Loading...
Olson SUB - HEX file~, Compiled 7-24-03, Amended 7-30-03, 11-17-03 EXIT LIST SUB04800 {OL50N) APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECI5ION Planner: Tom Bonsell Public Hearing: 7-3 I-03 @ 10:00 a.m Exhibit # Descri Lion Dated Date Recd 1#Pa es 1 Fees Form and Receipt 3-14-02 1 2 Fee Form and Receipt 3-18-02 1 3 Reduced Preliminary Plat Plans -Adam and Goldsworthy 3-12-02 3-14-02 S 4 Preliminary Plat Plans -Adam & Goldsworthy 3-12-02 3-14-02 5 5 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Site Plan (Browne Engineering) 1-29-02 3-14-02 1 6 Road and Drainage Plan (Browne Engineering} 1-29-02 3-14-02 1 7 Tax Assessors Roll & Vicinity Map 3-14-OZ 12 8 Title Report -Pacific Northwest Title 2-14-02 3-14-02 6 9 Corres to Olson from Kastens (Myers Biodynamics) re: Sole Evaluation 10-20-99 3-14-02 8 10 Soil Log Analysis from Martin (Miller Bay Water Co) 6-8-00 3-14-02 3 11 Environmental Checklist 2-5-02 314-02 12 12 Open Space Management Plan 3-6-02 3-14-02 5 13 Lot Closures 3-12-02 3-14-OZ 4 14 Corres to Olson from James (DPCD) re: Comments 5-3I-99 3-14-02 6 1S Corres to COBI from Adam (Adam & Goldsworthy) 3-12-02 1 16 Application Packet 3-14-02 3-14-02 6 I7 Requests for Review: Public Works, O&M, Fire, Health Dept. 3-14-02 5 Olson sUBO9goo Page 1 of 4 ,- Compiled 7-24-03, Amended 7-30-03, 11-17-03 18 Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: staff 3-22-02 I assignment 19 Routing Slip 3-14-02 1 20 Review: Fire Department 3-2b-02 3-26-02 2 2i Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: complete 4-11-02 1 application 22 Chronological Listing 1 23 Notice of Application 4-17-02 7 24 E-Mail to COBI from Hausmann 4-18-02 419-02 2 25 E-Mail tolfrom HausmannlRice 5-1-0215- 4 2-02 26 Cones to Olson/Estate of Olson from Warren 7-30-02 2 (COBn re: Supreme Court decision re: open space requirements 27 Notice of Incomplete Application (Bremerton- 9-5-OZ 9-b-02 1 Kitsap County Health District 28 Comes to Olson from Herriott (Browne 11-19-02 11-20-02 2 Engineering} re: Preliminary Piat Plan 29 Preliminary Plat -Site Plan and Drainage and 11-15-02 11-20-02 2 Temporary Erosion Control Plan 30 Request for Review: Public Works, Fire Dept_ 11-20-02 6 31 Requirements for Construction in Geologically 2-17-03 2-2b-03 3 Hazardous Areas -Initial Submittal for Subdivision 32 Requirement far Construction in Geologically 2-2b-03 4 Hazardous Areas -Subdivision Approval Form 33 Case Activity Listing 3-24-03 1 34 Reduced Revised Preliminary Plat Plans (Pages 3-20-03 3-27-03 3 3,4 and 5 only} Olson susoasoo Page 2 of 4 ....~ °~ I ~. Compiled 7-24-03, Amended 7-30-03, 1 i-17-Q3 51 Corres to Reynolds from Bansell re: Staff Report 7-23-03 1 52 STAFF REPORT 7-21-03 17 53 Notice of Public Hearing Documentation 54 Corres to Hearing Examiner from Lee re: 7-21-03 7-23-03 2 support 55 Applicant/Appellant's Hearing Memorandum and 7-30-03 7-30-03 24 Brief inSupport of SEPA AppeaVPreliminary Plat Approval & Supplemental Exhibit List 56 Applicant's Request toTake Official Notice of 10-8-03 10-9-03 Examiner Decision -Statement of Additional Authority 57 Corres to Reynolds from Kaseguma re: response 9-15-01 3 to July 31, 2001 letter 58 Map (Wetlands) 7-31-03 1 59 Corres to Herriott from Jensen re: response to 4-11-01 2 January 23, 2001 letter ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Corres to Hearing Examiner from Findley re: objection to Exhibit 56 Citation from State Environmental Policy Memorandum to Hill from Ha#haway re PWD 4-26-02 1 Approval with Conditions Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, SEPA 11-14-43 25 Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat Approval Olson su13o9sao Page 4 of 4 . - Nom`- _~ 7 ~ dG6~ G~ ,~~.~Bg~-GE I5LAN~' CIT ~~~~ ~~Elt .~. the ~ry~.atter ~~. ~~ ~-x,49800 (~F CQ~~IOI~~ aF NID SI(]~ ~~ APY~ ~ ~.~, 7..31_0310.00 a.m' Sly p~LI~ gEARJN~ ~ I would hke to s eak phoue ~ .~~ ~ ~~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~~_3ft~ ~-~ r`'t ,~~y ` ~~/ ~~ ~ ~~ ~.