SUB18840 HEX Exhibit 30r)
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Subject: FW: Rolling Sunrise Subdivision. p ,�49"at
a
00-P
9
.
From. Josh Machen [mallto fmachen0balnbridegwa aovl
Sent: Wednesday,.July.01, 2.015 8:45 AM '�d4
To: Wallace, Alan
Cc: Janelle Hitch; Lisa Marshall; Kathy Cook; mfchel@bghdevelopment.com
Subject: FW: Rolling Sunrise Subdivision
Mr. Wallace,
After consultation with our Attorney we are not able to meet with you unless itris jn the realm of settlement discussions
involving all parties and ordered andsanctioned by the hearing examiner. Any meeting outside of this realm would
violate the appearance of fairness doctrine and constitute ex parte contacts. Please remember that this is a quasi-
judicial proceeding.
Regards,
Joshirla Macken, AICD
Current Planning A-lailage
)nus6caft i t ridpwA g_
(206) 780-3705
From: Wallace, Alanfrnailto:awallacepwiiliamskastner comJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 201510:32 AM
To: Josh Machen
Subject: Rolling Sunrise Subdivision
Dear Planning:fvlanager Machen,
Thanks.for your time over the'telephone,yesterday-to discuss the request of Patand Barb Ebert to meet with City staff to
review inadequacies of the newly disclosed traffic and storm water studles prepared for the Rolling Sunrise preliminary
plat application. We request the opportunity for our traffic and storm Water experts to explain why the appilcant's
studies are inadequate to address the Hearing Examiner's remand order, as we(( as City, State and professional
standards for such studies.
Clearly, the Hearing Examiner's Order, by mandating a new hearing not be scheduled any sooner than 30 days after the
applicant's required studies are made public; contemplated the opportunity for public input to City.staff prior to renewal
of the.hearing. To allow meaningful consideration of Input from Ebert's experts; Gibson Traffic Engineering, and NL
Olson Engineering, we request a hearing date not be set until our meeting Is held and City staff has an opportunity to
respond to our expert input.
Kind regards,
Alan L. Wallace
Williams.Kastner I Attorney at Law
601 Union Street. Suite 4100
EXHIBIT
30
Robert O. Conoley
Attorney at Law
10781 Sunrise Drive NE
Bainbridge Is. WA 98110-13n7
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT ®e CONOLE-y � rrp
EP 1 0 2014
Io.
as
1 y
Bob Conoley
From: sconrad@bainbridgewa.gov — --
sent; Friday, August 22, 2014 4:12 PM
To: katkennedy9048@comcast.net;jeridel"-_-
suzannej1930@live.com; gremse@ms: — - _OOnra��° gmail.com;
bobthelawyer@gwestoffice.net; pateber^..a all
amedia.com;
Subject: Rolling Sunrise neighborhood meeting
MVV
Dear interested Resident—
Based on the City Hearing Examiner's latest Notice of Continuance (copy attached) planning department stafi
has scheduled a meeting with the developer and interested residents of the Sunrise Drive neighborhood for
Thursday, August 28th at 5 pm. We will meet in the parking lot at the Rolling Bay Presbyterian Church, 11042
Sunrise Drive. The meeting will focus on the following items:
• Conceptual improvements to Sunrise Drive from Albertson Road south to the entrance of the
subdivision
• I en�rees to be removed
• Discuss the location of the mailboxes and trash cans to serve the 4 proposed lots off of Sunrise Drive
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you.j'
vo' • ,-.�
O 1 N 1 Q1 VYz V 7 � b O
r n ?c ' �� p ' n
....b
70- Z z a o Via ha3 � lA Zit p�
• �r
�Iv Gl-Y�
- _
5.0
�l
I� � � m. a 41A Ai or• o o.... w w S�T i
. I Sn A 7 ,„ H :. v : � � Ao W - - ?o ® e• rnr.�l �.
N 0 I
x Y
vorn
.+U Y,e! I � A. .t '' _- bV 3 b .ii48 '•
,
J __ ;
_-� "� mar. -.R oeo:y-.. .3..€'. � �•Y �� 1 f- A S'F'r ga 'i/ Yo �`.
.........
