KANE, ELYSE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
r.iA.!;1 -1 5 f L'1I7 N. 7"Dio
!~ !'._" 'U nl! Sv.J.
CORR LOG
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~,~~
~~~
tbu.u.. ~~r (CUi
G.r~ ~t~
~~
'BQ!,- v.~
NU'\ G.~~n
(l\Q.q nan !nVLt\.;('1'1\.,t
\.b..<.U1::
BEFORE THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
HEARING EXAMINER
EL YSE KANE,
)
)
) No. RUE 10755
)
) APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
) DECISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, acting
through its Director of the Department of
Community Development,
15
Respondents.
Appellant Elyse Kane, pursuant to City of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code
~ 2.16.130 and/or ~ 16.040.170, hereby appeals to the Bainbridge Island Office of Hearing
Examiner that certain Administrative Decision dated January 31, 2007, not served and
received until March 2, 2007 (the "Decision"), issued by Mr. James P. Harris, Interim
Director of the City of Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community
Development, File No. RUE 10755. The Decision denies in part Appellant's request for an
amendment to a previously issued Reasonable Use Exception. The denial is in the form of
imposition of certain project conditions disallowing certain uses or prescribing use
limitations.
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 1
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. lSOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 - Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 196310lvl 0082379-000001
I. NAME AND IDENTITY OF APPELLANT
2
1.1
Appellant resides in City of Bainbridge Island at 9865 Manitou Beach
3 Drive, Bainbridge Island, W A 98110. Appellant is separated from her husband and owns
4 the subject property in her own name. Appellant's phone number is 206-601-3589.
5 Appellant's representative in this matter is David R. Huchthausen, Somerset Properties
6 Inc., The Beamis Building, Suite 402, 557 South Atlantic St., Seattle, W A 98104; phone
7 206-587-4036; fax 206-624-3839.
8
1.2
Appellant's legal representative in this matter is Davis Wright Tremaine
9 LLP, Dennis D. Reynolds, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2600, Seattle, Washington 98101;
10 telephone: (206) 903-3967; fax: (206) 628-7699.
11
1.3
Appellant is the applicant for the REU Amendment at issue. She is an
12 aggrieved party with standing to seek review to contest the Decision specified below.
13 Appellant is prejudiced or likely to be prejudiced by the actions specified below if no relief
14 is granted. A ruling in favor of Appellant will substantially eliminate or redress the
15 prejudice that the Decision has caused, or likely will cause, for which review and relief is
16 requested.
17
18
II.
DECISION APPEALED
2.1
Appellant appeals the Administrative Decision dated January 31,2007, by
19 the Director of the Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community
20 Development ("Director"), denying in part her request to amend an existing Reasonable
21 Use Exception, No. RUE 10755. A true and correct copy of the Decision for which review
22 is sought is annexed hereto to this appeal as Ex. A, including a memo analysis of
23 Appellant's requested amendment dated January 31, 2007, prepared by Joshua Machen,
24 AICP, Senior Planner, by reference made part hereof. A true and correct copy of
25 Appellant's Request for Amendment to the Reasonable Use Exception dated October 12,
26
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 2
SEA 196310Ivl 0082379-000001
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OffICES
2600 Century Square. 1301 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
2006, with the requested amended site plan, is also annexed to this appeal as Ex. B, by
2 reference made a part hereof.
3
2.2
Appellant specifically appeals and contests the decision of the Interim
4 Director's refusing to approve use of the wetland buffer or wetland restoration area for
5 storage of a recreation vehicle ("RV") or placement and use of a small portable storage
6 shed, Non-SEPA Conditions Nos. 13 and 14. Appellant also contests the obligation to
7 move an existing propane tank "as close to the residence as possible." (Condition No. 12).
8 Appellant also contests the obligation to file an amended mitigation plan "within 60 days
9 of the expiration of the appeal period or resolution of any appeal" on the amended permit
10 approval. (Condition No. 10). Appellant also contests the obligation to remove the gravel
11 parking area located behind the home, bring in topsoil, and replant the area with native
12 vegetation. (Condition No. 13). Finally, Appellant contests SEPA Condition No.3
13 requiring that a split rail type fence be installed across the northwest property comer
14 extending from a point approximately 68 feet south from the northwest comer to a point
15 approximately 97 feet to the east from the northwest comer, and derivatively, SEPA
16 Condition No.4, placing a portion of her property into a no development or use status.
17
2.3
Condition No. 14 does not seem to prohibit the placement or use of certain
18 items of personal property within the wetland buffer or wetland restoration area such as a
19 picnic table, benches, barbecue grill, wood pile, lawn sprinklers, gardening tools, potted
20 plants, garden statuary, an inflatble "kiddy pool" and similar objects in the back yard of the
21 existing home on the subject parcel. However, if Condition No. 14 is construed as
22 prohibiting such placement and use, Appellant appeals and contests imposition of this
23 project condition.
24
25
III. RELEVANT FACTS
3.1
Elyse Kane owns a home located at 9865 Manitou Beach Drive. The
26 property is adjacent to a Category II Wetland located on its west side. The Wetland extends
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 3
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square . HOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9KIOJ~J688
(206) 622-3150 . fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 196310lvl 0082379-000001
1 north past the northend of the Kane property. The subject parcel is entirely within the
2 wetland buffer for the adjacent wetland. The City of Bainbridge Island owns the property
3 to the east. According to the City, it has not granted Appellant access across its ownership
4 to the backyard of her property.