~t ,~ I ' i ~ } r~ G~i k~ ~ ~~ t~~Jf e~ ~` ~~~ i~ Y ~~ ~i ~~~ fl I would like future not1ees c~ ~, ~ ~_ S ~ ~' ~~s ~~~ ~ ~~/n~ ~~~'~~~y ~~ oZ~ n ~ 7 ~ ~ _~` i ~ ~. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL PROCESS INFORMATION Sub'ect: Michael Olson Subdivision SUB09800 Date: Jan 26, 2005 A ends Item: Resolution # 2005-07 Bill No.: Contact Person: Larry K. Frazier, AICP, Director, Planner and Community Deveio meet Referrals}: NIA Readin : ^ 1st ~ 2nd ^ 3`a BUDGET INFORMATION De artment/Fund: NIA Total Expenditure NIA Budgeted? Budget amendment required? Required: $ NIA ^ Yes X No POLICY INFORMATION Com rehensive Plan: EN 2.1, 2.3, AQ 1.19, OS 1.4, 1.6, 1.12, 3.3, GH 1.3, TR 2.2 Municipal Code: Goal & Objectives: Goal S, Community Development DESCRIPTION/SUMMARY This is a request to subdivide a 4.5 acre parcel into six lots in the R-2 zone. Forty percent of the site shall remain in open space. A Reasonable Use exception was applied for and granted by the Hearing Examiner Pra-rem to allow a waterline to traverse a Class IV stream. Background material, to be reviewed by the City Council prior consideration of the subdivision, is being submitted at this time. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on July 31, 2003. The Hearing recommended approval and forwarding to the City Council for approval of the subdivision once the applicant received Health District approval of the water system that required a Reasonable Use Exception. The following materials were included in your January 12, 2005 Packet (pages 131-182): Hearing Examiner's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for the Olson Subdivision {See previous agenda packet Dated January 12, 2005) Hearing Examiner exhibit list. (See previous agenda packet Dated January 12, 2005) Subdivision Staff report dated July 21, 2003 {See previous agenda packet Dated January 12, 2005} Preliminary Plat (See previous agenda packet Dated January 12, 2005) New materials: Resolution Number 2005-07 Hearing Examiner decision on the Olson Reasonable Use Exception (Background information) The complete record is in the City Hall vault. S~A~I~~+~ RECOMMENDED ACTION Motion: To affirm the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and Resolution 2005-07 at the regular meeting of the City Council on January 2b, 2005 ' TOM BONSELL ~ PLANNER ~a ~: w DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAIMINEIZ CITY OF BAl<NS~bGE hiSLAND In the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL OLSON for a Reasonable Use Exception Introduction ~xuEassoo The Applicant seeks a Reasonable Ilse Exception to allow construction of a waterline across an intermittent stream. The Hearing Examiner held a public heari- ig on this matter and made a site visit on October I4, 2U04. Parties represented at the Haring were the Director, PIanning and Community Development Department (PCD or Department), by Thomas A. Bansell, Planner, and the Applica~ Michael Olson, pro se. Oise member of the public made a onmmexrt at the heazing in opposition to g~urting the exception. On November 3, 2004 the Nearing Examiner ordered that the retard be reopened sa that the parties could submit needed information and documenrtation. The Hearing Examiner also ordered that the hearing be reconvened an December 2, 20t74, for the receipt of that information and documentation. The record was closed with the conclusion of the reconvened hearing. After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the fallowing shall constitute the Endings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this applicatian_ Furdings Site Description I. The subject property is located on the south side of Lofgren Road, south of Murden Cove and is addressed as 9955 N.E. Lafgren Road. [Application, Exhibit 3, page I; 5taffReport, Exhibit 28, page I] The legal description [Exhibit Sj is: I.at 4G of the plat of Rolling Say City, recorded in volume 3, page 1 l of the plats, records of Kitsap County, and situate in Government lot 2, .Section. 23, Township 23 north, Range 2 East, W. M_, City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. 