Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
OLSON, OTTO - RUE1
EXH ORIGINAL SUBMITTALIROUTING INFORMATION DATE FROM: DESCRIPTION 3/17/2004 City of Bainbridge Island Treasurer's Receipt Number 3202 Applicant; ESTATE OF OTTO OLSON by Mike Olson File No. RUE09800 (3/17/2004) 11 copies of application 11 copies of project commentary 11 copies of legal description 11 copies of geotech report 11 copies of reduced drawings 11 copes of full -size drawings ~ no ~+` u,~ui~..~ - awn-~-- 3/17/2004 Meghan McKnight Application intake, to Tom Bonsell and PW 3/26/2004 Nan Gladstein Acknowledgment letter Nan Gladstein Transmittal to F&W not yet sent; waiting on replanting lan from a plicant Wetlands Advisory Review: No review is set due to the fact that we are still short a member for the committee S' 9' ' oa ivora'nan.chrono lrst ' TOvI BONSELL PLANNER EXB CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER , -- -Fl /J] APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY ) PLAT APPROVAL AND APPEAL OF ) SEPA MITIGATED DETERII~INATION ) OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) ) APPLICANT: ESTATE OF OTTO OLSON,) MICHAEL OLSON, EXECUTOR ) SUB~4800 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, SEPA APPEAL DECISION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Estate of Otto Olson owns a 4.5 acre parcel on the south side of Lofgren Road, between Hemlock Street and Fir Street in the City of Bainbridge Island. This parcel is legally described as: Lot 46 of Rolling Bay City, recorded in Volume 3, Page I1 of Plats, Retards of Kitsap County and situate in Government Lot 2, Section 23, Township 25 N, Range 2 E, Willamette Meridian, City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. -Tax Account # 41159 D00 046 OOOS 2. Mr. Michael Olson is the executor of the Estate of Otto Olson, Mr, Olson has f led an application far Preliminary Plat approval to divide the 4.5 acre parcel into six single-family residential lots. The parcel has been developed with asingle-family residence which has driveway access to Fir Street. The applicant proposes six rectangular lots, three of which abut Fir Street and three of which abut Hemlock Street. A ravine and a seasonal stream run generally south to north in the center of the property. This stream has been classified as a Class IV stream. The ravine originates south of the site. The ravine deepens northward and broadens slightly, descending approximately 40-50 feet in elevation from the south property line to the north property line. At the north end of the site, the constructed embankment for NE Lofgren Raad spans the ravine, reaching a height of approximately 20-feet at the ravine access. The ravine slope varies in height and angle. At the south end of the site where the ravine turns northeast, slope angles are more moderate and generally range from 20-30 degrees with a maximum slope height of approximately 35-feet. The more northerly portions of the ravine have slope angles of approximately 45 degrees and slope heights increase to approximately 40-feet. Slopes flanking the ravine at the north end reach approximately 50-feet in height with slope angles of 40-degrees or less. The ravine is moderate to densely vegetated with established Douglas Firs, deciduous trees and an understory that increase in density from south to north along the ravine. Surface water flows north along the stream channel in the base of the ravine and is channeled off site via a culvert through the roadway embankment at the north end of the ravine. A spring is located in the central portion of the ravine. This spring currently provides a water supply for the residence Suso9soo Hearing Examiner o15fln Page -1- City of Bainbridge Island on the property. See Report of Myers Biodynamics, Inc. -EXHIBIT 9.J 3. The subject property has been given a zoning designation of R-2. Properties to the south, east and west of this parcel have also been zoned R-2. Properties to the narth have been zoned R-1. This parcel has been given a Comprehensive Plan designation of OSR-2. Properties to the south, east and west have also been given the Comprehensive Plan designation OSR-2. Property to the north has the Comprehensive Plan designation OSR-1. Properties adjoining this parcel on the narth, south, east and west have been developed for single-family residential uses. The development of this parcel for single-family residential use is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan. 4. Residents of this subdivision will be provided police protection by the Bainbridge Island Police Department. Children residing in any homes in this subdivision may attend Bainbridge Island public schools. Meigs Park and the Bainbridge Island Park and Recreation District swimming pool facilities are located within 1-mile of this subdivision. Residents of this subdivision will also have access to public school playground areas located within 1-mile of the property. Adequate space is available on the lots to develop individual play areas for residents. 5. Lots proposed far this subdivision range in size from 25,180 square feet to 36,438 square feet. Each lot has suffscient building area to accommodate asingle-family residence and septic drainfields outside of critical area buffers and well protection areas. The applicant has proposed providing waste water disposal .through individual on-site septic systems. b. Access to the subdivision lots will be from Fir Street and Hemlock Street NE. Lots 1, 2 and 3 will access off Hemlock Street and Lots 4, S and 6 will access off Fir Street NE. Fir Street IVE has been developed as a gravel roadway. The south end of Fir Street was vacated by the City. Fir Street no longer provides access to Yaquina Avenue on the south. Hemlock Street is a public right-of way which extends from Lofgren Road to Yaquina Avenue. Hemlock Street, south of the OIson parcel, has been developed as a gravel access road for five residences. The Hemlock Street right-of--way bordering the Olson property is undeveloped. The Fire Department has recommended that Hemlock Street be developed from NE Lofgren Road to Yaquina Avenue to provide emergency access far all residents along Hemlock Street and to establish a connectivity route between Lofgren and Yaquina for emergency access. The City Engineer has required development of Hemlock Street from Lofgren Road to the south property line of the Olson parcel for access to the proposed Olson subdivision. 7. A SEPA MDNS was issued by the City on April 16, 2003. A timely appeal was filed by the applicant on May 14, 2003. The applicant has appealed Condition 7 of the SEPA MDNS: In order to provide adequate access to the st~hdivision, the applicant is required to improve and develop Hemlock Street NE to City of Bainbridge Island, minimally adequate standards. Improvements shall begin at NE Lofgren Road sUSO98oo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -2- City of Bainbridge Island and continue to the south property line. All improvements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. The applicant proposed access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 aver the developed section of Hemlock Street south of the Olson parcel. The applicant offered to improve the existing roadway to meet the City's "Minimally Adequate" Road Design Standards CEXHIBIT 6]. Under the applicant's plan, the north portion of Hemlock Street would remain undeveloped. Mr. Tom Herriatt, of Browne Engineering, Inc., was retained by the applicant to design an access roadway for the subdivision. Mr, Herriatt estimated the cost for improvements to the Hemlock Street right-of- way to connect Lofgren Road to Yaquina Avenue with a "minimally adequate" road with a 15 percent slope is approximately $165,000. Mr. Herriott estimated the cost to improve Hemlock Street from Yaquina to the Olson's south property line, as proposed on Exhibit b, would be approximately $40,000. S. Ms. Melva Hill, Department of Public Works {DPW), testified that the City is requiring Hemlock Street to be improved to a 12-foot wide paved surface with intermittent turnouts to provide adequate access for emergency services. The development of Hemlock from Lofgren to Yaquina would provide connectivity for shorter response time for emergency vehicles. Mr. Ross Hathaway, Assistant City Engineer, testif ed that good engineering practice requires connectivity be considered when reviewing city right-of--way development. Mr. Hathaway stated, that in his opinion, the Hemlock Street improvements are necessary for the Olson subdivision to have adequate safe access and good fire protection. The existing roadway developed on the south end of the Hemlock right-of--way is not adequate for emergency services. 9. The applicant also objected to the City's proposed Condition 18. BIMC 17.04.494 requires that a Preliminary Subdivision make appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest including provision for roads streets and other transit facilities. The Preliminary Subdivision must meet road and stormwater management requirements. The subdivision roads must provide adequate access for fire and emergency vehicles. BIMC 17.04.080 requires all subdivisions to meet road and access performance standards set forth in 17.04.0$0{J) which reads as follows: J. Roads and Access Performance Standards. 1. Roads and access shall be consistent with the following performance standards: a. Connections to existing off-site roads which abut the subject. property shall be required where practicable, except through critical areas and/or their buffers. b. Pedestrian access onto the site shall be maximized in all proposed projects. This may be accommodated through the provision of on-site walkways, trails, paths or sidewalks which originate at the property boundary. c. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be facilitated through appropriately scaled walkways, paths, trails or sidewalks. Special emphasis shall 6e sUBOggoo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -3- City of Bainbridge Island 1 1 placed nn providing pedestrian access to proposed recreational andlor open space areas. d All roadways (and building sites) shall required storm water management provisions. e. Where practical, existing roadway character shall be maintained.. This may be accomplished through the reduction of roadway width (provided it is consistent. with the code, the minimization of curb cuts, and the preservation o, f roadside vegetation. f. "City of Bainbridge Island Engineering, Design and Development Standards Manual "and Appendix A of this title. 2. Variation from Road Requirements. A variation, from the road requirements and standards contained within the "City of Bainbridge Island Engineering, Design and Development Standards Manual "and Appendix A of this title shall be permitted if such a reduction meets the purposes of this chapter, and is approved by the city or the director, after recommendation by the city engineer and the fire marshal. (Ord. 98-20 Sec. l3, 1995; Ord. 9b-ObB Sec.I, 199b~ . The City Engineer has not recommended a variation from the road requirements and standards contained within the City of Bainbridge Island Engineering, Design and Development Standards Manual, The Assistant City Engineer reviewed this proposal and decided that City engineering practices require development of Hemlock Street as a through street to provide connectivity between Yaquina and Lofgren. Hemlock Street would then be available for emergency access as a through street to provide shorter response time for emergency access vehicles and promote public safety. Access to the western three Lots of the Olson subdivision must use Hemlock Street, a public right-of--way, far access to either Lofgren Road or Yaquina Avenue. Connecting the two streets will provide an exit route far residents of the street when a portion of the street is blocked. Hemlock Street as currently developed does not include a turnaround for emergency access and is not developed to the standards for "Minimally Adequate" roadways. The topography in the area may require paving to meet Fire Department standards far road access. The public will receive substantial benefits from improvement of Hemlock Street to a through street connecting Lofgren and Yaquina. The public use and interest would be served by the improvements to Hemlock Street. The applicant, however, has shown that adequate access to the subdivision can be provided by improvements to Hemlock Street from Yaquina Avenue to the south portion of the Olson plat (EXHIBIT bJ. The Fire Marshall reviewed this proposal on March 26, 2002 and approved the plan as submitted (EXHIBIT 20J. The DPW also determined that this alternative access would be adequate, but then after further review and discussion decided to require the applicant to develop the north portion of the Hemlock Street to establish a through street from Lofgren to Yaquina Avenue. The Assistant City Engineer did not identify any specific impacts from this subdivision proposal which require a through street at this location. The subdivision will add an estimated 29 ADT to Hemlock Street. The applicant will provide an emergency vehicle turnaround designed to meet Fire Department standards. Hemlock Street will be improved to "Minimally Adequate" Road Standards as required by the City Engineer. This suBO9goa Hearing Examiner Olson Page -4- City of Bainbridge Island ,' ~ 1 subdivision is located within one mile of the Fire Department's main station an Madison Avenue North. The residences will be identif ed by address signage to assist emergency access. Stormwater management improvements will be included in the new road design. The current roadway character of a winding graveled road will be maintained. After the improvements proposed by the applicant, Hemlock Street will provide adequate access for all residents along the roadway. The proposed-improvements to Hemlock Street, south of the Olson plat, would not require improvements that affect critical areas or their buffers. The Flexible Lot Standards for roads and access in BIMC 17.04.080 require that connections to existing off-site roads which abut the subject property shall be required where practicable, except through critical areas and their buffers. The topographical information contained on the Preliminary Plat (EXHIBIT 35J shows a significant rise m elevation from north to south, along the unopened Hemlock Street right-of--way. Significant cuts would be required to maintain the maximum 15% grade on a newly improved through street from Lofgren Road EXHIBIT 29]. Mr. Herriott testified that the cut to maintain the road grade required by the City would be at least 9-feet below the existing ground at the centerline EXHIBIT 28J, 10. The City Engineer determined that no street segments servicing this proposed plat are near Level of Service (LOS) failure. This subdivision will add approximately 48 average daily trips to Lofgren Road, a collector street, if Hemlock is developed to Lofgren Road. Lofgren Road is currently operating at a LOS A. The 48 estimated average daily trips generated by this proposed -~ project would not push the LOS below the current allowed minimum LOS of C prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan -- Transportation Element (EXHIBIT 45J. No further traffic analysis was required by the City Engineer. The requirement for a Certificate of Concurrency was waived by the City Engineer EXHIBIT 38 and 45]. The City has asked fora 5-foot right-of-way dedication along the parcel's Lofgren Road frontage. The Department of Public Works required this dedication to mitigate for impacts from traffic generated by this subdivision EXHIBIT SO and CONDITIQN I8]. Lofgren Road has been designated as a collector street on the Comprehensive Plan -Functional Road Classification Map. Lofgren Road requires 50-feet of right-of way for development as a collector street. Lofgren Road now has dedicated right-of--way measuring 40- feet in width. The City Engineer did not require improvements to Fir Street. 11. This subdivision will be provided fire protection by the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. Earl Davis, the Fire Marshall, testified in support of the City's requirement that Hemlock Street be developed as a through street. Mr. Davis reviewed the proposal for the subdivision and determined the Fire Department response time would be improved if Hemlock Street were developed as required by the City CF,XHIBIT 39 and hearing testimonyJ. Mr. Davis also determined that no fire flaw is available in the area of this proposed plat. The site plan must indicate the method of compliance with fire flow requirements. If building separation is used to meet the requirements, then combustible roofs may not be built on any houses constructed on the lots, and a minimum distance between dwellings should be established at not less than 25-feet [EXHIBIT 39J. Mr. Davis had previously reviewed the applicant's proposal to improve only the SLrBO98oo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -5- City of Bainbridge Island south end of Hemlock Street (EXHIBIT 6]. Mr. Davis also approved that access proposal (EXHIBIT 20]. I2. The applicant has set aside 40% of the parcel in designated open space. These open space areas will be included on the individual lots and will be subject to an Open Space Management agreement. A 25-foot vegetated open space area will be maintained along the north side of Lots 1 and 4 where those lots adjoin Lofgren Road. An Open Space Management Plan has been filed by the applicant (EXHIBIT 12]. This Plan should be amended to include provisions for maintenance and responsibility for the open space areas located on individual lots and to make provision far fencing along the steep slope buffer perimeter to protect the buffer area from damage or encroachment. The geotechnical engineer made specific recommendations far site drainage and open space restrictions to protect slope stability in the ravine area. Those recommendations are outlined in Exhibit 9 and should be included in the Open Space Management Plan as restrictions on the use of protected open space area an each lot. A Homeowners' Association must be farmed to monitor activities in the protected open space areas to ensure compliance with BIMC 1b.20. 13. The applicant is proposing a Group B water system to provide potable water for homes in this subdivision, The proposed well site will be located outside the 25-foot steep slope buffer. The proposed well site is near the property line for Lots 2 and 3. The applicant has proposed a 10-foot utility easement along the south property line far a waterline to provide water to Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the east side of the property. This water line would cross aver the ravine, the Class IV stream bed and the steep slope buffer on the east side of the property, then turn north across Lots 6 and 5, to connect the eastern lots to the water system. A separate utility easement would cross Lots 3 and 2 to connect Lots 1, 2 and 3 to the well site. 14. Mr. Tom Bonsell, was the planner assigned to review this Preliminary Plat application. Mr. Bansell testified that the stream an this parcel feeds into a Category I wetland, located on property to the north across Lofgren Road. Mr. Steve Morse, the City's Natural Resources Specialist, examined the site and determined that the stream on the property is a Class IV stream as regulated under the BIMC. Mr. Bansell testified that placement of a waterline across the stream and stream buffer areas is not allowed as a permitted use in the stream or stream buffer under BIMC 16.20.090{F} and (G). Mr. Bonsell testified that in his opinion waterline installation could be accomplished without significant environmental impacts, however, waterline maintenance and the possibility of future breakage could cause significant damage to the stream channel and negatively effect water quality in the stream. Concerns about erosion and sediment transport downstream and offsite were also discussed in the Geotechnical Engineer's Report (EXHIBIT 9, Pages S and 6]. 1 S. The applicant did not file an application for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to allow svBO9goo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -6- City of Bainbridge Island alterations to required buffer areas or the streambed. The Wetlands Advisory Committee has not reviewed the waterline easement proposal. There is no evidence in the record which proves the applicant would be deprived of reasonable use of his property if he is not allowed to place his proposed waterline across this regulated stream bed and stream buffer area. The City has authorized an alternative route for the waterline using the public right-of--way on Lofgren Road. This route would allow development of a water system to service all six .lots in this-subdivision. The Lofgren Road route could be built outside critical areas and their buffers. The Director has accepted a reduced steep slope buffer of2S-feet, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The waterline utilities easement approved by the City would require a utility crossing of the 2S- foot open space set aside on Lot 4 and the 25-foot open space set aside on Lot 1. SEPA Condition No.6 provides an alternative route for the waterline which will avoid probable environmental impacts to critical areas identified on the property and does not require a RUE prior to its construction. There is inadequate information in the record to support the City's suggestion, in Condition 6, that a second well could be drilled on the property. The applicant has asserted that a second well site an the eastern portion of the property is unavailable under the present plat configuration. This assertion was not disputed by the City. 16. Myers Biodynamics, Inc.; the geotechnical engineers, made recommendations for well location and utility easements for the water lines EXHIBIT 9]. The Geotechnical Engineer recommended that the proposed shared well be located at least 10-feet from the ravine slope crest to provide a suitable long term factor of safety for the well and to reduce potential slope impacts associated with well installation. She recommended that the proposed utility easement be routed to maintain a minimum setback distance of 10-feet from the crest of the ravine slope where it parallels the ravine. In addition, she recommended that the utility easement cross the ravine in an area of modest ravine slope height and angle which, according to observations, is in the extreme southern portion of the site. The Geotechnical Engineer recommended that trenching for the proposed well and utility easement be backfilled as soon as possible after utility installation, and that disturbed or denuded site soils be protected from erosion during the construction process. After trench backfilling, the disturbed soils should be immediately protected from erosion by mulching and seeding, or hydro-seeding the area. Erosion control measures should be incorporated at the base of the ravine at the utility trench crossing, to reduce erosion and the potential for sediment transport downstream and off the site. The Geotechnical Engineer anticipates that conventional erosion control techniques such as hay bales, silt fencing andlor quarry spall berms or blankets will provide adequate erosion control for the site and the ravine. If constructed according to these recommendations, the Geotechnical Engineer concluded that the utility easement alignment will reduce slope, soils and vegetation disturbance and will not adversely impact the ravine's slope stability. 17. Mr. Tom Herriott also testified about water line installation on the property. Mr. Herriott susosaoo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -7- City of Bainbridge Island > > recommended that the water line be placed along the south property line rather than within the Lafgren Road right-af--way. Mr. Herriott estimated that the cost .to the applicant to place the water line across the south property line would be approximately $12,000. Mr. Herriott estimated the cost of the route required by the City in Condition b to be $37,000 to $50,000. Mr. Herriott testified that his cost estimates assumed that the water line would be placed in the steep slope an the roadside and not in the paved portion oFthe roadway. The DPW has given permission for this private water line to be placed in the public right-of--way (EXHIBIT 27J. 18. This proposal for subdivision development has been reviewed by the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District (Health District). The Health District has not approved this preliminary plat application (EXHIBIT 27J. A Notice of Incomplete Application was sent to the applicant on September 5, 2002. Building site applications for on-site sewage disposal for Lots 1, 2, 4 and b are required by the Health District. In addition, a backhoe soil log is required for Lat 3. Miller Bay Water Company has provided a soil log analysis for the proposed development [EXHIBIT 10]. Mr. Tam Bonsell, Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD}, stated that the City has not required the applicant to provide B5A's for all lots in the subdivision at this stage of the proceeding because of the disagreement over the water system design required for the subdivision. The City has recommended that Health District approval for individual septic systems on the lots be submitted prior to submission of this Preliminary Plat to the City Council for decision (Condition 26]. Water will be provided by a private Group B well system. The well system has not been built. The applicant has not provided Health District approval of the well site. The well system must be built before the Health District will consider preliminary plat approval. AlI lot owners in this subdivision will have responsibility for the maintenance of the water system. A well and water line maintenance agreement will be required to ensure that the water system provides potable water which meets Health District standards. A plan for maintenance and repair which includes assessment provisions far ongoing maintenance should be submitted to the DPCD for approval. 19. The geotechnical engineer recommended that a Coordinated Site Drainage Plan be provided for all lots in this subdivision prior to site development. The geotechnical engineer recommended that all future site drainage discharges such as roof downspouts, foundation drainage, driveway drainage, and other site drainage features drain into a stormwater infiltration/discharge system away from the ravine slope crest and outside the recommended 25- foot steep slope buffer area. Maintenance of on-site drainage systems is recommended on an annual basis, prior to the wet weather season. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer (EXHIBIT 9] should be incorporated into a site drainage plan submitted to the DPW prior to issuance of a Plat Utilities Permit. The drainage plan must include provisions for the regular monitoring and maintenance of drainage systems on the properties. SUBO980o Hearing Examiner Olson Page -8- City of Bainbridge Island 20. Condition 20 in the Staff Report is in conflict with the Site Plan submitted March 27, 2003 . 2 L The public use and interest will not be served by the approval of this preliminary application before the applicant has filed documentation showing Health District approval of the water-and sanitary waste systems proposed'for the subdivision. 22. On Juiy 31, 2003,_ a Public Hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner to consider the application. The Hearing Examiner visited the site on July 31, 2003. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Bainbridge Review on July 12, 2003; notice of the public hearing was mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed project, and notices were posted at the City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce; and the Ferry Terminal on July 12, 2003; notice was posted at the subject property on July 15, 2003 (EXHIBIT 53J. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Hearing Examiner pursuant to jurisdiction established in BIMC 1b.04.170 and BIMC 17.04. Adequate legal notice was given prior to the public hearing which was held on July 31, 2003. The applicant submitted a request to the Hearing Examiner to take official notice of a prior Examiner Decision issued by Mr. Richard Shattuck an October 3, 2003. Decision SPT092001 concerned a separate parcel of Iand and was based on a finding that the City's Short Plat decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mr. Shattuck's Decision provides na legal precedencefor the matters being considered by the Hearing Examiner in this SEPA appeal and Preliminary Piat review. The request is denied. The applicant filed a timely appeal of the SEPA MDNS. 2. The applicant appealed SEPA MDNS Condition Na. 6: In order to supply water from the proposed well site to the three lots on the opposite side of the ravine the water transport line will. not be permitted to cross the ravine -and Class IV stream either above or below the surface. The water transport line must he placed in the right of way for NE Lofgren Road or a second well must be drilled. The applicant asserts that SEPA MDNS Condition 6 is clearly erroneous as drafted, since in the applicant's opinion, Condition 6 prohibits filing a Critical Areas application or an application for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to allow placement of the proposed waterline under a regulated stream and its associated buffer. The applicant has not filed an application for an RUE to allow placement of the waterline across a regulated stream or its buffer. The Director of DPCD did not conclude that negative impacts to critical areas an this property are necessary and unavoidable, as required by BIMC 16.20.100. The Director has not found, nor has the applicant asserted that a RUE is required for this project to grant relief from the provisions of SUBO98oo Hearing Examiner o[son Page -9- City of Bainbridge Island BIMC 16.20. The applicant did not provide evidence that compliance with the provisions of BIMC 16.20 would leave no reasonable use of his property. BIMC 16.20.090 does not include the installation of utilities within a regulated stream bed and its associated buffers as a permitted use. An RUE is required for the alterations to the stream and buffer areas proposed by the applicant. The City informed Mr. Olson of the need far an RUE if he wished to go forward with his proposal for the waterline to crass the stream bed (EXHIBIT' 37J. No application far an RUE was filed prior to the SEPA MDNS being issued on April 23, 2003. The burden was on the applicant to file an application for a RUE to allow his proposed alterations to critical areas on the property. The applicant did not do so. The City was unable to process a RUE without an application. The City has identified Critical Areas Ordinance provisions (BIMC 16.20) which regulate the ravine area on the applicant's property. BIMC 16.04.170 adopts these provisions as substantive authority far its SEPA review. The applicant's proposal does not comply with the provisions of BIMC 16.20. The Director's decision to prohibit waterline construction as proposed by the applicant is supported by the testimony of Mr. Bonsell and by substantial evidence in the hearing record. The City's proposal in Condition 6 to allow a second well on the Olson property is not supported by evidence in the record. This mitigation measure cannot be accomplished because of site topography and prior development on the parcel. The City's suggested alternative route along the Lofgren Road right-of--way can be accomplished and is reasonable mitigation to avoid identified probable environmental impacts to the stream area. Without a RUE, this route is the only reasonable route for a waterline to connect all lots in the subdivision to the proposed well site an the west side of the parcel. 3, The applicant also appealed SEPA MDNS Condition No. 7: In order to provide adequate access to the subdivision, the applicant is requrred to improve arad develop Hemlock Street NE to City of Bainbridge Island Minimally Adequate Standards. Improvements shall begirt at NE Lofgren Road and continue to the south property line. All improvements shall be approved by the Department of Public Wanks. The City has not identified a specific environmental impact which requires this mitigation measure. The City Engineer determined that no Concurrency Certificate would be required for this project. One half of the lots will access Lofgren Raad from Fir Street. Only three lots in the subdivision will utilize Hemlock Street for off-site access. The City has made no factual showing that there are probable significant adverse impacts expected from this project which require this mitigation. The City has made no site specific study which demonstrates that the approval of the proposed plat will cause significant impacts to traffic or public safety. The City Engineer determined that the few additional car trips that will result from the development of the proposed plat will not have a significant impact on the LOS now available an Lofgren Road. No other probable adverse environmental impacts have been identified by the City to support the SEPA MDNS Condition No.7. SEPA mitigation measures must be based on identified adverse environmental impacts which have been identified in a review of the specifYC proposal. The mitigation measures imposed under SEPA must be reasonable and capable ofbeing accomplished. stn3o98oo Hearing Examiner otson Page -10- City of Bainbridge Island Hemlock street is a public right-of--way. It has only been developed south of the applicant's property. The Fire Marshall reviewed the access proposal made by the applicant CEXHIBIT 6] and approved the route. The applicant's engineer testified that this route could be improved to comply with the City's Road Design Standards for Minimally Adequate Roadways. This testimony was not refuted by the City. The cost of developing access required by the City in Condition 7 would be four times as high as the cast for road improvements proposed by the applicant. This is not a reasonable mitigation measure for the minimal traffic generated by these three lots. The Director's conclusion that the improvement and development of Hemlock Street from Lofgren Road to the parcel's south property line is necessary to reduce probable environmental impacts caused by this proposal is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 4. BIMC 17,04.094 sets forth the decision criteria for approval of a subdivision application. 5. BIMC 17.04.094.A.1.a: The Suhdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general. and public trse and interest, including the follrnvfng: a. Highways, roads, streets and other transit facilities; This application for preliminary plat approval far a six lot subdivision has proposed access off Fir Street far the three lots proposed an the east side of the parcel. Fir Street is presently developed as a gravel road which provides access to the residence located on the Olson property as well as developed lots to the south. Fir Street is not a through street, however, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall have given their approval for its use as adequate access for Lots 4, Sand 6 of the proposed subdivision. The applicant has proposed to extend the development of the Hemlock Street public right-of=-way to serve as access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed subdivision. Hemlock Street would be developed to meet the City's "Minimally Adequate Road Design Standards," and would be designed with fire truck turnaround areas and vehicle pullouts as required by the Bainbridge Island Fire Department (BIFD). Stormwater management features will be included in the roadway improvements. Hemlock Street is designed as a winding gravel road which provides access to five residences located south of the Olson property. The applicant proposes to improve and extend that road across Lots 3 and 2 to provide adequate access for Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the proposed Olson subdivision. Residents of Lots 1, 2 and 3 will use Hemlock Street to access Yaquina Avenue to the south. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would not have direct access onto Lofgren Road, since the remainder of the Hemlock Street public right-af way will remain undeveloped. The applicant's proposals for roadway access to the six lots in this subdivision are adequate and are consistent with the road and access performance standards set forth in BIMC 17.04.080(J). Hemlock Street is a public right-of--way and will remain available for development as a public street in a future City project. The improvements made by the applicant to the south portion of Hemlock Street will contribute to the public use of the Hemlock Street right-of=-way suBO9soo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -11- City of Bainbridge lsland and will not hinder or prohibit the future development of Hemlock Street as a through street. The improvements proposed by the applicant will develop the public right-of--way to a standard which provides for public health and safety and will provide adequate safe passage for residents of this subdivision. These improvements are reasonable and will mitigate traffic impacts generated by this subdivision, 6. B1MC I7.04.094.A, l.b: The Subdivision may he approved or approved with modification if 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions far the public health, safety and general acrd public use and interest, including the following: b. Streets, including street names, traffic regulatory signs and mailbox locations; Hemlock and Fir Streets are identified by street names on the City's Functional Roadway Classification Map and appropriate signage has been installed at the intersection of Hemlock Street and Yaquina Avenue and at the intersection of Fir Street and Lofgren Road. Additional traffic regulatory signs, if required by the DPW, will be installed by the applicant. Mailbox locations and traffic signage required for developed lots will be indicated on the face of the final plat prior to approval. Address signage approved by the Fire Department will be required on each residential lat. 7. BIl1~C 17.04.094.A. I .c: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, incl~rding the following: c. Transit stops; Kitsap Transit provides public transportation for residents in this area. Residents of this new Olson subdivision will have access to transit stops along Lofgren Road, Ferncliff Avenue and State Highway 205. These transit stops will provide adequate access to public transportation for the residents of this subdivision. 8. B1MC I7.04.094.A.1.d and e: The Subdivisions may be approved or approved with modification if.- 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including the following: d. Pedestrian facilities; e. Other public ways leading to and providing access to and within the subdivision; Pedestrian access to the subdivision will be provided along Fir Street and Hemlock Street. The roadways will include gravel shoulders, however, no sidewalks are planned in the subdivision. No trails have been proposed within the open space areas. Open space is divided among the six individual lots. This small subdivision is located within two miles of the downtown core and is located on property very near State Highway 305. Residents of this subdivision will have access to the State Highway from both Lofgren Road and Yaquina Avenue. Access to all lots in the subdivision will be via public right-of--way through driveway access onto the individual lots. No additional public ways will be built within this small subdivision. SUBO980o Hearing Examiner Olson Page -12- City of Bainbridge Island ti 1 9. BIMC 17, 04.094.A. l ,f 8~ g: The Subdivision may he approved or approved with modification if 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and puhlic use and interest, including the following: f. Schools; g. School grounds; School impact fees will be paid for each of the created lots. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant will pay one half of the school impact fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. Subsequent to plat recording and prior to building permit issuance far any created lot, an applicant constructing a residence an any of the lots will be required to pay the remaining one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Condition 10]. These school impact fees will provide funding for the additional usage of public schools and school grounds by residents of this new subdivision. 10. BIMC 17.04.094.A.1.h: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.' 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and puhlic use and interest, including the following. h. Open spaces; i. Parks; j. Recreation facilities; k. Playgrounds; This six lot subdivision has been designed with an open space tract in the center of the property to protect a steep sloped, natural ravine. Steep slope buffer areas have been set aside as no build areas at the tap of the ravine. An additional 25-foot vegetated buffer has been designated along Lofgren Road, on the north property line ofthe subdivision. An Open Space Management=Plan will be adapted for this subdivision. Under the provisions of that Flan, use activities in the open space will be limited. Conditions of approval will require fencing along the slope buffer perimeter to protect the buffer area from encroachment by development activities on the individual lots. The Homeowners' Association will be given the responsibility of monitoring activities on the individual lots to ensure protection of the critical areas on the property. This subdivision is within one mile of Meigs Park which is located across State Highway 305 to the north. In addition, public school playground areas and the Park District's swimming pool are located across State Highway 305 within a mile of this subdivision. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross State Highway 305 at the Madison Street intersection. It is unlikely that residents of this subdivision will have pedestrian access to nearby parks and school grounds, however, public and private vehicle transportation will make those parks readily accessible. No additional recreational facilities are planned for the lots in this subdivision. No common area will be developed for the use of all residents of the subdivision. The lots range in size from 25,1 SO square feet to 36,435 square feet. Each iat should provide adequate space for playground equipment and other active recreation for the residents of the lots. Passive recreation trails could be developed in the ravine area if properly developed to protect geologically hazardous slopes in the ravine, and to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts on the ravine stream. No trails have been proposed or required. 11. BIMC 17.04.094.A.1.1 & m: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with s~o9soo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -13- City of Bainbridge Island modification if.• I. The preliminary s7rBdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including the following: 1. Fire and emergency vehicle access; m. Fire flow; Roadway improvements proposed by the applicant in Exhibit 6, detail a hammerhead turnaround far fire and emergency vehicle access to the lots in this subdivision. Hemloc]< Street will be widened and developed to meet "Minimally Adequate" Roadway Standards. The grade of the roadway will not exceed 12%. This design will provide adequate fre and emergency vehicle access to the subdivision. The applicant has not provided any documentation regarding fire flaw availability. The Fire Marshall has determined that there is na fire flow available in this area `EXHIBIT 39J. If separation between dwellings on the lots is used to meet the fire flow requirements, then the applicant must place a restriction on all lots prohibiting combustible roofs and: setting minimum distance between dwellings of not Tess than 25-feet. These specifications will be required on the face of the final plat. Condition 1SJ. I2. BIMC 17.04.094.A.1.n: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including the following: n. Drainage and storm water facilities; The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plan far drainage and Stormwater facilities on the six lots proposed for this subdivision. Stormwater drainage measures have been included in the road improvement proposal for Hemlock Street. The Geotechnical Engineer's Report ,(EXHIBIT 9J makes specific recommendations for a Coordinated Site Drainage Plan before site development. The Geotechnical Engineer has recommended that all future site drainage discharges such as roof downspouts, foundation drains, driveway drainage and other site drainage features be routed into Stormwater infiltration dissipation systems away from the ravine slope crest and outside of the recommended 25-foot buffers. Regular maintenance of on-site drainage systems is required. The applicant will be required to submit a Coordinated Site Drainage Plan which meets the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer's Report and has the approval of the DPW prior to final plat approval. This Coordinated Drainage Plan is necessary to protect the ravine slope and stream located in the center of the property. 