5
3.2
In January 2004 Ms. Kane and her husband, Peter Kane, applied for and
6 received a reasonable use exception to build a small new home on the site. As part of
7 completion of the home for single-family residential use, the Kanes constructed a
8 driveway, landscaped a portion of the site, installed a patio consisting of cement pavers,
9 installed a propane tank, placed a temporary storage shed, and developed a recreation
10 vehicle parking and second parking area behind the residence and within the wetland
11 buffer and partially within the area designated for "buffer enhancement/mitigation."
12
3.3
As is required by City Code, Ms. Kane mitigated any and all impacts to the
13 wetland buffer associated with development of the small home and appurtenances.
14 Specifically, on her property, she planted a significant number oflarge trees, at a total cost
15 of$10,000. This mitigation was considerably beyond what was required, as she could
16 have planted small trees for much less cost. In terms of mitigating any impacts off site,
17 Ms. Kane was advised by City officials to "hold off' until the City decided what to do with
18 the property they own adjacent to her ownership.
19
3.4
After completion of the home, the City received complaints from neighbors
20 regarding the installation of the rear parking area, the shed, the patio and other items which
21 according to City staff were "not originally included" in the reasonable use application and
22 approved site plan. To resolve a potential code enforcement action, under duress,
23 Ms. Kane applied for an amendment to the RUE. Specifically, Ms. Kane proposed
24 changes to the existing driveway; reconfiguration of the mitigation area; revision of the
25 storm water drainage infiltration system to a filtered catchment basin and tideland;
26 inclusion of the patio, the recreational vehicle parking area, and storage shed, and the
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 4
SEA 1963JOlvl 0082379-000001
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES
2600 Century Square . I~OI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
storage and use within the wetland buffer or wetland restoration area of certain personal
2 items to enhance her personal recreation use of the property within these areas.
3
4
5
6
Prior to submitting the application for amendment of the RUE, Ms. Kane
3.5
discussed her situation with then Director of the Department of Planning and Community
Development, Mr. Larry Frazier. After discussion, Mr. Frazier agreed that Ms. Kane could
park her registered recreational vehicle and place a portable enclosed tool shed within the
wetland buffer or the wetland restoration area. In an emai1 dated June 29, 2006, Ms. Kane
confirmed these understandings with Mr. Frazier:
Thank you for the helpful meeting that my mother and I had
with you today. I am hopeful and encouraged that the six
years of strife I have had in regards to permitting and
building my home will soon be over, and that I may finally
live here in peace.
As you suggested, my mother and I would like to meet with
Randy Witt, if he is amendable, to discuss safe access and
adequate parking on my property, and we would greatly
appreciate your attendance at this meeting. I also agree with
your suggestion of inviting him, as well as other staff
members as appropriate (yourself included), to come out to
my property and see if they can problem-solve the current
lack of safe and adequate turnaround and parking that is a
woeful, and wrongful, legacy of the Wetland Advisory
Committee. I appreciate your delaying any impending
enforcement action regarding parking in the rear area while
these discussions and meetings take place, as this tactic may
save both the City and I the expense, hassle, and
embarrassment of litigation.
As discussed, I will be returning my registered vehicle and
portable tool shed which, as items of personal property, were
erroneously required of me to remove as a condition to final
inspection. As agreed, these items of personal property will
be placed in the designated impacted area and not in the
mitigation area.
Thank you again for your assistance in these distressing
matters. I look forward to a response from you and/or Randy
Witt regarding our next meeting.
Kane email to Frazier.
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 5
SEA 1963101 v 1 0082379-000001
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. ISOI Fourth Avenue
Seatth::, Washington 98 I 0 1-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fa" (206) 628-7699
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
3.6
Appellant filed her request to amend the existing REU Exception because
2 Mr. Frazier instructed her to do so in order to formalize his decision permitting placement
3 of the the R V and storage shed within the wetland buffer or wetland restoration area..
4 When submitting her application for an amendment to the REU, in a letter to the City,
5 Ms. Kane alerted staff in writing that her contact for the application would be Mr. David
6 Huchthausen, a close personal family friend and professional developer. Ms. Kane
7 provided the City with Mr. Huchthausen's contact information, including phone and email
8 address. Ms. Kane designated Mr. Huchthausen as her contact because at the time she was
9 dealing with personal issues related to a break-up of her marriage. The situation was such
10 that she was hospitalized for a period of time and under the care of a physician.
3.7
The application was submitted on or about October 22,2006 to the City. In
a cover letter dated October 12,2006, Ms. Kane advised the City Code Enforcement
Officer, Ms. Meghan McKnight as follows:
Please regard this letter as a follow-up to our meeting with
Larry Frazier on August 30th 2006 and in response to your
letter dated September 14th 2006. Upon your instruction, I
am requesting an amendment to the existing reasonable use
exception (RUE) for my property located at 9865 Manitou
Beach Dr. Submitted with this letter is a modified site plan
incorporating approved changes to the existing driveway,
reconfiguration of the mitigation area, revision to filtered
catchment basin and tightline drainage, and location of the
previous patio pavers, registered recreation trailer, and
portable storage shed within the designated impact area.
Please note that in addition to the larger personal property
items specified on the site plan the site will also contain
within the impacted area a variety of personal items such as a
picnic table and benches, BBQ grill, log pile, lawn
sprinklers, wheel barrow, gardening tools, potted plants and
garden statuary, inflatable kiddy-pool and water toys, and
other such objects, the location of which may vary.
While I am submitting the revised site plan and request to
amend the RUE per the City's instructions, I do not believe
that, if approved, there is sufficient parking space for the safe
and reasonable use of the premises. Therefore, respectfully,
the enclosed submittal is filed without prejudice to future
parking proposals which would more adequately meet the
needs of the owner and guests and, in my opinion, better
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 6
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. )501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101~IM~g
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 196310Ivl 0082379-000001
protect the adjacent critical area. I remain willing to work
with the City as their plans for this area develop.
