THE HAMLET (SUB13090)
FILE I
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDA nON
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
STONECRESSLLC
SUBI3090
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 Bonsell,
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 infonnation 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 (BlMC 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
L 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 1309Q
Page 1 of 32
SUB13090
Page 2 of32
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 621- The revised application
reduced the number of residential lots to five.
APPUCATlON
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]
5. Woodland Village, a recently dcvcloped 27-unit single family subdivision, is
directly north ofthe 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 Femcliff Avenue. [Exhibit 74,
Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 82; Testimony of Smith]
4. Site vegetation includes of western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and
red alder. The wetland is a mosaic offorested and scrub shrub vegetation classes: canopy
of red alder and red cedar; understory dominated by salmonberry; small hummocks and
downed logs host Sword fem, evergreen huckleberry and salal; Spiraea dominating the
scrub shrub; and, herbaceous groundcover dominated by stinging nettle and "youth-on-
age". [Exhibit 16, pages J-3; Exhibit 63, pages 3-6]
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%-20"10. A
C.ategory III 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]
2, The legal description [Exhibit 60, Sheet I j for the subject property is:
Lot B and Open Space Tract 2 of the Stoneeress 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.
rectangular in shape with a north-south dimension of 630.70 feet fronting Ferncliff
Avenue and an east-west dimension of233.13 ft. fronting High School Road. [Exhibit
60, Sheet 3; Exhibit 74, Staff Report, page I]
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 (rcplacing 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]
Prooosed 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 Tract
Residential Lot 1
Residential Lot 2
Residential Lot 3
Residential Lot 4
Residential Lot 5
T olals
88,600 sq. ft.
6,899 sq. ft.
6,366 sq. ft.
6,899 sq. ft.
6,366 sq. ft.
10.003 sa. ft.
129,134 sq. ft.
0.16 acres
0.19 acres
0.16 acres
0.19 acres
O. 16 acres
0.23 acres
2.96 acres
Open Soace
12. The 88,600 sq. ft. Open Space tract is approximately 67"10 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 II]. 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 reeenl
delineation marks a larger wetland (see current boundaries in Exhibit 61, Sheet 4, and
SUB 13090
Page 3 of 32
SUB 13090
Page 4 of32
17. The proposal includes 100"10 tree retention in the Open Spacc 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 II, Exhibit 74; Testimony of
Bonsell}
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 StonecTCSS project and provides pedestrian connection from the Stonecress
condominium property to Ferncliff Avenue At hearing it was observed that the mappPd
location ofthe trail does not correspond with its actual location. The applicant clarified
that the trail was originally installed in the wrong location and has beell moved 15-25 ft.
to the south to its present location. The revised application indicates that the trail is to
have a 10-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 Ferncliff Avenue frontage [see Finding 27].
IS. Consistent with BlMC 16.20.090, Recommended Condition 20 would requirl'
future home construction on Lot S to observe a 1 s-t't. building setback from the wetland
buffer [see Exhibit 69].
14. Recommended Condition 12 would require that the northern and southern
boundaries ofthe wetland buffer be identified by a split rail fence and that signs identifY
the east and west edges of the buffer, Recommended Condition i3 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 requinng
replacement.
13. The wetland delineation rCbulted 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 oflots 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 of Bonseli]
original boundaries in Exhibit 13, Sheet 4). The wetland delineation was performed by
qualified professionals using the methodologies prescribed hy Department of Ecology
and Corps of Engineers. The wetland boundaries we.., flagged in the field and then
surveyed.
J 8. Public comments suggest a misundcrstanding that this proponent had, as a part of
the Stonecress condominium and short plat proposaJ, 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 Spacc
Management Plan [Exhibit 8 I] 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 n..'Sponsible 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 pial 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 lOl 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 71 reters to "two private driveways", each to
"serve three lots" [see Exhibit 13, Sheet Sl That is, there would be two access points on
SUBI3090
Page 5 of32
SUfll3090
Page 6 of32
28. Tile 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 he 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
northem third of the site, using narrow driveways with pervious surfacing (rather than
having publi~ streets that would be wider and paved), and having small building
envelopes on each residential Jot ("footprint" of house and garage to be 1,500 sq. ft.
27. An existing 5-ft. wide concrete sidewalk along the Femcliff Avenue frontage
provides a pedestrian connection between High School Road on the south and Woodland
Village on the north. (At the Femcliff 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 pan of the Stonecress proja,'t. To keep away from
the wetland, part of the sidewalk encroaches slightly into the Femcliff right-of-way [see
Exhibit 60, Sheet 4]. No additional sidewalk improvements are necessary or proposed,
but a 10 ft. wide pedestrian easement centered on the sidewalk "as built", is included in
the proposal. Recommended Condition 23 would require a 5 ft. wide right~f-way
dedication along the length of the Ferncliff Avenue frontage.
26. The driveways at Femeliff 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 ofWbeeler).
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 68J
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
Depanment.
