THE SUMMIT AT BLAKELY HARBORCITY CLERK
CITY OF BAINBRII~E ISLAND FEB 2B
HEARING EXA~R
SUPPLEME~AL ~NDINGS, ~NCLUSION~
~D ~O~DA~ON
ON ~MA~
In the Matter of'the Application Of
JOHN Gg]glgN DgVIgt. OPMIgNT SUBII201
& CONSTRUCTION LIX~
for preliminary plat approval to subdivide
prol~rty known as Summit at Blakely Harbor
Introduction
The City Council rernandod this matter to the Hearing ELxaminer for further proceedings,
TI~: hcarin$ was reConvened and the record reopened for the receipt of additional
information and analysis. Parties represented at the remand hearing were the Director,
Phnning and Community Development 1)c~rt~ ~partment). by Joshua Ma~hen,
Associate Planner, and the Applic~.nt, John Green of John Gre~ Development and
~on LLC, by Charles E. Madueil, attorney-at-law. Exhibits were added to the
record [soe Finding 9], a~ was the testimony of wimesse, s called by the Director and the
Applicant and the commas made by several members of the public [sec Finding 42].
The record was closed with the close of the hearing.
For the purposes of this recommendation, all section numbers refer to the Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code (BIMC or Code), as amended, unless otherwise indicated.
Af~ duc consideration of all the information pressed at the remand hearing and
previously in thc record, the following shall constitute thc supplcn~atal finalities,
conclusion~ and reconunendation of the Hearing Examiner in response to the Council's
remand.
Irmdings
1. The Applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 62,-aere paroel imo
25 single-family residential lots (known as 'Summit at Blakely Harbor'). Th~ property is
zoned R-0.4, allowing one unit per 2.5 acres. The original application was filed with the
SUBI I~01 Rc~land
Page I of 12
City of Bainbridge Island (City) on June 6, 2001 [Exhibit 5] and has been r~vised several
tim~. Using a flexible lot d~ign, 25 lots would be clust~'ed in four node~ to be
developed in 'phases": Phase K, 6 lots; Phase I1, 8 lots; Phase ilK, 7 lots; and, Phase IV, 4
lots. The lots would range in siz~ from slishtly larger than 20,000 square fcc-t, to over
34,000 ,square feet. ['Exh~it 145A] The clustered lots would occupy 20% of the site,
leaving 80% in open space [Exhibit 272, page 13].
2. The site is rotated and consists of varied terrain, including s~ec'ply sloping hillsides
attd ravines. There are three wetlands that, in total, occupy approximately 10% of the
property and there are also three regulated streams. [Exhibit 272, pages 9 and 10].
3. The subject propea'ty is undeveloped except for a water main extension and
accompanying maintenance road that was constmctnd several years ago by Island Utility
acrc~,~ the southern end of the property (extending west from Fort Ward Hill Road, east to
Toe Jam Hill Road. Island Utility sought and received a Reasonable Use Exc~on
(RUE 06-30-99-1) for this construction_ The construction included filling of 760 square
fe~ of wetlam:I and 300 square feet of wetland buffe~. [Exhibit 272, pagel0; Exhibit 321:
Exhibit 351 ].
4. This applicant was also roquirnd to apply for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE 03-
10-99-1) in order to improve (grade and pave) the existing waterline maimenance road
for use as an access road within the ~sbdivision. The RUE also was requi~ed to plac,~ a
stormwater transmission line and energy dissipater within a Class IV stream buffer.
[Exhibits I IK 12K and 32L ]
5. The Director issued a SEPA Mitigated D~tr, sm~nation of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
on May 7, 2003 [Exhibit 247] and the Staff Report and recommendation regarding the
subdivision and RUE applications on June 17, 2003. The Director recommended that the
RUE and the subdivision be approved with conditions. [Exhibit 272]
6. The South Ridge Homeowners Association and the Fort Ward Neighborhood
Association appealed the SEPA threshold determination [Exhibits 262 and 264]. Those
spp~als were considered by Heating Examiner pro tern Robin Baker at the public heating
igld for the subdivis/ou appti~ttion and the RUE. That hnarin8 began on June 30, 2003
and oeminued on J'uly 18, 2003.