13. BIMC i 7, 04.094.A. l . o & p: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including the following: o. Water supplies, including potable water; p. Sanitary waste. The applicant has not provided a Water Availability Letter for this subdivision application. The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District has informed Mr. Olson that his application is not in compliance with Health District Ordinance No. 1996-8 "Rules and Regulations Governing On- Site Sewage Systems" EXHIBIT 27J. Health District approval of the proposed Group B Water System cannot be obtained until the water system is in place and operating. There is no evidence in the record to show that potable water will he available for this subdivision when developed. SUB498Q0 Hearing Examiner Olson Page -14- City of Bainbridge Island Building site applications for on-site sewage disposal are required for Lots 1, Z, 4 and 6. Health District approval for water supply and sanitary waste disposal is required for approval of the preliminary plat application. 14. BIMC 17.04.094.A.2: The Subdivision may he approved or approved with modification if.• 3. The preliminary residential subdivision has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the flexible lot line process and applicable flexible lot standards; This preliminary plat has been designed to comply with the flexible lot process by locating home sites outside critical areas and creating vegetated perimeter buffer areas along Lofgren Road. This subdivision meets the minimum lot size requirements of BIMC 17.04,080. The minimum lot width for any lot in the proposed subdivision is 81-feet (Lot 6}, which exceeds the minimum lot width allowed in the Flexible Lot Standards (50-feet). Each lot in this subdivision will be allowed no more than 6,534 square feet of lot coverage jCondition 14], This lot coverage meets the maximum lot coverage requirements for the R-2 zone (BIMC 18.30.050). Building setback minimums will be indicated on the face of the final plat: l 5. BIMC 17.04.094.A.3 : The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 3. Any portion of the subdivision which contains a critical area, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all regr.~irements of that ordinance; This parcel has a steep ravine and Class IV stream in the center of the property. These critical areas have been designated as open space tracts on the individual lots and a 25-foot steep :~ slope buffer has been delineated on the site plan. No development will be allowed within the ravine or its buffer area. The Geotechnical Engineer recommended a minimum setback distance of 25-feet from the existing slope crest, to provide a suitable factor of safety for future residences and other associated features on each of the six proposed lots. The Geotechnical Engineer studied the site and found no indication of recent instability, landslide, or significant erosion jEXHIBIT 9, Page 4]. BIMC 16.20.080 allows a reduction in the width of the buffer area provided the Geotechnical Engineer demonstrates that the proposal will not adversely impact the geologically hazardous area. The Open Space Management Plan will contain provisions for the monitoring of activities within the designated open space areas, to avoid encroachment by development activities on individual lots. This project; if developed in compliance with the conditions recommended, will conform to all requirements of BIMC 16.20. 16~. BIMC 17,04.094.A.4: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 4. The subdivision reasonably maintains and protects productive agricultural uses in the vicinity of the property, including complying with BIMC 16.20.180; No agricultural uses have been identified in the vicinity of this property, with the exception of a possible tree farm located on a lot to the east of Fir Street. This subdivision will not abut that tree farm property and the development of this Olson parcel for residential development will have no impact on the continued use of that property far tree farm production. No other productive agricultural uses have been identifed in the vicinity of this property. SLJB098fl0 Hearing Examiner olsoa Page -15- City of Bainbridge island 1 i 17, BIMC 17.04.094.A.5: T'he Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 5. The overall design of the proposal minimizes soil erosion and the possibility of on or aff- site stream siltation, landslides and mudslides arrd meets the requirements for drainage control, codified in Chapter 15.20 BIMC'. The applicant will be required to submit a plan for temporary erosion and sediment controls as a part of the required Plat Utilities Permit. A Coordinated Site Drainage Plan must be designed for this subdivision to protect geologically hazardous slopes and regulated streams in the center of the property. The applicant will be required to submit a Coordinated Site Drainage Plan which includes the recommendations of the Geatechnicai Engineer and is designed so that peak runoff will not exceed pre-development conditions (Condition 5 and 19] . 18, BIMC 17.04.094.A.6: The Subdivision may he approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The preliminary subdivision design is compatible with the physical characteristics of the proposed subdivision site; This subdivision has been designed for six residential lots on a parcel which has a maximum density of nine lots. Building sites have been designated outside of critical areas and their buffers. Approximately one third of the parcel contains a steep ravine and Class IV stream. This ravine is located in the center of the parcel and has been included in open space areas set aside for protection. Development is planned outside of all steep slope areas and bufl`er areas. No access roads will cross the interior of the property. Three lots on the east side of the parcel will access from the north and east and the three lots on the west side of the parcel will access from the south and west. The Geotechnical Engineer's analysis of the site concluded that the proposed site development can occur without adverse impacts to slope stability, provided that adequate earth work, drainage erosion control, and site vegetation management are incorporated into site development and construction practices, EXHIBIT 9, Page 3]. This subdivision will be developed in a design compatible with the physical characteristics of the property. 19. BIMC 17. D4.094.A.7: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 7. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this code, Chapters SS. I7 and 36.70A RCW, and all other applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations; This proposal will comply with all the applicable provisions of this code and all other applicable provisions of State and Federal laws and regulations, if it complies with all recommended conditions of approval and if the applicant provides documentation of Health District approval for a water system and sanitary waste disposal systems on the property, The applicant has provided insufficient information on potable water availability for this preliminary subdivision.. This information is required by BIMC 17.04.094 prior to preliminary plat approval. 20. BIMC 17.04.094.A.8: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 1. The proposal is in accord with the city's comprehensive plan; This subdivision proposal is in general accord with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The absence of information about water supply, sanitary waste disposal, and fire flow availability make SUBa9soo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -16- City of Bainbridge Island this application for preliminary plat approval premature. 21. BIMC 17,04.094.A9; The ,S"ubctivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• 9. Wherever feasible, the preliminary plat design includes measures to minimize clearing, with priority given to maintenance of existing vegetation and re-vegetation is incorporated into the preliminary plat design when possible; This preliminary plat design does include measures to minimize clearing, with priority given to maintenance of existing vegetation. The applicant has set aside forested areas in the center of the lot in protected open space. A tree retention plan was submitted with the Site Plan (EXHIBIT 35]. This tree retention plan indicates an existing tree canopy of 173,600 square feet. The required 30% canopy preservation totals 52,080 square feet. This plan indicates that 70% of the trees will be retained in the open space areas for a total retention of tree canopy at 55,485 square feet. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will require revegetation of disturbed areas to protect critical areas on the site. The applicant has proposed access to this subdivision from the west via Hemlock Street from Yaquina Avenue. This proposal will leave undisturbed most of the remaining public right-of--way north of Lot 3. The applicant's design for improvements on Hemlock Street identifies existing landscaping and trees along the right-off way and is designed to minimize vegetation removal. 22. BIMC 17.04.094.A,10: The Subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if.• ]0. The preliminary subdivision meets road and storm water management requirements. This preliminary subdivision proposal meets the road performance standards of 17.04.080(J). The proposed road improvements will include stonnwater management controls which meet the requirements of BIMC 15.20 and comply with the City's road design standards far "minimally adequate" roadways. A Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant. This plan will be designed so that site development maintains pre-development site drainage conditions. 23. BIMC 17.04.094.B: A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless written findings are made that the public use and interest wild be served by the platting of such subdivision. It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that this proposed subdivision not be approved until the applicant provides documentation of Health District approval of the proposed water system and sanitary waste systems, and until a Coordinated Site Drainage Plan has been submitted to the DPW for approval. Qnce that information is provided, the public use and interest would be served by platting of this subdivision. 24. BIMC 17.04.094.C: In making a determination of approval, approval with modifications or disapproval using the subsections A and B of this section, the following additional factors without limitation will also be considered.• I. All public and private facilities and improvements on and off the site necessary to provide fur the proposed subdivision will be available when needed; SUBO98oo Hearing Examiner olsan Page -17- City of Bainbridge Island l 1 The applicant has not shown that all private facilities and improvements on and off the site, necessary to provide for the proposed subdivision, will be available when needed. The applicant has not built the water system proposed as a potable water supply for lots in the subdivision. Health District approval is required for amulti-party water system such as the one proposed by the applicant. The approval cannot be obtained until the well is in place and the water system has been tested by the Health District. No documentation has been provided by the applicant to support his assertion that water is available at the proposed well site. The applicant has also not received Health District approval for sanitary waste disposal systems to service individual lots. These private facilities are necessary to provide for the proposed subdivision. 25. BIMC 17, 04.094.0.2: In making a determination of approval, approval with modifications or disapproval using the subsections A and B of this section, the following additio»al factors without limitation will also he considered.• .... 2. Proposed. new utilities, facilities and services, and the proposed additional use of existing utilities, facilities and services will not degrade the existing level of operation and the use of such utilities, facilities and services below accepted standards; Electricity and telephone service are available in the immediate vicinity of this parcel and will be available for connection by residents of this subdivision as required. The proposed additional use of those existing utilities will not degrade the existing level of operation or use of such utilities below accepted standards. 26. BIMC 17.04.094.0.3: In making a determination of approval, approval with modifications or disapproval using the subsections A and B of this section, the following additional factors without limitation will also lie considered.•...3. The scenic valzre of existing vistas which provide substantial value to the state and public at large, such as views from public rights-of--way, parks and open space; The applicant will retain a 25-foot vegetation buffer along the north property line where it abuts Lofgren Road. This buffer will help protect the scenic value of existing vistas far users on Lofgren Road, a public right-of--way. In addition, approximately one-third of the property will be retained in forested open space to protect the ravine and Class iV stream in the center of the property. This ravine area will remain visible from the public right-of--way along Lofgren Road. 27. BIMC i 7.04.094.0.4: In making a determination of approval, approval with modifications or disapproval using the, .ruhsections A and B of this section, the following additional factors without limitation will also be considered:...4. Forest woodlots, individual trees, and other existing vegetation and permeated surfaces which provide watershed protection, groundwater recharge, climate moderation, and air purification for the public health and welfare; This 4.5 acre forested parcel is located in an area zoned for residential development. This proposed subdivision will not result in development of the property to the maximum density allowed in the zone. The parcel measures 196,111 square feet; of that area 79,265 square feet SiJB09800 Hearing Examiner Olson Page -1$- City of Bainbridge Island will be retained in forested open space. At least 70% of the trees in the open space areas will be retained under a tree retention plan submitted by the applicant. 28. BIMC 17.04.094.0.5: In making a determination of approval, approval with modifications or disapproval using the subsections A and B of this section, the following additional factors without limitation will also be considered:...5. Existing habitat carrying capacity of the property by providing wildlife corridors, and by preserving areas used for nesting and foraging by endangered, threatened or protected species to the extent consistent with the proposed new use. Existing habitat carrying capacity of the property will be reduced by the development of six lots on this parcel. More than 79,000 square feet of the property will be retained in its natural state in a protected open space area in the center of the property. This area will provide some habitat carrying capacity for the property. No wildlife corridors have been identified on this parcel and no areas on the property have been identified as areas used for nesting and foraging by endangered, threatened or protected species. 29. This preliminary plat application can be approved once documentation is provided for Health District approval of the proposed water system and on-site sanitary waste disposal - systems, provided the following conditions are attached to its approval: 5EPA Conditions: I . Prior to any clearing, grading or construction activities and prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from the Department of :r Planning and Community Development. The plat utilities permit shall include a - Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. 2. All excavated material shall be re-used on-site. If the material is found to be unsuitable for on-site use, it shall be disposed of at an appropriate disposal site. 3. To mitigate air quality impacts during grading, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations that insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. To mitigate air quality impacts during clearing activities, cleared vegetation must be removed from the site andlor processed by chipper or some other method of disposal that does not require burning, 5. Complete storm water drainage plans designed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Technical Manual shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer as part of the plat utilities permit. suBO9soo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -I9- City of Bainbridge Island 1 b. The water transport lines from the well site located on the property line of Lots 2 and 3 will not be permitted to cross the ravine or Class IV stream located in the center of the property either above or below the ground surface unless the applicant applies for and is granted a Reasonable Use Exception to allow alterations to the stream and stream buffer areas. The water transport line maybe placed in the public right-of--way for NE Lofgren Road after issuance of a Right- of=Way Permit and if constructed in compliance with the Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications after approval by the Department of Public Works. Utility easements for the waterline route must be legally described and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor prior to any construction activities on the site. 7. To mitigate potential off-site glare, any street lighting within the subdivision shall be hooded, shielded, and have a maximum height of 12 feet from finished grade and shall adhere to BIMC 15.34. All conditions and recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Myers Biodynamics, Inc., dated October 20, 1999 are adopted as conditions of this approval. Compliance with those recommendations is required. Non-SEPA Conditions: 9. School impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the fallowing provisions. For each of the created lots, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of final plat approval. Subsequent to plat recordation and prior to building permit issuance, an applicant constructing a residence on any of the created lots shall pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 10. A final Open Space Management Plan and associated Covenants Conditions and Restrictions containing the maintenance and responsibility for the open space steal! be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development then recorded with the final plat approval. The final Open Space Management Plan shall include provision for fencing along the perimeter of the steep slope buffer an each individual lot. The plan must include provisions far monitoring use activities on the lots to ensure protection of the buffer and ravine areas. 11, All open space area uses and restrictions are to follow the approved Open Space Management Plan, Specifically 30% of the significant trees as defined in BIlVIC 18.85 and 50 % of the open space on the individual lots shall be designated and preserved in native vegetation at the time of building permit submittal. sUBO9soo Hearing Examiner Olson Page -24- City of Bainbridge Island Preservation plans shall be submitted with each building/development permit identifying the area and trees to be retained. All trees and vegetation on any slope 15 percent or greater shall remain undisturbed. If any of the significant trees that are designated to be saved are considered hazardous by a professional arborist, they may be removed after a replanting plan has been approved. The ratio of replacement shall be 3-1, 3 trees of similar type shall be planted for every significant tree removed as required planting in BIMC 18.85 12. All lot corners shall be staked with three_quarter inch galvanized iron pipe and locator stakes along with all other applicable survey provisions of Appendix A.(BIMC Chapter 17.04) 13. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application. 14. Building setback and lot coverage requirements must be shown on the final plat, Specifically: • Building to Building -Minimum 50 feet separation. • Building to Exterior Property Line - 25 feet. • Building to Right-of Way or street easement -Minimum 15 feet setback. • Building to Trail, Open Space -Minimum 10 feet setback. • Building to NE Lofgren Road - 3 5 feet • Maximum lot Coverage per Iot - b,534 square feet. 15. 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. XXXXXXXXXXXXX SUB0980e Hearing Examiner otsan Page -21- City of Bainbridge Island l 1 1 16. Public and private improvements, facilities, and infrastructure, on and offthe site that are required for the subdivision shall be completed, have final inspection and approval prior to final plat approval. Approval of public facilities will be shown by a formal letter of acceptance from the City Engineer. An assurance device acceptable to the City may be used (in lieu of physical completion) to secure and provide for the completion of necessary facilities. Any such assurance device shall be in place prior to final plat approval, shall enumerate in detail the items being assured and shall require that all such items will be completed and approved by the City within one year of the date of final plat approval. While lots created by the recording of the final plat may be sold, no occupancy of any structure will be allowed until the required improvements are formally accepted by the City. Additionally, a prominent note on the face of the Final plat drawing shall state: "The lots created by this plat are subject to conditions of an assurance device held by the city far the completion of certain necessary facilities. Building permits may not be issued and/or occupancy may not be allowed until such necessary facilities are completed and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island. All purchasers shall satisfy themselves as to the status of completion of the necessary facilities." 17. To the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions prior to final plat approval.. a. The Applicant shall submit a proposal for meeting the Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standard 7-040 for frontage improvements along Hemlock Street prior to preliminary subdivision approval. The applicant shall officially open and improve Hemlock Street to provide access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 from Yaquina Avenue. Hemlock Street shall be improved to meet the City of Bainbridge Island Minimally Adequate Roadway Standards and shall include hammerhead turnarounds and pullouts as required by the Bainbridge Island Fire Marshall. b. Applicant shall submit an engineered plan for construction of the road as well as drainage/erosion-sedimentation control system for it. A design shall be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval. c. Drainage and road improvements shall be constructed or appropriately bonded to ensure performance prior to final plat approval. d. The Geotechnical Engineer shall provide concurrence for proposed drainage systems serving the single family residences or roadways. SUBO4800 Hearing Examiner Olson Page -22- City of Bainbridge Island e. The applicant shall dedicate five feet adjacent to NE Lofgren Road to the City of Bainbridge island prior to final plat approval, I8. To the satisfaction of the Bainbridge lsland Fire Department, the applicant shall address the following conditions prior to final plat approval: Any on-site private roads shall be constructed with the following requirements. a. The entire road shall consist of an all weather gravel surface at least 12 feet in width and a height clearance of not less than l3' - 6".. b. The road shall have a gradient not to exceed 12% an any point unless it is paved where a 15% grade will be allowed. c. Any private road greater than 300 feet shall have turnouts at 300 foot intervals to allow passage of two vehicles. The turnouts must transition to 18 feet in width in a length of 40 feet. d. A hammerhead must be located in the most level portion at or near the end of the road. e. The final plat shall indicate the method of compliance with fire flow requirements as approved by the Bainbridge lsland Fire Department. f Address signage approved by the Fire Department must be installed on each residential lot prior to building permit issuance. 19. Prior to any construction activities on the site, the applicant shall submit a coordinated site drainage plan far all lots in the subdivision. This plan shall incorporate the recommendations the Geotechnical Engineer made in her October 20, 1999 report. The drainage plan must include provisions for regular maintenance and repair of the drainage systems on the lots by a Homeowners' Association or other community entity. 20, Applicant shall submit the following items, completed by the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to final short subdivision approval. A. The engineer of record shall complete, sign, and seal the City of Bainbridge Island's standard geotechnical recommendation form. B. The engineer of record shall address the possible risk to adjacent properties in the City of Bainbridge Island's standard geotechnical Su$o98o0 Hearing Examiner pts~, Page -23- City of Bainbridge lsland 1 recommendation form. C. The following setbacks shall be noted an the face of the plat map, including but not limited to, a 25-foot setback from the crest of the ravine to all future residences, a 10-foot setback to the shared well, and a 10-foot setback from the crest of the ravine to future utility easements. 21. Applicant shall resolve any survey issues prior to final subdivision submittal, including but not limited to, removal of the garage that straddles the property line common to lots 5 and 6. 22. The well site for the project shall be a minimum of 25 feet from the top of slope and the location. Drilling procedures must be approved by a geotechnical engineer. The proposed route and construction of the water line must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The well system must have Health District approval. Well maintenance easements shall be located outside of critical area buffers. A water system maintenance agreement shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. The agreement shall include provisions far regular maintenance and repair, as well as assessment provisions to fund those maintenance and repairs. 23. Health District approval far septic systems and the water well system is required prior to submittal to the City Council for decision. 24. This subdivision shall be developed in substantial conformance to the site plan date stamped March 2?, 2003 and the Road and Drainage Plan date stamped March 14, 2002, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval. 25. Conditions 1 - 5, 8 - 11, 13, 14, and l S shall be listed on the final plat mylar DECISION The applicant's appeal of SEPA MDNS Condition 6 is granted in part and denied in part. Condition No. 6 is amended to read as follows: Tlae water transport lines, from the well site located on the property line of Lots 2 and 3 will zzot be permitted to cross the ravine or Class IV stream located in the center of the property either above or below the ground surface unless the applicant applies for and is granted a Reasonable Use Exception to allow alterations to the stream and stream buffer areas. The water transport line may be placed in the public right-of--way for NE Lafgrerz Road after stlBO9sao Hearing Examiner Olson Page -24- City ofBainbridge Island issuance of aRight-of--Way Permit and if constructed in compliance with the Bainbridge Island Design and Corzstructian Standards and .5'pecifications with approval by the Department of Public Warks. Utility easements for the waterline route must be legally described and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor prior to any construction activities on the site. The applicant's appeal of Condition 7 is granted. SEPA Condition No. 7 is stricken. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends to the City Council that this application for Preliminary Subdivision be remanded to the Department of Planning and Community Development untsl the applicant provides Health District approval of a the water system and the sanitary waste disposal systems for this subdivision. After receipt of that documentation, the preliminary plat application will be ready for review and decision by the City Council. Dated this 14'h day of November, 2003. Robin Thomas Baker Hearing Examiner Pro Tem APPEAL The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final unless, within 21 days after issuance of this decision, a person with standing appeals the decision in accordance with RCW Chapter 36.70. [BIMC 2.16.130(F)(6)~. svBO9soo Hearing Examiner Dlson Page -25- City of Bainbridge Island APPLICATION Page 1 Project Name: OLSON, OTTO ESTATE RUE -- Date Received: 3/17/2004 Project Number: PRI-D009S00 Case Number: RUE09800 Primary Parcel Number: 4L690000460005 site address: 9955 NE Lofgren Road Case Description: 3/1712004, Tnm Bonsell, 9955 Lofgren Road, Develop a Graup B water system to serve 3 of the six homes proposed in a 6 !at subdivision of 4.5 acres. A 2-inch diameter water line will have to crass the Class IV stream. People associated with case; 2.File Narime/ Owner OTTO OLSON, ESTATE OF 9955 LOI+GREN ROAD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 PHONE: 360-509-7714 MIKE OLSON, EXECUTOR 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAINBR[DGE ISLAND WA 9811D PHONE: 360-509-7714 6.City Planner TOM BONSELL 7.City Engineer MELVA HILL 8.Bill Paying Party SAME A5 APPLICANT ADAM & GOLDSWDRTHY, INC. 1015 NE HOSTMARK STREET FDULSBO WA 98370 PHONE: 206-842-9598 6411 t i~l° D~INDRID~E I~~.AND MRS ~ ~ X004 Parcel Numbers: Tax Parcel Owner(s): 416900D046D005 4169DDD0460005 : gi OTTO OLSON, ESTATE OP , g ` 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98 L ] 0 Fee 1-Iistory for Case: Case No. Description Amount Receipt No. Due Reasonable Use $ 3,840.00 3202 $ 0.00 Except-Full Oth $3,840.00 50.00 DEPT ~F P~A~NIN~ Project payment history: ~®~~u~~ DFI~EL~pMENT` Description Amount Receipt No. Due Prepayment -Applications $1,800.D0 07102 $0.00 81,800.00 $D.DO DEPARTME[~T OF PLANNWG AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MAD ISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHOAiE (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-D955 Web Site: www.ci.6ainbridga-isl.waus EXH ~ }~ ,. J CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FARM MUST BE COMPLETED IlY INK, PRERERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. YES ^ No ~ ~} ~ C~ . ,i'ie ul~SiritF Ea'Sltti~ ~r[e~r N [~;~tHl a: ~ ~; a' SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (~~ € ~° ~l ~~rd~?~~~~,~~~~,_r~ t~.i~ ~~~i'~, PROJECT STREETADI)RES~S~ ~ OR ACCESS STREET: !~/ dirt ~ ~ t ~'~ ~ 'i` ~~~~t'f. EN~IRONMENTALCIiECKLIsTSUBMITTED: ^ ., t. ~ ~ F+'(lK C1T~" 1`SE C3NLV l~'~~~'~ f a ~ ~~`f~ aa~,a l' 4 ~ L GI k ~'tt~i r4 ',V~ffE3Eba'3' °" i F ~, fi"^'d ~` Ylil]IECI'~I'~]~IHF:K: -O[~~" I rr.,~Frk ~i5t7 4,~,~~Y t ,-r i~,_~i ~_c,-L~7~~~~L.~E[.l ~ -~ fii,r, N~r~ii;rH: ~~ D~~ G~ ll.~r~'Rr~FI~~.u: . fJG ,~r3~~€~ ~ rump FF t~, , ~ , TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT I) ~T~ tiTAn11' , , Ft~a C i~~` Usi, O[VC}' PROdECTNAME: ~~ ~ r TAx ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: ~ ~ ~ ~ .Ad ~(ri .~ l ~ f1~ APPLICATION One Original (which must COnfain an original SignatUre~ and tell Copies must be provided. Whenever ossible, on finals must be si ued in blue. Please identi the on final document. SUPPORTING One originad (which must contain an original signature), where applicable, and ten copies (if an DOCUMENTS on final is not a licable, eleven co ies) must be rovided . FULL-SIZE DRAWINGS Eleven copies of the required drawings must be provided. Drawings must not exceed I S"x 24" in size. No construction drawin s will be acce ted unless s eci~ICall re nested, REDUCED DRAWINGS Two copies of the drawings reduced to I 1" x I7" must be provided. Applications must be submitted in person by either the owner or the owner's designated agent. SUBMITTING Should an agent submit the application, a notarized Owner/ApplicantAgreemeht mast accompany APPLICATIONS the application. If a planner has been assigned to your project, an appafntment for submittal must be made with that tanner. FEES Single family residence: $3,600. All other: $5,760. Please refer to attached Submittal Check]ist for further information. ATTACHED SUBMITTAL NOTE: when subnutting this application, please do not copy or include the Submittal Checklist CllrrrcKLlsT sheets attached to the back of this a lication. . APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED unless these basic requirements are met and the submittal packet is deemed counter complete. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.vva.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENEIlATEp BY THE CITY AT TIME OF 5UBNIl`ITAL Page 2 of 12 } [` CITY Off' BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MAST BE COMPLETES IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BR ACCEPTER. A, GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project name (if any}: ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~~,~ ~~~ P ~ $~ 2. Project street address or access street: ~c, .~~ ~- ~~ ~ ] ~,. f ~~~~ ~ ~+ 3. Please give the following existing parcel information: Assessor's Parcel Number Parcel Owner Lot Area* -- 6E~ ~ ® ~ r.- C3 U ~~lfr~ *As defined in BIl1~TC 18.06.630 Name of property owner: ~~~~~p ~ ~~ (~,~~ a~ Address: ~ f ~~ ~ ~ L-t9`7~9 &~~ ~ ~- ~ i ~ ~~~s~_ ~~ r- `'~JC~ Fhone• E-mail: F :~~~ sa9 7 ~ ] U' cUl~ r_GG~~ j~~C~- ~ aw.5"~.3, 3~0 ~77~ rl ~ r ~~ If more than one owner: Narne of property owner: Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: Name of property owner: Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: If the owner(s) of record as shown by the county assessor's office is not the applicant, the owner's signed and notarized authorization must accompany this application. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA ~ 98110-1$12 PHONE: (206} $42-2552 • FAx: (206) 780-0955 ~ EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.vva.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl. wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 3 of 12 • :Y [, l 1 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION --,~~;: FORM MUST BE COMPLETED 1N INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 5. Bill paying party: ~ l' ~~ (~~~~ Address: ~~ ,5,~ ~ ~ ~~iv'~tV ~~ _~~,fC.1~d^i mss,. 1 J8 Phone: ~'b~_P~-a`~~~~/~ E-mail:~,Lt~G~.~~DL~~~t2Ja Fax: e~~~ `7~~~~ PP ~-~c~l~l.2~_ Gas ~'c ~oL~~ Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: 7. Contact person; Address; Phone: E-mail: Fax: 8. General location of site: ~py 9. Please attach a legal description. Legal description attached or included on site plan. 10. Please attach vicinity map. ~5 'Vicinity map attached or included on site plan. l 1. Existing property description (i.e. topography, vegetation, buildings, impervious surfaces, access). This description should explain what is currently on the property (rnan-made or natural) and identify distinctive features and dominant vegetation. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTII ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 ~ FAX: (206) 780-4955 ~ EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE C[TY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 4 of 12 ~~ CITY OF BAINBRIDGI/ ISLANB REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOIZM 1VIU5T BE COMPLETED IH INK, PREFERABLY BLi3E. PENCIL WILL NQT BE ACCEPTED. 12. Please provide a complete and detailed written statement of the intended use of the land. The statement should include the sequence and timing of the project and reasan(s} for requesting the reasonable use exception. 13. Describe how the critical areas prevent or severely limit development. 14. Explain why other options are not available to allow development (like reducing building size, zoning variances, buffer averaging and buffer reduction) and how proposed impacts cannot be further reduced. To show how proposed impacts cannot be further reduced, demonstrate an site plan and/or explain. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELQPMENT 280 MADISON AVIaNUE NORTx • BAINBKIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (20~) 842-2552 • FAX: (20b) 7$0-0955 + EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THS CITY A'1' TIME OF 5L1BMrfTAL Page 5 Of 12 N area buffer intrusion: impervious surface (not including building footprint): total disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDCzE 3-SLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.hainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us ~ '~ 9 ~` n .~ 1 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - ,~ "~ FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 15. Check all that apply to the project parcel{s) and include square footage of affected area within t11e parcel ^ wetland wetland or stream category: square footage on project parcel(s): SF ^ wetland buffer Square footage on project parceI(s}: SF `~ stream square footage an project parcel(s): ,,~ ~ SF ^ stream suffer square footage on project parcel (s):~ SF T ~~ Please attach wetland delineation with copies, if applicable. ^ Wetland deIincation attached. 16. Proposed total area of project: building footprint: impervious surface (not including building footprint): l f~U to#a1 disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc}: U sa(1 ~ 17. Proposed total area of critical area intrusion (wetland or stream): building footprint: ~tJ~1~ impervious surface (not including building footprint): total disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc: 18. Proposed total area of criti building footprint: Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE I WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME Oi+ SUBIvIITTAL Page 6 of I2 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MUST BE COMPLETER IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 19, Current use of subject parcel{s}: Lat Number Current Use Lot -~'~ ~ Lot Lot *Use additional sheet it'necessary. 20. Current use of ad'acent ro erties: Ad'acent Pro a to: Current Use North .S ' ~tv ~'~- ~- . South ~ i East # ~ West i ~ 21. Is construction planned within 200 feet of ordinary high water {basically 200 feet from where shoreline vegetation changes from salt tolerant to ^Yes ~~~To ^ Unkxawn upland plants)? 22. Are there underlying/overlying agreements on the property? T'f [IPC rl~arlC AntlI4C:A}]tP ~7C1X _' Yes ^ No ^ Unlrnown ' ^ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Subdivision Conditions (SUB) ^ Contract Rezone (REZ) ^ Reasonable Use Exception (RUE} ^ Homeowners' Agreement {CC&R's) ^ Shoreline Permit {SSDP) ^ Master Planned Development (MPD} ^ Site Plan Review (SPR} ^ Planned Unit Development {PUD) ^ Zoning Variance (VAR) Other: Under which jurisdiction was the approval given? ^ Kitsap County ^ City of Bainbridge Island Approval date: Please attach a copy of the decision document{s).'Decision document(s) attached. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH •BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-i 812 PHONT/: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: {206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us 1 1 Revised September 24, 2Q03 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBivIITTAL Page 7 of 12 ,1 1 CITY OF BAINRRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPT~~N FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IlY INK, PREFERABLX SLUE. PENCIL wILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. B, TECxlvl[Cai, ~NFORl1~ATION 1. Name of water purveyor: r' o If a private well, what class? 2. Type of sewage disposal: 'i Wi~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~, L_ _ _ _ ,/~ j ,'~ S ~S~ ~ ~ If community sewer, name distr[ct: 3. Name of access road: ~"~' ~ ~ a~ ~C 5. How much of the proj ect parcel{s} will be cleared? ~ C~ ~ (~ ___ . _ _. 6. How much excavation/~ll will occur (in cubic feet}? ~' ~ ~(.1 ~{ ___ - ._ 7. Are there trees on site? '~ Yes ^ No Ifvec please mark ae annrnnriate~ full forested with even-a ed stands of: ^deciduous ^ever een full forested with Waxed a ed stands of: ^deciduous ^ever een 6-inch DBH Diameter at breast hei ht ^deciduous ^ever een 8-inch DBH ~ ^deciduous ^ever een 10-inch DBH deciduous _ ever een 12-inch or eater DBH ~ deciduous ver een How many significant trees {12 DBH or greater} will be removed from the site? tlEU ~C rias a forest practices permit bee„ issued within the last six years? $. Do storm water systems exist on the site? If yes, were they constructed after 1982? Tf yes, what type of system exists on site? - w ^ Yes ~No ^ Yes ~No ^Yes^No DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA ~ 98110-1812 PHONE: (20b) 842-2552 ~ FAX: {20b) 780-0955 ~ EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www, ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED H'Y THE CITY AT TRvfE DF 5l3BMITTAL Page 8 of 12 3 CITY OF BAINBRIDCE ISLAND ~: REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MUST BE COMPLETER IN iNK, PREFERABLY SLUE. - PENCiL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 9. Is there any other information (not previously addressed) which is pertinent to this project? ^ Yes~No if yes, please attach explanation. ^ Explanation attached. 10. I hereby certify that I have read this application and know the same to be true and correct. Signature of owner or authorized agent* * Tf signatory is not the owner of record, the attached "Owner) Applicant Agreement" must be signed and notarized. 11. I hereby state the inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of Bainbridge Island MunICipal Code Chapter 16. Signature- of owner or authorized agent* ~D to DEPARTMENT OP` PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH * BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98l 10-1812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: {206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbri dge-isl. wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED SY TIIE CITY AT TIME GF SLfBM[TTAL Page 9 of I2 'The subject property has ,for five years, been in the process of being subdivided into six parcels. There has been no public opposition. Due to the lack of city, coznuaunity or any other water systems in the area it will be necessary to develop a Group B water system to serve any homes built on the lots created by the subdivision. The reason for requesting an RUE is to cross a class 4 seasonal stream with a two inch diatueter water line to serve the three lots that will be on the other side of the stream from the well. T$e trenching for the water line within the stream bed and associated buffers will be lane by hand during the dry season when there is no water flow iri the stream. Same of the trenching will occur in an area of steep slopes. A geotechnical engineer has studied the affect of the trenching of the slopes and determined that there will be no destabilization of the banks as a result of the trenching. Our project engineers and city staff have already agreed that there will be substantially no adverse impact to the stream or associated buffers from the installation of the waterline along our proposed route. Previously, the City staffrecommendedthotthis water line be extended to and along Lofgren road. On this waterline route proposed by the city are two near vertical banks that have been cut during the construction of Lofgren road and Lofgren road itself is built on an approximately thirty to forty foot deep fill across the ravine that the subject stream flows through. Construction of the waterline along this route would be several times more expensive and present more of a risk to the stability of associated slopes and road bed fill material. This alterative is expensive, illogical, and creates more of a risk to the stream. ~i~ ~~~" ~A~ ~~ ~ ~~(~~ Mitigation plan for stream and buffer encroachment at 9955 Leo ~~a~~~~.~~~~~~~ ~ EXH To mitigate far the utilities french. through the seasonal class 4 stream. and associated buffers on the subject property , we propose to plant native sa1a1 and ,huckleberry every three feet on top of the backfilled french. The portion of the trench that crosses the stream will be partially backfilled with soil and topped a~with the stones that were excavated from the area. ^. ~. ..~ _ ~• • iYE L~f re2a.-', 6a •~ :i. -~~ ,a. :f.''~y...:,y ~:.~ ~,:F- <-.' ..• .• ~-,: •~:~.:: ~ S 88'4.7{1' g ~ ;:~.::i •. :,.•.'t,3... irr.., .r ~{9..--; _ ;'ta. r 5S&43' _ ^_ ._-. .. _ ____.. _ Y....3:~. 1 - S ti~:' °':t: t:r: ~,--~,Q~s' ~= I .~_ i -_ .-_-.~ ----_'--..~_,....Sg~TJTI L ~ ~' _, • .- !! 5 t!'c~.~l'. 6~•~.la ~}~$~S M~ .~ Open-.SRG_Ce `,`-i Ry .