HANSEN HILL SUB (TED FRANCIS) CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
TED FRANCIS
for preliminary plat approval for a
subdivision known as "Hansen Hill"
SUB12730
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 heating, 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 292502-1-0(O-2006) consists of 9.21 acres
located in the Fletcher Bay area, northwest of and adjacent to the intersection NE
SUB12730
Page I of 27
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
process. (Note: Other maps and drawings that relate to future utility
installation/construction are not in this record.)
Exhibit Sheet Title/Contents
10 i of 6
65 2of6
9 3of6
3 4 of 6
5 5of6
2 6of6
Cover sheet/legal description, vicinity map, notes, sth-veyor's cert. 4/I9/04
Approvals, dedications, recording cetlifioale, trea.su~s certificate 7/19/04
Existing Conditions: slopedcontour lines, lot lines, stream centexline 4/19/04
Lot Detail: proposed lots by number with dim~msions & lot area 7/19104
Buffers: designated "homcsites", setbacks, r.o.w, dedication 7/19/04
Tr~e Retention Plan: size of canopy; size & area rOaincd 4/I9/04
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. R. to 61,686 sq. R. As noted in Findings
#35 and 66, the density and proposed lot sizes are not required to observe the one-acted
40,000 sq. fi. 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, ail lots
would be at least 50-R. wide at the minimum width and lot coverage (limited to 5,470 sq.
fi. per lot) would not exceed the maximum allowable coverage. The subdivision also has
the following setbacks that mec't Code minimums (some separations are considerably
greater than the minimums noted): 10-ff. minimum distance between buildings; 25-fc
minimum distance between buildings and subdivision boundary; 10-ft. minimum distance
between buildings and internal street right-of-way; and, 25-R minimum distance between
buildings and Hansen Road. [Staff'Report, pages 10 and 11, Exhibit 63]
12. In accordance with the cluster development option ofBIMC 17.04.080A. 5.a [see
Finding ~2], 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 marintum disturbance... '. The
homesites here, shown in Exhibit 5, would be limited to 10,000 sq. fL 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. it. The proposed Tree Retention Plan [Exhibit 2] would
retain 121,200 sq. R. (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.
[StaffReport, pages 8 and 9, Exhibit 63; Testimony of Machen]
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
replacemem 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; StaffRepo~, page 1, Exhibit 63; Application,
Exhibits 22]
Lot # Size [sq. fi.] Homesite [sq. fi.] 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 I0,000 33.45% Lot #4
5 27,890 I 0,000 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 gu)
10 36,619 9,540 26.05% Lot #10
11 6!.,686 10,000 16.21% Lot #11
Lots total 373,875 109,530 29.29°,4 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-ff 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 acc, ess 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-fi. wide turnouts every 300 feet [Staff Report, page 9,
Exhibit 63; Exhibit 28, page 2; Testimony ofMachen]. Natasha Lane would be adequate
SUB12730
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-tt. 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 buffet
(rather than being built as a straight sidewalk paralleling Springddge 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 4-11. wide path,
within the 20-ff. 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-ff 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 fxom
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 wotdd intersect Springridge Road This
construction must be done in a manner consistem with a Hydraulics Project Approval
issued by the State's Department offish and Wildlife (see Condition 10). [-Exhibit 31;
Exhibit 48; StaffReport, 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 ofEcolo~'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]
SUB12730
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 andl0; see also Finding #4t]
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
significam trees. Consistent with BIMC 17.04.080.A. 4.b. iv (regarding roadside buffers
on property with multiple street frontages), a 50-ff 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 Machcn; Testimony of N. Francis]
27. A landscape planting plan consistem with the requirements of BIMC Chapt~
18.85 would be required (see Condition 31). A 3-yr. maimenance 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 Environmemal Checklist, see Exhibit 16). On October 6, 2004,
the Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MI)NS)
[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, fi.om 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 quaIity Condition 5 would
require temporary control measures (e.g., silt fences, hay bales, etc.) during the plat
utility construction phase to mitigate erosion and sedimemafion impacts. Conditions 9,
10, and 11 would Iimit 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 pre, serve 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:
SUB12730
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 stonnwater 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 {Conditio~ 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
geoteehnical 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 flight and moderate erosion ha_ _~-_ & Except for minor soil
creep on the steeper portions of the ravine, no evidence of instability was observ~ 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 ~ncluded that the slopes are stable and do not fall within the definition of
"geologically hazardous areas". [Staff Report, page 7, 8 and 9, ExbSbit 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 unitY40,000 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 I0% 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 /367]. Utilizing this provision, the
SUBI2?30
Page 7 of 27
subdivision reaches the 11 lots proposed: 10 market rate lots + 1 affordable lot.