7. The Examiner's Decision (on the SEPA appeal and RUE appti0ation) and
P, ggommendatioa (on the subdivision application) was issued on Octoher 14, 2003. The
Examine~ affirmed the MDNS. approved the RUE with conditions, and recommended
that the City Council approve the subdivision with conditions [see ExaminePs Deelsion
and Recommendation].
8. The City Council considered the rggommendation regarding the ~abdivision at its
meetings on November 12, November 21, Dee, ember 4, and Dec, ember I1, 2003. The
Council determined that the matter should be refert'~d back to the Heating Examiner for
further proceedings as is anthoriz~d by BiMC 2.16.110. [Exhibit 357]
SUBII201 Rmrsand
Pag~ 2 of 12
9. On January 24, 2004, notice of lh¢ remand haarin8 and opening of the record was
properly siren [Exhibit 359]. At the h~,rin8 on February 12, 2004, Exhibits 321 lhroush
371 were added to the record. The testimony given by witnesses called by the Director
and the Applicant [Maahen, Green, Du~ker] was also added to the record, as were the
comments made by members of the public [see Finding 42].
10. The remand heaxin8 dealt exclusively with the questions and concerns included in
the City Council's letter of remand. Six subjeas were identified in the remand letter:
density ~lit for wetlands; Osprey nest; minimizing ironers; we~ma mitigation: se~ie
systeuts; and, road width, retaining walls and guard mils. [Exhibit 3571 ('Significant
Trees' had been mentioned in a dmR version of'the remand, but waa not included in the
final version and consequently was not a subject considered at the remand heating.)
Density, Credit for Wetl._ands [see Remand, Exhibit 357, PaSes
! 1. Exhibit 321 is a duplicate of the RUE 06-30-99-1 file. A complete copy of the
Depamnent's Staff Report (as reque~ed by the Council remand) is now included in the
record as Exhibit 345. The Council remand asked if this Staff Report contained language
consistent with that used in RUE 03-10-99-1 (i.e., "...This RUE and the subseouent
waterline and roadway will facilitate future development of i'_he__~__~., in a manner that is
consistent with its R-0.4 designation." ) In the diacuasion of RUE decision criteria, the
Staff'Report for RUE 06-30-99-I [Exhibit 345. page 9, Item viii] includes the following
similar lansxxase:
This RUE and the subsequent waterline will facilitate future development
of the area in a manner consistent with its R-0_4 designation_ However, if
in the future, the maintenance road is replaced with a more substantial
road and the crossings have to be expanded to at:~ommodate the
expansion, a new RUE will be required to review the associated impacts.
12. The StaffReport for RUE 06-30-99-1 [Exhibit 345, Pa8e 7], in the section pertainin8
to policies regarding expansion of existing water systems, includes the following
language regarding the purpose of the waterline extension.
The proposed waterline and related extensions will serve a substantial
portion of the Port Blak¢ly Tree Farm...ln addition, the waterline will
serve the existing residences located on the Restoration Point Count~
Club property. With this waterline exteasion, the residences, both existing
and future, will be served by a water system instead ofindividual wells.
13. The Director used the "density credit' allowed by BIMC 16.20.090 to calculate that
the maximum density for the proposed subdivision is 25 lots [Exhibit 272, page 24].
There was no question raised in the remand about the accuracy of the calculation.
~'~81120!