~- -TO } ''; ~ r ,: ~j~5:s:~en'~~aG^,-rr k b 1- ~. ". ~~ - ~ ~ ~~ fdga0f~ J5 ~ -T ~ Ff 1 ~ • ;.~ ~1,f4t~r4. f1fl. ~ 10' [ltkflfas~ i . ~ ~:.s......_.....~...._....... . ~ ~/[ ~::.::_ :.. ~i ~ ~ r A.49 Acras i aasamaot l ~•i - .~ 1' ft. "'. _ ' kl'. ll ~•!~.-..~ ~ _„h~l n 1 i ~ N 88'43'41' W~ 4 - ~ ~. .!i •' ~ f .~.. ~' ' ~t1:5iF'Acias • ,'~i'Y~ K l.... , 1! ~1 ~ 1 C'~, k.^ c,~1 h '~5 88~.74f°JE ~20Rt !7 .~ `~~*•?'.%~' 1 /1 I/ r ~ ~ i 't ~h~• J - "r~~C~ , ~~; ~'': t ~ F ~' i1p157`p•~Jrl~J4te _ . ~~ . ' ! r .~. ~' 7 I o' ~ _ „r~~ ',fi(i9.265'~ ft:.-~ ~~ti, ~~ F` iii ~. r~er~terLn'eag~•;• ~ .' '~••^~'~'i ~' I4 L1- f~ n h ~jli \ •`ti ~Q' ~ ~ r ~ _ ~l:Of:~wWaJi ~~~~ ~; n.•..~ ~ ' ~ 11.141 sq, ft `'-r..~,k \ ~' ;~eitAg ~ 9 ~ - ! ~ ~ ,; ~~^ 01 iir ~fP 1u1.~ /~~' 0.4&Acres \ '~e r~ ~wofaisup~X: h :F:~:':~••sz' _~.`,-,•i~ AY:..: •x:~ K~.. ~ i ~ ~ ~ hl`hawss) ` ~ :3 ~ . 2~i•568: s fi~ '': •~*~'`~ s~; . ~ t~ ~3~ _F ~{! ..,~ C,. Zb '+ I( _.__.r ~_,---- ~.- - rrt '. ~PraFbseC~ ~ i 1 i ~ 'il:34'pIi`~s' ts?%r:: ~C;% ~.. ;:;}r,,', PE r NJ88+43'4f~W _- L.~'~`~~„~weN 'taL'~//~~ .'r i S,_l. ~• _ } `Jiouses ,~~r ~c *~ ul~CCt~'. f °' -4-a '~ pl Q 20AA0' ~, ~._~ HM~'~; i .~5S ~• ~'• ~'~- Y£• k ~l FaY•'.„-• -I~ f.~, .~0, ~ z ~ .k w. _~ 7: fry tao3~ l ~ ~ AS~~ r, k.;'..:~'<'.' ~ R?~:•~'t~~:°:3•~+ 'ti, •1 i. ~i•~, a•4 'L'x' gad' o•:: es. i ~~~ !.~ ry 1 ~^ ..~•.•~~,• '~J 1'~J' fi ~l~' .~'ti ~.:,. y.c- r~ :$4z^~7 .»F.£'rr,4y-.t' -y: ~ s~~ I 111 !~ ~ ~-:.~` ~y~s `.~':~:++f;' 1D a4i~'~ `L~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ rrr 'o ~ ; i "i'. ~ ~t ,r .` "~ i' f uw~~~•:'~i~f°:bGara '~;s~.~::...: M1y:, :: `~~~_ -:~. r ~ C~ ~- 21.f41 ~ ~•''. o •t •{ 1. . ~ S ~•l7M~G " ohtrd)~•`:',•:~s~~a'of ~'~ •q9 +IIr-T'.~ ',~, i' sq. k. r _ i "6`Y" ~ •f': - ' • 3Vrd1:: ` {~~ 7S ~ ~ ~ R49 Acres r '~ I L i` 1fi,2 sq;:; :x-. -1' 'v '^' ' 'ti• I :1' ~I 1 ~ _ ~ r1 ~s I S 884,Ti1~ E 1 '• '. J @@]]~ff~-~~5.. l~ • 1'~°l I - -:: __ ...I ~ .yrf; ~tiu~~77,r: / 1 Y ~}.-~~i ~~tlp/e` `_ ~ ~~~ ,~~J.~t~ `'~+~s` //~„! if ~'.•~i.••. __ ~; X1;(7 ~Y~ r ~ ~ rr "6. • J'';QS '` :J'~;+~D J _) 1) i { 1w1Q, Jp ~~~ p 1V y~ ' ~ ~ ~ ,S1.1f) feCf Y~ - ` y u, ~= Property 1 ~. _ `~ Approximate Scale: f ~: ~ • ~ ~4~ . ~ _ t ;.. ~ 7 inch . 7~U feet I ~ Yr -HO ~~ • ~, : 0 50 fo0 23 Vicinity Map ~ -}-„ ,~' Notes: ~' ' ~ ~. 9. Site Plan based on "Olson Preliminary Plata by LECaEND• ~. - - ~" "~ Adam & Goldsworthy, lnc., dated April s, 1999. • ' ~° • HA~i Hand Auger F rploration Location 2 ~ .. - ~ ~ _~_ 2. Site topography based on publicatty avaitabte - ,~ Hwn 5ch'dd Rd' ~ ~ information ano~+~~,~'n -.,field verified. M~~F1yers SITE AN® EXPLORATION PL~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~I~F FiGl1REN0 BiOLi nanf~ts ~nE. PROJECT No y Olson Property - NE Lofgren Road ~~,~ ~ ~ ;~~~ ss7s2_~ MS ~~w ~ ew~wuuw.6uudlno •'iizs4 sundr tires e~I~tF~aBl.k.na.w..i~ll,wmaaal,a Bainbridge Island Washington DATE 'ret.: zaera~2-sum .Fax: xntuaaz-sra7 ' ~,. , ,r° n-~ ~ ~;, q ~ a ~ ~, ~. Oc#ober 1999 aye ~e s ~, dtl4~ @~ ` ~~~~~~~ ~~g~~~~l~ Legal Description Lot 4G of the plat of Rolling Bay City, recorded in volume 3, page 11 of tb.e plats, records of Kitsap County, and situate in Government lot 2, Section 23, Township 25 north, Range 2 East, W. M., City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington EXH] ~n~~i • ~4 ~ ~ ; - ~." ~ •~ .. s ~®d~nami~5 inc. - --geotechnicai and environmental science and enginearing- Nlr. Mike.Olson 1541 Dabob Post Office Road ~ " Quilcene, Washington 983'76 _ •_ Re: Scope Evaluation ~ . " NE Lofg~ren Road Property Bainbridge Island, 'Washington Bear Mr. Olson: October 20, 1999 "~ `~~ ~~i ~~~~ ~~~1 ~J~~~~~~~~ ~f~ . This letter presents the results of the slaps evaluation that you requested for your property located south of Lofgren Road on. Bainbridge Island, Washington. We understand that you ~ ~ intend to subdivide your property ;into six tax. parcels. The purpose of our work is t4 provide a •, geiatechnical assessment of the site slope, provide • slope setback recom.paendations, and • generally recommend measures to help mitigate risks to site slope stability from, proposed site development activities. Our work vdas conducted in general accordance with our letter of ~ agreement dated July 15, 1999, and included review of site"~refefence mapping, review of j preliminary short plat pla>as, discussions ~ with you, • a site visit, reconnaissance of the site slope, and preparation of this letter report. S~1'E ANI~ PROJECT DESCR]P'i'ION The site is approximately 4112 acres in size with" approximately 618 feet of road frontage immediately south of 1VE ~ Lofgien Road on Bainbridge Island, Washington. The general . configlu~ation of the property is shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. The acreage is rectangular in shape with the. principle axis oriented east to west and is situated, in an area that slopes. gently clown to the. north toward the head of Murders Cove. Site topography is dominated by a iavine that has a north trending gradient which bisects the site in the central portion of the property. A single famiily residence is located in the eastern portion of, the. property with.a detacb.ed garage structure and associated clearing in the area of the residence. The remainder .of the site is generally undeveloped and wooded. ~ ' Based an preliminary site plans.provided to our office, we understand that the site development. proposal includes subdivision of the property into six tax parcels as shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Three ,lots comprise the western third of the property (Cats 1 through 3}. These lots are rectangular in shape and are oriented sequentially from north to south; with.a;uni;form lot size of 4.~9 acres. Three lots comprise the eastern third of the property (Lots 4 through 8). The east lots are also rectangular in shape and oriented sequentially-" frann _ north to south, but vary slightly in size. Lots 4 anal 5 are 0.54 acres in size, the southernmost Iot (Lot fi') is 0.37 acres in, size. An"existing residence is located vPithin the proposed Lot 5. The central third of the property is designated as an open space tract and roughly delineates the east-west boundaries of the ravine and associated raving slopes. We understand that a utility 'S easement is planned within the open space tract for a proposed community well (See Figure L}: Based on documentation you provided to our office, we.understand that :the City of Bainbridge Fsland, in accordance with the Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), has' requested a geotechnical assessment that evaluates general site slope stability, provides site development recommendations, ~ and specifically addresses ~ building setback recommendations and slope stability as it pertains to the proposed lots and. the planners utility easeiinent. EXH- ' R('ri.T,iitTC RAST ~lfFRC'.'Ai\TTTf,F RTTfT.rIT11TC: 'f'i~F4 ~TT717RT^F. 1RTtTF`. RaFhTR'RTrir~R €cr ~~m tnr~s assn •in .. r~ru+ one 'snva .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ Olson 99792•-5 October 20,1999 page 2 of 7 ~ ' , ' S©IL AND GEOLOGY ~ ~ • ~ • . ~ Reference mapping of the~area was reviewed and included geologic mapping (U.S. Geological ` • Service, Geology and Groundwater Resources, of I~itsap County, Washington, 1958), soil mappizig (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Cunservatian Service, Soil Survey` of Kitsap 'County Area, Washington,, 1980}, and coastal zone mapping (State of Washington Department ~ . , of Ecology Coastal Zorie .Ai;Tas, Volume 10, I~itsa~ County, June 1979). Geologic mapping ~ . _ '" indicates the site and local area are underlain. by glacial~till de'pasits. Glacial till is a: mixture of gravel, sand, silt, ~an.d clay • toot has. been d@posited by 'glacial processes. • Till deposits are typically overridden ~by glacial ice, resulting in a dense soil condition. ~. Soil mapping - ~ indicates that the site is mantled by a surface soil horizon • derived from the weathering of the .. underlying glacial till , Coastal zone mapping describes the site and local area as "stal}le" _ with regard to slope stability. Soil mapping indicates the ravine slopes have a high ergsion • e hazard due to the steep grades. ~ - SLOPERECONNAISSANCE ~ ~,~ . • The property was evaluated by conducting a reconnaissance of the site and observing site.and ravine slope conditions on' August 2.4, 1999. Our investigation was based an information received through conversations with'you and an preliminary .site plans provided to our office. ' Site specific topagrapliic survey information of the property was not available at the time of our investigation. G~nar_al Site Condjtions • ' J ~ The site slopes gently down from the south property line to the north ,toward the east-west trending NE Lofgren Road. Site slope angles vary along the gentle northward slope, but . generally range from. approximately 5 'to 15 degrees. The 618 feet' of roadway. frontage on NE Lofgren Road delineates the northern boundary of the site. - 'The western third of the site is undeveloped, forested,land.with moderate to.dense vegetative cover. Established and mature Douglas fix and deciduous ixees dominate the canopy, with, st~vord ferns, woody shrubs, and herbaceous groundcover"comprising the understory. A sin all clearing was observed along with evidence of an overgrown narrow road, indicating that past logging activities likely occurred one this portion of the site. We understand that a 4Q-feat - easement for a fuw,;,re ea ension of Hertilocli . a eet PdE borders the west property line. ~ The .eastern Hurd of the site has a gentle westward slope component toward ,the ravine and is dominated by .the existing residence and associated site madificatians: ~ The area around the ~°esidence is generally cleared of tress' and maintained as turf-grass and garden space areas. An existing one-lane gravel road' (identified on the plat survey' as Fir Street NE) enters the site at the northeast corner of the property and extends south, providing access to•the site residence and an adjacent residence south of.the property. The.area surrounding the :hesidence clearing _`is forested, similar to that described for the western third of the site. ~ -~ ~ • c 'The central third of the property is proposed.as undeveloped open space and. generally contaisis the ravine and associated ravine slopes. The' ravine appears to originate south of the site, with the axis gradient trending northeast and then north through the central portion of the property. The ravine deepens northward and broadens slightly, descending approximately 40 to 50 feet in elevation firom the south property line to the north property line. At the north ezid of the site, the constructed embankment for NE Lofgren~ Road spans the ravine reac}xing a .heighi: of approxihately 20 feet at the ravine axis. ~ ~ ~ . Myers Biodynamics, Inc. ' 1 ~~ ~1son•99792-5 Qctober 2U, 1999 - ~ . .page 3 of 7 , _ . . The' ravine slope crests flanking. the ravine ~i3aar vary in direction locally, but generally • . ~ parallel the ravine axis. The ravine slope vazies~ ~in height and angle. At the south end of the site where the ravine trends northeast, slope angles are m6re'moderate' and generally ~ range -~ from 20 to 3D~degrees with a maximum slope~heighi; of~approxiinately 35~feet.- Steeper slopes' - , . _ were observed ixx the area where the ravine axis changes to a mare, northerly direction, with slope angles of approximately 45' degrees and slope heights increasing,tQ approxunateiy 44 feet. Slopes flanking the ravine at the north end of the site reach approxixriately 50 feet in height, • ' ~ with slope angles of 44 degrees ar less. ,The ravine is moderate to densely vegetated. with . established Douglas fir axed deciduous trees and an understoxy that generally increases i n ' density from south t4 earth along the ravine axis. ' Several .tree's within the'ravin.e~ were ' observed to be slightly tilted•or exhibited slightly bowed trunks and a~few trees were uprooted ' near the ravine floor. These deformed trees were generally Hated on the steepest slope areas in , .• the central' portion of the ravine and site. ~ - ~ . Groin ter an D ain Groundwater was observed daylighting as a spring and associated surface water flow along the ravine stream channel in the central portion. of the site. Based an information provided to our office, we understand that the spring within the site ravine currently provides the water supply for the existing residence. A pump house and associated plumbing were observed in the ravine floor near the spring im the central. portion of the site. North of the pump house, water was observed flawing •along' the ravine floor within a,narrow, slope-constrained channel. 'Site observations indicated surface water flows north along the stream channel in, the base of'the ravine and is~ channeled off site via a culvert, through the roadway embank~nez~.t at the•n6rth end of the~site ravine. South of the pump house no daylighting groundwater or surface water drainage was observed int the ravine: No other surface water drainage was observed on the site or ravine slopes at ~tbe time of our investigation. In addition, no evidence indicating significant surface water drainage-related erosion was observed on the site'or ravine slopes. oil Subsurface soil conditions were investigated by observing existing sitd soil exposures and by advancing two hand-auger explorations at the approximate locations presented •on -the Site and Exploration Plan; Figure 1. Site soils observed were characterized, by ,topsoil over medium dense, slightly gravelly very silty sand oven dense ~~ta very dense, slightly gravelly slightly silty to silty sand. Gompoaition of the observed soil was generally consistent with reference mapping interpretations of the area indicating. glacial till and till-derived surface soil. Several localized soil. exposures were also observed along the site ravine axis. The exposures ' were approximately 2 to 3 feed in height and appeared to lac the result of minor erosion and scour along the narrow stream channel transmitting surface water along the ravine floor. Ravine stream channel soil expoaures consisted of dense to very •dense, gravelly slightly silty sand. SLOPE E~IALiJ~ATION It is our opinion that the existing site and ravine slopes present a low risk for future instability and landsliding under .static conditions. This opinion is based an the generally moderate site slope angles, established vegetation, and the very dense glacial •till soil comprising the slopes. No apparent evidence of recent or historic landsliding was observed on, the site slopes. This. is r consistent with coastai~ zone zx~apping interpretations of the area which describe the site amyl local area :as "stable" with regard to slope stability. In addition, na evidence of significant surface water drainage was observed on the site• or ravine slopes. However, observations indicate areas of the ravine slope may be under the influence of ",soil creep" (the process of Myers'Biodynamics, Tnce , .a. . ..~ ~ .. ~ . ` ~ Olsan~99792-5. - ~ ~ ` ~ ~ . . .. October 2Q,~1999 ~ .. ~ ~ _ . page 4 of 7 ~ , 'slow dawnslope movement of shallow slope, soils): Several,. slightly tilted tree's and bowed tree trunks 'observed within the ravine may be evidence of this process. The minor erosion. features and scour observed along the ravine stream channel may indicate. slope toe erosion ~ from seasonal wet weather, storm events, or periodic increased spring . 'discharge. Elsewhere on the slope, no indication of $oil 'erosion was observed. Tn genexal, it 'appears that the existing vegetation and surface soil conditions an the site- ravine slopes adequately dissipate surface water flows. and mitigate .potential slope soil erosion. . Tn. our opinion, the proposed site development.can occur without adverse impact to slope stability - provided that adequate earthwork, drainage/.erosion control, and sate vegetation. management are .incorporated into site development "and construction practices. The General ,Site Development Recommendations section of, this letter .report presents ravine .slope setback recommendations and general earthwork, drainage/'erosion control, and vegetation recommendations for proposed sate development plans. Ise addition, recommendations far the . proposed well and utility easement-are presented to help mitigate impacts to slope stability. GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT' RECOlyIl4~ENDA,T~OI~dS The fallowing discussion addresses general site slope development issues nvith respect to the development of single family residences on the proposed lots. •. These' recommezt,dations ~ are based on. conversations with you and preliminary -plans provided to our office titled "Olson Preliminary PIat" surveyed by Adam and Goldsworthy, Inc., dated April 5, ].999 (refer to Figure 1}. slope ~5etback Recommendations '~ Based on our site observations, the subject slope area shows na indieataon of recent instability, landsliding, or significant erasion. In addition,' moderate slope angles, established vegetation, and very dense glacial till slope soils indicate fiat significant fiituxe•1•andaliding is unlikely on the subject slopes assuming existing undisturbed slope corditions.. At the time of our investigation, survey markers identifying lot corners weie` not -observed on the site.. ' Based an field measuxements, it appears that the ravine slope crest as generally within the area- designated as an open space tract, but may loeally coincide with or extend ~ onto the proposed lots. Based on our ohservations and the~preceding evaluation,.the standard setback~~buffer of 50 feet required under the City of Bainbridge . Tsland CAO can. be reduced. We recommend ~ "a -, minimum setback distance of 25 feet from the e~°ting slope crest tc provide a suitable fa-=tor pf safety for future residences and other associated features on`each of the six proposed lots. J At the tame of our investigation, survey ix~arkers identifyaz~,g the Iocataon of the proposed conamunaty 'well and associated utility easement .were not observed on the site. " Based on ~~ approximate field measurements, the proposed shared well is located near the crest of the . ravine slope above a steep (40',to 45 degree) section. of the ravine slope. In our opii~ion,~ the proposed shared well should also be located at least 1Q feet from the ravine slope crest to provide. a suitable long term factor of safety for the well and to reduce potential slope impacts associated with well installation. In addition, we recommend .that the proposed utility .• _ easements -be routed tti maintain a minimum setback distance of 10 feet from the crest, of the ravine slope where it parallels the axis of the ravine. We also recommend that the utilitsr' .easement cross the ravine in the oleo of modest ravine slope, height. and angle, which based on . site observations, is located in the extreme southern portion 'of the site and proposed open space tract. In our opinion, the recommended utility easement alignment. reduces slope soil and ~ . - _ vegetation disturbance and .will not adversely impact ravine slope stability. This is predicated on~the assumption that the well location and utflity easement excavation will ~be Myers Biodynamics, Inc. ~~ • . W v` ~1 ' Olson 99792x5 ~ ~ i ~~ ~ October 20,1959 . . page 5 of 7 ~ ~ , , , protected from erasion and revegetated immediately following construction as recomraetxded below. ~ ~ ~ ~ - ye~etation As stated previously, it appears•that existing vegetation and surface soil conditioxa,s on the site slope adequately dissipate surface water flaws and mitigate potential slope soil erosion. A significant, ;factor associated with site development and slope ~ destabilization is vegetation removal and clearing. Vegetatiozi plays a key role in maintaining, slope stability where a relatively loose soil. horizon overlies denser soil conditions as is the case at' this site. Slope ' instability can be initiated within the loose ~ soil horizony particularly when areas of the slope are disturbed or where vegetation has bean removed. We recommend that, vegetation be maintained on the ravine slopes 'and within. the 25 foot slope crest setbacks. Lot view ~ corridors. could be accommodated by limbing aid trimming treed and vegetations rather than clearing. 1L+Iature vegetation can provide an extensive' z~oi network. which can structurally reinforce shallow slope. soils an,d increase shallow -slope soil stability. Within the proposed well and utility easement, we recomzxrend trenching~be backfilled as soon as possible after utility installation and, that disturbed "or denuded sitesoils be. protected from, erosion throughout the construction process. After trench backfilling,' 'disturbed soils and denuded areas should be immediately protected from exosi.on by mulching and seeding, or hydroseeding the area. If localized .erosion occurs, the area should be immediately repaired and protected from ,further erosion. Although na evidence . of surface water flow was noted i n the base of the ravine .at the south end of the site, we recommend erasion control measures be incorporated at the base of the ravine at the utility trench crossing to reduce erosion` and the potential fora sediment transport downstream and off the site. We anticipate conventional erosion control techniques such as hay bales, silt fencizig, and/or. quarry spill `berms/blankets will provide adequate erosion control far the site and ravine. ~ - . OTSER GENERAL CONSIDERAT140NS Other measures ,can be taken to help red~xce the impact of site development on slope stability. ~ . ' Many, of these issues require monitoring and maintenance by future residence owners an each of the proposed dots. The follovir~ing .recommendations and' considexations presented below should be incorporated into lgng-term 'managemen;t and development of the property. W e - recommend that tlie~ following educational and maintenance information, be provided tia prospeffivp fi?~*e property/residence owners: ~ . .. ~ - _ ,~~ - ~ " Because the location of each proposed lot is.adjacent to,a~ ravine ,slope, .a coordinated site drainageplan" should be provided for site development. Care should -be taken ~ mitigate the concentration and velocity of multiple lot draiz~.ages within the ravine ~ - to avoid accelerating erosion at the toe of the ravine slope and channel scour while ' minimi.ziia,g impacts to down-gradient properties. We recommend site . development maintain pre-development site drainage conditions particularly with respect to ravine drainage/surface water flows. ,~ • Route all future site drainage discharges .~ such as roof downspouts, foundation . drains, driveway drainage, and other site drainage features that can be identified . . intb.~stormwater infiltratioaoJdissipation, systems away fxoan the ravine slope. crest . and outside the recommended 2S foot buffer. Myers Bioclynamics, Inc. k ' p ~ l -.~ ' ~~ ~ Olson 99792-5 ~ - . October 2U, 1999 page 6 of 7 •... - - - ~ . ~ . - Perform • regular maintenance of on-site "drainage systems. Clean out all ~catchbasius, downspouts, and other drainage features to .ensue that discharge flows are unimpeded. .Also, check the, performance of drainage, features. 'This can ~ - be simply accomplished by utilizing ~ a garden Ixose {during dry weather) . iaa , . - ~ ~ introduce water into each of the site,catchbasins, downspouts, etc, and checking ` ~ discharge tripes far similar ~ flow valuffies. As a minimum, we ~ recomnrxend maintenance and performance monitoring be,performed annually, prior to the wet . weather season. ~ ~ ~ } . • Incorporate water saving measures (Iow flush toilets, water restrictors, etc,) to• . .reduce water usage and subsequent flaw of wastewater •into site wastewater _ - treatment systems. This will reduce the amount of water introduced into site septic . systems and surrounding soils ~yhich could impact slaps 'stability and/or .site erosion during wet weather periods. Maintain on-site wastewater treatment, __ systems outside of the recommended 25 fast elope crest setba¢k. If fiYtuz~e 'tree disease or windfall risks are of concern, obtain the services of a ~. qualified arborist to`determine tree health and condition. If tree removal is ~ ' required withix3; the . raving ar along the 25 foot ravine . slope crest setback, aggressively replant the tree removal area with trees and/or deep-rooted shrubs. to replace the long-term tree root reinforcement. • Never stock pile materials, equipment, ~or other heavy items on the face of or on the . top of the ravine slope. ~ - • 'Do-not regularly dispose of yard debris, vegetation, or other natural or man-made materials onto the slope, These materials can accumulate over time and create an . unstable mass~an the slope which is subject to landsliding., . The enclosed homeowner manuals can provide you with some additional general ~- information ~ and guidance far• vegetation management, slope revegetation, and n drainage control. The manuals are: Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation; Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Blriff ' Property Owners; and Surface .Water and Groundwater on Coastal Bluffs: A Guide 1 for Puget Sound Property Owners which axe published by the Washington State Department of, Ecology, Shorelanrls d Coastal Management Program i n Olympia; Washington For additional ~anual copies, contact the Sharelands and • . Coastal Management Program directly at ($fiC) ~C7-7~7~. - ~ _ '. , 1 .. Myexs Biodynamics, Inc. - . . ' Olson 99792-5' .. ' October 20, 1999 ~~. page 7 of 7 . .. ._ - ,r GLO~LJRE ~. ~ . ~ ~ . . This letter report was prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Mike Olson far specific application to the.property.identified herein. The conclusions -and inteipr'etations within this Ietter report' should not be construed as.a warranty of subsurface conditions. - - ' ~ ~ ~ r Within the• limits; of scope, schedule, and budget `the evaluation and recommendations- ' presented in this letter report were prepared .in ~enera~l accordance with accepted groi'ession~l . geotechnical engineering principles and practices ~in the area at the dine phis.letter report was prepared. 1Vo other warranty, whether expressed ar. implied, 'is made. The evaluation presented herein was based on• our observations of°the subject property at the time ~of our site ` visits. ~ ~ ~ - ' ii"there is a substantial lapse of tizn.e, conditions have changed at the site, or if conditions appear differezzt fi°ain those described.in this latter report, we should be contacted and retained ~ ` to~review the changed conditions. The purpose of the review is to determine the applicability of the considerations and .recommendations presented in this letter report considering the time ` lapse and/or changed .conditions. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • We ~~appreciate the opporttuxity to provide you, with professioxial engineering services. If you have any questions regarding the evaluatiarx and • recommendations presented hez~ein or we may be of further assistance, please contact our office at your conveniexzce. ' Sincerely Yours, ~ ~ ~ - MYERS BIODYi~TAMICS, TNC. ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ . •, ~` ~ ' ._ Paul H. Kastens ~ • •~+~ o~ ~va~,yi ~ Jane N. Myers . .Project CxeoIagist ~ ~~~~ rincipal Geoteclinical Epgineer' ~NM:saf - ~ snrrr~ca3 -~d~"'+• ~ t i . Attarhmeat: Site and Exploraf,}on Plan (1~guie 1) . Enclosixres: Washiaigton State Department. of Ecology Publications: _ +`Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation ~ . . . ~ = Vegetation 1Vlanagement: A_Guide far Puget Sound .duff Property Owners '. ~ ~ •. Surface Water arxd Groundwater on Coixst~il~Blitffs: A Guide for Puget Sound Property:Owrters ~ '' Myers Siodyriamios, Inc: - ~ • `~ e r:~ t I __i • •. f _... _.,-'F Open-.Spice ~ ~h ,. --,._. ..:~~ i = =-~ - .. 1 I -i ~ -~ ~~ ~~ r ~1,f41'sq: f:f:. - td• Ur:~,t,~ 'S ~ ~ h -.• ' ~ D.49 ACrpS eG'~nRit ,'~. ~~ h r ~ N 884,7'4r' w ~ ~ ~. ~~ 9Q ~ ~ 1 ,.. ..~oo.oo.. _-__..-..-.... -, I ~ ~~ A --~.~ _ ~. '. 1 ~ C ~' ~ O f "y• i ~ ~ %'~~ 2i,t4f sq. ft "~ ,~ '~, E ~4~~ _ ~ ~+4.r~ `/~ 0.49 Acres I~ '-•~ 1 ~ '~ _,va~ ,µ - ,__, ~_~.--- _ i ~~'~ BAH 7 ~ . ~ , y~ + -~ __ NJBB%F3'4f."~'W ~ L . _.... _we ~ t ~. a _ i :~ Co ~ 2f,141 sq. ft. ~ ` ~2 ~ ~ ~ ! 1 --^-- Q49 Awes ~r ,~ _ 4 ai ~~ ~ ;I n F ~ ' o r fia I ~y ~ y 4~ ~~ 3 I 1+n. `r0 •~iL j ~c~ f1~,~ O `~ . ~i SUbJECt ~ pTnAETfy I ~'~ '~t~3 . d Vicinity Map . . LEGEND. • FlArti Hand Auger Exploration Location . NE' Nfph So5'dot Rd' ~ ~~a k,~ ry° ~ ~ a~/ ~: .y~f ~-yJ .'.~- ` :k - Approximate Scale: 7 inch = i00 feet Na#es: ~ 50 100 1. Site Plan based on "Olson Preliminary Plat" by Adam & Goldsworthy, Inc., dated Apri! 5, i99S. 2. Site fopography based on pu61ica1ly available information and was nat field verified. ~Nryers SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ~~~REI~o ~ BindynamiCS ins, P. y _ g PRO.fECTh4 99292-5 ~ ~u~~,Y~o,~,,,,~~„~,~,y,~,g",~,~p« Olson Pro erg IVE Lof ren Rvad Be1~p11df1a FSlsnd Wnhlnptot~6fl11G Bainbridge Island Washington ISnre rep.:xosra~z-eo7s~Ax:2os1s4asre~ ' October 1999 ,u 4C W ~~~7/2oty~~ FC~S AS+(1C1~~ ~i~ll 12:ti6:32Pi~~ Case: RU~~19$U~ Fce 5~~~~# Encl - T~an~ '~~esenne ` ~reateil Type I=;Ue I7a1c ~?:~~t 1)escriptz,~u' ~C+3~Ic: A,ccoA~tf~. Nutnis+~r B~ La,~fe Amy}~rnt buy RUf;P ],'i/2004 l~~'31fz0(};~ Re~onable ~T~ Exc~~pi: Full 4,~th R~ 47047.3458541 NL~~~Z 3,'1';f20~04 3,40.00 3,8~~.U4 T~-tal Due: $3,8=~O.Oi1 ~-~. Page ~ cxF 1 c:~g~..,~~ .~ y 15 14 22f~23 b _, 1 ~!) _" 7 /' /'/ I I ` / I ~/ ~ ~ ~~ ' Nf /~/ i ~ A ,~i7.' i; I~ ~ r, f ~ ~Oq/ ~'~,! 0 ~ ~ ~'~'~ ,~ 'i /~i I ~ i +,~.~ r,~. .pl~~` Ai ,M1D~i h.r' $I ~^V NI ~~% { i I ,~ ~• l 3 ORy d Bb66RdQe (elmd VYrtkd larttra( Nelwak GRAPHIC SCALE .-b Kos„ r,- S~;OK` ,n5 ;~~• Lof Ansas Toto/ Aroa 19B,fi1 esq. tt 4.50 Acres Opan Space 79,265 sq. R (401h 1.82 Acres LOt i J8,43B esq. k. 0.84 Acroa Lot 2 20.933 sq. k. O.BB Acroa Lot 3 32685 av. k. 0.75 Acres Lof 4 36438 esq. 2 Q84 Acres Lot 5 38,438 esq. tt. 0.84 Aaea Lot 8 15180 aq• k. O.SB Acree '~ Legend ~~ Sc1l log /ocatfon ~~ e Saps 9reoter than iS[ ~>R~~ ~ fmn ~ av x ~I ~-~..~ \ Q \ h \ ~ N~ ._ n ~ ~I . rJ0,~0$ CSC? pfd= ~<, ~~;or ~ ~ 5 .;o. 5~ ~ J t-J t I w /V ~ ~T ~ ' ~y ` rildi ' r,~ rs ~~®,~; ~ 5"~ ~0 e0O'` rJ G' ~~u1 _ ~~ ! Flro Department + tumoround eonatrueted ~.~ for Swink Shast Ploi ~ ~ ~._ :.-.~.; ---ADAM R g. e GOLDSWORTSY, INC. ~~~ ~; ~ LAND SURVEYING ~~ V ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~J u+N 19062 HWY 305 NOR7N 360-779-4299 - kex POULS80, WA.98370 208-842-9598 ~~ ~ ~-~~~~~ (Z O2 ~gg~, a 339. ILLY ~ ~ y, ~7p yip a~pp~pq~gR~ ~^ t $9-999V69 `~97J ~ B &J)~ 6'~K ~ . . ... .. 3 SHEET DRAWING ~~~~9 ~~V~L~~E~T Olson Preliminary Plat A Replaf of Lot 46 of the plot of Rolling Say City lwums .~ Page 11 G.L.2, (N1Y 1/4, NW 1/4) Sec.23, ~'.25N., R.2E., W.df. l 1 ~l Nan Gladstein Fram: Nan Gladstein Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:23 AM To: Tom Bonsell Subject: Estate of Otto Olson SUB09800 and RUE09800 Thomas... .tim Dow of the Fire Department has confirmed That the address for the Olson project is 995, so I have cleaned up the database to reflect that address and will so be setting the RUE. I am setting the RUE now, and will set a packet to go to Danette Guy, but will hold it up until we receive the replanting plan. As far as WAC review...well, only God knows.. EXHI Nan Gladstein From: Nan Gladstein Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:47 AM To: Tom Bonsell Subjec#: Estate of Otto Olson RUE49$QO Thomas... We have no originals. When next you talk to Michael Olson, would you kindly ask him for the originals for the official file? Thank you. } i CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANMNG AND COMNiUNi'i'Y DEVELOPMENT 280 NIADISONAVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-2824 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-095 Web Site: ww~v.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PW Review Project Name: OLSON, OTTO RUE Date Material Received: 3/17/2004 Project Number: PRJ-0009800 Case Number: RUE09800 Parcel Number: 41690000460005 Site address: 99~ NE Loft;ren Rd ~.u~e uexcn}iuuu: 311712004, Tom Bonsell, 99~?-3 Lofgrert Road. Cross class IV stream with water line. 3/17/2004 -original submittal: application, legal description, geotech report, plans. 3 OLSON, EXECUTER LOFGREN ROAD BRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 OTTO OLSON, ESTATE OF 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAIIVBRIDGE ISLAND. WA 98i 10 Application w/ attachments to: Tom Bonsell, planning Melva Hill, engineering EXH Comments Due By: 03/27/2004 Date Sent: 03/17/2004 Comments: If you need further space for your corn menu, please attach an additional page, if you have no comments, please write "NO COMMENT" in the space below and return to Planning. Signed: Date: ?rinted: Created By: MEM May 2001 ~ ~ K~~=~~,. CITY QF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND Department of Planning and Community Development March 30, 2004 Melina Knoop Kitsap County Health District 109 Austin Drive Bremerton WA 98312-1805 Subject:'RUE09800, SUB09800 OL.r ~.~ •~~ o'yj~`~J Melina, Sorry for the delay in getting this to you. You had-asked for the revised well location and distribution route for the well and waterlines for the Otto Olson s~xbdivision. Let me know 1 can be of further help. Sincerely, Thomas Bansell, Planner EXH] 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBR{DGE ISLAND, WA • 9811Q 1~HONE (206} 842-2552 • Fax {206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isLwa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us .--,, ~~ L:~ ..w:~ CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND Department of Planning and Community Development April 9, 2004 MR. MICHAEL OL50N Executor ESTATE OF OTTO OLSON 9955 NE Lofgren Road Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 Re: File No. RUE 09800 (311712004} File Name: ESTATE OF OTTO OLSON Reasonable Use Exception Dear Mr. Olson: We have reviewed your application for the above referenced reasonable use exception. It has been determined to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.20.090{J) of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. A determination of a complete application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies if new information is required to complete final review or substantial changes in the application are proposed. Your project manager, Tom Bonsell, will contact you in the event any further information is needed_ Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.085, the applicant mus# post a legal notice of the project on the property. The notice must be displayed on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide the notice For posting, but you must provide the past. Mr. BonseII will be in contact with you when the actual notice boards are ready to be picked up. Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file name and the file number shown above. Should you have any questions or concerns in regard to your specific project, you may contact Mr. BonseIl at 842-2552. Yours very truly, NAN GLADST Land Use Clerk NJG:S ec: Marc Adam, Adam & Goldsworthy, Inc., IOIS NE Hostmark Street, Poulsbo, Washington 98.70 file 28O MADISON AVE~TLIE NORTH • BAINBR~DGE ISLAND, WA • 9$1lO PHOE~TE (206) 842-2552 • Fftx (206} 780-0955 • EMa1L: cd@ci.bainbrid e-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us EXH] OC.1~sN t/l_c'" ~~ ~lJ Cad ~ Bainbridge Island Review P.O. Box 10817, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-842-8613 Affidavit of Publication STATF OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OF KITSAP } ss Christiana Allen Hach being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that (s)he is the publisher of the Bainbridge Island Review, atwice-weekly newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a twice weekly newspaper in Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Bainbridge Island Review, and is of general circulation in said County; and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order . of the Superior Court of Kitsap County, State of Washington, by order dated June lb, 194], and that the annexed is a true copy of City Notices - OLSON NOA (BR280-04} as it was published once a week in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of l issue(s), such publication commencing on 04/17/04 and ending on 04/17/04 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $ fl. oC~ which has been paid in full. Subscribed and sworn before me on this al~~day of I1P~.rL poi;' Notary Public 'n and for the State of Washington, residing in Bainbridge Island, Washington. c~~ or s~~rrBa~ocE ~s~n~a, ~~P`y~E ANh-,y~~ 1l .~~~~~SStON ~~,o•,~i •~ !~• Z ~`~.~~ NosARy N: z ~ : * ' (I3 ~s : P(1gL1C : ~ 9~ •. ~7. :~ .~ ~t~~O~ ~ryE-~ j~`1t~ ~ ;~ ~~.;-.. EXHY ~~ ~~~ i ' ~~ ~~. ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~~,K~ .~ CERTIFICATE OF POSTING ~~ ®~ ~~6~9 ~ ~~~ ~1R~~~ 'Plrarrpr~nr.ramr ~~1l1-114~[~111f I ~ AJ~V~I,.U~'°tV~~'!~i posted ~ official Proposed Land Use Action sign(s) far the application identified as ProjtcrName Profecr.~„f,,,,r. on the subject property located at ~ ~ S~.~ ~-~~~7 ~-~ ~ ~~;~ , . _ _ ani: Sirr ddrrr~ identifed by the tax assessor's number(s) given below on ~l Z G ~- flab Tax assessor numbers}: ~~ f ~ a ~U~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ I declare under the penalty of the perjury laws of the State of Washington that the Foregoing is correct. tore Date ]EXH DEPARTMEiVT OF PLANNING A~IO COMMUNITY DEVELOPbtENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH~BAZNBR(DGE ISLAND, WAi9$100-2$Z4 PHONE: (206) 842-2552®FAX: {20S) 780-0955~dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us X651 Green Bainbridge April 27, Thomas Bonsell, Planner Department of Planning & Community Development 280 Madison Ave. No. Bainbr~.dge Island, WA 98110 Dear Mr. Bonsell: ~} Spot Place Island, WA 2004 ~~ ~~~ 98110 ~,,~ ~"~ ~ ~.~ ~~~ ®~ ~~"'r"~. Subject : Mich ~~~~.~~~~' f Reasonable Use Exemption Application I wish to thank you for furnishing me with a copy of the Notice of Application for the above referenced project. Since my family's property is in close proximity to Mr. 01son's property, 2 wou~.d like to share my comments and concerns about his proposal: 1. Tt is my understanding that protection of streams is a h~.gh priority in this state. If it isn't a high priority with the city, it certainly should be and not only on paper but in actual practice. 2. This proposal would allow construction of a waterline across the seas©na1 stream flowing through the Olson property when there is a feasible, although more expensive, alternate route which has city approval. The stream, which flows north, ult~.mately crosses my family's waterfront property before it reaches Murden Cove, This section of the cove is classified as Conservancy and our property is protected by a conserv- ation easement administered by the Bainbridge Island Zand Trust. 3. In the decision document covering Mr. Olson's appeal of some of the conditions attached to his proposed sub- division, Hearing Examiner Robin Baker stated on page 7: "There 3s no evidence in the record which proves the applicant would be deprived of reasonable use of his property if he is not allowed to place his proposed waterline across this regulated stream bed and stream buffer area" . 4. Since the Hearing Examiner found that there was no just ifieat ion for an R.U.E. and since there is too much ra.sk of damage to the stream bed during construction of a waterline and afterwards, I request that Mr. Olson's application for an R.U`~`'be denied. Sincerely, ~x~ ~ ~~' `` 1 ~ uF o9Boo ~ i` ~~l~~R~D~~ ~5~ MAY ~ ~- 2004 City of Bainbridge Island ~~p~ ~~~LpNNINr Wetlands Advisory Committee C~1~N~UNiTY ~~V~~®p~EN~ Report on RUE09800 (Olson Estate) Wetlands Advisory Committee {WAC) members were provided copies of Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) application number RUE09800 and supporting materials on Apri126, 2004 to review. On May 4, 2004 three of the four WAC members met on the subject site to walk the area and discuss any issues or concerns surxounding the site and its proposed use as described in the RUE application. No stakes or markers could be found indicating the location of the proposed RUE {a 2-inch water line trenched within a utility easement on either side of an embankment and across a class 4 stream) and the property owner was not on site to provide any details in this regard. Nevertheless, using the RUE application and other the materials provided, it was fairly straightforward to ascertain the proposed utility's approximate location within the ravine. WAC members found the general site conditions within the ravine to be consistent with the description provided in the applicant's Slope Evaluation Report (Myers Biodynamics, October 20, 1999). Although helpful and of some merit, the RUE application does not satisfy the requirements of Section 16.20.110 of BIMC (Mitigation Plan Requirements). More specifically, the mitigation plan submitted by the applicant (dated March 23, 2004) falls short of adequately addressing and alleviating the effects of the proposed use. WAC concerns in this regard are related to (1) excavation/construction methods, {2) plantinglrevegetation, and {3) monitoringlmaintenance. p'ollowing are the WAC's questions, concerns, andlor suggestions the City and applicant may want to take under advisement: Excavation/Construction 1. It is understood (from language in the application) that trenching will be done by hand and undertaken in the summer {dry season) when no water is flowing in the streambed. This information should be included in the mitigation plan. 2. General trench width and depth should be described and erosion control methods explained (e.g., hay bales, silt fencing, etc.} Refer to Slope Evaluation Report, page 5, Vegetation; paragraph 2 for considerations in this regard. Planting/Reve eta 1, Given the extent of the trench to be revegetated, the same plants are not appropriate along its entire length. A greater divexsity of plants is appropriate in terms of both plant requirements (water, light, slope) and canopy (shrub layer vs. overstory). 2. Planting of trees should be required if trees are to be removed. 3. Significant trees to be preservedlretained should be marked in the field prior to construction. 4. Plants that provide some slope stabilization should be used (e.g., snowberry). 5. Spacing can be 2-6 feet for shrubs, 10-15 feet for trees -doesn't need to be a uniform 3 feet as proposed. 6. Which species of huckleberry? Need to be more specific in this regard to promote species appropriateness given its intended environment and subsequent success. 7. Total number of plants and plant size {container, plugs, etc.) should be noted. EXH WAC Report (RUE09800) page 1 of 2 05/13/04 y P ~ 8. Removal of non-native, invasive plant species (e.g., English ivy) is recarnmended along the utility easement given that the newly disturbed area will be highly vulnerable to invasive plants. 9. While trenching is ideally done in the dry season, planting is not -suggest phasing of project to maximize plant survival. Monitoring/Maintenance Successful revegetation requires regular monitoring and maintenance until plants are fully established. 1. What are the applicant's plans for watering and maintaining new plants through establishment? 2. What are the applicant's plans for monitoring - i.e., to ensure slope/streambed stabilization and planting success? -END - W.4CReport (RUE09800) page 2 of 2 05/13/04 . 4 a / it Nan Gladstein From: Kevin Butterbaugh [butterbaughk@edaw.com~ Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2fl04 3:16 PM To: Tom Bonsell Cc: Nan Gladstein; rjaassoc@nwlink,cam; mboule@shap.com; chcarr@w-link.net Subject: Olson RUE Application ~i Ward for Windows 47 (32 Ki3} Hi Tom - Attached is the WAC report prepared for the Olson property (RUE09800} that we'll be discussing at our meeting this afternoon. , Kevin Kevin Butterbaugh Senior Associate EDAW, Inc. B15 Western Ave., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98].04 (206} 267-7714 butterbaughk@edaw.com 1 - Myers ~ ~ ~ , Biodynalt~ics inc., ~, _ MB _- ~ geotechnical engineering .coastal processes • 6iologica[ sciences EXB ,- July 29, 2004 CITY - ~~ ~AINSRID . GE ISLAND . Mr. Mike Olson Q~G ®3 ~o~~ • . 18657 State Highway 305, Ste C Poulsbo, Washington 98370 ~ ®EPT• 01°.PLANNINC ~ ' ~ COMI~UNIT~ D~V~LOPENT . Re: Mitigation Plan for a Proposed Riparian' Buffer Encroachment Section 23, Township 25N, Range 2E Olson Preliminary Plat, Bainbridge Island, Washing#on - ~ , " Dear Mr. 015on: ~ ~ - The Bainbridge island Flanning Department requires ~a rnitigation-plan far a proposed utility trench disturbance into and across a riparian buffer on Bainbridge ' Island. We understand the City of Bainbridge Island has held project review discussions with you previously an the potential-.impact from the proposed work. ' As identified;, the project generally involves a 4-foot wide trench that crosses the " ravine side slopes and intermittent drainage. Myers Biodynamics, Inc: was retained to address identified rnitigation requirements established by Bainbridge Island Wetland Advisory Cotrrmittee (WAC), which contributed comments during the project review period {Olson RUE).