HANSEN LANDING, LLCCITY CLERK
,CISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of Ibc Application of
HANSEN LANDING, LLC SCUP12568
for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
IntrOduction
The Applicant seeks a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for a stormwater outlbJl within
the shoreline Conservancy 'Environment. The Hearing Examiner held public hearing on
this matter on January 29, 2004. Parties represented at *,he hearing were the Director,
Planning and Community Development Department, by Maria Preston, Planner, and the
Applicant, Hansen Lamling LLC, by Ted Francis and the property owner Paul MoldeD.
After duc consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following shall constitute the
findings of fact. conclusions of law, and decision of the }.leafing Examiner on this
application.
Fhadings of Fact
Application
1. Thc project site is addressed ax 8253 ltansen Road NE and includes tax parcel
20250230052000 and 20250230062009. Thc zoning is R-2, residential, two units per
acre; the Comprehensive Plan designation is OSR-2, Open Spaco Residential, two units
per acm. A potion of the site has a Con~rvancy Environment dcsi ,gnation under the
shoreline master program. Because single-family residences and tl~ir a~.~t utilities
ate conditional uses in the Con~rvancy Environment. a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit CSCUP") is required for the stormwater outfall. [StaffRepo~ Exhibit 16, pages
1 and 21.
2. The Planning and Community Developmenl Department ("Department") received
application for a SCUP for the ~ormwater outfall pipe from Hanson 'Landing, I,LC
("Applicant"), on October 29, 2003. [S~aff Report, Exhibit 16, pag~ 1 and 2]
3. Thc application is an after-the leact request as the outfall pipe was in,ailed, in
accordance with approved plans, during construction of an upland single-family
re~s'idenec. The ouffall is part of a drainage system to collect runoff from impervious
surfaces within thc subject site. Currently, the out~all ,,~,vos two lots, each developed
SCUPI2568 Page I of 6
with a singlc-family residence. It is anticipated thru it will 'also serve five new lots that
are being created undcr a separate short pla~ application. [StaffReport. Exhibit 16, page~
1 and 2]
4. Thc 12-inch outfall pipe is laid on thc surface down thc slope toward thc Sound.
'Ibc ouffall t~,minates at the diffu~r, a perforated pipe connect~l at right-angles to thc
outl~ll, which is located above the ordinary high watch' line. Thc difih.~r, in a bed of
riprap rock. disperses thc stormwater across its length. Included in thc completed
collection system arc: oil/water separatnrs to serve all driveways, five catch basins, and
two bioswal~. All the eomponcnt~ of the system have been sized to ac.~ommodatc the
stormwatcr drainage from the <yen lots mentioned in Finding #3. IExhibit 18 and
Testimony of J. Brown]
5. Noliee of Application was given on November ! 9, 2003. No comments -about the
outfall wcre roccived. One n~ighboring property owner inquired about the short plat
application. [Exhibit 13]
6. The l')ireetor issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Signifieaaee (MDNS) on
December 16, 2003 and at that timc gavc notice of right to appeal that th~hold
deten-nination. The MDNS wa,,; not appealed.
7. The public hearing on the application was properly nofeed with po~Jng on
January 9, 2004, mailing on January 8, 2004, and publication on January 12, 2004
[Exhibit
Land U~ Codc
8. Shorolinc Master Program, BIMC Chap. 16.12. regulates dcvclopmcut in thc
shoreline.
O. BIMC 16.12.150, Table s,.1, designates that single-family ~sidential uses are
conditional uses in lhc conservancy shoreline anvironment. The ~ormw'ater outfall, an
aex, essory utility (s~e BIMC 16.12,120) to serve $ingle-t~amily residential lot,;, can hc
p~,,dtted as a shorclinc conditional use.
10. BIMC 16.12.380C "applies to all applications for shoreline...eonditional use
permits" and p~ovid~s, in pertinent part, a.s follows:
1. Uses clavs~/ied as conditional aves may he authorized; provided,
that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. The proln~sed use will be comistenl with the Indic'i~' of
RC~ 90. 58. 020 or it, ct Successor ami the policies of the rn~tvter program.
b. The proposed use will not interfere w#h the normal public
use ~g'the public shorelines.
The prolnmed use of the site and desigtt qf the project will
be compatible with other permitted a~es wilhin the areu.
SCUP12568 Page 2 of 6
d. 7he propel'ed t~e will ca,ye no unrea~'onably advero'e
effects to the shorelin* environment designation in which it i.* located.
e. The public intere.~t su, ffers no .~'ub.s'tantial detrimental effkct.
f. ?he proposed ~,e £, cot~,istent with the provisiott~' of the
zoning ordinance...and the comprehensive plan...
t 1. BI[MC 16.12.350 provides that:
I. 'H*e city of Bainbridge IMand hearing exarainer is vested with
authority to:
a. Approve, approve with condition~', or deny ~'horeline
variar~'e and shoreline conditional use permit application~' q[~er a public
hearing and aider cot~'idering the finding,~' and recornrnendatiot~' of the
director, which ,,hall be given .~ubstantial weight ....
Analysis
12. 'lhe Director evaluated the outfall's compliance with thc following applicable
mbmlations: I~IMC 16.12.040, General Regulations; BIMC 16.12.060, Cleuring and
(h'ading; BIMC 16.12.070, Environmental Impacts; BIMC 16.12.090, Native Vegetation
Zone; BIMC 16.12.120, Utilities). [Staff Report, Exhibit 16, pages 3 and 4] The outfall
complies with each of the applicable slmmline regulations.