Pag~ 3 ~12
However, the correctness of including thc density credit was questioned because BIMC
16.20.090(CXi) [see Fi.xling 047] has a proviso that the density credit may be used only
if eaece are 'no direct impacts to the wetlan~v em the required huffer~ ~ lfthere are direc~
impacts to the wetlands or thc required bufl~s, then thc density calculation should not
include the dmsity 0redit.
l& Tho drainage plans for the subdivision Isle Exhibit 364] show that no stormwater
w~ld be discharged directly into thc wetlands or the required wetland buffer. All
stormwater runoff from impervious aurfae, es would be collected in a drainage system
(tightline roof drains, cate. h basins, etc.) outsid~ of thc wetlands and the required wetland
buffer and conveyed to detention facilities with controlled discharge. The stormwater
from thc four lots in Phase IV wo~ld be discharged on the norlh side of Stormy Weather
Road; this discharge (via spreader in rdmllow bed of pea gravel) would not be located in
thc wetland or the roquired buffer. ['ExMbits 364, 367; T~stimony of Maehcnl
15. The Direotoes Sanuaty response to thc remand [Exhibit 367, page 1} includes the
statement that, 'the Director has determined that thc nc-w proposed road, within the ~arne
construction prism as the waterline and waterline nmintenan~ road does not have direct
impa~ts to thc wetland.' As clarified by the Director at the remand hearing [Testimony
of Mac, hen], direct impacts are tho~e that produc~ a physical change. Thc filling,
alteration, or other physical disturlmm~ of the wetland and wetland buffer that ocgurred
during thc construction of thc waterline and m~i~ltealanee road were direct impacts. Th~
impacts fi'om that construction [se~ Exhibit 321], undertaken by a different applicant,
lqave already occurred [see Finding 3]. Tbe proposed improvements, occurring on top of
the existing roadway, would not have direct impaots to the wetland or the wetland buffer.
16. The Examiner's Decision and Recommendation, inolude$ a Finding [#15] that the
proposed roadway improvements 'will not create any new dire~t impacts to the wetland
or its buffer.'
17. Thc grass-covered maintenance road currently ha~ very little traffic. Further, the
povioos nature of the roadway allows for whatever small amount of' vehicle-related
pollutants from that Waffle to be fiite~d out before the nmoff reae..hes the wetland.
paved and used for residential access, the roadway would have substantially greater
amounts of vehicl~-rditted pollutants. This could result in a direot impact if' stormwater
~om the paved surfae, e went dir~tly into the wetland or the wetland buffer. The filter
strips in¢ludod along the roadway wo~ld filter out the pollutants from the runoffbefore it
eaters tie wCdaed buffer, thus avokling that direct impact.
~Osp~y Nest [s~ Remand, Exhibit 357, pages :Z
18. An Osprey nest has hc~n idoatified on the adjoining propeaW to the east of tho
subject pr0lgrpd [Exhibits :250, 261,321].
lO. The Critical Areas portion of the Cocl~, at BIMC 16.~20.060(D), directs that
#activities~ allowed in 'habitat aregv~ must be "cogsi,gtent w~th the Delmrtment
SUB! ~ 2o ~ Roaand
Page4 of 12
~ldlife pri~,y and ~e. condary priori~, ~bi~g a~ ~cies O'Hb~ ~e~e~
including *~bit~* of limited ~labili~ or hi~ ~lnerabili~ to alterati~. ,~ch as
cl~. ,~s ~ wetl~ "
20. ~hibit ~1 incl~s an e~t ~m t~ W~n~on ~m of Fish ~d
~ldlife ~FW) ~bli~on "M~t ~~io~ f~ W~n~n's
~ty H~i~s ~d S~i~', ~y I~1. ~s publi~tion ~in~
~elin~ for ~ ~ O~ n~ from April I to O~ 1 (i.e., t~ ~tiol
n~n8 ~6~). ~ ~i~lin~ al~ i~lude r~ng "~1 hum~ ~i~ti~" ~hin
~. of ~ active n~. ~M~ ~Om t~ WD~ [E~ibit 250] ~s this
gui~inc.
