Loading...
BURLINGAME, FRANK & JOANN SUB12598 Page 1 of 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND In the Matter of the Application of FRANK AND JOANN BURLINGAME SUB12598 for preliminary plat approval of the 8-Lot “Maplewood Subdivision” Introduction Frank and Joann Burlingame have applied for preliminary plat approval for the 8-lot “Maplewood Subdivision”. The Director recommends approval of the subdivision, subject to numerous conditions. The public hearing was held on February 23, 2006 and the parties were represented as follows: the Director, Planning and Community Development Department (PCD or Department), by Thomas Bonsell, Planner, and the Applicant, Frank Burlingame, by Larry Skinner. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit on February 23, 2006. The record was reopened on March 15, 2006 for the admission of comments submitted by Edus Warren [Exhibit 45], and Applicant’s response to those comments [Exhibit 46]. The record was closed again on March 15, 2006. 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 Appendix A found at the end of this document. 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 of 4.36 acres (tax lot #4169-000-049-002), just east of State Route 309 and south of Murden Cove, is located northeast of where Yaquina Street and Moran Road intersect to form a corner. The site is generally rectangular in shape, bounded by Moran Road on the west, Yaquina Street on the south, Hemlock Street on the east, and single-family residences on the north. The east-west dimension of the site is approximately 608 ft. and the north-south dimension is approximately 317 ft. [Exhibit 41; Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 1] SUB12598 Page 2 of 24 2. The legal description on the preliminary plat map [Exhibit 41] is: Replat of Lot 49, Plat of Rolling Bay City, Volume 3, Page 11 NW ¼, NW ¼ & SW ¼, NW ¼, Sec. 23, T. 25N., R.2E., W.M. City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. 3. The majority of the wooded site is undeveloped. An existing residence, accessory dwelling unit, shed and greenhouse are located in the eastern third of the site, with access to Yaquina Street via a gravel driveway about 80 ft. west of Hemlock Street. [See “Existing Conditions”, Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 1D; Exhibit 43]. 4. Site topography is characterized by a gentle slope down to the northwest with a steeper, moderate slope (15% to 27%) in the northwest quadrant at the head of a broad topographic draw (see shaded area designating slope greater than 15%, Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 1D). [Exhibit 11, page 2] PCD staff determined that, “due to the soil type, Kapowsin Gravelly Loam 0-15 percent”, the site is not considered geologically hazardous. [Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 6; Testimony of Bonsell] 5. Vegetation includes mature trees (e.g., big-leaf maple, red alder, and Douglas fir), with an understory of sword fern, woody shrubs and herbaceous groundcover. Red alder and herbaceous groundcover dominate the steeper slopes. [Exhibit 11, page 2] 6. The property is zoned residential, R-2 (one unit per 20,000 sq. ft.), and the Comprehensive Plan designation is ORS-2, Open Space Residential. The surrounding uses are single-family residences and undeveloped residentially-zoned property, with R-2 zoning and OSR Comprehensive Plan designations. [Exhibit 40, Staff Report, pages 6-7; Exhibit 16, Application, page 5; Testimony of Bonsell] SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL 7. Application for the “Maplewood Subdivision” [Exhibit 16] was filed on July 13, 2005. The application proposed eight residential lots on 4.36 acres. The plat maps associated with the application are Sheets 1/7 through 7/7 (original submittal included Exhibits 1A through 1G). Several of the sheets were revised during the PCD review: Cover Sheet, Sheet 1/7, see Exhibit 3A; Existing Conditions, Sheet 4/7, see Exhibit 3B; Setbacks and Easement Details, Sheet 6/7, see Exhibit 3C). Attached to the Staff Report, [Exhibit 40] is a set of the most current maps at reduced size. Exhibit 33 has details (meets and bounds) for the proposed building sites. Proposed Lots 8. The proposed lots would range in size from 19,118 sq. ft. to 44,336 sq. ft. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 would be the largest lots and both would have rectangular shape; the other lots would have somewhat irregular shapes and vary in size [see “Lot Details”, Sheet 5/7, Exhibit 1E]. Consistent with the cluster lot development requirements [BIMC SUB12598 Page 3 of 24 17.04.080.A.5], all the lots would be more than 50 ft. wide, no lot would have a homesite that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft., and each homesite would be within 25 ft. of any adjacent homesite [see Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C and Exhibit 33]. Lot Size Home Site Lot 1 44,336 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 2 29,528 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 3 23,180 sq. ft. 9,999 sq. ft. Lot 4 20,768 sq. ft. 9,932 sq. ft. Lot 5 19,118 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 6 22,222 sq. ft. 9,857 sq. ft. Lot 7 18,918 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 8 21,057 sq. ft. 9,994 sq. ft. TOTAL 190,127 sq. ft. (4.36 acres) 9. Proposed Lot 2 would include the existing residence with access continuing to be from Yaquina Street. Access to Lots 3, 4 and 8 is also proposed to be from Yaquina Street (via an easement entering the property about 250 ft. west of Hemlock Street). Initially the accessory dwelling unit would remain on proposed Lot 1, but the Applicants intend in future to build a new residence on this lot with access from Hemlock Street [Testimony of F. Burlingame]. (The proposed access for Lot 1 from Hemlock Street is not depicted in the current plat maps [see Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C] and the maps should be revised to include it.) Lots 5, 6, and 7 are proposed to have access from Moran Road (via an easement roadway entering the property about 160 ft. north of the Yaquina/Moran corner). The access, where it is aligned with the southern boundary shared by Lot 5 and Lot 6, would be built through the southernmost portion of the steep slope area [see Exhibits 3B and 3C or 41]. As shown in Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C and described by the engineer [Exhibit 8, page 2], the graveled access roadways from the two access points would be linked by a reinforced grass fire lane restricted by bollards. Except for emergency vehicles, there would be no through travel. (The Fire Marshall discourages use of bollards; no alternative means of preventing through travel have been put forward.) Infrastructure/Utilities 10. The access, within the 20-ft. wide access and utility easement, would have a 12 ft.-wide driving surface of crushed rock with 3-ft. wide shoulders, [see Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A; and Sheet C2, Exhibit 2B]. Both the Public Works Department [Exhibit 35] and the Fire Marshall [Exhibit 24] advise that a condition of preliminary plat approval [see Recommended Condition 18] should be that the all design and construction be consistent with City’s standards for this type of access and the private road(s) be designated as private [see Recommended Condition 4]. 