- The following information was used to ~ , - develop the riparian buffer mitigation approach: ^ Olson Preliminary Fiat; Adam and Goldsworthy Inc., March 20, 2003. - - , ^ , "Memo to Michael Olson from the COBi WAC unsigned, l dated May 14, 2044. , ' ^ Directives from Michael Olson. - ,. , ^ Site visit to the proposed project site. - - ROI,LING BAY.MERCANTILE BUILDING 11254 SUNRISE. DRIVE BAINBRIDGB ISLAND, WASHINGTON 98110 ~ 206:842.6073 ~ ,~ ~ - ~ , ~ ' t~ Pra~posed Project • - _ , . The Preliminary Plat Plan indicates the project proposes to create 6 lots ozx ~ • roughly 5'acres of contiguous property. -Anew wall supply well is;currently . being developed at the site and will supply water to -lots positioned on both sides of a drainage ravine.,: A water supply_pipe will cross the ravine to convey potable ; _ water to each of the lots. Accordingly, the line crosses the ravine as shown~on , • ~ Figure 1. ` A maximum 4=foot wide hand-dug trench will bed the pipe below . • g~ade.,The trench will be backflled and the upper 1-foot of soil backf 11 will , incorporate native topsoil salvaged, from the excavation. -The ground-surface will then be replanted with plan#s from- a native plant riursery. Sales receipts of plant • stock will lie made available. to.the,City mf Bainbridge Island and project team ~ . before commensemer~t of the work. The work is-scheduled for,the fall of2004. ~ , - _ - ;Proposed Mitiga#ion Actions. - The buffer encroachrnerit mitigation proposes to compensa#e for" a localized utility ~ , trench penetration into a riparian buffer. The proposed mitigation first attempts to • avoid buffer impacts by po~sitioning.the project prappnent's trench•af a position an ~ the property to present a small, conf ned impact to the riparian duffer where the slopes are the least steep. The proposed 4-foot wide trench crosses the ravine - over appro~imately~$.00 square feet. - . Mitigation proposes to.incorporate~approximately 80 to 100 shrub-and herb species to the disturbed riparian buffer. Each hole far the excavation shall be ~ " • roughly 1$• inches. by 18 inches without much over-excavation. Consequently, the • •- mitigation restores the quality of the existing buffer, but does not increase the area " of the buffer.- The mitigation provides 3:1 tree species for species compensation for damaged or removed trees.. Mitigation actions are st~nunarized. in Table, 1. , . - ~ ~ , .Performance Standards - Performance standards for the,on-site wetland mitigation are sumrr~a(rized in Table 2. Each performance standard corresponds to related. design objectives and _ provides a measurable criteria that enable project personnel to predict when a mitigation element has been successfully implemented and/or accomplished and ' ~ ~ ~ , when the overall mitigation plan goals have been successfully achieved., , .., Olson Property ~ Project No. ,041137-b " Section 23, Township 25N, R¢nge 2E - Jtily 29, 2004 Proposed Riparian Buffer Encroachment page 2 of 5 Myers Biorlynamics, Inc. ' '.~ a / • ! \ / l Mitigation Schedule .Mitigation work should be implemented in' the fall of 2044 in accordance with the , • mitigation plans and specifications, monitoring requirements, and. any other agency requirements. Work shall follow the installation. of the water dine in the 4- - foot wide hand~dug trench. ~ ~ • ~ , ' ~ _ , Mitigation Plans - " - i Mitigation plazas for the proposed riparian buffer mitigation include the planting of woody shrubs and herbs vegetation into-an existing buffer zone that is current- sparsely covered herbaceous ianderstory with mature western red cedar and ~ ' . ' ~ . ~ western hemlock.. Ravine mitigation includes the enhancement of approximately 'r 800 ft is proposed as shown on Figures 1 through 4. Also, disturbed areas outside the ravine will be enhanced by planting salvaged plants from_the trench exca"vation. Trees damaged or removed by the proposed work will be replaced at a ratio of 3 to 1 per GOBI requirements. The Planting Schedule summarizes,plant :j -- 'installation requirements as shown on Figure 5. -. ,. _ ~ , Nioriitoring Pian ~ , ~ - ~ . ;The .Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan focuses on providing a systematic method for quantitative measurements of the restoration effort through a selected E ~ -time period. Monitoring on the subject property evaluates the success of the ~ . • - restoration action relative to the goals and performancq standards;established and developed for the mitigation work. Metrics selected for the monitoring plan ' generally enable the project scientists to determine whether a selected. criteria was achieved within a specif ed time period. Metrics used "in small.. and large - mitigation plans typically incorporate both physical and biological site criteria. ` , The monitoring program is summarized in Table 3.. The monitoring program can' •be performed by the project scientists or the property owner (if willing and able). - . Physical IVlonitorin~. Physical monitoring establishes general mitigation success { ~ aver the mitigation area {photo points) and specifically,monitors the success of _ maintaining the integrity of the mitigation zones without disturbance`. Physical monitoring occurs over a minimum two-year period.beginriing,at the "completion . of mitigation world. Monitoring is scheduled to oceur annually;. during the spring of two consecutive years. • ', -- - . f • - i Olson Property ~ - Phojegt No. 041137-6 Section 23, .Township 25N, Range 2E f July 29, 20D4' Proposed Riparian Bu~"er Encroachment page 3 of S -Myers Biodynamres, Inc. . ~ f .. 1 5 . • ~ - ,~ I -, • - , Biological Manitorin~:. Biological monitoring documents changes in planted `. 1 vegetation and recruitment of pioneer species within the mitigation area. "Sampling will be~conducted by measuring plant assemblage and stem densities of • species positioned within the mitigation area and countirig individual species. Biological monitoring occurs over a minizizum two-year period beginning at the ` - mitigation work. Monitoring is scheduled to occur annually, daring the spring of two consecutive years.- " ,- _ ~ , contingency Plan, 1 ` The Contingency Plan provides a protocol for actions required should the _ mitigation work fail to achieve performance standards. Contingency actions vary,. , depending on whether physical or biological processes are responsible for the , failure of performance standards and the degree of the shortfall. Should " mitigation wortC fail one or more performance standard, but the lead reviewing ,agency agrees that the shortfall{s} is minor, then additional monitoring rrfay be' requested prior to undertaking intensive corrective- action, l ' Contingency Plans include any of the following options: , ^ Additional plantings to correct excessive mortality; ^ Modification of hydrology/additional hydrological inputs; ; ^ Correction of unstable areas andlor removal of'ipvasive , ~. ~ planf species; ,. ^~ Recontouring the surface topography; ~ ~ ~ . ~. ^ Eliminate/reduce identified impact disturbances; and ~ ` - - ^ Recording a restrictive property easement. f. _ . Maintenance Plan ~ - ~; _ , _ Maintenance activity associated with the mitigation plan involves a small degree - . of site work `Basic maintenance includes the following: - - ` ~ ^ Initial watering of the surface sails during dry weather (first year}~ ~ ' .. ,_ 1~ 1 j Olson. Property ~ - Project No:1J41137-b Section 23, Township 25N, Range 2E July 29, 2004 . ~'roposed Riparian Buf}°er Encroaehntent ~ page 4 o,F5 Myers Biodynamies, Inc. ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ _, ~ , 1 Y • ^ Clieck-site for unauthorized vehicle; equipment, materials . storage, pavement, or other site access disturbances, into the - riparian buffer; . ~ Check soil surface for signs of erosion and correct any uncontrolled drainage patterns from, developed areas; ti , • ^ Check vegetation for signs of human disturbance; and/or _ browse pressure. Protect saplings from .browse; and , - : ^ Maintain- plantings and erosion control features in the - = . _ ~ constr~cted/placed positions,` ~ - - ! We appreciate the opportunity to provide scientific services for the subject property... Should you have questions about the information presented herein or . - '" require. additional -services, please contact our office at your convenience.. .Sincerely `Yours; - ~ - ~ ' MYERS BIL•ODYNAMICS, INC., ~ - ~~ .~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Riau Myers,.P.W.S. ~ - ! _ Project Biologist _ ~ i RDM:SI71rIl Attachrnents: Figures 1, ~2, 3,'4, and ~ ' _ Table 1. Mitigation Actions - Table 2. Mitigation Performance Standards _ Table 3. Monitoring Program Summary ~ , ~ ~ - - , . 1 - - . ~ 4 ~ I , ' ~' • ' 1 i I ~ - - - - ' Dlson Property - ~ ~ ,Project No. 04!!37-6 Section 23, Township 25N, Range 2E _ July ~9, ~0D4 ~ • Proposed Riparian Buffer Encroachment • page 5' of S . Myers Biodynamics, inc. " _ - - r _ , 1~ _ ~ ~~' A~ ra ~ ~ 41 ~~ ~ ~$, ¢ ~ ~ 3y I ~ ~Q D~a Sword FsrnlRed Huckleberry assemblages See typical trench section Buffer Plant Kev ~ ~ Red Huckleberry {RH) Sword Fern {SF) Approximate. Scale: 1" = 2' ~~~~b ~~ ate, ~~ ~~, ~~. ~~ r (~ ~~:~~ 4~ ~~ ~ .d~~$ Notes: 1. Contractor shall segrega#e upper 1-#oot of soil and litter-from subsoils. Final backfill of trench should reincorporate topsoil into upper 1=foot of completed trench. Any wood material removed along the trench alignment shall be repositioned orrer completed trench,. 2. A!I plat assemblages shag use distances as measured along slope face. 3. Reference planting schedule for additional infiormation on mitigation planting. FIGUEiE P40 iV[y~rs Trench Restoration Plan in Ravine 2 B~nra~ynanrdcs ifnc. Olson Stream Buffer Mitigation P~°'~~"Op41137-$ ~$ Rdling BaY Mercanllls Bufld~ng • 1325M1 Sun~se D~IVe Baln6ritlgs ls7eiM. WA 98110 Bainbridge Island, Washington DmTE 'fEL'206r862-8073 FAX:2W/eM12-8787 Jury 2004 Repeat pattern along trench alignment and - apply spacing to all disturbed areas ~' ~j'-' ~ ~~ ~ ..~ ~~ ,` Assemblage of 6 plants per specs.. Red Huckleberry {typ.} Sword Fern {typ.} 7Or Max. ~~" ~+a ~..: f Water pipe ,~-, ~~ ' ~J~~~~=lll j~~~ 1 . =~f~ ~' ~llhil/~~~~lJh --llhll]~ ~~ Native subsoil ~~~~~111~j~f~111 ~./ W~ler ' e tr Cp$1 REqu- em~~ er is ~~ = ~~~ll/~ . -` 11~= f11= -~. Notes: Reference restoration plans and report. Approximate Scate: 1" = 2' FfGIiRE NO 3 Myers 1-rench Section Restoration in Ravine eiodynam-Q~~ inc. Olson Stream Buffer lvlliti anon PR0.IECTNQ g 041137-8 ~~ Rolling Bey Mer~an8le euildin9•11254 Sunrise ~rfve Relnhridge lsSand, WR 98110 Bainbridge island, Washington °~TE Juty 2004 TEL: 2461942-8073 FA%: 286/842-9797 Assemblage of 6 ~e_ plants per specs. f ~; ~~ .. _ - FI4~UfEE ND Myers Erosion Control De#ail 4 B7odynara~ca inrc. pison Stream Buffer Mitigation PRwECTN0041137~$ MB Rolling Bay MananGla Builtling • t1Y54 SunHee Drive Bafnhddge lslan°•w^9a~i° Bainbridge island Washington DATE T~~:~~~~z.~g7g~,ix:zaa~6a2~~7 ' .iufy 29, 2Da4 } PLANTING SCHEDULE f 1 ore ie~`~~ . ~,~`~, 5 5~e~ `~~~a1~ ~ o~~A oJ~~y a`~,or ,~~~,~ Do~y`~ o~~to` ~~i~e ~~Goa o'`~~9~ eceyG ~~Go~ o~'y,~e ~~~,,~1 ~`~ G ~,~ ~~a Qua 54 Qua Qua t3~ Ito Riparian Buffer RE/SF $00 RE 40f con#ainer 1 gal. 3.5' o.c. Existing {within ravinel SF 40± detritus Riparian Buffer WRCNVH as req'd to be container 5 gal. groupings of See plan (outside ravine) determined 3 at 10' o.c. PLANT KEY Botanical Name Common Name Plant Code Trees: Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar WRC Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemiack WH Shrubs and Herbs: 1/accinium parvifolium Red Huckleberry RH Polystichum munitum Sword Fern SF Berberis spp. Oregon Grape OG NOTES: 9. Existing ferns and Oregon grapes excavated from ravine trench alignment shall be salvaged and replanted into disturbance zone outside the ravine. 2. No plants shall be harvested from the ravine fo satisfy restoration requirements. 3. Alf restoration planting shall occur after October 95fh and before November 95th following fall french work. ~4. AN tree removal or damage mitigation shall be coordinated with coal. 5. Sales receipfs from a native planf nursery shall fJe provided for all plant materials used for mitigation. FIGURE NO Myers Plant Schedule Biodyn:~rnics inc. Q1son Stream Buffer Mitigation P'~Q3~crHO041137-6 ~~ Rdllrg bay Mercantile Building • 11254 Sunnse Rrive Bainbridge [Band, YYashing[an 96„t, Bainbridge Island, Washington DATE TEL:20&a42.6p73 I~AX:20u/ti42-3797 JlJ ljl 200L~ Qtsan Bu~`$r Mitigation Ptan 4$I I37-~ ' ,~µy ~..~~ gr Irn1~a"- tipar~an ~uf~ trench eXCavatxon 4-#'oot wide u and drainage across ravine le ~ ~ IVlitig~-t1°~ p`ctions Tab leted utility foot of comp ~litigatiion into upper 1- ddetritus eas ~ specified (~ and S~') ve topsoil hon~on ~ on one F.eplax't . R.eix~corporate natl. trench ~ dock into ravine exeavatL txench• lant nLLrsery located ~. acent of ravine. . geplant native p d Qregon 'gape pla ~ axeas located adJ rriLna~ar') ar is coat~~aged Salvage ferns ~ dist~'banc oval ~w~CQBI cOa orated into lams in trench rem be inc°Tp salvaged p existing tree req~,Lire a f ~ new tree i ~,~C12 )' . Should ~~ a rauping Ct1 ~ by bench excavation, ~ Led (~ ~ distusb~?~ zone as ~ ,_a„namics, ~~~ Olson Buffer Mitigation Plan 041137-6 • July 29, 2004 s Table 2. Mitigation Performance Standards Design Objective Design Criteria Final Pertormance Standard Mitigation Goal 1: Re-establish riparian buffer vegetation on disturbed areas of the property along trench alignment within ravine. Re-establish woody shrub/herbs over the Prepare disturbed zones for fall planting. Measure plant assemblage installation success. disturbed trench. install potted plant stock. Placement of erosion control features along Install erosion control system. Photo document erasion control areas and IocaI trench alignment to secure restoration zone. stream condition. No difference shall be detected between trench area and adjacent undisturbed zones. Mitigation Goal 2: Re-establish trees in ravine and outside ravine where existing trees are removed or damaged by utility trench installation. Establish a new assemblage of 3 sapling trees Installation of assernbIages of Western red Measure plant assemblage installation success. for each impacted existing tree. cedar and Western hemlock species, including modest management of existing herbaceous vegetation around plantings (salvaged herbaceous materials from slope). Myers Biodynamics, Inc. Olson Btsf}"er Mitigatran Plan 041137-6 • July 29, 2004 Table 3. Monitoring Program Summary Attribute Performance Standard Sampling Sampling Sampling !Habitat Metric Frequency SeasonlPeriods Locations Physical Monitoring: Surface Condition: Continuing maturation of riparian Fall baseline Fallll Continuous along buffers confirming absence of plus 2 annuals Spring/2 trench erosion and human disturbances / \ - Photo Points Biologics! Monitoring: Installed Flant Material: Plant Community Success: Direct counts of healthy plants Fall baseline Fa1111 along trench in ravine/total live plus 2 annuals Spring/2 count and total plant taunt Baseline: 100% healthy vigorous stock Year 1: >_ $0% survival of species Year 2: > 70% survival of species Year 2: < I0% aerial coverage of nonTnativelinvasive species in mitigation areas. Continuous along trench Myers Biodynamics, Inc. i1~84' ~ 8 t7fi'Jt`~~'~ W S l~T'C~T'4~" 14~ 33? 11' ~• ~~~ Fir Street NE i_ City of Bainbridge Island PLANNING c~'c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Wetland Advisory Committee FROM: Thomas Bonsell, Planner DATE: August 4, 2004 RE: Michael Olson RUE09800 ~~a~,. ~_ ~~~`-: _.. P, Dear committee members; ' Mr. Olson has submitted his mitigation plan prepared by Myers Biodynamics Inc. to the City. I have included the report and the WAC report to refresh your memories. The question now is how do you want to proceed? After reviewing the mitigation plan do you feel the need to have another WAC meeting or can we finish this up via a-mail? If the committee feels a meeting is warranted, please let me know so we can schedule it ASAP. If the committee believes this can be completed by e-mail, I'll need something is writing indicating your satisfaction with the plan and project that includes any conditions you may require. Please contact me with any questions. Tom EXE 280 MAnlsorr AVENUE NORTH • BAmr~xroG~ ISI.ANI~, WA • 98110-2824 PHQNE: (206} 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: dCd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us C1C~(~~ ~ /~Gt~'o9 ~dC~ 0 To: LEGAL NOTICES Publication Date: August 14, 2004 WITHDRAWAL AND RE ISSUANCE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) The MDNS issued an April 16, 2004 for the Otto Olson six Iot subdivision, file number SUB09800, is being withdrawn and being re-issued to reflect the Hearing Examiner amended mitigation measures and to expand it's application to a related Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) request. The RUE, file number RUE09800, faciHtatP~ the crossing of a Class IV stream with a waterline. EX] The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application: Applicant: Michael Olson, Executor Permit Request: Otto Olson Subdivision (SUB09800) and Otto Olson Reasonable Use Exception (RUE09800) Description of ProposaL• Request to subdivide 4.50 acres into six lots on a parcel that contains a geologically hazardous area and to cross a Class IV intermittent stream with a waterline. Location of Proposal: 9955 Lofgren Road. Tax Parcel Number 4169-000-0046-0005. SEPA Decision: The City of Bainbridge Island (lead agency) has determined that the proposal does not have a probable signif cant impact on the environment if measures to mitigate the pxoposal are used. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2) &WAC 197-11-350. This determination was made and mitigation measures were applied after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 {2) c. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days. Comments must be submitted by no Iaer than 4:00 p.m. on August 30, 2044. Responsible Official: Larry K. Frazier AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development Address: City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, {206) 842 - 2552 Larry K. Frazier ICP, i or of Planning and Community Date Development APPEAL: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal and paying the $500.00 filing fee to the City Clerk, at 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, Section 16.04.170 by no later than 4;00 p.m. on September,~l, 2004. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. "~ If you have any questions concerning this application, contact: Thomas A. Bonsell, Planner Department of Planning & Community Development 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 {206) 842-2552 Fax: (206) 780-0955 Email: pc~ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Vicinity Map: ~~~ ~~' aJl-n, a0r-a= adJ-ad do<-oo OJJ-07 _ ° . I,; LOFGREIV ROAD, •~ "f SUBJECT PRppERTY ~ ~/~ ~ - ~~ dJ]-d I 4 / '~ Z 016.00 ;~ m ~ ~ ~~~ ~ dJS-a+ a,s-dJ ~ri --- --.~ _ ~--- 7C oJ6-ad ~~ ~ _ ` ~ d15-01 015-00 045-07 !J -0\em aJ6-d, aJ6-a? ~- . ~ s_~~ dJ7-d? 011-Oa 011-07 011-CJ JJI-d8 0J7-a6 di!-nnl I nta_nnr nr<-n~ • ti ~ i 1 Mitigation Measures for the Otto Olson Subdivision (File Number SUB09$00) and Otto Olson Reasonable Use Exception (File Number RUE09$00) The following mitigation measures are imposed to reduce probable adverse environmental impacts that may be generated by the proposal. Mitigation measures become conditions of approval for the subdivision. 1. Prior to any clearing, grading or construction activities and prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from the Department of Planning and Community Development. The plat utilities permit shall include a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. 2. All excavated material shall be re-used on-site. If the material is found to be unsuitable for on-site use, it shall be disposed of at an appropriate disposal site. 3. To mitigate air quality impacts during grading, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations that insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. To mitigate air quality impacts during clearing activities, cleared vegetation must be removed from the site and/or processed by chipper or some other method of disposal that does not require burning. 5. Complete storm water drainage plans designed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Technical Manual shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer as part of the plat utilities permit. 6. To mitigate potential off-site glare, any street lighting within the subdivision shall be hooded, shielded, and have a maximum height of 12 feet from finished grade and shall adhere to BIMC 15.34. 7. A11 conditions and recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Meyers Biodynamics, dated October 20, 1999 shall be followed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. All conditions of the Mitigation Plan prepared by Meyers Biodynamics and dated ruly 29, 2004 shall be followed without exception. a i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS ~ 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable, Olsen Pla# ~ # _ ~ ~r~. ~ 3 ~ ~ ~' +~3'r3= 't4 era, ~ yy }-i - 1 ~ S j 11 Y~# 2. Name of applicant. The Esta#e of Otto D. Olson 3. Address and home number of applicant and contact person. Mike Olson P.O. Box 98 Port Hadlock, WA. 98339 360-509-7714 4. Date checklist prepared. February 5, 2U02 5, Agency requesting checklist. City of Bainbridge Island 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable). No phasing planned 7. Do you have any plans for future addi#ions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No li. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, directly related to this proposal. Gev#echnical slope evaluation 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. No 10. List any governmen# approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Plat approval l 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repea# those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Five (5) acre parcel divided into six (6) approximately equal parcels. 12. Loca#ion of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed projec#, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, in known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the sites}. Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonable available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. On the South side of Lofgren Rvad between 554 and 12'10 feet West of its intersection with Ferndiff Avenue. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (underlinelcircle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, stee ,slopes, ountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 45% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck}? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note-any prime farmland. ~ r-ave.. ~ ~,~ ~a+~-~.~ ~ , i ~ L o~ ~...~ d. Are there any surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No -~ Refer to slope evaluation report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Gradiny for driveways and home construction ~~ ,,~ ~~ T~ V~ ~~ `~~ U ~, ~\ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~~~ ~~k~ ~ti r~ ~~ ~~ ~. V TO BE COMPtETE© BY r+r'PLfCANT AGREEIDISAGREE/MITIGATE B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS t . Earth a. General description of the underlinelcircle ~-~ one); flat, roiling, hilly, steep slopes mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope}? 45% c. What general pes of soils are found on the site (for exampl clay sand, raver pea#, mucky? If you know the classt nation of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ,~~ r~ ~~ ~~ d. Are there any surface indications or history of ~ unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No -- Refer to slope evaluation report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate / quantities of any filling or grading proposed. indicate source of fail. Grading for drivewavs and home construction f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. Yes -minor erosion associated with dri~eway and foundation excavation g. About what percent of the site will be cor-ered with impervious surfaces after the project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 209/o maximum h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Erosion control plan and measures ~0 4 ~~ ~ b~ ~ ~~ k~ ~~ ~~ ~` U ~ h`~ ~` ~~ ~~ ~~ °` '~~ i~ C ~` `~~ 4 ~`. 2. Air TO BE COMP!_ETED BY HrPLICANT i EVA~.uAT#ON I°OR AGENCY USE ONE.Y a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke] during cons#ruction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known, Emissions connected with construction and occu anon of 5 homes 6, Are there any off site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe, No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Standard emission control me#hods 3. Water a. Surface: 7. Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands]? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes -- Seasonal stream unnamed 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet] the described waters? If AGREE 1 DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE J ~y~~ v~ ~' yes, please attach available plans. ~~~1 ~~ 5 "" No P~, v,~ ~ ~,~ ,~" `~' ~ 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge that ~` would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected, Indicate the source of fill material. NIA 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known, No 5. Daes the proposal lie within a 'i00 year / ~q°' ~ a ,` 4 ~ ~g ~ ~~~~ '~ } ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5~' a ~~ ~ ~~ floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No ~ ~ \ ;. TO 13E COMPLETED BY,wPPLICANT ,~ EVALvATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREI= /DISAGREE /MITIGATE fi. Does the proposal involve any discharges of ~ waste materials to surtace waters? [f so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b, Ground 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Yes a groundwater withdrawn for domestic water svstem 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged in#o the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any {for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural, etc.}. Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served {if applicable}, or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve, Septic system effluent c. Water Runoff (including storm water);_ J 1. Descr[be the source of runoff (including storm V fi water} and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known), Where will this water flow? WIII this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm drainage from 5 new residences disposed of in on- site infll#ration systems. 2, Could waste materials enter ground or surtace U waters? If so, generally describe. No 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control sunFace, ground, and water impacts, if any. Infiltration s stems h` 1@~ ~'~ ~~~ 5~ n 4. Plants '., TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT `, 1 EVALUAT#ON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE /DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the eJ si#e: deciduous tree alder- maple aspen, other ~ eve reen tree fir edar pine, other X rubs ~. grass ,,,,_ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other ,_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other e other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some tree and shrub remo~af for„si#e deueiopmer}t c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use o~ na#ive plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any, None 5. Animals a. Underlinelcircleany birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _ birds: hawk, heron, eagle ongbirds other ® mammals: deer bear, elk, beaver, other _ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None .~ J ` } TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. fs the site part of a migra#ion route? If so, explain. No } EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Nane fi. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy {electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) wilt be used to meet the compie#ed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and solar ever for household heatin . AGREE 1 DISAGREE /MITIGATE ~-- b. Would your project affect the potential use of / solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Those required by building codes 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? if so, describe. No '!. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None Z. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None >~ b. Noise 1 f TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY U5E ONLY AGREE /DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may / affect your project {for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2. Wha# types of levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short term or long term basis {for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise assocated with construction and occugatior~ of 5 new residences 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. City noise ordinance requirements 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential and_ urid_eveloped b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. One house and one outbuilding i 6~ ~~ e U~r ~~ ~,,s d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? y Yes -outbuilding e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan t/ designation of the site? OSR-2 / g. if applicable, what is the current shoreline v master program designation of the site? NIA ~~1 ~~` ~ ~~ ~ a~ Q ~~ ~~ ~r~ `~C ~ ~\ ~~ { b°' ~~ 1 J ~ TO BE COMPLEi'ED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE QNLY AGREE 1 DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE h. Has any part of the site been classified as an / "environmentaliysensltive" area? If so, specify. Yes -slopes over 15% and seasonal drainage i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Those associated with 6 residences j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None f. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Ci#y plat review process 9. Housino a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Six 6 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or con#rol housing impacts, if any. None '10. Aesthe#ics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures), not including antennas. What is the principal exterior building materials proposed? 30 feet, wood products .~ ~-- ~l -1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVA~.fJATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE 1 DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be / altered or obstructed? None c, Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, i# any. None t 1, Li ht and Glare a. Wha# type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What type of day would it mainly occur? That associated with 5 new homes b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off~ite sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b, Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the projector applicant, if any. None J '13. Historic and Cultural Preservation ' f` ~ l TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATIQN FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE ! ©ISAGREE /MITIGATE a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or ~ proposed for, national, state, or local preservation resisters known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None r I i/ ~i~ c. Proposed measures to reduce or cont o impacts, if any. ~ None ~~Q,~ 14. Transaortation 'fir ~~'~r a. Identi ubiic s#reets and hi hwa s servin the ~ ~~ ~ fy P 9 Y 9 ~ ~~ site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. ~ Fir Street. Hemlock Street. l.ofgren Road, all <aublic r'I~ht of wavy ~tf ~~~ '~~~ b. is site currently served by public transit? if not, ~~__ ~~ what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit ~s~'°a~~ stop? ~~~~ +~ Yes ~~, t~k c, How many parking spaces would the completed / ~~ project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parkinct associated with each residence d. Will the proposal require any new roads or ~.J streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? I# so, generally describe '`"' (indicate whether public or private). Imarove Hemlock Street ~~ ~~ °~~,~~~ ~'~ u,~, ~ n~ W'll th t r in the immediate e. ~ e projec use (or occu vicinity ofd water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No ' ~ a TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed projec#? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Those associated with 6 homes AGREE ! DISAGRf=E I MITIGATE g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None 15, Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need +~ for public service {for example, fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes -those associated wi#h 6 new residences b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. school Impact fees 16. Utilities a. Underlinefcircle utilities currently availab#e at the site: electrici ~ natural gas water fuse service, lephone sanitary sewer, eptic sys e o b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the / projec#, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Puaet Sound Enerav - elec#rici _ : Qwest - uhonee_ Bainbrid a D'rs osal -refuse service 51GNATURE The above answers are true and comple#e to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agent is relying on them to make it"s decision. Si nature•~ ~~ 9 r' EVA~.UATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Date Submitted• ' 9 ^ ~ 1 ~c~s1r U~-v ~~~#~ Uf~~.v~,vq~ ~ ~ 961 Green Spat Place NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 August 18, 2004 ~~~ ~~ Thamas Bonsell, Planner ~~~ I~~~~ Department of Planning & ~®~~ ~ A~~ . ~ $ ~QQ~ Community Development °°' - ~~ J`' ~ 280 Madasan Avenue No. ~ ~~~~ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ~®u~~ D~v~L~ ~~ SUBJECT: Michael Olson Reasonable Use Exception Dear Mr. Bonsell: Following up on our discussion yesterday concerning Mr. Olson's request for a Reasonable Use Exception to go alang with his subdivision proposal, I would like to offer same additional comments: 1. I certainly don't fault Mr, Olean for wanting to reduce the cost of developing the property, but it has always been my understanding that economic circumstances is not one of the criteria for decision-making by your Department « The additional cost of routing the waterline along the shoulder of Lafgren Road instead of along the south property lane would be nominal since the additional length would be about ?~ feet. Sn fact, that cost might be offset by the cost of the measures needed to mitagate construction of the waterline across the stream bed and slopes.. 2. BIMC 16.20.090.1.1, states: "Reasonable use exceptions are the mechanism by which the city may grant relief from the provisions of this chapter where compliance with certain provisions of this chapter leave no reason- able use of the property". In this speca.fic case the property owner will be allowed to subdivide the tract into 6 lots no matter which route the waterline takes. Therefore, the proposed R.U.E. doesn't meet the criteria set forth in Section 16.20.090.2.1. or in Section 16.20.090.1.4. 3. Section 16.20,090,I.4,a. states; "The proposed activities wall result in the minimum intrusion, alteration or impairment of the wetlands, stream or required buffer including impacts to their functional characteristics, whale permitting some reasonable use of the property". The alternate routing of the waterline along the shoulder of Zofgren Road would have no ampact on the stream, The proposed routing of the waterline along the south property line would certainly impact the stream and adjacent slopes as well as the buffer area along the property line. EX~ ~~ ~~~ page 2 ~~~ The proposed R.U.E. doesn't meet the criteria in Section 15.20.090.I.4.a. either. 9 I don't be~.ieve that the R.U.E. provision in the municipal cnde is meant to cover this type of proposal and, therefore, that part of the application should be denied. The language and intent of the Reasonable Use Exception portion of the municipal code should be complied w~.th. Sincerely, Bainbridge Island Re~riew p.~. Box 10917, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-842-6613 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OF KITSAP } ss Christiana. Allen Hoch being fizst duly swam, upon oath deposes and says: that (s}he is the publisher of the Bainbridge Island Review, atwice-weekly newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published-and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the fast publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a twice weekly newspaper in Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Bainbridge Island Review, and is ~ general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper liy order of the Superior Court of Kitsap County, Skate of Washington, by order dated June 16, I941, and that the annexed is a true copy of City Notices - OLSON (RUE 09800) (BR392-04) as it was published once a week in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue{s), such publication• commencing on 09/25/04 and ending on 09/25/04 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during aII of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $_/D~.Oa which has been paid in full. _ Subscribed and sworn before me on this c~Y of '~ ~C~%~_s Nota~Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Bainbridge Island, Washington. CCrY GF BAiNBRIl7GS ISLAND, •~M ~ G H `~~\j~ • 1 ~51wPT 15, 2008: a ~ ~`s SUB LYC` . ,~pP C~ ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION (RUE09800) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING at 1:00 p.m. on October 14, 2004 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 280 Madison Avenue, Bainbridge Island, Washington, pursuant to the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100 to consider an application for a Reasonable Use Exception to allow the crossing of a Class IV stream with a waterline (associated file: SUB09800). Applicant: Michael Olson. The subject property is located: 9955 Lofgren Road TA# 4169-000-004b-0005 YOU ARE INVITED to attend the hearing and make oral and written comments. The Hearing Examiner has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, non-repetitive comments and to set time limits. If you are unable to attend, written conur~ents, photographs or other exhibits on the application maybe subnutted prior to the hearing date. All such submissions should state the specific case and be directed to the Hearing Examiner's Assistant at City Hall. ANY APPEALS from the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) filed under the State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) published an August 14, 2004, will also be heard at the Public Hearing. Participation in an Appeal Hearing is limited to the applicant, the applicant's representative, the appellant, the appellant's representative, appropriate City staff and consultants, any witnesses called by each, and any nonparty who submitted written comments during the public comment period, if the Hearing Examiner determines that the testimony is relevant and nonrepetative. QUESTIONS maybe directed to and the file accessed from Tom Bonsell, Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 842-25 52. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND MEREDITH A. GETCHES HEARII~TG EXAMINER Publication: September 25, 2004 Vicinity Map: /IO/f/CREN ROA[ SUBJELi PROPERTY ~ "%~Jf/~///~`/ .~.N ~ x a\ ~ .. .~ ~~ ~o i~ ~ -i r /" ~ i~..e. n.l r- ~~ Std ~ _ `ti ~~~-~ ~~G C~ ~ ~'[~ C~ I CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON CERTIFICATE OF POSTING _®R~ ~~ I, }~~~ ~ l~,_. ~J ~ ~~~,~~ ,certify that I caused to be pasted a Notice of Public Hearing ir< the matter of RUE 09800 as attached, on the subject property located at: 9955 Lofgren Road, and identified in the legal description given below, on the ~~^day of 2003. TPN# 4169-000-0046-0005 I declare under the penalty of the perjury laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is correct. f << ~~ BY: 7 ~ ~-~~.. Date: ~~ / 7 ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ l ~~rYO~ ~~~~R~~~~;~~fijA~i~ ~~~ ~ 4 20D4 D~p~d. Uf-~LA~~G~ 5~~~~~~~~Ntir~~~~~F~t~p~-~Fn+~ 9/~ ~ .. ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE I7SE EXCEPTION {RUE09800) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING at 1:00 p.m. on October 14, 2004 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 280 Madison Avenue, Bainbridge Island, Washington, pursuant to the provisions ofBIMC 2.16.100 to consider an application for a Reasonable Use Exception to allow the crossing of a Class IV stream with a waterline (associated file: SUB09800). Applicant: Michael Olson. The subject property is located: 9955 Lofgren Road TA# 41fi9-004-004b-0005 YOU ARE INVITED to attend the hearing and make oral and written comments, The Hearing Examiner has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, non_repetitive comments and to set time limits. If you are unable to attend, written comments, photographs or other exhibits on the application may be submitted prior to the hearing date. All such submissions should state the specific case and be directed to the Hearing Examiner's Assistant at City Hall. ANY APPEALS from the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) filed under the State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) published on August 14, 2404, will also be heard at the Public Hearing. Participation in an Appeal Hearing is limited to the applicant, the applicant's representative, the appellant, the appellant's representative, appropriate City stall' and consultants, any witnesses called by each, and any nonparty who submitted written continents during the public comment period, if the Hearing Examiner determines that the testimony is relevant and nonrepetative. QUESTIONS may be directed to and the file accessed from Tom Bonsell, Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 842-2552. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND MEREDITH A. GETCHES ViceniryMip: HEARING EXAMINER Publication: September 25, 2004 SU~JF ~~ ~~ Fa^/~/' ' u, u ~j/~ ~ ~ . _~~ ;R .:1 ;~~ a ~„ ,.. .. Page 1 of 1 Diane Sawyer From: "Tom Bonsell" ~TBonsell@ci.bainbridge~isl.wa.us> To: "Diane Sawyer" ~dsawyer@bainbridge.net> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: RE: Olson RUE09800 I think you may be correct on your analysis. If we get HE approval an the short plat we can go on to CC. Please add one more week to the date. I'm nervous about not having my review back from my supervisor yet. Front: Diane Sawyer jmailto:dsawyer@bainbridge.net] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 3:23 PM Ta: Tom Bonsell Cc: Diane Berry Subject: Re: Olson RUE04800 Having looked at the Findings of Fact etc from Robin, I seems to me that the Subdivision has been recommended #or approval subject to the issuance of an RUE. Let me know if Larry or the City Attorney thinks otherwise. I can set the hearing far October 7, does that give you enough time? Diane: Could you let me have the notice for the RUE application and the mailing list. Diane ----Original Message ---- From: Tom Bonsell To: Diane Sawyer Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Olson RUE09800 Diane, Could you please put this project on the docket for the NE. Please remember that this decision must also include a recommendation to the City Council on the subdivision. It is part of Robin's unfnished business and in my opinion a bit confusing. So there may be a public hearing on the RUE but I think the hearing is closed for the Subdivision. Please keep me informed. Thanks, Thomas Bonsell Planner, City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave. N. {206} 842-2552 email pcd@ci.bainbr-idge-isl.wa.us 09/10/2004 Page 1 of 1 Diana Sawyer From: "Tom Bonsell" <TBonsell a~ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us~ To: "Diane Sawyer" <dsawyer@bainbridge.neb Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Olson RUE09800 Diane, Could you please put this project on the docket for the ~1E. Please remember that this decision must also include a recommendation to the Ci#y Council on the subdivision. It is part of Robin's unfinished business and in my opinion a bit confusing. So there may be a public hearing on the RUE but 1 think the hearing is closed forthe Subdivision. Please keep me informed. Thanks, Thomas Bonsell Planner, City of Bainbridge lsiand 280 Madison Ave. N. (206) 84Z-2552 email cd ei,bainbrid e-isi.wa.us og~oo~zoa4 p~ ~C W Project N~rne: Acknowledgment 3/26/2004 DONE NJG Letter Application Complete 4/9/2004 DONE NJG Letter Application Received 3/17/2004 DONE MEM Assigned to Staff 3/17/2004 DONE TAB NJG Correspondence 8/18/2004 DONE TAB CKT Received Hearing w/ Examiner 9/29/2004 10/14/2004 TAB Info/Revisions 3/23/2004 TAB Rgstd/Rcvd Info/Revisions 8/4/2004 8/3/2004 DONE TAB TAB RgstdlRcvd -~'~lanning Review 3/17/2004 8/12/2004 TAB Past Cert. Received 4/27/2004 DONE KT Post Cert. Received 9/24/2004 DONE TAB CKT PW Review 3/17/2004 3/27/2004 6/11/2004 DONE MDH MDH Case Activity listing Case Activity Listing Case #: RUE09800 OLSON, OTTO ESTATE RUE 9/29/zao4 lo:so:ssAM 3/26/2004 To Michael Olson, Executor, w/cc to Marc Adam NJG 4/9/2004 To Michael Olson, Executor, w/cc to Marc Adam NJG 3/26/2004 3!1712004 -original submittal: reasonable use NJG exception application, project commentary, legal description, geotech report, site plans. Application w/attachments to: Tom Bonsell -Planning Melva Hill -Engineering Danette Guy -Fish & Wildlife 3/26/2004 To Tom Bonsell NJG 8/19/2004 Mattson 8118104 comment letter CKT 9/29/2004 To ~e Director for initial9/29/2004. TAB 3/23/2004 Requested a replanting plan with drawings before we T~ can send out a complete application letter. 