"Affordable" re~tuires that the lot be sold to a qualified buyer and rn~t th~ administrative
procedures and other requirements of the affordable housing ordinance. [Staff' Report,
pages 10 and 14, Exhibit 63; Testimony o£Machen]
37. PCD determined [Staff Report, page 9, Exhibit 63] that the proposed subdivision
would be consister~ with the property's OSR-I 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
Randy Rotter 49 & 57
PCD Response 54
Comment/Question
Isn't the maximum density one lot per 2.5 acres?
Zoning is R-1 (t/acre or 1/40,000 sq. fl[.); enough for 10
lots here; 1 more lot allowed for affordable housing.
· Vince Mattson 50
Only I0 lots should be permitted because not all lots
have 40,000 sq. f. minimum req'd, by BIMC 18.33.040.
· Daniel Miller 51
PCD Response 55
· Erica Sessle 53
Object to impacts: increase traffic in the Fletcher Bay
area; increased density; loss of privacy and green/open
spaces.
Comments about traffic being forwarded to Public Works
for review and response; environmental concerns to be
part of critical area and SEPA review.
Adjacent property owner concerned that new road will
have negative effects due to increased erosion; also safety
ha?~rd created by having a road adjacent to their
backyard. Suggests moving entrance road to SW of
ravine with access to/t~om 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; add'l, vehicle trips (and construction
SUB12730
Page 8 of 27
PCD Response 56
traffic) will worsen the traffic situation on Springridge
(high speed travel, narrow road).
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
Janette Jonas
Dismayed by urban sprawl and loss of rural character of
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 scdvener'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 DEPARJWIZNTS 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
City 30 & 37
Fire Dept.
Comment
Plans show compliance with fire flow requirements using
City water; new water line must have City approval; must
must have hydrant at Springridge intersection and another
500-ff. from the intersection.
City 29, 38
Public & 40
Works
Water Service: Subject property can be served with City
water (it is within City's current water service boundasy);
applicant will have to extend an 8 in. water main along
Spfingridge Road to the property; plans for water service
require approval by City Engineer, utility easement is
required. [See also Exhibit 35,]
SUB12730
Page 9 of 27
Health Dept. 33. 41
Kitsap Co. & 46
Granted preliminary approval for on-site sewage (based
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
Transit
Closest bus stop is 0.8 mi. away and distance of 0.25 mi,
considered "served by transit"; subdivision not
considered to be served by transit
WA Fish& 31&48
Wildlife
Property includes Type V stream so Hydraulic Project
Approval will be required for culvert/bridge for the new
access road [see Findings #22 and 50].
WA Dept. 47
Natural
Resources (DN-R)
Forest Practices Permit will be required for timber
cutting [see Finding #51 ]; eagle nest "in proximity" may
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 (/.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 amicipated 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 Departmem. [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
$UBI2730
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 (Al)T)_
· Almost ali the traffic to and fi.om 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 ff~ese 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 entranceYaccess road and the existing
entrance to the Ravenswood subdivision (adjacent to the north) is greater than the
separation required. The Depaximent of Public Works reports that a 75-ft. minimum
separation is required between the two access points and a separation of approximately
200-ff. 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 ofT. 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 ¼ mile away from a bus stop) to be "served" by transit. It is not known when or if
public transi~ s~rvice could be provided closer to the subject site. [Exhibh 44]
49. Th~ applicant would provide a bus shelter for children waiting for the school bus.
Condition ~6 requires that the applicant consult with the school district to determine the
SUB12730
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-fi. radius) requires an Eagle Management Plan, as do
shorehne 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 1+ 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 Duefieid: The size of lots and the number of units don't add up; proposal is
inconsistent with zoning; concerned about increased nm off/drainage and negative
effects on wildlife; entrance/road 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 baclcyard) and erosion
where cut will need to made for new road; questioned how these home sites are
considered "clustered".