11. The applicant’s engineer estimated the actual distance between the corner and the proposed Moran Road access point to be approximately 100 ft. The required sight distance is 115 ft. To remedy for this discrepancy, the engineer notes that the corner would need to be graded to the northeast [Exhibit 8; Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A]. SUB12598 Page 4 of 24 Approximately 80 ft. north of the proposed access onto Moran Road, is the driveway for the adjacent residences [see also Finding 41]. 12. The subject property is within City of Bainbridge Island’s current water service boundary and can be served [see non-binding commitment letter, Exhibit 13]. An 8-in. water main would be extended to serve proposed Lots 2 through 8 from the existing main in Moran Road [Exhibit 8, page 2; Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A]. See Recommended Condition 4d. The existing well within proposed Lot 1 would continue to serve that lot and the existing well within proposed Lot 2 would be decommissioned [Exhibit 37]. (The two existing wells are marked on Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 38B.) 13. A fire hydrant is located about 80 ft. north of the subject property in the Moran Road right-of-way. A fire hydrant is proposed within the subdivision adjacent to the access roadway near the southeast corner of proposed Lot 4 [Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A]. Hydrant location is subject to Fire Department and Public Works approval [see Recommended Condition 4]. 14. The Kitsap County Health District regulates wells and on-site septic systems. The District has given preliminary approval for this proposed subdivision (with conditions noted in Exhibit 37). A soil log [Exhibit 2] is in the file, but it has no indication as to when and by whom it was prepared (the geotech report – Exhibit 11 - mentions soil logs “by others” had be considered for that report). The Health District did not indicate whether it had reviewed any soils logs or other site condition information when it gave preliminary approval. A lot with an on-site system must be a minimum of 12,500 sq. ft. in size; system design and location within the lot must get Health District approval at the building permit stage. 15. A geotechnical slope evaluation [Exhibit 11], as required by the City’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance (ESA), was submitted with the subdivision application. This report focused on the northwest [proposed Lots 4 and 5; see Finding 4 and Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 3B) where slopes on the order of 18% to 27% are associated with the topographic draw that extends off the property to the north. The evaluation reports no evidence of recent or historic slope instability, but the soils within the draw are subject to soil creep. During site reconnaissance, shallow groundwater was encountered within two feet of the surface and seeped rapidly into the hand-dug exploratory hole. The geotechnical engineer has concluded that the slopes are stable and that single-family residences could be constructed. (The required geotechnical forms for permit issuance in a geologically hazardous area, signed by the engineer, comprise Exhibit 10.). It is also recommended that residences and on-site septic systems not be located within the draw and several recommended conditions are aimed at addressing high groundwater and drainage issues so as not to increase the rate and/or quantity of flow of stormwater onto neighboring properties to the north. 16. Stormwater from the future residences would be collected from impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, driveways, etc.) and routed either directly to the public stormwater system or detained for controlled release; infiltration trenches are proposed on Lots 3 SUB12598 Page 5 of 24 through 8 [Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A]. Recommended Conditions 3, 4c, and 11 would require that stormwater control facilities be designed and maintained in conformance with the applicable City and DOE regulations as determined by the City Engineer. 17. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed subdivision [Exhibit 35] and has recommended approval, contingent upon the Applicant providing information and demonstrating within the Plat Utility permit process that infrastructure design and construction would follow City standards. Recommended Conditions 3, 4, 16, and 18 address these concerns. Preserving Trees and Establishing Landscape Buffer 18. In the R-2 zoning district roadside buffers are not required unless adjacent to collector or arterial streets. The surrounding streets here are all Residential Suburban. However, according to the Staff Report [Exhibit 40, page 8-9], the Applicants propose to have “landscape buffers along Moran Road and Yaquina Street...” 19. As can be seen in the aerial view [Exhibit 43], the dense tree canopy is primarily located in the western and south-central portions of the site. The Tree Retention Plan [Sheet 7/7, Exhibit 1G] indicates that many existing trees within the tree canopy along the frontage of both streets would be retained. The tree retention area would be approximately 35,000 sq. ft. (the equivalent of 30% of the site’s existing tree canopy). The designated retention areas would be approximately 30-40 ft. wide along the entire Moran frontage and in proposed Lots 7, 8 and 3 along the Yaquina frontage. Along the northern boundary the retention area would be approximately 30 ft. wide in proposed Lot 5 and 60 ft. wide along about half the northern boundary of proposed Lot 4. All the trees within the designated retention areas are proposed to be retained. 20. The Applicants testified at hearing about their plans to enhance perimeter plantings in the southwest corner and along the northern subdivision boundary. Over 150 native and compatible plants (e.g., Pacific dogwood, serviceberry, vine maple, salal, etc.) have been purchased [list in Exhibit 44] and will be planted as soon as weather permits. Western red cedar (Thuja ‘Green Giant’) trees [see Exhibit 44], chosen for their ability to grow rapidly and absorb large quantities of water, will also be planted in these areas. These hardy trees grow several feet per year up to 40-50 feet tall and 12 feet wide. [J. Burlingame] 21. No planting plan has been submitted and the required landscape perimeter buffer [see BIMC 17.04.070.A.4.d] is not specifically designated on any of the preliminary plat maps. (The Tree Retention Plan, described in Finding 19, would retain significant trees within some of landscape buffer area.) The enhancement proposed at hearing includes a sketch [Exhibit 44] that shows thirteen of the red cedar trees [see Finding 20] along the northern perimeter and five in the southwest corner. The PCD Staff Report recommends [Staff Report, page 2, #5] that an approved landscape plan be required to indicate “where and how” the landscape perimeter buffer would be enhanced to achieve a “filtered screen” in accord with BIMC 18.85.070. [See Recommended Condition 5.] SUB12598 Page 6 of 24 22. Grading would be necessary for construction of the access road, driveways and homesites. The quantity of graded material has not been estimated, but clearing and/or grading would require a permit [Recommended Conditions 1 and 3] and all graded materials hauled from the site would be required to be properly disposed of [see Recommended Condition 7]. A plan for erosion control (TESCP) would be required by Recommended Condition 10 and, during construction, these measures would have to be implemented along with whatever precautions found by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to be necessary to control dust emissions [see Recommended Condition 6]. 