2
XVS
IN
Bob Conoley
From: Bob Conoley [bobthelawyer@qwestoffice.net)
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:43 AM
To: 'Friends of Rolling Bay'
Cc: 'drose@bainbridgewa.gov'
Page 1 of 2
1L 0
Subject: RE: August 15. Comment deadline/ Note late- arriving official correction -- our public comments will
continue to be received until or made at 9 a.m. hearing on Thursday, August 21, 2014 by hearing
examiner. in person or via Deb Rose
Ola, Kristin- I believe our deadline longer for public comments if made by or at hearing examiner's hearing on "
Rolling Sunrise' (# SUB 18840) at city hall, 9 a.m. Thursday, August 21, 2014 in city hall council chambers.
Ms. Rose --Please forward TO THE HEARING EXAMINER by 9 a.m. Thursday, August 21, 2014:
1 wish to commend Mr Smith for continuing his study & his size -up perceptiveness about unresolved BGH
site problems. The 7 -dwelling plan doesn't fit. It falls short and creates real neighborhood hardships. BGH states
it will build out one lot at a time. More like 4-5 dwellings maximum density matches better our surrounding
meager infrastructure emands on its 3.5 acres. This means streets, routine services listed below, &emergency
access, or lack of. I hope he recommends Mr. Girard/BGH return to their original proposal of 3 homes access
from Hyla Ln and the rest access this site from Sunrise dr, South. Here's why:
.1.)--- TRASH/RECYCLE— a windshield glimpse @ Sunrise South fails to take cue from trash & recycle demand
lacements currently followed for existing 6-7 dwellings. Some folks leave containers on Sunrise Dr. shoulders all
week. Imagine refuse impacts then from 7 more dwellings accessing on Sunrise. These 30-40 containers of all
kinds ( 3 types of recycle) will clog the 45 ft. dirt patch available. Dragging distance from BGH site to public ROW
is for pick-up only on Sunrise South is some 3-400 ft.
) MAIL--- Same problem. No delivery made off of public ROW. Some 10-12 more mail & newspaper box
{ clusters added. This a neighborhood of historic mail vandalism & delay in overnight drops.
)— DEVELOPER CONTRACTED AMENITIES BY LAW ARE WARRANTED W/ H.E./ CITY APPROVAL.
(a) Duncan Ln., a connecting private road, serves up to 12 homes currently accessed by Falk Rd. & this
Sunrise South junction. On foot it serves walkers, joggers and dogs from the R.B. road ends (5).
(b) It will be used de facto in reality & due to lack of city resources is currently only access to this
neighborhood of many seniors in snow, rain storm, power line drops, usual Sunrise flooding, & tree falls. The
contract must require BGH dwellers provide co -shared gravel, earthen edges & erosion control measures as
needed & as done by volunteers now at $180 a dwelling.
Sunrise South is only access going north (besides Duncan Ln) to the Red Cross- sponsored city disaster
shelter located @ Bay Hay & Feed premises & it's designated generators, for warmth.
4)--- TRAFFIC. These routine demands are not readily apparent but are windshield apparent if it's clean. No
black box counters needed. ( One latte & a shortbread cookie) .Besides two turn -outs on Sunrise and one of
Duncan, BGH must provide an unfettered sight line for 2/10's mi. now warranted by removing overhanging limbs
both sides Sunrise South/ BGH junction to Albertson Dr (Valley Rd.).
CURRENT MV DEMANDS ANECDOTALLY. Daily users of Sunrise Dr. South going south from Valley
Rd. for parking or access towards BGH site include these: 4-5 home offices or businesses; two art studios; daily
double-parked off-loading by 18 wheelers for three different commercial businesses; and the employee vehicles
servicing these; as well as the gift/ produce/ farm/nursery complex at Bay Hay & Feed( dis- allowed use of church
parking lot); the postal office of 600 -boxes; an auto repair facility, Music Guild meeting hall; the municipal court
house; a new restaurant plan; three existing snack, fast food or take-out businesses; a marital arts and frame
shop facility; storage locker facilities; a church congregation what likes pageants; a new Woodworkers crafts
Guild retail sales facility; Life Span counseling center; a 2 ac. animal shelter; & a new church -sponsored
Montessorial school facility in the works .
These as listed are all within 2/10's mile of the BGH subdivision, now claimed to have no appreciable or
recognizable impact on each other. Wow!