8/4/2004 Received Meyers Biodynamics MitigatianPlan. Sent to T~ the WAC 8/4/2004 for comment 3/17/2004 To Torn Bonsell. MEM 4/27/2004 Received Cer~ficate of Posting fi-om Michael Olson CKT 9/24/2004 ~~~,~ from M. Olson CKT 6/11/2004 No protest to RUE if geotech endorsed and DFW MDH agrees. To Melva Hill. Page 1 of 1 casenctiviry.cp~ CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEARING EXAMINER RE: PUBLIC HEARING (RUE09800) CERTIFICATION OF DELIVERY AND MAILING I, Diane Sawyer, do hereby certify, I caused to be mailed the attached Notice of Public Hearing in the matter of RUE 09800 to the following parties by placing it in an addressed envelope and placing it in the out-going mail bin for mailing at the Department of Planning and Community EXH Development on September 22, 2004 prior to mail collection: Residents within 300 foot radius I further certify that I posted a copy of the said document on September 22, 2004 at the following: Chamber of Commerce Ferry Terminal I further certify that I hand delivered a copy of the said document on September 22, 2004 to the following: City Clerk City Administrator's office (E-mailed) t `,... E i !z '>. - c~_~~" Diane .~. awyer Assistant to Hearing Examiner City of Bainbridge Island 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION (RUE09800} YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING at 1:00 p.m. on October 14, 2004 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 280 Madison Avenue, Bainbridge Island, Washington, pursuant to the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100 to consider an application for a Reasonable Use Exception to allow the crossing of a Glass IV stream with a waterline (associated file: SUB09800). Applicant: Michael Olson. The subject property is located: 9955 Lofgren Road TA# 4169-000-0046-0005 YOU ARE INVITED to attend the hearing and make oral and written conv~nents. The Hearing Examiner has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, non-repetitive comments and to set time limits. If you are unable to attend, written comments, photographs or other exhibits on the application maybe submitted prior to the hearing date. All such submissions should state the specific case and be directed to the Hearing Examiner's Assistant at City Hall. ANY APPEALS from the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance {MDNS} filed under the State Environmental Policies Act {SEPA} published on August 14, 2004, will also be heard at the Public Hearing. Participation in an Appeal Hearing is limited to the applicant, the applicant's representative, the appellant, the appellant's representative, appropriate City staff and consultants, any witnesses called by each, and any nonparty who submitted written comments during the public comment period, if the Hearing Examiner determines that the testimony is relevant and nonrepetative. QUESTIONS maybe directed to and the file accessed from Tom Bonsell, Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 842-2552. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND MEREDITH A, GETGHES HEARING EXAMINER Publication: September 25, 2004 Jam Free Printing ~ ~ uvww.a~eryconr- Use A~ery_® TEMPIATF: 5160® j '~"' 1-$00-GO-AVEF ) OL~ON RUE 09800 41690000010107 NOA pub: 4-i7-04; Withdrawal BROWN DONALD KEITH and Reissuance of MDNS 8-14-04; 9694 NE LOFGREN RD HEX list prepared 9-13-04 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981 l0 41690000360007 HARVEY DAMON A 5205 PALATINE N AFT 1 SEATTLE WA 98103 41690000480201 HYLEN WALTER & SUSAN 9195 HEMLOCK AV NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 4]690000470004 LEE ILA 9373 HEMLOCK AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000360205 MARKHAM YOSHIKO & EDWIN W 9225 CEDAR ST BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000040005 41690000480300 MATTSON VINCENT A & KATHRYN B MCGREW DIANE L 9651 GREEN SFOT RD NE 9229 HEMLOCK AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000460005 OLSON OTTO D 9955 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000030006 PAYNE FAMILY LTD LIAR CO 1990 NW BLUE RIDGE DR SEATTLE WA 98177 RESIDENT 9588 BUCSIT LN NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 RESIDENT 9977 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 4I640000350107 STUTSMAN E L & YVONNE PO BOX 10044 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981 I O 41690000450006 WILCOXON JAMES PO BOX 11191 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 RESIDENT 9691 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 RESIDENT 9987 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000470103 URNESS NYER W & LOUISE C 9625 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981 i 0 Vince Mattson 9651 Green-Spot Place NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 AVERY® 516D® Aa3AV-09-OOFI-6 ~ ®0465 31VidW31®I[~aelp- ash ®0965 C~A?~~A1o/ ® worlL~ene -~nnnnn ® sul~uua aau~ wer =~~:.. ~ Q CITY OF'~AINBRIDGE 15LAND 1 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98 9 1 0-1 81 2 41690000320001 CHUKA RADOLPH M 9425 FERNCLIFF AV NE BAINI3RIDGE ISLAND WA 981 IO 41690000310002 ~,pRIDSON MARIAN P` 9342 ~RNCLIFF AV NE BAINB~D~'E ISLAND WA 98110 41690000330307 MATHISSON CHARLES & MARGARET 2670 NE LILLEHAMMER LN POULSBO WA 98370 l 41690000340108 NANCE MICHAEL C & DEAN A 9481 GREENSPOT PL NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 -. a / ~ITYpdF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND ?80 Madison Avenue North 3ainbridge Island, WA 98110-1812 RESIDENT 9200 HEMLOCK AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 RESIDENT 99b1 NE LOFGItEN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 41690000450105 ROWAN CLAUDIA S PO BOX 557 1NDIANOLA WA 98342 41b900003fi0106 WELDON BENJAMIN C & SIMONE 9965 NE LOFGREN RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 9$110 } 1 STAFF REPORT Cit~ofBainbrid~e Island Departr~aent ofPlanning and Communi Develo went Project: Estate of Otto Olson Reasonable Use Exception File number: RUE09800 Date: September 29, 2004 From: Larry K. Frazier, AICP, Director To: Meredith Getches, Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Project Manager: Thomas A Bonsell, Planner ~' ~ y.... W '. ~i~M.-F. i IE 3.t• I. INTRODUCTION Applicant: Michael Olson, Executor Location: The site is located on NE Lofgren Road. It is a 4.50 acre property on the south side of NE Lofgren Road. The property has asingle-family residence with a garage. The garage is slated for demolition. Zpning;/ Comprehensive Plan: The project is zoned R-2, two units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is OSR-2, Open Space Residential, two units per acre. Request: The applicant has applied for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to allow construction of a water system with a supply line that will cross an intermittent stream. Associated with this permit request is an application for subdivision. Environmental Review: The project is subject to SEPA review. A SEPA Mitigated Determination ofNon-Significance (MDNS) was issued on April 16, 2003 in association with the underlying subdivision application, SUB09800. The MDNS conditions were appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner struck one condition and amended Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 EXHIBIT 28 i another and subsequently the MDNS was withdrawn and reissued in conformance with the Hearing Examiner's decision on August 14, 2004. No appeals were filed. Decision: Staff recommends approval of the Reasonable Use Exception submitted an March 17, 2004 with the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: SEPA CONDITIONS: Prior to any clearing, grading or construction activities and prior to fmal plat.•approval, the applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from the Department of Planning and Community Development. The plat utilities permit shall include a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. 2. All excavated material shall be re-used on-site. If the material is found to be unsuitable for on-site use, it shall be disposed of at a disposal site approved by the director. To mitigate air quality impacts during grading, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations that insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. To mitigate air quality impacts during clearing activities, cleared vegetation must be removed from the site and/or processed by chipper or some other method of disposal that does not require burning. . 5. The applicant shall submit complete storm water drainage plans, designed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Technical Manual. These plans shall be approved by the City Engineer as part of the plat utilities permit. 6, To mitigate potential off-site glare, any street lighting within the subdivision shall be hooded, shielded, and have a maximum height of 12 feet from finished grade acrd shall adhere to BIMC 15.34. 7. All conditions and recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Meyers Biodynamics, dated October 20, 1999 shall be followed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Page 2 Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 8. All conditions of the Mitigation Plan prepared by Meyers Biodynamics and dated July 29, 2004 shall be followed without exception to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Non SEPA Conditions 9. The waterline, where it crosses the stream, shall be constructed of heat welded HDPE or shall be sleeved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Staff Analysis II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. History In March of 2000, the applicant submitted a land use application to subdivide a 4.5-acre parcel into six lots. The parcel contains a Class IV intermittent stream that divides the property into two equal halves. The applicant wants to cross the stream with a waterline in order to supply all proposed lots with a Group B water source. In conjunction with the subdivision, an MDNS was signed. The applicant objected to two of the MDNS mitigation conditions. The condition of concern was the requirement that the applicant not be allowed to supply water to lots by crossing the stream. The applicant appealed the MDNS to the Hearing Examiner. The appeal hearing was held concurrent with hearing on the underlying subdivision application. The Hearing Examiner's decision was that no recommendation could be made on r the SEPA appeal nor the subdivision applicatian until the applicant either applied and received a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) or located the proposed waterline into the NE Lofgren Road right-of--way. The applicant applied for a RUE. Subsequently and to and to be in compliance with the Hearing Examiner's order, staff withdrew the existing MDNS and re issued a MDNS on August 14, 2004 reflecting the Examiners decision and including coverage of the RUE. The xe issued MDNS had the appropriate comment and appeal periods. There were no appeals and one comment letter was received. The Wetland Advisory Committee met on April l 1, 2004 with staff and the applicant to discuss and review the application. The committee requested a mitigation plan prepared by a professional wetland biologist with specific planting and mitigation-requirements. The applicant provided a new plan mitigation and the wetland advisory committee was satisfied with the Myers Biodynamics Inc. report dated August 3, 3004. The RUE proposal is properly before the Hearing Examiner far a decision. Page 3 Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 \ - • /• \i B. Public Comment The comment letter (attachment F), discusses in general the importance of the protection of the stream because of the important function it serves since it flows into a Category I wetland. The author also refers to page 7 of the Hearing Examiner report where she states "There 'is no evidence in the record which proves the applicant would be deprived of a reasonable use of his property if he is not allowed to place his proposed waterline across this regulated stream bed and buffer area". The author requests we deny this RUE application. The wetland biologist and the wetland advisory committee both believe that the function and value of the stream would not be harmed if the waterline were allowed to cross the stream subject to the proper mitigations. The comment from the Hearing Examiner found an page 7 was referring to the fact that the applicant had not applied for, or received a Reasonable Use Exception and that there is no evidence in the record to make a decision whether crossing the stream would be allowed. C. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies The proposed reasonable use exception for a single family residence is consistent with policy AQ 1.2 of the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan which states that "Development shall not be approved in regulated wetlands, streams, or buffer areas, unless a property awnex would be denied all reasonable use of property." The property is split in a north-south direction by a Class IV stream. The applicant has provided documentation that indicates that the stream andlor its functions would not be negatively impacted by waterline installation or use to provide water to the proposed lots on the opposite side of the stream. D. Land Use Code Analysis 1. BIMC 16.20.090 Wetlands and Streams The Olson property is bisected by a Class IV stream This intermittent stream is confined to a narrow channel and would normally be classified as a Class V stream except far the fact i:hat the stream flows into a Category I wetland. A biologist's report is provided in the application packet that includes a mitigation plan and a replanting schedule. BIMC 16.20.090(I~ 2 requires a 25-foot buffer and a 15-foot building setback from the stream edge. ....,.. , „_... Page 4,• Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 The location of stream and its associated 25 foot buffer makes the process of providing water to both sides of the stream of the property difficult. Therefore, a Reasonable Use Exception {RUE) is required for the applicant to derive reasonable use of the parcel The RUE will allow construction of a Group B water system and facilitate development and creation of three lots on the opposite side of the stream. The conditions of the RUE will limit the.time of construction, how the trench is dug and the type and time of replanting of the disturbed area. BIMC 16.20.110 Mitigation Plan Requirements A mitigation plan is required to mitigate impacts to the wetland and stream buffers. The plan shall follow the requirements of BIMC 16.20.110 and should include buffer restoration at a ratio of 1:1 for area impacted to area restored. The impacted area that will be disturbed by construction of the waterline will be restored to its pre- disturbance condition. in addition, the applicant is required to follow the recommendations and requirements without exception as stated in the "Mitigation Plan for a Proposed Riparian Buffer Encroachment" prepared by Meyers Biodynamics for Mr. Mike Olson, dated July 29, 2004. The Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of this section of code. (Condition $) 2. BIMC 16.20.090. Decision Criteria i. A reasonable use .exception may be approved or approved with modifications if without the reasonable use exception the applicant would be deprived of any reasonable use of the property and; The RUE is not being utilized to increase the density of the subject parcel because the stream and its buffer does not reduce the potential density. Therefore, the proposed waterline to serve three single family dwelling units is a reasonable use within this R-2 zone. Although there are alternatives to this proposal, the additional cost of utilizing the alternatives would not be "reasonable". Without the reasonable use exception, the applicant would be deprived of about half of the density of the property since the property contains ~.5 acres and is zoned R-2 ii. The proposed activities will result in the minimum intrusion, alteration or impairment of the wetlands, stream or required buffer, including impacts to their functional characteristics, while permitting Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 some reasonable use of the property. In all cases, disturbance of a regulated wetland or stream shall only occur if no reasonable use can be achieved by disturbance of the buffer only; The proposed wdterline and its construction wil! have little if any impact to the intermittent Class IV streams functional characteristics. The conditioned approval will result in the minimum necessary intrusion into the buffer, (Condition S) iii. The proposed activities are located to minimize impacts to the continued existence of endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive, or monitor species as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; There are no known endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive, or monitor species on or in close proximity to the applicants' parcels. iv. -The proposed activities include mitigation as appropriate to avoid measurable degradation to ground water or surface water quality; Mitigation measures under SEPA and stated wrthrn the mitigation plan require that replanting of the disturbed area be completed and monitored and that during construction of the waterline appropriate stormwater management be in place. {Condition 5) v. The proposed activities comply with all relevant state, local and federal laws, including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site waste water disposal; The RUE applicationrs consistent with the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and all relevant state, and federal laws pertaining to sediment control. (Conditions 5 & $) vi. Alterations to wetland, streams and buffers will be mitigated to the extent feasible considering the extent of the disturbance, the size of the site and the necessity for the proposed activities; Alterations to the stream and stream buffers will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio, far the area of disturbance. {Conditions 5 & 8} vii. There will be no damage to nearby public or private property arid no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; There will be no damage to nearby public or private property. All areas of disturbance will be maintained in such a way to eliminate the potential for silt transportation downstream. (Conditions 5 & $) Pa e 6 Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 viii. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the .result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this chapter; The purpose of this request for a Reasonable Use Exceptions (RUE) is to provide water service to both sides of a parcel that is bisected roughly in the middle by a Class IV stream. The approval of this RUE does not change the density and the number of lots normally allowed on a parcel of this size, with this zoning designation. Although the RUE request is associated with a pending subdivision application, the applicant, in conjunction with his Wetland Biologist and the .Wetland Advisory Committee, has shown that the waterline will cause no environmental damage to either the stream or to downstream environments, and that with or without the RUE, a subdivision could occur. The City believes that the RUE is a reasonable request considering the added expense of Iocating the waterline in the Lofgren Road right-of--way. In either case, the waterline will be crossing the stream channel. ix. The reasonable use exception will not allow a use or activity that is inconsistent with the uses and activities and limitations of other properties in the vicinity. and zone in which the property is located; The use of the property is and will be consistent with other uses in the vicinity and zone. x. The reasonable use exception is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property; In this case, due to the size of the parcel, the zoning designation and the fact that stream buffer does not need to be reduced in order to obtain a total density of six lots on 4.5 acres, this application will allow a reasonable use of the property. xi. The reasonable use exception is consistent with all other provisions of this code and is in accord with the comprehensive Plan; The proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan. (See section ILD) 3. BIMC 18.30 R-2 Zone The proposed waterline for single-family development is consistent with BIMC 18.30, Development in the R-2 Zone. ., Paa~e 7 Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 .. " l i III. CONCLUSIONS As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicable sections of BIMC 16.20.090, 16.20.110, and 18.30. Appropriate notice of the application was made and comments were considered. The application is properly before the Hearing Examiner. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Reasonable Use Exception Permit Application B. Site Plan•date-stamped March 17, 2004 C. Wetland Advisory Committee recommendations date-stamped May 1 i, 2004. D. Mitigation PIan prepared by Meyers Biodynamics Inc. date-stamped August 3, 2004. E. Withdrawal and re issuance of MDNS with SEPA Checklist. F. Comment letter received April 29, 2004 Pam plson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 ,} l APPLICATION ~~ "'• Page 1 Project Name: OLSON, OTTO ESTATE RUE Date Received: 3/17/2004 Project Number: PRJ-0009800 Case Number: RUE09800 Primary Parcel Number: 41690000460005 Site address: 9955 NE Lofgren Road Case Description: 31I7I2004, Tom Bonsell, 9955 Lofgren Road. Develop a Group B water system to serve 3 of the six homes proposed in a 6 lot subdivision of 4.5 acres. A 2-inch diameter water line will have to cross the Class IV stream. Pevple associated with case: 2.File Namel Owner OTTO OLSON, ESTATE OF 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 PHONE: 360-5D9-7714 MIKE OLSON, EXECUTOR 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981 LO ,PHONE: 360-509-7714 6.City Planner TOM BONSELL 7.City Engineer MELVA HILL B.Bil1 Paying Party SAME AS APPLICANT 9.Engineer ADAM & GOLDSWORTHX, INC. 1015 NE HOSTMARIC STREET POULSBO WA 98370 PHONE: 206-842-9598 Parcel Numbers;, Tax Parcel Owner{s): 41690000450005 41690000460005 OTTO OLSON, ESTATE OF 9955 LOFGREN ROAD BAINBRTDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 Fee History for Case: Case No. Description Amount Receipt No. Due Reasonable Use $ 3,840.00 3202 $ 0.00 Except-Full Oth $3,840.00 $0.00 Project payment history: ~,j~~ ~. ~" ~~..~~_~~~~~ `' Description Amount Receipt No. Due ~c~~~i~~~n~~ ~~~~~`~..~~~~ ~ Prepayment-Applications $1,800.00 D7102 $D.OD $1,800.00 $0.00 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT A 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE 15LAND, WA • 98110-1812 FHONE: {206) 842-2552 -FAX: {206) 780-0955 Web Site: www.ci.Eainbridge•isl. woos / ~s ~ .t CITY DF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND t, REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORIVI MUST SE COMPLETEb IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. TO BE FILLEb UUT BY APPLICANT IAA I I ti`I ~R11' , ~ ' ~ ~ Fl1K [CITY [ I tiE nYLl" PROJECT NAME: t , TAx AssESSOR's NUMBER: ~~y ~ ~ ,~ ' "~;; << ~ ~ '>>' I PROJECT STREET ADDRE S S h`ti~F~~ii~"rr:. ~t i gE-,;,~i ; ~~ ra ~'1~ ~ ( ~ OR ACCESSSTRLET:~ ~ f ~ .'. ~ f/'~1LJ ~ r , 4 i r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUBMITTED : ^ YES ^ NO P.,._~ 1 ~; [ };i`. : : . ~, ~ ~ . FOR ['ITl' t1$1' [~f~'I:}, pp 7 ~7',~ ~ J~ '~ ~* S~l~~~p';~a `~i'= t I'aUI.I~:CT~~~hiaflt7 - _.. -_ ~'~.S'OC')Ca~,~_Cj~' c r . .; ~.~ ~.'1S Y1V ~}Ey~-}#~}~fj' }'•• Ik ~~F I.. I,~t7` kd~~~~~ ~k~}1€f 1 ` sj~ t ~ _ __ y' fir. A'~F~E11~~II{Ej{: 11 QQ r~ ~ i fl t~ f . ~-T'~`{l1"i~.... I1:Cl'B1ZF~61~'E.IY. - ' - rr~~ aF'F'LiCATI[I~'1'EE: r)~~~J.C./~ ~.~~ _. Tarasl-irtw~It'sRerral'rNuniFi~tti ~ ~.b? SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATroN One original (which must contain an ordginal signature) and ten copies must be provided. Whenever ossible, on finals must be si ned in blue. Please identi the on final document. SUPPORTING One original (which must contain an original signature), where applicable, and ten copies (if an DocuMENTS on 'nal is not a licable, eleven co ies must be rovided . FULL-SIZE DRAWINGS Eleven copies of the required drawings must be provided. Drawings must not exceed Y8"x 24" in size. No construction drawdn swill be acce ted unless s ecificall re nested. REDUCED DRAWINGS Two copies of the drawings reduced to 11" x 17" must be provided. Applications must be submitted in person by either the owner or the ovcmer's designated agent. Si3BMrrTING Should an agent submit the application, a notarized Owner/Applicand Agreement must accompany APPLICATIONS the application. If a planner has been assigned to your project, an appointmentfar submittal must be made with that fanner. FEES Single family residence: $3,600. All other: $5,7b0. Please refer to attached Submittal Checklist for further information. A'rrACHE,P SUBMITTAL NOTE: when submitting this application, please do not copy or include the Submittal Checklist CHECKLIST sheets attached to the back of this a lication. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED unless these basic requirements are met and the submittal packet is deemed counter complete. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2$0 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 • FAX: {206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isi.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 W1LL BE GENERATED I3Y THE CITY AT TIME OE SUBMITTAL Page 2 pf 12 ~. ,~ !, CITY OR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK, PREFERABLY SLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. A. GENERAL INFORMATION ~,. .. ,-~ - 1. Project name {if any): Q ~~, (~~~ ~ ~ C5 ~~,,~~ u' f ~ P C, i(.~ 2. Project street address or access street: e 3. Please give the following existing parcel information: Assessor's Parcel Number Parcel Owner Lot Area* ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~• ~ ~~~~ *As defined in BIMC 18.06.630 Name of property owner: r ~ j (~, _ Address: ~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ r'~~3 Phone ~ ~iC 'a~ ~ 7 j~_ E-mail: c~ r cL~ ~ j~~dif 5~ Fax: ~~0 7 7 ~, ll ~~ c~ u.~ If more than ane owner-: Name of property owner: Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: Name of properly owner: Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: If the owner(s) of record as shown by the county assessor's off ce is not the applicant, the owner's signed and notarized authorization must accompany this application. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH •BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206) $42-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-09.55 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATE!] BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 3 of 12 1 CITY Off' BAINBItiDGE ICSLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN II~IK, PIZEFEI2ABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 5. Bill paying party: Address: ~ G L - ~~:. - Phone: E-maiI~ Fax: ~ ' 6. Applicant: _ ~-~ "'~ Address: Phone: E-mail: Fax: 7. Contact person: Address; Phone: E-mail: Fax; 8. General location of site: 9. Please attach a legal description. Legal description attached or included on site plan. 10. PIease attach vicinity map. ~' Vicinity map attached or included on site plan. ~r~ 11. Existing property description (i.e. topography, vegetation, buildings, impervious surfaces, access}. This description should explain what is currently on the property {man-made or natural) and identify distinctive features and dominant vegetation. a~~ c~ l ~c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 981 I 0-I 812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 ~ EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL HE GENEitATED HY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 4 of I2 (~ i 1~. L~~.~~v . J CITY OF BAINT3RIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ~ ~.`• FORM MUST SE COMPLETED IN INI£, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 12. Please provide a complete and detailed written statement of the intended use of the nand. The statement should include the sequence and timing of the project and reason(s) far requesting the reasonable use exception. 13. Describe how the critical areas prevent or severely limit development. 14. Explain why other options are not available to allow development {like reducing building size, zoning variances, buffer averaging and buffer reduction) and how proposed impacts cannot be further reduced. Ta show how proposed impacts cannot be further reduced, demonstrate on site plan and/or explain. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2$0 MADISON AVENUE NORTH + BAINBRIbGE ISLAND, WA + 98110-1812 PHONE: {206) 842-2552 • FAx; (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 5 of I2 -~ l CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - `~" FORM MUST BE CbMPLETED IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 1S. Cheek all that apply to the project parcel(s) and include square footage of affected area within the parcel: ^ wetland square footage on project parcel(s): 5F ^ wetland buffer Square footage on project parcel(s): 5F `~- stream square footage on project parcel(s): 5F ^ stream suffer square footage on project parcel (s): ~ _ SF f ~~~ wetland or stream category: Please attach wetland delineation with copies, if applicable. ^ Wetland delineation attached. I6. Proposed total area of project: building footprint: impervious surface (not including building footprint): IJl/U '~ total disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc): (] vIl 17. Proposed total area of critical area intrusion (wetland ar stream}: building footprint: ~tdl1~ impervious surface {not including building footprint): total disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc: 1$. Proposed total area of building footprint: _ area buffer intrusion: impervious surface (not including building footprint): total disturbed area (landscaping, drainfields, structures, driveways, etc: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH +BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL; pcd@ci.bainbridge-isi.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-is1. wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SLJBIvIITTAL Page 6 of 12 } }~ CITY aF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INKY PREFERABLY BLUE, PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. I9. Current use of subject parcels}: ~,~: Lot Number Current Use Lot ~#~'~ ~ Lot Lot *Use additional sheet if necessary. 20. Current use of adiacent properties: Ad'acent Pro e to: Current Use North S ' c ~i'~- ~ South ~. I East ~ 1 West 1 21. Is construction planned within 200 feet of ordinary high water (basically 200 feet from where shoreline vegetation changes from salt tolerant to ^Yes ~~:~To ^ Unknown upland plants}? 22. Are there underlying/overlying agreements on the propert}~? IfvP.~ nherk annlirahle hnx_~ Yes ^ No ^ Unknown ^ Conditional Use Permit (CUP} Subdivision Conditions (SUB) ^ Contract Rezone (REZ) ^ Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) ^ Homeowners' Agreement (CC&R's} ^ Shoreline Permit (SSDP) ^ Master Planned Development (MPD} ^ Site Plan Review (SPR) ^ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ^ Zoning Variance (VAR} Other: Under which jurisdickion was the approval given? ^ Kitsap County ^ City of Bainbridge Island Approval date: Please attach a copy of the decision document(s). 'Decision document(s) attached. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH •BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 ~ FAX: (206) 780-0955 ~ EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2Q03 PAGE 1 WIi.I. BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OP SUHMiTTAL Page 7 of T 2 ., ~~ ~ i CITY Off' BAINDRIDGE ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION I''ORM MUST BE COMPLETER IN INK, PREFERABLY BLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT SE ACCEPTED. B. TECHNICAL INFORMATION ~ . Name of water purveyor: r" a If a private well, what class? a 2. Type of sewage disposal: '1 YU ~ t' ~ ~'ycc,1 . C_~~ j r'~ 5~~~ lM ~ _ ___ If community sewer, name district: -~, ~ 3. Name of access road: ~. oG ~ 5. How much of the project parceI(s) will be cleared? _ C...~ ~iJ ~: 6. Haw much excavation/Ell will actor (in cubic feet)? /[J 7. Are there trees an site? "~ Yes ^ No Tf vac nlPacP marlr ac annrnnriatP• full forested with even-a ed stands o£ ^deciduous ^ever een full forested with mixed a ed stands of ^deciduous ^ever een 6-inch DBH iameter at breast hei ht ^deciduous ^ever een 8-inch DBH ^deciduous ^ever een 10-inch DBH ~ deciduous ever een 12-inch or eater DBH deciduous ver een How many significant trees {12 DBH or greater) will be removed from the site? tl~! ~{ Has a forest practices pe,«iit been zssued within the last six years? $. Do storm water systems exist on the site? If yes, were they constructed after 19$2? If yes, what type of system exists on site? ~-- ~.~ ^ ides ~lVo ^ Yes ~No ^ Yes ^ No DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 981 I 0-1812 PHONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us w~,uw, ci.bainbridge-isl.vva.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE G1:i~fEItATBD BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 8 of 12 ~~r'. .-mss 11 CITY Op' BAINBRIDGR ISLAND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION _..;:: FORM MUST BE COMPLETER IN INK, PREFERABLY SLUE. PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 9. Is there any other information {not previously addressed) which is pertinent to this proj ect? ^ Yes~No If yes, please attach explanation. ^ Explanation attached. 1h. I hereby certify that I have read this application and know the same to be true and correct. Signature of owner or authorized agent* ~_.~I If signatory is not the owner of record, the attached "Ownerl Applicant Agreement" must be signed and notarized. 11. I hereby state the inability to derive reasonable use of the property is nat the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the andevelopable condition after the effective date of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Chapter 16. ~- _...._ 1a-l~/ ~~ ~_ Signature of owner or authorized agent* ~D to DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH ~ BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110-1812 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 • FAX: (206} 780-0955 • EMAIL: pcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us Revised September 24, 2003 PAGE 1 WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 9 of 12 The subject property has ,for five years, been in the process of being subdivided into six parcels. There has been na public opposition. Due to the lack of city, community or any other water systems in the area it will be necessary to develop a Group B water systsm to serve any homes built on the lots created by the subdivision. The reason far requesting an RUE is to cross ~ class 4 seasonal stream with a two inch diameter water line to serve the three lots that will be an the other side of the stream from the well. Ths trenching fox the water line witlvn the stream bed and associated buffers will be done by hand during the dry season when there is no water flow in the stream. Sours, of the trenching will occur in an area of steep slopes. A geotechnical engineer has studied the affect of tl-e trenching of the slopes and determined that there will be no destabilization of the banks as a result of the trenchug. Our project engineers and city staff have already agreed that there will be substantially na adverse impact to the stream or associated buffers from the installation of the waterline along our proposed route. Previously, the City staff recommended that this water lies be extended to and along Lofgren road. fJn this waterline route proposed by the city are two near ver~cal banks that have been cut during the construction of Lofgren road and Lofgren road itself is built on an approximately thirty to forty foot deep fill across the ravine that the subject stream flaws through. Construction of the waterline along this route would be several times, more expensive and present mare of a risk to the stability of associated slopes and road bed fill-material: This alterative is expensive, illogical, and creates mare of a risk to the stream. ( ~ ;d t5 i4 22~ ,23 g : ~- ' ~L- I ~D ~!i~i~l y 1 . ,l Fj`fi l~r R. ~`J r~ I(f ~ n ` Er f ~ r r i ~. yi J~' i ~~ /r,~`R n ~~ I / ~ ~ ` ~; I /I'~~f i~ : I~ ~" ~' ~ ~~ ~f' ~, D~ ,~ Zb , iJ ~ ~~ ,. r~ I ~' i ~ /'SI rW `^ ~ ~r C i o~~ ~ ~ ,k^ is ~ ~'~ i I 'r Y Q 31 ~ n`.l ` J ~ ,.. p; ,ti ; ~- 1 o ~~ }{f_ fq1 /`~~N~i•I 7`~ III ~_ _ l' I .Prelivnind,'~J Plat 0 tson A Repiat ar Boy City Lot 46 of the plot of Rolling Valeme J Page 13, T.25N., g.2Tt., ri'.Af. r ~, '~ ' di' v~v ~y0• ( Totm nrw Open mace R. ~~) LBZ Acres '. 79.266 sq• i ff p.84 Acre+ 3 Lot i ~,~ ~, 9.'3 sq• ff• 28 O.BB Acres I.BIJMtd of ~~~~ ld~d Lot 2 . 32,885 a4. tt 0.75 Aeros /Z,= ( SoB log (ocatfon LYtY yw{8~f fA11'tilat Nark Lot 3 t 4 36.438 ea• n a84 Aa'e9 r~ rester than . she s - Le '138 sq. ff• 38 aB4 Acres - -. _..' GRAPHIC SCALE ~ tot 5 . 2$180 ea ~• ass Hare ro iae. F m Lot 8 _ ~~~;~ _ s wee ~ m to - _ ~_.--- \ ~~_ :\PQ~\ .1. fir. /. ~ PA Cti ~ ~'C~ a ~ '-~ ,,~,~ ~ ~~ .pu• n Lsd~ ~ o;d N -- ,o n ,~ w' `~ ~~ t / / ~ rr..~~' i >- __~ ~t ~~ I ~~~~ IUD , ~© 1 .r•~., n I d ' . I ~y Jr ;~ 7 u i fTro D+Partment I 1 }~ tumorowd con4tn+oted Swfnk g,yt Plat ADAM ~ INC. ,' ~` G0LDS1y0RTHY, (~0~"~r' LCar~ '~~~C~~B~i(~~ 'y.~~9~1 LgNp SURVEYING yyyy 305. NORTH 380-779^4299 p }9062 206_842-9598 ~:~s~ ~ Q ~} ~ . 1 POUL580,.WA 98370 ©p` tN~tau ri keaaaoc~~ (2 2 oa7e 3/12~az 1 I~~~~~ DRANlt1G 23p8PP3 = - ATTACHMENT B av mar !lt ~,o© ~- City of Bainbridge Island Wetlands Advisory Committee Report on RUE09$Uq (Olson Estate} Wetlands Advisory Committee (WAC) members were provided copies of Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) application number RUE09800 and supporting materials on Apri12G, 2004 to review. On May 4, 2004 three of the four WAC members met an the subject site to walk the area and discuss any issues or concerns surrounding the site and its proposed use as described in the RUE application. No stakes or markers could be found indicating the location of the proposed RUE (a 2-inch water line trenched within a utility easement on either side of an embankment and across a class 4 stream} and the property owner was not on site to provide any details in this regard. Nevertheless, using the RUE application and other the materials provided, it was fairly straightforward to ascertain the proposed utility's approximate location within the ravine. WAC members found the general site conditions within the ravine to be consistent with the description provided in the applicant's Slope Evaluation Report (Myers Biodynamics, October 20, 1999). Although helpful and of some merit, the RUE application does not satisfy the requirements of Section 16.20.110 of BIMC (Mitigation Flan Requirements). More specifically, the mitigation plan submitted by the applicant (dated March 23, 2004) falls short of adequately addressing and alleviating the effects of the proposed use. WAC concerns in this regard are related to (1) excavationlconstruction methods, (2) plantinglrevegetation, and (3) monitoringlmaintenance. Following are the WAC's questions, concerns, andlor suggestions the City and applicant may want to take under advisement: Excavation/Construction 1. It is understood (from language in the application) that trenching will be done by hand and undertaken in the summer (dry season) when na water is flowing in the streambed. This information should be included in the mitigation plan. 2. General trench width and depth should be described and erosion control methods explained (e.g., hay bales, silt fencing, etc.) Refer to Slope Evaluation Report, page 5, Vegetation; paragraph 2 for considerations in this regard. Plantin~/Reve eta 1. Given the extent of the trench to be revegetated, the same plants are not appropriate along its entire length. A greater diversity of plants is appropriate in terms of both plant requirements (water, light, slope) and canopy (shrub layer vs. overstory). 2. Planting of trees should be required if trees are to be removed. 3. Significant trees to be preserved/retained should be marked in the field prior to construction. 4. Plants that provide some slope stabilization should be used (e.g., snowberry}. 5. Spacing can be 2-6 feet far shrubs, 10-1 S feet fortrees -doesn't need to be a uniform 3 feet as proposed. 6. Which species of huckleberry? Need to be more specific in this regard to promote species appropriateness given its intended environment and subsequent success. 7. Total number of plants and plant size (container, plugs, etc.) should be noted. ATTACHMENT C page 1 of 2 05/11/04 S. Removal ofnon-native, invasive plant species {e.g., English ivy) is recommended along the utility easement given that the newly disturbed area will be highly vulnerable to invasive plants. 9. While trenching is ideally done in the dry season, planting is not -suggest phasing of project to maximize plant survival. Monitorin~IMaintenance Successful revegetation requires regular monitoring and maintenance until plants are fully established. 1. What are the applicant's plans for watering and maintaining new plants through establishment? 2. What are the applicant's plans for monitoring - i.e., to ensure slopelstreambed stabilization and planting success? -END- WRCReport (RUE09800J page 2 of 2 05/11/04 t Bindynarnics ilnc~. Mg geotechnicai estgineering • coastal processes • biological sciences CITY GI= July 29, 2004 ' GAINBRiDGE !BLAND Mr. Mike OIson Al1G Q 3 2~D~ 18657 State Highway 305, Ste C s Poulsbo, Washington 98370 QEPT..QF PLANNING & CQMMUNITY DE~IELD~~IENT Re: Mitigation Plan for a Proposed Riparian- Buffer Encroachment Section 23, Township 25N, Range 2E Olson Preliminary Plat, Bainbridge Island, Washington Dear Mr. Olson: The Bainbridge Island Planning Department requires ~a mitigation plan for a proposed utility trench disturbance into -and across a riparian buffer on Bainbridge Island. We understand the City of Bainbridge Island has held project review discussions with you previously on-the potential impact fisom the proposed work. ' As identifed, the project generally involves a 4-foot wide trench that crosses the ravine side slopes and intermittent drainage. Myers Biodynamics, Inc, was retained to address ideritified mitigation requirements established by Bainbridge Island Wetland Advisory Committee (WAC}, which contributed comments during the project review period (Olson RUE}. The following information was used to develop the riparian buffer mitigation approach: ^ Olson Preliminary Plat, Adam and Goldsworthy, Inc., March 20, 2003. ^ Memo to Michael Olson from the COBI WAC unsigned, dated May 14, 2004. ^ Directives from Michael Olson. ^ Site visit to the proposed pro}ect site. ATTACHMENT D 12QLLING BAY.ti1ERC'.x1N`I'li_c BL I[_i7i~i~i ' I I?S-1 hL:vi4[5[' f)firR'i-: I~;\l~'RC{I ail?,;..