdivision
Grow Community SUB13551
Applicant: Asani LLC
Location of Proposal: -- Corner of Wyatt and Grow
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: August 2, 2012, at 9:00 am
Heather Beckmann, Associate Planner Location: City of Bainbridge Island
City Hall Council Conference Room
Hearing Examiner:
Stafford Smith
�x
nATF
NCS:OF
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
..RECEIVED
PAGES
11
Staff PowerPoint Presentation at 8/2/12 Hearing
08102/2012
15
12
Davis Studio'and Design revised Planning Commission site
12/12/2011
35
plans and profiles.
13
Browne Engineering, Inc. letter to Marja Preston re: Grow
:011/1812012
2
Community Phasing
14
COBI Joint Notice of Administrative DecWorf and SEPA
03/09/2012
'5
Determination for SPR
15
Summary of community meeting held June 6, 2011 by Kelly
06/10%2011
6
Dickson
16
COBI public comment letter file for SPR
00/2011 to
35
02/2012
17
COBI Planning Commission meeting minutes for February 9 and
02/02/2012
13
23, 2012
and
02/23/2012
2