STONECRESS LLC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDA nON
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
STONECRESS LLC
SUB 13690
for preliminary plat approval for a
subdivision known as "The Hamlet"
Introduction
Stonecress LLC has applied for preliminary plat approval for "The Hamlet", a five lot
subdivision. The Director has conducted environmental review and recommends
approval of the subdivision, subject to numerous conditions. The public hearing was held
on May 5, 2005 and the parties were represented as follows: the Director, Planning and
Community Development Department (pCD or Department), by Thomas Bon sell,
Planner, and the Applicant, Stonecress LLC. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site
visit and closed the record on May 5,2005. The record was reopened on June 2,2005 for
clarification of the relationship between this subdivision and the Stonecress development
and information on how the proposed open space would be maintained. The parties
requested additional time for this submittal; the request was granted. The record
remained open until July 5, 2005. Exhibits 81 and 82 were submitted while the record
was reopened and they are hereby made a part of this record.
For the purposes of this recommendation, all section numbers refer to the Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code (BIMC or Code), as amended, unless otherwise indicated.
Recommended Conditions comprise the Appendix A found at the end of this document.
Appendix B is the list of exhibits in the record and Appendix C are the minutes taken at
the public hearing.
After due consideration of all the information in the record, including that presented at
the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner in this matter.
Findings
SITE DESCRIPTION
1. The subject property (Assessor's Account numbers 232502-3-080-2005 and
232502-3-080-2004) is undeveloped and consists of 2.96 acres located northwest of and
adjacent to the intersection NE High School Road and Ferncliff Avenue NE. The site is
SUB 13090
Page 1 of32
rectangular in shape with a north-south dimension of 630.70 feet fronting Femcliff
Avenue and an east-west dimension of 233.13 ft. fronting High School Road. [Exhibit
60, Sheet 3; Exhibit 74, Staff Report, page 1]
2. The legal description [Exhibit 60, Sheet 1] for the subject property is:
Lot B and Open Space Tract 2 ofthe Stonecress Short Plot recorded under
Kitsap County Auditor's File Nos. 200408030014 and 200408030015, in
Volume 18, of Short Plats, Pages 80-84, situate in the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 2 East,
W.M., Kitsap County, Washington.
3. The entire site is forested and gently sloping, with one area (in the southwest
quadrant of Lot B, north of the Open Space tract) having slopes of 15%-200.10. A
Category ill wetland has been identified and delineated in the middle of the subject property
[see Finding 12]. The 0.75 acre wetland is located in the northern portion of Open Space
Tract 2. [Exhibit 60, Sheet 3; Exhibit 65, page 7; Exhibit 74, Staff Report, pages 7-8]
4. Site vegetation includes of western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and
red alder. The wetland is a mosaic of forested and scrub shrub vegetation classes: canopy
of red alder and red cedar; understory dominated by salmonberry; small hummocks and
downed logs host Sword fern, evergreen huckleberry and salal; Spiraea dominating the
scrub shrub; and, herbaceous groundcover dominated by stinging nettle and "youth-on-
age". [Exhibit 16, pages 1-3; Exhibit 63, pages 3-6]
5. Woodland Village, a recently developed 27-unit single family subdivision, is
directly north of the subject property. The lots appear to be approximately 5-6,000 sq. ft.
To the west is the Stonecress Condominiums (44 units and a 2.25 acre open space tract)
developed in 2002 with the Stonecress Short Plat which created the subject parcel.
Single family residences predominate to the east across Ferncliff Avenue. [Exhibit 74,
Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 82; Testimony of Smith]
6. The property is zoned is R-2 (one unit per 20,000 sq. ft.) and the Comprehensive
Plan designation is OSR-2, open space residential, two units per acre. Surrounding
zoning includes R-2.9 to the north, R-8 to the west, R-2 to the east, and R-8 and High
School Road I to the south. Comprehensive Plan designations include OSR-2.9 to the
north, R-8 to the west, R-2 to the east, and R-8 to the south. [Exhibit 9; Exhibit 20;
Exhibit 74, Staff Report, page 1]
APPLICATION
7. An application for the "The Hamlet" subdivision was filed on December 2,2004.
The original application [Exhibit 20 and Exhibits 12 and 13] proposed six residential lots.
A revised application was filed on March 17, 2005 [Exhibit 62]. The revised application
reduced the number of residential lots to five.
SUB 13090
Page 2 of32
8. The revised application [Exhibits 60 and 62] was the result of a new (March
2005) wetland delineation [see Findings 12 and 35] that determined the wetland to be
larger than previously thought. With the increased size of the wetland, the allowable
density was recalculated and the application revised to be a five lot subdivision. See
Finding 13.
9. The Exhibit 60, Sheets 1 through 4, and Exhibit 69 (replacing Sheet 5 in Exhibit
60) comprise the subdivision maps associated with the subject subdivision application.
PROPOSAL
10. The proposal calls for five residential lots in the northern third of the site and an
open space tract in the southern two-thirds. The open space tract includes a wetland and
wetland buffer, pedestrian paths with dedicated public access, and could have only the
uses allowed by BIMC 17.12.092.G (passive recreation, low impact fencing, removal of
invasive plants, storm drainage, etc.) [Exhibit 15; Exhibit 60; Testimony of Bonsell;
Testimony of Smith]
Proposed Lots
11. The proposed residential lots would range in size from 6,899 sq. ft. to 10,003 sq.
ft. Lots 1-4 would have rectangular shapes and Lot 5 would have an irregular, "flag"
shape (see Exhibit 66 for lot descriptions and sizes). [Sheet 4, Exhibit 60; Exhibit 74;
Staff Report, pages 10-13; Testimony of Bon sell]
AREAS
After Right-of-Way Dedication
Open Space Tmct
Residential Lot 1
Residential Lot 2
Residential Lot 3
Residential Lot 4
Residential Lot 5
Totals
88,600 sq. ft.
6,899 sq. ft.
6,366 sq. ft.
6,899 sq. ft.
6,366 sq. ft.
10.003 sq. ft.
129,134 sq. ft.
0.16 acres
0.19 acres
0.16 acres
0.19 acres
0.16 acres
0.23 acres
2.96 acres
Open Space
12. The 88,600 sq. ft. Open Space tract is approximately 67% of the total parcel
(before dedications) and includes a Category III wetland and wetland buffer of
approximately 42,900 sq. ft. [Exhibit 74; Staff Report, page 11]. The wetland has been
identified and delineated consistent with the requirements of BIMC 16.20.090. A
wetland delineation was originally made in 1991 [see Exhibit 7] and was revised in the
Wetland Analysis Report that was issued March 8, 2005 [Exhibit 63]. The recent
delineation marks a larger wetland (see current boundaries in Exhibit 61, Sheet 4, and
SUB 13090
Page 3 of32
original boundaries in Exhibit 13, Sheet 4). The wetland delineation was performed by
qualified professionals using the methodologies prescribed by Department of Ecology
and Corps of Engineers. The wetland boundaries were flagged in the field and then
surveyed.
13. The wetland delineation resulted in a revision of the subdivision application.
With the wetland boundaries changed and the buffer redrawn, the application was revised
to reflect the change in the density calculation (see Finding 36) establishing the allowable
number of lots as five, rather than the six originally proposed [Exhibit 60, Sheet 3]. (See
configuration of five lots in Exhibit 61, Sheet 4, and six lots in Exhibit 13, Sheet 4).
[Staff Report, Exhibit 74, page 13; Testimony ofBonsell]
14. Recommended Condition 12 would require that the northern and southern
boundaries of the wetland buffer be identified by a split rail fence and that signs identify
the east and west edges of the buffer. Recommended Condition 13 would prohibit the
use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides within the Open Space. Recommended
Condition 14 would require that the wetland and buffer be preserved in native vegetation
and would encourage that invasive/non-native plant species be removed and replaced
with native plants. Recommended Condition 15 would discourage removal of significant
trees from the Open Space tract without prior City approval by imposing fines requiring
replacement.
15. Consistent with BIMC 16.20.090, Recommended Condition 20 would require
future home construction on Lot 5 to observe a IS-ft. building setback from the wetland
buffer [see Exhibit 69].