Fernclitf: 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 69J, but are considered tW9 driveways because an emergency-only access barrier
(bollards removal by the Fire Department) is to be installed in front of Lot 3 so that only
Lots I, 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 lsland Design and Construction Standards
and Specifications, 7-01 Design Requirements] and the proponent's desire to avoid
pavement to keep impervious surfuces to a minimum,
maximum). Also. the stormwater from the impervious surfaces would be routed to on-
site infiltration or bioretenoon 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, stonnwater control facilities would be designed in during the Building Permit
process to the satisrnctioo 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].
PCDCONSIDERATlON AND RECOMMENDATION
SEPA Review and Public Comment
30. PeD conducted environmental review on the proposed subdivision (the
application included an Environmental Checklist, see Exhibit 14). Notice of the SEPA
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, Exbibit 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 tbe 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 DUmber to aid in review of specific concerns: Stephen
He\1riegel [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 10 CUTrent 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 sighl.
SUB I 3090
Page 7 002
SUB 13090
Page 8 of 32
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: IO-ft.
36. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning provisions of BlMC
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 ofthe R-2 zone is applied, the result is
five allowable lots. [Exhibit 74, Staff Report, pages 10-13; Testimony of Bon sell].
Zoning and Land Use
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.
34. On March 18, 2005, the Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) [Exhibit 59]. Notice of that decision was properly given. The
MONS was not appealed [Staff Report, page 1, Exhibit 74J.
33. The comments were all submitted prior to the new wetland delineation and prior
to the application being revised from six lots to five.
. The two cgress points will be dangerous this close to High School Road
intersection.
. Object to further "deforestation". The trees in the southcrn 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?
minimum distance between buildings; IS-ft. minimum distance between buildings and
the subdivision boundary; lO-ft. minimum distance between buildings and the Open
Space tract boundarics; 15-ft. minimum distance between buildings and thc 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"10 maximum
lot coverage limit in the R-2 zone (see BIMC 18.30.050) to the entire properly and assign
a portion of the total to each lot created. (BIMe 18.06.650 defines "{o/ (:overage" 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 he 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. PCD 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 trccs along NE
High SehooJ Road and Ferncliff Avenue NE...lots are clustered...providing 69 percent
open spaec...the wetland is being protected...provide[sj a pedestrian path..."
Recommended Conditions I 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 20 related to the aspects mentioned,
support this conclusion.
Review and Comment bv 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 aU the comments are iocluded in the record regarding this
application.
DeDV Al/;encv Exhibit
. Fire Dept. 23
76
Comment
Access must he to Public Wodes standards; must have
Public Works approval for the emergency-only access
barrier; new hydrant may he 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).
Engineerimz: Requircd signs must be included;
stormwater collection and control must be
designed by licensed engineer and meet City;
standards; removable boUard (emergency-only
access barrier) must be coordinated with Fire Marshall.
. Public 17
Works
SUB13090
Page 9 of32
SUB13090
Page 10 of32
c. Provision of adequate vehieular and pedestrian access [9, II, 23, 28,
29J; appropriate utility infrastructure and improvements [8, 22, 24, 26];
preservation and maintenance of landscape buffers [27, 28, 29];
compliance with zonmg requirements and conditions of sulxlivision
approval [2, 20],
b. Mitigation of environmental impacts lISSOCialed with long-term
residential use of the site as related to: stormwater control [7, 8J; wetland
protection {12, 13, 14, 28, 29J; preservation of native vegetation and
significant trees [14,15,16,27,28. 29J; schools [25]; light and glare [19).
a. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with construction as
related to: erosionfsedimentation and runoff (3, 4, 6, !O]; air quality [5J;
slope/soil stability [3, 10]; noise [18]; archaeological artifacts [21].
44. The Recommended Conditions (see numbers bracketed below) provide
appropriate mitigation and regulation as follows:
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.
Director's Recommendation and Staff Repolt
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 resuh, but preliminary subdivision
approval requires a Certificate of Concurrency. A concurrency test is required by RIMC
15.32.030A.1 [see Finding 54] with preliminary plals for "slIbdMsion of ftr.e 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 /lOt cause undue burden on existing transponation facilities.
Developments with less than 50 trips per day are exempt from the concurrency
requirement exc.tWt 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.
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 oftws determination in the Public Works memo.
45. A Geotechnical Slope Evaluation [Exhibit 16] was prcpared in 2002 in the course of
the review of the StOJlecress short plat (see Finding 5) That report noted an area in the
subject site that has slopes of 15% or greatet'. These slopes are present in parts of proposed
Lots 3, 4 and 5 [Site Plan in Exhibit] 6; Exhibit 60, Sheets 3 and 4]. No evidence of current
risk: or recent or historic inatability was round. The evaluation ooncludes 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 Denlin8er The proposal is not in keeping with intent ofComp 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.)
. Phillio Q'Hartill:en Is on the Board of Stonecress and is generally supportive of
proposal; concerned that drainagc from residential development needs more
SUB13090
Page II of3 2
SUHB090
Page 12 of 32
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'HartigenJ, is worth considering. The stormwater control system design
must be reviewed for compliance with City standards. Recommended Condition 7 would
51. The issue of tree safety was discussed at hearing [Finding 49; Testimony of
SmithJ, 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-eut" lone 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 trecs 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 ISH would require that the IS-ft. wide setback he a
"no-cut" zone which mayor may not result io a stand that is, in the aggregate, string
enough to withstand high winds, but the removal of diseased, dead, or dying trecs could
occur within the "no-cut" :zone to protect residential structures.