21. ~s ~bli~ion 'Managem~ R~mm~o~ for W~'s
H~a: Rich", ~ 1~7, i~lud~ a ~mme~on
a~i~ti~' ~thin ~ ~_ of a~ivc O~r~ n~s ~ "~n all ~ within a...2~
~us ~a ~." ~it 367, ~achm~ B. ~e 1693]
22. NOwS~A C~dit~ 33 of ~ ~in~s ~ision ~d ~d~ w~ld
~bit "~in8 ~ ~ ~n~i~ ami~ti~ ~n ~ f~ of ~ n~
ff~..,~ April I~ ~ July 15~".
23. At ~e r~ h~ng ~ Appli~ ~bmiu~ a pm~ "~r~ Ma~t
Pl~" ~bit 365] for ~ ~e~ pro~. ~ by a ~ifi~ ~idlife b~ in
F~ 2~, this pl~ p~d~ for two ~itat p~ion ~n~ to be ~lish~. A
~ ~n ~' w~ ~ t~ ~ ~hin 2~ ~. of t~ ~. In
tr~ ~ld ~ d~ ~ ~v~. Iff ~ 'S~ ~on
t~ 2~ ~, r~us to ~ ~ R~ ~ius of t~ n~ c~ng and ~
w~ld ~ limi~ to ~ ~e~ t* ~d A~ 1~. (~ to ~ B~C ~u~t
to ~ ~w~ ~nds in pl~ pr~ to ~on of ~y ~d~, &is PI~
includ~ ~ ~ion f~ ~ ~t~ ~nds ~ t~ ~ r~ys w~ch
t~) ~e A~ii~m ~ a~ ~o ~o s~e ma~gem~t ~ditions in ~e ~p~
M~ag~m P~n in lira of Non-SEPA C~iti~ 33 in t~ E~minffs
R~mm~ion. ~ny of~, ~ ~]
24. ~ r~ ~e O~ey ~g~t PI~ and pmvid~ a
F~ i0. 2~ [Ex,bit 370]. ~s ~~ ~ ~t t~ ~ P~ty
H~it~ ~d S~i~ ~~t~s ~ "~ only ~ ~e ~i~ ~ 1~1
j~iMi~io~ ~or ~ w~ ~n8 to ~ ~ h~ ~ ~...'
~ t~ ~ p~ "for the ~ ~ r~ire l~ ~ffcr di~n~..." t~n tho~
i~l~ in ~ r~~. S~fic to t~ O~r~ ~8e~ P~ P~ for
to t~ ~ ~ n~" ~ t~ t~ ti~ng ~s ~
'~fio~y ~ a~ ~t~al di~n~ to br~ing o~r~." ~ ~nsi~
SUB11201 Rona~l
Page 50~ 12
and noise barrier from the future dev¢lopmcn[") to bc imperative and ~commends
including grand fa/Pacific silver fir within the proposed planting plan.
25. The Osprey is not included in thc WDFW's latest list of Priority Habitats and
Spmies. [Exhibit 369; Testimony of Machen and Ducker]
Minimizing_ Imvacts [see Remand, Exhibit 357, page 3]
26. According to the wildlife biologis~ who prepzr~l the 'Wetland Buffer Mitigation
Plan" for the RUE, the road paving and future use "will not directly disturb the wetland
or it's buffer and will not increase the area previously dismrhed" by the construction of
thc waterline and maintenancz road ['Exhibit 128, pngcl]. Direct impact on thc wetland
and the wetland buffer would be avoided by restricting roadway improvements to within
the same *pti.sm' as the existing road. Impacts to thc wetland and the wetland buffer
from the added impervious surface and the increased use of the roadway would be
avoided by filtering out pollutants from the stomawatcr runoff. [Exhibit 367, page 2;
Testimony o£Machen]
27. The Dirccto~ notes that the following measures would minimize thc 'negative
impacts" of the road improvement and use and that no additional me, ama-~$ are necessary
to minimize the impacts [Exhibit 367, page 2 and Attachments E and F; Testimony of
Machen].