16. An existing pedestrian trail crosses the Open Space tract east-west within the
northern portion of the wetland buffer (see Exhibit 60, Sheet 4). This trail was developed
with the Stonecress project and provides pedestrian connection from the Stonecress
condominium property to Ferncliff Avenue. At hearing it was observed that the mapped
location of the trail does not correspond with its actual location. The applicant clarified
that the trail was originally installed in the wrong location and has been moved 15-25 ft.
to the south to its present location. The revised application indicates that the trail is to
have a to-ft. wide "easement centered on the trail as built" [Exhibit 60, Sheet 4].
Recommended Condition 11 would require that the trail and easement location be
consistent with that shown in the revised application drawings. There is also an existing
north-south sidewalk along the Femcliff Avenue frontage [see Finding 27].
17. The proposal includes 1000,10 tree retention in the Open Space tract. This clearly
exceeds the requirement of BIMC 18.85.060 that 30% of the site's tree canopy be
preserved. Recommended Condition 15 would disallow removal of any significant trees
without prior City approval and impose fines and require replacement trees for violation
of the condition. [Exhibit 60, Sheet 4; Staff Report, page 11, Exhibit 74; Testimony of
Bonsell]
SUB 13090
Page 4 of 32
18. Public comments suggest a misunderstanding that this proponent had, as a part of
the Stonecress condominium and short plat proposal, had committed to leave the subject
property undeveloped. The information from the 2002 Stonecress land use decision
indicate that this commitment was not made and there was no co-mingling of allowable
densities between Lot A (Stonecress condos) and Lot B (the subject parcel). [Exhibit 81,
Project Report, page 16]
19. With the subject proposal there is a commitment for the preservation of the Open
Space tract and protection of the wetland habitat within it. The owners of proposed Lots
1 through 5 would be the owners of the Open Space tract and, through a Homeowners
Association, would be responsible for management and maintenance. The Open Space
Management Plan [Exhibit 81] is key to the future success of the open space. This plan
specifies what is allowed within the open space area (e.g., passive recreation, planting
native vegetation, removing invasive vegetation, etc.) and what is not allowed (i.e., no
building or other uses, no mechanized vehicles, etc.). The Hamlet Homeowners
Association would to be responsible for implementing the Management Plan and paying
for any costs associated with that implementation. The record here does not include a
draft of the Homeowners Agreement that would establish the association, its structure,
functions, and responsibilities.
20. The Open Space Management Plan does not include a clear expression that Open
Space Tract 1, consistent with the provisions of the Open Space Management Plan, is to
remain undeveloped open space in perpetuity and that the public trail indicated on Sheet
4 of Exhibit 60 is to remain open for the public to use consistent with the non-destructive
and proper uses specified. In light of past misunderstandings about the nature and future
of this open space, this clear expression should be added to "Purpose" section of the Plan.
21. With recordation of the Open Space Management Plan and the Homeowners
Association documents, future owners of proposed Lots 1 through 5 would be put on
notice as to their responsibilities for the maintenance and management of the Open Space
tract. To this end, both the Open Space Management Plan and all documents establishing
the Hamlet Homeowners Association should be recorded as part of the final plat and
available for review prior to the sale of any lot.
22. A 50-ft. wide landscape buffer, retaining existing vegetation) is proposed along
the Ferncliff Avenue frontage [Exhibit 74, Staff Report, page 10]. A landscape buffer is
also required along the proposed High School Road frontage, but has not been designated
(perhaps because that area is within the Open Space tract where no cutting would be
permitted). Recommended Condition 27 would require that the 50-ft. wide, "no-cut"
native vegetation buffer on both frontages be noted on the final plat map.
Infrastructure and Utilities
23. The Staff Report [Exhibit 74, page 7] refers to "two private driveways", each to
"serve three lots" [see Exhibit 13, Sheet 5]. That is, there would be two access points on
SUB 13090
Page 5 of32
Ferncliff: one near the north end, across from the intersection of Byron Drive with
Femcliff Avenue; the other, about 70 ft. to the south, at the boundary with the Open
space tract. The access driveways look like one, 20-ft. wide V-shaped driveway [see
Exhibit 69], but are considered two driveways because an emergency-only access barrier
(boUards removal by the Fire Department) is to be installed in front of Lot 3 so that only
Lots 1, 2 and 3 would be accessible from the northern access point; the southern access
point would serve only Lots 4 and 5 [see Exhibit 68]. This configuration appears to be
driven by the combination of the City's standard that new private access serve no more
than four residences [see City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards
and Specifications, 7-01 Design Requirements] and the proponent's desire to avoid
pavement to keep impervious surfaces to a minimum.
24. Recommended Conditions 9 and 24 would require that access be developed
consistent with City's standards for this type of access and be approved by the Fire
Department.
25. The driveways would have a 12 ft. wide driving surface primarily composed of
pervious pavers. On either side of the bollards, "between" the driveways, there would be
reinforced grass pavers [see Exhibit 68]. The pervious pavers and reinforced grass pavers
would allow absorption to reduce the rate of runoff (see Finding 28). (Exhibit 68]
26. The driveways at Ferncliff Avenue would widen to 24 ft. At hearing some
members of the public expressed concern that the sight distance at the northern access
point (across from Bryon Avenue) would be insufficient. The sight distance evaluation
offered by the applicant's engineer at hearing (Exhibit 79], indicates that the distance
would be sufficient for safe travel [Testimony of Wheeler].
27. An existing 5-ft. wide concrete sidewalk along the Ferncliff Avenue frontage
provides a pedestrian connection between High School Road on the south and Woodland
Village on the north. (At the Ferncliff Avenue and High School Road intersection, the
south end of this walkway connects to an east-west sidewalk along High School Road.)
These walkways were developed as part of the Stonecress project. To keep away from
the wetland, part of the sidewalk encroaches slightly into the Ferncliff right-of-way [see
Exhibit 60, Sheet 4]. No additional sidewalk improvements are necessary or proposed,
but a lOft. wide pedestrian easement centered on the sidewalk "as built", is included in
the proposal. Recommended Condition 23 would require a 5 ft. wide right-of-way
dedication along the length of the Ferncliff Avenue frontage.
28. The applicant intends to utilize "low impact development" technology to control
stormwater so that runoff from the site is at pre-development levels after development.
This is to be accomplished by protecting the native soils and vegetation. To do this, the
total amount of developed area would be minimized by "clustering" the homes in the
northern third of the site, using narrow driveways with pervious surfacing (rather than
having public streets that would be wider and paved), and having small building
envelopes on each residential lot ("footprint" of house and garage to be 1,500 sq. ft.
SUB 13090
Page 6 of 32
maximum). Also, the stormwater from the impervious surfaces would be routed to on-
site infiltration or bioretention features (swales, etc.) by roof drains on each residence and
dispersing footing drains at several locations. No part of the control systems would
channel stormwater to the wetland. As required by Recommended Conditions 7, 8, 22
and 26, stormwater control facilities would be designed in during the Building Permit
process to the satisfaction of the City. [Testimony of Smith; Testimony of Wheeler;
Exhibit 68]
29. City water and sewer is available to serve the subdivision (Exhibit 17]. A new
fire hydrant may be required (Exhibit 2].
PCD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
SEP A Review and Public Comment
30. PCD conducted environmental review on the proposed subdivision (the
application included an Environmental Checklist, see Exhibit 14). Notice of the SEP A
comment period was given on December 18, 2004 (Exhibit 27]. A number of concerned
citizens [Danzig, Exhibits 28,30,37 & 38; Scott, Exhibit 31; Reyes, Exhibit 32; Spence,
Exhibit 33; Jarecke, Exhibit 34; Eiseman, Exhibit 35; and, Scott, Exhibit 36] requested
that the comment period (December 18, 2004 to January 3, 2004], be extended. The
requests for extension were granted and, consistent with the extension provision of the
SEPA Ordinance, the comment period was extended 14 days, to January 17, 2005
(Exhibit 39].
31. In addition to the requests to extend the comment period, the Director received
written comments regarding the proposal. Generally all those making comment objected
to the proposal as too dense and were dissatisfied with the information available
regarding the wetland. The written submittals are part of the record in this matter and
each comment has an exhibit number to aid in review of specific concerns: Stephen
Hellriegel (Exhibit 29]; M. A. Proctor (Exhibit 42]; James S. Denlinger (Exhibit 43];
Kevin Stroman [Exhibit 44]; Vince Mattson [Exhibit 45]; Liz Taylor [Exhibit 46]; Carol
Wood (Exhibit 47]; Stephen Hayes (Exhibit 48]; Lois Andrus [Exhibit 49]; Jocelyn &
William Brent (Exhibit 50]; Behan & Jamie Gifford (Exhibit 51]; Mr. & Mrs. Reyes
(Exhibit 52]; Frances F. Korten [Exhibit 53]; Leatrice & Herb Eisenman (Exhibit 54];
Chad Campbell [Exhibit 55]; Chuck Depew [Exhibit 56].