Erica Sessle: Zoning is I lot per acre, but this would be 11 lots; each lot
supposed to have 40,000 sq. ff 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 thc 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
m 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 flex~bihty in lot
development and encourages a more creative approach than traditional lot-b~v-
tot subd~vis~or~ The flexible lot destgn process includes lot design standards,
guidance on the placement of buildings, use of open spaces and c~rculat~on
which best addresses site characteristics. This destgn process permits clustertng
of lots, with a variety of lot sizes, to provide open space, maintain ~sland
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 B1MC.
SUB12730
Page 13 of 27
"Homesite area" means the area ora lot depleted 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
subdim'sion boundary. The landscape perimeter may contcon established native
vegetation or additional landscaping.
"Open space" means any area of land which ts predominately undeveloped
and which prowdes physical and/or visual relief from the developed
environment... Open space may consist of undeveloped areas, such as pastures
and farmlands, woodlands, greenbelt& critical areas, pedestrian corridors and
other natural areas...Open space excludes tidelands, areas occupied by
buildings, and any other developed areas such as driveways, aH 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.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 heating; transmit the recommendation to the City Council in
a consoldiated report that includes SEPA mitigation measures [BIMC 2.16.110.Cl.
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 subdtWsion of lard._, this chapter establishes a
flexible lot process that promotes the preservation of open space, consolidation
of open slxwe, and clustering of development within residential subdivisions.
This process.., limits the development impact area, minimizes lmpervious surface
area and provides for greater flexibility ~t 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:
SUB12730
Page 14 of 27
L Densi~.
a. The number of residential lois created in a subdivision shall not exceed the
density provisions of BI?rfC Title l 8;
***
2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements.
b. Twelve thousand five hundred square feet or as specified by the health
district if septic drainfieM 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
***
iL ... To accommodate an existing house that is located within 50feet of
the property line adjacent to a collector or arterial road...the ex~sting
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 25feet; provided, that the full required
width buffer ts located where a greater number of significant trees can be
incorporated into the buffer.
***
d. ... IVhen the cluster development option is selected pursuant to
17. 04. 080.,~.5, the following applies:
L ln_..R-l.__a 25-foot wide landscape perimeter shall be required along
the subdivision boundary...
e. Allowed Landscape Buffer Activities:
L 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 construct'on;
v. Nonmotorized trails; and
vi. Planting of vegetation.
f Landscape Buffer Requirements.
i .... filtered screen landseaping...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
Hmited 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 addr~sos "cluster development" dire'ts that the
SLTBI2730
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 BI/VIC 17.04.082.A through C should be met) and cluster
development is to meet the following:
a. HomesHe Area.
£ In... R-1 ...a homesite area with a marlmum area oflO, O00 square feet
shall be provided for each lot...
***
iii. The purpose of the homesite area is to define the ma~mum
aOsturbance 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 Cluster~ng.
i. The purpose of clustering is to facilitate the efficient use of land by
reducing disturbed areas, impervious surfaces, ,~ttlity extensions and roadways...
while providing for the protection of priority open space features...
ii. Homes#es 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 subdPaisiotr
iii .... hornesites of four or more shall constitute a cluster grouping.
iv..., alt homesites in a cluster grouping shall adjoin or be located a
ma~mum of 25feet apart from another homestte...