23. During construction, all trees and areas slated for preservation would be required by Recommended Condition 5 to be protected (i.e., temporary fencing to be installed prior to any grading activities and maintained throughout construction). Recommended Condition 12 would also require that construction staging areas be located outside the designated landscape buffer areas. PCD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION 24. As part of its consideration of the subject application [Exhibit 1-3], the Department did environmental review, including a SEPA threshold determination. An Environmental Checklist [Exhibit 23] was included with the application. Notice of the application and SEPA comment period was originally published on July 23, 2005 and was republished on August 13, 2005 [see Exhibits 25, 26, 29]. The Applicant provided the required posting of land use action signs on August 13, 2005 [Exhibit 31]. 25. During the Department’s review of this application two comment letters were received [Ashabi, Exhibit 27; McClosky, Exhibit 30]. The Staff Report [Exhibit 40, page 7] notes the issues raised and provided responses (in bold) as follows: ƒ Increased run-off from tree removal during the construction phase of the project: The proposed plat is in conformance with the subdivision regulations which requires the preserving of 15 percent of the trees by count or 30-percent of the canopy. In addition, the subdivision must meet the Department of Ecology and the City of Bainbridge Island storm water regulations. The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm water management plan to the Department of Public Works and has received preliminary approval. The subdivision has been required to reflect recommendations contained within the geotechnical report specifically addressing stormwater concerns. (Condition 4g) ƒ Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Concerns were raised regarding traffic on Moran Road and the safety of the proposed entrance into the subdivision. The Public Works Department has reviewed the application for sight distance and compliance with the design and construction standards and has recommended approval. SUB12598 Page 7 of 24 26. On October 6, 2005 the Director issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) [Exhibit 39]. Notice of that decision was properly given. The DNS was not appealed [Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 1; Testimony of Bonsell]. Zoning and Land Use 27. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning provisions of BIMC Chapter 18.30 for the R-2 zone. The subject site has a total area of 190,127 sq. ft. and the minimum lot size in the zone is 20,000 sq. ft. The allowable number of lots is the total area divided by the minimum lot size. That calculation indicates that the maximum number of lots permitted by the zoning is nine. [See Sheet 5/7, Exhibit 1E for lot sizes, configuration and dimensions; Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Bonsell] 28. The Director correctly determined [Exhibit 40, pages 8] that: the homesites are within the 10,000 sq. ft. maximum allowed by the Code; all lots would be more than 50 feet wide; and, the configuration of the lots would allow for compliance with required setbacks. The Director recommends that building setback requirements and coverage limitations be noted on the final plat. Recommended Condition 21 would require the following setback requirements: ƒ Maximum homesite size: 10,000 sq. ft. ƒ Maximum lot coverage: 4,753 sq. ft. ƒ Distance between homesites: 25 ft. maximum ƒ Distance between buildings: 10 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and subdivision boundary: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and access easement: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and Hemlock Street ROW: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 7 and Yaquina Street ROW: 44 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 8 and Yaquina Street ROW: 29 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 5 and Moran Road ROW: 43 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 6 and Moran Road ROW: 34 ft. minimum 29. The 20% maximum lot coverage limitation for the R-2 zone would be met. That is, each of the lots has been assigned allowable coverage of 4,753 sq. ft. (i.e., an equal share of the 20% coverage allowed for the entire 190,127 sq. ft. parcel [Exhibit 40, page 8]). Recommended Condition 21 would require that the maximum lot coverage be shown on the final plat. 30. Because the proposed subdivision is using the cluster development option, “home sites” of 10,000 square feet or less are designated on each lot as the maximum area for development disturbance. All the homesites designated are within this limit and are within 25 feet of each other as is required [size information in Exhibit 33; configuration shown in Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C]. 31. The Public Works Department determined that existing street widths are adequate and the Director advises that dedication of right-of-way is not required. The internal SUB12598 Page 8 of 24 access roadway would be a private street; maintained by the property owners [see Recommended Conditions 4 and 11]. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan does not designate the adjacent streets for required bike lanes and/or pedestrian paths [Staff Report, Exhibit 40, page 9]. The Staff Report was revised at hearing to eliminate the incorrect statements that half-street improvements had be proposed or required for Moran and Yaquina [Testimony of Bonsell]. Review and Comment by Other Agencies 32. During its review of the application, PCD requested that City departments review the subdivision application and provide comment. The comments received by PCD are summarized below (the Police Department had no comment, see Exhibit 21). Comments have been assigned the exhibit numbers noted and are included in the record. Dept/Agency Exhibit Comment ƒ Fire Marshall 24 Plans indicate compliance with the fire protection ordinance by adequate fire flow with hydrants using City water; hydrants to be located at intervals not to exceed 600 feet and locations must be submitted to Public Works and the Fire Department for approval; the access road must meet standards set forth by Public Works and be constructed prior to final subdivision approval. ƒ Public Works 34 Water main(s), hydrant(s), and any work in public rights-of-way, must meet City’s Design and Construction Standards and Specifications; plans should be revised to show hydrants every 300 feet; complete sight distance calculations must submitted in compliance with sight distance requirement; all utilities shall be designed to minimize adverse effects and to preserve trees and roadside vegetation. 