32. The primary concerns expressed included the following:
· The wetland delineation is out of date, doesn't include effects of recent
developments; need new analysis done to current standards.
· Developer previously stated that this site would never be developed.
· Elimination of wetland would adversely affect neighboring properties.
· Egress proposed across from Byron Drive would be dangerous because it is at
the crest of a hill with inadequate line of sight.
SUB 13090
Page 7 of32
. The two egress points will be dangerous this close to High School Road
intersection.
. Object to further "deforestation". The trees in the southern portion of
Woodland Village will be exposed to prevailing winds putting them in peril
and posing threat to homes to the north.
· Trying to squeeze six lots into too small an area.
. The barrier in the access road isn't not needed or desirable and should be
eliminated.
· A traffic study should be required.
. The open space tract should be administered by subdivision's homeowners'
association.
. Pedestrian trails are not located where shown on plat map; no request has been
made to relocate trails.
· How can the narrow "grasscrete' roadway meet city standards?
33. The comments were all submitted prior to the new wetland delineation and prior
to the application being revised from six lots to five.
34. On March 18, 2005, the Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MONS) [Exhibit 59]. Notice of that decision was properly given. The
MONS was not appealed [Staff Report, page 1, Exhibit 74].
35. In response to public comments, a new wetland delineation was ordered (several
citizens had noted that the previous delineation was done in 1991 and that conditions had
changed considerably since then). On March 8, 2005, Wiltermood Associates, Inc.,
certified wetland consultants, issued a Wetland Analysis Report [Exhibit 63] for the
subject site. This new delineation provides accurate information about the wetland and
was prepared using the current standards. The new wetland delineation resulted in a
recalculation of allowable density (see Findings 12 and 36) and a revised application
seeking preliminary subdivision approval for five lots instead of six originally proposed.
Zoning and Land Use
36. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning provisions of BIMC
Chapter 18.30, for the R-2 zone. The two parcels of the subject site have a combined
total area of 132,083 sq. ft. To make the density calculation to determine how many lots
. are allowable, the wetland (13,600 sq. ft.) and buffer (29,300 sq. ft.) areas are subtracted
from the total and a buffer allowance (23,400 sq. ft.) is added to determine 112,583 sq. ft.
is the size to be used for the density calculation. [See calculation: Sheet 3 in Exhibits 60
or 61]. When the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size of the R-2 zone is applied, the result is
five allowable lots. [Exhibit 74, Staff Report, pages 10-13; Testimony of Bon sell].
37. The building envelopes shown on Exhibit 69 would meet the standard setback and
dimensional requirements [see Finding 59]: all lots would be at least 5,000 sq. ft., 50-ft.
wide at the minimum width, and Recommended Condition 20 would require: 10-ft.
SUB 13090
Page 8 of 32
minimum distance between buildings; 15-ft. minimum distance between buildings and
the subdivision boundary; 10-ft. minimum distance between buildings and the Open
Space tract boundaries; 15-ft. minimum distance between buildings and the wetland
buffer; and, 50-ft. minimum distance between buildings and Ferncliff Avenue. Further,
within the areas shown, the applicant proposes that the combined house and garage
"footprint" on each lot would be 1500 sq. ft. [Exhibit 69; Exhibit 74, Staff Report, pages
10-13; Testimony of Smith]
38. The flex lot standard ofBIMC 17.04.080.A.3.d would apply the 20% maximum
lot coverage limit in the R-2 zone (see BIMC 18.30.050) to the entire property and assign
a portion of the total to each lot created. (BIMC 18.06.650 defines "lot coverage" to
mean "that portion of the total lot covered by buildings, excluding eaves.'') As noted in
the Staff Report [Exhibit 74, page 10], this would allow coverage of 5,165 sq. ft. The
applicant indicates that coverage would be limited to 1,500 sq. ft. for house and garage
and the limitations imposed by Recommended Condition 20 would in effect prevent
coverage from reaching the maximum.
39. PeD concluded [Staff Report, page 9, Exhibit 74] that the proposed subdivision
would be consistent with the property's OSR-2 Comprehensive Plan designation because
"it has been designed to reflect the community character, while preserving trees along NE
High School Road and Ferncliff Avenue NE.. .lots are clustered... providing 69 percent
open space.. . the wetland is being protected. .. provider s] a pedestrian path.. ."
Recommended Conditions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 20 related to the aspects mentioned,
support this conclusion.
Review and Comment by Other Agencies
40. During its review of the application, PCD requested that City departments and
other concerned agencies review the subdivision proposal and provide comment. The
comments received by PCD are summarized below. Each comment has been assigned
the exhibit number noted, and all the comments are included in the record regarding this
application.
Dept/ Agency Exhibit
· Fire Dept. 23
76
Comment
Access must be to Public Works standards; must have
Public Works approval for the emergency-only access
barrier; new hydrant may be required.
Water & Sewer: Can be served by City water and sewer
(site is within City's current service boundaries and
service available in adjacent street).
Engineering: Required signs must be included;
stormwater collection and control must be
designed by licensed engineer and meet City;
standards; removable bollard (emergency-only
access barrier) must be coordinated with Fire Marshall.
· Public 17
Works
80013090
Page 9 of 32
41. The Public Works Department reviewed the subdivision proposal and sent a
memo [Exhibit 76] to the Director with comments. The Director relies on those
comments to conclude that the Public Works Department "has determined that the
proposal will not unduly burden the public road system" (Exhibit 74, Staff Report, page
9]. There is, however, no mention of this determination in the Public Works memo.
42. Given the small number of residences that would be developed here, it is unlikely
that any undue burden to the public road system could result, but preliminary subdivision
approval requires a Certificate of Concurrency. A concurrency test is required by BIMC
15.32.030A.l [see Finding 54] with preliminary plats for "subdivision of five or more
residential lots". This certification represents the City Engineer's determination that
traffic associated with the proposal can be accommodated by existing facilities; the
subdivision would not cause undue burden on existing transportation facilities.
Developments with less than 50 trips per day are exempt from the concurrency
requirement except for the applications noted in subsection A (which is quoted above).
No Certificate of Concurrency has been entered into this record. Without the
certification, the preliminary subdivision cannot be approved.
Director's Recommendation and Staff Report
43. The Staff Report regarding the subdivision application was issued on April 12,
2005. The Director recommends that the subdivision be approved with numerous
conditions [pages 2 through 6, Exhibit 74]. These conditions, modified by the Hearing
Examiner in response to information received during the hearing process, are in
Appendix A at the end of this Recommendation.
44. The Recommended Conditions (see numbers bracketed below) provide
appropriate mitigation and regulation as follows:
a. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with construction as
related to: erosion/sedimentation and runoff [3, 4, 6, 10]; air quality [5];
slope/soil stability [3, 10]; noise [18]; archaeological artifacts [21].
b. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with long-term
residential use of the site as related to: stormwater control [7, 8]; wetland
protection [12, 13, 14, 28, 29]; preservation of native vegetation and
significant trees [14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29]; schools [25]; light and glare [19].
c. Provision of: adequate vehicular and pedestrian access [9, 11, 23, 28,
29]; appropriate utility infrastructure and improvements [8, 22, 24, 26t
preservation and maintenance of landscape buffers [27, 28, 29];
compliance with zoning requirements and conditions of subdivision
approval [2, 20].
SUB 13090
Page 10 of 32
45. A Geotechnical Slope Evaluation [Exhibit 16] was prepared in 2002 in the course of
the review of the Stonecress short plat (see Finding 5). That report noted an area in the
subject site that has slopes of 15% or greater. These slopes are present in parts of proposed
Lots 3, 4 and 5 [Site Plan in Exhibit 16; Exhibit 60, Sheets 3 and 4]. No evidence of current
risk or recent or historic instability was found. The evaluation concludes that development
could occur without adverse impact using conventional earthwork and drainage/erosion
control practices.