5)---- PUBLIC TRAIL. BGH has seemingly reconfigured the current public trail across its site from Sunrise South
junction it promised to maintain. Its current design problematic & off-putting. Not using its current route of one
o'clock to 7 o'clock in north -south direction down steep incline, it projects re-routing the trail to follow a collapsed
east -west "W -like route. Thus kirting the 7 homes along lot edges? No CCR's provisions offered currently by
BGH per developer contract. These should be added by H.E. requirement. They to assure width protectionno
unlawful encroachments. trail surfaces, non -obstruction by trash receptacles, vehicles & fences, signage, ,
8/21/2014
Page 2 of 2
plantings, maintenance & animal control. These recommended based on historic island antics for such trails.
Offering this trail to BIPRD to maintain properly has 1 -in 6- chances of happening in the manner to enhance value
for BGH. Neighborhood pets, raccoon, & deer abound. Due to this BGH project w/o some CCR's like these,
Rolling Sunrise may dwarf "the twilight howl" made by critters & famously used in movie "1001 Dalmations."
Thx, Bob Conoley @ 10781 Sunrise Dr (immediate) adjacent owner.
-----Original Message -----
From: Friends of Rolling Bay[mailto:friendsofrollingbay@gmall.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:12 AM
To: Kristin Easterbrook
Subject: August 15. Comment deadline
Hi Friends and Neighbors,
For those of you who would like to submit comment regarding alternative routes, and/or
strategies for providing road access to the 7 home Rolling Sunrise Development (south end of
Sunrise), the comment deadline is this Friday, August 15.
One of the concerns we have is maintaining the pedestrian nature, and historical charm of the
local, one lane roads ---which is one of the defining assets of this 'Old Bainbridge ' neighborhood.
Maintaining the walkability, and preserving the trail that connects and extends through the site,
south towards the beach, is a Rolling Bay asset we'd like to see kept and maintained for the
public to enjoy. (Attached is the notice with more detail).
Thanks for taking a moment to send your comments to Hearing Examiner Stafford Smith's
office by Friday. The email is:
drose0lbainbridgewa eov
Sincerely,
Friends of Rolling Bay,
Bob Conley, Kristin Easterbrook, Jeri Myer, Russ Hamlet, Gerald Stevenson
8/21/2014
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 4623
Rolling Bay, WA 98061-0623
l"' o9Po`,Pa
1 � �
October 6. 2014
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT O. CONOLEY
10781 Sunrise Dr. NE
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
206-855-8945/fax 855-1313
bobthelawver0Qwestoffice net
Mr. Stafford L. Smith
Hearing Examiner, City of Bainbridge Island
City Hall, 280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Wa. 98110
13ainbrid a Island
OCT 6 2014
NEW PUBLIC4RESPONSE DE subdivision (BGH Developers LLC— Mr. Michel Gerard)
UE BY 0-10-14 AS A RESULT OF THIRD CONTINUANCE PER
REQUEST OF HEARING EXAMINER AS TO APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS FOR ROADWAY
ACCESS & FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
EXHIBITS: a) My comments as to appropriate provisions as basis of rulings by hearing examiner
b) Dispositive Findings of Fact in support of recommended rulings
c) Washington Practice excerpts, Ch. 17 State Environmental Policy Act, Sec's 17.22 et seq
d) By reference, my prior submissions in the oral record & on paper before hearing examiner
Dear Mr. Smith:
Please find three exhibits I offer to help resolve the inadequacies found in the record of the above
Proceedings. I incorporate also by reference my prior comments made to the hearing examiner before this
under SUB #18840.
The Exhibit c) excerpts from the Washington Practice set are from the pocket parts dated June,
2014. They present several bases by which the hearing examiner might identify appropriate provisions for
the rulings he mentions. These would support findings for mitigation unique to this locale and site
problems as recommended by my comments and of others. The lack of surrounding essential city density
infi•astructure and absence of plans for any in the near future warrant these measures. A phasing of
development seems plausible and practical, given the Rolling Sunrise incremental build -out disclosed and
the 4-5 visible neighboring residential construction projects starting up now within a mile or so. Please
factor too that Valley Road itself within 2/10's of a mile will be changing as a single landowner continues to
buy -up adjacent tracts besides the three purchased over the last 12 months.