2. The property is zoned R 2, for residential use, two units per sere. The Comprehensive Plan designation is OSR-2, Open Space Residential, two units per acme. Exhibit 28, page 1; Exhibit 7j SCUPI2Sfr6 Page 1 of !0 3. This is a 4.5 acre parcel that, under application 5iJB03800, the applicant seeks to subdivide auto six lots [the plat iS discussed in Exhibit 2, Tearing Exa%iner MDNS Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat Recommendation]. There is a single family residence Located in the eastern portion vfthe site in proposed Lot 5 (a detached garage is located in proposed Lut b}. [Exhibit 7, Sheet 3] ~+. The site is rectangular in shape aisd generally slopes to the nortU. Site topography is dominated by anorth-trending ravine containing a seasonal stream that, along with the associated ravine slopes, occupies the central third of the property. The western portion of the site is undeveloped forested land with moderate to dense vegetative cover. A well, intended to serve water to the proposed lots, has been developed near the west edge ofthe ravine on the north-south property line between Lots 2 Arid 3. [1/xhibit 34} 5. The seasonal stream originates soatEt of the site, flows along the ravine floor within the slope-constrained channel, under the Lafgren roadway, and into a Category I wetland to the north [Exhibit 28, page 4; Testimony of Bonsell]_ Qn the subject property the ravine deepens to the north and broadens sliglrtly, -with an elevation change from the south property line to the north property line of approximately 40-50.ft_ At the north end of the site the slopes #]aitlcing the ravine reach to a height of SD ft. with angles of approximately 40 degrees. At the south end of the property, the slope angles sure mare moderate and generally range from 20 to 30 degrees. [Exhibit 34, pages 2-3] The ravine slopes have, mature red cedar and western hemlock and a sparse herbaceous understory [Ea~hibit 22, pages 3] 6. The geotechnical co[isultairts wlio examined the side concluded in their report [Exhibit 34j that the site has a low risk ofslope "instability and landsliding page 3j. They further concluded that the site could be developed "without adverse impact to slops stability provided that adequate earthwork, drainage/erosion control, and site vegetation management are incorporated into site der-elopmeirt and construc#ion practices" [page 4j. The limitations recommended include a 25-ft. setback from the crest of the ravine for residences, and a l0-ft. miniimum setback for the well. [Exhibit 34, pages 4-5] Bacl~ground' Associated Subdivision and SEPA Anneal 7. On April l6, 2004, flue Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Significance ~MDNS} in association with the rinderiying subdivision application. The applicant appealed Conditions 6 and 7 of that 119DNS. Condition b barred installation the waterline across the strewn and buffer, and instead allowRed the line to 6e placed in the Lofgren Road right of way or another well to be drilled. Condition 7 required that Hemlock Street be improved. 8. After the appeal hearing, the Hearing Exar>Eiiner issued a SEPA decision, as well as a recommendation on the subdivisio>ri application. The decision on the SEPA appeal was to uphold the Condition 6 prohibition on the waterline crossing the stream and to 5CUP 12566 Page 2 of 1 d eliminate the Condition 7 requirement to improve l-Iemloclc Street. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the subdivision application was that the City Council should remand it to PCD until the applicant could obtain Health Y3istrict approval far the water and sanitary waste disposal systems ~Exh~it 2, pages Z425]. 