Director's Conclusions
46. The Director correctly concluded that, as conditioned, the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable sections of the Bainbridge
Municipal Code, including: 16.20 (Critical Areas Ordinance), 17.04 (Subdivisions
Ordinance), and 18.30 (R-2 Zoning Ordinance). The Director recommends approval of
the preliminary subdivision subject to numerous conditions [Exhibit 74, Staff Report,
pages 2-6].
PUBLIC HEARING
47. After notice was properly mailed, posted, and published [Exhibit 75], the public
hearing on this subdivision was held on May 5,2005.
48. During the public hearing, the Department's representative testified regarding the
Staff Report and the Director's recommendation [Testimony of Bon sell; Exhibit 74] and
the applicant's representatives contributed information about the subdivision proposal
and the subject property [Testimony of Smith; Testimony of Wheeler].
49. The comments of those members of the public who gave testimony about the
proposed subdivision at the hearing, are summarized below:
Name
Comment/Concerns
· Lois Andrus
tract are not clear.
The mechanics of the public dedication of the open space
. James Denlinger The proposal is not in keeping with intent of Comp Plan for
this transitional area; questioned if ownership is the same for both parcels; access
( egress) locations dangerous; wetland analysis shows wetland goes to northern
boundary; questioned use of pervious pavers; doesn't believe there is true "plan"
for drainage; deforestation that will endanger neighboring trees in Woodland
Village (this includes cutting trees for homesites and grading near other trees so
as to damage roots; original trail easement should be retained. (See Finding 51.)
. Phillip O'Hartigen Is on the Board ofStonecress and is generally supportive of
proposal; concerned that drainage from residential development needs more
SUB 13090
Page 11 of32
analysis and should include swale on south side of roadway at the curve, to avoid
adverse runoff impact to wetland. (See Finding 52.)
· Linda Warren Given the slope and deep-seated drainage, the increased
density will result in increase in stormwater runoff and could aggravate landslide
potential in neighborhood.
· Vince Mattson The emergency-only barrier has no practicality; forces
people to turn around on private property
· Jocelyn Brent This will add to current hazardous traffic conditions (there
is on-going problem of people driving too fast, endangering school children).
Trees would be viable if this is not developed.
50. A comment letter (Exhibit 77] was submitted the day of hearing. In his letter
Chad Campbell: questions the Planning Department's handling of the wetland delineation
and asserts there is an inconsistency regarding the location of the northern boundary of
the wetland (Wiltermood says it goes to NW comer of property, but survey map shows it
about 60 ft. to the north)~ interprets Comp Plan Goal 9 as intending that the eastern part
of this property would remain undeveloped and believes clustering is out of character
along F erncliff; questions having two entrances so close together and the ability of
emergency vehicles to utilize the interior road; notes that clear-cutting on the
northernmost portion of the site, will isolate and thus jeopardize the integrity of
remaining trees (including trees in the Woodland Village subdivision to the north) by
exposing them to sustained winds.
51. The issue of tree safety was discussed at hearing [Finding 49; Testimony of
Smith]. When stands of trees are small in the face of sustained high winds, there is
danger that they will fail. Woodland Village has a IS-ft. wide "no-cut" zone along its
southern boundary adjacent to the subject site [see Exhibit 43,44,47,48,], but some trees
in Woodland Village have already fallen and some have had to be removed for safety
reasons. Neighbors in Woodland Village are concerned that the removal of trees for
home construction on the subject site, will reduce the size of the stand of trees such that
trees on their property would be endangered. (That is, as the stand is made smaller, it
would have less ability to withstand high winds.) Some trees within the IS-ft. wide
setback on the north and west sides of the subject site may need to be removed for safety
reasons. Recommended Condition ISB would require that the IS-ft. wide setback be a
"no-cut" zone which mayor may not result in a stand that is, in the aggregate, string
enough to withstand high winds, but the removal of diseased, dead, or dying trees could
occur within the "no-cut" zone to protect residential structures.
52. The suggestion that a drainage swale along the south side of the curve of the
driveway be included in the design of the stormwater control system [see Finding 49,
comment of O'Hartigen], is worth considering. The stormwater control system design
must be reviewed for compliance with City standards. Recommended Condition 7 would
SUB 13090
Page 12 of 32
require that swales alongside the driveways be considered in the plan review of the
stormwater drainage system design and, if effective, beneficial, and consistent with City
standards, that they be included.
MUNICIPAL CODE
53. The "Definitions" section [BIMC 17.04.040] of the Subdivision chapter include
the following definitions of interest in reviewing this application:
"Flexible lot design" means a design process which permits flexibility in lot
development and encourages a more creative approach than traditional lot-by-
lot subdivision. The flexible lot design process includes lot design standards,
guidance on the placement of buildings, use of open spaces and circulation
which best addresses site characteristics. This design process permits clustering
of lots, with a variety of lot sizes, to provide open space, maintain island
character and protect the Island's natural systems. The criteria for the layout
and design of lots, including a minimum percentage of open space and a
minimum lot size are described in Chapters 17.04 and 17.12 BIMe.
***
"Landscape perimeter" means a landscape buffer located along a
subdivision boundary. The landscape perimeter may contain established native
vegetation or additional landscaping.
"Open space" means any area of land which is predominately undeveloped
and which provides physical and/or visual relief from the developed
environment... Open space may consist of undeveloped areas, such as pastures
and farmlands, woodlands, greenbelts, critical areas, pedestrian corridors and
other natural areas...
***
"Preliminary plat" means a drawing of a proposed subdivision, which shows
the general layout of lots, tracts, streets, and other information required by this
chapter, resolutions, ordinances or administrative rules of the department..the
basis for approval or disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision.
54. BIMC 15.32.030 provides that:
A. The following development applications shall be subject to a
concurrency test which shall be conducted in the processing of the development
permit application:
1. Preliminary plat (subdivision offive or more residential lots);
2. Site plan and design review;
3. Any other land use plan or permit, the granting of which would
increase the demand for transportation facilities by 50 or more trips per day, per
the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
B. The following development permits are exempt from this chapter, and
applicants may submit applications, obtain development permits and commence
development without a certificate of concurrency:
SUB 13090
Page 13 of32
1. Any development permit issuedfor uses, densities and intensities
that were disclosed in a completed application filed before the effective date of
this chapter.
2. Any development permit for development that generates less than
50 trips per day, except as provided for in subsection A of this section.
C. The applicant shall, upon request, provide a traffic study sufficient for
the city engineer to perform a concurrency test.
D. The city shall not issue a development permit until:
1. A concurrency test has been conducted in accordance with
BlMC 15.32. 040 and a certificate of concurrency has been issued; or
2. The application has been determined to be exempt from the
concurrency test as provided in subsection B of this section.
Subdivision Review Process and Pw:pose
55. BIMC 2.16.025.B.2 classifies action on a subdivision application as a quasi-
judicial land use decision. BIMC 17.04.093 further provides that subdivisions are to be
reviewed by the City Council in accordance with the decision procedures of BIMC
Chapter 2.16 and the decision criteria ofBIMC 17.04.094.
56. BIMC 2.16.110.C.2 directs the Hearing Examiner to make a recommendation to
the City Council prior to the final decision on a subdivision application. The Hearing
Examiner is to hold a public hearing; transmit the recommendation to the City Council in
a consoldiated report [BIMC 2.16.110.C].
57. The express "Purpose" of the subdivision chapter [BIMC 17.04.020] includes the
following:
... to regulate the subdivision of land to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare... To carry out this purpose and further the comprehensive plan
policies addressing residential subdivision of land... this chapter establishes a
flexible lot process that promotes the preservation of open space, consolidation
of open space, and clustering of development within residential subdivisions.
This process ...limits the development impact area, minimizes impervious surface
area and provides for greater flexibility in the division and establishment of
residential lots.
Zoning and Flex Lot Provisions
58. BIMC 18.30.010 states that the purpose of the R-2 zone is to: "...provide for
residential neighborhoods of increased density in a rural environment. "
59. Subdivisions established pursuant to the flexible lot design process are subject to
the development standards of BIMC 17.04.080.A. include the following, but BIMC
18.30.085 provides that the standards for minimum lot size, setbacks, and minimum lot
dimensions (A.2 and A.3 below) do not apply.
SUB 13090
Page 14 of32
A. Development Standards.__
I. Density.
a. The number of residential lots created in a subdivision shall not
exceed the density provisions ofBIMC Titlel8;
b. Properties containing wetlands and/or wetland buffer areas are
subject to reduction of the maximum density pursuant to the standards of BIMC
16.20.090.C...