`iL \h [i. ZL:\Siii:`,l~ i'i;`. ia:~i ~~I _ ',r~.ti-{~ ~-,;'1"` l f ~' Proposed Projec# The Preliminary Plat Plan indicates the project proposes to create b Iots on roughly 5'-acres of contiguous property. Anew wall supply well is currently , being developed at the site and will supply water to.Iats positioned on both sides of a drainage ravine.. A water supply..pipe will cross the ravine to convey potable -~ water to each of the lots. Accordingly, the line crosses the ravine as-shown on • Figure 1. A maximum 4-foot wide hand-dug trench will bed the pipe below . grade. ,The trench will be backfilied and the upper 1-foot of soil backfill will incorporate native topsail salvaged from the excavation. The ground~surface will then be replanted with plants from a native plant nursery. Sales receipts of plant stock will be made available to the City of Bainbridge IsIand~ and project team before commensement of the work. The work is scheduled for the fall of 2004. • , • :Proposed Illli#iga#ion Ac#ions - The buffer encroachment mitigation proposes to compensate for a localized ~itility trench penetration into a riparian buffer. The proposed mitigation f rst attempts to avoid buffer impacts by pr~sitioning-the project proponent's trench at a position an the property to present a small, confined impact to the riparian buffer where the slopes are the least steep. The proposed 4-foot wide trench crosses the ravine over approximately S00 square feet. _ Mitigation proposes to incorporate approximately $0 to 100 shrub and herb ,species to the disturbed riparian buffer. Each hole for the excavation shall be - roughly 18 inches by 18 inches without much over-excavation. Consequently, the -~ mitigation restores the quality of the existing buffer, but does not increase the area of the buffer. The mitigation provides 3:1 tree species for species compensation for damaged or removed trees. Mitigation actions are summarized in Table 1. Performance S#andards Performance standards for the on-site wetland mitigation are summarized in Table 2. Each performance standard corresponds to related design objectives and provides a measurable criteria that enable project personnel to predict when a mitigation element has been successfully implemented and/or accomplished and when the overall mitigation plan goals have been successfully achieved.. Olson Property Project No. 0x1137-b Section 23, Township 25N, Range 2~' July 29, 200 Proposed Riparian Buffer Encroachment page 2 of S hfyers Biodynamics, Inc. ~ - - Mitigation Schedule Mitigation work should be implemented in the fall of 2004 in accordance with the mitigation plans and specif cations, monitoring requirements, and any other agency requirements. Work shall follow the installation of the water line in the 4- foot wide hand-dug trench. •r Mitigation Plans Mitigation plans foir the proposed riparian buffer mitigation include the planting of woody shrubs and herbs vegetation into an existing buffer zone that is current sparsely covered herbaceous understary with mature western red cedar and western hemlock. Ravine- mitigation includes the enhancement of approximately 800 ftZ is proposed as shown on Figures 1 through 4. Also, disturbed areas- outside the ravine will be enhanced by planting salvaged plants from.the trench excavation. Trees damaged or-removed by the proposed work will be replaced at a ratio of 3 to 1 per COBI requirements. The Planting Schedule summarizes plant installation requirements as shown on Figure 5. Monitoring Plan The Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan focuses an providing a systematic • method for quantitative measurements of the restoration effort through a selected ' time period. Monitoring on the subject property evaluates the success of the restoration action relative to the goals and performance standards established and developed for the mitigation work. Metrics selected far the monitoring plan .generally enable the project scientists to determine whether a selected, criteria was ,achieved within a specified time period.. Metrics used in small and large . mitigation plans typically incorporate both physical and biological site criteria. The monitoring program is summarized in Tabie 3. The monitoring program can • be performed by the project scientists or the property owner (if willing and able). .. Physical Monitoring, Physical monitoring establishes general mitigation success over the mitigation area (photo points) and specifically monitors the success of maintaining the integrity of the mitigation zones without disturbance'. Physical monitoring occurs over a minimum two-year period.beginning.at the completion of mitigation work. Monitoring is scheduled to occur annually,. during the spring . of two consecutive years. Olsar: Property Section Z3. Towfrshrp 2SN, Range 2E Proposed Riparian B¢~er Encroachment page 3 of S Project No. 041137-6 July 29, 200! Myers Biodjmamics, Ltc, `' i` Biological Monitoring. Biological monitoring documents changes in planted vegetation and recruitment of pioneer species within the mitigation area. Sampling will be conducted by measuring plant assemblage and stem densities of species positioned within the mitigation area and counting individual species. Biological monitoring occurs over a minimum two-year period beginning at the mitigation work. Monitoring is scheduled to occur annually, during the spring of two consecutive years. ' ~ Contingency Plan The Contingency Plan provides a protocol for actions required should the mitigation work fail to achieve performance standards. Contingency actions vary depending on whether physical or biological processes-are responsible- for the - failure of performance standards and the degree of the shortfall. Should mitigation work fail one or more performance standard, but the lead reviewing - agency agrees that the shortfall{s} is minoiar, then additional monitoring may be - requested prior to undertaking intensive corrective action. _ ~ Contingency Plans include any of the following options: ^ Additional plantings to correct .excessive mortality; ^ Modif cation of hydrology/additional hydrological anputs; j ^ Correction of unstable areas and/or removal of ~i~vasive i plant species; ^ Recontouring the surface #opography; - ^ Eliminate/reduce identified impact disturbances; and ' ~ ~ ^ Recording a restrictive property easement. Maintenance Pian " Maintenance activity associated with the mitigation plan involves a sma1T degree of site work. Basic maintenance includes the following: ^ Initial watering of the surface soils during dry weather {f rst year}; OJson Property - Project No. 041137-6 Section 23, Township 25N, Rartge 2~' July 29, 2004 Proposed I~iparrart Bz~er ~ncroachmerrt pnge 4 of 5 Myers Biodynanrics, Lic. ~ 1 ^ Check site for unauthorized vehicle, equipment, materials , . storage, pavement, or other site access disturbances. into the riparian buffer; 11 ~ Check foil surface fox signs of erosion and correct any , uncontrolled drainage patterns from developed areas; • ^ Check vegetation for signs of human disturbance, and/or , browse pressure. Protect saplings from browse; and ' ^ Maintain plantings and erosion contzol features in the : constsuctedlplaced positions. We appreciate the opportunity to provide scientific services for the subject property. Should you have questions about the information presented herein or - ~ require additional services, please contact our office at your convenience. . _ . ~~ '~ Sincerely "Yours, MYERS BIODYNAMICS, INC. 'I ~ Rian Myers, P.W.S. ~ ~ ~ P~'aject Biologist • RDM:snun . Attachments: Figures I, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Table 1. Mitigation Actions . ~ - Table 2. Mitigation Performance Standards _ Table 3. Monitoring Pxogram Summary . ~~ . ~ , i ~ , 1 - ` Dlson Property ~ Project No. 041137-6 Section Z3, Township 25N, Range 2E July 29, 2004 Proposed Riparimr Buffer Encroachment page 5 of 5 ii~lyers Biodynamics, Inc. Repeat pattern along trench alignment and 1 .- - apply spacing to all disturbed areas .~ _ <, ~ ~ . ~ ,~~ f~~~ 4 ~ ~~~ ~Q A ~ ~~ VVV --CC tix / 4 : 10 Max v ~~ . ~`~ ~ • Q _ s,~} ~ 1 ~. QQ 3 S~ ~~ '~ . 35 0~ 1 b d ~, ~~ ~ ~~c~ a ~ ~ J q ~~3 Sword Fern/Red Huckleberry assemblages S See typical trench section i Buffer Plant KeV ~~~ Red Huckleberry (RH) Sword Fern (SF} Approximate Scale: 1" = 2' ~' ~ { ~. Notes: 1. Contractor shall segregate upper 1-foot of soil and litter from subsoils. Final backfill of trench should reincorporate topsoil into upper 1-foot of completed trench. Any wood material removed along the trench alignment shall be repositioned over cr~mpleted trench,. 2, All plat assemblages shall use distances as measured along slope face. 3. Reference planting schedule for additional information on mitigation planting. ~p FIGURE NQ My~rrs Trench Restoration Plan in Ravine 2 BIQ/~IJR~[~"!)i,ES ^~~. PROJECiNO „~ ~a„~9B~.M,.~,~sB~;,d;~.,,Z~3~~sap~~ Olson Stream Buffer Mitigation 01137-6 ~~~~ea~°^°-wA9811O Bainbridge Island, Washington oAiE TF1: 208/842073 FAX: 206!&i2-3797 Juty 20Q4 } ~ ~ ~ ~~~ M ~~,,,~ FIGURE ND y Trench Section Restoration in Ravine 3 Biadrynam~cs ~°~- plson Stream Buffer Mitigation PRDJECTNO c Rolling Bay Merranlile Building • 1T254 Sunrise Dove ~~'' •~ ~7~V BaiA6ridge ialentl, WA 9BS10 Bainbridge Island, Washington GATE 1"EL: 208!842-i3g73 FAX: 2g6r&12-3787 J uiv 2044 2"x 2" x 36"Stake with Notch Cuf 5" Below Top Untreated Cair Twine 8" diameter Coir t og ~ ~ Jufe ~ Thread Stake through Coir Log Fabric Wrap ~~ F-'~ r ~ ...i Place Dead Stake pairs ~r r , i (frant/back) on 3' centers '" F-j1 r I EROSION PROTECTION SYSTEM ISOMETRIC FIGURE NO MeJ. ors Erosion Control Detail a Biac~ryttattnics tic. Olson Stream Buffer Mitigation PR0'r~`~ND041137-6 Rnllirq 13ay MairanGla Building • 11254 Su~IISB Diva saimaicgal,lana,wngai~o Bainbridge fsfand, Washington °A~ tea: zgers42~aora Fnac 2oa~ea2-a~s7 J~~y 29~ 2004 a C(3 V x M~le~f mica in~- Hiody~* ,~esis'a's,.M,~o~ rd8 ~ aw~a wss ~re.rzs+s~ .~soereaason rxx~ NE L~fgren_~ d Trench Restoration Pian See Fgure 2 ,-_ s'ue'- zo' g" diameter coir~agil on Figure 4 (typ. of 2) See d swpeS NTS UFFER M1TtGAT10N OLSON STREAM B Washington - -._~.,r.rlne island 1 ~. .h ~ n ... t 1 ~, ~~ ~~~ "' , ~ cn ~, ~'¢ w Q +b Q 'y N o it f , ~ ~~ ~~, PROPOSED tlTILITY TRENCH SITE PLAN 4 PLANTING SCHEDULE ~' e \~l '~~`` tied Kati ~~,~ ,~~ o~ ~~~ ~~~ 0~5 ~e~a aa~ 9ti~~ yGoJ~ O~a`~, `~~`~ ~1~~o Go~~i ~ Q Q~ 5Q Q~ Q~ 4 ~t Riparian Buffer RE/SF 800 RE 40± container 1 gal. 3.5` o.c, Existing (within. ravine} SF 40f detritus Riparian Buffer WRCNVH as req'd to be container 5 gal. groupings of See plan (outside ravine) determined 3 at 10' o.c. ~i w w ~T ~irv Botanical Name Common Name Plant Code Trees: Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar WRC Tsuga heterophyila Western Hemlock WH Shrubs and Herbs: Ilaccinium parvifolium Red Huckleberry RH Polystichum munitum Sword Fern SF Berberis spp. Oregon Grape OG NOTES: 7. Existing ferns and Oregon grapes excavated from ravine trench alignment shall be salvaged and replanted info disturbance zone outside the ravine. 2. No plants steal! be harvested from the ravine to satisfy restoration requirements- 3. All restoration planting shall occur after October iSth and before November T 5th following tai! trench work. 4. All tree removal or damage mitigation shall be coordinated with COB(. 5. Sales receipts from a native plant nursery shall be provided for all plant materials used far mitigation. FIGURE NO Myers Piant Schedule 5 BrO[1 ~'1a1'n~CS ~[1C. PROJECT NO LJ Olson Stream Buffer Mitigation 041137.6 f ~~ rian~say+~ncrtamnuewl6ig-~izs4sw~risoo~~ ~~~e~d~.w~~~ 43~to Bainbridge (stand, Washington o~E iEL: 206!8428073 FA%:2Gd~e42-3747 lul~ GArtA ..---~_ use f ~~'-'°__ tip~flan ~ wench exeava~an 4.faat wide utili~ drainage across ravine an --~~ Ptan 041 i ~ ~ _~ - (ltson Bu,{f~r Ntiti$uti°n ~ ~ , iVlitigati©n pction5 T a~i feted utility tritus ~t° upper 1-faat of camF ~i{,i~atiQn d de ~,~ gF~. to sail hari~n ~ ch axeas as specified (~ orate native p zone- g-eFlant . R,einca~ to ravine den excavation txench' font nursa~1 spe plants 1pO~ed vvitl~in vine. ,dv,e F cl' acent of ra ar is root damaged . geplant ~ d 4reg ~ ~ bance yeas located a J e ferns an pgl coaldinatiano wed int° the . Salvag lams in txenc oval (w1C cari~ ui1nr of 3 new gees shall be in salvaged ~ exi~ng tree req g ar 1 ~IZ.Gt2 ~~' . Sbould ~'Y °up ~t.Cl l }~y trend excavatiaoS s~e~ led (~ bance Zane dish _~ ~~. i...nmiCS, jltC• Qlson Bujj"er Mitigation Plan 041137-b + July 29, 2004 Design Objective Mitigation Goai 1: Re-establish riparl Re-establish woody shrub/herbs over the disturbed trench. Placement of erosion control features along trench alignment to secure restoration zone. Table 2. Mitigation Performance Standards Criteria Final pertonnance Standard an buffer vegetation an disturbed areas of the property along trench alignment within ravine. Prepare disturbed zones for fall planting. Measure plant assemblage installation success. Install potted plant stock. Install erosion control system. Photo document erosion control areas and local stream condition. No difference shall be detected between trench area and adjacent __.... undisturbed zones. Mitigation Goal 2: Re-establish trees in ravine and outside ravine where existing trees are removed or damaged by utility trench installation. " Establish a new assemblage of 3 sapling trees Installation of assemblages of Western red Measure plant assemblage installation success. for each impacted existing tree. cedar and Western hemlock species, including modest management of existing herbaceous vegetation around plantings (salvaged herbaceous materials from slope}. t Myers Biodynamics, Inc. Olson Buffer Mitigation Plan 441137-6 • July 29, 2004 Attribute Physical Monitoring: Surface Condition: Table 3. Monitoring Program Summary PerFormance Standard Sampling Sampling Sampling 1 Habitat Metric Frequency . SeasonlPeriods Locations 9 Continuing maturation of riparian Fall baseline FaII/I Continuous along buffers confirming absence of plus 2 annuals Springl2 trench ~ erosion and human distuxbances / - Photo Points Biological Monitoring: Installed Plant Material: Plant Community Success: Direct counts of healthy plants Fall baseline Fail/1 along trench in ravineltotal live plus 2 annuals Spring/2 count and total plant count Baseline: 100% healthy vigorous stock Year I : > 80°fo survival of species Year 2: > 70% survival of species Year 2: < 10% aerial coverage of non-native/invasive species in mitigation areas. Continuous along trench Myers Biadynamics, Inc. ~. To: LEGAL NOTICES Publication Date: August 14, 2004 WITHDRAWAL AND RE ISSUANCE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) The MDNS issued on April 16, 2004 for the Otto Olson six lot subdivision, file number SUB09800, is being withdrawn and being re-issued to reflect the Hearing Examiner amended mitigation measures and to expand it's application to a related Reasonable Use Exception {RUE) request. The RUE, file number RUE09800, facilitates the crossing of a Class IV stream with a waterline. The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application: Applicant: Michael Olson, Executor Permit Request: Otto Olson Subdivision (SUB09800) and Otto Olson Reasonable Use Exception {RUE09800) Description of Proposal: Request to subdivide 4.50 acres into six lots an a parcel that contains a geologically hazardous area and to cross a Class IV intermittent stream with a waterline. Location of Proposal: 9955 Lofgren Road, Tax Parcel Number 4169-000-0046-0005. SEPA Decision: The City of Bainbridge Island (lead agency) has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant impact on the environment if measures to mitigate the proposal are used. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 {2} &WAC 197-11-350. This determination was made and mitigation measures were applied after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) c. The lead agency will not act on this proposal far 14 days. Comments must be submitted by no later than 4:00 p.m. on August 30, 2004. Responsible Officiate Larry K. Frazier AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development Address: City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, (206} 842 - 2552 ~ ~ ~ Larry K. Frazier ICP, i for of Planning and Community Date Development APPEAL: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal and paying the $500.00 filing fee to the City Clerk, at 280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, Section 16.04.170 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on September ~, 2004. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. '~ ATTACHMENT E J If you have any questions concerning this application, contact: Thomas A. Bonsell, Planner Department of Planning & Community Development 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 842-2552 Fax: (20G) 780-0955 Email: pcd(r~ci.bainbrid~e-isl.wa.us Vicinity Map: y~j PJ~-DI aD~-D~ oDJ-Da DD,_pD OJJ-D7 ~,: LOFGREN ROpD, •~ ''~~ SUBJECT PROPERTY ~ ~/~ ~` GJ]-o ~ ~~ Di6-DD ~' `~ ~ 3 // :~ DJS-D~ ~~ ~" 0 w nrr D,8-DJ~n - -- ~--- 7C DJt-00 ry ~ i 1`\ e ~ OAS-D~ 0~5-OD 0~5-01 1y -07 \ m DJ6-D~ DJ6-07 ••~ ~ ~ r~~~ OJ7-D7 0~~-DO 'I 011-07 pI!-CJ JJ7-]$ +DJ7.06~ °.r t#` , .: rkA as ~r~ i orr-nn ~ i nix-nn~ nir_n+ l V r Mitigation Measures for the Otto Olson Subdivision (File Number SUB49800) and Otto Olson Reasonable Use Exception (File Number RUE09800) The following mitigation measures are imposed to reduce probable adverse environmental impacts that may be generated by the proposal. Mitigation measures become conditions of approval for the subdivision. 1. Prior to any clearing, grading or construction activities and prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from the Department of Planning and Community Development. The plat utilities permit shall include a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. 2. All excavated material shall be re-used on-site. If the material is found to be unsuitable for on-site use, it shall be disposed of at an appropriate disposal site. 3. To mitigate air quality impacts during grading, contractors shall conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations that insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. 4. To mitigate air quality impacts during clearing activities, cleared vegetation must be removed from the site and/or processed by chipper or same other method of disposal that does not require burning. 5. Complete storm water drainage plans designed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Technical Manual shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer as part of the plat utilities permit. 6. To mitigate potential off-site glare, any street lighting within the subdivision shall be hooded, shielded, and have a maximum height of 12 feet from finished grade and shall adhere to BIMC 15.34. 7. All conditions and recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report prepared by Meyers Biodynamics, dated October 20, 1999 shall be followed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. All conditions of the Mitigation Plan prepared by Meyers Biodynamics and dated July 29, 2004 shall be followed without exception. ~ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLlS ~ ~: ~f. Name of proposed project, if applicable. Olson Plat .3 . 2. Name of applicant. The Estate of Otto D. Olson 3. Address and home number of applicant and contact person. Mike Olson P.O. Bax 98 Port Hadlock, WA. 98339 360-509-7714 4, Date checklist prepared. February 5, 2002 5. Agency requesting checklist, City of Bainbridge Island 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable), No phasing planned 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geatechnical slope evaluation 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Plat approval i 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size vfi the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. {Lead agencies may modify this fiorm to include additional specific information on project description.) Five (5} acre parcel divided into six (6) approximately equal parcels, 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, in known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site{s), Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonable available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required #o duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica#ions related to this checklist. On ttie South side of Lofgren Road between 550 and 1210 feet West of its intersection with Ferncliff Avenue. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (underlinelcircle _ one): Fiat, rolling, hilly, stee ,slopes, rt~ountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site ~.~ {approximate percent slope)? 45% c. What genera! types of soils are found on the site {for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d, Are there any surface indications or history of -~ unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe, No - Refer to slope evaluation report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate ~ , quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of-fill. Grading for driveways and home construction .. ~~ . U~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ . ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~`~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~' ~~k~ G~ 0 • ~~ ~~' ~~ ~~ v TO BE COMPLETED BY r,r'PLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE/DISAGREEIMITIGATE B. ENViR~NMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a.. General description of the unde~linelcircle ~ ~ one): flat, roiling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site .~ {approximate percent slope]? 45% c. What general pes of soils are found on the site (for exampl -clay sand, ravel -peat, muck)? If you know the classi cation of agrticultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there any surface indications or history of ~ unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No - Refer to slope evaluation report e. .Describe the purpose, type, and approximate / quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of filh Grading for driveways and home construction f. Could erosion occur as a resutt of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. Yes -minor erosion associa#ed with drivewa and foundation excavation g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after the project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 20% maximum h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Erosion control Ian and measures ~~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ o ~~ k~ ~b ~ v ~~ ~~ ~~ G~~ ~~~ ~` ~`~ ~~ {IP of -~` 4A t `'~ Q ~l. ~~ ~ 2. Air TO SE COMPLETED f3Y HrPLICANT EVALuAT1ON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal [i.e. dus#, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke} during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions connected with construction and occupation of 5 homes b. Are there any off site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or con#rol emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Standard emission control methods 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of the si#e [including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands}? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river i# flows into. Yes -Seasonal stream, unnamed AGREE /DISAGREE 1 MfTEGATE J ~~ ~S U ~ ~9y k a \• ~` ~~ ~' ` ~S ~~~ ~r d y ~,~~ ~" C~ M j ~ 5~~ a~~~ h~ 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to [within 200 feet} the described waters? if fed a yes, please attach available plans, ~~--~ ~aa ~~ 5 "^ No ~~ ~ ark 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge tha# ~~~ / would be placed in or removed from surface wa#er or wetlands and indicate the area of the site #hat would be affected. Indicate the source of fll material. NIA 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie wi#hin a 100 year / floodplain? if so, note location on the site plan. No TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE !DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of ~ waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be ,~ discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Yes - roundwater wi#hdrawn fior domestic waters stem 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged t/ into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural, etc,}. Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if appiicable~, or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Se tics stem effluent c. Wa#er Runoff (includino storm water 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti#ies, if knownj. Where will this water flow? Will this water #low into other waters? If so, describe. Storm draina a from 5 new residences dis osed of in on- site infiltration svstems. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surtace V waters? If so, generally describe. No 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control ,~ surface, ground, and water impacts, if any. Infiltratian systems '` ~~h ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 4. Plants .; TC BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUAT{ON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE 1 DISAGREE 1 MIT#GATE a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the eJ site: deciduous tree alder maple aspen, other ~, ever reen tree fir edar pine, other X s rubs - 9re~ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other' _ -other types of vegetation b, What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some tree ar~d shrub remoyaA for site, development c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. None 5. Animals a. Underlinelcircie any birds and animals which. have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _ birds: hawk heron, eagle ongbirds other mammals: deer bear, elk, beaver, other _ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None J TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No EVALUATION FOR AGENGY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None 6. Enerpy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, na#ural gas, oil, wood stove, solar} will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and solar ener for household hea#in . AGREE !DISAGREE / METIGATE ~-- b. Would your project affect the potential use of / solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Those required by building codes 7. Environmental Health a. Are #here any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None t/ b. Noise J TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FQR AGENCY USE ONLY A ~ E / ©ISAGRI=E 1 MITIGATE 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other? None 2. What types of levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short term or long term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise assocated with construction and occupy#ion of 5 new residences 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Ci#y noise ordinance requirements 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the curren# use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential and undeveloped b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any s#ructures on the site. Qne house and one outbuilding d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes -outbuilding e. What is the curren# zoning classification of the site? R-2 f. What is the curren# comprehensive plan designation of the si#e? OSR-2 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA U~t' ~~ ~S 6F ~S ~,~\~ ~~ ~ e~ a°~ ~ ab Q ~~ ~ S`~ ~~ ~~ tf t},S ` ~a. , / ~~ t/ TO BE COMPLETED 8Y APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE 1 DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE h. Has any part of the site been classified as an / "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes - slo es over 15% and seasonal drains e i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Those associated with 6 residences j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with axis#ing and projected land uses and plans, if any, Ci iat review rocess 9. Housin a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Six 6' b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas. What is the principal exterior building ma#erials proposed? 30 feet wood roducts J ~-- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION 1=0R AGENCY USE ONLY b, What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obs#ructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. None 11. Li ht and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What type of day would it mainly occur? That associated with 5 new homes b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off site sources of fight or glare may affect your proposal? None AGREI=1 DISAGREI= /MITIGATE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light / and glare impacts, if any. None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational / opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any '~ existing recreational uses? !f so, describe. No Pro osed measures to reduce or control / c. p impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the projector applicant, if any. None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation TO BE COMPLETED 8Y APf'LiCANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY AGREE !DISAGREE 1 MITIGATE a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation resisters known to be on or next #o the site? If so, generally describe. No b, Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. Nane 14. Transportation -- a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the exis#ing stree# system. Show on site plans, if any. Fir Street. Hemlock Street, L.ofaren Road, all aubiic ricaht of ways b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed / project have? How many would the projec# eliminate? Parkin associated with each residence d. Will the proposal require any new roads or / streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe ,,_ _ ~,,,,~ ~ K" (indicate whe#her public or private}. Improve Hemlock Street °`"' `~~ ~ , ~~, ~~, ~r~vi9 EX4 wi ~ n ~' e. {Illill the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of} water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe, No ,~~ ~ ~~ ~-r~ b ~ ~~ ~° " ~ ~ ~~~~;~ ~~ t~~,~ ~~`~ ~s~ ~a ~ ~k ~~ << l~ TO BE COMPLETED BY AP!'LiCANT f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Those associated with 6 homes g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None 13. Public Services EVAieCIATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. Would the projec# result in an increased need for public service [for example, fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes -those associated with 6 new residences b. Proposed measures #o reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. School Impact fees AGREE 1 DISAGREE !MITIGATE ~_ 16. Utilities a. Underlinelcircle utilities currently available at the site: electrici - natural gas water fuse service, elephone sanitary sewer, eptic sys e o b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the / project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Pu et Sound Ener -electrici Qwest - hone• Bainbrid a Disaosal -refuse service SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agent is relying on them to make it's decision. a Signature: Date Submitted;~`i.4 ~-~ 1 ~ ,.~,~ ,_ Thomas Bonsell, Planner Department of Planning & Community Development 280 Madison Ave. Na. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Dear Mr, Bonsell: 9551 Green Spat Place NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ~~-~~~--~~~3~~ ~ '-~-~=°~-~ April 2'7, 2004 ~,.,..,.v.~~ . ~n...~..r o. ~~T~ 0~ ~AINfl~~ ~~ ~S~.~N~~ DEPT: 0 A~fI~G Subject: Mich~~~~E~~~(~P~~[~"~ Reasonable Use Exemption Application I wish to thank you for furnishing me with a copy of the Notice of Application for the above referenced project. Since my family's property is in close proximity to Mr. Olson's property, I would like to share my comments and concerns about his proposal: 1. It is my understanding that protection of streams is a high priority in this state. If it isn't a high priority with the city, it certainly should be and not only on paper but in actual practice. - 2. This proposal would allow construction of a waterline across the seasonal stream flowing through the Olson property when there is a feasible, although more expensive, alternate route. which has city approval. The stream, which flows north, ultimately crosses my family's waterfront property, before it reaches Murden Cave. This section of the cove is classified as Conservancy and our property is protected by a conserv- ation easement administered by the Bainbridge Island Land Trust. 3. In the decision document covering Mr. Olson's appeal of some of the conditions attached to his proposed sub- divisian, Hearing Examiner Robin Baker stated on page 7: "There is no evidence in the record which proves the applicant would be deprived of reasonable use of his property if he is not allowed to place his proposed waterline across this regulated stream bed and stream buffer area". 4. Since the Hearing Examiner found that there was no justification for an R.U.E. and since there is too much risk of damage to the stream bed during construction of a waterline and afterwards, I request that Mr. Olson's application far an R.U.E. be denied. Sincerely, ATTACHMENT F PUBLIC HEARING REASONABhE USE EXCEPTION APPLICATION BY MICHAEL OLSON October 14, 2004 `' ~~L, .. ~~~~~~~~ ~EARIN6E~AM~~~~ Goad afternoon! My name is Vince Mattson and I reside at 9651 Green Spot Place NE. My property is on the other side of Lofgren Raad across from the eastern half of the Olson property. The main reason that I am testifying here today is that I don't believe that this proposal qualifies for a Reasonable Use Exception under the provisions of BIMC 16.20.090,1.1. That. section states: "Reasonable use exceptions are the mechanism by which the city may grant relief from the provisions of this chapter where compliance with certain provisians of this chapter leave na reasonable use of the property". In her decision, dated November 14, 2003, Hearing Examiner Rabin Baker stated an page '~: "There is no evidence in the record which proves the applicant would be deprived of reasonable use of his property if he is not allowed to place his proposed waterline across the regulated stream bed and stream buffer area'.'. It appears to me that the only reason far constructing the proposed waterline across the stream bed and through the buffer area instead of within the Lofgren Road right--of-way is economic. Mr. Olson wants to save money, which is certainly an understandable objective, but that daesn~t meet the criteria required by Section 16.20.090,1. of the municipal code, Mr. Olson will still be able to subdivide the property into six lots; .it will just cost him additional dollars to route the waterline along Lofgren Road. Because this application does not meet the criteria for a Reasonable Use Exception, I recommend that it be denied. EXHIBIT 29 City of Bainbridge Island PLANNING d~ COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT ~~vrO~ ND U TO: Meredith Getches Hearing Examiner Pro Tem FROM: Thomas Bonsell DATE: December 2, 2004 RE: Michael Olson RUE Ms. Getches, ~~~,.: ,. ~. ~~:~ The following is a response to your request for additional information for the Olson RUE file Number RUE09$00 2. a. Prior to taking this subdivision request before the hearing examiner, the previous Director of planning interpreted BIMC 16.20.090(I}(4}(g} g. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the properly and creating the undevelopabie condition after the efFective date of this chapter; to mean that if a property owner is requesting to subdivide a parcel a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) can not be used to facilitate the subdivision. Therefore, according to the Director there was not any way to gain permission to cross the stream with the waterline. The applicant appealed the city's requirement that did not allow an alternative route and.required the waterline to be placed in the right of way to the previous Hearing Examiner (HE) and the HE's conclusion was that a ruling could not be made on the appeal of the condition until the applicant applied for a RUE. In the mean time, exact dates unknown, the city received a new Planning Director and a new HE. In addition, the "Summit" subdivision went before the Hearing Examiner and it was ruled that a RUE could be granted to facilitate a subdivision. The Summit also had alternatives including reducing the number of lots. 2. Corrected to 3. "Reasonable" is a term in planning that is difficult to define. In this regard, planning staff has applied the recent Hearing Examiner decision for the "Summit" and the extensive knowledge of the current Director of Planning and Community Development to help define what is reasonable. The Planning Department has therefore determined that in this case, 280 MAD13oN AvENl3E T1oRTH ~ BAINBRIDGE )[BLAND, wA • 9$110-2$24 PHONE: (206} 842-2552 • F'Ax: {20b) 780-0955 • EMAIL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us EXHIBIT www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us ~ 1 crossing the stream with a waterline where professionals have determined that no long term environmental harm will occur is "reasonable". Also, The Director considered that the alternative of placing the waterline in the Lofgren Road Right of Way would result in a 57 percent increase cost to the applicant and therefore is not reasonable. (See cost estimate from Browne engineering dated November 30, 2004) 280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINSRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98 1 1 0-2824 PxONE: (206) 842-2552 • FAX: (206) 780-0955 • EMA9L: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us www. ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us fyov ~l3 04 U:-]: ~5a 1 J BEFORE THE HEARING EXANIII'~iER CI'I'K +DF BA1<NBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the application of n~nlc>~AEIs Or~sON l~vEa~saa for ~. Reasonable Use Exception ORDER REOPENING RE[:ORIa AND RECOI~VEI~lING HEARING The record that ~cuas made at the hearing in this matter ~ October l4, 2004, has insr~flicient evidence upon which to make a decision on the subject appliea#ic~n. The record needs to include informal"son and documentation as follows: 1. Anulicant: Provide a plat map that shows the rsate l'ar the prnposed water line futility easement] and depicts areas of 15•lo crr gx~eat+er slope and contour lines. Sheet 3 and Sheet ~ in Exhibit 7 skt€~w different locations for "utility easernerrta". The older map, Sheet 3 [dated 03I121OZj, depicts areas of 15°lo slope and contour lines, lyut shows the waterline easemert in a different location than does Sheet S (dated 03/2+DF03]. Sheet 5 appears toy represent the proposed location, but does not show the slopes. Sheet 3 should be updated to show the locationlroute of tlwe "Easement" t'or the proposed water line. 2. Apulicant: Provide additional information and docurnentafiure regarding the alternative of extending the water line to the north and along I,ufj~ren Road. Specifically, this information and documentation should include the following a. A written statement or testimony from the "staff" who "previously...recortmxen~ded that this water line be extended to and a#ong Lofgres~ Read" [see Application attachment, Exhibit 3], regarding that recommendation and whether the recommendation has changed (why? or why not?). b. Provide testimony ar reliable tn+ritten estimates from an engineer or similar expert as to the likely cast of constructing the water line as proposed and the likely cost of constructing the water line along T.ofgren. The record does not include the basis for the estimates given at bearing of "$12,{D00" for the propQSed route, and "$37,000-$50,000" to go along Lofgren. An overall linear distance in the range of 75Q-850 #~. appears to be involved, with the distance for the proposed r©ute along the southern property line being 50-75 ff. shorter than a mute m and along the northern property line. There is nothing in the record to explain ar document why tl~e costs of construction would be so much rnc~re for an alternative p.1 EXHIBIT 3a ~ Mou [l3 04 Cf9; 05a route paralleling Lafgren. {These distances are estnnates based upon the dicnensians and scales presented in Sheets 3 and 5 0l: Exhibit 7. Testi><r-any at the reconvened hearing an t1~e respectivelconYparative water line lengths would be welcarne.) c. Provide testimony or reliable written statement from a qualified witness regarding what "risk" the northern route would. ease far "the stability of associated slopes and the road bed fill material" [see Application attach>;nern, Exhibit ~]. An assessment ofrislc needs gedtechnicat andlar engineering expertise oar, at Fninimum, aclditianal facts as to the relative degree of slope, type of soils, etc., that support flee applicarn`s canclasion about risk. d. l'ravide testitmany ar reliable written statemenrt from a qualified witness as tv whether a route "along Lafgren" would have to involve the "road bed fill"_ Is there same reason why that portion of the vrater line could not be located entirely within Lacs it and 4? e. Provide testimony ar reliable written ~ statement documenting and identifying the location and candiriate o£ the "near vertical bae~lcs that have been cut during the construction of Lafgren road" [see Application attachrnern, Exhibit 3]. £ Provide testimony ar reliable written statement docunxeanting what "risk" the alternative route poses far the stream [ixecl~xde information as to haw the seasonal steam flaw gets 'under' Lc>fgren Raad]. 2. Director: Provide testimony or' reliable written statement on behalf of the Department explaining the canclasion In the Staff Report [Exhibit 2$, page 5], that tlrere are "alternatives", but they "would not be reasonable". What are those a1#ernatives, and what about them make them unreasonable? The retard in this matter should be, aced hereby is, R~nPn and the hearing ~corrvt;ra~n in order for the infarmatxo>re and documentation Hated above td be received into the record (antd discexssed and clarified as necessary)- The hearing shall be reconvened at 1p:00 a.l[~k., ~ece>Enber 2, 2004, in the City Caeiticil Chambers, 280 Madison Avenue N., Bainbridge Island_ ~~ Entered this 3rd day of November 2004 Meredith A. Getches Hearing Examiner pro tem City of Bainbridge Island p.2 order November 3, 2i1a4 Page 2 of 2 ~,~ ~1 l ~~~€~~~~ BR~WNE ENGINEERING INC ®~~ ,~ ~ ~~~~ 147 Finch Place Southwest, Suite 4 Bainbridge Isfand, WA 98110 November 30, 2004 ~~~ 1 ~ R ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~i ~ p TES: (206) S42-Obo5 ! ii ~3 !~ 1! FAX: (206) 7$0-9322 Mike Olson 1541 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Mike: This letter presents a modified cost estimate for construction of a 2" water main to carry water from your new welt fio the six lots of the Olson Plat south off Lofgren Road on Bainbridge Island. An earlier estimate was prepared by Tom Herrivtt of our office in June 29, 2003. The routes for the pipes have been refined since the previous estimate resulting in significantly shorter lengths, particularly for the alternative route which extends along Lofgren Road ("North Route"a. South Roufe Through the woodsl The South Route is shown on Figure 1 and includes about 140' of water main from the well to Lot 1 and 530 feet from the well along the south property line to serve Lots 4-6. Because the pipe is not focafied within the City right of way or within a future roadway, extensive compaction, traffic control, and pavement replacement casts will not apply to this alternative. Our cost estimate for construction of this fine is as follows: Table 1 -South Route Cost Estimate 2" HDPE Water Pipe, standard installation 6701f $20lIf $]3,400 Contin enc -20% 2,700 Total Estimate $16, ] QO North Route [Along Lofgrenl The North Route includes about 615 feet of water main from the well along Lofgren Road to Lot 5 (including about 260 feet in the Lofgren Road right-of-way. An additional 150 feet of main would carry water from the well to the south to serve Lot 6. The estimate below assumes that the City will allow installation of 2" HDPE pipe in the right-of- way. A significant cost increase would result if ductile iron pipe would be required. EXHIBIT 33 } Tab le 2 -Nor th Route Cost Estimate 2" HDPE Water Pipe, standard installation 7b5 Ef $20/lf $15,300 Additional compaction 2601f $S/lf $1,300 Portion in right-of-way Pavement sawcutting 2501f $S/If $1,300 One cu# along centerline Remove existing asphalt 280 sy $5/sy $1,400 One lane Asphalt patch 30 ton $75/ton $2,200 Patch #o the centerline of avement. Traffic control 4 days $500/day $2,000 Contin enc -20% 4,700 Total Estimate 28,200 Please note that the cost estimates are for comparison use only and do not represen# all costs involved in constructing the system. Very truly yours, BROWNE ENGINEERING, ENC. 0 IXPiRES 1171 n G ... - ...,. -. NE LOFGREN 80Ap " -.... .. ~ ~- ...- ... .__ .,- .. .. -~ ._ .... .......... i. J ~ .. ..- _.. __ ti.. r ~" ~ ` .......... i I ~ .. - ... . .. .... _.. - .• r , ~" _ ... .., - 3 3 . i _... ` .. ,,. ~~ . 'ROUTE... _. , ~. . , " _ • "~ • - , ,, .. - .. ... ~... " _ ,. ~: , •. , . . .. . .. . ,~ ; ~ : . ~.- ,- _ . .. .;•. ... / ~ . . ~ ~• • .- .. . --, / ,• .