33. The Public Works Department has issued a Certificate of Concurrency [Exhibit 34] in conformance with BIMC Chapters 15.32 and 15.40. As defined by BIMC 15.32.020, “concurrency” indicates that affected transportation facilities have adequate capacity to serve a particular development without adversely affecting the level of service standards and the transportation facilities are available and reserved for the property described in the certificate. Director's Recommendation 34. The Staff Report regarding the subdivision application was issued on February 6, 2006. The Director recommends that the subdivision be approved with numerous conditions [pages 2 through 5, Exhibit 40]. The Recommended Conditions in Appendix SUB12598 Page 9 of 24 A at the end of this Recommendation are based upon the Director’s conditions, modified by the Hearing Examiner in response to information received during the hearing process. 35. The Applicant has submitted a “Tree Retention Plan” (Sheet 7/7, Exhibit 1G) that shows where the tree canopy would be retained (all significant trees within the designated areas of the canopy would be retained). No significant trees within the landscape perimeter buffer outside the canopy buffer are identified to be retained. The Director’s Staff Report [Exhibit 40, pages 2 and 11] recommends that the Applicants be required to: 1) provide a tree survey showing the locations of significant trees and indicating which are to be preserved, including retaining all significant trees within the landscape perimeter buffer; 2) submit a landscape plan showing where and how the landscape perimeter buffer would be enhanced; and, 3) during construction, protect trees slated for preservation. 36. A “filtered screen”, at least 25 ft. wide, consistent with the filtered screen requirements of BIMC 18.85.070.B.3, is required “along the subdivision boundary” [see Finding 57]. Recommended Condition 5 includes this requirement and there should also be a condition requiring appropriate CC &Rs for long-term preservation and maintenance of that landscape perimeter buffer. 37. The Recommended Conditions (see numbers bracketed below) would provide mitigation of potential environmental impacts as follows: a. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with construction as related to: erosion/sedimentation, runoff, and pollution [6, 10, 13]; air quality [7, 9]; protection for significant trees [5, 12]; noise [14]; historic/archaeological resources [15]. b. Mitigation of environmental impacts associated with long-term residential use of the site as related to: stormwater control [4c, 11]; preservation of significant trees [5]; schools [17]; light and glare [8]. c. Provision of: adequate access [2, 4]; appropriate utility infrastructure and improvements [4, 16]; preservation and maintenance of landscape setbacks [5]; compliance with zoning requirements and conditions of subdivision approval [2]. 38. The Director correctly concluded that the proposed subdivision, with the proper conditions, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable sections of the Bainbridge Municipal Code, including the Subdivisions Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING 39. Notice of the public hearing to be held on December 1, 2005 was published on November 16, 2005 [Exhibit 36]. That hearing was canceled and rescheduled to SUB12598 Page 10 of 24 February 23, 2006 with notice mailed and published January 31, 2006; notice posted on the property February 8, 2006 [Exhibit 39]. 40. During the public hearing, the Department's representative testified regarding the Staff Report and the Director's recommendation [Testimony of Bonsell]. The Director’s representative noted several minor corrections for the Staff Report [Exhibit 40]: “Condition 3g” in E.1.a on page 8 should read “Condition 4g”; the first sentence in F.1.g on page 9 should be eliminated as half street improvements are not proposed; and, the second sentence in Recommended Condition 4.e on page 2 should read “…600 feet apart” not “…300 feet apart”. The Applicant contributed information about the subdivision proposal and the subject property [Testimony of Burlingame; Testimony of Skinner; Testimony of Wheeler], and several members of the public commented [see Finding 41]. 41. The comments of those members of the public who gave testimony about the proposed subdivision at the hearing, are summarized below: ƒ Elizabeth Ajhabi Lives to the north; concerned about runoff [see comment letter, Exhibit 27]; since tree cutting was done on the subject property (about 4 years ago), runoff to her property has increased. ƒ Vince Mattson Spoke on behalf of a neighbor with young children who is concerned about safe pedestrian access along Yaquina and Moran. Traffic has increased in the neighborhood and some provision needs to be made for safer pedestrian use; would like to see shoulder provided. ƒ Iraj Ajhabi Lives adjacent to the north [see comment letter, Exhibit 27]. His property is downhill and runoff from the Burlingame property comes on to his property and the McClosky property (east of his property). After trees were removed from the Burlingame property four years ago, the runoff has been affecting his property. The gravel driveway that provides his access now “becomes a sodden mud hole” in the winter. He wants the Applicants to take corrective action to protect his property and specifically requested installation of a drain running the length of the property line he and McClosky share with the subject property. Traffic safety at the proposed access to Moran Road south of his driveway, was also a concern. They have had several near misses with cars traveling from the Moran/Yaquina corner in excess of the posted speed limit; the proposed access is located closer to the Moran/Yaquina corner, posing an increased risk of accidents. 42. The draw on the subject property is part of a drainage way [see Finding 15 and Drainage Map, Exhibit 8] that continues through the adjacent properties to the north, eventually forming a creek that flows to Murden Cove. The toe of the slope was cut when the driveway for the neighboring properties to the north was constructed. This “daylighted” the shallow groundwater, which began seeping through the face of that cut and causing problems on those properties soon after construction. (Seeping at the driveway cut also was observed by the geotech; see Exhibit 11, page 3.) [Testimony of Bonsell; Testimony of J. Burlingame; Testimony of F. Burlingame; Testimony of Skinner; Testimony of I. Ajhabi] SUB12598 Page 11 of 24 43. Following the close of the hearing, written comment was received from Edus Warren [Exhibit 45]. This comment voices the concern that streets in the neighborhood lack shoulders or sidewalks and increased auto traffic is making foot and bicycle travel more and more risky. Mr. Warren asserts that this subdivision would “significantly increase” the volume of traffic on Moran Road, Yaquina Street and Ferncliff Avenue, with commensurate increased risk for pedestrians and bicyclists. He advocates that no large-scale development be permitted in the East Central area until a comprehensive plan for dealing with increased traffic volumes is designed and implemented. Mr. Warren also asserts that, given the high water table and the site topography – leading to a stream that discharges into Murden Cove - the proposed on-site septic systems would pose a threat to the water quality of Murden Cove. He suggests that no further development in the area be permitted until a comprehensive plan for dealing with human waste can be designed and implemented. 