Loading...
RES 2005-01 HANSON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVALRESOLUTION NO. 2005-01 A RESOLUTION of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, approving the Hansen Hill Subdivision preliminary plat (File No. SUB 12730) WHEREAS, on April 23, 2004, a preliminary plat application was submitted by Ted Francis to the Department of Planning and Community Development; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat application facilitates creation of 11 residential lots with 1 affordable housing unit on a 9.21 -acre parcel located northeast of the corner of Hansen Road and Springridge Road; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development reviewed and forwarded its recommendation for conditional approval to the Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2004, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the preliminary plat upon proper notice; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, the Hearing Examiner recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat and entered her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation; and WHEREAS, at it's January 26, 2005, regular meeting the City Council considered the Hansen Hill Subdivision Preliminary Plat and determined that the following condition should be added to the Appendix (Exhibit A) Recommended Conditions, as Hearing Examiner Condition No. 38: Construction netting or silt fencing shall be placed at the edge of the perimeter landscape buffers and tree retention areas prior to the issuance of any permit that allows clearing on individual lots within the subdivision; 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 Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner (File No. SUB12730), as set forth in Exhibit "A", with the inclusion of Condition No. 38, as listed above, which is attached and incorporated by reference, is adopted as the final decision of the Bainbridge Island City Council. Section 2. The proposed preliminary plat is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, the subdivision regulations and standards, and all applicable land use ordinances and applicable state law in effect at the time the fully completed application for preliminary plat approval was submitted by Ted Francis to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Hansen Hill Subdivision Preliminary Plat Page 1 Section 3. The final plat of Hansen Hill Subdivision shall. state on its face that it. is subject t t.e conditions of approval set forth in th.is resolution. PASSED by the Council of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, this 2 t.h day of January, 2005. APPROVED y the Mayor on the 28th day of January, 2005. - 4 Darlene K rd nowt', Mayor S4san P. Kasper, City Clr FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: January 19, 2005 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: January 26, 2005 I ES LUTI N N .: 2005-01 Hansen Hill Subdivision Preliminary flat Page 2 LO M 65 X CL LO Q LU Q CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAIVII ER In the Matter of the Application of TED FRANCIS for preliminary plat approval for a subdivision known as "Hansen Hill" Introduction SUB12730 Ted Francis and other owners of record of the subject property have applied for preliminary plat approval for the "Hansen Hill" subdivision. The Director has conducted environmental review and recommends approval of the subdivision, subject to numerous conditions. The public hearing was held on October 28, 2004 and the parties were represented as follows: the Director, Planning and Community Development Department (PCD or Department), by Joshua Machen, Associate Planner, and the Applicants, by Ted Francis and Nick Francis. The record was closed on November 1, 2004 with receipt of information from the Public Works Department regarding traffic conditions. The record was reopened on November 19, 2004, by Order of the Hearing Examiner so that PCD information regarding the possible need for an Eagle Management Plan could be added to the record [see Finding 52]. That information [Exhibit 67] was included into the record, and the record was closed on November 30, 2004. For the purposes of this recommendation, all section numbers refer to the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC or Code), as amended, unless otherwise indicated. The "Conditions" refer to the recommended Conditions that comprise the Appendix found at the end of this document on pages 24-27. After due consideration of all the information in the record, including that presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Findings SITE ]DESCRIPTION 1. The subject property (Tax Lot number 292502-I-004-2006) consists of 9.21 acres located in the Fletcher Bay area, northwest of and adjacent to the intersection NE SUB 12730 Page 1 of 27 SCANNED Springridge Road and Hansen Road NE. [Exhibit 10; Staff Report, pages I & 7, Exhibit 63] 2. The property's abbreviated legal description is: "NW/NE, Section 29, Township 25 North, Range 2 East" [Exhibit 14]. The complete legal description is found on Sheet 1 of the preliminary plat maps [Exhibit 101 and in the preliminary title report [Exhibit 14, page If 3. Except for the single-family residence located in the property's southwest corner (in proposed Lot 6), the property is undeveloped. [Staff Report, pages I & 7; Exhibit 63; Exhibit 18] 4. The property is zoned is R-1, one unit per acre and the Comprehensive Pian designation is OSR-1, open space residential, one unit per acre. Adjacent undeveloped and developed properties are similarly zoned. [Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 63; Exhibit 18; Exhibit 22, page 3 of 9] 5. The wooded site slopes gently to the northeast with steep slopes adjoining a shallow ravine/drainage swale containing a Class V stream in the eastern third of the property. The seasonal stream enters the subject property at the southeast corner, from a culvert under Hansen Road. The ravine broadens into a shallow depression near the northeast portion of the subject property. The seasonal stream continues to the northeast, eventually discharging into Fletcher Bay (see Drainage Map in Exhibit 28). [Exhibit 15, pages 1-2; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 58, page l; Staff Report, pages 7 and 10; Exhibit 63] 6. Total elevation change across the property is on the order of 100 ft., but localized steep slopes (25% to 40%) are present near the ravineldrainage swale in the eastern portions of proposed Lots 9 and 10. [Exhibit 15, Page 1; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 9]. 7. Site vegetation consists of mature second -growth cedar, fir, hemlock, alder and maple trees, with an understory of sword ferns, berry bushes, and broadleaf ground cover. [Exhibit 58, pages 1-3] APPLICATION 8. Application for the "Hansen Hill" subdivision was filed on April 23, 2004. The application [see Exhibit 22 and associated plat maps] seeks preliminary plat approval to subdivide an existing 9.21 -acre parcel into I 1 single-family residential lots. (See Exhibit 19 for legal descriptions of the proposed lots.) As determined by PCD, the application was complete on August 19, 2004 [Exhibit 391. Notice of application was property published on August 25, 2004 [Exhibit 43]. 9. The following list indicates the "official" map set of the application. The record includes duplicates of some of the preliminary plat maps and several sheets were updated after the application was submitted. This "official" list was compiled at the public hearing with the assistance of the applicant and the PCD representative to ensure that the most recent and accurate set of drawings be considered in the subdivision approval SUB12730 Page 2 of 27 process. (Note: Other maps and drawings that relate to future utility installation/construction are not in this record.) Exhibit Sheet Title/Contents 10 1 of 6 Cover sheet/legal description, vicinity map, notes, surveyor's cert. 4/19104 65 2 of 6 Approvals, dedications, recording certificate, trcaswer's certificate 7/19/04 9 3 of 6 Existing Conditions: slope/contour lines, lot lines, stream centerline 4/19/04 3 4 of 6 Lot Detail: proposed lots by number with dimensions & lot area 7/19/04 5 5 of 6 Buffers: designated "homesites", setbacks, nom. dedication 7/19/04 2 6 of 6 Tree Retention Plan: size of canopy, size & area retamed 4/19/04 PROPOSAL PEMsed Lots and Homesites 10. The proposed lots have appropriate shapes and sizes as depicted on Exhibit 3. The lots would range in size from 18,899 sq. ft. to 61,686 sq. ft. As noted in Findings #35 and 66, the density and proposed lot sizes are not required to observe the one -acre/ 40,000 sq. ft, minimum standard. Ten of the lots would be for market rate housing [see Finding #36]. Proposed Lot 6, the location the existing house, has been designated to be "affordable" consistent with how that term is used in the Affordable Housing Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 18.90. [Staff Report, pages 10, 13, and 14, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen] 11. Consistent with the dimensional requirements of BIMC 17.04,080A.3, all lots would be at least 50 -ft. wide at the minimum width and lot coverage (limited to 5,470 sq. ft. per lot) would not