9. The MDNS was withdrawn and reissued by PCp on August I4, 2QQ4 [Exhibit 24] to amend the conditions in conformance with the Hearing Examiner`s decision and to expand it's application to include the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) that is the subject of this decision. The reissued 1NUN5 was not appealed. RIDE A,pp]icatian 10. The proposal consists of digging a trench and installing 6'14 linear feet of waterline {from the weH to proposed Lot 1 and from the well along the southern property line to serve proposed Lots 4--G). The hand-dug trench for the waterline vvvuld be a maximum of 4-ft. wide grad would be located within a 25 ft. wide utility easement Exhibit 33, page 1; Exhibit 22, page 5]. The proposed natthlsouth segments of the waterline, along the east. and west sides of the ravine, wpukl be outside of the required 25 ft. buffer,.but the east/west segment would be constructed across the Class iV stream and buffer {see Exhibit 32]. 11. As development cannot be altowed in a regulated stream and buffer without a ~' Reasonable i3se Exception (BETE), floe applicant applied for an RUE to allow construction of the waterline with fire proposed aligrisnern [Exhibit 3]. Notice of that application was given on April 17, 2404 exhibit 18;. _ 1 Z. _ Regarding .the proposed waterline, the geoteclerairal. consultants recommended [see Finding #fi] that it should "__.cross the ravine in the area of modest ravine slope height and angle...located in the extreme southern portion of the site..." They recommended this route because they believed that the alignmenrt "red+tces slope soil and vegetation disturbance. and will not adversely impact ravisee slope stabil"ny." [Exhibit 34, pages 4-S] The preliminauy plat neap, Exhibit -32, shows the proposed alignment. l 3. 'Flye proposal irtcluales restoration of the slope and vegetation via implementation of a proposed Mitigation Platt (see Findings #20 and 21). 14. The geotechnical consultants (see Findings ~Gi and I2) recommend that the trench be backfilled "as soon as possible" after the waterline has been installed and that the disturbed soils be. protected throughout the construction process. The past installation gteasures recommended include mulching, seeding artdfar hydraseeding all areas where vegetation has been rema~red yr the soils disturbed. Standard erosion and sedimeit~t controls (eg., hay bales, silt fencing, quarry spell bermslblankets) should also be employed during the trenching and waterline installation. [Exhibit 34, page 5] SCUPI2556 Page 3 of 1d 15. PCD expects that HDPE (high density polyethylene} pipe will be required fnr the waterline because rt has little, if any, risk of leaking or failing [Testimony of Bonsell]. - Director's Recommendation 16. Ort April 9, 2004, PG'I] notified the applicant that the application was complete and gave public rtotice of application on April 17, 2004. [Exhibit 16], 17. One person submitted two written comments [Exhibits 20 and 25] to the Department in response to the Notice of Application [see Finding #2b far discussion of comments]. 1 S. The 'Wetland Advisory Committee (WAC or Committee} reviewed the RUE application and did a site inspection. Initially, in May 20p4, the Committee found that the application did not satisfy the requiremetrts of BIMC Ib.20.11a and advised that a mare thorough mitigation plan be prepared. The Conunittee expressed specific conr,erns and suggestions in its report regarding this application. Included in these specif es were: 1) that the mitigation plan should expressly include that the trenching would be done by hand and "undertaken in the summer (dry season) when no water is flowing in the strea~nbed"; and, 2) that the replanting, not ideally done in the dry season, shoetld be phased `Yo maximize plant survival." [Exhibit 2!]. 19. Fn response to the concerns of the Committee, the applicant had a Mitigation Plan prepared by a wetlands biologist. That Flan [Exhibit 22], prepared by Myers Biodynamics, Inc., eras subrreitted to PCD in August 20U4 [Exhibit 23]. PCD staff reported that the Committee "was satisfied" with the Myer's Mitigation Plan [Exhibit 2g, lie ~]- 20. The Mitiga#ion Plan regards the proposed alignment to be a mitigation, as the positioning ofthe waterline opera#es "ta present a small, confined ir~tpact to the riparian buffer where the slopes are the least steep" [page 2~. Mitigation- would also include adding a 1-ft. deep layer of