44. The Applicant requested and was granted the opportunity to respond to the comments made by Edus Warren. Mr. Burlingame [Exhibit 46] observes that Yaquina is a “quiet country road” (not an arterial or collector) with “adequate grassy shoulders, which allow bikers and walkers to easily move out of the traffic lane…” He disagrees with the assertion that these six new homes could “significantly impact” Ferncliff Avenue and notes that construction of bike lanes and sidewalks would destroy the “country feel of the area.” He is aware of the odors in the Murden Cove area and has been told that its source is rotting plant material exposed to the sun when the tide is out. He believes that the proposed septic systems would have nothing to do with that situation. 45. The neighbors’ complaint that the proposed access to Moran Road is too close to the Yaquina/Moran corner, is consistent with the engineer’s conclusion that grading would be necessary to improve the sight line [Exhibit 8, page 2]. The engineer estimated the actual sight distance to be approximately 100 ft., but this seems to be substantially underestimated. On both the site map [Exhibit C1] and the plat map [Sheet 5/7, Exhibit 1E] the scaled distance from the Yaquina/Moran corner to the Moran access point is on the order of 160 ft. The distance from the Yaquina/Moran corner to the Yaquina access point would be approximately 280 ft. (and there is approximately 200 ft. between the Yaquina Street access point and Hemlock Street). 46. There is not sufficient factual evidence in record to support the assertion that the expected 57 new vehicle trips would cause significant impacts or significantly increase risks for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Public Works Department [Exhibit 34] found adequate capacity exists to accommodate these new trips. However, it is likely that the limited sight distance makes the access onto Moran Road problematic. Even with the proposed grading [see Finding 11], drivers traveling from the Moran/Yaquina at speeds greater than the posted limit could make safe exiting difficult. Use of the access should be limited in order to reduce this risk. This could be accomplished by shifting the section of “reinforced grass pavement” to the west, so that the “reinforced gravel pavement” east of it would serve proposed Lots 6 and 7 as well as Lots 3, 4 and 8 [see Sheet C1, Exhibit 2A and/or Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C]. In this configuration only proposed Lot 5 would take access off Moran Road. The access point on Yaquina Street, having twice the required SUB12598 Page 12 of 24 sight distance in both directions, would serve five lots (i.e., Lots 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8) instead of three lots as proposed (i.e., Lots 3, 4, and 8). The access road to Moran Road would need to be the gravel pavement for a relatively short distance in order to serve only Lot 5 and it should stop short of the steep slope area [see Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 3B]. 47. The project engineer testified that the stormwater drainage and infiltration systems would meet Department of Ecology and City requirements [see “Notes”, Exhibit 2A, and Recommended Conditions 3, 4, and 11]. The ditch along the access would convey stormwater to a detention facility and also might intercept some of the groundwater that currently is going onto the neighboring properties. [Testimony of Wheeler] 48. Given the topography, a drain along the northern property line as requested by the neighbor [see Finding 41], would not be able to solve the problem of the runoff coming on to the neighboring properties. To be effective, a ditch or drain needs to be on the downhill side of the cut which is located on the neighboring properties, not on the subject property. The existing runoff problems had their origin in the development of the adjacent property, but what happens on the subject site can affect this situation (e.g., the amount of runoff increased after some trees were removed from the Burlingame property). Site drainage systems, the access road and other structures (including residences) should be designed and constructed to avoid an increased rate and/or quantity of stormwater being directed toward the draw. To that end, it is important that all the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer [Exhibit 11, pages 4 and 5] by followed (including avoiding construction in the draw and maintaining existing vegetation wherever possible). The proposed alignment of the access puts construction and removes vegetation in an area of steep slopes with high groundwater, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. The alignment of the access should be changed so that it is not within the steep slope area. MUNICIPAL CODE 49. The “Definitions” section [BIMC 17.04.040] of the Subdivision chapter include the following definitions of interest in reviewing this application: “Cluster devlopment” means a group of adjoining homesite areas situated in a suitable area of a property, designed in such a manner that facilitates the efficient use of land by reducing disturbed areas, impervious surfaces,utility extensions and roadways, while providing for the protection of valued open space features. * * * “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 SUB12598 Page 13 of 24 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 BIMC. * * * “Homesite area” means the area of a lot depicted on the face of a plat that is intended for development of a residential dwelling and/or accessory dwelling unit. * * * “Landscape perimeter” means a landscape buffer located along a subdivision boundary. The landscape perimeter may contain established native vegetation or additional landscaping. * * * “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. 50. BIMC 18.85.010 defines “Significant tree” to mean: A. Evergreen tree 10 inches in diameter or greater, measured four feet above existing grade; or B. Deciduous tree 12 inches in diameter or greater, measured four feet above existing grade… 51. BIMC 15.32.030 provides that preliminary plats of five or more residential lots shall be subject to a concurrency test. Subdivision Review Process and Purpose 52. 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 of BIMC 17.04.094. 53. 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. 54. BIMC 2.16.110.C.2 directs the Hearing Examiner, following a public hearing, to make a recommendation to the City Council prior to the final decision on a subdivision application. SUB12598 Page 14 of 24 Zoning and Flex Lot Provisions 55. BIMC 18.24.010 states that the purpose of the R-2 zone is to “…provide for residential neighborhoods in an increased density in a rural environment.” 