50. A comment letter [Exhibit 77J 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 Ferncliff; questions having two entrances so close together and the ability of
emergency vehicles to utilize the interior road; notes that c1ear-eutting on the
northernmost portion of the site, will isolate and thus jeopardize the integrity of
remaining trees (ineluding trees in the Woodland Village subdivision to the north) by
exposing them to sustained winds.
. Jocelvn 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,
. Vince M~ttson The emergency-only barrier has no practicality; forces
people to turn around on private property
. 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.
analysis and should include swale on south side of roadway at the curve, to avoid
adverse runoff impact to wetland. (See Finding 52.)
rcquire that swalcs alongside the drivcways 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 ehapter include
the following definitions of interest in reviewing this application:
"Flexil1le lot design" means a design process which permits flexibility in la/
dlNelopment and encourages a more creative approach than traditionallot-by-
10/ subdivision. The flexible lot design process includes 10/ design standards,
guidance on the placement of buildings, use of open spaces and circulation
which best addresse;' site characteristics. This design process permits clustering
of lots, with a variety of lot sizes, to provide open space, maintain island
charader and protect the Island's natural systems. The aiteria 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. /2 RIMe
.... ..
"Landscape perimeter" means a landscape buffer located along a
subdivision boundary The landscape perimeter may contain established native
vegetation or additionallanthcaping.
"Open space" means any area of land which is predominately undeveloped
and which provides physical and/or visual relief from the developed
em>ironment Open space may consist of undeveloped areas. such as pastures
and farmlands, w()Q{/lands, greenbelts, crilical area.~, pedestrian corridors and
other natllral areas...
......
"Preliminary plat" means a drawing of a proposed subdivision. which shows
the general layout of lots, tracts, streets, and other inJimnalion required by Ihis
chapter, resolutions, ordinances or administrative rules oj the departmenLthe
basis for approval or disapproval of the general layout ofa subdivi..;on.
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 residentiallols);
2. Site plan and design review;
3. Any other land use plan or permit, the granting of which would
increase the demand jOr transportation/aci/ities by 50 or more trips per day, per
the iTE Trip Generation Marmat.
B. The following development permits are exempt from this chapter, and
applicants may submit applications, obtain development permits and commence
dCVf!lopment without a certificate of concurrency:
sun 13090
Page IJ of32
SUB13090
Page 14 of 32
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.
58. BIMC 18.30.010 states that the purpose of the R-2 zone is to: "...provide for
residennal neighborhoods oj increased density in a rural environment. ..
Zoning and Flex Lot Provisions
__. to regulate the subdivision of /and to promote the public health, softty and
general welfare... To carry out this purpose and further the comprehensive plan
policies addressing residential subdivision of /and.__ this chapter establishes a
flexible lot process that promotes the preservation of open space, consolidation
of open space, and clustering of deve/apment wjthtn residential subdivisions.
This process __.limits the development impacl area. minimizes impervious SllrjQce
area and provides for greater flexibility In the division and establishment of
residential Jots.
57. The express "Purpose" of tile subdivision chapter [BIMc 17,04.020] includes the
following:
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
Exaroiner is to hold a public hearing; transmit the recommendation to the City Council in
a eonsoldiated report [DIMC 2.l6.11O.C],
55. BIMC 2.16,025.8.2 classifies action on a subdivision application as a quasi-
judicial land use decision, DIMC 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.
Subdivision Review Process and Puq)ose
J. Any development permit issued for uses, densities and Intensities
that were disclosed In a completed application filed before the .afective date of
this chapter.
2. Any dewlopment permit for development that generates less than
50 trips per day, except as pruvidedfor in subsection A of this section.
e 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.-
I. A concurrerwy test has been conducted In accordance with
BIMe J 5.32.040 and a certificate of concurrency has been issued; or
2. The application has been determined to be erempt from the
concurrency test as provided in subsection B of this section.
A. Development Standards ".
,. Density.
o. The number of residential lots created in a subdivision shall not
exceed the density provisions ofBlMC Tit/elS:
b. Properties containing wetlands and/or wetland buffer areas are
subject to reduction of the marimum density puTSUDf1t to the standards of BIMC
16,20.090.C."
....
2. MinimumLol Size Requirements.
o. Five thousand square feet ifserved by public sewer".
.....
3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensionol Requirements.
a. AIl/ot!.' sholl be 50 feet wide at the minimum lot width...
b. Insofar as practical, side lot lines sholl 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 seporation;
ii. Building to exterior property line __. Minimum 15 feet:
iii. Building to right-of-way." 50-foot setback".
iv. Building to trail, open space Or access easement".Minimum
1 O-foot setback.;
4. Landscape Buffers.
a. __.landscape buffers are to enhance and retain the character of the
Island by maintaining native vegetation alang roadways".providing vi9lllll relief
along public roads and between subdivisions and other eJCtsllng development...
b. ."R.2". where established vegetation of a forested nature is located
adjacent to public roads __. a 50-foot wide vegetative buffer shan be maintained.