ly yours,,
Conole""y'� --�
10781 Sunrl a Drive
TRIALS AND BUSINESS AND • PERSONAL • MEDIATION • WILLS AND • LAND USE AND • FAMILY LAW
LITIGATION COMMERCIAL INJURY PROBATE REAL ESTATE AND DIVORCE
EXHISIT
)-+��-�
s My recommended "Appropriate Provisions" I suggest for his added conditions of mitigation include:
1) reducing the number of dwellings allowed as build -out
zoning code;. to a number below the requested seven (7) per
2) reducing the number of on site residential motor vehicles, used, garaged or stored to one per dwelling
(similar to B. L's Winslow Co- housing's limitations); and
3) substituting for occupants' use a shared community motor vehicle for relief.
4) plus, possibly making developer or later builders on site re -apply for any increase in dwellings or
Private motor vehicles up to full code densities though a conditional use permit process once they or city show
reasonable accommodations as to adversely affected infrastructures like access and storm water accommodation
have occurred.
Without adding these or similar limitations, the complained- of impacts per city's No Significant Impact
(DNS) finding are more probable than not. They will likely worsen or have compelling adverse effects on and near
site due to normal density customs and island population growth. The census of 23, 300 is already five years old.
The current staff responses in the file along with the developer, s responses fail to provide the legal requisites for
a reasonably thorough discussion of these and other site significant impacts. The decision makers lack
reasonably sufficient basis to make a decision about them. The file lacks adequate information or delineated
conclusions as to these probable impacts. A formal Traffic Study if comprehensive enough would have value as a
start condition to consider determining when or if the above extra mitigation conditions of road access above
might be relaxed or continued. But this latter study would not help with respect to detecting impervious surface
drainage problems and thresholds for build -out regarding the storm water management & ground water
problems, safe yields and EWL's.
The reasons justifying the above hesitancy include those detailed matters listed & considered in the timely
written and formal verbal EIS comments submitted by neighbors in current record.
Furthermore, it is recommended the hearing examiner's ruling encourage city staff & city council begin
Area process for Rolling Bay, to include this BGH site. In geographic area it should coincide with or include the
adoption of the pre -dating neighborhood formal requisite. request per city code for initiating a Special Planning
affected streets in question of Hyla Avenue and Sunrise Drive along with surrounding roads and drainage
infrastructures this subdivision and development effects.
Moreover, the current city review process of the island's overall Comprehensive Plan makes the above
appropriate in timing and for infill like this especially relevant. This Special Planning Area is currently a code
designation in that plan under review for this area of the island not yet implemented. Given the infrastructure
inadequacies noted, it's possibly overdue & appropriate due to the above problems.
10/3/2014
variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 17: and r
h. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this code, n� 's r`h�'
provisions have been modified as part of a housing design demonstration project ' U
pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020. Q; Chapters 36.70.4 and jLL RCYV- and all other
applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations; and C A j
i. The proposal is in accord with the city's comprehensive plan. f l� ,-"�
2. A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless written findings are made khat
the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision.
18. Most of the controversy between the staff and applicant generated by this plat proposal related
to the engineering of infrastructure for this development, in particular the applicable road requirements.
In addition, the original assumptions about stormwater management for the plat were recently deemed
infeasible, creating new onsite facilities demands that eliminated open space and greatly reduced the
area potentially available for future road development.
19. More generally, the disagreement between staff and applicant mandates, among other things, an
inquiry into the extent to which the City's engineering conventions are explicitly regulatory in nature.
A major regulatory gap was encountered a few months back in the review of the ultimately remanded
Rolling Sunrise Subdivision application (SUB 18840), where the Hearing Examiner discovered to his
surprise that the City has no basic requirement that a subdivision be accessible via a minimally
serviceable public road; this required a critical portion of the review to rely on the generic standards of—
the state platting statute. For Wyatt Hill the problem is somewhat different: the engineering staff has
here filled a regulatory vacuum with internally generated design standards, and questions arise as to
their exact regulatory status when an applicant balks at offering voluntary compliance.