56. Subdivisions established pursuant to the flexible lot design process are subject to the development standards of BIMC 17.04.080.A., including the following. (When using the cluster provisions, the standards for minimum lot size, setbacks, minimum lot dimensions, lot coverage, and open space, do not apply.) A. Development Standards… l. Density. a. The number of residential lots created in a subdivision shall not exceed the density provisions of BIMC Title18; * * * 2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements. b. Twelve thousand five hundred square feet…if septic drainfield is located within the lot… * * * 3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements. a. All lots shall be 50 feet 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 development 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-of-way …minimum 15 foot setback. iv. Building to…access easement……minimum 15 foot setback. * * * d. Maximum Lot Coverage…as specified in BIMC Title 18…shall be assigned to each lot… 4. Landscape Buffers. * * * b. Roadside Buffers. [Do not apply; see 18.30.085] * * * d. Landscape Perimeter Cluster Subdivision Option. … property with gross area of one acre or more…located in…R-2…a 25 foot landscape perimeter shall be required along the subdivision boundary. 5. Cluster Development Option. Clustering of development may be selected as an optional standard. If an applicant chooses to cluster development, the open space provisions of BIMC 17.04.082 shall not apply…The following requirements shall apply to cluster development: a. Homesite Area. i. In…R-2…a maximum homesite area of 10,000 square feet shall be provided for each lot and shall be depicted on the face of the plat. * * * SUB12598 Page 15 of 24 iii. The purpose of the homesite area is to define the maximum disturbance area for development of the primary residential dwelling, garages and accessory dwelling unit for each lot within the subdivision. iv. Other allowed uses and structures may be located within the lot and outside the homesite area; provided, that all other applicable requirements of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code are satisfied. b. Homesite Clustering. i. The purpose of clustering is to facilitate the efficient use of land by reducing disturbed areas, impervious surfaces, utility extensions and roadways, while providing for the protection of valued open space features listed in BIMC 17.04.082.C. ii. Homesites shall be located in cluster groupings and the efficient location of infrastructure shall be used to maximize the undeveloped area in a flexible lot design subdivision. iii. To facilitate clustering, homesites of four or more shall constitute a cluster grouping. iv. To promote clustering, all homesites in a cluster grouping shall adjoin or be located a maximum of 25 feet apart from another homesite… * * * B. Landscape Standards. Landscaping shall be established consistent with the requirements of subsection A.4 of this section and street tree planting requirements of Chapter18.85 BIMC, and any other significant tree retention requirement. C. Roads and Pedestrian Access Performance Standards. 1. Existing roadway character shall be maintained where practical... 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-of-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, if such 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. 57. BIMC 17.04.070.A.4 provides requires as a 25-ft. wide landscape perimeter buffer: * * * SUB12598 Page 16 of 24 d. Landscape Perimeter Cluster Subdivision Option. When the cluster development option is selected…for property with a gross area of one acre or more…located in…R-2…a 25-foot wide landscape perimeter shall be required along the subdivision boundary. e. Allowed Landscape Buffer Activities: i. Potable water wells and well houses; ii. On-site storm water infiltration systems where the vegetated features of the buffer are not adversely impacted; iii. Ingress and egress, where the access runs approximately perpendicular to the landscape perimeter; iv. Underground utilities, where they run approximately perpendicular to the landscape perimeter; provided, that disturbance is minimized and the buffer is revegetated after construction; v. Nonmotorized trails and trail maintenance necessary to provide for safety and visibility; and vi. Planting of vegetation. f. Landscape Buffer Requirements. i. In order to buffer the visual impact of the proposed subdivision and protect off-site views, filtered screen landscaping, pursuant to BIMC 18.85.070.B.3 and 18.85.070.C, shall be required..for…landscape perimeter buffers where established vegetation cannot provide such screening. ii. All native shrubs and significant trees shall be retained within all landscape buffers, except that limited removal may be allowed for permitted activities located within the buffer area. iii. Required landscape buffer width may be reduced through buffer averaging in accordance with the criteria in BIMC 18.85.070… Subdivision Approval Criteria 58. 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… 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, conforms 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… SUB12598 Page 17 of 24 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. 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 Specifications,” 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 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 written findings are made that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision. REQUIRED FINDINGS 59. The Flexible Lot Standards of BIMC 17.04.080 would be satisfied by this subdivision with the Recommended Conditions. Finding(s) that support that determination are noted below. 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 Finding 17.04.080.A l. Density Limits: 27 a. Eight lots are within the density permitted by R-2 zoning. 2. Minimum Lot Size Requirements: 8, 28 All lots meet the 12,500 sq. ft. minimum size for lots with on-site septic systems. (Individual systems have not been designed and has not been determined where on those lots with steep slopes and high groundwater these facilities could be sited.) * * * 3. Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirements. 8, 27-29 a. All 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. d. Maximum lot coverage (4,753 sq. ft.) is within maximum allowed. 4. Landscape Buffers 25 SUB12598 Page 18 of 24 * * * b. Roadside Buffers are not required. c. Park and Conservation Easement Buffers are not required. d. Landscape Perimeter Buffers. Condition 5 would designate required 25-ft. wide buffers, with preservation of all significant trees and enhancement to provide filtered screen and on-going protection. * * * 5. Cluster Development Option 8, 27-29 a. Homesite Areas do not exceed the 10,000 sq. ft. maximum allowed in the R-2 zoning district. b. Homesite Clustering. Homesites are within 25 ft. * * * 17.04.080.C 1. Roadway character would be maintained 18-21 2. & 3. Access as conditioned would be consistent with the 4,17, 48 “City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications”. 4. Traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes would be Condition 4 provided and their location indicated on the plat. 5. No transit stops have been recommended by Kitsap Transit. 