o S_EP..~A_Coadition 5: Kequires compliance with City-approved erosion
and sedimentation control plan to prevent degradation of surface water
* SEPA Condition 9: Requires consa~uction staging areas to be locatad
outside critical areas and their buffe~s and requires construction fencing or
silt fencing adjacent to critical area buffers prior to any clcaring in thc
vicinity of critical arca~
- SEPA .(~.g_mditlou 12: Rcqui£cs a Water Quality Monitoring Program to
ensure that degradation of water quality would be detected and subject to
appropriate corrective action as directed by the City Engineer.
- .~:P___A Condition 16' Requires that the wetland buffer mitigaxion be
completed with the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan dated OctoScr 2001
[~hibit
* SEPA Condition 17: Requires monitoring of thc wetland buffer
restoration, with annual repo~s to the CRy.
~, Redu~ion of the oavcmcnt width: Thc width of Stormy Weather Road
and Yankee Girl Road will be decreased from 18
W~am;l_M. :ttigation [see Remand, ]8xhibit 357, page 4]
28. In 2000, Island Utility received conditional approval for a Reasonable Usc Exc.~ption
[Exhibit 347] to permit coo.stt-a~ion of thc q'oc Jam Hill Water Main Extension" and
associated maintenance road through the subject property [s~c also Finding 3].
SUB11201
Page 6of 12
Mitigation measures were included to compensate for the anticipated imp~tets on the
wetland and buffer due to construction activities. [Exhibit 345, pages 2 and 3].
29. In the "Wetland and Stream Crossing Mitigation Plan" ~=xhibit 351] for RUE 06-30-
99-01, Island Utility proposed, due to the "significam la~k of appropriate areas for
~ of new wetland or enlmneement of thc existing one*, th~ it provide
mitigation by donating landscape service~. Specifically, the UtRi~y ~uggested that it
provide those se~ices to remove English Ivy from the 'Hgad of the Bay Park' in an
amount equivalent to the costs associated with wetland replacement m/ligation [Exhibit
351, page 4].
30. Island Utility has not c~pleted the mitigation measures required by the approval of
RUE 06-30-99-01 allowing for construction of the waterline and maintenance road. The
creation of replacement wetland and wetland buffer and thc replanting along the roadway
have not b~tt accumplished. [Exhibit 19A and Exhibit 367, Item 4; Testimony of
Mae, hen]
31_ Thc City has not initiated enforcement action against Island Utility to require it to
complete the mitigation measures artaehad to approval of RUE 06-30-99-01.
32. Conditions 16 and 17 of the Examiner's De~ision and Recommendation require
replanting in aecordanee with the 'Wetland Bufi~r Mitigation Plan' [Exhibit 128]
prepared by thc Applicant. Rather than to di.vupt the currently 'thriving' vegetaf0n of
the buffer, the Ptan calls for upland shrub plants to be planted adjacent to the roadbed ~o
create an additional vegetative layer. This would accomplish the roadside replanting
mitigation required with the approval of Island Utility~s RD'E 06-g0-99-01. [Exhibit 367,
Item 4', Testimony of Machen]
33_ Noting that the existing Categmy II wetland is 'relatively pristine", the Area Habitat
Biologist for WDFW has recommended that the required wetland mitigation not oootr on
site in order to avoid disturbance to that existing wetland and its forested buffe~. [Exhibit
19Al
34. At thc ~ hearing the Dirggtor idc'ntifind ~m area on the subje,~t propoW that
would be a potential location for raplac~m~at mitigation. This area, southeast of Yanke~
Girl road, between the designated buffer aM thc road, is proposed as olgn space aM
could be the location of replacement mitigation without tagessitating any alteration of
Phase I11 or IV Iot~ The Applicant indicated that he would allow this paxt of'the part of'
the property to be used in this manner. [Testimony of Machen and Green]
35. Ac, cording to the Examiner's Decision and Rocommend~ion [Finding 15 and
Conclusion 28], the Applicant for ti~ subj~ subdivision has agreed to complete the
mitigation measures 'required unde~ RUE 06-30-99-1'.