....
e. Allowed Landscape Buffer 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 Iandscoping."shaIl be required within". landscape
perimeter buffirs 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 permit/ed acnvities located within the bulfrr
area.
.... ..
B. Landscape Standards. Landscaping shall be established consistent with
the requirements of subsection A.4 of this secrton and street tree planting
requirements of Chapter18,85 RIMC, and any other significant tree retention
requt rement.
50013090
Page 1501'32
SUB13090
Page 16 of 32
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 pubhc use and inlerest, including those
items 11sled in RCW 58.17.110;
3. The preliminary residential subdivision has been prepared
consistent with the requirements q{ the flexible lot design process;
4. Any portion '?f a subdivitrion that contains a criticalorea. as
defined in Chapter 16.20 BlMC, cmrforms to all requirements ofthot chapter:
5. The city engineer determines that the preliminary subdivision
meets thefollowing:
a. The subdivision cunforms to regulations conceming drainage
(Chapter 15.20 BIMC).
b. The subdivision will 7101 cause an undue burden on the drainage
basin or waler qUDlity and will not unreasonably interfere with rhe use and
e'!ioy_nt of properties downstream,
60. The criteria for preliminary subdivision approval, found at BIMC 17.04.094,
require that:
Subdivision Anproval Criteria
C. Roads and Pedestrian Access Performance Standards.
1. Existing roadway character shall be maintained where practical.
This may be accomplished through the reducHon of roadway width consistent
with subsection C. 3 of this .Tection, 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 Cunstruction Standards and
Specifications." To minimize impervious ,'utfaces, public lights-of-way, access
easements and roadways shall not be greater than the minimum required to meet
standards, COnllCClions to existing off-stte roads which abut /he subject properly
shall be required where practicable. except through critical areas and/or their
buffers,
3. Variation from Road Requirements, A variatitm from the road
requirements and standards contrJiMd within the "City of Bainbridge Island
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications" may be approved by the
city engineer, if sllch a reduction !'Wet.. the pul'f'Oses of this chapter.
4. SlreeE names. traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes shall be
provided The location of these shall be indicated on the plat.
5. Transits/ops shall be provided as recommended by Kitsap Transit.
6. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and (lCcess within a subdivision
and onto the site shall be provided through walkways, paths. sidewalks, or trails
and shall be consistent with the nonnwlOrized transportation plan, Ordinance
2002-09, Special emphasis shall be placed 011 providing pedestrian access to
proposed recreali(}1/Q[ and/or open spoce arcas.
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 arc adequate to
accommodate anffcipated traffic.
e. The subdivision conJorms to ihe requirements oJthis chapter Clnd
the standards in tile "City oj Bainbridge Iskmd Design and Construction
Standards and Specifications," =ept as otherwise authorized by in BlMC
17.04.080. C. 3,-
6. The pruposal complies with all applicable pruvisions oj this
code, Chapters 58.17 and 36.70A RCW, and aU other applicable provisions oj
state and federal laws and regulations; and
7. The proposal is in accord with the city's comprehensive plan.
B. A proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless wntten findin~ 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 ofBIMe 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.A2. and 17.04,080.A3 would met although they are not required
[see Finding 58].
Code Section
Findinll:s
17.04.080.A
I. Density.
a. The density provisions ofBIMC Titlel8 are
not exceeded;
b. The maximum density was calculated pursuant
to the standards ofBlMe 16.20'<190.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. All lots meet the 5,OOOsq. ft. minimum fur lots
served by public sewer. . .
***
3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements, 37
a. All lots are 50 feet wide at the minimum lot width,
b. The lots are appropriate size, shape, and orientation.
c. All setbaeks meet minimum requirements.
4. Landscape Buffers. 22
a. Roadside buffers would fufill purpose of maintaining
SUB 13090
Page 17of32
SUB13090
Page 18 ofJ2
62. BlMC17.04.094.A.1 requires that applicable subdivision development standards
be satisfied. Here, the applieable development standards are the Flexible Lot Standards
SubdlvisiOl.LQ~isj9!].c.rileria: BIMC 17,04.094
16,20
6. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access to the lots and
the Open Space tract would be provided through sidewalk
and trails, consistent witb the nonmotorized transportation plan.
Special emphasis shall be placed on providing pedestrian
access to proposed recreational and/or open space areas.
5. No transit stops have been recommended by Kitsap Transit.
Condition 24
4. Traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes shall be
provided and their location indicated on the pIaL.
23, 24, 25
2. and 3. Access would be consistent with the "City
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.
17.04.080.C
I. Existing roadway character maintained through preservation 22
of roadside vegetation.
17.04.080.8
Landscaping would be consistent with standards of 17.04.080.AA, see above.
19
c. Only allowed aetivities (ingrcsslcgn:ss, underground
utilities trail for nonmotorized transportation, and planting) in
buffer areas.
t'. 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.
.. .