20. Turning first to the stormwater issues, the applicant initially explored in discussions with the
City the feasibility of employing an off-site stormwater direct discharge option that would bypass
highly eroded Weaver Creek stream reaches downstream and release to the marine waters of Eagle
Harbor via the City -owned John Nelson Park at Strawberry Cannery Cove. Since this diversion would
have also incorporated basin flows upstream of Wyatt Hill that enter and pass through the site, the
bypass would have operated to reduce Weaver Creek volumes below current rates. This option also
would have resulted in the preservation of about an acre of trees located on the southern portion of the
site adjacent to the Shepard Way trail.
21. However, further research on John Nelson Park disclosed both that the site is contaminated due
to its past use as a gas station and future park usage is subject to restrictive covenants which may
prohibit installation of stormwater improvements. Accordingly, the applicant has abandoned the bypass
option. This will require the plat to store stormwater in on-site detention ponds located on the southern
end'of the site, resulting in loss of the trees in the tract abutting the unopened Shepard Way right of
way.
22. Abandonment of the bypass discharge proposal also refocuses attention on the limitations
characterizing the downstream flow system, not only within a Weaver Creek already seriously
degraded by erosion from earlier development but also regarding capacity restrictions along the
Shepard Way right of way system connecting the plat's southwest corner to the creek. The currently
REPORT AND DECISION - 5
»? w ^ m »- ,
I , vdVk
,
f ° \/
.
x
e
.�:.
.
»? w ^ m »- ,
I , vdVk
Robert O. Conoley
Attorney at Law
10781 Sunrise Drive NE
Bainbridge Is. WA 98110-13n7
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT 0, CON®LEY
Bob Conoley
From: sconrad@bainbddgewa.gov
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:12 PM
To: katkennedy9048@comcast.net;jerideE�.-- --_
: __ a a race
@gm
aii.com;suzennej1930@live.com; gremse@ms- --- —: ^
bobthela yerQgwestorice.net; patebe-"---_cmedia.com;
Subject: Rolling Sunrise neighborhood meeting
Dear Interested Resident —
Based on the City Hearing Examiner's latest Notice of Continuance (copy attached) planning department stafi
has scheduled a meeting with the developer and interested residents of the Sunrise Drive neighborhood for
Thursday, August 28th at 5 pm. We will meet in the parking lot at the Rolling Bay Presbyterian Church, 11042
Sunrise Drive. The meeting will focus on the following items:
• Conceptual improvements to Sunrise Drive from Albertson Road south to the entrance of the
subdivision
•
Identify trees to be removed
• Discuss the location of the mailboxes and trash cans to serve the 4 proposed lots off of Sunrise Drive
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
3.114
LLJ
z•01x � 2-009
F7 -- - - - - -
2-124
-1213 U114 s a i s
2-003
LU
4,
tS1E.lilh:rt^"" y
2.127 2-104
2-016 r
2-105 2-113
2-019 2-020 1-023
2.013
1.025
9 2-022
1.027
2.054 2-0.52 2-050
W
s 2-051
2-055 2 01
2-094
2.129
2.096
Robert O. Conoley
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 4623
Rolling Bay, WA 98061-0623
E- -- 3 ®- f
-13' .
l . `
�'� � �. • � � I ' �_+_.moi.. i_
� n
n
e6A t+eA.tJ'tan'%*
`Thad you doingsix in
ICI
Q
V
cu
z
Deborah Rose
From: Kristin Easterbrook <kristineast@yahoo.com> RECEIVED
,Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:53 PM
To: Deborah Rose SEP - 91015
Subject: Rolling Sunrise - potential solution
Attachments: IMG_8585.jpg; IMG_8572.jpg; IMG_8577.jpg; Parcel Map C.pdf; IMG_8564.jpg; Parcel Map
C.pdf
Dear Examiner Smith,
Development on Bainbridge Island needs to look at new sustainable ways to succeed.
Incentives for cluster development, sustainable building practices, emphasizing non
motorized trails & walking.
My name is Kristin Easterbrook, and I'm on the steering committee for the Rolling Bay
Neighborhood Special Planning Area. I also work at Studio Hamlet Architects on
Bainbridge Island, who specialize in sustainability.
In terms of the Growth Management Act and planning for growth in Rolling Bay, Upper
Hyla, the third -choice suggested by Bob Conoley, makes a lot of sense in terms of
planning for future plat requests. I'll refer to this potential solution as Upper Hyla.