SUB t 12Ol Rcm~nd
Page 7 of 12
Sectic Systems [sec Remand, Exhibit 357, page 4]
36. In response to a request by the Director, thc Brcraerton=Kitsap County Health
Distri~ has clarified its requirements for the subject subdivision, The Health District
stales [Exlfibit 362] that: 1) lot siz: "mus~ be a minimum of 20,000 sq. R. with soil type
5'; and, 2) aa approved Building Site Application (BSA) for on-site sewage disposal is
required for each lot prior to final pla~ approval. The Health District cautions thai "high
groundwater tablc issucs# may result in some lots not being approved (i.e., fewer than thc
proposed 25 Iota could be dmteloged).
37. SEPA Condition 21 requires that an approved BSA bc obtained for each lot in a
phase prior to p/at approval for that phase. This duplicates the Health Department's
requirement noted in Finding 36.
Road Width_ lt~aining Walls and Guard Rails [sec Remand, Exhibit 357, pages 4 & 5]
35 The Applicant recently requested approval to reduce the width of internal roads
within thc subdivision from 18 feet to 12 fe,~t. Twelve fcc~ is thc City's minimum
standard for a road serving fewer than 20 lots. The City Public Works has approved the
request for 12 t~. paved widths (except for Stocmy Wcathcr Road ffrom Fort Ward Hill
Road to Yankee Girl Road, wherc it would be serving more than 20 lots). [Exhibir 367,
Attachments A, E, and FI
39. Thc narrower road widths refo'red to in Finding 38 is expected to also reduce thc
size of cat $1Op~ and the height ofsume retaining walls ['Exhibit 367 Item 6; Testimony
of Machen]. Thc Applicant terrified at the remand h~ing tha~ th~ h~ight of the retaining
walls would be about half that originally proposed and decorative blocks with planter
spac~ in thc top row would be used to achiew a more natural, less stark, appcaraacc,
[Testimony of Grc,:n]
40. Thc Applicant do~s not inteod to instil any guard rails. Guard rails would only bc
used where required by the Public Works Department for safco/reasons. [Exhibit 367
Rcm 6; Testimony of Machen]
41. In iisht of thc narrower road widths noted above, the additional condition included in
the Council's remand docs no~ appear to be necessary.
PUBLIC COMMla.n~i'~
4:2. The following members of the public gave tcsfimony about the proposed subdivision
at the remand hearing
~. Crary Tripp: Spoke in favor of thc proposal; expressed conccna over
thc septic systcm lot size requirements relative the large amount of
open space to be provided.
.~JB 11201 Rem~ld
Ron Lukc: Spokc abort Sunny Hill Creek (also call~J Pcttersson
Crcck) which h~ believes it flows onto the subject prol~. He
believes that the flow is restricted by a pa,~tially blocked or crashed
culvert located upstream fi~om thc mbject property. He specifically
requested that this proponem be made to ensure LI~ the culvert
that is located under the military fenc~ neaz the property boundary
is clair and unobstructed. (Mr. Luke also ,submitted a letter - see
Exhibit 361.)
e Christopher Snow: Spoke in support of mitigation plans and
~xpr~ssed ooncern about "RUE o'~p' (i.e., exception granted on
top of previous exccgtion - s~ his letter, Exhibit 277). Mr. Snow
also submitted a letter [F,x]hibit 371] fi.om Julie Kriegh.
· Portia Nalder: Spoke regarding on-going wetlands violations on
*connected prolgrties" and her belief that City Court011 should
investigate and correct personnel problems assoc4ated with thc
wetlamls violations situation.
GOL~ SI~CTIOtqS
43. Preliminary subdivision applications arc reviewed by the City Council in accordance
with the decision procedures described in BIMC ChalXer 2.16, using thc decision criteria
of BIMC 17.04.094.