17,22
* * *
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..
of BIMC 17.04.080 and the Flexible Lot Design Open Space Standards of BTMC
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 BIMe 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 17.04.094A4 that it conform to tile Critical Areas Ordinance (BlMC 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 witb all applicable provisions of tbe Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code as is required by BIMC 17.04.094.A.6. As conditioned, it would
comply with all applicable provisions ofRCW 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 BTMC I7.04.094.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 SO-fl. vegetative
buffer and only two lots on Femcliff 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 he served, cannot he 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 mcilities, domestic water, fire flow, and
sewer] eonsistent 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 190f32
SUB13090
Page 20 of 32
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
8. The pedestrian path across the open space would provide for safe pedestrian travel
/Tom 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.
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 Femcliff 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.
6. The Certificate of Concurrency requirement has not been met. Without the
Certificate of Concurrency, it cannot be concluded that all tbe requirements of the City's
Code have been met.
5. The new access points on Pefficliff Avenue would have proper sight distance, are
adequately separated, and would not present a salety hazard.
4. A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifieance (MONS) was properly
issued by PCD. That MONS was not appealed; however, the Recommended Conditions
should be imposed to ensure the necessary and expected mitigation of likely impacts.
3. Five residential lots are permitted. The density calculation has been made
consistem with a sound interpretation of the applicable Code sections [BlMC 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.
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.
I. 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.
Conclusions
development of this subdivision. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation includcs
some modifications to these conditions as necessitated by the infonnation 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 Spacc tract and the consideration of drainage swales alongside the private
driveways in the stonnwater control design.
]0. The subdivision complies with the flexible lot standards ofBIMC 17.04.080
] 1. The subdivision could be approved relative to the requirement that it meets the
preliminary subdivision decision criteria ofBIMc 17.04.094.A.J through A.5 and A.7,
but without the Certificate of Concurrency, it does not meet the requirement of BIMC
]7.04.094.A.6 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 ]7.04.094,BJ, 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
--... oo,"""re Ap""" A ~_ ^'", /\ ... r
""'''''' Ih;,,,,,,,., of _.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 preJimimuy subdivision
applications. City Council dceision procedures are found at BIMC 2.16,110.
SUB13090
Page 21 of 32
SUB 13090
Page 22 of 32
9. The a;:cess driveways shall be constructed to "mioimaJly adequat<:" standards and
approved by the Fire DepartmeDl:. In addition, the ~emergency access only" barrier shall be
approved by the Depar1rnent of Public Works prior to installation.
8. Privately held stormwater facilities require ongoing future operation and maintenance. If
required to comply with the DOE stonnwater 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 DecIaration of Covenant to meet the requirements ofBIMC 15.21.
6. Public Works finds that the proposed activity is likely to cause measurable degradation of
surlace water quality without a propel' 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 I, and
April 3 I a TESCP specifically addressing wet weather conditions shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer.
7. The final stonnwater system design shall be in conformance with BIMC Chapter 15.20
and with all requirements of the Deparbnent of Ecology Stormwater Manual. In the eourse 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).
5 . To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors shall
conform to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations, which insure that reaSOJ>able precautions
are taken to avoid dust emissions. (Section 16.08.040, BIMC)
3. No elearing 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.)
2. TItc Final Plat shall be in substantial conformance with the subdivision plat maps date
stamped March 17,2005; specifically, Sheds 1,2,3,4 of Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 69 which is
Sheet 5).
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.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
TIlE HAMLET SUBDIVISION ISUBl3000J
APPENDIX A
10. The eonslruet;on staging areas shall be outside critical areas and their buffcrs.
Construction fencing or silt fencing shall be placed adja<:ent to critical area buffers prior to
issuanee of any pennit that allows clearing in the vicinity of the buffers.
II. The applicant shall reloeatelconstruct 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 l Exhibit 601. 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 applieant, in consultation with the Director, determines that the northerly edgc
of the wetland buffer is better protected by installing a 6 fOOt fence, that option shall be
considered.) lbe pedestrian trail (see II above) that traverses the wetland from the west property
line to Femcliff Avenue, shall be delineated by a two-rail fence and/or signs on both sides ofthc
trail. The signs may be separated by not more thaJl fifty feet and shall identifY the area as a
protected wildlife habitat. The fencing and/or signs shall be installed poor 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 (!PM) 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 t)pe and quantity of native plants being provided. Replanting shall occur with shrubs on
three-foot ccnters and native ground eovers to provide complete coverage within three years.
Hazard tree removal may be allowed with appropriate City approval and may requirc replanting.
15. (A) To discourage the removal of wildlife habitat, significant trees that arc 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 sIand. The replacement rate delen:nines 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 IS-ft. wide setbacks along the western and northern boundaries of Lots I, 2, 3,
and 5 shall be "no-cut" zones and all significant trees must be retained; provided that, dead, dying
and disea..'ICd trees (as detennined by a qualified arborist) may be removed if they are in danger of
damaging residential structures.
16. Any non-cxempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriatc Forest Practices Pennit
from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of The Hamlet Subdivision
SUB 13090 shall become conditions of the Forest Practiccs Pennit.