native topsail with the backfill and planting approxirraately 80 to l Olf shrub and herb species (a 3-far-1 replacement ratio) within azeas disturbed by the trenching. This restoration planting would be monitored to gauge its success and a contingency plan would provide for additionsl plantings ardlor oilier corrective actions if the original plarrts fail. [Exhibit 22, Pages 2-5, Figuros 2-5 ] Z1. The Mitigation Plan specifies #hat the trench is to be "hand-dug", but does not include the Weiland Advisory Committee's dry season-only limitation {the Plan assumes that the trenching would be done in the Fall of 2004) [Exhibit 22, page 3]. (The Committee's concern for the timing of replanting is addressed by Nvte #3 in Figure S: "All restoration planting shall occur after Qctober 15a' and before November' 1 S~ following the trench work.") SCiTP12566 Page 4 a£ 10 22. The Director recommends that all the conditions and reconn~nendations set Earth in bath the geatechnical report Exhibit 34] and Mitigation Plan [Exhibit 22] be required. 23. The Director considered the alternative alignmern of going north from the well, through proposed Lats 1 and 2, east in the Lafgren Raad right-0f-way, and then south through proposed Lots 4 and 5 (i.e., the alignment that was in Condition b upheld in the SEPA appeal; see Finding #'1}. The Director determined that this Lofgren Road aligsvneot `ahernative' did riot provide a reasonable alternative. to the RITE alignment because it would cost more #han the proposed alignmenrt. [Exhibit ZS, pages 5 and 7] 24. The Director recommends approval ofthe RUE lsased upon having concluded that the proposal, as conditioned, would be consistent with the applicai.+ie provisions of tl~e Critical Areas Ordinance (SING IG.2t).tI90: Vl~edands and Streams; BIMC 1G.2{1.1I0: _.. Mitigaatian Plan Requirements) and the Zoning Code (WING 18.3U: It 2 2ane~- [Exhibit 28, pages 4-7~ Public Hearing 25. The public heari~ag on the application was properly noticed with posting, mailing, and publication completed rot September 25, ZU04 (Exhibit 26]. 26. One neighbor submitted two written comments [Ex[ubits 20 and 25] during - FCD's consideration of-the application and subna:tied bath written and oral comment at _„ - . the hearing. Vince Mattson expressed oppositiae to gtraoting the requested motion [Exhibit 29; Testimony of Mattson]. Mr_ Mattson does not believe "that this propposai gnalifies fa-r a Rbie Use Exception..." as the. only reason given for proposing the alignrne~tt crossing the stream and its buffer; is that it would cost less than routing the line along Lo#gren Road_ He also observed that because tlae applies ~rbt subdivisiarn could be approved regardless of which alignment is used, the applicant would oat be denied al[ reasonable use of his property with denial ofthe ItUE. Alternative Alignment 2''1. At the reconvened hearing on December Z, 2004, the applicant documented that the Lafgen Raad `alternati~re' aligmnent would be expected to cost considerably Fnare -than the alignmerrt propcfsed with the RUE. The proposed alit ~ estimated to roost agpraximately 513,400 and the alternative in Lofgren Road approximately $23,SU~ (vcies matt incT~udcodj The La-fgtea Itaad estimate is based upon the alignment being. in the roadway itseit~ ctecessitating cutting the pavement, removing and replacing asphalt, and providing traffic Qoritrol duriEr~g several days of ~. Exhibit 33; Testimony of C3lson] 28 At the SEl'A appeaai hewing ~ 2603 the costs were estimated to be $12,00 for the proposed aligmnent and S30-SO,OU4 for the alteriative route. That alternative ratite SCUP12S66 Page ~ of 10 was presumed to be "placed in the steep slope on the roadside" along Lofgren Road and not in the paved portion of the roadway. [Exhibit 2, pages 7-8, Finding 17J. 29. The roadbed for Lofgren Raad in #his vicinity is fill. The fill is quite deep anal the embankments #hat flank the roadway are, in same pieces, both narrow and steep (characterized as 42%; 1:1 slope). The roadway fill has been stable and it does oat appear