1. Upper Hyla feeds straight to a main connector i.e. Valley Rd. (see photo A.)
Traffic to these homes would utilize Valley, and upper Hyla, avoiding going through the
busy and chaotic Rolling Bay NSC intersection to Sunrise.
2. Upper Hyla has the greater of the 3 site distances (see photo 61 & 132).
3. ROI. In terms of the return on cities investment on road work, there is a lot of
undeveloped acreage along Upper Hyla that if developed in the future will also need
access. Same problem, same road, same solution. (see Parcel Map photo C)
4. Retain the popular trail in question thru Rolling Sunrise sub#18840 -- that connects Rolling Bay
NSC to the water -- as a 'condition to approval'. (see photo D)
Summary: COBI should not be permitted to rubber stamp plat applications without providing legal,
safe, adequate road access and stormwater drainage plans approved by the State's of Washington's
Stormwater Management Manual.
I respectfully request the Hearing Examiner deny the Preliminary Plat of Rolling Sunrise due to
unsafe public road access on both Hyla and Sunrise, and inadequate storm drainage engineering.
On the ground on Sunrise. City planner Sean Conrad was 'on the ground' and recognized
chis fact: After you pass RB Presbyterian on Sunrise, the road narrows to 8' wide, with two
vertical curves, significant vegetation, power poles, trees, and has not been maintained by
the City of Bainbridge Island.
Sincerely,
Kristin Easterbrook
From: Laurel <Ijjames44
Sent: @gmail.com>
Friday, September 11, 2015 1:58 PM RECEIVED
To: Deborah Rose
Subject: comments re: Rolling Sunrise
Attachments: Remand Order 102014.pdf, Hitch Remand Order Rsp.pdf SEP > > 2015
Thanks for the extended opportunity to comment on the Rolling Sunrise development. I live just east of the
proposed development off Sunrise Drive.
I was unable to attend the meeting on 9/4/15, but have been told by neighbors that the applicant now has no
intent on building out this project. He is now just planning on getting city approval for the subdivision and
selling. Not sure how much truth to that, but many of the comments and discussions with the City prior to this
have been related to the plans from this developer. He planned for modular houses (quicker to build). He
planned on bringing a crane into the site via Sunrise for this construction. He made lots of promises on
mailboxes, vegetation, trail, etc. If he now has no plans to actually develop the land can we not stop this from
moving forward? (wishful thinking 0). And if the subdivision is approved based on his plans —for instance
the plan to use a modular design vs. conventional construction - what recourse would we have if the next
owner decides to go a traditional construction method (with months and months of trucks, workers, heavy
equipment and construction activities)?
In reference to the city's response to the remand order (attached to this email and on city website, titled
'Rolling Sunrise Engineer Rsp Part 1"). I have several comments and questions.
• This document requires the applicant to clear only 170 feet along the sides of Sunrise (from access
point). Why such a short distance? This is not adequate and will not address the issues with the road
and visibility. The road is a mess. With increased traffic due to construction, it's only a matter of time
before there will be a collision or a child or animal hit. The requirement should extend from the access
point on Sunrise to Albertson Road. The street would be safer if you could see who was coming down
the steep grade before you commit to driving down from the other direction. Currently the city does
not maintain this road, nor does it clear the vegetation to maintain a 12.5 feet in driving width and
13.5 feet of overhead clearance. There was some clearing done between Albertson and Valley (by
city? or Bay Hay?), but this area wasn't the problem.
• Turnouts and road safety —the city's response mentions just one turnout. In the October 20, 2014
Remand order (page 5, item 20 — attached) specifically says "... Rolling Sunrise will be mainly
responsible for the Sunrise upgrades, which will include two turnouts, some tree removal and reduced
speed limits and warning signs in an area where the topography creates a site distance limitation
problem." These items do not appear to be included in the city's response to the remand
order. There was a significant effort made to comment on this last year including a walkabout with the
city (Sean Conrad), developer and several neighbors. When was it decided one turnout, no tree
removal, no warning signs, no speed limit signs?
• And I'm assuming these requirements will be added to this development— so that any future owner
would be required to complete as well as the current developer.