2 Letter, Kane to McKnight.
3
3.8
According to internal City emails from the assigned planner, Mr. Joshua
4 Machen, a copy of the City's decision on the amendment to the reasonable use exemption
5 was mailed to Ms. Kane on January 31, 2006. Ms. Kane was on Bainbridge Island and in
6 residence at her home at 9865 Manitou Beach Drive NE for the first two weeks of
7 February, but did not receive a copy of the Decision. Her designated representative,
8 Mr. Huchthausen, likewise did not receive a copy of the Decision. Ms. Kane and
9 Mr. Huchthausen were not made aware of the decision on the application for amendment
'"
10 to the REU until Mr. Huchthausen called the City on March 2, 2007, to ascertain the status
11 of the requested REU amendment, spoke to Mr. Machen and learned that a decision had
12 been issued. At that time, Mr. Huchthausen informed Mr. Machen that nether Appellant
13 nor himself had received a copy of the City's decision on the requested REU amendment.
14 When so informed, Mr. Machen that same day e-mailed Mr. Huchthausen a copy of the
15 Decision .
16
17
IV.
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
4.1
The original reasonable use approval was issued to Ms. Kane prior to
18 adoption of amendments to the City of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code for critical areas,
19 BIMC Ch. 16.20. The version of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code under which the
20 RUE vested allows certain activities and uses in a wetland buffer zone. In particular, "low
21 intensity, passive recreational activities are allowed," including development of "pervious
22 trails" and "nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds," construction offences or similar
23 barriers, agricultural activities and removal of invasive/exotic species.
24 BIMC ~ 16.20.090(G). The stated list is not exhaustive, and the Code implies that other
25 activities and uses which "have a minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse
26 impacts on regulated wetlands" are allowed. The amended Critical Areas Ordinance
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 7
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. ISOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9~ I 0 1-16tlK
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 196310lvl 0082379-000001
1 effective in February, 2006 also permits activities and uses in wetland buffer zones.
2 Specifically, among other permitted uses or activities, BIMC 9 16.20.090(G) allows "open
3 space and outdoor recreational activities."
4
4.2
The purpose of a Reasonable Use Exception is to allow alterations to
5 wetland buffers or regulated wetlands when "compliance with certain provisions" of the
6 City's Critical Areas Ordinance "leave no reasonable use of the property." An approved
7 RUE allows for "minimum intrusion" or "alteration or impairment" of the wetland buffer.
8 Nonetheless, an RUE permits "some reasonable use of the property." The impact of the
9 allowed reasonable uses must be offset by mitigation. BIMC ~ 16.20.090(1).
10
4.3
The Decision is somewhat unclear but it appears to allow placement and
11 use of certain small articles of personal property within the wetland buffer or wetland
12 restoration area intended for outdoor recreation or to enjoy the buffer open space, such as a
13 picnic table, benches, a barbeque grill, a wood pile, lawn sprinklers, gardening tools,
14 potted plants, garden statuary, an inflatable "kiddie pool", and other similar objects or
15 devices. The City's Memo Analysis of the REU Amendment appears to allow placement
16 and use of such personal property, stating that reasonable use of the Kane property "should
17 include the use and placement of some personal items," but that". . . the wetland buffer is a
18 protected area and the personal items should be limited to those that will not cause
19 destruction of vegetation and the protected area should not become a storage area for
20 refuse or abandoned equipement or materials." If not allowed, however, prohibiting such
21 placement and use is unreasonable. In this regard, Ms. Kane substantially over mitigated
22 for any impacts to the wetland buffer. Therefore, any impacts the use of these small items
23 of personal property may have, which appear to be immeasurable, have been adequately
24 mitigated.
25
4.4
The City's prohibition on continued use of the propane tank at the location
26 where it now exists is unreasonable. The propane tank was placed in its current location as
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 8
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622.3150 . Fax: (206) 628.7699
SEA 196310Ivl 0082379-000001
1 part of the home construction. The placement and installation of the propane tanks
2 occurred prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the house. The passive
3 placement and use of the propane tank has no measurable impact upon wetland buffer
4 functions and values and is a reasonable appurtenance to single-family residential use.
5
4.5
Placement of the portable storage shed or the RV within the wetland buffer
6 has no impact upon wetland buffer functions and values. Placement of the small portable
7 structure and RV was explicitly approved by (former) Director Larry Frazier. The City's
8 decision to prohibit use and placement of the storage shed and RV within the wetland
9 buffer is unreasonable. Under the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, the home that was
10 allowed to be built on the property is very small, and some type of enclosed storage is
11 required to facilitate the residential use. Use of the portable storage shed is the least
12 intrusive method to provide reasonable use of the property. It is not reasonable to prohibit
13 use of the storage shed or the RV within the wetland buffer area.
14
4.6
Presently, there is no adequate parking on the site for more than one
15 vehicle. The R-2 zone in which the subject parcel is located requires two parking spaces
16 on-site. To park two vehicles, the second vehicle must be parked directly behind the first
17 and backed out on to a busy street with inadequate site distance before the first vehicle can
18 exit. To facilitate parking of a second vehicle, Appellant has developed a small gravel
19 parking area located behind the house, within the wetland buffer. The City's insistence
20 that this gravel parking area be removed, and the area be replanted with native vegetation
21 is unreasonable. A second useable parking space is required on the property to facilitate
22 reasonable use of the property.