exceed the maximum allowable coverage. The subdivision also has the following setbacks that meet Code minimums (some separations are considerably greater than the minimums noted): 10 -ft. minimum distance between buildings; 25 -ft. minimum distance between buildings and subdivision boundary; 10 -ft. minimum distance between buildings and internal street right-of-way; and, 25 -ft. minimum distance between buildings and Hansen Road. [Staff Report, pages 10 and 11, Exhibit 63] 12. in accordance with the cluster development option of BIMC 17.04.080A.5.a [see Finding #62], each lot has a designated "homesite" or buildable area, where houses and accessory structures (e.g., garages, etc.) must be located. The purpose of establishing homesites is to define (and therefore limit) "the maximum dislurbance... ". The homesites here, shown in Exhibit 5, would be limited to 10,000 sq. ft. or less in size. 13. A large tree retention area, consistent with the requirements of BIMC 18.85.060, would be delineated outside of the areas designated for building (homesites and street right-of-way). BiMC 18.85.060 requires that 309/6 of the tree canopy be preserved. Given that the existing tree canopy totals 371,800 sq. ft., the 30% requirement would require retention of 111,540 sq_ ft. The proposed Tree Retention Plan [Exhibit 21 would retain 121,200 sq. ft. (32.5%) of the existing tree canopy. The tree retention area would also provide protection for the seasonal stream, as the stream is within that protected area. [Staff Report, pages 8 and 9, Exhibit 63; Testimony ofMachen] SUB12730 Page 3 of 27 14. The stream buffer would be identified by fence or signs (as required by recommended Condition 11). Also, the homesite on Lot 10 would have to observe a 15 - ft. building setback from the top of slope (see Exhibits 2, 5, and 9). [Staff Report, page 10, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen] 15. Restrictions on activities allowed in the stream and its buffer would include_ prohibiting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides (Condition 12) and requiring the preservation of native vegetation (Condition 13). Condition 14 would require replacement for significant trees removed. 16. Consistent with the provisions of BIMC 17.04.080A.5.b [see Finding #621, the homesites are clustered. Each homesite is within 25 ft. of the boundary(les) of the adjacent homesite(s). [Exhibit 5; Staff Report, page 11, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen] 17. The table below lists the total lot areas (in square feet, rounded) and the size of the "homesite" designated areas. It also indicates the relative size of each homesite compared to the total lot area (i.e., shown as a percentage of the total lot size). [Lot sizes and total: Exhibit 3; Homesite sizes: Exhibit 5; Staff Report, page 1, Exhibit 63; Application, Exhibits 221 Lot # Size [4. ft.] Homesite [sq. ft.l Homesite as % 1 30,027 10,000 33.30% Lot #1 2 24,262 10,000 41.21% Lot #2 3 37,123 9,990 26.91%Lot #3 4 29,399 10,000 33.45% Lot #4 5 27,890 10,000 35.85% Lot #5 6 34,503 10,000 28.98% Lot #6 7 18,899 10,000 52.91% Lot #7 8 22,731 10,000 43.99% Lot #8 9 50,736 10,000 19.71% Lot #9 10 36,619 9,540 26.05% Lot #10 11 61,686 10,000 16 21% Lot #11 Lots total 373,875 109,530 29.29% lot total Road co.w. 27,332 27.332 6.941/o total area Totals 401,205 136,862 34.11% total area Infrastructure and Utilities 18. A new road ("Natasha Lane"), approximately 750 feet in length with a 30 -ft. wide right-of-way and ending in a cul-de-sac adjacent to Lots 8, 9, and 10, would provide access from Springridge Road. [For alignment, see Site Utilities Plan, Exhibit 7 and Site Plan, Exhibit 2.] The new access road would enter the site near its northeast corner, in the approximate location of an old logging road. The entrance and the road would be constructed in accord with City standards with a 12 -ft. paved driving lane, 3 -ft- gravel shoulders on each side, and 18 -ft. wide turnouts every 300 feet [Staff Report, page 9, Exhibit 63; Exhibit 28, page 2; Testimony of Machen]. Natasha Lane would be adequate SUB 12730 Page 4 of 27 to serve the ten lots proposed within the interior of the subdivision. Lot 6, with access directly to Hansen Road, would continue to have adequate access. 19. A paved, 5 -ft. wide path would be developed within the Springridge Road right- of-way along the eastern boundary of the property. This path would provide non - motorized access in accord with the City's Non -motorized Transportation Plan. This bicycle/pedestrian path/trad would "meander" through the perimeter landscape buffer (rather than being built as a straight sidewalk paralleling Springridge Road). Such trails are permitted in the landscape buffer [Finding #61]. By designing the path around significant trees, this approach would reduce the number of those trees needing to be removed. Recommended Condition 22 makes this path a condition of subdivision approval. [Exhibit 35; Staff Report, pages 7 and 11; Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen; Testimony of N. Francis] 20. A second path is to be installed between Lot 7 and Lot 8 to provide pedestrian access for children using the school bus stop on Hansen Road. This 4 -ft. wide path, within the 20 -ft. wide waterline easement, would be paved or graveled as detailed in the Park District's Trails Master Plan (see Condition 22). [Staff Report, pages 4 and 9, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen] 21. The new access road would be designed to slope to the south and east edge of the roadway. Runoff from the roadway would drain through a grass filter strip to remove pollutants before discharge to a gravel trench (4 -ft. wide and 4 -ft. deep)_ Runoff would then enter a detention swale on the downslope side of the road. [Site Utilities Plan, Exhibit 71 These facilities would be appropriately sized to attenuate runoff rates and provide an opportunity for infiltration. Runoff' from new construction (captured from roofs and other impervious surfaces) would be treated on-site with either a detention system or infiltration system (see "typical" in Exhibit 7); approved facilities would be sized for each lot during the building permit process. [Exhibit 281 22. Construction of the new access road would require building a new culvert or bridge over the ravine near where Natasha Lane would intersect Springridge Road This construction must be done in a manner consistent with a Hydraulics Project Approval issued by the State's Department of Fish and Wildlife (see Condition 10). [Exhibit 31; Exhibit 48; Staff Report, page 3, Exhibit 63; Testimony ofMachen] 23, Adequate provision for stormwater drainage control would be ensured by requiring that the final storrawater system design be in conformance with BiMC 15.20 and include the items required by the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual [see also Finding 44 and recommended Condition 71. 24. The subject property would have adequate water service as it is within the City's current water service boundary. An extension of an 8 -inch water main along the perimeter roads would be required to serve the subdivision. [Exhibits 38 and 40; Exhibit 291 A water line would also be installed inside the subdivision to connect with the extended main. The water Iine would have adequate capacity to provide fire and domestic service for all the proposed lots. (Proposed Lots 7 and 8 may need private booster pumps to bring reasonable water pressure to the upper floors.) [Exhibit 28] SUB 12730 Page 5 of 27 25. A private septic system, meeting the requirements of the County Health Department, would be installed on each lot to provide sewage disposal_ [Staff Report, pages 7 and 10; see also Finding #41] 26_ Roadside landscape buffers, as required by BIMC Chapter 18.85, would be provided along both Springridge and Hansen Roads to preserve native vegetation and significant trees. Consistent with B1MC 17.04.080.A_4.b.iv (regarding roadside buffers on property with multiple street frontages), a 50 -ft. wide buffer would be provided along Springridge Road and Hansen Road would have a 25 -ft. wide buffer (see Condition 29). The subdivision would also provide and maintain the landscape perimeter buffer required by BIMC 17.04.080.A.4.d for subdivisions using the cluster option (see Condition 30). (Testimony ofMachen; Testimony of N. Francis] 27. A landscape planting plan consistent with the requirements of BIMC Chapter 18.85 would be required (see Condition 31). A 3 -yr. maintenance assurance would also be provided to ensure health and/or replacement of landscape plantings (see Condition 32). 28. The subdivision would have underground utilities [Staff Report, pages 7 and 11] PCD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Environmental Review 29. PCD conducted environmental review on the proposed subdivision (the application included an Environmental Checklist, see Exhibit 16). On October 6, 2004, the Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) [Exhibit 60J. The NIDNS was not appealed [Staff Report, page 1, Exhibit 63]. 30, The Staff Report regarding the subdivision application was issued on October 19, 2004. The Director recommended that the subdivision be approved with conditions. These conditions, from the Staff Report [pages 2 through 6, Exhibit 631 are the recommended Conditions included as an Appendix at the end of this Recommendation. 31. Conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 would control clearing and grading activities in order to mitigate impacts to earth, stream water quality, and air quality. Condition 5 would require temporary control measures (e.g., silt fences, hay bales, etc.) during the plat utility construction phase to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts. Conditions 9, 10, and 11 would limit and/or control construction activities to reduce or avoid impacts near the stream, on steep slopes, and in buffers. Conditions 13, 14, 15 would limit and/or regulated the removal of trees and preserve trees. Condition 25 would ensure that the locations of regulatory signs and mailboxes be shown on construction drawings as required by BB4C 17.04.080. 32. All the Recommended Conditions in the Appendix should be included in subdivision approval to provide necessary and appropriate mitigation and regulation as follows: SLIBI2730 Page 6 of 27 a. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with construction as related to erosion/sedimentation, runoff, air quality, slope/soil stability, noise, archaeological artifacts (Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20). b. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with long-term residential use of the site as related to stormwater control, runoff/stream protection, preservation of native vegetation and significant trees, light and glare (Conditions 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19). c. Adequate vehicular and pedestrian access (Conditions 24, 25, 21, 22, 26); appropriate utility infrastructure and improvements (Condition 23, 28); affordable housing (Condition 18); preservation and maintenance of landscape buffers (Conditions 29, 30, 31, 32); compliance with zoning requirements and conditions of subdivision approval (Conditions 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). 33. Because of the presence of steep slopes, PCD required that the applicant provide a geotechnical report. This Geologic Slope Reconnaissance, prepared by Aspect Consulting, determined that `the subdivision is feasible from a geotechnical perspective", that "the slopes do not fall under the BIMC Critical Areas Designation", and the soils types (Harstene gravelly sandy loam) present slight and moderate erosion hazard. Except for minor soil creep on the steeper portions of the ravine, no evidence of instability was observed that would affect development of the site; the proposed homesites could be utilized without encroaching on the steep slopes. [Exhibit 15, pages 3-4]. Based upon the geotechnical report, PCD concluded that the slopes are stable and do not fall within the definition of "geologically hazardous areas". [Staff Report page 7, 8 and 9, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen]. 34. A licensed geotechnical engineer has reviewed and certified the plans and proposed building envelopes [Exhibit 641. Zoning and Land Use 35. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the density provisions of BIMC 18.33.040. The subject property is 9.21 acres (401,205 square feet). BIMC 18.33.040 allows for one unit for each acre of land and an increase of one additional lot may be achieved by calculating at one unit/40,000 sq. ft. Based on the flexible lot design Process,, this allows a base of 10 lots (Le_, 401,205 divided by 40,000 = 10). [staff Report, page 10, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen]. 36. The subdivision would be required to provide one lot as "affordable housing". The Affordable Housing Ordinance (BIMC Chapter 18.90) requires that at least 10°Jo of the base density of 10 lots (i.e_, one lot) be provided as affordable housing ".-.for households whose incomes are at or below moderate -incomes " In addition to this requirement, BIMC 18.90.030.B also allows that one market rate unit may be added for each affordable unit made available [Finding #671. Utilizing this provision, the SUB 12730 Page 7 of 27 subdivision reaches the Il lots proposed: 10 market rate lots + 1 affordable lot. "Affordable" requires that the lot be sold to a qualified buyer and meet the administrative procedures and other requirements of the affordable housing ordinance. [Staff Report, pages 10 and 14, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen] 37. PCD determined (Staff Report, page 9, Exhibit 631 that the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the property's OSR-1 Comprehensive Plan designation for the following reasons: the subdivision has been designed to reflect the community character, while preserving trees along Springridge Road and Hansen Road (Conditions 22, 29, 30, 31, 32); the lots are clustered consistent with the flexible lot design subdivision regulations; the stream and critical areas are being protected through setbacks and buffers (Conditions 10, 11, 12, 13); and, the applicant has agreed to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path in accord with the non -motorized transportation plan (Condition 22). Public Comment 38. During its review, PCD received a number of comments and questions about this application. The written submittals are part of the record in this matter and each comment has been given an exhibit number. These public comments are identified and summarized below. Where PCD prepared a specific response to a comment, that response is also identified by exhibit number and summarized. Name Exhibit Comment/Ouestion • Randy Rotter 49&57 Isn't the maximum density one lot per 2.5 acres? PCD Response 54 Zoning is R -I (1/acre or 1/40,000 sq. ft.); enough for 10 lots here; I more lot allowed for affordable housing. • 'Vince Mattson 50 Only 10 lots should be permitted because not all lots have 40,000 sq. ft. minimum req'd. by BIMC 18.33.040. ■ Daniel Miller 51 Object to impacts: increase traffic in the Fletcher Bay area; increased density; loss of privacy and green/open spaces. PCD Response 55 Comments about traffic being forwarded to Public Works for review and response; environmental concerns to be part of critical area and SEPA review. ■ Erica. SessIe 53 Adjacent property owner concerned that new road will have negative effects due to increased erosion; also safety hazard created by having a road adjacent to their backyard. Suggests moving entrance road to SW of ravine with access to/from Hansen Rd. ■ Josh Marx 56 Zoning is only for 1 per acre, how can 11 be allowed? Applicant should be required to address impacts: need to protect trees, require at least 25 ft. buffer (not like Ravenswood where all trees in the middle were cut); erosion needs to be controlled, seasonal stream feeds salmon stream; addT vehicle trips (and construction S[1BI2730 Page 8 of 27 traffic) will worsen the traffic situation on Springridge (high speed travel, narrow road). PCD Response 56 Acknowledges comment and concerns; noted that comment would be included in the packet of materials being reviewed in subdivision process, and invited Marx to come to City Hall to go over the file and/or to call and discuss. Douglas Jonas 59 Dismayed by urban sprawl and loss of rival character of Janette Jonas area; Comp Plan needs to be revisited; collective negative impact on neighborhood character, streams, wildlife; need EIS and open space acquisition program; should not allow extra lot as existing house already "affordable"; allow 9 one -acre lots (or 10, if one lot is developed as affordable). Director's Recommendation 39. The Director correctly concluded that, as conditioned, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable sections of the Bainbridge Municipal Code, including: 16.20 (Critical Areas Ordinance), 17.04 (Subdivisions Ordinance), 18.33 (R-1 Zoning Ordinance), and 18.90 (Affordable Housing Ordinance). The Director recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision [Staff Report, pages 2 and 14, Exhibit 63] subject to numerous conditions [see Appendix]. (The Recommendation section of the Staff Report, page 2 of Exhibit 63, mentions a reasonable use exception. This reference appears to be a scrivener's error as no RUE analysis was included in the report or discussed at hearing and there is no application or payment of fees for consideration of a reasonable use exception.) CONWE-NrS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES 40. During its review of the application, PCD requested that City departments and other concerned agencies review the subdivision proposal and provide comment. The comments received by PCD are summarized below. Each comment has been assigned the exhibit number noted, and all the comments are included in the record regarding this application. D_ eTt/Agency Exhibit Comment City 30 & 37 Plans show compliance with fire flow requirements using Fire Dept. City water; new water line must have City approval; must must have hydrant at Springridge intersection and another 500 -ft. from the intersection. City 29,38 Water Service_ Subject property can be served with City Public & 40 water (it is within City's current water service boundary); Works applicant will have to extend an 8 in. water main along Springridge Road to the property; plans for