SUB13090
Page 23 of32
50013090
Page 24 of32
23. 1be applicant shall dedicate additional five feet right-of-way adjacent to Femcliff
Avenue NE as shown on the Plat drawing dare stamped March 17,2005.
22. PIlbIie and private improvements, facilities. and infrastructure, on and off the site that an:
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 thc City may be used (in lieu of physical
completion), to secure and provide for the completion of necessary faciHties wbieh arc not
considered by the Engineering Department to be life, health, or safety related items. Any sueh
assurance device shall be in place prior to final plat approval, shall emunerate in delailthe items
being assured, and shall require that all such items will be completal 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 bc allowed until the required improvements
are formally accepted by the City. Additionally, a prominent note on the face of the Final plat
drawing sha.II state: "The lots created by tbis plat are subject to collditians of lID lI5S.ranee
device /JeId by the city for tile completion of certain necessary facilities. Buildinc permits
may not be issued andlor occupancy may not be allowed until such necessary facilities are
completed alld approved by the City of Bainbridge IsIaIld. AD purcbaseJ'S sbaD satisfy
themselves as to the status of completion of the netessary faeilities."
21. Contnu:tor is required to stop work and immediately notify the Departnwot of Planning
and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation if any historical or archaeologica1 artifilds are unc:overed during excavation or
construction.
Minimum 10 feet sepamtion
Minimum 15 feet
Minimum 10 feet
Maximum 5,165 sq. ft.
Minimum 15 feet
Minimum 50 feet
. Building to Building:
. Building to Exterior Propelty Line:
. Building to Trail or Open Space:
. Maximum Lot Coverage per Lot:
. Building to wetland buffer:
. Building to Femcliff Avenue:
20. Building setbacks and lot coverage requirements shall be shown on the final plat,
specifically:
19. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance,
BIMC Chapter 15.34.
18. In ordcr to mitigate any noise impacts, all eonstruetion activities must comply with B1MC
Section 16.16.025, Limitation of Construction Activities.
17. On site mobile fueling from temp<muy 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&:ology, Stormwater Management Manual, August 2001, see
Volume IV "Source Control BMPs for Mobile Fueling of Vehicles and Heavy Equipment".)
(Chapter 173-304 WAC)
24. Approved strect names, trame regulatory signs, and accessible mailbox locations that do
not restrict pedestrian acces~ must be shown on the construction drawings, which shall be
submitted prior to final plat.
25. School impact fees shall bc paid in accordance with the following provisions. for each
of the ereawd lots, prior to final plat approval the applieant shall pay onc 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 ofthc created lols shall pay
one half of the sehool impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
26. Prior to issuance of any building or utility permit fur 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 Femcliff A venue NE and NE High
School Road. The buffer vegetation shall be left in its natural state except as necesS3Jy 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 "-'Planted in a manner that maintains the buffer screening function and a
replanting plan shall be submitted to the DqJartment of Plarming for review and approval.
28. At final plat submittal, the applicant shall submit a final Open Space Management Plan that
is eonsistent with BIMC 17.04 and eontains thc provisions "a" through "e" listed bclow fur
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. Opcn Space Tract I sball be open space in perpetuity. The Open Space Management
Plan, drafted in acoordance with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMe) Sections 17.12.090
(0) 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 h3l'-al'd trees approved for removal utilizing the procedures
outlined in BIMC 18.85.060(A)(2)(b) & (c).
e. The open spac:e 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(0) is
permitted.
e. The pedestrian trail that traverses the northern portion of Open Space Tract I (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-destmctive passage across the property.
29. A draft Homeowners Agreement, approved by the Director, shall be included in the final
plat submittal. This agreement shall spceifY the organization, membcrship, and functIon of the
Homconucrs Association It shall be clearly expressed that the purpose and responsibility of the
Homeowners Association includes the management and maintenance of Open Space Tract I,
including payment of all eosts associated n~th that management and maintL-nancc, in accord with the
Open Space MilIlagement Plan. This agreement shall be recorded with the final plat.
5U813090
Page 25 ofJ3
SUB I 3090
Page 26 of 32
#l'aIl :es
I Routing tnfonnation ]
2 Historical Data furm I
3 Historical Data: JnitiaI Tree Evaluation by Beck 11-17-97 13
(Northwest ArlJon.-itae)
4 Historical Data: MartinlPatterson Short Plat - Open 2-25-02 3-]6-02 3ds'
Space M Plan
5 Historical Data: Memorandum to Morse from Gates 9-27-01 3-15-02 2
(AdoUSon Associates lnc.)
6 Historical Data: Corres ftom Kucinski (Kucinski 5-12-99 5
Coosulting 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 ftom Bartlett 5-2~2 5-30-02 2
(Wiltennood Associates, !nc,) rc: AffooIs of
Detention Pond Outlet on east side of Stonec::ress
project.