23
4.7
State law imposes limitations upon municipalities when exercising
24 substantive authority pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") and
25 Chapter 82.02, RCW. These are: First, a city can only mitigate a proposal to ameliorate
26 significant adverse environmental impacts directly related to a proposal as documented by
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 9
SEA 196310Ivl 0082379-000001
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. HOI Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101~16K8
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
1 appropriate study or analysis. Second, any SEP A conditions placed in an MDNS must be
2 reasonable, not excessive, and proportionate to project impacts. Third, the exercise of
3 substantive SEP A authority must be based upon adopted SEP A policies.
4 RCW 43.2IC.060; Chapter 82.02, RCW.
5
4.8
Under SEP A, and Chapter 82.02, RCW, project mitigation must be
6 supported by a site-specific analysis, and imposed only "to the extent attributable to the
7 identified adverse impacts of the proposal." WAC 197-11-660(b); RCW 43.21C.060;
8 Chapter 82.02, RCW. Pursuant to SEPA and Chapter 82.02, RCW, the City's authority is
9 limited to imposing project mitigation only for significant adverse impacts directly related
10 to project development and use. Under SEP A, and Chapter 82.02, RCW, not only must the
11 City demonstrate the presence of significant adverse impacts to impose mitigation, but
12 mitigation must be reasonable and proportionate.
13
4.9
SEP A Condition No.3 and, derivatively, Condition No.4, which require a
14 split rail fence be installed across the northwest property comer extending from a point
15 approximately 68 feet south of the northwest comer to a point approximately 67 feet to the
16 east of the northwest comer is, and which place part of the subject property in a no
17 development or use status, are unreasonable and not supported by the City's exercise of
18 SEPA substantive authority. The City has not prepared a particularized study showing that
19 a split rail fence is required, or that the area to the northwest of the fence must be a "non-
20 disturbance buffer area." Previously, in conversations with Appellant, the City approved a
21 perimeter "step down" from the patio area, to delineate the wetland buffer or wetland
22 restoration area which eliminates the need for any kind of fence. This step down or berm
23 is more than adequate to delineate the area without the need to construct or use a split rail
24 type fence. There are no significant impacts that require placement and construction of a
25 split rail type fence or to make the area to the northwest of the fence a "non-disturbance
26 buffer area." The City Code allows minimal disturbance of buffer areas as set out above.
27
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 10
SEA 196310lvl 0082379-000001
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax (206) 628-7699
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
For these reasons, SEPA Conditions No.3 and 4 are unreasonable, outside of the City's
2 authority, disproportionate and illegal.
3
4
5
V.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Appellant requests that the Office of Hearing Examiner, upon review:
5.1
Reverse those portions of the Administrative Decision denying the
6 requested Amendment and approve the requested Amendment in full, including vacating
7 or striking SEPA Conditions No.3 and 4, and Non-SEPA Condition Nos. 10, 12, and 13.
8
9
5.2
5.3
Grant any other further relief that is just and fair under the circumstances.
Vacate or strike Non-SEP A Condition No 14 if interpreted to prohibit
10 placement or use of articles of personal property within the wetland buffer or wetland
11 restoration area.
VI.
APPEAL FEE
6.1
Enclosed with this appeal is the required $500 appeal fee.
DATED this -.lL day of March, 2007.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Attorneys for Elyse Kane
~ 0~
By I ) . ,v ....t.L.-
Dennis D. Reynolds, WSBA #4762
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - 11
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LA W OFFICES
2600 Century Square. 1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150 . Fax: (206) 628-7699
SEA 196310lvl 0082379-000001
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION and
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS)
The City of Bainbridge Island has made a decision concerning the following land use
application:
Date of Issuance:
Project Name:
File Number:
Applicant:
Description of Proposal:
Location of Proposal:
Permit Decision:
SEPA Determination:
January31,2007
Kane Reasonable Use Exception
RUE 10755 Amendment
Peter and Elyse Kane
Amendment to Reasonable Use Exception approval to include
changes to the existing driveway, reconfiguration of the mitigation
area, revision to the stonnwater drainage system from an infiltration
system to a filtered catch basin and tightIine, allowance of a pervious
patio pavers, recreational vehicle and portable storage shed.
Manitou Beach Drive, located in Section 14, Township 25 North,
Range 2 East within the uplands of Puget Sound. Tax assessor
number 14250231082004.
The application is partially approved as outlined in the conditions of
approval. The amendment memorandum, containing the statement of
facts upon which the decision, including conditions, is based and the
conclusions of law derived from those facts, is available to the public
upon'request. The decision becomes effective after 14 days from the
date of issuance, or after February 14,2007.
The City of Bainbridge Island (lead agency) has determined that the
proposal does not have a probable significant impact on the
environment if measures to mitigate the proposal are used. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This detennination was made and mitigation
measures were applied after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public upon request.
This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11~355. Tbere is no
comment period for this action.
EXHIBIT A
Notice of Administrative Decision and MDNS
Page 1
Responsible Official
James P. Harris, Interim Director
Department of Planning & Community Development
Address:
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison A venue North
Bainbridge Island, W A 98110 (206) 842 - 2552
Appeal Procedure:
Signati.~f7/Jp7' .' Dale: !-g/-tP7
This a nistrative decision and/or SEP A determination may be
appealed by filing a written appeal and paying a $500.00 filing fee to
the City Clerk at 280 Madison A venue North, Bainbridge Island, W A
98110, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code, Section 2. I 6. I 30 and/or 16.04.170. An
appeal must be filed no later than 4:00 p.m., February 14,2007.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
If you have any questions concerning this application, please contact:
Joshua Machen, AICP, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
280 Madison A venue North
Bainbridge Island, W A 98 I 10
Fax: (206) 780-0955
(206) 842-2552
Email: pcd@cLbainbridge-isl.wa.us
10~
Notice of Administrative Decision and MDNS
Page 2
Conditions of Approval for Kane Amendment RUE:
SEPA CONDITIONS:
1. Application of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides or fungicides shall use
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Strategies are defined in the Puget Sound Pest
Management Guidelines, A Guidefor Protection of Our Water Quality [Menzies, G. and
B. Peterson. Puget Sound Pest Management Guidelines, A Guide for Protectinf! Our
Water Ouality. Bellingham, Washington: WSU Cooperative Extension, 1993].