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
I. The applicable subdivis~on 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 healtl~ safety and general and public use and interest, including those
items listed tn RCtY 58.1Z 110;
3. The preliminary residential subdtwsion has been prepared
consistent with the requirements of the flexqble lot design process;
4. Any portion of a subdivision that contc~ns a critical area, as
defined in Chapter ] 6. 20 BPetC, 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 drmnage
(Chapter 15. 20 B13/IC).
b. The subdivision ,rill 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 ot'27
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 ~onforms to the requirements of this chapter and
the standards in the "City of Bainbridge Island Design and Constn~'on
Standards and Specifications," except as otherwise authorized by in BIMC
17.04.080. C. 3;
6. The proposal complies with ail applicable provisions of this
code, Chapters 58.17 and 36. 70A RCI~r, and all other applicable prolnsions of
state and federal taws and regulations: and
7. The proposal is tn accord with the city's comprehensive plan.
B. A proposed subdi~sion 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 statesthat the purpose of the R-I zone is to:
... provide residen~al 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 tow density of housing does not require the full
range of urban services and facilities.
65. BIMC Chapter 18.33 provides developmem standards for the R- 1 zone, including
the following:
18..t3.040 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 wouM be allawed
by the underlying density; provided, that all lots meet the mirdmum lot area.
I&33.050 Lot eoverag,,
The maximum lot area covered by buila~ngs shah not exceed 15 percent.
18.33.060 Setbacls&
,4. Front setbacks, rear setbacks and side setbacks facing streets shall be
not less than 25feet, measured by the distance from the nearest lot line, planned
r~ghts-of-way or road easements.
B. Side setbacks shall not be less than 25 feet in total sum w~th no side
setback less than lO feet.
C. Rear setbacks shall be 15feet.
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 18.33.040 does not apply [see Finding #35].
1&33.085 Flexible lot design standarda
The following bulk and dimensional standards shall not aPPly to those lots
which have been established pursuant to the requirements o_f the flexible lot
de.s. ign process bY short subdivision, subdivision, large lot subdivision, or as
planned unit development:
,4. M~nimum 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 apptica#on to construct eight or more, but fewer than 50, dwelling
units or residential budding lots.., must pro}qde at least lO_t~ercent of the number
of market rate dwelling units constructed pttrsuant to the application as
affordable housing for households whose incomes are at or below moderate-
tncorne. The densi~ max. be. increased by one market rate bonus unit for each
.affordable unit provided
REQUIRED FINDINOS
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".)
_C..ode Section Findings
17.04.080.A. Flexible Lot Standards
1. Density.
a~ Density provisions of Title 18 are not exceeded; lot area
minimums of R-I 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.minimnm for
lots with on-site septic systems.
3. Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements.
a. All lots are at least 50-ff. wide.
10, 35, 36,
65, 66
17
11
SUB12730
Page 18 of 27
b. Lots are appropriate size, shape and orientation. 10, 16
¢. Minimum setbacks provided (10-ft. between buildings; 11
15-t5. building to property line; 50-fl. 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-fl. provided along collector with 26
established forested vegetation and 25-fl. 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, 26
and north sides ofprope~y meet the 25-t~. 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 nonmotofized transportation, and planting) would
occur in buffer.
f. & g. The landscape perimeter buffers would provide a 25-fl. 26
filtered screen; the roadside buffers would provide the
50-fr. established vegetation and the 25-fl. full-screen
requirements.
5. Cluster Development Option.
a. Homesite Area: All consistent with 10,000 sq. ft. maximum. I7
b. Homesite Clustering: Homesites clustered; each within 12-16
25 f~. 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 3_4. above.
17.04.080.C. Roads and Pedestrhm 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
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 consistem with nonmotodzed
transportation plan.
8UB12730
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 #63]. This application meets the all decision criteria as noted
below.
70. BIMCIT.04.094, A.I 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 [StaffRepoR, pages 10-12, Exhibit 63]. As noted in Finding
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
~661).
71. Consistem with BIMCI7.04.094.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-t5]; stormwater/drainage controls [Findings #21 and 41]; and, constmction
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 fi-om 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 Depastment 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 ofthe 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
631.