water service require approval by City Engineer; utility easement is required. [See also Exhibit 35.1 SUB12730 Page 9 of 27 ■ Health Dept. 33, 41 Granted preliminary approval for on-site sewage (based Kitsap Co. & 46 on the Cleaver Construction soils evaluations [Exhibit 17]); final approval for water supply requires the decommissioning of the existing well and completion of water main extension. ■ Kitsap Co. 44 Closest bus stop is 0.8 mi. away and distance of 0.25 mi. Transit considered "served by transit"; subdivision not considered to be served by transit ■ WA Fish & 31 & 48 Property includes Type V stream so Hydraulic Project Wildlife Approval will be required for culvert/bridge for the new access road [see Findings #22 and 50]. ■ WA Dept. 47 Forest Practices Permit will be required for timber Natural cutting [see Finding #51]; eagle nest "in proximity" may Resources (DNR) need Eagle Management Plan [see Finding #52]. Water Service and Sewage Disposal 41. The subdivision would have adequate provision for sewage disposal and water supply. The Kitsap County Health District [Exhibit 41; also see Exhibits 17, 33, and 341 conducted a review of the suitability of soils for on-site septic systems and found them to be adequate (i.e., "on-site sewage disposal will be supported'). The Health District also found adequate provision for drinking water with the decommissioning of the existing well and the extension of the water main. [Exhibits 41 and 46]. 42. The anticipated fire flow would be adequate. The Fire Marshall reviewed the subdivision application and found it in compliance with water line and hydrant requirements and noted that the new road must be constructed in accord with Public Works standards. [Exhibits 30 and 37] 43. The City's Public Works Department reviewed the plans and analyses for water and fire flow and road design and required no changes. [Exhibit 35] Stormwater/Draina e 44. Adequate stormwater facilities would be provided as final design for these facilities [see engineer's report, Exhibit 28; site utility plan, Exhibit 7] must be approved by the Public Works Department. [Testimony of Machen; see also Finding #21] Roads and Traffic 45. The impacts of traffic associated with future development of the subdivision are acceptable and would not unduly burden the public road system. The Public Works Department provided information about likely traffic impacts anticipated to result from SUB12730 Page 10 of 27 development of this subdivision [Testimony of Hathaway]. In his memo dated October 29, 2004 [Exhibit 66], the Assistant City Engineer noted the following. • The traffic volume anticipated with development would be 96 average daily trips (ADT)_ • Almost all the traffic to and from the subject property would pass through the intersection of Fletcher Bay, New Brooklyn, and Miller Roads. • The estimated current level of service (LOS) at this intersection is LOS "B" and the acceptable LOS at the intersection is "D". • The 2004 volumes around that intersection were as follows: 2123 ADT on Fletcher Bay west of that intersection 6674 ADT on Miller north of that intersection 3137 ADT on the west side on New Brooklyn 5267 ADT on the south side of the intersection • The addition of traffic associated with development of this proposed subdivision would not lower the LOS at the intersection below `B". • The trips associated with the proposed subdivision would represent a 14% increase in the 2004 volumes on Springridge Road. This increase may be noticeable to the average citizen, but would not decrease the LOS for Springridge or Hansen Roads below their acceptable LOS "C". (There is "... no concern that this development will exceed LOS thresholds" on these roads.) 46. The Public Works Department issued a Certificate of Concurrency on October 12, 2004, approving the subdivision with 100 ADT [Exhibit 61]. This certification represents the City Engineer's determination that traffic associated with the proposal can be accommodated by existing facilities; the subdivision would not cause undue burden on existing transportation facilities. 47. The separation between the proposed entrance/access road and the existing entrance to the Ravenswood subdivision (adjacent to the north) is greater than the separation required. The Department of Public Works reports that a 75 -ft, minimum separation is required between the two access points and a separation of approximately 200 -ft. would be provided. Creating the prism for the required sight distance would necessitate some clearing to widen the Natasha Lane access point at Springridge Road. This would include the removal of some trees, but no major grading would be necessary. [Exhibit 35; Testimony ofMachen; Testimony of T. Francis) 48. The closest bus stop is 0.8 mi. away at New Brooklyn/Miler/Fletcher Bay. At this distance, Kitsap County Transit does not consider the subject site (or any location more 1/4 mil ,?way from a bus stop) to be "served" by transit. It is not known when or if public trano "ice could be provided closer to the subject site. [Exhibit 441 49.applicant would provide a bus shelter for children waiting for the school bus. Conditi '; • ,, requires that the applicant consult with the school district to deternune the SUB 12730 Page 11 of 27 appropriate location and to construct the shelter. [Staff Report, pages 5 and 11, Exhibit 63] Other Agency Concerns 50. The Department of Fish and Wildlife comment about the need for a Hydraulic Project Approval for the proposed stream crossing is addressed by Condition 10. Condition 10 would require that approval for the hydraulics permit be obtained before the issuance of a plat utility permit by the City. 51. DNR's concern about the need for a Forest Practices Permit is addressed in Condition 15, Condition 15 would require that any nonexempt tree harvesting must have a Forest Practices Permit. 52. In response to the comment by DNR [Exhibit 47] that there may be an eagle nest in close enough proximity to require preparation of an Eagle Management Plan, PCD reviewed the situation and prepared a memo [Exhibit 67] to address that concern. As noted in Exhibit 67, two concentric circles are mapped around eagle nest locations to guide planners in determining when an Eagle Management Plan is required. Any site within the inner circle (with an 800 -ft. radius) requires an Eagle Management Plan, as do shoreline sites within the larger circle (with a 2,640 -ft. radius). The subject property is well beyond the 800 ft. inner circle and, although most of the subject property is within the outer circle, because the site is not in the shoreline, an Eagle Management Plan is not required. 53. The Suquamish Tribe commented [Exhibit 521 that the proposed density "appears—to ... violate the State Growth Management Act." That is, based upon their reading of the Growth Management Hearings Board decision in Bremerton v Kasap County, "plans and zoning designations that permit 1+ acre lots do not comply with the Growth Management Act..." PU13LIC HEARING 54. The public hearing on this subdivision was held on October 28, 2004, after notice was properly mailed, posted, and published [Exhibit 62]. 55. During the public hearing, the Department's representative testified regarding the Staff Report and the Director's recommendation [Testimony of Machen; Exhibit 631, the Assistant City Engineer provided information about traffic conditions [Testimony of Hathaway], and the applicants' representatives contributed information about the subdivision proposal and the subject property [Testimony of N. Francis and T. Francis]. 56. The comments of those members of the public who gave testimony about the proposed subdivision at the hearing, are summarized below: ■ Corey Duefield: The size of lots and the number of units don't add up; proposal is inconsistent with zoning; concerned about increased run off/drainage and negative effects on wildlife; entrancetroad location should be moved to southwest to avoid SUB12730 Page 12 of 27 impact to his adjacent property (safety issue due to road next to backyard) and erosion where cut will need to made for new road; questioned how these home sites are considered "clustered". Erica Sessle: Zoning is 1 lot per acre, but this would be 11 lots; each lot supposed to have 40,000 sq. ft. minimum, but here only one lot meets that minimum (i.e., 10 of the lots do not meet the required minimum lot size); transit is not available; traffic volume will be a problem and study didn't include Ravenswood traffic; there will be problems with erosion (need specific erosion control measures) and loss of large trees at the location of the entrance; with trees removed increases potential for wind damage. ■ June Arnold: Concerned about the location/safety of the entrance/road (so close to Ravenswood); the removal of trees will infringe on buffer; possible wind damage; number of units inconsistent with zoning_ Loki Miller: Concerned about increased traffic causing safety problems for pedestrians in the area, including along Springridge and especially along Foster Road. ■ Michael Bell: Proposed Lots 2 and 3 would be adjacent to his property in the Ravenswood subdivision; concerned about loss of trees and increased erosion and runoff, entrance should be off Hansen road, not