120604 Francis (2)CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
TED FRANCIS SUB12730
for preliminary plat approval for a
subdivision known as "Hansen Hill"
Introduction
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 -1- 004 -2006) consists of 9.21 acres
located in the Fletcher Bay area, northwest of and adjacent to the intersection NE
Springridge Road and Hansen Road NE. [Exhibit 10; Staff Report, pages 1 & 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 10] and in the preliminary title report [Exhibit 14,
page 1].
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 1 & 7; Exhibit 63;
Exhibit 18]
4. The property is zoned is R -1, one unit per acre and the Comprehensive Plan
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 1; 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 ravine /drainage 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 11 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 39]. Notice of application was properly
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
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.
4/19/04
65
2 of 6
Approvals, dedications, recording certificate, treasurer'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, r.o.w. dedication
7/19/04
2
6 of 6
Tree Retention Plan: size of canopy; size & area retained
4/19/04
PROPOSAL
Proposed 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 disturbance... ". 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 30% 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 2] 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 of Machen]
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 #62], the
homesites are clustered. Each homesite is within 25 ft. of the boundary(ies) 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 22]
Lot #
Size [sq. ft.]
Homesite [sq. ft.]
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 r.o.w. 27,332
27,332
6.94% 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
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/trail 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 7] 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 28]
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 of Machen]
23. Adequate provision for stormwater drainage control would be ensured by
requiring that the final stormwater 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 7].
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
29] A water line would also be installed inside the subdivision to connect with the
extended main. The water line 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]
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 and10; 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 BIMC 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 of Machen; 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 60]. The MDNS 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 63] 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 BIMC 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:
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 64].
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 (i.e., 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% 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- income. " 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 #67]. Utilizing this provision, the
subdivision reaches the 11 lots proposed: 10 market rate lots + I 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 63] 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 /Question
■ Randy Rotter 49 & 57 Isn't the maximum density one lot per 2.5 acres?
PCD Response 54 Zoning is R -1 (I /acre or 1/40,000 sq. ft.); enough for 10
lots here; 1 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 Sessle 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
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 rural 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.)
COMMENTS 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.
Dept /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.]
• 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 34]
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 /Drainage
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
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 of Machen; Testimony of T. Francis]
48. The closest bus stop is 0.8 mi. away at New Brooklyn/Miller /Fletcher Bay. At
this distance, Kitsap County Transit does not consider the subject site (or any location
more 1/4 mile away from a bus stop) to be "served" by transit. It is not known when or if
public transit service could be provided closer to the subject site. [Exhibit 44]
49. The applicant would provide a bus shelter for children waiting for the school bus.
Condition 26 requires that the applicant consult with the school district to determine the
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 52] 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. Kitsap
County, "plans and zoning designations that permit l+ acre lots do not comply with the
Growth Management Act..."
PUBLIC 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 63], 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; entrance /road location should be moved to southwest to avoid
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 17.04.040] 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.
"Homesite area " means the area of a 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 of a 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 of a subdivision.
Subdivision Review Process and Purpose
58. BIMC 2.16.025.13.2 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 2.16.110.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 of BIMC 17.04.080.A., including the following:
1. Density.
a. The number of residential lots created in a subdivision shall not exceed the
density provisions of BIMC Titlel8;
2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements.
b. Twelve thousand five hundred square feet or as specified by the health
district if septic 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.
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 BIMC
17.04.080.A.5, the following applies:
i. In ... R -1 ... a 25 foot wide landscape perimeter shall be required along
the subdivision boundary...
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
vi. 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 "cluster development" directs that the
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.... homesites 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 may be approved or approved with modification if
L The applicable subdivision development standards of BIMC
17.04.080, 17.04.082, and /or 17.04.085 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 subdivision has been prepared
consistent with the requirements of the flexible lot design process;
4. Any portion of a subdivision that contains a critical area, as
defined in Chapter 1620 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 BIMC).
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.
c. 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 BIMC
17.04.080. C. 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 18.33 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 of land.
B. The minimum lot area shall be 40,000 square feet.
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.
18.33.060 Setbacks.
A. Front setbacks, rear setbacks and side setbacks facing streets shall be
not less than 25 feet, measured by the distance from the nearest lot 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.
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 18.33.040 does not apply [see Finding #35].
18.33.085 Flexible 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.
Any 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
affordable housing for households whose incomes are at or below moderate -
income. The density may be increased by one market rate bonus unit. or each
affordable unit provided.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Flex Lot Standards: BIMC 17.04.080
68. The Flexible Lot Standards of BIMC 17.04.080 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
17.04.080.A. Flexible Lot Standards
Density.
a. Density provisions of Title 18 are not exceeded; lot area
minimums of R -1 in BIMC 18.33 are not applicable.
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
lots with on -site septic systems.
Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements.
a. All lots are at least 50 -ft. wide.
b. Lots are appropriate size, shape and orientation.
c. Minimum setbacks provided (10 -ft. between buildings;
15 -ft. building to property line; 50 -ft. to collector street;
d. Lots don't exceed lot coverage maximum for property.
4. Landscape Buffers.
a. Roadside buffers would f ifill purpose of maintaining and
enhancing native vegetation and providing visual relief.
b. Roadside buffer of 50 -ft. provided along collector with
established forested vegetation and 25 -ft. buffer provided
on other collector.
c. N/A (not adjacent to park or dedicated conservation lands)
d. The 25 -ft. wide perimeter buffers provided on south, west,
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.
Findings
10, 35, 36,
65,66
17
11
10, 16
11
11
26
26
wow
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 -ft. 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: All consistent with 10,000 sq. ft. 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 Pedestrian 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. N/A (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 plan.
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 #63]. This application meets the all decision criteria as noted
below.
70. 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 BIMC17.04.094.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 44].
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
#21, 23, and 44], 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 all
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 63]. Consistent with its OSR -1 (Open Space Residential - one unit per acre)
designation, the subdivision is designed to reflect neighborhood character by preserving
trees along Springridge Road [Finding #26], including one lot for affordable housing
[Finding #36], and clustering development within the interior of the property in accord
with flexible lot design regulations [Findings #35 and 39].
77. Consistent with the requirement of BIMC 17.04.094.13, 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 #13 and 26], by
providing protections for the stream [Findings #14, 15, 22, and 23], by providing ten lots
for new residential use, and including one lot for affordable housing [Findings #35 and
36].
Conclusions
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction in this matter is from BIMC
2.16.110.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 18.33.066]. 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 acre /40,000 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 -1 zone [BIMC 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
questions are rational, but this subdivision meets the requirement of BIMC 18.90 by
providing one lot as affordable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5. 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 stormwater 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]
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 RECOMMENDS that the application of Ted Francis for preliminary
plat approval for the subdivision known as Hansen Hill, be APPROVED WITH THE
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS that comprise the Appendix which follows on pages 24 -27.
Entered this 6th 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 found at BIMC 2.16.110.
APPENDIX
Hansen Hill Subdivision [SUB12930]
RECOMMENDED 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 grade /fill 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)
Public Works finds 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 and/or 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.
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
Protecting Our Water Quality. 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 on 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 trees 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 12730
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
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 within 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
Springridge 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 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
Springridge 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. If the 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 Title 17.
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.
1. The final plat shall be submitted in substantial compliance with preliminary plat drawings
date stamped received July 22, 2004.
2. Conditions 1, 3 -5, 9, 12 -14, 17 -20, 27, 29 -31, and 33 shall be listed on the final plat mylar.