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)
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 #36], and clustering developmem 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.B, the public use and
interest would be served by the provision of all necessary and appropriate utilities and
public improvements [Finding g47, roads; Finding #19 and 20, pedestrian paths; Finding
#23, stormwatec facilities; Findings #24 and 41, domestic water; Findings/b42 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].
Condusions
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 commem 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 ~. The calculation made by PCD [Finding
35] is consistent with a reasonable imerpretation of the applicable Code sections [BIMC
18.33.010, 18.33.040 and 18,33.066]. Considerable public commem 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 acted40,000 sq, ti. 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, dusters homesites so as to provide: a
large tree retention area, avoidance of construction on steep slopes, protection for
significant trees, maimenance 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 homing" 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 ot'27
questions are rational, but this subdivision meets the requirement of BIMC 18.90 by
providing one lot as affordable.
ENVIRONME2~AL IMPACTS AND lVllTIGATION
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 Spring;ridge 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 Start'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% oftbe 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 CRI~
I 1. The subdivision may be approved as it complies with the flexible lot standards of
BIMC 17.04,080. [FindingS68]
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 Heating Examiner RECKS that the application of Ted Francis for preliminary
plat approval for the subdivision known as Hansen Hill, be APPROV~ WITH TI~
R~COMMEI~:D COiWlTIONS that comprise the Appendix which follows on pages 24-27,
City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examinerpro tern
Coneerning Further Review
The City Council makes the City's final decisions on preliminary subdivision applic~ons. City
Council decision procedures are found at BIMC 2.16.110.
SUB12730
Page 23 of 27
APPENDIX
Hansen gl~l 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.
No clearing or grading for roads, drainage facilities, trails or other subdivision
improvements shall occur until a plat utilities introit has ~ submittcd, mowed and
approved by the City.
All graded real. rials 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).
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 dqpadation of
surface water quality without a proper temporary erosion and scdim~aation control plan
(TESCP). Th~cfor¢ 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
Dcpartmem of Ecology Construction Permit is required.
10.
The final stormwatet system design shall be in confonnan~ with BIMC 15.20 and the items
required by tho Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual.
Privately held stormwatcr facilities roquiro ongoing furore operation and maintenance. TI~
applicant shall name a responsible party that can appropriately maintain, repair or replace the
facility as needed prior to final plat approval. Tho applicant shall submit an Operation and
Maintenance Plan for the stonnwa~r facilities and record a Declaration of Coveamnt to m~t
the requirements of BIMC 15.21.
The construction staging areas shall bc outside critical areas and their buflkrs. Construction
fencing or silt fencing shall be placed adjacent to critical ama buffers prior w issuance of any
permit that allows clearing in the vicinity of the buffers.
A hydraulic Project Approval shall be obtained from the Washington Department offish and
Wildlife prior to the issuance of the plat utility ponmt. The culvert and/or bridge shrdl be
designed to be greater than or equal to the average channel width at tim ordinary high water
mark. Thc structure should also be able to pass the 100-year flood event a~d any debris
likely to be enconnt~ed within that event.
SUB12730
Page 24 of 27
II.
The stream buffem shall be identified with either a two-rail fence or permanent signage at
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 m 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..W. ater Quality_. B¢llingham, W~hington: WSU Cooperative Extension,
1993].
13. In order to mitigate the impact on wildlifv and the s~,-eam on the property, the d~lineated
buffer shah 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 Wee removal may be allowed with appropriate City approval (may
include replanting).
14. To diseourago th~ removal of wildlife habitat, significant tr~s that am removed from designmed
protection areas wilhout prior City approwal will be subject to fin~ and will be replaced with
new trees as follows: New trcx~ m~ring two inches in calit~r ifd~iduous and six to eight
feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of
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 lxees 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 thc 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, cor~ainvaent, 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 m accor~nee with the
affordable housing requirements specified in BIMC Chapter 18.90.
19. All fighting within the subdivision shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance, BIMC
Chapter 15.34.
20. Coai~-actor 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 aw/historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or
construction.