**.
2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements.
a. Five thousand square feet if served by public sewer...
***
3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements.
a. All lots shall be 50 fret wide at the minimum lot width...
b. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street
lines... size, shape, and orientation of lots shall be appropriate for the type of
developemnt and use contemplated...
c. Setbacks.
i. Building to building... minimum 10 feet separation;
ii. Building to exterior property line ...Minimum 15 feet;
iii. Building to right-ofway... 50-foot setback...
iv. Building to trail, open space or access easement...Minimum
IO-foot setback.;
4. Landscape Buffers.
a. ...landscape buffers are to enhance and retain the character of the
Island by maintaining native vegetation along roadways...providing visual relief
along public roads and between subdivisions and other existing development...
b. ...R-2... where established vegetation of a forested nature is located
adjacent to public roads... a 50-foot wide vegetative buffer shall be maintained.
***
e. Allowed Landscape BujJer Activities:
i. Potable water wells and well houses;
ii. On-site storm water infiltration systems...
iii. Ingress and egress...
iv. Underground utilities...
v. Nonmotorized trails; and
vi. Planting of vegetation.
f Landscape Buffer Requirements.
i. ....filtered screen landscaping... shall be required within... landscape
perimeter buffers where established vegetation cannot provide such screening.
ii. All native shrubs and significant trees shall be retained... except that
limited removal may be allowed for permitted activities located within the bujJer
area.
* * *
B. Landscape Standards. Landscaping shall be established consistent with
the requirements of subsection A.4 of this section and street tree planting
requirements of ChapterI8.85 BIMC, and any other significant tree retention
requirement.
80013090
Page 15 of32
C. Roads and Pedestrian Access Performance Standards.
1. Existing roadway character shall be maintained where practical.
This may be accomplished through the reduction of roadway width consistent
with subsection C. 3 of this section, the minimization of curb cuts, and the
preservation of roadside vegetation.
2. Roads and access shall be consistent with the standards set forth in
"City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and
Specifications." To minimize impervious surfaces, public rights-ol-way, access
easements and roadways shall not be greater than the minimum required to meet
standards. Connections to existing off-site roads which abut the subject property
shall be required where practicable, except through critical areas and/or their
buffers.
3. Variation from Road Requirements. A variation from the road
requirements and standards contained within the "City of Bainbridge Island
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications" may be approved by the
city engineer, ifsuch a reduction meets the purposes of this chapter.
4. Street names, traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes shall be
provided The location of these shall be indicated on the plat.
5. Transit stops shall be provided as recommended by Kitsap Transit
6. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access within a subdivision
and onto the site shall be provided through walkways, paths, sidewalks, or trails
and shall be consistent with the nonmotorized transportation plan, Ordinance
2002-09. Special emphasis shall be placed on providing pedestrian access to
proposed recreational and/or open space areas.
Subdivision Approval Criteria
60. The criteria for preliminary subdivision approval, found at BIMC 17.04.094,
require that:
A. The subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if
1. The applicable subdivision development standards of BIMC
17.04.080, 17.04.082, and/or 17.04.085 are satisfied;
2. The preliminary subdivision makes appropriate provisions for
the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including those
items listed in RCW 58.17.11 0;
3. The preliminary residential subdivision has been prepared
consistent with the requirements of the flexible lot design process;
4. Any portion of a subdivision that contains a critical area, as
defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, coriforms to all requirements of that chapter;
5. The city engineer determines that the preliminary subdivision
meets the following:
a. The subdivision conforms to regulations concerning drainage
(Chapter 15.20 BIMC).
b. The subdivision will not cause an undue burden on the drainage
basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of properties downstream.
SUB 13090
Page 16 of 32
c. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are
otherwise coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties.
d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to
accommodate anticipated traffic.
e. The subdivision conforms to the requirements of this chapter and
the standards in the "City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction
Standards and Specificatiom," except as otherwise authorized by in BIMC
17.04.080.C.3;
6. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this
code, Chapters 58.17 and 36. 70A RCW, and all other applicable provisions of
state andfederallaws and regulations; and
7. The proposal is in accord with the city's comprehensive plan.
E. A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless written findings are
made that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Flex Lot Standards: BIMC 17.04.080
61. The Flexible Lot Standards ofBIMC 17.04.080 are satisfied by this subdivision,
as detailed below with reference to the Finding( s) supporting that determination. The
standards of 17.04.080.A.2. and 17.04.080.A.3 would met although they are not required
[see Finding 58].
Code Section
Findings
17.04.080.A
1. Density.
a. The density provisions ofBIMC Title18 are
not exceeded;
b. The maximum density was calculated pursuant
to the standards ofBIMC 16.20.090.C and reflects
reduction relative to the suize of the wetland and wetland
buffer areas.
11, 36
36
* * *
2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements (Are met but do not apply. 37
a. AIl lots meet the 5,OOOsq. ft. minimum for lots
served by public sewer...
* * *
3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements. 37
a. AIl lots are 50 feet wide at the minimum lot width.
b. The lots are appropriate size, shape, and orientation.
c. All setbacks meet minimum requirements.
4. Landscape Buffers. 22
a. Roadside buffers would fufill purpose of maintaining
80013090
Page 17 of32
native vegetation and providing visual relief
b. Effectively minimum roadside buffers 50-ft. wide 22
would be provided along both street frontages providing visual
relief along public roads..
* * *
e. Only allowed activities (ingress/egress, underground
utilities trail for nonmotorized transportation, and planting) in
buffer areas.
f Landscape buffer areas (including in the Open
Space tract) would be consistent with A.4. above; all native
vegetation retained except that limited removal allowed
for permitted activities.
19
17,22
* * *
17.04.080.B
Landscaping would be consistent with standards of 17.04.080.A.4, see above.
17.04.080.C
1. Existing roadway character maintained through preservation 22
of roadside vegetation.
2. and 3. Access would be consistent with the "City 23,24,25
of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards
and Specifications" and impervious surfaces would be
minimized by having small driveway widths and using
pervious paving materials.
4. Traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes shall be
provided and their location indicated on the plat.
Condition 24
5. No transit stops have been recommended by Kitsap Transit.
6. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access to the lots and
the Open Space tract would be provided through sidewalk
and trails, consistent with the nonmotorized transportation plan.
Special emphasis shall be placed on providing pedestrian
access to proposed recreational and/or open space areas.
16,20
Subdivision Decision Criteria: BIMC 17.04.094
62. BIMCI7.04.094.A.l requires that applicable subdivision development standards
be satisfied. Here, the applicable development standards are the Flexible Lot Standards
SUB 13090
Page 18 of 32
of BIMC 17.04.080 and the Flexible Lot Design Open Space Standards of BIMC
BIMC 17.04.082. As noted in Finding 61, those standards are met.
63. Consistent with BIMCI7.04.094.A.2, the proposed subdivision, as conditioned,
would make appropriate provisions for the public health and safety by providing all
necessary and appropriate utilities, improvements, and dedications.
64. In satisfacion of BIMC 17.04.094.A.3, the subdivision has been prepared
consistent with flexible lot design process.
65. The subdivision, as conditioned, would be consistent with the requirement of
BIMC 17.04.094.A.4 that it conform to the Critical Areas Ordinance (BIMC Chapter
16.20). The wetland would be protected by preservation of the open space tract.
66. BIMC 17.04.094.A.5 requires that the City Engineer determine that a subdivision
conforms to the applicable regulations and standards pertaining to drainage and water
quality. This requirement is met as the Public Works Department has reviewed the
preliminary subdivision submittals and has final approval authority for the construction
and installation of those improvements.
67. Without the Certificate of Concurrency required by BIMC 15.32.030, this
subdivision does not comply with all applicable provisions of the Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code as is required by BIMC 17.04.094.A.6. As conditioned, it would
comply with all applicable provisions of RCW 36.70 (Health and Safety issues regarding
water and public health), RCW 58.17 (State subdivision statute), and other applicable
state and federal regulations.
68. As required by BIMC 17.04.094.A. 7, the proposed subdivision is in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with its OSR-2 designation, the subdivision as
conditioned, is designed to reflect neighborhood character by having a 50-ft. vegetative
buffer and only two lots on FemcIiff Avenue, in addition to preserving a large Open
Space tract. Some citizens have commented that this subdivision would be developed at
a "density" unlike the rest of the neighborhood along Femcliff Avenue, but the five
proposed residential lots would be of a size similar to those of the Woodland Village
subdivision to the north.