44. BIMC :2.16.! l o0gXl) directs that whe~ taking an action on a land use application,
the City Council shall consider the following:
,~ The conten~v of the application;
b. '1~ minUl¢$ of at~ public hearing on tl~ applicrtt#t~ and arO, written
material ~tbtaitted as part of the public hearing proc~;
c. ~ recotata~ndation of the applicable department director;
d The re~omtaendalton oflt~e/w~trinfff _~___~_~iner; and
e. 7h~ d~cision criteria listed in each .vecti¢~
45. The Couacil's procedures, at BIMC 2.16.110(EX2Xd), provide that the Courgi| may
refer g matter "ba~ lo the hearing cxaminer for fitrther proceedings.'
46. The decision criteria for subdivision approval, BIMC 17.04.094, are considered in
detail in the Conclusions se~ion of the Examineffs Decision and Recommendation.
47. BIMC 16.20.090(CX1) provides that when calculating permitted density:
~ director shall not allow crcdd/for ~nsily/for lhe portion of the site
cn:c~pied by regtdated wetlands except m the R-0. 4 zone, where complete
de~i(y a~'edit is allowed for ~gulated wetlatnffs occupying #p to 20
percent of ihe total site; provffdea~ that there are no ~rect impac~v to the
wetland.~ or requited btt~er$... (emphasis added)
5UBi1201 Remand
Pa~ 9 of 1.2
48. Regarding standards to be applied to Critical Areas, BIMC 16.20.060B provides that:
...Activities allowed in fi.~ and wildlife habitat orea~ shall be cor~i.~'tent
with the Department of Wildlife primary and secondary priority habitat
and species (PIIS) managemeat rect~nmendation~ for species located
there...
49. BIMC 16.20.020(14) includes ~habitats of limited availability tm h~gh vulnerability
to al~ralion~ such as cliffs, streams and wetland;# in thc definition of "l.'i,~h and wildlife
habitat '.
Conclmiom
1. Thc llcari~g F, xamine~ has the jufi~i~iofl ~ ~ ~h~ p~ings u~
r~ ~m t~ Ci~ C~I. ~ h~ ~ ~s m~ w~ ~o~y
· e ~ ~,
~nsitv Cr~i~oLW~la~s
2, T~ ~ in ~ r~rd m~ t~ ~usion ~ ~ ~r~ im~ to ~ w61~ or
w~l~ ~ff~ wo~ ~ as a ~lt oft~ pm~
d~ imps ~t ~ ~th ~e ~aion of ~e wahine ~ t~ minten~
r~ ~e n~ im~ of this ~o~1.
3. ~ d~sity cr~it ~ ~ ~ly ~pli~ ~e ~ tM ~t~a in BIMC
16.20.~C~1) ~e ~ (Le., m ~ R~.4 ~ ~ no di~ i~ to thc ~ or
w~d ~ff~).
4, ~ t~ ~ ~ I~g ind~ t~ Os~ ~ a 'p~y ~i~', the isme of
~ Mtb ~ ~lines for ~b~ ma~g~ ~uk~ by BIMC 16.20.06~D)
is likely ~. In ~ ~. ~ t~ '~mi~t' is
~idelin~ ~ ~ in ~ ~. Ofv~tlm ~ph~ion w~ i~, a m~o~
b~ for ~ ~r~ ~ by r~ri~ing ~ally di~ ~i~ ~ ~u~n8
~ di~ ~ fimin8 limi~ns,
5. ~ ~n~ by ~s ~or~ thc p~
~ibk 365] ~ ~ eff~ve ~ ~ist~t ~h ~ ~id~es.