2. In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna, the roofing material
is to be of a non~ leaching material that is not harmful to wetlands, examples of non-
leaching materials are, but not limited to, metal and tile roofs. Asphalt composition and
cedar roofing is not acceptable.
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed across the northwest property corner extending
from a point approximately 68 feet south from the northwest corner to a point
approximately 67 feet to the east from the northwest corner. The fence shall provide a
clear distinction between the amended native vegetation buffer/enhancement area and
any future yard landscaped area. The rails shall be high enough to allow small mammals
and wildlife to pass through. The fence shall be in place within 60 days of the expiration
of the appeal period or resolution of any appeal on this permit.
4. The area to the northwest of the fence shall be a non-disturbance buffer area. Two signs
indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be placed on the fence. The
required signs shall be in place at the time of fence construction.
NON-SEP A CONDITIONS:
5. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall submit a building permit for the proposed
residence. The building permit application shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans date stamped May 14, 2004 (see attached). The site plan received October 20,
2006 shall govern development other than the residence, except that the storage shed and
the on-site RV storage are not permitted and must be removed within 60 days of this
decision.
6. The house footprint shall not exceed 1,085 square feet. The eaves may extend beyond
the footprint as shown on the site plan date stamped May 14, 2004. An additional open
carport may be allowed, attached to the house, not exceeding 225 square feet.
7. The driveway shall be in substantial conformance to the site plan date~stamped May 14,
2004, but may be expanded as much as five feet on the northwest and north east side of
the turnaround in accordance with the site plan received October 20, 2006. All driveway
improvements shall be constructed of pervious material.
8. The limits of clearing and grading shall be fenced with silt fencing in the field and
inspected by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to
construction.
Notice of Administrative Decision and MDNS
Page 3
9. A notice on title in accordance with BIMC Section] 6.20.] 30 shall be recorded on this
property prior to building pennit issuance. The notice shall include all the conditions of
this Reasonable Use Exception A new notice to title shall be recorded within 60 days of
the final approval ofthis amended permit.
10. A amended mitigation plan and surety devices hall be submitted and approved by staff
within 60 days of the expiration of the appeal period or resolution of any appeal on this
permit. The plan shall include restoration of approximately 10,900 square feet of on and
off~site area. The area along the stream and the area between the fence and the
northwest property boundary shall be planted within the first planting season following
approval of this permit. Off-site mitigation can be accomplished either by installation of
plantings during the next planting season following approval of this permit or bonding
the work for two years or by contribution to the City's restoration project.
11. The mitigation plan shall include provisions for a five-year monitoring program. A
restoration monitoring assurance device shall be submitted at the completion of the
restoration and shall be held for the five-year monitoring period.
12. The propane tank shall be moved as close to the residence as possible, consistent with
building code requirements.
13. The gravel parking area located behind the house, within the wetland buffer shall be
removed. Top soil shall be brought in and replanted with native vegetation. No parking
ofRV's or any other motorized vehicles shall be allowed on the property outside of the
permitted driveway and turnaround areas.
14. No other buildings or structures, either temporary or permanent, shall be placed on the
property except that minor personal items such as picnic tables, benches, BBQ grill
gardening tools, children's toys etc may be maintained on the property as long as they
are outside of the wetland buffer mitigation/enhancement area and do not adversely
affect the wetland or wetland buffer.
15. Outside of the buffer mitigatiOn/enhancement area may be maintained as a native
vegetation landscaped area. However, the area shall not be used to store refuse debris or
other material that would have an adverse impact on vegetation within the wetland
buffer.
Notice of Administrative Decision and MDNS
Page 4
City of Bainbridge Island
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
James P. Harris
Interim Director
FROM:
Joshua Machen, AICP
Senior Planner
DATE:
January 31, 2007
RE:
Kane RUE Amendment RUEI0755
Background:
In January of2004 Peter and Elyse Kane applied for and received a Reasonable Use Exception
(RUE) to build a new home at 9865 Manitou Beach Drive. The property is adjacent to a category
II wetland and the parcel is entirely within the required wetland buffers. The Kane's approval
was very specific and limited the footprint of the house and specified a driveway location. Upon
completion of the residence and driveway, the Kane's landscaped a portion of the site, installed a
patio consisting of large pavers type patio, installed a propane tank, storage shed and a
recreational vehicle (R V) parking area behind the residence within the wetland buffer and
partially within the area designated for buffer enhancement/mitigation.
The City has received complaints regarding the installation of the rear yard parking area, shed,
patio and other items that were not originally included in the Reasonable Use Permit application
site plan. To resolve the code enforcement action, the Kanes have applied for an amendment to
the RUE.
Proposal:
The applicants have requested an amendment to include changes to the existing driveway,
reconfiguration of the mitigation area, revision to the storm water drainage infiltration system to a
filtered catchment basin and tightline, and the inclusion of the patio, recreational vehicle parking
area, and storage shed.
Analysis:
In analyzing the proposed amendment, the review of purpose and intent of the RUE provisions is
necessary. The RUE provisions are intended to provide reasonable use of property that is so
constrained by wetland or wetland buffers that the constraints render it unbuildable without relief
obtained from an exception. While the RUE provisions are designed to allow flexibility to
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, W A. 98110-1812
PHONF: (206) 842-2552. FAX: (206) 780-0955. EMAIL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-is!.wa.lIs
www.ci.bainbridge-is!. wa.lIs
.
provide property owners with some reasonable use of their property, property owners should not
envision the same development potential as an unencumbered property.