13. As re~4ulred by BIMC 16.12.380C.I (.see Finding #10), the application [Exhibits
1, 6, and 7], the applicant's presentation at hearing [Exhibits 18 and 19-' Testimony of J.
Brown and T. Francis], and the information 'and 'analysis pr~yvided by the Director
[Exhibits 14 and ! 6; Tcmimony of Preston] demons~a'ates as tbllows:
a. 'Ibc outfall is consistent with the policies of thc Shoreline
Management Act and with the City's Shoreline Master Pro ,glam.
b. t~ause the structure terminates on thc slope abovc thc beach and
there is a trail adjacent to the abovo-groumi pipe to facilitate access to thc
beach, thc outfa[l would no~ interfere with thc normal public use of the
public shorelines.
c. Native shrubs are m be planted on lx~th sides of the lenbqh of the
outfall pipe to ~recn the relatively .qmall-seale structure from vie~v.
Effectively .~reened with native vegetation, the ouffall is consistent with
the upland residential uses and the uses of the shoreline.
d. As conditior~'d, thc outlMI causes no unre~.~onably adve~ effects
to the shoreline environment. The ouffall pipe was design~l by a
engineer to have aplm~priate components (e.g., catch b~sins, oil/water
,separators, swales) and sufficient capacity to properly conm>l, treat, and
release runoff from the site. The outfall is equipped with a diffuser to
SCUP125fi8 Page3 of 6
prevent erosion of the beach by slowing and spreading the stormwater
discharge. This structure, located above ordinary high watex mack,
allows the storrnwater to be filtered through vegelation and sediment
before entering the sound.
e. By mitigating environmental impacts and providing a path for
acec~s to the beach, the outfall has no substantial dctrimental effect to the
public interest,
Thc outfall, acccs.qory to the residenfia! use of thc 7~ne, is
consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The existing and
fature rcsldenees to be ~rved by the outfall are consistent with the type
and d~msity of use anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan.
14. BIMC 16.20,080 provides requirements for development in gmdogically
haz-,m:lous ar~as. The outfall, as conditioned, meets the requirementq regarding erosion
control, location, design, and landmaping,
Director's Recommendation
15. The Director determined that the outfaII, with the following recommended
conditions {$taffReport, Exhibit 16, pages 2-6], would be consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program (L e., BI MC 16.12.040, 16.12.060, 16.12.070,
16.12.090, 16.12.120, 16.12.150, and 16.12,380).
SEPA Conditions
1. To the mtisfaetlon of the Director of planning, the exposed ,soils in
the area of the trail to the shoreline shall he mulch~xl and replanted with
maivc trees and .shrubs within 90 days of approval of this permit.
2. The rock ire'tailed against the existing stormwater drainage pipe
shall be removed within 90 days of approval o£ this permit. In order to
stabilize the pipe, anchored logs may be placed as appropriate.
3. The applicant shall immediately apply for a Ilydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) for the storm water drainage pipe. A copy of the HPA
shall be submitted to the City.
Non-SEPA C~mdifions
4. The area surrounding the existing stormwater drainage pipe shall
be replanted with native shrubs prior [sic] to within 90 days of approval of
this permit,
16. Based ulXm dimussion with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
indicating that DFW would not require a hydraulic project permit for this project,
Director withdrew recommended Condition #3 at heating [Testimony of M. Prestonl.
SCUPI2568 Page 4 of 6
17. Conditions I. 2. ~ 4 are necessary to ensure consistency with the shoreline
provisions regarding minimizing/repairing dh~urbane¢ from earthwork by r~lanting with
native species (sec BIMC 16.12.060, 16.12.090, 16.12.120, and 16,20.080).
Conclusions of Law
l. The tteafing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter and is
required to give the Director's recommendation substantial weight.
2. Appropriate notice of the application was made and comments were considered.
3. As conditioned, the outfall is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Shoreline Master Pm,gram for granting a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and thc
application .should be approved with conditions ms noted in Finding 17.
Decision
Thc application of I lansen I,anding LI.C for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow
a twelve-inch diameter storrnwater ouffall in a shoreline conservancy environment, is
hereby APPROV£D WITH CONDITIONS as follows:
1, To the mtislhcfion of the I)ireeUm within 90 days of approval of
this permit, thc exposed soils in thc area of the trail to the shoreline shall
be mulched and replanted with native trees and shrubs.
2, To the .~atisfaction of the Director, within 90 days of approval of
this permit, the rock installed again~ the existing stormw~er dmMagc
pipe shall he removed. In order to stabilize the pipe. anchored logs may
be placed mq appropriate.
3. 'Fo thc satisfaction of the Director, within 90 days of approval of
this permit, the area sun~unding thc slormwater drainage pipe shall be
replanted with native shrubs.
Mcr.edith .A.G.etch~
Hcarmg Examiner pro tern
SCUPI2568 Page 5 of 6
Concernin~ Further Review
NOTE: It is thc responsibility ora per~n .**eking review ol'a Ilcaring
F, xamincr decision to consult applicable Code :,~tions and other
appropriate sources, including State law, to determine hi,s, thcr Hght~ and
responsibilities relative to appeal.
The decision of the tlearing Examiner ix thc final dccisk*n tbe (Jity in this mailer. Appeal ofthis
decision is to thc Washington Sta~¢ Shorelines Ilearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58. I g0
(or its succes.noO and Chapter 461-08 WAC (or it~ successor). To be timely, petition for review
must be filed within tbe 21-day appeal period [see BIMC 16.12.370].
SCIIPl2568 Page 6 of 6