69. The finding, required by BIMC 17.04.094.B, that the public use and interest
would be served, cannot be made until the Certificate of Concurrency is provided. With
that exception, the subdivision provides the necessary and appropriate utilities and public
improvements [pedestrian paths, stormwater facilities, domestic water, fire flow, and
sewer] consistent with the public use and interest. Also, the public use and interest would
be served by providing protection for the wetland and wetland buffer and by providing
five new residential lots.
SUB 13090
Page 19 of32
Conclusions
1. The Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction in this matter is from BIMC 2.16.110.C.2,
which directs that the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to the City Council on subdivision applications.
2. All requirements for notice and opportunity to comment have been met. This
matter will be properly before the City Council consistent with the provisions of BIMC
17.04.095 that govern Council's consideration of preliminary subdivisions.
3. Five residential lots are permitted. The density calculation has been made
consistent with a sound interpretation of the applicable Code sections [BIMC 16.20.090,
limited density calculation; 18.30.040, R-2 standards; and, 17.04.080 and 17.04.082, flex
lot standards]. The entire site could yield five lots, each 20,000 sq. ft. However, the
much smaller proposed lots are "clustered" on the northern parcel so as to preserve the
southern two-thirds of the parcel in an Open Space tract that includes a Category III
wetland and pedestrian trails for public access. This appears to be wholly consistent with
the purpose of the City's subdivision regulations and with the purpose of the R-2 zone.
4. A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was properly
issued by PCD. That MDNS was not appealed; however, the Recommended Conditions
should be imposed to ensure the necessary and expected mitigation of likely impacts.
5. The new access points on Ferncliff Avenue would have proper sight distance, are
adequately separated, and would not present a safety hazard.
6. The Certificate of Concurrency requirement has not been met. Without the
Certificate of Concurrency, it cannot be concluded that all the requirements of the City's
Code have been met.
7. The development of the five proposed lots would mean the loss of many trees and
a radical change in the current appearance of the northern third of the site. However, the
50-ft. wide roadside buffer along Ferncliff Avenue would screen or block views of most
of the tree loss and the new residences. From Ferncliff Avenue, except where the
driveways intersect it, the houses would be behind a 50-ft. wide forested strip. The
southern two-thirds of the site, retained in its current natural condition in open space,
would be unchanged.
8. The pedestrian path across the open space would provide for safe pedestrian travel
from Ferncliff Avenue to the Stonecress Condominium property to the west. The
sidewalk along Ferncliff Avenue would provide the same safe passage for pedestrians
going between High School Road and Woodland Village.
9. The Director has provided a lengthy list of recommended conditions appropriate
to properly mitigate the likely construction-related impacts and long-term impacts of
SUB 13090
Page 20 of32
development of this subdivision. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation includes
some modifications to these conditions as necessitated by the information gained during
the hearing process. These modifications include: requiring recordation of the Open
Space Management Plan and the Homeowners Association documents to put future
homeowners on notice as to their responsibilities for maintaining and preserving the
Open Space tract and the consideration of drainage swales alongside the private
driveways in the stormwater control design.
10. The subdivision complies with the flexible lot standards ofBIMC 17.04.080.
11. The subdivision could be approved relative to the requirement that it meets the
preliminary subdivision decision criteria of BIMC 17.04.094.Al through AS and A7,
but without the Certificate of Concurrency, it does not meet the requirement of BIMC
17.04.094.A6 that it comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Code. Also,
without a concurrency determination (i.e., that there would be no undue burden on
existing transportation facilities), the finding that the subdivision would serve the public
use and interest [BIMC 17.04.094.B], cannot be made.
Recommendation
It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that the application of Stonecress LLC
[SUB 13090] for the subdivision known as "The Hamlet" NOT BE APPROVED until a
Certificate of Concurrency is in the record. Once the record is complete, it would be the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the application be approved with the
conditions that comprise Appendix A. 0 ~ ,r n ~'.'
Entered this ~ay of August 2005. ~~
Meredith A Getches
City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner pro tem
Concerning Further Review
The City Council makes the City's final decisions on preliminary subdivision
applications. City Council decision procedures are found at BIMC 2.16.110.
SUB 13090
Page 21 of32
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
THE HAMLET SUBDIVISION [SUBl3090]
1. The following note shall be placed on the final plat: Prior to any clearing, or grading on
individual lots, a clearing, grading, or building permit shall be obtained from the City.
2. The Final Plat shall be in substantial confonnance with the subdivision plat maps date
stamped March 17,2005; specifically, Sheets 1,2,3,4 of Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 69 which is
Sheet 5).
3. No clearing or grading for roads, drainage facilities, trails or other subdivision
improvements shall occur until a plat utilities permit has been submitted, reviewed and approved
by the City.
4. All graded materials removed from the subdivision, if deposited on Bainbridge Island,
shall be at a City approved location. (Note: local regulations require that a grade/fill permit is
obtained for any grading or filling of 50 cubic yards of material or more.)
5. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall
conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which insure that reasonable precautions
are taken to avoid dust emissions. (Section 16.08.040, BIMC)
6. Public Works finds that the proposed activity is likely to cause measurable degradation of
surface water quality without a proper temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan
(TESCP). Therefore prior to any construction within this subdivision a TESCP shall be
submitted and approved by the City. Prior any construction occurring between October 1, and
April 31 a TESCP specifically addressing wet weather conditions shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer.
7. The final stormwater system design shall be in confonnance with BIMC Chapter 15.20
and with all requirements of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. In the course of
designing the stormwater system, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of drainage
swale(s) alongside the curved section(s) of the access driveway (see Finding 52).
8. Privately held stormwater facilities require ongoing future operation and maintenance. If
required to comply with the DOE stormwater manual, the applicant shall name a responsible
party that can appropriately maintain, repair or replace the facility as needed prior to final plat
approval. The applicant shall submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater
facilities and record a Declaration of Covenant to meet the requirements ofBIMC 15.21.
9. The access driveways shall be constructed to "minimally adequate" standards and
approved by the Fire Department. In addition, the "emergency access only" barrier shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to installation.
SUB 13090
Page 22 of 32
10. The construction staging areas shall be outside critical areas and their buffers.
Construction fencing or silt fencing shall be placed adjacent to critical area buffers prior to
issuance of any permit that allows clearing in the vicinity of the buffers.
11. The applicant shall relocate/construct a pedestrian trail if, and only as necessary to
correspond to the trail and easement shown on the subdivision drawings date stamped March 17,
2005 [Exhibit 60]. Construction of the trail shall be completed prior to final plat approval.
12. The northerly wetland buffer adjacent to proposed Lot 5 shall be identified with a two-
rail fence. (If the applicant, in consultation with the Director, determines that the northerly edge
of the wetland buffer is better protected by installing a 6 foot fence, that option shall be
considered.) The pedestrian trail (see 11 above) that traverses the wetland from the west property
line to Ferncliff Avenue, shall be delineated by a two-rail fence and/or signs on both sides of the
trail. The signs may be separated by not more than fifty feet and shall identify the area as a
protected wildlife habitat. The fencing and/or signs shall be installed prior to final plat approval.
13. No fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides shall be used in the streams and/or their buffers.
The use of these products elsewhere on the site is discouraged, but if necessary they shall used
consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies.
14. In order to mitigate the impact on wildlife and wetland habitat, the delineated wetland
buffer shall be preserved in native vegetation. Removal of invasive/non-native species may be
permitted with a City approved replanting plan indicating the type of vegetation being removed
and the type and quantity of native plants being provided. Replanting shall occur with shrubs on
three-foot centers and native ground covers to provide complete coverage within three years.
Hazard tree removal may be allowed with appropriate City approval and may require replanting.
15. (A) To discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that are removed from
designated protection areas without prior City approval will be subject to fines and will be replaced
with new trees as follows: New trees measuring two inches in caliper if deciduous and six to eight
feet high if evergreen, at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one-inch diameter of the
removed significant tree or trees within a tree stand. The replacement rate determines the number of
replacement trees. The trees removed shall be replaced with trees of the same type, evergreen or
deciduous. The replacement trees shall also be replaced in the same general location as the trees
removed.