The following is an analysis of each of the proposed amendments:
I. Driveway changes-Now that the Kanes have had a chance to the residence and driveway
that was constructed per plan, they have discovered that the size of the turnaround makes
it difficult to enter and exit the site efficiently. They have requested that the driveway
turnaround area be expanded by approximately five feet on the northwest and northeast
sides as shown in the proposed amended site plan (Attachment B). As the driveway is
constructed of pervious pavers and the proposed change is not a significant area, this
appears to be a reasonable amendment to the approved application.
2. Reconfiguration of the on-site mitigation area-The applicant has proposed to change the
required on-site mitigation/buffer enhancement area from a 20 foot swath along the north
property line to a triangle area in the northwest corner of the property. The category II
wetland is located to the west of this property and extends north past the north end
of the property. Therefore, changing the location of the mitigation/buffer
enhancement area to the northwest corner of the property may have a beneficial
impact on the wetland, and is unlikely to have a negative impact.
3. Stormwater drainage system-The Public Works Department approved and inspected the
storm water drainage system as part of the building permit.
4. Pervious Patio-The applicants have requested that the patio that they constructed out of
pavers with gaps in between be permitted to remain for their recreational use of their
property. The patio has been constructed directly behind the house outside of the
wetland buffer mitigation/enhancement area. The patio area provides reasonable
recreational use of the property without introducing new buildings, impervious
surfaces or other detrimental impacts that could affect the wetland. Allowing the
patio to remain is a reasonable amendment to the permit.
5. Recreational Vehicle-The applicants own a recreational vehicle (streamliner) that they
would like to park in the back yard within the wetland buffer. On-site RV storage is not a
property right that all property owners enjoy throughout the City, especially on lots
that are physically constrained. While the buffer in this area of the lot consists of
grasses and low growing shrubs, having a recreational vehicle within the buffer is not
a permitted use and will have an impact on the buffer. The City of Bainbridge Island
owns the property to the east and while there is a dirt road on the adjacent property
the City has not granted the Kanes an access easement to access their back yard.
These facts do not support approval of the on-site RV storage amendment request.
6. Storage Shed-The applicants have placed a shed in the back yard within what was
originally the buffer mitigation area and have requested through this amendment, that the
shed be allowed to remain. The Shed, while small, is a building. The reasonable use
exception had limited the footprint of the house and carport to the least sensitive
portion of the site. Provisions should have been made to accommodate needed
storage within these structures. Allowing for the placement of another building
within the buffer is not consistent with the policies to limit the physical and visual
280 MADISON A VENUE NORTH. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, W A. 98110-1812
PHONE: (206) 842-2552. FAX: (206) 780-0955. EMArL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
www.ci.bainbridge-isl. wa.lIs
impacts on the wetland and wetland buffer. This is a constrained lot and as such
does not have the same development potential as unconstrained lots. Therefore, the
facts do not support approval of the requested amendment to allow the shed within
the wetland buffer should be denied.
While on a site visit to the property staff observed a couple of other nonconforming structures and
improvements not addressed by the amendment has not been requested that are nonconforming to
the permit. One is the propane tank that has been placed behind the shed, some distance from the
house and the other is the installation of a gravel parking area behind the house that is accessed
across the City owned parcel to the east. Tha Kanes do not possess an easement to traverse the
City owned lot. Therefore, staffs recommends that the propane tank be moved as close to the
house as possible and that the gravel parking area be removed, topsoil be placed and that portion
of the wetland buffer be replanted.
The Kanes, in their request for amendment, have also indicated that while not specified on the site
plan they plan on having other personal items such as picnic tables, benches BBQ grill, log pile
lawn sprinklers, gardening tools, potted plants, garden statuary, inflatable kiddy-pool and other
such objects in their backyard within the wetland buffer. While the Kanes should be given
reasonable use of their property, which should include the use and placement of some
personal items, the wetland buffer is a protected area and the personal items should be
limited to those items that will not cause destruction of vegetation and the protected area
should not become a storage area for refuse or abandoned equipment or materials.
Conclusion:
Staff recommends partial approval of the requested amendment: The expansion of the driveway
turnaround, the recreational pervious patio and storm water drainage improvement, and denial of
the creation of on-site RV storage and authorization for the placement of the detached storage
shed within the wetland buffer.
(amended conditions in bold)
Conditions of Approval for Kane RUE:
SEPA CONDITIONS:
I. Application of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides or fungicides shall use
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Strategies are defined in the Puget Sound Pest
Management Guidelines, A Guide for Protection of Our Water Quality [Menzies, G. and
B. Peterson. Puget Sound Pest Management Guidelines. A Guide for Protecting Our
Water Quality. Bellingham, Washington: WSU Cooperative Extension, 1993].
2. In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna, the roofing material
is to be of a non-leaching material that is not harmful to wetlands, examples of non-
leaching materials are, but not limited to, metal and tile roofs. Asphalt composition and
cedar roofing is not acceptable.
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed across the northwest property corner
extending from a point approximately 68 feet south from the northwest corner to a
point approximately 67 feet to the east from the northwest corner. The fence shall
provide a clear distinction between the amended native vegetation
buffer/enhancement area and any future yard landscaped area. The rails shall be
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, W A. 98110-1812
PHONE: (206) 842-2552. FAX: (206) 780-0955. EMAIL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
www.ci.bainbridge-isl. wa.lIs
high enough to allow small mammals and wildlife to pass through. The fence shall
be in place within 60 days of the expiration of the appeal period or resolution of any
appeal on this permit.