Springridge because current traffic exceeds speed limit making location of new road's access to Springridge a safety issue_ MUNICIPAL CODE 57. The "Definitions" section [BIMC 17.04.0401 of the Subdivision chapter include the following definitions of interest in reviewing this application: "Cluster development " means a group of adjoining homesite areas situated in a suitable area of a property, designed in such a manner that facilitates the efficient use of land by reducing disturbed areas, impervious surfaces, utility extensions and roadways, while providing for the protection of priority open space features. "Flexible lot design" means a design process which permits flexibility in lot development and encourages a more creative approach than traditional lot -by - lot subdivision. The flexible lot design process includes lot design standards, guidance on the placement of buildings, use of open spaces and circulation which best addresses site characteristics. This design process permits clustering of lots, with a variety of lot sizes, to provide open space, maintain island character and protect the Island's natural systems. The criteria for the layout and design of lots, including a minimum percentage of open space and a minimum lot size are described in Chapters 17.04 and 17.12 BIMC. SUB12730 Page 13 of 27 "Homesite area" means the area ofa lot depicted on the face of a plat that is intended for development of a residential dwelling and/or accessory dwelling unit. "Landscape perimeter" means a landscape buffer located along a subdivision boundary. The landscape perimeter may contain established native vegetation or additional landscaping. "Open space" means any area of land which is predominately undeveloped and which provides physical and/or visual relief from the developed environment... Open space may consist of undeveloped areas, such as pastures and farmlands, woodlands, greenbelts, critical areas, pedestrian corridors and other natural areas... Open space excludes tidelands, areas occupied by buildings, and any other developed areas such as driveways, all rights-of-way and any other impervious surfaces not incidental to open space purposes... "Preliminary plat" means a drawing ofa proposed subdivision, which shows the general layout of lots, tracts, streets, and other information required by this chapter, resolutions, ordinances or administrative rules of the department.. the basis for approval or disapproval of the general layout ofa subdivision. Subdivision Review Process and Purpose 58. BIMC 2.16.025.B.2 classifies action on a subdivision application as a quasi- judicial land use decision. BIMC 17.04.093 further provides that subdivisions are to be reviewed by the City Council in accordance with the decision procedures of BIMC Chapter 2.16 and the decision criteria of BIMC 17.04.094. 59. BIMC 2.16.110_C.2 directs the hearing examiner to make a recommendation to the city council prior to the final decision on a subdivision application. The Hearing Examiner is to hold a public hearing; transmit the recommendation to the City Council in a consoldiated report that includes SEPA mitigation measures [BIMC 2.16. 1 10.C]. 60. The express "Purpose " of the subdivision chapter [BIMC 17.04.020] includes the following: ... to regulate the subdivision of land to promote the public health, safety and general welfare... To carry out this purpose and further the comprehensive plan policies addressing residential subdivision of land___ this chapter establishes a flexible lot process that promotes the preservation of open space, consolidation of open space, and clustering of development within residential subdivisions. This process... limits the development impact area, minimizes impervious surface area and provides for greater flexibility in the division and establishment of residential lots. Flex Lot and Cluster Provisions 61. Subdivisions established pursuant to the flexible lot design process are subject to the development standards ofBIMC 17.04.080.A., including the following: SUB 12730 Page 14 of 27 L Density. a. The number of residential lots created in a subdivision shall not exceed the densityprovisions of BPKC Titlel8; 2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements b. Twelve thousand five hundred square feet or as specified by the health district ifseptic drainfield is located within the lot... 4. Landscape Buffers a. ... The purpose and intent of landscape buffers are to enhance and retain the character of the Island by maintaining native vegetation along roadways... providing visual relief along public roads and between subdivisions and other existing development... b. .-R-1—where established vegetation of a forested nature is located adjacent to public roads... a 50 foot wide vegetative buffer shall be maintained. *s* ii. ... To accommodate an existing house that is located within 50 feet of the property line adjacent to a collector or arterial road... the existing landscaping may serve as the roadside buffer. iv. ... For properties that abut more than two streets requiring roadside buffers... one roadside buffer of the full required width shall be required and all other roadside buffers may be reduced to 25 feet; provided, that the full required width buffer is located where a greater number of significant trees can be incorporated into the buffer. d ... When the cluster development option is selected pursuant to BEdC 17.04.080.A.5, the following applies: L In --- R-1--- a 25 foot wide landscape perimeter shall be required along the subdivision boundary._. s** e. Allowed Landscape Buffer Activities: i. Potable water wells and well houses; ii. On-site storm water infiltration systems... iii. Ingress and egress, where the access runs approximately perpendicular to the landscape perimeter; iv. Underground utilities.__ provided, that disturbance is minimized and the buffer is revegetated after construction; V. Nonmotorized trails; and vt. Planting of vegetation. f Landscape Buffer Requirements. i. ...filtered screen landscaping... shall be required within... landscape perimeter buffers where established vegetation cannot provide such screening. ii. All native shrubs and significant trees shall be retained... except that limited removal may be allowed for permitted activities located within the buffer area. 62. The standards for flexible lot development are provided in BIMC 17.04.080.A.5. The portion of that section that addresses "chrster development " directs that the SUB 12730 Page 15 of 27 clustering of development "may be selected as an optional standard" and if the clustering option is selected, the open space standards of BIMC 17.04.082 do not apply (but the objectives of BIMC 17.04.082.A through C should be met) and cluster development is to meet the following: a. Homesite Area. i. In... R-1... a homesite area with a maximum area of 10, 000 square feet shall be provided for each lot... iii. The purpose of the homesite area is to define the maximum disturbance area for development of the primary residential dwelling, garages and accessory dwelling unit for each lot.... iv. Other allowed uses and structures may be located within the lot and outside the homesite area.... b. Homesite Clustering. i. The purpose of clustering is to facilitate the efficient use of land by reducing disturbed areas, impervious surfaces, utility extensions and roadways... while providing for the protection of priority open space features... ii. Homesites shall be located in cluster groupings and the efficient location of infrastructure shall be used to maximize the undeveloped area in a flexible lot design subdivision. iii.... home -sites offour or more shall constitute a cluster grouping. iv. ... all homesites in a cluster grouping shall adjoin or be located a maximum of 25 feet apart from another homesite... Subdivision Approval Criteria 63. The criteria for preliminary subdivision approval, found at BIMC 17.04.094, require that: A. The subdivision maybe approved or approved with modification if. 1. The applicable subdivision development standards of BIMC 17.04.080, 17.04.082, and/or 1704.085 are satisfied; 2. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health safety and general and public use and interest, including those items listed in RCW 58.17.110; 3. The preliminary residential subdtvtsion has been prepared consistent with the requirements ofthe flexible lot design process; 4. Any portion of a subdivision that contains a critical area, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; 5. The city engineer determines that the preliminary subdivision meets the following: a. The subdivision conforms to regulations concerning drainage (Chapter 15.20 BAfQ. b. The subdivision 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. SUB12730 Page 16 of 27 a The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties. d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic e. The subdivision conforms to the requirements of this chapter and the standards in the "City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, - except as otherwise authorized by in MUC 17.04.080.0.3; 6. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this code, Chapters 58.17 and 36.70A RCW, and all other applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations; and 7 The proposal is in accord with the city's comprehensive plan. B. A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless written findings are made that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision. Density, Calculation and Affordable Housing 64. BIMC 18.33.010 states that the purpose of the R-1 zone is to: ... provide residential neighborhoods in a rural environment consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation of natural systems and open space. The low density of housing does not require the full range of urban services and facilities. 65. BIMC Chapter 28.33 provides development standards for the R-1 zone, including the following: 18.33.040 Lot area and density. A. The density shall be one unit for each acre ofland. B. The minimum lot area shall be 40, 000 squarefeet. C When a short plat or subdivision of land is proposed where all proposed lots meet the minimum lot area in subsection B of this section but do not meet the density requirement in subsection A of this section, the short plat or subdivision may be approved containing no more than one more lot than would be allowed by the underlying density,- provided that all lots meet the minimum lot area. 18.33.050 Lot coverage. The maximum lot area covered by buildings shall not exceed 15 percent. 1933.060 Setback& A. Front setbacks, rear setbacks and side setbacks facing streets shall be not less than 25 feet, measured by the distance from the nearest tot line, planned rights-of-way or road easements. B. Side setbacks shall not be less than 25 feet in total sum with no side setback less than 10 feet. C. Rear setbacks shall be 15 feet. *w* SUB12730 Page 17 of 27 66. The provision in BIMC 18.33 for flexible lot design standards, at BIMC 18.33.085, is important to the density calculation made for this subdivision. That is, this part of the Code directs that a number of the single family development standards do not apply to subdivisions established via the flexible lot design process. As indicated in the BIMC 18.33.085 list of standards that do not apply (emphasis added), the minimum lot area standard of BIMC 18.3 3.040 does not apply [see Finding #35]. 18.33.085 FlexZk lot design standards The following bulk and dimensional standards shall not apply to those lots which have been established pursuant to the requirements of the flexible lot design process by short subdivision subdivision, large lot subdivision, or as planned unit development. A. Minimum lot area; B. Setbacks; C. Minimum lot dimensions. 67. BIMC 18.90.030 directs that affordable housing requirements apply to all land use applications and includes the following provision (emphasis added): Developments of Eight or More Dwelling Units or Residential Building Lots. AM land use application to construct eight or more, but fewer than 50, dwelling units or residential building lots... must provide at least 10 percent of the number of market rate dwelling units constructed pursuant to the application as .grdable housing for households whose incomes are at or below moderate - income. The densitygmay be increased by one market rate bonus unit for each affordable unit provided REQUIRED FINDINGS Flex Lot Standards: BIMC 17.04.080 68, The Flexible Lot Standards of BIMC I7.04.080 are satisfied by this subdivision, as detailed below with reference to the Finding(s) supporting that determination. (Standards that are not applicable are marked "N/A".) Code Section Finding 17.04.080A. Flexible Lot Standards 1. Density. a. Density provisions of Title 18 are not exceeded; lot area 10, 35, 36, minimums of R-1 in BIMC 18.33 are not applicable. 65,66 b. N/A c. N/A 2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements. a. N/A (not public sewer system) b. All lots meet or exceed the 12,500 sq. ft.minimum for 17 lots with on-site septic systems. 3. Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements. a. All lots are at least 50 -ft. wide. 11 SUB12730 Page 18 of 27 b. rots are appropriate size, shape and orientation. 10,16 c. Mnimum setbacks provided (10 -ft. between buildings; 11 15 -ft. building to property line; 50 -ft. to collector street; d. Lots don't exceed lot coverage maximum for property. 11 4. Landscape Buffers. a. Roadside buffers would fufill purpose of maintaining and 26 enhancing native vegetation and providing visual relief. b. Roadside buffer of 50 -ft. provided along collector with 26 established forested vegetation and 25 -ft. buffer provided on other collector. c. NIA (not adjacent to park or dedicated conservation lands) d. The 25 -ft. wide perimeter buffers provided on south, west, 26 and north sides of property meet the 25 -ft. wide minimum landscape perimeter buffer requirement; 50 -ft. roadside buffer on the east side exceeds the mimimum requirement. e. Only allowed activities (ingress/egressunderground utilities 26 trail for nonmotorized transportation, and planting) would occur in buffer. f. & g. The landscape perimeter buffers would provide a 25-f3. 26 filtered screen; the roadside buffers would provide the 50 -ft. established vegetation and the 25 -ft. full -screen requirements. 5. Cluster Development Option. a. Homesite Area: Ail consistent with 10,000 sq. fi. maximum. 17 b. Homesite Clustering: Homesites clustered; each within 12-16 25 ft. of adjoining homesite; maximizes undeveloped area; protects seasonal stream and preserves trees; avoids steep slopes. 17.04.080.B. Landscaping Standards. Landscaping (perimeter and other buffers) would be consistent with A.4_ above. 17.04.080.C. Roads and Pedestrium Access Performance Standards. 1. Existing roadside character would be maintained by providing 26 roadside buffers. 2. Design for new access road would be consistent with the City's 18 standards. 3. N/A (no variation sought) 4. Street name noted on plat map; Condition 25 would ensure 18,31 that regulatory signs and mailoxes also get noted. 5. NIA (no transit stop recommended by Kitsap Transit) 6. Pedestrian and bicycle access (trail/path along Springridge 19,20 and pedestrian path between Lots 7 and 8 to Hansen Rd.) would be provided consistent with nonmotorized transportation pian. SUB12730 Page 19 of 27 Subdivision Decision Criteria: BIMC 17.04.094 69. BIMC 17.04.094 sets forth the decision criteria for approval of a subdivision application [see Finding 463]. This application meets the all decision criteria as noted below. 74. BIMC17.04.094.A.1 requires that applicable subdivision development standards be satisfied. Here, the applicable development standards are the Flexible Lot Standards of BIMC 17.04.080.A, including those of BIMC 17.04.080.A.5., the Cluster Development Option [Staff Report, pages 10-12, Exhibit 63]. As noted in Finding #68, all those standards are met [see also Findings #10-17, 26, 35, 36, 65, and 66]. (Because the the cluster option is utilized, the development standards for minimum lot area, setbacks, and minimum lot dimensions for the R-1 zone are not applicable [see Finding #66]). 71. Consistent with BIMC 17.04.094.A.2, the proposed subdivision, as conditioned, would make appropriate provisions for the public health and safety by providing all necessary and appropriate utilities, improvements, and dedications. [Staff Report, page 12, Exhibit 63; Findings #18-25, and 441. 72. In satisfacion of BIMC 17.04.094.A.3, the subdivision has been prepared consistent with flexible lot design process as detailed in Finding #68. 73. The subdivision, as conditioned, would be consistent with the requirement of BIMC 17.04.094.A.4 that it conform to the Critical Areas Ordinance (BIMC Chapter 16.20). The seasonal stream would be protected by: its inclusion in the tree retention area [Findings #13-15]; stormwater/drainage controls (Findings #21 and 41]; and, construction mitigation measures [Findings #22 and 31 ]. Although the areas of steep slope have been determined not to be geologically hazardous, homesites and street improvements would be located away or set back from them [Finding #12, 14, 33, and 34]. 74. BIMC 17.04.094.A.5 requires that the city engineer determine that a subdivision conforms to the applicable regulations and standards pertaining to drainage [Findings 421, 23, and 441, water quality [Finding 24], streets and pedestrian ways [Findings #18, 19, 46, and 47], and roadway design [Finding #18].-. This requirement is met as the Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary subdivision submittals and recommends approval. The Public Works Department has final approval authority for the construction and installation of those improvements. 75. As required by BIMC 17.04.094.A.6, this subdivision complies with ap applicable provisions of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, RCW 36.70 (Health and Safety issues regarding water and public health), RCW 58.17 (State subdivision statute), and other applicable state and federal regulations. [Staff Report, pages 12-13, Exhibit 63]. 76. Consistent with the requirement of BIMC 17.04.094.A.7, the proposed subdivision is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan [Staff Report, pages 9 and 11-13, Exhibit 631. Consistent with its OSR 1 (Open Space Residential - one unit per acre) SUB12730 Page 20 of 27 designation, the subdivision is designed to reflect neighborhood character by preserving trees along Springridge Road [Finding #26], including one lot for affordable housing [Finding 9361, and clustering development within the interior of the property in accord with flexible lot design regulations [Findings #35 and 391. 