6. Surrounding streets are not designated in the Non-Motorized 31 Transportation Plan for pedestrian and/or bicycle circulation improvements; the interior road(s) and driveways would provide access. Subdivision Decision Criteria: BIMC 17.04.094 60. BIMC 17.04.094.A.1 requires that applicable subdivision development standards be satisfied. Here, the applicable development standards are the Flexible Lot Standards of BIMC 17.04.080, including those of the Cluster Development Option at 17.04.080.A.5. As conditioned, the applicable standards would be met. 61. Consistent with BIMC 17.04.094.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. 62. In satisfacion of BIMC 17.04.094.A.3, as conditioned, the subdivision would be consistent with flexible lot design process. 63. A finding regarding conformance to the Critical Areas Ordinance (BIMC Chapter 16.20) is not necessary as the Director has determined that there are no critical SUB12598 Page 19 of 24 areas. However, the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer included in the hazardous areas forms [Exhibit 10] should be conditions of approval. 64. 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. The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary subdivision submittals and has final approval authority for the construction and installation of those improvements. 65. This subdivision complies with all applicable provisions of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and other applicable regulations as is required by BIMC 17.04.094.A.6. 66. As required by BIMC 17.04.094.A.7, the proposed subdivision is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with its R-2 residential designation, the subdivision, as conditioned, would reflect neighborhood character in density and type of residential development and by enhancement and maintenance of perimeter landscape buffers. 67. As required by BIMC 17.04.094.B, public use and interest would be served. The subdivision, as conditioned, would provide the necessary and appropriate utilities and public improvements [realigned access roadway, stormwater facilities, domestic water, fire flow, and sewage treatment facilities] consistent with the public use and interest. Also, the public use and interest would be served by the provision of the perimeter landscape buffer and the retention of trees within the existing tree canopy. 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. The eight lots proposed are within the maximum density permitted on an R-2 zoned site of this size [see Finding 27] and would be an appropriate density relative to the Comprehensive Plan designation and the surrounding neighborhood. 4. A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was properly issued by PCD. That determination was not appealed. Recommended Conditions 6-15 and 17-18 should be imposed to ensure the necessary and expected mitigation of potential environmental impacts [see Finding 37]. SUB12598 Page 20 of 24 5. Development of the proposed lots would mean the loss of many trees and a major change in the appearance of the site, particularly in the western two-thirds where homes would replace forest and undeveloped lands. However, as conditioned, the proposed landscape perimeter buffer and retention of the tree canopy would screen views of the new residences consistent with the City’s policies. [See Findings 18-21, 35-36.] 6. In order that significant trees are protected and retained, the conditions of approval should include the requirement for a tree survey that accurately identifies and maps all significant trees (as defined by BIMC 18.85). All significant trees within the tree canopy retention areas [shown on Sheet 7/7, Exhibit 1G and observed by the applicable building setbacks in Recommended Condition 21] and all significant trees within the landscape perimeter buffer should be retained. [See Findings 18-21, and 36.] 7. The cluster option allows for lots to be “clustered” to preserve nature features and recognize the constraints of a particular site. Here, the lots meet the Code requirements for “clustering”, but the proposed configuration of the plat puts the access through the one area on the subject site where construction should be avoided. The flexibility of the Subdivision Ordinance should be employed here to avoid placing the access in the steep slope area. The access should be shifted to the south, out of the area of 15% or greater slopes [see Finding 48]. The access should also be revised to minimize the number of lots served by the Moran Road access point [see Finding 46]. 8. As conditioned, the subject subdivision would comply with the flexible lot standards of BIMC 17.04.080. 9. The subdivision, as conditioned, should be approved as it meets all the preliminary subdivision decision criteria of BIMC 17.04.094.A. and it would serve the public use and interest [BIMC 17.04.094.B] by providing new housing opportunities consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that the application of Frank and Joann Burlingame for the 8 lot "Maplewood Subdivision” [SUB12598], be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 1-22 THAT COMPRISE APPENDIX A. Entered this 13th day of April 2006. signed in original 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. SUB12598 Page 21 of 24 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS MAPLEWOOD SUBDIVISION [SUB12598] 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 conformance with the preliminary plat maps, as conditioned and approved by the City Council: Sheets 1 through 7 and Sheet C1 revised to show the access realigned and reconfigured so that it is out of the area having 15% or greater slopes and the number of lots served by the Moran Road access point is minimized; and, Sheet 6 (“Setbacks and Easement Details”) revised to identify the extent of the perimeter buffer, the tree canopy retention area, and the significant trees to be retained. 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 Department of Public Works. Applicant shall apply to the Department of Ecology for a Construction Stormwater permit and provide a copy of the application with a submittal for Plat Utility Permit. 