15. (B) The 15-ft. wide setbacks along the western and northern boundaries of Lots 1,2,3,
and 5 shall be "no-cut" zones and all significant trees must be retained; provided that, dead. dying
and diseased trees (as determined by a qualified arborist) may be removed if they are in danger of
damaging residential structures.
16. Any non-exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit
from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of The Hamlet Subdivision
SUB13090 shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit.
SUB 13090
Page 23 of32
17. On site mobile fueling from temporary tanks is prohibited unless the applicant provides
and is granted approval for a Permit and Best Management Plan that addresses proposed location,
duration, containment, training, vandalism and cleanup. (Reference 1. Uniform Fire Code
7904.5.4.2.7 and 2, Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 2001, see
Volume IV "Source Control BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".)
(Chapter 173-304 WAC)
18. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activities must comply with BIMC
Section 16.16.025, Limitation of Construction Activities.
19. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance,
BIMC Chapter 15.34.
20. Building setbacks and lot coverage requirements shall be shown on the final plat,
specifically:
· Building to Building:
· Building to Exterior Property Line:
· Building to Trail or Open Space:
· Maximum Lot Coverage per Lot:
· Building to wetland buffer:
· Building to Femcliff Avenue:
Minimum 10 feet separation
Minimum 15 feet
Minimum 10 feet
Maximum 5,165 sq. ft.
Minimum 15 feet
Minimum 50 feet
21. Contractor is required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning
and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or
construction.
22. Public and private improvements, facilities, and infrastructure, on and off the site that are
required for the subdivision shall be completed, have final inspection and approval prior to final
plat approval. Approval of public facilities will be shown by a formal letter of acceptance from
the City Engineer. An assurance device acceptable to the City may be used (in lieu of physical
completion), to secure and provide for the completion of necessary facilities which are not
considered by the Engineering Department to be life, health, or safety related items. Any such
assurance device shall be in place prior to final plat approval, shall enumerate in detail the items
being assured, and shall require that all such items will be completed and approved by the City
within one year of the date of final 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 for 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."
23. The applicant shall dedicate additional five feet right-of-way adjacent to Ferncliff
Avenue NE as shown on the Plat drawing date stamped March 17,2005.
SUB 13090
Page 24 of32
24. 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.
25. School impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the following provisions. For each
of the created lots, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall pay one half of the school
impact fee in effect at the time of final plat approval. Subsequent to plat recordation and prior to
building permit issuance, an applicant constructing a residence on any of the created lots shall pay
one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
26. Prior to issuance of any building or utility permit for improvement activities, final
construction plans in compliance with the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction
Standards and Specifications, shall be approved by the City 'Public Works Department.
27. A 50 foot native vegetation buffer is required along Ferncliff Avenue NE and NE High
School Road. The buffer vegetation shall be left in its natural state except as necessary to remove
invasive plants and dead or dying trees as necessary (with the approval of the Director) to ensure
the safety of the trail, sidewalk, and residential structures. If invasive plants are removed, the
buffer area shall be replanted in a manner that maintains the buffer screening function and a
replanting plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval.
28. At final plat submittal, the applicant shall submit a final Open Space Management Plan that
is consistent with BIMC 17.04 and contains the provisions "a" through "e" listed below for
approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development. A note on the final plat shall
stipulate that the lots are subject to the provisions of the Open Space Management Plan and the
Open Space Management Plan shall be recorded with the final plat.
a. Open Space Tract 1 shall be open space in perpetuity. The Open Space Management
Plan, drafted in accordance with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) Sections 17.12.090
(G) and (H), and approved by the Director shall direct how this open space is utilized and
maintained.
b. Existing vegetation shall be retained in the open space areas except for roadways,
driveways, and trails and except for hazard trees approved for removal utilizing the procedures
outlined in BIMC 18.85.060(A)(2)(b) & (c).
c. The open space management plan shall state that no buildings are permitted.
d. The open space management plan may note that trimming and limbing of vegetation for
the creation and maintenance of view corridors in accordance with BIMC 16.20.080(D) is
permitted.
e. The pedestrian trail that traverses the northern portion of Open Space Tract 1 (as shown
in Exhibit 60, Sheet 4) shall be maintained in a safe and useable condition, available for the
public to use for legal and non-destructive passage across the property.
29. A draft Homeowners Agreement, approved by the Director, shall be included in the final
plat submittal. This agreement shall specify the organization, membership, and function of the
Homeowners Association. It shall be clearly expressed that the purpose and responsibility of the
Homeowners Association includes the management and maintenance of Open Space Tract 1,
including payment of all costs associated with that management and maintenance, in accord with the
Open Space Management Plan. This agreement shall be recorded with the final plat.
SUB 13090
Page 25 of33
APPENDIX B
EXHIBIT LIST
THE HAMLET SUBDIVISION
[SUBl3090]
Compiled 4-13-05. Amended 4-20-05,5-5-05,
6-29-05
Planner: Tom Bonsell
Public Hearing before the Hearing
Examiner: 5-5-05 @ 10:00 a.m.
Exhibit #
Description
Dated
Date Rec' d
By COB!
#P
'~es
1 Routing Information 1
2 Historical Data form 1
3 Historical Data: Initial Tree Evaluation by Beck 11-17-97 13
(Northwest Arborvitae)
4 Historical Data: Martin/Patterson Short Plat - Open 2-25-02 3-16-02 3dsl
Space Management Plan
5 Historical Data: Memorandum to Morse from Gates 9-27-01 3-15-02 2
(Adolfson Associates Inc.)
6 Historical Data: Corres from Kucinski (Kucinski 5-12-99 5
Consulting Services, Inc.) to Kalinowski (WS Dept
Fish & Wildlife)
7 Historical Data: Wetland Delineation (Wiltermood 10-2-92 11
Associates)
8 Historical Data: Corres to Smith from Bartlett 5-29-02 5-30-02 2
(Wiltermood Associates, Inc.) re: Affects of
Detention Pond Outlet on east side of Stonecress
project.