77. Consistent with the requirement of BIMC I7.04.094.13, the public use and interest would be served by the provision of all necessary and appropriate utilities and public improvements [Finding #47, roads; Finding #19 and 20, pedestrian paths; Finding #23, stormwater facilities; Findings #24 and 41, domestic water, Findings #42 and 43, fire flow; Finding #41, sewage disposal]. Also in the public use and interest would be providing landscape buffers and a large area of tree retention [Findings 913 and 26], by providing protections for the stream [Findings #14, 15, 22, and 231, by providing ten lots for new residential use, and including one lot for affordable housing [Findings #35 and 361. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction in this matter is from BIMC 2.16A 10,C.2, which directs that the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council on subdivision applications. 2. All requirements for notice and opportunity to comment have been met. This matter will be properly before the City Council consistent with the provisions of BIMC 17.04.095 that govern Council's consideration of preliminary subdivisions. DENSITY CALCULATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3_ The eleven lots proposed are permitted. The calculation made by PCD [Finding 35] is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the applicable Code sections [BIMC 18.33.010, 18.33.040 and 18.33.0661. Considerable public comment was generated by persons surprised and troubled that a 9.21 acre parcel, zoned for one unit per acre, could legitimately yield 11 lots. The confusion is understandable, but the "math" done by PCD is correct. The R-1 one ac rd40,000 sq, ft. minimum lot size is not applicable when using the cluster option. The cluster option is unlike the traditional "cookie -cutter" approach that divides up the land into an allowable number of rectangles arranged on grid -pattern streets in disregard of topography, natural features, and neighborhood character. The cluster option of the flex lot ordinance permits flexibility in the number and arrangement of lots in order to get a design that, in this instance, clusters homesites so as to provide: a large tree retention area, avoidance of construction on steep slopes, protection for significant trees, maintenance of a forested perimeter to screen the development from the road, and protection for the stream. This appears to be wholly consistent with the purpose of the City's subdivision regulations [BIMC 17.04.020, see Finding #60] and with the purpose of the R -I zone [BEMC 18.33.010, see Finding #64]. 4. The inclusion of one lot of "affordable housing" also concerned some who questioned whether this provision would yield an actual and/or long-term housing opportunity for a household with an income at or below the moderate level. The SUBI2730 Page 21 of 27 questions are rational, but this subdivision meets the requirement of BIMC 18.90 by providing one lot as affordable. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION S_ A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was properly issued by PCD. That MDNS was not appealed, however, the imposition of the recommended conditions is essential to providing the necessary and expected mitigation of likely impacts. 6. The information and analysis provided by PCD and the Public Works Department indicates that although local traffic would be increased, the impact (while noticeable to the neighborhood) would not be significant and mitigation is not warranted. The new access point at Springridge Road would be designed to have proper sight distance and would have more than the require distance separating it from the Ravenswood access point. The location proposed for the new road would not present any peculiar safety hazard (including attracting local children to play in it) and there are not persuasive grounds for requiring a different access. 7. As noted in the PCD Staff Report [Exhibit 63, pages 8-9], the development of the subdivision would mean the loss of many trees and change in the character and functions of the site. However, more than the required 30% of the existing tree canopy would be retained and, due to clustering and the ample landscape roadside buffers, views of most of the tree loss (and the new residences) should not be noticeable from the perimeter roads. 8. The proposed path/trail through the landscape buffer would provide for safer pedestrian and bicycle travel along Springridge Road in this location. The pedestrian path and bus shelter for school children would also be a positive contribution to pedestrian safety_ 9. The tree protection area would provide substantial long-term protection for the seasonal stream and for many significant trees. The detention and infiltration systems proposed for the stoxrnwater drainage facilities would guard against increased and/or polluted runoff reaching the stream. 10. PCD has provided a lengthy and comprehensive list (see Finding #30) of recommended conditions appropriate to properly mitigate the likely construction -related impacts and long-term impacts of development of this subdivision. The Hearing Examiner recommends some minor modifications to these conditions (modifications shown with underlining). SUBDIVISION DECISION CRITERIA 11. The subdivision may be approved as it complies with the flexible lot standards of BIMC 17.04.080. [Finding #68] SUB12730 Page 22 of 27 12. The subdivision may be approved as it meets all the preliminary subdivision decision criteria of BIMC 17,04.094.A.. [Findings #69-77) 13. The subdivision may be approved as there is a written finding [Finding #77], as required by BIMC 17.04.094.B, that the public use and interest would be served by approval of this subdivision_ Recommendation The Hearing Examiner REcoNDIZFms that the application of Ted Francis for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision known as Hansen Hill, be APPRovED wrrn TIS REcommENDED cormmoNs that comprise the Appendix which follows on pages 24-27, 1 Entered this a day of December, 2004. Meredith A. Getches City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner pro tem Concerning Further Review The City Council makes the City's final decisions on preliminary subdivision applications. City Council decision procedures are hound at BIMC 2.16.110. SUB12730 Page 23 of 27 APPENDIX Hansen Hill Subdivision ISUB129301 RECOM .NDED CONDITIONS SEPA Conditions: 1. The following note shall be placed on the final plat: Prior to any clearing, or grading on individual lots, a clearing, grading, or building permit shall be obtained from the City. 2. No clearing or grading for roads, drainage facilities, trails or other subdivision improvements shall occur until a plat utilities permit has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the City. 3. All graded materials removed from the subdivision shall be hauled to and deposited at City approved locations (Note: local regulations require that a gradelfill permit is obtained for any grading or filling of 50 cubic yards of material or more, and a SEPA Threshold Determination is required for any fill over 100 cubic yards). 4. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. (Section 16.08.040, BIMC) 5. Public Works f nds that the proposed activity is likely to cause measurable degradation of surface water quality without a proper temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP). Therefore prior to any construction within this subdivision a TESCP shall be submitted and approved. by the City. Prior any construction occurring between October 1, and April 31 a TESCP specifically addressing wet weather conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer - 6. If more than five acres of the property is cleared as part of the plat utility work, then a Department of Ecology Construction Permit is required. 7. The final stormwater system design shall be in conformance with BIMC 15.20 and the items required by the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. 8. Privately held stormwater facilities require ongoing future operation and maintenance. The applicant shall name a responsible party that can appropriately maintain, repair or replace the facility as needed prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater facilities and record a Declaration of Covenant to meet the requirements of BIMC 15.21. 9. The construction staging areas shall be outside critical areas and their buffers. Construction fencing or silt fencing shall be placed adjacent to critical area buffers prior to issuance of any permit that allows clearing in the vicinity of the buffers. 10. A hydraulic Project Approval shall be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the issuance of the plat utility permit. The culvert andlor bridge shall be designed to be greater than or equal to the average channel width at the ordinary high water mark. The structure should also be able to pass the 100 -year flood event and any debris likely to be encountered within that event. SUB 12730 Page 24 of 27 11. The stream buffers shall be identified with either a two -rail fence or permanent signage at no less than 50 -foot intervals. The signs, if used, shall identify the area as a protected stream and wildlife habitat that should be protected. The fencing or signs shall be installed prior to final plat approval. 