1
Other comments about the road. Last year, in response to comments about road condition the city responded
"Sunrise Drive is a City -owned and maintained road. Heavy equipment has the right to use the road. Impacts
caused by heavy equipment can only be addressed through a right-of-way permit; however this permit may
not be needed. If a right -of way permit is issued and heavy equipment use is expected, the roadway condition
will be documented before and after work and associated fees will be assessed."
Maybe I'm not understanding this fully, but can the hearing examiner require the city plan to issue a 'right-of-
way' permit before this development starts? Sunrise is not only narrow and steep in places, the pavement is
crumbling. There are huge holes and depressions. The asphalt as it approaches the site access point is falling
apart. I would bet that the road is NOT built to support heavy trucks, cranes and other heavy equipment. This
should be a no-brainer. If the city does not issue this permit, it sounds as if there is no recourse to make the
developer pay fees. And we will be stuck with an even worse "maintained" road. I've lived at the end of this
road for nearly 24 years —there has been very very very little maintenance of this road. I'm not asking that a
new road to be built, just to take care of what is already here.
In response to the submission 'Rolling Sunrise Engineer Rsp Part 2'—just a comment about a "Plat Plan" map
used by the septic evaluation. It shows an incorrect easement road on the east side of the development. The
Rolling Sunrise development does NOT have access through this easement. The access point and easement to
Rolling Sunrise runs parallel to this easement. It's probably not important related to septic design, just wanted
to point out the error on this document.
And last ... I was also told by a neighbor that there would be reconsideration on how many houses are accessed
by Sunrise (4 vs. all 7). If this is true, will there be a new site map? Wouldn't we get another chance to
comment? What this would mean for the already fragile Sunrise drive? If this is not under consideration you
can ignore this comment!
Thanks,
Laurel Michael
I
RECEIVED
SEP 1 1 2015
10432 Duncan Lane NE
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
September 11, 2015
Hon. Stafford L. Smith
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
RE: Comments on Rolling Sunrise Subdivision, SUB 18840
Dear Judge Smith:
Enclosed is a letter signed by Duncan Lane, residents (all but one, who
was not home when the letter was circulated) opposing the use of Duncan
Lane, a private road which is privately -maintained, for any construction and
vehicle traffic relating to the proposed "Rolling Sunrise" development.
It is also clear from our conversations with Duncan Lane residents
that if a plat is approved for "Rolling Sunrise," we all oppose using Sunrise
for access to all seven properties (in fact, for access to any) due to the safety
issues presented by increased use of Sunrise. It would be unfair and unduly
burdensome to existing neighborhood residents to permit the use of Sunrise
for traffic from all seven houses in the proposed Rolling Sunrise subdivision,
particularly given the condition of Sunrise and the inevitability that new
homeowners would use Duncan Lane. If, despite our opposition, road
access is allowed only from Sunrise, the size of the development must be
dramatically reduced, and Sunrise must be substantially improved and
upgraded. And we respectfully request that any ruling by the Hearings
Examiner state that Duncan Lane may not be used in any way in connection
with "Rolling Sunrise."
Scaling down the development, or finding other road access, is
necessary to preserve the tranquil, quiet nature of this neighborhood. It also
is necessary for the safety of the many pedestrians, including children, who
regularly walk down Duncan Lane and Sunrise. If each of seven homes in
the proposed subdivision had two cars, and each car made two round trips a
day using Sunrise and/or Duncan, we conservatively estimate that we would
see an increase of at least 56 drives down these grossly substandard streets
every day. This would not only pose safety concerns for cars using the
narrow, sight -limited one -lane roads, but would threaten pedestrians and
destroy the fundamental peace and quiet of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of the above comments, and the
enclosed letter signed by Duncan Lane residents.
Katherine Kennedy
Megan Kennedy
206-201-3614
206-842-4644
September 10, 2015
City of Bainbridge Island
Dear Judge Smith,
I live at 10432 Duncan Lane NE. This letter is a response to your offer to
consider final comments regarding the proposed Rolling Sunrise development
development. I, and the below -signed residents of Duncan Lane, would like to
say again on the record that Duncan Lane is a private road, privately
maintained. We would like that fact noted in any ruling on Rolling Sunrise. We
do not plan to allow any increased use of Duncan Lane by the general public or
anyone in connection with the Rolling Sunrise development. In particular, we do
not agree that the developer, its agents and employees, or any "Rolling Sunrise"
landowners or homeowner can use Duncan Lane. If necessary, we would place
a gate across the lane, as we have been advised by the City of Bainbridge Island
Public Works that we have a right to do, to preserve the pastoral quality of
Duncan Lane, and to prevent increased safety risks to authorized vehicles,
walkers, and bicyclists.