4. The area to the northwest of the fence shall be a non-disturbance buffer area. Two signs
indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be placed on the fence. The
required signs shall be in place at the time of fence construction.
NON-SEPA CONDITIONS:
5. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall submit a building permit for the proposed
residence. The building permit application shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans date stamped May 14, 2004 (see attached). The site plan received October 20,
2006 shall govern development other than the residence, except that the storage
shed and the on-site RV storage are not permitted and must be removed within 60
days of this decision.
6. The house footprint shall not exceed 1,085 square feet. The eaves may extend beyond
the footprint as shown on the site plan date stamped May 14,2004. An additional open
carport may be allowed, attached to the house, not exceeding 225 square feet.
7. The driveway shall be in substantial conformance to the site plan date-stamped May 14,
2004, but may be expanded as much as five feet on the northwest and north east side
of the turnaround in accordance with the site plan received October 20, 2006. All
driveway improvements shall be constructed of pervious material.
8. The limits of clearing and grading shall be fenced with silt fencing in the field and
inspected by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to
construction.
9. A notice on title in accordance with BIMC Section 16.20.130 shall be recorded on this
property prior to building permit issuance. The notice shall include all the conditions of this
Reasonable Use Exception A new notice to title shall be recorded within 60 days of the
final approval of this amended permit.
10. A amended mitigation plan and surety devices hall be submitted and approved by staff
within 60 days of the expiration of the appeal period or resolution of any appeal on
this permit. The plan shall include restoration of approximately 10,900 square feet of on
and off-site area. The area along the stream and the area between the fence and the
northwest property boundary shall be planted within the first planting season following
approval of this permit. Off-site mitigation can be accomplished either by installation
of plantings during the next planting season following approval of this permit or
bonding the work for two years or by contribution to the City's restoration project.
11. The mitigation plan shall include provisions for a five-year monitoring program. A
restoration monitoring assurance device shall be submitted at the completion of the
restoration and shall be held for the five-year monitoring period.
12. The propane tank shall be moved as close to the residence as possible, consistent
with building code requirements.
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, W A . 98110-1812
PHONE: (206) 842-2552. FAX: (206) 780-0955. EMAIL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
13. The gravel parking area located behind the house, within the wetland buffer shall
be removed. Top soil shall be brought in and replanted with native vegetation. No
parking of RV's or any other motorized vehicles shall be allowed on the property
outside of the permitted driveway and turnaround areas.
14. No other buildings or structures, either temporary or permanent, shall be placed on
the property except that minor personal items such as picnic tables, benches, BBQ
grill gardening tools, children's toys etc may be maintained on the property as long
as they are outside of the wetland buffer mitigation/enhancement area and do not
adversely affect the wetland or wetland buffer.
15. Outside of the buffer mitigation/enhancement area may be maintained as a native
vegetation landscaped area. However, the area shall not be used to store refuse
debris or other material that would have an adverse impact on vegetation within the
wetland buffer.
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, W A. 98] 10-1812
PHONE: (206) 842-2552. FAX: (206) 780-0955. EMAIL: dcd@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.lIs
www.ci.bainbridge-isl. wa.lIs
Elyse Kane
9865 Manitou Beach Dr. NE
Baingridge Island W A 98110
206-601-3586
October 12th 2006
Meghan McKnight
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison Ave. N.
Bainbridge Island W A 98110
RE: Request to amend RUE TPN # 14250231 082004
Dear Meghan
Please regard this letter as a follow-up to our meeting with Larry Frazier on August 30th 2006 and in
response to your letter dated September 13th 2006. Upon your instruction, I am requesting an amendment to
the existing reasonable use exception (RUE) for my property located at 9865 Manitou Beach Dr. Submitted
with this letter is a modified site plan incorporating approved changes to the existing driveway,
reconfiguration of the mitigation area, revision to filtered catchment basin and tightline drainage, and
location of the pervious patio pavers, registered recreational trailer, and portable storage shed within the
designated impact area. Please note that in addition to the larger personal property items specified on the
site plan the site will also contain within the impacted area a variety of personal items such as a picnic table
and benches, BBQ grill, log pile, lawn sprinklers, wheel barrow, gardening tools, potted plants and garden
statuary, inflatable kiddy-pool and water toys, and other such objects, the location of which may vary.
While I am submitting the revised site plan and request to amend the RUE per the City's instructions, I do
not believe that, if approved, there is sufficient parking space for the safe and reasonable use of the premises.
Therefore, respectfully, the enclosed submittal is filed without prejudice to future parking proposals which
would more adequately meet the needs of the owner and guests and, in my opinion, better protect the
adjacent critical area. I remain willing to work with the City as their plans for this area develop.
Enclosed is a check for $200 to cover the noticing of this amendment.
Thank you for assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions regarding the specifics of this
application please contact David Huchthausen, a close personal family friend who is working with me on
this project. David may be contacted at 206-587-4036 or via e-mail atsomerset@qwest.net
Sincere regards,
Elyse Kane
EXHIBIT B
'1M ONV1S1 3~OltJ8NIV8 ~ ~
3JN30lS3tJ 3NV>1 ~
OJ
~
3NV>i 3SA 13 ~
'"
o
....
<
~ a
I!' ~s
~ ~~
~~ 11:2
;;;/0
Cl ~__._
gag
~5Se
z
+
J
I
'",
N
*g~
r;3~
~~~
c
w
wx
..~
~~
I<~
~
';-
I
I
~. z
o
F
+, <(
.... Q
'" ~
-J ~ .9-,9.