9 Historical Data: Notice of Mitigated Determination 6-26-02 18
ofNoosUwificance
10 Associated Fee information 12-2-04 ]2-2-04 2
II Site Plan (pervious paver) (Browne Engineering) 11-23~ 12-241 I
2 PIaus: 11-10-04 12-2-03 5
A. Legal Description (I ofs)
B. DedicatiollSlBasemellt ProvisiOllS (2of5)
C. Existing Conditions (3 of 5)
D. Preliminary Plat Lot areas (4 of5).
E. Preliminary Plat Lots (5 of 5)
Date Rec'd
By COBI
Dated
Description
Exhibit /I
Public Hearing before the Hearing
Examiner: 5-5-05 @ 10;00 a.m.
Planner: Tom BODsell
Compiled 4-13-05. Amended 4-20-05, 5-5-05,
6-29-05
EXHIBIT LIST
THE HAMLET SUBDIVISION
[SUBlJ090J
APPENDIX B
13 Reduced Plans: Patres 1-5 11-10-04 12-2-04 5
14 Environmenta1 Checklist 11-19-04 12-2-04 14
15 Open Space Manasemcnt Plan II-II -04 12-2-04 2
16 Geotcx:hnical Slope Evaluation (Myers Biodynamics) 3-4-02 12-2-04 6
17 Water and Sewer Availability letter from Newkirk 1I-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 I
22 Routing Slip 12-2-04 I
23 Review Comments: Fire Dept. 12-2-04 12-14-04 2
24 Cones to Skinner from Gladstein reo complete 12-15-04 I
, llDolication
25 Men""....dum to Beny from BooseU re: legal notice 12-13-04 1
26 Notice of ApplicationlSEP A COJIIII\ent period 12-18-04 15
27 NoIice of ApplicationlSEP A wmmenl period 12-18-04 21
noticing documentation
28 Cones to Mayor and City Council ftom Danzig reo 12-22-04 12-22-04 3
request fur extension of eommeuts period and public
records
29 Corres to DPCD from HelIriegel reo objections 12-22-04 12-22-04 I
30 Corres m'from BonsclllDanzig reo extension of 12-22-04 12-22-04 2
comment period denied
31 Corres m'from ScottIDanziglBonsell reo support for 12.22-04 12-22-04 2
extended cornmeal: neriod
32 Coms to DanziglB<msell from Reyes re: support fur 12-22-04 12-22-04 I
extended commeot ..
33 Corres to CouncillMayor from Spence reo support fur 12-22-04 12-22-04 2
extended commeDt neriod
34 Corres to CmUleil from Jarecke re: support fur 12-22-04 12-22-04 I
extended eommeot oeriod
35 Corres to Danzig'Boosell from Eiseman reo support 12-22-04 12-22-04 1
for extended commeot period
36 Corrcs to Soott 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 aI from Frazier reo extension of 12-22,(14 12-22-04 I
comment period
SUB t 3090
Page 27 002
.
SUBI3090
Page 28 of32
39 Corres to neighboring property owners from Bonsell 12-22-04 3
rc: extension of comment period
40 Ccrtiftcate of Posting 12-23--04 12-27--04 I
41 Affidavit of Posting: Notice of Application 12-29-M 1
42 Cones to OPeO from Proctor reo coneems 11-30--04 1-4-05 2
43 Cones 10 HouseD from Denlinger re: objections (E- 1-3-05 1-4-05 3
mail and bard eoov)
44 Cortes to Planning Commission from Stroman 1<:: 1-12-5 1-l2-O5 I
concerns
45 Cones to Bonsell from Mattson reo concerns 1-13..05 1-13-OS 2
46 Cones to Bonsell from Taylor reo concerns 1-13..oS J-13-{)5 1
47 Cones to Bonsell from Wood re: coneerns 1-16-05 1-18-{)5 2
48 Corres to Bonsell from Hayes re: COIlcemS I-IS-OS 1-18-{)j I
49 Corres to Bonsell from Andrus re: concerns 1-17..oS 1-18..05 I
50 Cones to Planning Commission from Brent reo 1-17..05 l-Ill-{)S 2
concerns
51 Cones to HouseD from Gifford re: concerns 1-17..05 l-18-0S 2
52 Cones toIftom Reyes/Riee re: attachment 1-I8-0S 1-18-05 I
53 Corres to Frazier from Korten re: ooncems 1-17-05 1-18-05 1
54 Cones to Bonsell from Eiseman re: concerns 1-18-05 1-18..oS 2
55 Corres to Bonsell from Campbell re: concerns 1-17-<)5 J-18-{)5 4
56 Corres to Bonscll from Depew reo concerns 1-16-05 1-24-{)5 6
57 Corres toIftom BrentlWilder re: quasi judicial 1-25"{15 1-25-05 2
I process
58 Notice ofSEPA Determination ofNonsignificance 3-18-05 I
59 Notice of SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 3-18-05 5ds
notieing documentation
60 Revised Plans: 3-15-{)5 3-17-{)5
A. legal Description (1 of 5)
B. DcdicationslEasement Provisions (2 of 5)
C. Existing Conditions (3 of 5)
D. Preliminary Plat Lot areas and open space
tract (40f5).
E. Preliminary Plat Lots
E. ()pen Space
61 Reduced Revised Plans (Pages 1-5) 3-15-05 3-17--05 5
62 Revised Application 3-I7-05 3-17-{)5 II
63 Wetland Analysis Report (Wiltennood and 3-8-1I5 3-11-05 44ds
Associates, Inc.)