4. To the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the plat utilities shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. The mailbox location and design approved by the local Postmaster. Mailboxes or their supports systems shall not extend over or within one-foot of any traveled way including sidewalks and paths, bicycle lanes, shoulders, or auto lanes. b. Private streets shall follow city standards and signage shall designate the street as “PVT”. The access shall be realigned to the south so as to be outside the area with 15% or greater slope and the number of lots served by the Moran access point shall be minimized. c. The applicant’s engineer shall provide calculations and a design for surface water handling per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual and the City’s Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. d. The water mains shown on the preliminary subdivision shall be constructed to meet city standards. e. The applicant’s Plat Utility Permit shall include fire hydrants to the satisfaction of the Fire District and in accordance with City’s Design and Construction and Specification DWG 10-110. f. The applicant’s engineer shall design all utilities to minimize the adverse effects on road-side amenities and to preserve trees and other roadside vegetation. g. All phases of design and construction shall be comply with the recommendation conditions contained in the Meyers Biodynamics geotechnical report dated June 16, 2005 [Exhibit 11, pages 4 and 5].. h. Applicant shall apply to the Department of Ecology for a Construction Stormwater permit and provide a copy of the application with the submittal for the Plat Utility Permit. SUB12598 Page 22 of 24 5. As part of the submittal for final plat approval, the applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Director, the following: a. Tree Survey that accurately indicates the location of significant trees; identifies trees to be preserved; designates the boundaries of the tree retention areas [from the Tree Retention Plan, Sheet 7/7, Exhibit 1C]; and, shows landscape perimeter buffer at least 25-ft. wide along the subdivision boundary. All significant trees within the landscape perimeter buffers and within the areas marked for retention in the Tree Retention Plan shall be retained. b. Landscape Enhancement and Protection Plan that: indicates where and how the landscape perimeter buffer will to be enhanced with vegetation (i.e., designating location, number, size and type of plants) in order to comply with the “filtered screen” requirements of BIMC Section 18.85.070 (as proposed at hearing, Thuja red cedars should be planted within the draw on Lots 4 and 5); notes that all trees slated for preservation shall be protected by temporary chain link fencing or orange construction fencing prior to and during land disturbance [see also Condition 12]; and, appropriate CC&Rs that specify that each lot owner shall be responsible for maintaining the landscape perimeter buffer within his or her property boundaries consistent with the Landscape Enhancement and Protection Plan, including protection and replacement of significant trees and native non-invasive plants so that the filtered screen is maintained and significant trees preserved. The CC&Rs shall also note that in order to reduce the adverse effects of stormwater runoff and erosion and to maintain slope stability, significant trees and native non-invasive vegetation should be retained and preserved. On Lots 4 and 5 significant trees located within the areas of 15% or greater slopes and outside the building envelopes, should be retained. 6. All graded materials removed from the subdivision shall be hauled to and deposited at City approved locations (Note: local regulations require that a grade/fill permit is obtained for any grading or filling of 50 cubic yards of material or more, and a SEPA Threshold Determination is required for any fill over 100 cubic yards). 7. 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. (BIMC Section 16.08.040) 8. In accordance with BIMC Chapter 15.34, to prevent off site glare or light intrusion, exterior lighting shall be hooded or shielded so that on-site illumination is not visible from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 9. To mitigate impacts on air quality, cleared vegetation must be removed from the site, processed by chipper, or some by other method of disposal that does not require burning. 10. 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. SUB12598 Page 23 of 24 11. Privately held stormwater facilities and access require ongoing future operation and maintenance. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit and record a stormwater facilities’ Operation and Maintenance Plan and a Declaration of Covenant (meeting the requirements of BIMC 15.21), that specifies who will be responsible for appropriately maintaining, repairing and replacing the facilities as needed. Also prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit and record a satisfactory homeowners agreement that will be binding on future owners of lots 3 through 8 to be responsible for maintaining and repairing the access roadway and the utilities within the easement in good working order. 12. The construction staging areas shall be outside of landscape buffers. Prior to issuance of any permit that allows clearing, construction fencing or silt fencing shall be placed adjacent to landscape buffers and trees slated for preservation shall be protected by temporary chain link fencing or orange construction fencing 13. 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) 14. In order to mitigate any noise impacts, all construction activity is restricted to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturdays. Construction activities shall be prohibited Sundays and legal holidays. 15. If any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or construction, Contractors shall stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 16. 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.” SUB12598 Page 24 of 24 17. School impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the following provisions. For Lots 3- 8, 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. For Lots 1 and 2, school impact fees will be required when building or creating an ADU on the lot. 18. Prior to issuance of any building or utility permit for improvement activities, final construction plans meeting City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island Public Works Department. Designs for on-site septic systems must be approved by the Kitsap County Health District prior to issuance of building for residences. Prior to final approval, the District shall be provided with the geotechnical evaluation by Myers Engineering, dated June 16, 2005 [Exhibit 11] and whatever soils information the District requires. As recommended by the geotechnical engineer [Exhibit 11, page 4], stormwater infiltration systems shall not be located on grades greater than 15% [see shaded area Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 3B] or within the draw. 19. All lot corners shall be staked with three-quarter inch galvanized iron pipe and locator stakes along with all other applicable survey provisions of state and City regulations. 20. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application. 21. Building setback and lot coverage requirements must be shown on the final plat: ƒ Maximum homesite size: 10,000 sq. ft. ƒ Maximum lot coverage: 4,753 ƒ Distance between homesites: 25 ft. maximum ƒ Distance between buildings: 10 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and subdivision boundary: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and internal roadway/easement: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings and Hemlock Street ROW: 15 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 7 and Yaquina Street ROW: 44 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 8 and Yaquina Street ROW: 29 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 5 and Moran Road ROW: 43 ft. minimum ƒ Distance between buildings on Lot 6 and Moran Road ROW: 34 ft. minimum 22. Conditions 1, 3a, 3g, 5 - 9, 11-14, 16 and 20 shall be listed on the final plat mylar.