In order to provide saf~ pedestrian access within the subdivision, a four foot wide trail shall
be developed within thc 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 Mas~ Plan. All pedestrian
improvements shall be installed prior to the iss~ance 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
Trans~rtation Plan, a meandering bicycledpedesuian path shall be construct~ 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 eonstructed 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 assm'an~ device acceptable to thc 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 pIat approval. While
lots created by the recording of the final plat may be sold, no occupancy of any structure wilt
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 st__n_t_e: '~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. Bailding permits may not be issued and/or eccupancy
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 fight-of-way as shown on the Plat drawing date
stamped luly 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 fights-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 accorda_~nee 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 thc created
SUB12730
Page 26 of 27
lots shall pay one half of the school impact f~ in effect atthe time of building permit
issuance.
Non-SEPA Conditions;
28.
Prior to issuance of any building or utility l~nnit for improv~n~nt a~tivitics, final
construction plans m~ting City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards ami
Specifications, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island Public
Works Department.
29.
Full screen landscape buffers, as doflnexl in BIMC Chapter 1 g.85, are required along
Springridge and I-lamen Roads. The subdivision shall provide a 50 foot buffer along
Springridge Road and a 25 foot roadside buffer along Hanscn Road. Where the existing
vegetation does not meet the full scr~n landscape requirement, planting with native
vegotalion is required.
30.
31.
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 plamed with native vegetation to me~t the requirement.
A landscape planting plan in accordance with BIMC I8.85 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 tm provided to insure the
installation.
32. A landscaping maintenance assurance shall be provided for thre~ years to insure the health of
landscape plantings.
33. Ali lot comers shall be staked with three-quarter inch galvaniz~ iron pipe and locater stakes
along with all other applicable survey provisions of the Appendix to BIMC Titlel 7.
34. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application.
35. Setbacks, Iot_coverage, and other limitations must be shown on the final plat, ~0eeific~lly:
· 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 Hanson Road NE - Minimum 25 feet setback
Maximum Lot Coverage per lot - 5,4'/0 square fe~t.
Tree Retention Area.
Stream buffer delineation.
· Homesites.
36. Thc final plat shall bc 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.
SOB [ 2730
Page 27 of 27
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of the Application of
TED FRANCIS
for preliminary plat approval for subdivision
of property known as "Hansen Hill"
SUB12730
ORDER
CORRECTING
ERROR
The representative for the Director, Planning and Community Development Department,
has reported that several of the maps on the list of exhibits in Finding #9 of the Hearing
Examiner's Recommendation in this matter, have incorrect dates. The correct dates are
as follows:
· Exhibit 3: The correct date for Sheet 4 of 6 is 4/19/04 (not 7/19/04);
· Exhibit 9: The correct date for Sheet 3 of 6 is 7/19/04 (not 4/19/04); and,
· Exhibit 65: The correct date for Sheet 4 of 6 is 4/19/04 (not 7/19/04).
The purpose of the list is to identify which of the maps in the record comprise a complete
and up-to-date set. While it is the exhibit numbers (not the dates of the maps) that
identify which maps comprise that set, it is prudent to note the correct dates.
With the corrected dates, the list of exhibits in Finding #9, page 3, is as follows:
Exhibit Sheet Title/Contents
10 1 of 6
65 2 of 6
9 3of6
3 4of6
5 5of6
2 6of6
Cover sheet/legal description, vicinity map, notes, surveyor's cert. 4/19/04
Approvals, dedications, recording ce~dfieate, treasurers ce~fifieate 4/19/04
Existing Conditions: slope/contour lines, lot lines, stream centerline 7/19/04
Lot Detail: proposed lots by number with dimensions & lot area 4/19/04
Buffers: designated "homesites", setbacks, r.o.w, dedication 7/19/04
Tree Retention Plan: size of canopy; size & area retained 4/19/04
It is hereby Ordered that Finding #9, page 3, of the Recommendation issued in this
matter on December 6, 2004, be CORRECTEO as noted above.
Entered this 8th day of December 2004.