likely that constructing the waterline in the roadway wae~ld destabilize it. Novi', canon in the fill of the steeply sloping eanbankanent would disturb the vegetative cover and possibly disrupt the stability of the fill. [Testimony of Olson; Testimony ofBonsell; Testimony of Mattson) Pettiaerrt Code Sections 34. B1h+IC 16.2U.090.I.2.b provides that procedures far an other-tlnsa adrtti~tistrstive Reasonable [Jse Exception are "tire procedures set forth rrr B111~IIC' 2.16.100. " 31. The decision procedures of BIMC 2.16.104 provide as follavvs: A. Applicability This section applies each time a provision crf this code authorizes a pteblic hearing before the hearing examiner and a jrnal decision by the hearing examiner.. B. Purpose. The purpose of the public hearing is to review a proposed pmject for c+ansistency. with the Bainbridge Isla~r+d Murricipra~l Cade, appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan arrd all other applicable law, acrd to provide cm opp~art:rriity far the public to c~ommen! on the project and its compliance with the. ntumcipal ca~de. the com, prehensive plan and aR other applicable la~v. 32. .The Wetlands aid Streams section of the Critical Areas Ur~diaance, at BIIMC 16.2:U9Q.H.2, requires a 25 ft. buffer on each side of a Class N stream batilc (here; the bank is the crest of the ravine}. A minimum 15 ft. building setback is also required. 33. BlMC ib.2U.U9(l.I.l states the purpose of the provision of the Reasonable Use F~ception (R[]1~: ...Rea~wxrble tree earceptiorrs arre the meciumisrn by which the city »ray grmrt relief from the provisions of this chapter where compliance with certarm provisivns of this cltagater Jeave na rearsawtrrble use of the pr~o~erty. ~1 reasarruble use exception is authorized only far propovsed arlterutions tti required bu,,~ers, regulated ~vetlarnis or strecurrs... 34. The Reasonable Use Exception decision +c~teria of I3A+fC 1G.20.09i1.I.4 pr+avide that: A reasonable use exception may be approved or approved with modi,~eatiatrs if without the reasonable use exception the applicant would be deprrv~ed of arty reasonable tree of the property a~rd.• SCUI~12566 Page 6 of ]0 a. The proposed activities will result in the minimum intrusion; alteration or impairment of the wetlands, st>9eam or required bu,~'er including impacts to their, ftarrctional characteristics, while permitting some reasonable use of the property_ In al! cases, disturbance of a regulated wetland or stream shall only occur i, f nn reasonable use aan be achieved by disturbance of the 6u,~jer only; ~~* c. 7'he proposed activities include mitigation as appropriate to avoid measrirable degradation to growid~vater or surface water quality; d. The proposed activities comply with all releretmt state, locaf acrd federal laws, includrrrg those related to sediment control, paIlutian... e. Alterations to... streams and bu,~fers wr'11 be mitigated to the extent feasible considering the extent of the disturbance. the size of the site and the necessity far the proposed activities; f There will be no damage to Heathy public or private property and no threat to the health ar safety of people an or o,~'°the property; g. ~'he tnahiltry to derive reasa>rable use of the property is Hat the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelapable condition after the effective dote of this chapter; h. The reasonable use exception will not allow a use ar activity that is inconsistent with the uses arrd activities rnrd limitations of other properties in . the,-icinity and none in which the property is laraated; **~ _., j. The reasonable rise exception is the minimum necessary to prouide reasonable rise of the property; _ ~ ~ k. The reasonable rise exception is corrststent with a!1 other provisions ofthts Cade and is in accord with the comprehensive plan. 35. .1'he requicemettt for nutig,,ation plans for critical areas, at BIMC 16.20_ i 10, include that: A. ...All critical area restoration, creation andlar enhancement projects - required pursuant to this... shall fallow a mitigation plan prepared by an expertappioved by the director... B. ... The »iitigatiotr plan shall recreate as nearly as possible the original critiQa! area in terms of its acreage, function, geographic rotation and setting'. **# C. ~ c. ...Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are met and far beginning remedial action or COFrtingenCy measures... ~** e. ...A program outlining the approach for marritoring construction of the camperrsation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided... f. ... A protocol shall be included outlining ha~v the monitoring data will be evaluated ..A monitoring report shall be submitted ann:ratly... SCUP 12565 Page 7 of 10 g.... Cuntir~getrcy Plan. Identt~catian of p~otertticxl corerses of action, ar~d any cr~rrective measures ro he taken when monttprxng or evaluation indicates pro~eet performance standards are riot being met_ *~~ F. Perlrtit Conditions. Any compensation pry, ject prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the director shall bec©me part a~'the application for the permit. Anal si 3b. The single-family Use proposed by the associated subdivision that would be supported by the requested waterline is consistent with the residential ase anticipated by the zoniag and Comprehensive Plan designations of#he subject prapeRy. 37. There would have to be compliance with applicable Health I}istrid regulations regarding the provision of domestic water service. 38. The altengfative alignment in Lofgrerz Road would be substantially more expensive than the RUE alignment. Given that the migating conditions required for the RUE strewn and buffer crossing would result in avoarling adverse ifnpacts to the stream and restoti~ vegetation removed or disturbed by construction, the alternative alignment in Lofgren Road waUld not 1mv~e a natev~+orthy envir~anmental 2tdvarYtage. Constructing the waterline in the steeply sloping fill along the roadside could have destabilizing effects an that fill .and associated adverse environmental c:ansequences. 39 '~r[h proper i}npleaneon of the conditions recommended by the Director and the Wetland Advisory Committee (irt~ciuding the i1+Iitigation Plan and limititKg the time and manner of Gonstructian) tlxe proposed waterline ~ r~aeeid ire with minima[ i~usioa and no enviransnental damage to the stream and downstream e~ir~snents_ Construdiort as c~anditiorfed ~ro~ukl live no damage to neighbori~; properties or present a threat to the public health and safety. T>sere would be iittie, if any, long term risk tv the stream from pipe leak ar failure. Conclusions Tl*e Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter. ~. Appropriate notices e~f the application and tlse public hearing were given and the hearing was properly convened and all comments, testimony, and other evidence considered. 3. l~avne~tary cost is one factor to be considered in determining what is "reeasonable" and whether denying a requested exeeptivn is a deprivatifln of reasonable use. I# iS not the only consideration. Merely having sBeater-cyst should not de~Gme an ~ as `unreasonable" and, rcautinely trigger the grunting of a RISE. However, the magnitude of SCUP12565 Page 8 of IU the difference in cost, when combined with a large dollar amount, could help distinguish what is acid is not reasonable. (For example: A high cost altennative with a high capingarstive cost difference -say, $ZO,f10(} for art alternative and $lU,QEiU for the RUE - could be persuasive in finding that a prapasal is a xeasonable exception. Relatively low costs, even vvitla a liigli comparative difference - in this example, something like 52,004 versus $1,OOQ, would not.) Given that the goal of the Critical Areas Ordinance here is the protection ofst~ms, consideration oftlic environmental "costs" (i:e., adverse impacts) should always be foremost when contemplating exceptions to the protective grohibitions_ Where,, as iii the RUE requested here, the adverse impacts would be effa~ivcty minimized andlor avoided (thus fulfillieg the purpose of the strewn protections, raring an aitprnativ+e that