Sincerely,
Megan Kennedy
The following residents of Duncan Lane agree with the above:
%16;
�S n./ACC� Lit
Frank Gremse
10742 Sunrise Dr NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
;1 Sep, 2015
City of Bainbridge Island
Stafford Smith
Hearing Examiner
208 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Mr. Smith;
RECEIVED
SEP 1 1 2015
I am submitting this letter in compliance with the request from the Hearing Examiner for citizens to
submit comments and concerns regarding the Rolling Sunrise Subdivision (SUB 18840) by 11 Sep
2015 (a propitious date). As part of my preparation process for the development of this letter, I
reviewed the COBI file pertaining to the subdivision. I was surprised to find that there are some
omissions in the file; most likely due to some oversight and confusion resulting from a transition in
GOBI staffing.
Areas of concern which were mentioned in hearings but are not in the file are:
• accommodation and care of the significant trees on the site,
• phasing of site development work, ground water impacts,
• COBI memo detailing the important elements and conclusions which arose from the Aug 24,
2014 walking inspection/meeting at which the participants were: the developer, COBI planner,
and numerous neighborhood residents,
• precise delineation of the ingress and egress corridors and their impacts on existing
residences' access to their properties.
I could find no documentation in the file on these subjects, although they have been discussed at
hearings. In order to complete my research and insure that the record is complete, I have instituted a
"Public Records Request" for audio files pertaining to the hearings which have previously been held
with respect to this development.
I have been given a rough estimate that it would require seven to ten days to complete this request.
would need a similar amount of time to review the audio files, transcribe them and cross reference
them to existing documentation.
Please extend the time of comment submission to accommodate this.
Thank you.
( Frank Gremse
RCW 58.17.110: Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication — Factors to be ... Page 1 of 1
RCW 58.17.110
Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication — Factors to be considered
— Conditions for approval — Finding — Release from damages.
(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest
proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall
determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health,
safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other
public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including
sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who
only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the
subdivision and dedication.
(2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or
county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for
the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways,
streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant
facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for
students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served
by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and
dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be
served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication.
Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the
subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be
required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final
plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW
82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of
private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any
subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners.
(3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than
two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased
individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the
designated name.
[1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c
271 § 11.]
Notes:
Severability -- Part, section headings not law --1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW
36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=58.17.110 11/4/2015
09/02/2015
Rolling Sunrise Commenters Email List
'dmcrossland@earthlink.net'; 'cherigreene@aol.com'; 'karlamy@q.com'; 'bfebert@hotmail.com';
'kwbgroves@gmail.com'; 'cluck53@yahoo.com'; 'jimfalk@centurylink.net';
'melaniekeenan@comcast.net'; 'randomgrace@gmail.com'; 'loriandstuart@yahoo.com';
'mark.crowthers@seattle.gov'; 'mash @sounddsl.com'; 'kitchinglaw@gmail.com';
'bo bthelawyer@gwestoffice.net'; 'mercury@ bainbridgehomes.com'; 'georges@isomedia.com';
'melissasherrow@gmail.com'; 'don.m.brown @com cast. net'; 'mstopham@msn.com';
'keith@windermere.com'; 'kirkrobinson@earthIink. net'; 'Ijjames44@gmail.com';
'deehauge@hotmail.com; 'bizmj6@comcast.net'; 'john_grinter@hotmail.com ;
'lash ley@sounddsl.com'; 'bleulmoon@aol.com'; 'amychouinard@comcast. net';
'kristineast@yahoo.com';'geraldbstevenson@msn.com'; katkennedv9048CcDcomcast net;
jeridell@gmail.com• suzanne.119300live.com• gremseOmsn com; patebertla)vahoo.com•
marvleeskelly(mgmail com; friendsofrollingbav gmail com Iifesoirit001Cuvahoo.com•
eric58812comcast.net; markf530msn com