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ " l , ~ .. . -, J , ~ ~ i~ ~~ f ~ ~ . .. ~ .. \~ ~ ~ ,~ ' ~ '~ ~- ~V~ELL~ ,, ~ ~: . . ,. • "~ . . _ .. /, - - SOU7H ,. . - , , • .. , : - .. ~ ,. ~. •~ ~ '~ - ~'i 1, ~ ~ : ..'ROUTE ,, ~ _ -. . ,. •, • . . OLSON PLAT WATER LINE ALTERNATIVES BROWNS ENGENEERING, INC. ~1/30/G4 ., 1. . J,-_ Myers . ~iadynarr~ics inc. NlB geotechnical and environmental science and engineering Mr. Mike Olson 1541 Dabob Fost Office Road Quilcene, Washington 98376 Re; Slope Evaluation NE Lofgren Road-Property Bainbridge Island, Washington Dear Mr. Olson: October 20, 1999 This letter presents the results of the slope evaluation that you requested for your property located south of Lofgren Road an Bainbridge Island, Washington. We understand that you intend to subdivide your property into six tax parcels. The purpose of our work is to provide a geotechnical assessment of the site slope, provide -slope setback recommendations, and generally recommend measures to help.mitigate risks to site slope stability from proposed sit2 development activities. Our work was conducted in general accordance with our letter o:F agreement dated July 15, 1999, and included review of site refez`ence mapping, review of preliminary short plat .plans, discussions • with you, •a site visit, reconnaissance of the site slope, and preparation of this letter report. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIP7.~ON The site is approximately 4-112 acres in size with approximately 61$ feet of road frontage immediately south of NE Lofgren Road on Bainbridge Island, Washington. The gexierai configuration of the property is shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. The acreage is rectangular in shape with the principle axis oriented east to west and is situated in an area that slopes gently down. to the, north towaxd the head of Murden Cove. Site topography i s dominated by a ravine that has a north trending gradient which bisects the site in the central portion of the property, A single faanily residence is located in the eastern portion of .the. property with a detached garage structure and associated clearing in the area of the residence. The remainder of the site is generally undeveloped and wooded. Based on preliminary site plans provided to our office, we understand that the site development proposal includes subdivision .of the property into six tax parcels as shown art the Site and Exploration Flan, Figure 1. Three .lots comprise the western third of the property (Lots 1 through 3). These lots are rectangular in shape and are oriented sequentially from north t4 south, with a~uniform lot size of 0.49"acres. Three lots comprise the eastern third of the property (Lots ~ through 6). The east lots are also rectangular in shape and oriented sequentially, from north to south, but vary slightly in size. Lots 4 and 5 are 0.54 acres in size, the southernmost lot (Lot 6) is 0.37 acres in, size. An, existing residence is located within the proposed Lot 5. The central third o#' the property is designated as an open space tract and roughly ,delineates the east-west boundaries of the ravine and associated ravine slopes. We understand that a utility easement is planned within the open space tract for a proposed community well (See Figure 1).' Based art documentation you provided to our office, we understand that the City of Bainbridge Island, in accordance with the Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), has requested a geotechnical assessment that evaluates general site slaps stability, provides site development recommendations, and specifically addresses building setback recommendations and slope stability as it pertains to the proposed Lots and the planned utility easemment. EXHIBIT 34 ri.rr..,rrr~.r...r ~rr~, r.,. ,.,,..,., _ ,,,,.,., .,ar .,,,.,., a.~r, ~ ~~ J T,', ~ ~ • Olson 99792-5 October 20, 1999 page 2 of 7 SOIL AND GEOLOGY Reference mapping of the area was reviewed and included geologic mapping (U.S. Geological Service, Geology and Groundwater Resources of Kitsap County, Washington, 1956), soil mapping (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey' of Katsap County Axea, Washington, 19&0), and coastal zone mapping (State of Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 10, Kitsap .County, June X979}. Geologic mapping indicates the site and local area are underlain by glacial till deposits. Glacial till is a' mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay ~ that has-been deposited by glacial processes. ~ Till deposits are typically overridden by glacial ice, resulting in a dense sail condition. Soil mapping indicates that the site is mantled by a surface sail horizon derived from' the weathering of the underlying glacial till., Coastal zone mapping describes the site and local area as "stable" with regard to slope stability. Soil mapping indicates the ravine slopes have a high erasion hazard due to the steep grades. SLOPE_RECONNAISSANCE ~ „~ Tho property was evaluated by conducting a reconnaissance of the site and observing site ,and ravine slope conditions on' August 2!I, 1999. Our investigation 'was based on information received through conversations with you and on preliminary .site plans provided to our office. Site specific topagrapliic survey information of the property was not available at the time of our investigation. ' General Site Conditions ~ ' ~ The site slopes gently down from the south property line to the north .toward the east-west trending NE Lofgren Road. Site slope angles vary along the gentle northward slope, but generally range from approximately 5 ~ta 15 degrees. The 6I8 feet' of roadway- frontage on NE Lofgren Road- delineates the. northern boundary of the site. J 'The western third of the site is undeveloped, forested, land. with moderate to .dense vegetative cover. Established anti mature Douglas fir and deciduous trees dominate the canopy, with s~rorcl ferns, woody shrubs, and herbaceous graundcover'comprising the understory, A small clearing was observed along with evidence of an overgrown narrow road, indicating that past lagging activities likely occurred on this portion of the site. .V4~e understand that a 40-foot easement for a fixture extension of Hemlock ,Street NE borders the-west property line. The eastern third of the site has a gentle westward slope component toward .the ravine and i s dominated by .the existing .residence and associated site modifications: The area around the residence is generally cleared of tress' and maintained as turf-glass and garden. space areas. An existing one-lane gravel road (identified on the plat survey' as Fir Street NE) enters the site at the northeast corner of the property-and extends south, providing access to~the site residence and an adjacent residence south of the property. The.area surrounding the residence clearing .~ .'is forested, similar to that described for the western third of the site. c The central third of the property is proposed as undeveloped open space and generally contains the ravine and associated ravine slopes. The, ravine appeaxs to originate south of the site, with the axis gradient trending northeast and then north through the central portion of the property. The ravine deepens northward and broadens slightly,' descending approximately 40 to 50 feet in elevation from the south. property line to the north property line. At the north end of the site, ~ the constructed embankzniexzt for NE Lofgren Road spans t~'ie ravine reaching a .height of approximately 20 fret at the ravine axis. s Myers Biodynarnics, Inc. ~~ .~ ~ 1. 01son.99792-5 October 20, ].999 page 3 of 7 The' ravine slope crests flanking the ravine floor vary in direction locally, but generally . parallel the ravine axis. The ravine slope varies in height and angle. At the south end of the ' site where the ravine trends northeast, slope angles are mare ~moderate~ and generally razxge from 2D t4 3Q degrees with a maximum slope height of approximately 35nfeet.~ Steeper slopes' ' were observed in the area where the ravine axis changes to a more northerly direction, with slope angles of approximately 45 degrees and slope heights increasing to approximately 4Q feet. ' , . Slopes flanking the ravine at the north end of the site reaeli approximately- 50 feet in height, with slope angles of 40 degrees ox less: The ravine is moderate to densely vegetated with Y established Douglas fr and deciduous trees and an understory that generally increases in density from south to north along the ravine axis. `Several trees within the' ravine were ` observed to be slightly tilted ar exhibited slightly -bowed trunks and a few trees were uprooted near the ravine floor. These deformed frees were generally noted on the steepest slope areas in ; the central portion of the ravine and site. . roundwater and Site braina Groundwater was observed daylighting as a spring and associated surface water flow along the ravine stream channel in the central portion of the site. Based on inforixaation provided to our office, we understand that the spring within the site ravine currently provides the water supply for the existing residence. A pump house and associated plumbing were observed in the ' ravine floor near the spring in the central portion of the site. North of the pump house, water was observed flowing along the ravine floor within a,narrow, slope-constrained channel. `Site observations indicated surface water flaws north along the stream channel in, the base.of .the ravine and is channeled off-site via a culvert through the roadway embankment at the north end of the ~ site ravine. South of the pump house zio daylighting groundwater ar surface ~ water drainage was observed in the ravine:. No other surface water drainage was observed on the site , or ravine slopes at the time of our investigation. Tn addition, no evidence indicating significant surface water drainage-related erosion was observed on the- site' or ravine slopes. oil Subsurface soil conditions were investigated by observing existing site soil exposures and by • advancing two hand-auger explorations at the approximate locations presented .on the Site and Exploration Plan; Figure ~. Site soils observed were characterized, by ,topsoil over medium ' dense, slightly gravelly very silty sand over dense ,.~ very dense, slightly gravelly slightly silty to silty sand. Composition of the observed soil was generally consistent with reference mapping interpretations of the area indicating, glacial till and till-derived surface soil. Several localized soil. exposures were also observed along the site ravine axis. The exposures were approxirrzately 2 to 3 feet in height and appeared to be the result of minor erosion and scour along the narrow stream channel ti-ansrnitting surface water along the ravine floor. Ravine stream channel soil exposures consisted ~f dense to very dense, gravelly slightly silty sand. SLOPE EVALITATION It is our opinion that the existing site and.ravine slopes present a low risk for future instability • and Iandsliding under static conditions. This opinion is~ based on the generally moderate site slope angles, established vegetation, and the very dense glacial till sail comprising the slopes. No apparent evidence of recent or historic landsliding was observed on, the site slopes. This. i s t consistent with coastal zone mapping interpretations of the area which describe the site and local area as "stable" with regard to slope stability. In addition, no evidence of significant surface water drainage was observed on the site or~ ravine slopes. However, observations indicate areas of the ravine slope rxaay be under the influence of "soil creep" (the process of Myers'Biodynamics, Inc. ' Olson 99792-5. ~. October 20, 1999 page 4 of 7 slaw downslope movement of shallow slope, soils}~. Several, slightly tilted tree's and bowed tree trunks observed within the ravine may be evidence of this process. The minor erosion features and scour observed along the ravine stream channel may indicate slope toe erosion from seasonal wet weather, storm events, or periodic increased spring 'discharge. Elsewhere an the slope, no indication of soil erosion was observed. Tn general, it appears that the existing vegetation and surface soil conditions an the site ravine slopes adequately dissipate surface water flows. and mitigate ,potential slope soil erosion. Iri our opinion, the proposed site development can occur without adverse impact to slope stability provided that adequate earthwork, drainage/erosion control, and site vegetation management are incorporated into site development and. construction practices. The General ,Site Development Recommendations section of,this letter report presents ravine =slope setback recommendations and general earthwork, drainagelerosion control, and vegetation recommendations for proposed site development plans. In addition, recommendations for the proposed well and utility easement are presented to help mitigate impacts to slope stability. GENERAT. SITE DEVELOPMENT RECOMII'IENDATIOI'JS The following discussion addresses general site slope development issues with respect to the development of single family residences on the proposed lots. =These' recommendations are based on conversations with you acid preliminary plans provided to our office titled "Olson Preliminary Plat" surveyed by Adam and Goldsworthy, Tnc., dated April 5, 1999 {refer to Figure 1}. Slone Setback Recommendations Based on our site observations, the subject slope area shows no indication of recant instability, landeliding, or significant erasion. In addition., moderate slope angles, established vegetation, and very dense glacial till slope sails indicate that significant future~Iandsliding is unlikely on.the subject slopes assuming existing uzadisturbed slope conditions.. At the time of our investigation, survey markers identifying lot corners were not observed on the site.. Based on field measurements, it appears that the ravine slope crest is generally within the area designated as an open space tract, but zriay locally coincide with ar extend onto the proposed lots. Based on our observations and the preceding evaluation, the standard setback buffer of 50 . feet required under the City of Bainbridge .Island CAO can be reduced. We recommend ~ a, minimum setback distance of 25 feet from the existing slope crest to provide -a suitable factor of safety for future residences and other associated features on~eaCh of the six proposed lots. At the time of our investigation, survey markers identifying the location of the proposed community well and associated' utility easement were not observed on the site. ' Based on approximate field measurements, the proposed shared well is located near the crest of the ravine slope above a steep (~d,to 45 degree) section of the ravine slope: In our opinion, the proposed shared well should also be located at least 10 feet from the ravine slope crest to provide. a suitable long-terxii factor of safety for .the well -anal to reduce potential slope impacts associated with well installation. In addition, we recommend .that the pr"oposed utility easements ~be routed to maintain a minimum setback distance of 10 feet from the crest of the ravine slope where it parallels the axis of the ravine. We also recommend that the utility` .easement cross the ravine in the area of modest ravine slope. height and angle, which based on site observations, is located in the extreme southern portion of the site and proposed open space tract. In our opinion, the recommended utility easement alignment reduces ,slope soil and . vegetation disturbance and .will not adversely impact ravine slope stability. This i s _ predicated on ,the assumption that the .well location and utility easement excavation will be Myers Biodynamics, Tno. ~ ' ~ > i i Olson 99792-5 October 2,1999 page 5 of 7 protected from erosion and revegetated immediately following construction as recommended below. . Veeetation As stated previously, it appears that existing vegetation and surface soil conditions on the site slope adequately dissipate surface ~ water flows and mitigate potential slope soil erosion. A significant;:factor associated with site development and slope destabilization is vegetation removal and clearing. Vegetatiozi plays• a key role in maintaining slope stability where a relatively loose sail horizon overlies denser soil conditions as is the case at~ this site. Slope instability can be initiated within the loose soil horizon; particularly when areas of the slope are disturbed or where vegetation has been removed. We recommend that. vegetation be maintained an the ravine slopes 'and within the 2b foot slope crest- setbacks. Lot view corridors could be accommodated by Iimbing and trimming treed and vegetation rather than clearing. 1Vlature vegetation can provide anextensive- root network which can structurally reinforce shallow slope sails and increase shallow slope-soil stability. _ Within the proposed well and utility easement, we recommend trenching be backfillect as soon - as passible after utility installation and. that disturbed or denuded site soils be. protected from. erosion throughout the construction. process. After trench backfilling, 'disturbed soils and denuded areas should be imrimediately protected from erosion by mulching and seeding or hydroseeding the area. If localized .erosion occurs, the area sho~ild be immediately repaired and protected from .further erosion. Although no evidence .of surface water flow was noted in the base of the ravine .at the south end of the site, we recommend erosion control measures be incorporated at the base of the ravine at the utility trench crossing to reduce erosion and the potential far.~sediment transport downstream and off the site. We anticipate conventional erosion control techniques such. as hay bales, silt fencing,- and/or, quarry spall berms blankets will provide adequate erosion control far the site and ravine. Oq'F~ER GENERATa CONSIDERATIONS Other measures can be taken to help reduce the impact of site development .on slope sta~biIity. Many of these issues require monitoring anal maintenance by future residence owners on each of the proposed lots. The following recommendations and considerations presented below should be incorporated into long-term ~ma:nagement and development of the property. W e recommend that the following educational and maintenance information be provided to prospective future property/residence owners. _ _ ! Because the location of each proposed lot is, adjacent to a ravine ,slope, .a coordinated site drainageplan should he providod for site development. Gore should be taken to mitigate the concentration and velocity of multiple lot drainages within the ravine to avoid accelerating erosion at the toe of the ravine slope and channel scour while minimizing impacts to clown=gradient properties. We recommend site development maintain pre-development site drainage conditions particularly with respect to ravine drainage/surface water flows. _ . ' ,~ * Route all future site .drainage discharges 'such as roof downspouts, foundation drains, driveway drainage, and other site drainage features that can be identified . into stormwater infiltration dissipation. systems away :from the ravine slope crest and outside the recommended 25 foot buffer. J Myers $iodynaanics, Inc. € ~ ~ ~ . - ~, - f ' - Olson 99792-~ October 20,1999 ', page 6 of 7 - • Perform -regular maintenance of on-site ~ drainage systems. Clean out all ~catchbasins, ~ downspouts, and other drainage features to ensure that discharge flows are unimpeded. .Also, check the performance of drainage, features. This can be simply accomplished by utilizing ~ a garden hose {during- dry weather} to ~~ ~ introduce water into each 'of the site,catchbasins, downspouts, etc.. and checking ~ . ' ' discharge pipes for similar flow voiurnes. As a minimum, we recommend , maintenance and performance monitoring be performed annually, prior to tYae wet weather season. Incorporate water saving measures (low flush toilets, water restrictors, etc.} to~ ' .reduce water usage and subsequent flow of wastewater into site wastewater treatment systems. This will reduce the amount of water introduced into site septic - ~ - systems and surrounding soils which could impact slope stability and/or site '. erosion during wet weather periods. Maintain on-site wastewater treatment, 'i ._ i systems outside of the recommended 25 foot slope crest setback. ' . • If fatuxe tree disease ar windfall risks are of concern, al`itairl the services of a qualified arborist to'determine tree health and condition. If tree removal is '', required within the .ravine or along the 25 foot ravine slope crest setback, ' ~ ~ ~ aggressively replant the tree removal area with trees and/or deep-rooted shrubs., to replace the Tong-term tree root reinforcement. ~ - ., • Never stock pile materials, equipment, or other heavy items an the face of or on the top of the ravine slope. - - • ~Dopat regularly dispose of yard debris, vegetation, ar other natural ar man-made ' -, materials onto the slope. These materials can. accumulate over time and create an unstable mass on the slope which 'is subject to laridsliding., ' • The enclosed homeowner manuals can provide you with. some additional general information and guidance for- vegetation management, slope revegetatian, and ' ~ drainage control. The manuals are: Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation; Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Spuicd Bluff Property Owners; and Surface Water and Grounduiater on Coastal Bluffs: A Guide for Puget Sound Property Owners which are published by the Washington State Department af.. EcoIogy, Shorelands nd Coastal Management Program i n - Olympia; Washington, For additional ~anual copies, contact the Shorelands and Coastal Management Program directly at {360) 407-7472. - , 4~ .,, Olsoza 99792-5 dctober 2d, 1.999 * ~ page 7 of 7 v •, ; CLOSURE This letter report was prepared for,the exclusive use of Mr. Mike Olsen fox specific application to the.property identified herein. The conclusions and interpr"etatians within this letter report' should net be construed as.a warranty of subsurface conditions. - Within the limits,' of scope, schedule, and budget 'the evaluation and recommendations" presented in this letter report were prepared in general accordance with accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the area at the tune this letter report was prepared. No other warranty, whether e~zpressed ar, izmplied, pis made. The evaluation presented herein was- based an our observations of`the subject property at the time'of our. site visits. y. , If there is a substantial lapse of time, conditions have changed at the site, or if conditions appear different fratn those described~in this letter report, we should be contacted and retained to review the changed conditions. The purpose al'tlie review.is to determine the applicability of the considerations and .recommendations presented in_ this letter report considering the tune lapse andlor changed conditions. ~ ~ , We appreciate the opportunity to provide you, with professional engineering services. If you have any questions regarding the evaluation and recommendations presented herein or we znay be of further assistance, please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely Yours, ` MYERS BIODYNAMICS, INC. ~ - ~ I ' ~~ ` ~,. . Paul H. Kastens " ~ g~" Or uvasy~ <.~'' Jane N. Myers- Project Geologist - ~~`` rincipal Geateclinical Engineer' `~ ', ~ ~ •, ,' JNM:saf OrXPI~IES ~ f .. ~~ .Attachment: Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 1) Enclosures:' Washington State Department of Ecology Publications: ' ~ • `Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation. • Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners ~. •. Surface mater and Groundwater on Coastal Bluffs: A Guide far Puget Sound Property .Owners r Myers Biodyriamics, Inca - Y~ ~ { _...- ' ~ ' ~ -- ~NE Lgfq~.r°~,ex~,, RcS_~' ~ f- -' y+'-~r ~a'!~v Y ~ :~ r .. ti S 88434T' f ~,... ~ ~ _ ` '~ 5: s ~ s" ~ z~~ s ...~ny-. _ «: .. 1.ST , ~ :_..._ i $58.43' j •. - ,.__~.._- ^--- - - -_- ~ , 1.~ ~ ~ _ ~gfiJ~ ~r ~` ~~ ~,_ .... --- ..__.__ ~ 65E .r - ~---'_"_ 1 Qperr_.Sp¢ee . i ~~' j.~-Tati ~~ / Z`' ~p`en 'Spore t -',L ~ hi'_ J~- vi - ~ ~ l Edge off ~ n i ~ J ~ ~ I I\ ytrfd ~ J ~~ "1 41~s ft. I ~r, ~~ ..I ,s r1 4. }0' Ut~itiesl I ~~~ l ~ 0.49 Acres - ~ easement ~t - : ~~ ~~,hE ~1 // N88'4J'41"W~ ~4 ., - ~~ a~ 9~ ~ ~ ~ _ .. ,.:200.00' ~ ._ . -. r - [~,/~~_ ~.s ~~.~~~~ c.. ! r '` o -- 69,265 bq. R._~ ~~, I ~ ~ ~ 71,14! sq. R. '-.p 1 i ~ ~ ~'! Errsrtrig sprig ~ `~ pb W %" 0.49 Acres ~ t ~'vgtei suppfx ~ 1 r ., I 4~ .3 __... _-._.~ t I ~,~~y,~ •1~~`~fW'hGVSe) i-•,3~ ~, 7 ~ "~~t S ~~ 4 r - N 8B'43'a1' W t L . we!! ~ite 1 , '.~ I ~i .¢ ~' i- -y,a 1 s. p 70D.oo• -~~..._.- .HA 7=,-•_ .,~_~ ~ ~ IL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'. f ff N f ~ ~ q o J I o ° ~,x 5 I :~ c I : 2r.ur sq. tr.l ~i ~ .~ 1.~~ f ~. ~ ' 1 0.44 kcres ~~ i S t ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~z ~ .~ t ~ ' 200.,00' _t _ ~~ 1.`~-' •~ . -/ -r 7 a i ti I 618. <3~ / ~-. i jl ~.. ~~` ~ I _ _ ,. ..~+. S 88'43 4i" E I ~ M ~ ~ ` ~ t ~ I I :- 558.43' n "4 ^ `~ I i ~. .. _I.. I ~ IRI. -. ~ '. \~ k~ '~ ~~ ~, -_ I~ ~23 LEGEND: • HA-1 Hand Auger Exploration Location `'~V Su61ect ,~ Property x er ~ ~~ ~~t~7, Vicinity XYlap ~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~~ I ~ € _ _ o ~ Va z ~ 4 HF Nfph SdS'ca! Rd' ~ f - .._...~~.......-... ~ - . ~ r~ - ~ { ; 23.5fi8 sq. ft. _ _ ~ ~ ^ ~ a ., 0 5+P Ames - ~., { - 1' ' ~ ~ ` 0 r f ~ s ee ~s s1 20 od E h ~~ .: .a f/ Perlt'arrmme ~ ',~ . t~` ~ ,rPr erl~e,.Pr i ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ I , a . I 1m• I /// 568 sq $ _~ b ' ~ ' 3.~ - / ~ 54'ACres Hausv ~r~'~ j~ ` ~~' ~ : w f ~ s r` ~, 11a'~ ~ ,: p tR r T' " 3 A/ -ba~rgmagixd) ~ ~"~~~ - i ~ S ,{1~ {•. /} . HI'l 2 (6.787 sq !~O : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~/- /' v / ~ ~ .~ -. ~ I _ J7 Acry O: 4tl W r 200 ~~~ t J 4J d r :~ r II y' ~f`OJ I /~l J' 'J ~I~ l y J" i+Q: i ~ ~ I Approximate Scale: i lnch ~ ioo fee# ~~ ~ Notes: 0 60 100 ~ ~ 1. Site Plan based on "~lson Preliminary Plat" by i ~~ Adam & Goldsworthy, lnc., dated Apri! 5, 1999. I' ~) 2. Sife topography based on publically available information and was not field verified. Nlgers _ SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE NO 1 B~~dlJ~lt~~=C~J 1~1C. PROJECT NO Olson Property W NE Lofgren Road 9992-~ III aa9in9 Bay Marcanllle Bulidlrlg • tt254 surxiav Drive 8alnh[idpa Island, Washingian 98119 Bainbridge Island Washington np~ 7~:~P6B92.6673 FAX: 20GB12-3797 3 Oc#aber 1999 _/ Before the Hearing Examiner City of Bainbridge Island In the matter of the application of Michael Olson Reasonable Use Exception RUE09800 At the hearing on this matter held on October 14, 2004, the applicants request far a Reasonable Use Exception was supported by testimony and written statements of the applicant, the applicants project engineer, geotechnical engineer, wetlands specialist, the wetlands advisory committee and city staff. Because of the time, over foe and one half years, this project has taken to be reviewed by various city and county governmental agencies memories have faded, memos and documents have been lost ar misplaced, many members of the city staff have moved on to other employment and the project engineer, Tom Herriott, has retired to Europe. In compliance with the Hearing Examiners request for more information the fallowing is submitted: 1. Plat map with elevation contour lines and utility easements and well location definition. 2. a. City staff is expected to testify about this request. b. A written, itemized, cost estimate. c. A measure of the slope of the road bed fill material was 42 degrees or close to a one to one slope. Current guidelines call for a slope of not more than two to one or approximately half as steep as the existing slope. There is a slight risk presented by a breakage of the waterline in the roadbed and the resultant further destabilization of the roadbed fill material that poses as great a threat to the stream as having the water line in the stream. d. Refer to the highlighted portion of page four of the attached Myers Biodynamics report. e. A measurement of the slope of the Lofgren road cut bank west of the ravine was SO degrees. Closer to vertical than horizontal and much steeper than current standards will allow. EXHIBIT 35 l f. Refer to c. The seasonal stream flows through a culvert under Lofgren road. The pause on the subject property is served with water from a pipe that is dug into the ravine slope to the stream bed. That pipe has been in place far in excess of 50 years with no impact to the ravine. There is a pipe dug into the stream bed to the spring that supplies water to the house. That pipe has also been in place for over 50 years with no negative impact to the stream. Both of these pipes have wthstood "100year" earthquakes, rains and freezes. Why would anyone consider using the untested and expensive northern route in the Lofgren road right of way when this time tested route across the ravine is available? 7.t°~ ~y ~ J ~: ~r ~a ~ DECISIOlY OF THE HEARING E~ANiINEIi. CITY OF SAIN.l31IIriGE ISI~ANil In the Matter afthe Appiicatioa of N1[ICIl[A~EL Oz,SOIV RUEUlS00 for a Reasonable Use Exception Introduction The Applicant seeks a Reasonable Use Exception t€~ a11ow construction of a waterline across an intermittent stream. The Hearing Examiner held a public heari ~g on this matter and made a site visit on October 14, 20fl4. Parties represented at the hearing were the Directvr,171anning and Community Development Department (PCD or Departmen#}, by Thomas A. Bansell, Planner, and the Applicant, Michael Olson, pro se. One member al' the public made a cornmerrt at the hearing in oppositia~n tv granting the exception. On November 3, 2f1C~4 the Hearing Examiner ordered that the retard be reopened so that the parties cAUld submit needed information and do~etrtation. The ~Isaring Examiner also ordered that the hearing be reconvened on Decenr~ber 2, 20(14, for the receipt of that irrfarmation and documentation. The racard was closed with the conclusion of the reconvened hearing. After due consideration of all the evidence in the retard, the following steal[ constitute the landings, conclusions, anti decision ofthe Hearing Examiner an this application. Feudiugs Site Descriptive 1. The subject property is located an the south side of i.vfgren Read, soirth of Harden Cave and is addressed as 995 RI.E. I,ofgren Road. Application, Exhibit 3, page 1; StaffRepart, Exhibit 28, page 1] The legal description [Exhibit 5] is: Lot 4~ of the plat of Rolling Bay City, recorded in volume 3, page 11 of the plats, records a€ Kitsap Coua~y, anti situate in Government -lot 2, Section 23, Township 23 north, Range ~ East, ~. M., City of Bainbridge Island, I~itsap County, Washington. Z. The property is zoned R ~, far Comprehensive Plan designation is QSR- {Exlxibit 28, page 1; Exhibit 7] residential use, tu-o units per acre. The 2, Open Space Residential, tevv units per acre. SCUP12566 Page i of ~(] SCANNED 3. This is a 4.5 acre parcel that, under application S€TBOq$(~0, the applicant seeks to subdivide into six lots [the plat is discussed in Exhibit 2, Hearing Examiner NIDNS Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat lt,ecommendativn~. There is a single family residence located in the eastern portion of the site in proposed Lot 5 (a detached garage is located in proposed Lot ~}. [Exhibit 7, Sheet 3] 4. The site is rectangular in shape and generally slopes tv the earth. Site topography is dominated by a north 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, l~s been developed near the west edge ofthe ravine on the north-south property line between Lots 2 and 3. [Exhibit 34] 5. Tl7e seasonal stream originates south of the site, flows along the ravine floor within the slope-constrained channel, under the Lofgren roadway, and into a Category I wetland to the north [Exhibit 28, page 4; Testimony of Bonsell~_ 4n the subject property the ravine deepens to the north and broadens slightly, vs~ith an elevation change from the south property line tv the north property line ofapproximately 40-50-ft_ At the north end of the site the slopes flanking the ravine reach to a height of Sip ft. with angles of apprvxirnately 40 degrees. At tl~te south end of the property, the slope angles are snore moderate and generally range frosu ~~ to 3a degrees, [.Exhibit ~4, pages 2-~] The ravine slopes have mature red cedar and western hemlock and a sparse herl~aeecxras understory [Exhibit 22, pages ~] 6. The geotechnical cvnsultanrts who examined the site concluded in their report Exhibit 34] that the site has a low risk of slope instability and landsliding Cpage 3]. They further concluded that the site could be developed "without adverse impact to slope stability provided that adequate earthwvrlc, clrainagelerasion control, arid, site vegetation management are incorporated into site developmerrt and construction practices" [page 4]. The limitations recommended include a 25-&. setback from the crest of the ravine for residences, and a 10-ft. mistisnuzn setback for the well. [Exhibit 34, gages 45] Background: Associated Subdivision and SEPA Appeal 7. Dn April 'I6, 20U4, the f7irectvr issued a SEPA Mitigated Deterimination of Signif~canCe (>~VIDNS} in association with the underlying subdivision application. The applicanrt appealed Cvseditians 6 and 7 ofttrat MDNS_ #Candition G barred installation the waterline across the streaan and buffer, and instead allowed the line to be placed in the Lofgren Road right of way yr another well to be drilled. Condition '~ required that Hemlock Street be improved. S, Afrer the appeal hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a SE)?A decision, as well as a recommendation on the subdivisios- application. The decision on the SEPA appeal was to uphold the Condition 6 prohibition vn the waterline crossing the stream and tc~ SCUP125dG Pa,~e 2 of IO eliminate the Condition 7 requirezuent to improve Hemlock Street. The Hearing Examiner's r~ommendation on the subdivision application was that the City Council should remand it to 1PCl~ until the applicant could obtain Health District approval for the water and sanitary waste disposal systems [Exh"rbit 2, pages 2425]. 9. The l~3NS was withdrawn and reissued by PCB ttn August 14, 204 Exhibit 2~4] to amend the conditions in cc~nfor~nance with the Hearing Examioer's decision and to expand it's application to include the Reasonable Use Exception TRUE) that is the subject of this decision. The reissued NIDNS was not appealed. RUE AnUlication 10. The proposal consists of digging a trench and installing 570 linear feet of waterline (from the well to proposed ~t t and from the well along the southern property line to serve proposed Lots 4-6~. The hand-dug trench for the waterline would be a snaxirnum of 4-ft. wide and would be located witl-in a 25 ft. wide utility easertxent [Exhibit 33, page 1; Exhibit 22, page 5]. The proposed northlsouth segments of the waterline, along the east and west sides ofthe ravine, would be outside ofthe required 25 ft_ buffer, but the east/west segment would be constructed across the Class I~ stream and buffer [see Exhibit 32]. 11. As develop~neart cannot be allowed in a regulated stream and buffer without a Reasonable Use Exception. ~RLIE), the applicant applied for an RUE to aliovrr construction of the waterline with the prvpc~sed alignmern [Exhibit 3 ]. notice cif that application was given on April ] 7, 2004 ~xhibit l 8]. 12. Regarding the proposed waterline, the geotechnical consultants recommended [see Finding #5] that it should ". _ _cross the ravine in the area of modest ravine slope height and angle...located in the extreme southern portion o£ tl~e site..." They recommended this route because they believed that the alignmexrt "reduces slope soil and vegetation disturbance and will not adversely impact ravine slope stability." [Exhibit ~4, pages 4-5] The preliminary plat snap, Exhibit 32, shows the proposed alignme~. 13. 'The grglvnsat inctudes restoration of the slope and vegetation via implementation cif a proposed Mitigation Plan {see Findings #20 and 21). 14_ The geotechnical consultants (see Findings #~6 and 12) nacon~mend t~ the trench be bacl~lled "as soon as passible" after the waterline has been installed and that the disturbed soils be protected tl~rought~ut the construction process. The post-installation measures recamrnended include mulching, seeding amdlor hydroseeding all areas where vegetation has bees removed or the soils disturbed. StaQdard ernsi~ and sedimemt controls {eg., hay bales, silt fencing, quarry spall bermsfblankets7 should also be employed during the trenching and waterline installation. [Exhibit 34, page 5] SCUF12S66 Page 3 of 14 1 l 5. PCD expects that HUFF (high density polyethylene} pipe will be required fnr the waterline because it has little, if any, risk of leaking or failiztg [Testimony ofBonsell], Director's Recommendation 1(. ()n April 9, 24~, PCD nati6ed the applicant that the application was complete and gave public notice of application on April l7, 24(i4. CExhibit 16]. 17. O~ae person submitted two written commems [Exhibits 20 and 25] tc~ the Department in response to the Notice of Application [see Finding #25 for discussion of comments]. 1S. The Wetland Advisory Committee (WAC ar CosnEnittee} revievaed the RUE application and did a site inspection, Initially, in May 20(34, the Committee found #hat the application did not satisfy the requiremetzts of BIlV1C 16.20.114 and advised that a mare thorough mitigation plan be prepared. The Carnmittee expressed specific ogncerns and suggestions in its report regarding this application, Included in these specifies 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 streambed"; and, 2} that the repfaming, not ideally done in the dry season, should be phased "to maximize plant survival." [Exhibit 21 ]. 19. In response to the concerns of the Committee, the applicant had a Mitigation Plan prepared by a wetlands biologist. That Plan [Exhibit 22], prepared by Myers Biodyrics, IzzC., was submitted to PCD in August 2404 [Exhibit 23~. PCD staff reported that the Committee `°was satisfied" with the 11+Iyer's Mitigation Plan [Exhibit 28, pie ~]- 2a. The Mitigation Plan. regards the proposed alignment to be a mitigation, as the positioning; ofthe waterline operates "tv present a small, confined impact to the riparian buffer where the slopes are the least steep» Cpage 2]. Mitigation would also include adding a 1-ft, deep layer of native topsail with the backfill and planting approximately 80 tc~ 100 slm~b and herb skies (a 3-for-1 replaeenate~ ratio} within areas disturbed by the trenching. This restoration planting would be monitored to gauge its success azzd a contingency plan would provide for additional paamirtgs andfor atlrer ccxrective actions if the original plants fail_ ~Exhibrt 22, pages 2-5, Figiures 2-5 ] 2I. The Mitigation Plan specifies that the trench is td be "hand-dug", but does not include the Wetland Advisory Cornrnittee's dry season-only limitation (the Plan assumes that the trenching would be done in the Fall of 2004) [Exhibit 22, page 3]. (The Ca~nnr~rttee's Concern for the timing of replanting is addressed by iVote #3 in Figure 5: "All restoration plantiag shall occur after 4ctcaber 15~ and before 1Vo~vennber 15`" follpwing the trench work.") SCUP1256b page 4 of l0 \ ~~ 22. The Director recaxnmen~is that all the consiitions and reconamenclatians set forth in both the gentechnical report [Exhibit 34] and 1Viitigation Plan [Exhibit 22] be ret[uired_ 23. The Director considered the alternative alignms;rrt of going nasth from the well, through proposed Lots 1 and 2, east in the 1l.ofgren Road right-of way, and then south through proposed Lots 4 and 5 (i_e., the alignment that was in Condition 6 upheld in the ,EPA appeal; see Finding #7}, The Director determined that this Lofgren Road alignme~ `alternative' d4d not lrravsde~ a reasonable alternati~re to the RUE alignment because it would cost mare than the proposed alignment. [Exhibit 28, pages 5 and 7] 24. The Directs>r rer~ommends appmval of the RUE based upoxt having aouchided that tha proposal, as conditioned, would be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Critical ~-reas Ordinance I~B[MC ]b.2f~.(790: wetlands and Streams; BIMC 16.24.110: Mitigation Plan Requirements} and the Zoming Code (BIlI+IC 18.30: R 2 Zone). (Exhibit 28, pages 4-7] public Hearin 25. The public hearing an the application ryas properly noticed vvi#h pasting, mailing, and publication completed an September 25, 2404 exhibit 26]. 2b. ~e neighbor submitted two written comments [Exhibifs ZtT and 25j during PCD's cvnsiderativn of the application and submitted bath written and oral camrnent at the hearing. Vince Mattson expressed opposition to granting the requester exception ~Exhihit 29; Testimony of Mattson]. Mr. Mattson does not believe "that this proposal ale~i~es for a Reassx~ble Use Exception.. _" as the o~y reason given far proposing the alignment crossing the strearss and its but>`er; is that it would cost less than routing the line along Lol'gren Raasl` He also observes[ tl~ b~eaarse the app[iss ~ktt s~dnvisia-rt could be approved regardless of which alignment is used, the applicant would not be denied all reasonable use of his property with denial t~f the .1~iJE. Alternative Alignment 2"1'. A.t the recomrenecl hearing on December 2, 2004, the applicant documented that the Lofgren Read `alternative' alignment would be expected to cost s:4nsiderably mare than the alignmen proposed with the RUE. The proposed aUgnment is estimated to ous# appraxaimately $13,400 and the alternative in Lofgren Road approximately $23,SU{3 ~cxmm~gencies not inciEx[ed) The Lsyigren Rs~ad esfirnate is based n the alignment being. irz the rvaclway itself necessitating cutting the gavexnerst, removing and replacing asphalt, and provis[~ing traffic comra! clsging several daiys of caanstntctisia. Exhibit 33; Testimony of plson] 2S_ At the SPA apps~l hearing ~ 2003 the ec~ts were estimated to be ~12,OOQ for the proposed alignment and $30-50,000 far the alternative route. That alternative route SCUP12565 Page 5 of 10 1 J was presumed to be "placed in the steep slope an the roadside" along Lafgren Road and not in the paved portion ofthe roadway. [Exhibit 2, pages 7-S, Finding 17~. Z9. The roadbed for Lofgren Road in #his vicinity is fiat. The fill is quite deep and the embankmerns that flar+k the roadway are, in some places, both narrow and steep (characterized ss 42°1a; l:l slope, The roadway fill has been stable and it does Harr appear likely that constructing the waterline in the roadway would destabilize it. Hammer, co~mct~ in the fill of the steeply siaping ernbanisrnent would disturb the vegetative cover anti' possibly disrupt the stability of the fill. [Testimony of alson; Testimony ofEonsell; Testimony of Mattson) Pertinerrt Cade Sections 30. BIluIC 16.2Q.t190.I.2.b pm~nides that procedures for an crther than administrative Reasonable Use Exception are "the procedures set forth in B~IrtC 2. l6. I00. " 31, The decision procedures of BIMC 2.16.100 provide as fotltrws: A_ Applicabilit}? This section applies each time a provision of this code auth+arizes a public hearing be, fore the hearing examiner acrd a frrral deaisian 15y the hearing examiner.. B. Prtrpose. The purpose of the public hearlrrg is to review a proposed project for consistency with the Bcrira6ridge Islrnulll~firnicipal Cade, appropriate elements of the co-npreheras3ve plan and al! other applicable law, and to provide an oppartefmty for the public to comment orr the project and Yts compliance with the lmcrriciprrt code, the comprehensive plan and all other applicable Icrw. 32. The Wetlands antl Streams section of the Critical Areas OrdinFance, at SIMC 15.20.090.H.~, requires a 25 ft_ buffer on each side of a Class N stream bank (here, the bank is the crest of the ravine}, A n~sninnnum 15 ft. Eruilding setback is also required. 33. BIM l G.2a.090.I.1 states the purpose of the provision of the Reasonable Use Exception (R1~: ...Rerrsntxrbl'e use excepti€uts are the »rechorrrism by which tl~e city may grant relief from the provisions of this chapter where campliaxrce with certariti provisions o, f t~iis chappter lease rra reascr~tcrble rrse of t7re property_ A reasonable use exception is authorized only far proposed rrlteratio>?s ta required buffers, regulated wetlands or streams.-- 34. The Reasonable Use Exception decision txiteria ofI3IMC ]6.2D_U90_I.4 pr~owide that: A reasonable use exception may be approved or approved wtth rnoditiorzs if without the recrsanable arse exception the appllearat would be deprived ofarry reasonable rise ofthe property arrd.