has sabeially higher datlar costs din both absolute and comparative terms}, would deprive the owner ofreasonable use. 4. As noted in Findings #36 tlirrmgh 39, anti cxmsiste~ void: file Diredo~'s recommendation and that ofthe Wetland Advisory Carrtrnittee; the requested Reasonable Use Exception should be grairted as it meets file requirements of BIMC 15.20.090.I. Decision The application of 11+Iichaei Olson for a Reasonable Use Exception (associated with the b- - tot subdivision application SLIB09800) to allow construc~ian of a waterline across au ._ ~ intermittenk stream, is hereby ~rtcov~ wt~t c~orr~rrsor~ ~C.tinditio~ns l-S follow on -- page 10). Entered ths's ~ ~< ~r day ofI7ecemtrer 20U4. • ~ i ~~ eredith A CietChes City of Bainbridge island Hearing Examinerpro tem CONCERNII~TG FURTA~R 1Z.EYIE'W NQ~'E: it is the resports;bility ofa petsosi seeking review of a Hearing Examiner decision to consult apglit~ble Code sections and other appropriate sources, ~cluding State La~tti; to determine his/her rights and responsibilities relative to aPP~• - for dial re~riew of this decision by a person with standing can be made by tiling a Land use petition is superior court within Z 1 days in accordance with the Laud llse Petition Act, Revised Code ofVilaslrin~on (RCVV'j, Chapter 36.700. SCUP 12565 Page 4 of 1 b ><tul o9a~na Cauditiotts of Apprnval iThese condiions are oniq these related to the RUE a~ppraval; other and additional conditions included with approval of subdivision SUB098tltl must also lx; adhered Eo, j Sh'PA Conditions 1. Friar to any clearing or atl~er construction activities, the applicant shalt obtain a plat utilittes permit from the Department of Planning and Ccmuneexiity Dev$loptwtetrt that includes auz approved Temporary Erasion and SedieeeeM~pn Ccrntnnl Plaet addressing errosirne and sedimeert control, issues specific i~o the construt~ioa and installation of the waterline. 'xhat plan must specify fire Best Management Practices ($MP) ttE be employed. All the l3MPs specified shall be implez~eued w the satisfaction of the Public Wvtt~s Deparnnemt. 2. All suitable excavated soil shall be ne-used tm-si~ proovided tT~ eeither flee ioc~ian of nor the manner of Heat reuse would daoiage vegetation and/or optetribute to or iacrcase erosion or sedimion. That ~ determieued by the Director w be unseeitable for an-site use shall be disposed of at a dtsposat site approved by the pirector. 3. 'l'o mitigate air aY impacts, caaetractais s3mll co~urm to Pr~ct Sound Chao Air Agency riegula~Rons and take all reasonable precautions to an-oid dust emissions. Vegetation than caeeaat be r~ensed ore-site ~ awed is flee Mitigation Plan, sl>all be removed Erfurt the site, processed by chipper, or by some otleer method of disposal trot t+equiring burn+ng. 4. All conditions need rr.+ronenreredatioos set in the 8ao~ica[ ~t pYepau+cd bX Meyers Blodynamlcs, dated October 2a, ~ 999 shall be fioilowed wtthout exception t!? the 5att15f~ttC1I1 of the PeebtlC Works Depattmeert. ~]. ~te teEIIChel]g nerd fri9lS1}atiQQ euchvlhCS ~Dr the a~~terliue'S ~'t Segment shall be permitted only let the "dry season' when reo water is flor~viug in flee streambed. Treeachir~ and iastallati~ activiti.~s oe~ the north-soeetle its of the waterline artside df'the streatt~ anti its buffer may be permittted without this seasonal Gretitatioea. Best mareagenxent pracsiees tcs control erosion and sedimentation must be always utilized as appropriate -see Condition #1.) 6_ All eoxtditiaeas of the Mitigation Pfau (reglacaiug, restoration, monitoring, contingency and rreaitttenaence, including Figures and Fables), pt3epared by Meyers Biodynamics and dated Iuly 29, 21704, shall. be followed without exceptiotr to file satisfaabio:a~ ofthe Public Works Departmett. Nara-SEPA CQnditioses ?. The waterline, where it crosses the slxaeam, shall be canstxucte+d of heat vrrelded 1F)EDPI: (or other material expressly fated suitable by the Public Works Deparm~eetet) and/or shadl be sleeved W #l+e satisfactiaa ofthe i'ublic Works Degartettent. SCUP 12566 Page l U of 10