9 Historical Data: Notice of Mitigated Determination 6-26-02 18
of Nonsignificance
10 Associated Fee information 12-2-04 12-2-04 2
11 Site Plan (pervious paver) (Browne Engineering) 11-23-04 12-2-04 1
2 Plans: 11-10-04 12-2-03 5
A. Legal Description (1 of 5)
B. DedicationslEasement Provisions (2 of 5)
C. Existing Conditions (3 of5)
D. Preliminary Plat Lot areas (4 of5).
E. Preliminary Plat Lots (5 of5)
SUB 13090
Page 26 of32
13 Reduced Plans: Pages 1-5 11-10-04 12-2-04 5
14 Environmental Checklist 11-19-04 12-2-04 14
15 Open Space Management Plan 11-11-04 12-2-04 2
16 Geotechnical Slope Evaluation (Myers Biodynamics) 3-4-02 12-2-04 6
17 Water and Sewer Availability letter from Newkirk 11-22-04 12-2-04 2
(COBI)
18 Lot Closures 11-9-04 12-2-04 4
19 Requests for review: Fire Dept., O&M, Public Works 12-2-04 3
20 Application 12-2-04 12-2-04 11
21 Corres to Skinner from Gladstein re: staff assignment 12-2-04 1
22 Routing Slip 12-2-04 1
23 Review Comments: Fire Dept. 12-2-04 12-14-04 2
24 Corres to Skinner from Gladstein re: complete 12-15-04 1
aoolication
25 Memorandum to Berry from Bonsell re: legal notice 12-13-04 1
26 Notice of ApplicationlSEP A comment period 12-18-04 15
27 Notice of ApplicationlSEP A comment period 12-18-04 21
noticin~ documentation
28 Corres to Mayor and City Council from Danzig re: 12-22-04 12-22-04 3
request for extension of comments period and public
records reouest
29 Corres to DPCD from Hellriegel re: objections 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
30 Corres to/from BonselllDanzig re: extension of 12-22-04 12-22-04 2
comment oeriod denied
31 Corres to/from Scott/Danzig/Bonsell re: support for 12-22-04 12-22-04 2
extended comment period
32 Corres to Danzig/Bonsell from Reyes re: support for 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
extended comment period
33 Corres to Council/Mayor from Spence re: support for 12-22-04 12-22-04 2
extended comment period
34 Corres to Council from Jarecke re: support for 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
extended comment period
35 Corres to Danzig/Bonsell from Eiseman re: support 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
for extended comment period
36 Corres to Scott from Rice re: requested files listing 12-22-04 12-22-04 4
37 Corres to Danzig from Rice re: file listing 12-22-04 2ds
38 Corres to Mayor et at from Frazier re: extension of 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
comment period
SUB 13090
Page 27 of32
39 Corres to neighboring property owners from Bonsell 12-22-04 3
re: extension of comment period
40 Certificate of Posting 12-23-04 12-27-04 1
41 Affidavit of Posting: Notice of Application 12-29-04 1
42 Corres to DPCD from Proctor re: concerns 12-30-04 1-4-05 2
43 Corres to Bonsell from Denlinger re: objections (E- 1-3-05 1-4-05 3
mail and hard coPy)
44 Corres to Planning Commission from Stroman re: 1-12-5 1-12-05 1
concerns
45 Corres to Bonsell from Mattson re: concerns 1-13-05 1-13-05 2
46 Corres to Bonsell from Taylor re: concerns 1-13-05 1-13-05 1
47 Corres to Bonsell from Wood re: concerns 1-16-05 1-18-05 2
48 Corres to Bonsell from Hayes re: concerns 1-15-05 1-18-05 1
49 Corres to Bonsell from Andrus re: concerns 1-17-05 1-18-05 1
50 Corres to Planning Commission from Brent re: 1-17-05 1-18-05 2
concerns
51 Corres to Bonsell from Gifford re: concerns 1-17-05 1-18-05 2
52 Corres toIfrom Reyes/Rice re: attachment 1-18-05 1-18-05 1
53 Corres to Frazier from Korten re: concerns 1-17-05 1-18-05 1
54 Corres to Bonsell from Eiseman re: concerns 1-18-05 1-18-05 2
55 Corres to Bonsell from Campbell re: concerns 1-17-05 1-18-05 4
56 Corres to Bonsell from Depew re: concerns 1-16-05 1-24-05 6
57 Corres to/from Brent/Wilder re: quasI judicial 1-25-05 1-25-05 2
process
58 Notice ofSEPA Determination ofNonsignificance 3-18-05 1
59 Notice of SEP A Determination of Nonsignificance 3-18-05 5ds
noticing documentation
60 Revised Plans: 3-15-05 3-17-05
A. Legal Description (1 of 5)
B. DedicationslEasement Provisions (2 of 5)
C. Existing Conditions (3 of 5)
D. Preliminary Plat Lot areas and open space
tract (4 of 5).
E. Preliminary Plat Lots
E. Open Space
61 Reduced Revised Plans (Pages 1-5) 3-15-05 3-17-05 5
62 Revised Application 3-17-05 3-17-05 11
SUB 13090
Page 28 of32
63 Wetland Analysis Report (Wihennood and 3-8-05 3-11-05 44ds
Associates, Inc.)
64 Request for Review: Natural Resource Planner 12-2-05 2
65 Revised Wetland Analysis Report (Wiltermood 3-8-05 3-17-05 15
Associates, Inc)
66 Revised Lot Closures 3-16-05 3-17-05 4
67 Plan: Sheet 5 of 5 4-5-05 4-6-05 1
68 Site Plan: (pervious paver) (Browne Engineering) 11-23-04 4-7-05 1
69 Preliminary Plat Map (Adam & Goldsworthy) 4-5-05 4-6-05 1
70 Requests for Review: Natural Resource Planner, Fire 4-5-05 10
Dept., O&M, Public Works.
71 Review Comments: Fire Dept. 4-5-05 2
72 Corres to Bonsell from Adam (Adam & 4-6-05 4-6-05 1
Goldsworthy) re: transmittal
73 Requests to review records
74 STAFF REPORT
75 Public Hearing Notice documentation
76 Memorandum from Public Works Department. 4-19-05 4-19-05 3
77 Corres to HEX from Campbell 5-4-05 5-5-05 12
78 Photograph of toppled trees 5-5-05 1
79 Site Plan - Sight Line Evaluation - FemclifI Ave 5-5-05 1
80 ORDER REOPENING RECORD 6-2-05 6-2-05 1
81 Revised Open Space Management Plan 6-6-05 6-6-05 2
82 Corres to HEX from Bonsell re: Response to request 6-27-05 9
for clarification on questions of open space and
density calcs.
SUB 13090
Page 29 of 32
APPENDIX C
HEARING NOTES
May 5, 2005
THE HAMLET SUBDIVISION
[SUB1309O)
EXAMINER: Meredith A. Getches
ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer
PARTIES PRESENT:
Aoolicant
David Smith
Central Highland Builders
P.O. Box 1306
Bremerton, W A 98337
Deot. Reoresentative
Tom Bonsell, Planner
Dept. of Planning and Community
Development
Larry Skinner
John L. Scott Real Estate
5900 Gunderson Road
Poulsbo, W A
WITNESSES/SPEAKERS:
Lois Andrus
8982 Ferncliff Ave. NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phillip O'Hartigan
James Denlinger
10131 NE Garibaldi Loop
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Linda Warren, MD
10770 Broomgerrie Road
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Vince Mattson
9651 Green Spot Place
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Jocelyn Brent
8134 Eleanor Place
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Adam Wheeler
Browne Engineering
149 Finch Place SW
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Public Hearing convened at 10:00 a.m.
Tape Count Speaker ID
Tape 1:
0000 fUEX
Tooic/Subiect Summary
0180 Introductions:
Introductory Remarks re: hearing format, order of
presentation.
Tom Bonsell, Planner
SUB 13090
Page 30 of 32
0225
0262
Andrus
Denlinger
0664 O'Hartigan
0746 Bonsell
HEXJBonsell
0984 Bonsell
1175 Smith
1222 Bonsell
1260 Smith
1491 Bonsell
1522 Smith
1570 Wheeler
1736 HEX/Wheeler
HEX/Smith
1876 Wheeler
2018 HEX/Smith
David Smith, Developer
Larry Skinner, Realtor
Adam Wheeler, Browne Engineering.
Sworn. Concerns re: open space management.
Sworn. Concerns re: Comp Plan, open space buffers,
property ownership, tree removal.
Provided photQgraph (Exhibit 78 entered).
Continued concerns re: trail easements, wetland
delineation, access, drainage, process.
Sworn. Support for project. Concerns re: drainage
management.
Sworn. Introduced application; gave recommendation.
Question and Answer: conditions.
Response to public comments.
Sworn.
Offered Woodland Village plan in re: no cut buffer.
Response to public comments in re: trees, clustering,
open space, low impact development standards,
ownership.
Comments re: ownership.
Clarification of wetland survey.
Comments re: low impact development techniques.
Question and Answer: Drainage.
Question and Answer: building footprint.
Continued testimony re: drainage, fire access, vehicular
access.
Question and Answer: wetland survey, trail, open space
dedication, clustering.
The hearing recessed at 11 :20 a.m. and reconvened at 11 :30 a.m.
2366
2446
HEXIBonsell
Warren
2513
2528
O'Hartigan
Bonsell
2735
2765
2784
2879
2970
3010
Wheeler
Smith
Mattson
Bonsell
Mattson
HEX/Smith
Bonsell
Skinner
Wheeler
3060
3155
3190
3274
HEX/Smith
Question and Answer: sight lines.
Sworn. Concerns: density increase in re stormwater
runofI, landslide potential.
Concerns: run-off contaminants.
Response: run-off requirements.
Discussion of drainage plan.
Response.
"Green" building practices.
Opposition to road barrier.
Response.
Response.
Questions and Answer: two driveways.
Response.
Sworn. Response.
Response.
Sight distance evaluation. (EXlllBIT 79 entered)
Driveway, directional signs.
SUB 13090
Page 31 of32
3364 Brent
3520 Denlinger
3756 HEX/Bonsell/Smith
3940 Smith
3950 Wheeler
3986 HEX/Bonsell
4021 Bonsell
4054 Brent
4082 Smith
Concerns: traffic, children's safety, trees, support Comp
Plan.
Professional background. Concerns: prior comments not
addressed, trees, process, objection to project.
Question to Skinner.
Question and Answer: density calculations, flex lot
design.
Comments re: buffers, drainage.
Comments re: drainage.
Request similar clustered site information.
Comments: low impact development.
Concerns: not low impact, impact to trees.
Response.
There being no further testimony, the hearing and record were closed at 12:25 p.m.
SUB 13090
Page 32 of 32