• SCCTP12566 Page 6 of 10 a_ The proposed activities will result ira the minimum intrusion; alteration or impairment of the wetlands, stream or required buffer including impacts to their functional characteristics, while permitting some reasonable use of the property. In all cases, disturbance ofa regulated wetland ar stream shall only occur if no reasonable use can be achieved by disturbance of the bu,~er only; ~~* c. ~'he proposed activities include mitigation as appropriate to avoid measurable degradation to gronndrvater orsurfirce water quality; d. The proposed activities comply with all relevant stale, local and federal laws, including those related to sediment control, pollution... e. Alterations to... streams and buffers will be mitigated to the extent feasible considering the extent of the disturbance, the size of the site acrd the rxecessity for the proposed activities; f There will be rro damage to nearby pufrlic ar private property acrd no threat to the health ar safety of people an or a, f the property; g. ~'he irrabrlity to derive reasonable rise of fire property is rro# the result o. f' actions by the applicant in segregating ar dividing the property and creating the undevelopa8le condition after the effective date o, f this chapter; h. The reasonable use exception will not allow a use or activity that is inconsistent with the uses ,acrd activities and lr'rnitations of ether properties irr the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; *** j_ ~'he reasonable use exception is the minimum necessary to provide reasarrable use of the property; k, The reasonable use exception is consistent with all other provisions of this code and #s in accord with the comprehensive plan, 35. The requirement for mitigation plans for critical areas, at BIlVIC 1.6.24_i14, include that. A. ---All critical area restoration, creation andlor enhancement projects required pursuant to this... shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by an expert approved by the director._. B. ...The mitigation plan shall recreate as nearly as possible the original critical area in terms of its Acreage, ,~rnction, geographic location and setting. *** ~:2-c. ... ~pECifrc criteria shall be provided ,~'vr evaluating whether or not fhe goals and abJectrves of the project are met and far beginning remedial action or cantirrgency measures.-. *~* e. ...A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall he provided... f ....11 protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will he evaluated..A monitoring report shall be sub~rritted annxrally... ~CUPI2S66 Page 7 of 1(l 1 g.... Contrnge~rcy plan. ~'derr#: frc¢tian of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be takren when monitoring or e~riaration irtdiccttes project performance standards are not being met *** F: Pei mit Conditions Any compensation project prepared pursuan# to tF~is section and approved by the director shalt become part of the application for the permit. An_ alvsis 35. The single-family use proposed by the associated subdivision that would be supported by the requested waterline is cansisterit with the residential use anticipated by the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations of the subject property. 37. There would have to be compliance with applicable Health District regulations regarding the provision of daaa~estic ~tn-ater service. 38. The alternative aiigninent in Lcsfgren Road would be sulastantially snore expensive than the RUE alig~nrnent. Given that the migating conditions required for the RUE stream and buffer crossing would result in avoiding adverse impacts to the stneaEn and restoriag vegetation removed or disturbed by construction, the alternative align;nent in I,ofgren Rand +~+ould not have a nc~te~rtl}y envialon€nerital advaixtage. Constructing the waterline in the steeply sloping fill slang the roadside could have destaliilizang effects on that fill aitci associated adverse envircininen~tal consequences. 3~. with proper iinpleine~itatioii ~-f the conditions recommended liy the Director aisd the Wetland Advisory Committee (including the Mitigation Plan and limiting the time and manner of construction) the proposed waterline ~i+an caukl be accomplished with minimal iutr€isittn and no environrriental damage to the stream and downstreaEn e~ir~nme_ Cpnstr~rctian as conciitior~ would have no damage to neighboring properties or present a threat to the public heahh and safety. There would belittle, if any, sang term rim to the stream from pipe leak or failure. Conclusions The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter_ ~. Appropriate m~ices rs#'the application and the public hea}ing were given and tie heariag was properly convened and all comments, testimony, and other evidence considered. 3. ~taF}r oast is one factor to be considered in ~#etermining what is "reasottalale„ and r~+hetlier denying a requested exception is a deprivation of reasonable use. It is not the only consideration. Merely having a greater cyst should mat define an alterve as "unreasonable" and routinely trigger the graat~g of a RUE, However, the magnitude of SCUP125(5 Page S of IQ the difference in cast, when combined with a large dollar aFnaunt, could help distinguish what is and is not reasonable. [Far example. A high cast alternative with a high comparative cost difference -say, SZ4,000 for an alternative and ~-10,004 for the I~UE W could he persuasive in finding that a proposal is a reasonable exception. Relatively low casts, even with a high comparative clifference - in this example, som~[hing like $2,(140 versus $1,040, vvt~uld not.) Given that the goal of the Critical Areas (3rdinanee here is the protcecEicin of streams5. cxmsideeati of the environmental "costs" (f.e., adverse impacts) should always be foremost when coirternplating exceptions to the protective prohibitions. er~k.', a5 rn the ~~ requested here, t171e Cr5e ~mp-tcts Vfi~Ild ~ etfect~vely minimized andfor avoided thus fulfilling the purpose of the stream protections}, r+egeiriag as alternative that ~ substantia}ly high dollar costs (in bath absolute and comparative terrr~s}, rx~ould deprive the owner of reasonable use. 4. As noted in Findings #3b through 39, ~ cxmsisterrt with the I~ioredar's recnmxnendation and that of the Wetland Advisory Committee, the requested Reasonable Use Exception should be granted as it meets the requirements of BIlVIC 16, 24.090.I. DeeisioR The application of l~icl~ael tJlson for a Reasonable €Jse Exception (associated wi#h the b- lcrt subdivision application SUB49800} to allow canstrwctioz~ o£ a waterline across an intermittent stream, is hereby ~r~ttovEn wI~ cor~urtlo~IS {Conditi~s I-8 follow on page 1Q). Errteretl this ~ ~~~F1 day ofDecember 21104. - ^ ~ ~ eredith A. Getches City of Bainbridge island Hearing Examiner pro tem CQNCERNING FURTHER REVIEW N'O"1'E~ It is the responsibility a£a. person seeFcing review- of a Hearing Examiner deeis%au, to consult applicable Cade sections and other approQriate sanrces, including Mate lax; to determine l~isfher rights and sibiiitie~ nlati~re to ~~- Regne~t far ,~clicial re~rie°~ oaf ttris clerisiicm by a pew whh stax~iag can be made by filing a load use petiticm in superior court within 21 days in accordance Evitl~ the l..a~d Use Petition Act, Revised Code ofV[~ashington (RCVS, Chapter ~G.?t1C. SCUP1?~66 Page 9 of 10 RIJE 0980[i Cceenditiores of Approval [TlteSe C~ttdl{1d~15 pl1~y those related td Lhe RiJE ~~3rOV81, Dt1eET ~ au~ttanal conditions included with approval of subdivision SiJB09804 must also 6e adhered to.] $EPA Conditions X. Prior to any clearing or other canstntctian activities, t}te applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from the Delrarunent of Plaemireg and Community Development t4at includes at, approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation f'vntml Plan addressing erasion and sediment control issuss specific to flee canstrudian and installation o£ the waterline. That plan must specify rite Best Ma~sagerreent Practices (l3MP') to be employed. dill the B1Vlps specified shall be impiemeated to the satisfaction o£the Public Worl~.s Depaxtneent. 2. All suitable excavated soil sleall 6e re-used and provided that neither fire loca#ian of nor the manner of that reuse would damage vegetation and/or oaretribute to or increase er~ion ar ~orx. 'fit material determined by the Director to be unsuitable for on-site use sha11 be disposed of at a disposal site approved by tree Director. 3. To mitigate air -h' impacts, cxurdra~ors sl>aEl conform tv Puget SaRmd Clean A,ie Agency regulations and lake all reasonable precautions to avoid dust etnissioris. Vegetation that 1xe reetsecl an-site as itedic.atad itt the Mitigatiozt Place, shall be removed from the site, processed by chipper, or by same other method of disposal not requiring burning. 4. All conditions and recommendations set forth in the gelenir.al repixt pr~epmed bg Meyers Biod~+narnics, dated Elctaber ~a, 1999 shalt be followed without exc~rtiari to the satisfaction of the Public Works 1]egarnttem. 5. The trenching and installatiaun acti3rilies far flee wa#~iine's eastlw~est segment sha11 be parrnitted oetly irx the "dry season' molten no water is flowing itt the streaurebed Teeaching sued Ana activities ore the north-cantle segments aF file waterline outside of the stream and its buffer ;may be perxni#atted without this seasonal limitaticm. Best r;-ateagernent practices to control erosion and sedimematYVn mast be always utilised as appropriate -see Condition #l,) G_ All cores of the 1S+litirgatiort Plan (repla~itlg, restorattion, manitaring, contingency and rr~aintenartce, includtxtg figures and Tables}, prepared by Meyers Biodynamics and dated duly 23, 2gg4, shall be fgllowed without exception to the satisfaction of the Petlilic Warlss lilepar#rnen#. Nan-SEPA Conditions 7. The waterline, where rt crasser flee stream, ,sleall be constntctet! of leeat welded 1EIDPE (or othez material expressly Loured suitable by the Public Works Deparbp~ret) amdlar shall be sleeved to the satisfaction of the Public i~Vorks Department. SCUP 125b6 Page 1 q of lq D>~GLSION OF THE HEARING EXAM[NRR CITY OF BAINBRIDGIJ ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of ~vr>ECHAEI, oLSOIV RUEO9800 for a Reasonable Use Exception Introduction The Applicant seeks a Reasonable Use Exception to allow construction of a waterline across an intermittent stream. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on this matter and made a site visit on October l4, 2004. parties represented at the hearing were the Director, Planning and Community Development Department (PCD or Department}, by Thomas A. Bonsell, Planner, and the Applicant, Michael Olson, pro se, One member of the public made a comment at the hearing in opposition to granting the exception. On November 3, 2004 the hearing Examiner ordered that the record be reopened so that the parties could submit needed information and documentation. The Hearing Examiner also ordered that the hearing be reconvened on December 2, 2004, far 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 following shall constitute the findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings Site Description 1. The subject property is located on the south side of Lofgren Road, south of Murden Cove and is addressed as 99SS N.E. Lofgren Road. [Application, Exhibit 3, page 1; StaffReport, Exhibit 28, page 1] The legal description exhibit 5] is: Lot 46 of the plat of Rolling Bay City, recorded in volume 3, page 11 of the plats, records of Kitsap County, and situate in Government lot 2, Section 23, 'T'ownship 23 north, Range 2 East, W. 111., City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. 2. The property is zoned R 2, for Comprehensive Plan designation is OSR-2 [Exhibit 28, page 1; Exhibit 7] residen#ial use, two units per acre. The Open Space Residential, twa units per acre. SCUP125b6 Page 1 of 10 3. This is a 4. S acre parcel that, under application SUB09800, the applicant seeks to subdivide into six lots [the plat is discussed in Exhibit 2, Hearing Examiner NIDNS Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat Recommendation]. There is a single family residence located in the eastern portion of the site in proposed Lot S (a detached garage is located in proposed Lot 6). [Exhibit 7, Sheet 3] 4. The site is rectangular in shape and generally slopes to the north. 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 of the ravine on the north-south property line between Lots 2 and 3. [Exhibit 34] S_ The seasonal strewn originates south of the site, Bows along the ravine floor within the slope-constrained channel, under the Lofgren roadway, and info a Category I wetland to the north [Exhibit 28, page 4; Testimony of Bonsell]_ On the subject property the ravine deepens to the north and broadens slightly, with an elevation change from the south. property line to the north property line of approximately 40-S0-fl. At the north end of the site- the slopes flanking the ravine reach to a height of S0 ft. with angles of approximately 4fl degrees. At the south end of the property, the slope angles are more 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 Exhibit 22, pages 3] 6. The geotechnical consultants who examined the site concluded in their report [Exhibit 34] that the site has a low risk of slope instability and landsliding [page 3]. They further concluded that. the site eaulc be developed `°wthaut: adverse impact to slope stability provided that adequate earthwork, dranagelerosion control, and site vegetation management. are incorporated into site developmem and construction practices" [page 4]. The limitations recommended include a 25-ft. setback from the crest of the ravine for residences, and a 10-ft. minimum setback for the we11. [.Exhibit 34, pages 4-S] Back ound: Associated Subdivision and SEPA A cal '~. On April 16a 2004, the Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Significance (MD1~S} in assoeratton with the underlying subdivision application. The applicant appealed Conditions 6 and 7 of that MDNS. Condition 6 barred installation the waterline acro$s the stream and buffer, and instead allowed the line to be placed in the Lofgren Road right of way or another well tcx be drilled. Condition ?required that Hemlock Street be improved. 8. After the appeal hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a SEPA decision, as well as a recommendation on the subdivision application. The decision on the SEPA appeal was to uphold the Condition 6 prohibition on the waterline crossing the stream and to SCUP12566 Page 2 of 10 eliminate the Condition 7 requirement to improve Hemlock 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 District approval for the water and sanitary waste disposal systems [Exhibit 2, pages 2~1-25]. ~, The l~rfD-NS was withdrawn and reissued by PC1? on August 14, 2001 [Exhibit 24] to amend the conditions in conformance with the Dearing Examiner's decision and to expand it's application to include the Reasonable Use Exception (RITE) that is the subject. of this decision. The reissued NIDNS was not appealed. RUE Avnlication 10. The proposal consists of digging a trench and installing 670 linear feet of waterline {from the well to proposed Lat l and from the well along the southern property line to serve proposed Lots: 4-6). The hand-dug: trench fflr the waterline would be a maximum of 4-ft. wide and would be located within a 25 ft. wide utility easement [Exhibit 33, page 1; Exhibit 22, page S]. T'he proposed north/south segments of the waterline, along the east and west sides of the ravine, would be outside of the required 25 ft. buffer; but the eastlwest segment would be constructed across the Class IV stream and buffer [see Exhibit 32]_ 11. As development cannot be allowed in a regulated stream and buffer without a Reasonable Use Exception {R.UE), the applicant applied for an RUE to allow construction of the waterline with the proposed aIignme~ Exhibit 3]. Notice of that application was given on April 17, 2aQ4 [Exhibit 18~'. 12. Regarding the proposed waterline, the geotechnical consulta~s recommended [see Finding #6] 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 reconencied this route because-they believed! that. the alignrnetrt "reduces slaps soil and vegetation disturbance and will not adversely impact ravine slope stability." [Exhibit. 34, pages 4-5] The preliminary plat map, Exhibit 32, shows the proposed alignment. I 3.. The proposal includes restoration of the slope" and vegetation via implementation of a proposed Mitigation Flan {see Findings #2Q and 21). 14. The geotechnical consultants {see Findings #6 and l2) recommend that the trench be backfilled "as soon as possible" after the waterline has been installed and that the disturbed soils be prat~ted throughout the construction process. The post-installation measures recommended include mulching, seeding andl'or lrydroseeding all areas where vegetation has been removed or the soils disturbed. Standard erosion and sedime~. controls {e.g., hay bales, silt. fencing, quarry span berms/blanlcets) should also be employed dhring the trenching and waterline installation. Exhibit 34, page S] SCUP125b6 Page 3 of io rnras presumed to be "plated in the steep slope on the roadside" along Lofgren Road and not in the paved portion of the roadway. [Exhibit 2, pages 7-$, Finding 1T~. 29.. The roa€lbed' for Lofg~-en Roadin this vicinity is fill. The fill is quite deep and the embankments that flank the roadway are;. in some places, bath narrow and steep {characterized as 42°fo; 1:1 slope)_ The roadway f 11 has been stable and it does n©t appear likely that constructing the waterline in the roadway would destabilize it. HaweverA construction in the f€Il of the steeply sloping embankment would disturb the vegetative cover and possibly- disrupt the stability of the fill. [T'estimony of ©lson; Testimony of Bonsell; Testimony. of Mattson] Pertinent Code Sections. 30. BiMG 16.20.090.I.2.b provides that procedures for- an other-than administrative Reasonable Use Exception are "the procedures set forth in BI21i1C 2.1 b.100 " 3 ]. The decision proceduures of BIMC 2.16..10 provide as fQllaws: A. Applicability 177is section. appdies each time a provision of this code authorizes a public hearing before the hearing examiner and a final decision by the hearing examiner-- B'. I'~urpose~ 7'1ze purpose o, f'tlze puhli~ 1~earing is to review a proposed protect for consistency with the Bainbridge Island Mutaicip~rl Code appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan and all other applicable law, and to provide cox e~pportutxity,,~ar the public to ca»rme~rt on thc~ project and its compliance with the mutricipal code, the comprehensive planand'all`otlierapplicable lar~. 32_ The Wetlands and Streams section of the Critical Areas Ordinance, at B1MC 1b.20.090.H.2, requires a 25 ft. buffer on each side of a Class IV stream bank there, the bank is the crest, of'the ravine}. A minimum 1 ~ ft. building setback is also required. 33. BIMC 16.20A90_I.1 states the purpose of the provision of the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE): __.Rerr~avnable use exceptiott~ art-e the ,naecharristxt by which the city tray grant relief otn the pravisorrs of tkri~ chapter where complranee with certain provisions of this chapter leave no reasonable tree of the prt~et t~: A reasonable arse exception is authorized only for proposed alterations to required lxtc,~ersF regulated wetlands or streams.... 34. The Reasonable Use Exception decision criteria of BIMC 16.20.090.1.4 provide that: A reasvna~le use exception may- be approved or approved with modifications if without the reasonable use exception the applicant would be deprived of any reasonable use of the property and: SCJP12S66 Page 6 of 10 a. The proposed activities will result in the minimum. intrusion alteration or impairment of the wetlands, stream or required buffer including impacts to their functional characteris#ies, while permitting some reasonable use of the property.. In all cases, disturbance ofa regulated wetland or stream shall only occur if no reasonable use can be achieved by disturbance of the buffer only; *** c. The proposed activities include mitigation as appropriate to avoid measurable degradation. to groundwater ar surface water quality; cl The proposed activities comply with all relevant state, local and federal laws,. including those related to sediment control; pollution... e. Alterations to...streams and buffers will be mitigated to the extent feasible considering the extent of the disturbance, the size of the site and the necessity for the proposed activities; f. There will be no damage to nearby public or private property and na threat to the health or safety ofpeople on or off the property; g. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopa8le condition after the effective date of this chapter; h: The reasonable use exception will not allow a use ar activity that is inconsistent with the uses and activities and limitations of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; ** j. The reasonable use exception is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property; k. The reasonable use exception is consistent with all other provisions of this code and is in accord with the comprehensive plan. 35. The requirement for mitigation plans for critical areas, at BIMC 1b.20.110, include that: A. ...All critical arearestorati:an, creation and,~or enhancement projects required pursuant to this... shall fallow a mitigation plan prepared by an expert approved by the director... B. ... The mitigation plan shall recreate as nearly as possible the original critical area in terms of its acreage, function; geographic location and setting. *~* C.2.c. ... Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are met and for beginning remedial action ar contingency measures... *~~ e. ... A program outlining the approach far monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided... f. ... A protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated...A monitoring report shall be submitted annually... SCUPT256C Fage 7 of 10 y} 1 1 g.... Contingency Plan. Tdentr~cation of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. *** F Permit Conditions. ~4ny compensatrora project prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the director shall become part of the application for the permit. Anal r~sis. 36. The singlerfamily use proposed by the associated subdivision that would be supported by the requested waterline is consistent with the residential use anticipated by the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations of the subject property. 37. There would have to be compliance with applicable Health District regulations regarding the provision of domestic water service. 3~_ ~'he alte~nati~e alignment in Lof~-en Road would be substantially more expensive than the RVE alignment., ~irren that the negating conditions required for the RDE stream and buffer crossing would result in avoiding adverse impacts to the stream and restoring vegetation removed or disturbed by construction, the alternative alignment in Lofgren Road would not have a natewarthy~ environmental adva~age.. ~anstr~teting the waterline in the steeply sloping fill aTe~ng the roadside could have destabilizing effects on that f 11 and associated adverse environmental consequences. 3~_ with proper implementation of the conditions recon~nzended by the Director and the V~etland Advisory committee (including the mitigation Plan and limiting the time and manner of constructions the proposed waterli~ co~tctior~ d be accomplished with minimal intrusion and no environmental damage to the stream and downstream environments_ G`onstruction as conditioned v~onld have nc~ damage to neighboring properties or~ present: a threat tv the public health and safety.. There would be little, if any, long-term risk to the stream from pipe leak or failure. ~anclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter. ~_ Appropriate notices of the application and tl~ pukalc hearing. were given and the hearing: runs: properly convened anti ail comments, testimony, and other evidence considered. 3. Monetary cost is one factor to be cansid'eredrn determining what. is "reasonable" and whether denying a requested exception is a deprivation of reasonable use. It is not the only consideration. Merely having a greater ~ shonld not dune an alterative as• "unreasonable" and routinely trigger the gratrting of a RUE. However, the magnitude of SC~'12~G6 Page 8' of 1 the difference in cost, when combined with a large dollar amount, could help distinguish what is and is not reasonable. (For example: A high cost alternative with a high comparative cost d'iff'erence -say? $20;000 for an alternative and $10,.000 for the RUE - could be persuasive: in finding that a proposal is a reasonable exception. Relatively low costs, even with a high compazative difference - in this example, something like $2,0[11)' versus $1,1)00, would not.) Given that the Baal of the Critical Areas Qrdinance here is the proted~ion of strearnsA consideration of the enviromnental ~`costs'~ ~r e.x adverse impacts} should always be foremost when contemplating, exceptions to the protective prohibitions. Where, as in the RUE requested here, the adverse impacts would be effeel~ minimized and/or avoided (thus fulfilling the purpose of the stream protections), requiring an alternative than has substantially higher cl'ollar costs din both. absolute and comparative terms, would deprive the owner of reasonable use. 4. As noted in Findings #3b th~mgh 39, ~usistent with the Direetgr's recommendation and that of the Wetland Advisory Committee, the requested Reasonable i~se )/xceptvn should be granted as it meetis: the requirements of BIlVC 1b.24.a90.1.. Decision The application oflydichael f)lson fur a Reasonable Use Exception associated with. the. b- lot- subdi~risYOn application SUB0~8013~ to allow constiruction of a. waterline across an intermittent stream, is hereby ~~tQVE~ ~~ ems (C~s ~-it follow on page 10). Entered. this ~,~h days ofDeeernber 2004. ~. ~.~ eredith A. Getches City of Bainbridge Island bearing Examiner prcr tern CONCERNING FURTHER REVIEW 1~(~'F': tt is the responsibility crf a person seeking review of a Hearing Examiner decision tv consult applicable Cvclc sections and: other appropriate sources, including State lawT to determine hisTher rights and responsibilities reladive to appeal. Regu~t for fiat riew of this deeisi~ lair a. person. with standing can be made by, iiling a land use petition in superior courC within 21 days in accordance with the T~and [Tse Petition Act, Revised Code ofWashington {RCVS, Chapter 36.70G- SClP125~6 Page 9 of 10 i RUE 09800 Conditions of Approval [These conditions are only those related to the RUE approval;. other and additional conditions included with approval of subdivision SUB09804 must. aIsn be adhered to.] SEPA Conditions 1. Friar to any clearing or other construction activities, the applicant shall obtain a plat utilities permit from Che Departxnem of Planning and Community Development that includes an approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan addressing erosion and sediment. cornrol issues specific to the construction and installation of the waterline. That plan must speck the Best lVlanagernent Practices (BMF) to be employed. All. the 13MPs specified shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2. All suitable excavated soil shall be re-used an-site, provided that neither the location of nor the manner of that reuse would damage vegetation and/or contribute to or increase erosion ar sediancntation. That muaterial determined ley the Director to be unsuitable far on-site use shall be disposed: of"at a disposal site approved by the 12irector. 3. `1'o mitigate air fly irnpactsT contractors shall conforms to Fe~get Sound Clean Air Agency regulations and take all reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Vegetation that. cartnat be reerseal arx-site as indicated in the Mitigation Plan, shall lie removed from the site, processed by chipper; yr by same other nie~thod of disposal not requiring,: burning. 4. All conditions and recommendations set forth in the geotceh~l mart pr~arexl by Meyers Biodynamics, dated October 20, 1999 shall be followed without exc~tion tQ the satisfaction ofthe Public'Vilorks Departmerrt. 5. The trenching and installation activities for the waterline'"s easVwest segment shall be permitted only in the "dry season" when no water is flawing in the streambed_ Trenching and installation activities on the north-scmth segnren~ a!f the waterline outside; Qf the stream artd its bu~'i<r y be permitted without this seasonal liifatan.. Best rnailagemectt practices ta> control erosion and sedinnenfation must be .always utilized as appropriate -see Condition # 1.) fa. All dons of the Mitigation Plan ~replan€ting; restoration, rnanitaring, contingency anal nmintenance„ ncludirg lgures acad.Tables);, prepared by Meyers: Bodynaies and dated Iuly 29, 2004, shall be followed without exception to the satisfac#ion of the Public Works Department. Non-SEP.A Conditions 7. The waterline, where it crosses the stream, shall be constructed of heat welded l^IDPE {or other material expressly found suitable by the Public Works Department) and/or shall be sleeved to the satisfaction of tkce" Public Works. Department. SCUP12556 Page 10 of 10 ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~t G~'~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~et ~+ ~~ ~ ~,~ ot~ ~ v~~~s~ ~ ~ ~~s~ ~ 4~ fvr ~~'~ ~ ,~-a~ in~1 ~h ~' head' t~~ an tee ~~° ~~ t ~'~ shau~ ~~,is~er' ~ d~~~,~i~-~,~ can F ~~ i~ ~ ~iti~r~+~? ~ Yt ~ ~~ ~,6 2~~` i~ ~~ faF ~h~n~the att~.~~ ~ S~ Gbes ~.~,is Zt ' ~`~ ~ .~~~llt~~ a er ~~ Viand E~,eX ~~ .g,ai~~~'dg~ Ci~Y ~f ~ ~~~ ~p°~ R A+'p~x° ~ a~1ez ` add ~o.~~~-ti~~'s °~ ~~ ~~` ~~ a1Se~ ~~' toy te~~ se ~~'' 11 ate' ~~ c:o ~ ~ ~~~ 'hies, ~e ap'~lk ~ t'~~ ~ ~ue~t ~~ Uwe ~~ ~ e~~c~i°~' ~~~,~„'m~Y ~s~n~ .fit per'` ~ ~~ cam{ ~ ~~` ~ eclipe~ i,~ed sal ~ ~~ ele~fl~~,,t, c~ ~ ~~T° ~~ t~ e.~~ps spy ~t~~ ~~erapcyca~`1 ~ ~ ~ e'er ~~p) ~' ~~1ent. p~ve~ ~cif-~ paces 1t~e''~ot~ tt~ ° ~ ~ b ~ ~Q1 y~ues ~~ ~~~e ~~ ~ ~ ~T t~~ge g}~j ± 'the sa~~ ,~ se use' ~ai ~ ~~1e dot ~~ ~4er . s~ s~ a veg~° c,C ta'~ ~a ,~ ~as-~ e ~ ~ ~~ tt~ 2. p,11 s~ °~~°~ ~ or the ~n ,~ r ~g~yed~` ~`e pue~ ~n i• ~~ site' poi ~ a ~ s'te s ~ ~,~°~ ,has }~C,~ed ~°'~ c~~ ~t ~ chigp~''~~`1 ~ ~t s be ~c~,o,~ed ; be ~osF ~ Off, ~,. ~~ ~ 'Tx'~~`"~~ its ~. gia~Y~b11e V'~a ~ ~ 4 ~ a cat ces to c „fie Inc ~ `~ ~-.°~~0-~., ~ s~'~ ~°'~~ ~~~1 ~ ,mss ,~ a~ ~ ~ v~ ~~ ~~ +.~ and ~, t~ ~~~~~,~a~l, '~';o~ ~~,~ 2g~ Z7 it crosses ~ub`cse ~~ ~~etti~i7 foua!~ ~~ ta~'e Compiled 9-30-04/Amended 10-14-04 and12-2-04 EXHIBIT LIST RUE 09800 MICHAEL OLSON Planner: Tom Bonsell F.X~'111'111- Public Hearing: 10-14-04 10:00 a.m. Dated Date Recd #Pa~es 1 Original Submittai/Routing Information 3-17- 0414-9-04 1 2 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, SEPA Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat Recommendation 11-14-03 11-14-03 25 3 Application 12-4-03 3 -17-04 10 4 Mitigation Plan for Stream and Buffer Encroachment at 9955 Lofgren Road with attached Site and Exploration Plan (October 1999} (Myers Biodynamics) 3-23-04 2 5 Legal Description 3-17-04 1 6 Slope Evaluation (Kastens -Myers Biodynamics) 10-20-99 3-17-04 8 7 Preliminary Plat Plans Sheets 1, 3 and 5 of 5 3-12-02 3-17-04 3 8 Fees Associated with application 3-17-04 1 9 Prelimnary Plat Plan -Reduced -Sheet 3 of 5 3-12-02 3-17-04 1 10 Preapplication Conference Waiver Request 3-17-04 1 11 E-Mails to Bonsell from Gladstein re: originals and confirmation of address 3-26-04 2 12 Request for review Public Works 3 -17-04 1 13 Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: acknowledgement of application 3-26-04 1 14 Routing Slip 3 -17-04 1 15 Corres to Knoop (Health District) from Bonsell re: revised well location etc. 3-30-04 1 RLTE09800 Michael Olson Page 1 of 3 Compiled 9-30-041Amended 10-14-64 and12-2-04 16 Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: complete application 4-9-04 1 17 Notice of Application 4-17-04 8 18 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Application 4-21-04 1 19 Certificate of Posting of Notice of Land Use Action 4-27-04 4-27-04 1 20 Corres to Bonsell from Mattson re: comments and concerns 4-27-04 4-29-04 1 21 Report from Wetland Advisory Committee 5-13-04 5-11-04 3 22 Mitigation Plan for Proposed Riperian Buffer Encroachment (Myers Biodynamics) 7-29-04 8-3-04 13 23 Memorandum to Wetland Advisory Committee from Bonsell 8-4-04 1 24 Withdrawal and Reissuance of Mitigated Determination afNonsignificance (MDNS) with attached Environmental Checklist 8-9-04 15 25 Corres to Bonsell from Mattson re: additional comments 8-I8-04 8-18-04 2 26 Notice of Public Hearing -Documentation 27 Case Activity Listing 9-29-04 1 28 STAFF REPORT with Attachments 9-29-04 50 29 Written Testimony from Vince Mattson objecting to RUE qualification 10-14-04 10-14-04 1 30 Order Reopening Record and Reconvening Record 11-3-04 11-03-04 2 RECORD REOPENED ON 12-204 31 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner from Bonsell re: responses to Order 12-2-04 12-2-04 2 32 Plat Map (Adam & Goldsworthy, Inc.) 3-20-03 12-2-04 1 RUE09800 Michael Olson Page 2 of 3 Compiled 9-34-04/Amended 10-14-04 and12-Z-04 33 Corres to Olson from Browne Engineering re: 11-30-04 12-2-04 3 cost estimate for water line installation 34 Corres to Olson from Kastens {Myers 10-20-99 12-2-04 $ Biadynamics Tnc.} re: slope evaluation 35 Cover letter from Olson re: request for 12-2-04 2 information RuEO9soo Michael0lson Page 3 of 3 \ ti RECONVENED HEARING NO ~. ~S RECONVENED HEARING: December 2, 2004 (ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: October 14, 2004) FILE: RUE 09800 MICHAEL OLSON EXAMINER: Meredith A. Getches ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer PARTIES PRESENT: Michael Olson (Applicant) 9955 Lofgren Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Witnesses: Vince Mattson 9651 Green Spot Place Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Public Hearing reconvened at 10:00 a.m. DEPT. REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Bonsell, Planner Dept. of Planning and Community Development, City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave. N Bainbridge Island, WA 98ll0 Tape Count S ea~a ker ID To iclSub'ect Summa Tape 1: 0000 HEX Introductory Remarks re: reopened hearing and record for additional information. Exhibit 30 entered: Order reconvening and reopening retard. Exhibit 31 entered: Memo to HEX from Bonsell re: response to HEX requests for info. 0053 Bonsell 0075 HEX Exhibit 32 entered: Plat. Map 0177 Bonsell Explanation of DPCD recommendations re; water line. Definition of "Reasonable." 0312 Olson Interpretation of RUE. Exhibit 33 entered: Construction cost information. 0414 Bonsell Discussion of specifications of water line pipe. 0500 Olson Discussion of construction costs. Bonsell Public Works information re: slope and slope stability. 0690 Olson Discussion of slope stability. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 1 of 2 0755 Bonsell Reference to Road ~. andards. 0807 Olson ~ Discussion of slope in re: SUB. Hearing recessed at 10:35 a.m. Hearing reconvened at 10:40 a.m. 0890 Mattson Professional qualifications; opinion re: stability of roadway slope. O1son/Mattson Discussion of opposition to proposal; slope standards; statements made in previous hearing. 1089 Olson Comments re: previous appeal of SEPA conditions. Bonsell Discussion of findings. 1355 Olson Exhibit 34 entered: Slope Evaluation by Myers Biodynamics 10-20-99. 1534 O1son/Bonsell Discussion of slope evaluation and location of water line. 1b08 Olson Exhibit 32 marked to indicate banks of ravine. Discussion of ravine. 1671 Olson Explanation of risks to stream through destabilized slope. 1793 Bonsell Definition "unreasonable". Discussion of alternatives, associated costs and environmental risks. 2140 Bonsell Department position re: potential development. Olson Discussion of existing water line on south route. Exhibit 35 entered: Cover letter from Olson. The reconvened public hearing was adjourned and the record was closed at 11:25 a.m. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 2 of 2 {~ ~ 1 HEARING NOTES HEARING DATE: October 14, 2004 EXAMINER: Meredith A. Getches PARTIES PRESENT: Michael Olson (Applicant) 9955 Lofgren Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Witnesses: Vince Mattson 9651 Green Spot Place Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 FILE: RUE 09500 MICHAEL OLSON ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer DEPT. REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Bonsell, Planner Dept. of Planning and Community Development, City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave. N Bainbridge Island, WA 48110 Public Hearing convened at 1:32 p.m. Tape Count Tape 1: oooa 0126 0143 0180 a2a7 Speaker ID To~~iclSubiect Summary 0583 0710 0820 0850 HEX Introductory Remarks, description of application and procedure. Bonsell Introductions Olson HEX Decision procedure. Mattson Testimony in objection to RUE; does not qualify (EXHIBIT 29). Bonsell Chronology of associated Subdivision application and Hearing Examiner's Decision. Staff recommendations. Description of site and location of strewn. Olson Additional information re: stream. Reasons for application. Discussion of topography, comparative costs of stream location versus roadway location. Information regarding well site, existing water supply, age of existing house, water line route and slope. I~EEX Discussion of Code language in re: RUE. Olson Discussion of interpretation of RUE. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 1 of 2 0992 Bonscl Y Information re: watCa~ line and degree of slope. Olson Risks to roadbed installation. BonselllOlson Discussion of flexible water line. 1106 Bonsell Discussion of determination of requirement for RUE, Wetland Advisory Committee review and Mitigation Flan. 1393 Olson Testimony re: stream installation result in less environmental impact and less cost. The Hearing was closed at 2:20 p.m. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 2 Of 2 ~~~~~E ISLAND CITY OF ~$ ,~ E.~~~EI~` ~ ON (R~L o~soo~ SE ~ the ~.atter of :pTI ~ VSE EX~~ 12-2_0 ~ 10=~~ A.~VI. ~LS~N JASON C ~Ep`~G SATED ~~~.~~ pUBLI I would like RED to s eak phone A,ddx Name ~~ ~~ ~~~i x wo~~ like future n°ti~es Name CITY pF gAINBRIDGERAND HEARING EXA.M~ In the Matter of: Reasonable Use Exception {ROUE 09800) pUgL,IC HEARING DATED 10-14 G~ ' ~ : oo PM I would like Pho~ae to s eak Address A _ . ~ sR.a_~ ---a~~e I would like future notices `'~~~ Compiled 9-30-04/Amended 10-14-04 and12-Z-04 EXHIBIT LIST RUE 09800 MICHAEL OLSON Planner: Tom Bonsell Exhibit # Public Hearing: 10-14-04 10:00 a.m. Dated Date Recd #Pages 1 Original SubmittallRouting Information 3-17- 0414-9-04 1 2 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, SEPA Appeal Decision and Preliminary Plat Recommendation 11-14-03 11-14-03 25 3 Application 12-4-03 3-17-04 10 4 Mitigation Plan for Stream and Buffer Encroachment at 9955 Lofgren Road with attached Site and Exploration Plan (October 1999) (Myers Biodynamics} 3-23-04 2 5 Legal Description 3-17-04 1 6 Slope Evaluation (Kastens -Myers Biodynamics) 10-20-99 3-17-04 8 7 Preliminary Plat Plans -Sheets 1, 3 and 5 of 5 3-12-02 3-17-04 3 8 Fees Associated with application 3-17-04 1 9 Preliminary Plat Plan -Reduced -Sheet 3 of 5 3-12-02 3-17-04 1 10 Preapplication Conference Waiver Request 3-17-04 1 ll E-Mails to Bonsell from Gladstein re: originals and confirmation of address 3-26-04 2 12 Request for review -Public Works 3-17-04 1 13 Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: acknowledgement of application 326-04 1 14 Routing Slip 3 -17-04 1 1S Corres to Knoop (Health District) from Bonsell re: revised well location etc. 3-30-04 1 RUE09800 Michael Olson Page 1 of 3 Compiled 9-30-04/Amended 10-14-04 and12-2-04 1G Corres to Olson from Gladstein re: complete application 4-9-04 1 17 Notice of Application 4-17-04 8 18 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Application 4-21-04 i 19 Certificate of Posting of Notice of Land Use Action 4-27-04 4-27-04 1 20 Corres to Bonsell from Mattson re: comments and concerns 4-27-04 4-29-44 1 21 Report from Wetland Advisory Committee 5-13-04 5-11-04 3 22 Mitigation Plan .for Proposed Riperian Buffer Encroachment (Myers Biodynamics) 7-29-04 8-3-04 13 23 Memorandum to Wetland Advisory Committee from Bonsell 8-4-04 1 24 Withdrawal and Reissuance of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with attached Environ:naental Checklist 8-9-04 15 25 Corres to Bonsell from Mattson re: additional comments 8-18-04 8-18-04 2 26 Notice of Public Hearing -Documentation 27 Case Activity Listing 9-29-04 1 28 STAFF REPORT with Attachments 9-29-04 50 29 Written Testimony from Vince Mattsan objecting to RUE qualification 10-14-04 10-14-04 1 30 Order Reopening Record and Reconvening Record 11-3-04 11-03-04 2 RECORD REOPENED ON 12-2-04 31 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner from Bonsell re: responses to Order 12-2-04 12-2-04 2 32 Plat Map (Adam & Goldsworthy, Inc.) 3-20-03 12-2-04 1 RLJE09800 Michael Olson Page 2 of 3 J Compiled 9-30-04/Amended 10-i4-04 and12-2-04 33 Corres to Olson from Browne Engineering re: 11-30-04 12-2-04 3 cost estimate for water line installation 34 Corres to Olson from Kastens (Myers 14-20-99 12-2-04 8 Biodynamics Inc.) re: slope evaluation 35 Cover letter from Olson re: request for 12-2-04 2 information RUE09800 Michael Olson Page 3 Of 3 RECONVENED HEARING NO ~ ~:S RECONVENED HEARING: December 2, 2004 (ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: October 14, 2004} FILE: RUE 09800 MICHAEL OLSON EXAMINER: Meredith A. Getches PARTIES PRESENT: Michael Olson (Applicant) 9955 Lofgren Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer DEPT. REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Bonsell, Planner Dept. of Planning and Community Development, City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave. N Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Witnesses: Vince Mattson 9651 Green ,Spot Place Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Public Hearing reconvened at 10:00 a.rn. Tape Count Speaker ID Topic/Subiect Summary Tape 1: 0000 HEX Introductory Remarks re: reopened hearing and record for additional information. Exhibit 30 entered: Order reconvening and reopening record. Exhibit 31 entered: Memo to HEX from Bonsell re: response to HEX requests for info. 0053 Bonsell 0075 HEX Exhibit 32 entered: Plat. Map 0177 Bonsell Explanation of DPCD recommendations re: water line. Definition of "Reasonable." 0312 Olson Interpretation of RLJE. Exhibit 33 entered: Construction cost information. 0414 Bonsell Discussion of specifications of water line pipe. OS00 Olson Discussion of construction costs. Bonsell Public Works information re: slope and slope stability. 0690 Olson Discussion of slope stability. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 1 of 2 0755 Bonsell=~ ' Os07 olson Hearing recessed at 10:35 a.m. Hearing reconvened at 10:40 a.m, Reference to Road ~ _andards. Discussion of slope in re: SUB. 0890 Mattson Professional qualifications; opinion re: stability of roadway slope. Olson/Mattsan Discussion of opposition to proposal; slope standards; statements made in previous hearing. 1089 Olson Comments re: previous appeal of SEPA conditions. Bonsell Discussion of findings. 1355 Olson Exhibit 34 entered: ,Slope Evaluation by Myers Biodynamics 10-20-99. 1534 O1son/Bonsell Discussion of slope evaluation and location of water line. 1608 Olson Exhibit 32 marked to indicate banks of ravine. Discussion of ravine. 1671 Olson Explanation of risks to stream through destabilized slope. 1793 Bonsell Definition "unreasonable". Discussion of alternatives, associated costs and environmental risks. 2140 Bonsell Department position re: potential development. Olson Discussion of existing water line on south route. Exhibit 3S entered: Cover letter from Olson. The recon vened public hearing was adjourned and the record was closed at 11:25 a.m. Hearing Notes RUE09800 -Olson Page 2 of 2 +.;_ ~~- HEARING NOTES HEARING DATE: October 14, 2004 EXAMINER Meredith A. Getches PARTIES PRESENT: Michael Olson (Applicant) 9955 Lofgren Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Witnesses: Vince Mattson 9651 Green Spot Place Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Public Hearing convened at 1:32 p.m. iJc'Ll~ •. , FILE: RUE 09800 MICHAEL OLSON ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer DEPT. REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Bonscll, Planner Dept. of Planning and Community Development, City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave. N Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tape Count Speaker ID Topic/Subject Srnnmaiy Tape 1: 0000 HEX Introductory Reanarks, description of application and procedure. 0126 Bonsell Introductions 01son 0143 HEX Decision procedure. 0180 Mattson Testiixrony in objection to RUE; does not qualify {EXHIBIT 29). 0207 Bonsell Chronology of associated Subdivision application and Hearing Examiner's Decision. Star recommendations. Description of site and location of stream. 0583 Olson Additional information re: stream. Reasons for application. Discussion of topography, comparative costs of stream ]acatian versus roadway location. 0710 Information regarding well site, existing water supply, age of existing house, water line route and slope. 0820 HEX Discussion of Cade language in re: RUE. 0850 Olson Discussion of interpretation of RUE. Hearzng Notes RUEf}98Q0 -Olson gage 1 of 2 Name CITY OE BAINBRIDGE E~ ND ~SEARINO EXAMIN in the Matter of: SON REASONABLE USE EX.CEPTIOI~T (IiUE a 00 A.M• OL G DATED 12-2 04 @ ~CQ~NED PUBLIC SEAS Address e ~u Phone ~~ ~ Z .-,mil ~- ~ ¢Z ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ I would like to speak Y would like future notices ~B~GE IS~,AND CITY ~ ~~~ -E~AI'v1Il~~`T~ ~ atter ofo In the ~ jJE09S0~) .~,Cep~.on ~ le Us~ATE.p ~~-X4..04 . xZeasonab ` , o a ~~ g~B.~I~ -gEA,RIN'~ I ~,ould life to ~7eak '~]~ 411 ~d~CeSS ~' ~Mla~" ~ 21me .~~ I .~,onld like futn~e n°~lces J