64 Request fur Review: Natwal Resource Planner 12-2-05 2
65 Revised Wetland Analysis Report (Wiltennood 3-8-05 3-17-05 15
Associates, Ine)
66 Revised Lot Closures 3-16-05 3-17-05 4
67 Plan: Sheet 5 of 5 4-5-05 4-6--05 I
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 I
70 Requests for Review: Natural Resource Planner, Fire 4-5-05 10
~., O&M, Public Worlcs.
71 Review Comments: Fire Dept. 4-5-05 2
72 Corres to Boosell from Adam (Adam & ~5 4-6--05 1
Goldsworthv) re: transmitlal
73 Requests to review records
74 STAFF REPORT
75 Public Hearing Notice docwnenlation
76 Memorandum from Public Works Department. 4-19-05 4-19-05 3
77 Coms 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 - Ferncliff Ave 5-5-05 1
80 ORDER REOPENING RECORD 6-2-05 6-2-05 1
81 Revised Open Space Management Plan 6-a-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 29 002
SUB 13090
Page 30 of 32
Introductory Remarks reo hearing fonuat, order of
presentation.
Tom Boosell, Planner
0180 Introductions:
ToDiclSuhiect SummarY
TIlDe Count Soeahr ID
Tape 1:
0000 HEX
Public Hearing convened at 10:00 a.m.
Adam Wheeler
Browne Engineering
149 Finch Place SW
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Jocelyn Brent
8134 Eleanor Place
Baiobridgelslaad, WA 98110
ViJU:e Mattson
9651 Green Spot Place
Bainbrid~ Island, W A 98110
Linda Warreo, MD
10770 Broomgerrie Road
Bainbridge Island, W A 98110
James Denlinger
10131 NE Garibaldi Loop
Bainbridee Island, W A 98110
PhiDip O'Hartigan
WITNESSES/SPEAKERS:
Lois Andrus
8982 Ferndilf Ave. NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Larry Skinner
John L. SeGtt Real Estate
5900 Gunderson Road
Poulsbo, W A
Deut. Renresentative
Tom Honsel!, Planner
Dept. of Plann'De and Community
Development
AppliCJInt
David Smith
CentraJ Highland Builders
P.O. Boa 1306
Bremerton, W A 98337
PARTIES PRESENT:
ASSISTANT: Diane Sawyer
EXAMiNER: Meredith A. Cetebes
THE HAMLET SUBDMSION
(SOOI3090)
HEARING NOTES
May 5, 2005
APPENDIX C
0225
0262
Andrus
Denlinger
0664 O'Hartigan
0746 Bonsell
HEXJBonsell
0984 Bonsell
1175 Smith
1222 Bonsell
1260 Smith
1491 Bonsell
]522 Smith
]570 Wheeler
1736 HEXiWheeler
HEX/Smith
1876 Wheeler
2018 HEX/Smith
David Smitb, Developer
Larry Skinner, ReaItur
Adam Wheeler, Browne Engineering.
Sworn. Concerns re: open space tl1lllIlIgement.
Sworn. Conccrns re: Comp Plan, open space buffers,
property ownership, tree removal.
Provided photograph (Exhibit 78 entered).
Continued concerns re: trail easements, wetland
delineation, access, drainage, process.
Sworn. Support fur project. Concerns re: drainage
management.
Sworn. lntroduced 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 developll1Cnt techniques.
Question and Answer: Drainage.
Question and Answer: building footprint,
Continued testimony re: drainage, fire access, vehicular
access.
Question and Answer: wetland survey, tJail, open space
dedication, clustering.
The hearing recessed at II :20 a.m. and reconvened at 11 :30 a.m.
2366
2446
HEXlBonscll
Warrro
2513
2528
O'Hartigan
Bonsell
2735
2765
2784
2879
2970
3010
Wheeler
Smith
Mattson
Bonsel!
Mattson
HEXlSmith
Bonsell
Skinner
Wheeler
3060
3155
3190
3274
HEXlSmith
Question and Answer: sight lines.
Sworn, Concerns: density inercase in re stormwater
runoff, landslide potential.
Concerns: run-off conlaminants.
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. (EXHIBIT 79 entered)
Driveway, directi00l11 signs.
SUB13090
Page 31 of32
SUB13090
Page 320f32
There being no further testimony, the bearing aDd record were closed at 12:25 p,m,
Concerns: traffic, children's safety, trees, supportComp
Plan.
Professional badgrOlUld. Concerns: priOT comments not
addressed, trees, process, objection to project.
Question to Skinner.
Question and Answer: density calculatiollS., flex lot
design.
Comments te: buffers, drainage.
Comments re: drainage.
Request similar clustered site information.
Conunents: low impact development.
Concerns: Dollnw impact, impact to trees.
Response.
Smith
Wheeler
HEXIBonsell
Bonsell
Brent
Smith
3940
3950
3986
4021
4054
4082
HEXIBonselVSmith
3756
Denlinger
3520
Brent
3364