12. No fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides shall be used in the streams and/or their buffers. The use of these products elsewhere on the site is discouraged, but if necessary they shall used consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. Strategies are defined in the Puget Sound Pest Management Guidelines, A Guide for Protection of Our Water Quality [Menzies, G. and B. Peterson. Puget Sound Pest Management Guidelines A Guide for Prot Our Water Qydily. Bellingham, Washington: WSU Cooperative Extension, 1993]. 13. In order to mitigate the impact on wildlife and the stream on the property, the delineated buffer shall be preserved in native vegetation. Removal of invasive/non-native species may be permitted with a City approved replanting plan indicating the type of vegetation being removed and the type and quantity of native plants being provided. Replanting shall occur with shrubs w three-foot centers and native ground covers to provide complete coverage within three years. Hazard tree removal may be allowed with appropriate City approval (may include replanting). 14. To discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from designated protection areas without prior City approval will be subject to fines and will be replaced with new trees as follows: New trees measuring two inches in caliper if deciduous and six to eight feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one -inch diameter of the removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of replacement trees. The trees removed shall be replaced with trues of the same type, evergreen or deciduous. The replacement trees shall also replaced in the same general location as the trees removed. 15. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural resources. The conditions of the Hansen Hill Subdivision SUB 1273 0 shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit. 16. On site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the applicant provides and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location, duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2. Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 2001, see Volume IV "Source Control BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".) (Chapter 173-304 WAC) 17. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC 16.16.025 Limitation of Construction Activities. 18. Lot number 6 shall be provided for income -qualified households in accordance with the affordable housing requirements specified in BIMC Chapter 18.90. 19. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance, BIMC Chapter 15.34. 20. Contractor is required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic SUB12730 Page 25 of 27 Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction. 21. In order to provide safe pedestrian access within the subdivision, a four foot wide trail shall be developed with the 20 foot wide waterline easement between lots 7 and 8. The trail shall either be paved or developed with a pervious surface of gravel layered three inches deep or more as detailed in the Bainbridge Island Park District's Trails Master Plan. All pedestrian improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit within the plat. 22. As proposed on the site utility plan and in accordance with the City's Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, a meandering bicycle/pedestrian path shall be constructed along the Springnidge Road. The path shall be paved and a minimum of five feet wide with two foot shoulders on each side. The path should meander to avoid removal of trees. The face of the final plat shall note that the constructed bicycle path shall be maintained by the homeowners association. 23. Public and private improvements, facilities, and infrastructure, on and off the site that are required for the subdivision shall be completed, have final inspection and approval prior to final plat approval. Approval of public facilities will be shown by a formal letter of acceptance from the City Engineer. An assurance device acceptable to the City may be used (in lieu of physical completion), to secure and provide for the completion of necessary facilities which are not considered by the Engineering Department to be life, health, or safety related items. Any such assurance device shall be in place prior to final plat approval, shall enumerate in detail the items being assured, and shall require that all such items will be completed and approved by the City within one year of the date of final plat approval. While lots created by the recording of the final plat may be sold, no occupancy of any structure will be allowed until the required improvements are formally accepted by the City. Additionally, a prominent note on the face of the Final plat drawing shall state: "The lots created by this plat are subject to conditions of an assurance device held by the city for the completion of certain necessary facilities. Building permits may not be issued and/or occupancy may not be allowed until such necessary facilities are completed and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island. All purchasers shall satisfy themselves as to the status of completion of the necessary facilities." 24. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way as shown on the Plat drawing date stamped July 22, 2004. 25. Approved street names, traffic regulatory signs, and accessible mailbox locations that do not restrict pedestrian access must be shown on the construction drawings, which shall be submitted prior to final plat_ 26. The applicant shall construct a school bus shelter shall be developed along one of the adjacent rights-of-way. The applicant shall consult with the Bainbridge Island School district in determining an appropriate location for a bus shelter to serve the children of the subdivision. 27. School impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the following provisions. For each of the created lots, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of final plat approval. Subsequent to plat recordation and prior to building permit issuance, an applicant constructing a residence on any of the created SUB12730 Page 26 of 27 lots shall pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Non-SEPA Conditions 28. Prior to issuance of any building or utility permit for improvement activities, final construction plans meeting City of Bainbridge island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island Public Works Department. 29. Full screen landscape buffers, as defined in BIMC Chapter 18.85, are required along Springridge and Hansen Roads. The subdivision shall provide a 50 foot buffer along Springndge Road and a 25 foot roadside buffer along Hansen Road. Where the existing vegetation does not meet the full screen landscape requirement, planting with native vegetation is required. 30. A 25 foot filtered screen perimeter landscape buffer shall be maintained along the south and east subdivision boundary. Ifthe existing vegetation is not sufficient to meet the filtered screen landscaping requirements pursuant to BIMC 18.85.070.B.3, then the 25 -foot buffer shall be planted with native vegetation to meet the requirement. 31. A landscape planting plan in accordance with BIMC 18.85 shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to final plat submittal for all required landscaping. All planting shall be installed prior to final plat approval or an assurance device shall be provided to insure the installation. 32. A landscaping maintenance assurance shall be provided for three years to insure the health of landscape plantings. 33. All lot corners shall be staked with three-quarter inch galvanized iron pipe and locator stakes along with all other applicable survey provisions of the Appendix to BIMC T`ide17. 34. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application. 35. Setbacks lot coverage and other limitations must be shown on the final plat, specifically: • Building to Building - Minimum 10 feet separation. • Building to Subdivision Boundary - 25 feet. • Building to Internal Right -of -Way or street easement - Minimum 15 feet setback Building to Hansen Road NE — Minimum 25 feet setback Maximum Lot Coverage per lot - 5,470 square feet. • Tree Retention Area. + Stream buffer delineation. • Homesites. 35. The final plat shall be submitted in substantial compliance with preliminary plat drawings date stamped received July 22, 2004. 37. Conditions 1, 3-5, 9, 12-14, 17-20, 27, 29-31, and 33 shall be listed on the final plat mylar. ** 38. Construction netting or silt fencing shall be placed at the edge of the perimeter landscape buffers and tree retention areas prior to the issuance of any permit that allows clearing on individual lots within the subdivision. ** Condition No. 38, was added to the appendix by motion of the City Council at its regular meeting of January 26, 2005. SUB 12730 Page 27 of 27