of ~ ~ ~fi~ O~ ~d s~ld ~ i~l~
SLIB 11201 Remand
Pagc IO of 12
6_ Thc numerous conditions recommended in the ~min~'s ~ision ~d
~m~ion [~ Fi~ing 2~ ~fi~te to minimizing ~t~tJal "n~tiw imp~"
0f~ im~em~t ~ u~ orating r~d. AI~, wi~ t~ ~ion of the ~d~ oft~
i~ r~ ~e ~ld a ~n~ r~u~on in t~ si~ ~ ~ ~j~ slo~
am~t of im~ua ~ff~ ~ height r~ning w~l~ ~. As ~Rion~, thc
~ w~ld m~imi~ tM ~ai 'n~ive im~' ~ impr~em~ ~d ~ of
~i~ing r~d; ~ ~difional mRi~fion p~ ~s m ~ ~.
W~l~d Mitigali~
7. Isled Ihility, ~t ~is Appli~ b r~siblc for ~mpl~ing t~ initiation
m~s inclu~ ~ ~Mons ~th t~ ~l ofR~ ~3~1. %is Appli~
~t ~ r~ to ~e t~ miti~ti~ ~uir~ for R~
H~, ~m of t~ im~ mRi~fion w~ld ~ achi~ ~ ~is Appliom
impl~i~ ~e W~ Buff~ Mi~i~ Plan [~hibR laR} ~ ~ ~ld ~ a
~dition of ~ro~l.
~c Sv~s
g. %~e is no ~ W ~d w~ii~s) r~ding K~p C~y H~th Di~s
r~ ~nimum I~ si~ ~ve ~ u~ ofon-sit~ ~tio ~ms, All ~
~ ~ m~d ~nimum r~ui~ bt ~ ~ ~h lot ~11 ~ w~ider~ i~ividu~ly
w~ the ~ta ~e ~t. ~ t~ lot r~ion wuld ~R in rare lots
R~ W~& ~ning Wa}Js a~ ~d ~ils
9. ~¢ w~s e~d~t in ~¢ C~Fs ~ r~d~ ~nimizing
~n ~&~ by ~ng ~ width of t~ im~ r~s. A ~Rion ~ing
~aion in r~ ~d~ a r~u~m~t ~ld ~n~re t~ r~Rs ~t.
Reeommendation
The Hearing Examiner recommtmds that the application of John Green I~vclopmcnt and
Consimaion LLC fo~ preliminary plat approval for the subdivision known as "Summit at
Blakcly Harbor', be ~ovgo wnm contortions recommended in thc Hearing
Examiner's Deoision and Recommendation of O~t~ i 4, 2003, as modified below.
'-fderedith A. G~h~ ~]
I-I,~ring Examine'pro tern
$U811201 Rema~
~EPA ComJitions
16A. 13et-ateen October 15 a~ M~ch 31 follo~n~l~ion of th~
r~ im~s. t~ ~ al~g t~ rom s~ll
with ~e ~ ..... ,-~ ~--~ ~n t% .a~. · . ~.~
Buff~ Miti~ioa P~ [~t 13R1. to ~tis~i~ of thc 0jt~or.
21, ~ to ~ pl~ ~o~ of any p~ approv~ flora the Kk~p
C~ H~Ith Di~ct ~g ~ ob~ for i~i~d~ on-site ~tic
sy~ d~i~s for ~ lot in th~ ~.
r~nfl~ to ~n tach ~l. the r~nfi~m6on
~hin tho ~,-a~6cs oftk ~0oli~ble o~ ~d
I~ tha~ 20.~. ~e f~ in 6~. R~ion ~ ~lt in f~,
~ ~t mom I~ ~ c~h v~_t~ the ~m~ not~ in ~ Findina
No~= SEPA Conditions
33. In order to prote~
~nl to t~ ~ the A~li~nt sMll incl~¢ ~ fir~c silv~ fir
~ ~c
~i~ion of thc
52.
~orov~ by the ~b!J9
mini~z~ ~ ~ls ~hMI ~ ~ only ~r~ ~ t~ ~blic
5UBI t201 Remnnd
Pag~ 12 oCl2