~
'"
<
1:
~
o
IU
"
~
~
~
~
~ ~
,-
I
I
t
I
I
...;
Vl
...
o
...
--
....
...~..;
o~tn
~l!lg
<'"
Ow
'" ~
Z
< ;;:
:I:
~ z
0 ~~
0;;l
b
z""
:5;.-
CL ..
II>
~i.ii
en en
--~
~
~
!,!j5
I!'I=
0<
dg
51 is
~12..
G;f30
ZZIU
wi'1~
t:J:_
~S~
~
................
................
.mmmmt
::::::::::::::::
It) :':""::,,::,,,
~ :ttt::
N
IlQ
IlQ
rz.
I~
"'1" 0
iliilill! ~
;::::::::::::;::
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
:::;;:1":':::: 0
...........0
i~
I~
I"-
o
I
0;11
.-f
I
('I')
o
..:e
I"-
II~
o
o
0')
<S>
r:-
:E:
<z:
I"-
<S>
..
Ln
......
~
:z:
o
o
In
,..:;.
co
(:) (::J
C) C;:J
C) If)
Cl
0
(:::)
0
(:::I
C:::J .....
(:':~I :::::J c::; C:> ,-.; C'
L~ C:l C) C~) c:' 0 \...~~
r::; ;..'"t: _J ,::,~ r'~
~:::I ~~ LJ~' ~::L 1..-1 ~;:~- U..: C~) C) CJ
..,;- ...... l.JJ ~J:! <t ::t::. -"', I c::: C::i C::J
t.. <t: C:GI ::<.: L:l~. }...- ....... U) ~() lc":' i.i:t
0_ -' ()~ C.J ::-..... (...~ ....l
...... ,n t.... LU f.... t".-.. I"'~ <t
W "..... <I: cn 0';: ::<: Q ..-.J:: ,~-
CI ~~ -, 0_. -X ..::r ."., L.U
W ....J l::S E~ t...-
t.r:: t:) ,~. ~:::t
,:=t ::::~ [..~
:~ >.~ LLJ ~~i:. ,-- I.l'! t.... c::' l.J...
u::: '::1"':: ::> _J ~:-~ S:.: <T c::-; c::. ":.
<r: ~Y.. .:;[' c.n LI:::'; 'M lI'-:! C~ i.i-.: (.1':1 "..~ I:':'~
~;. -':1'" .-, ("0 ..:.:C (1'" ("'J ::J ~;.;: i:':~
::r.:: t..o1 0 l.n , t<. '. -. r::;:: t::!.. "l. (n ......' ~:,
:::::. ....:c WJ -. n) 1:::1"' Ifj r....J U..l 0.-- !-.-. i'.iJ cr::: l.u
~o ~::o 0'') !Xi r.-,l (:0 -":: ,.;: C:l ::.~ -~..! ~- I.J.J
...... ,::::, C) C:~ .... .<:: <i: GJ ..:>- ,:::, -.'-
!-..- l.l_ &:::t ...... H,.J ;"'1- (r! ~~: <I:: Z LI_.
::0::-. CO <O( L1::: ::;l:c I.~. ......i t,~'l i...1..l t..-. t.... l;..l 1.":1... Li..i
I.J.j ::E: ~~ :::.:: ;.,- 0::: ~~ \.;..J t..) G:~ ~~ f- <r: (.!;)
::1:':: r Z t~IJ ...... 0;;' i).., r .,.,J c..:r -.:>- (.,J Z
>-. 1-- e) "'-'1 1-' ::e LIJ C) _.,J LJ. rf'J ...... ..... ;::; (.1') to- t-- <t:
-r.:t: .~ cr.:t .:J: .c!: t.~1 _....l U..: i)... "....! I.J.. !-'.1 L..::' ...;.. ~ ".,~1 ~ ::,;: :1:
0_, (~I ("".J o:c. ~;.. !-..- c.) 0::' 1--. o:c. 1.;..1 ::C 1.1.. P"-" ...:r, ~-::::= <X .::1: C;I
C) ,
c,::t I
C) C;) I
t:) I
CO t..') I
C) I
C' I
C:) I ..,:..
c::) I ,.-.\
C..::J I ~i"
C:J I
; 1..!..I
I C) CO:; c:. 1;') C':, C=l ;~t::'
t..':i :i+ I C:i 1....
;::;~ ~.; "" ....,J ~-:::l 1-..... .. I C:;. 1..._' C::I f;:::' ;::~;:l f::-J
;;::: .,...., i...tJ -;( H ;;;::: L.l..l ; C;) r"-
f.. -:to Cl:. ::c t:..'t:I ~:.r ::t-:o =:) I (':J c:; :::r~
C1_ .....i 0- C:i ,~, t-. C:'I (1":, t,,') r"') t.t') (l:J
.~ (I') 1-- [;:j O"J io......
UJ .... <:t 1;.1-.1 t- tH';' <i ~~~ ...<r L:t;:
c.:t 0"03: ::;4 U::; ::s: ,:;::. ,..~ =~~
w t..u c.."! "-. .x. -.:t: iX. 1.L.l (::;!
c,r; c::t ~:!:: ~~ ::<.: f..- (0
.::;:. A:~ ~..- "....,
r >.~ w ..:::: r.- tfj [_. r~~ ~~l.: -"
0:: L:C: =:.... _.j c:) ~7. iJ.. ~c
-:t: I....' C::;j
.::c. ~r (0 ""'" ,'-i [6 !:;::~ ~"'::~
::s: ::<:: f-...-f Lt) C:I .,' c-:' ii") U~l "...., i;::a
;1': -~ c,.. C'.j
~''; i:'5 C) "- t"~! :~-:-J <~ H
-- .,"t: l.eI ,.;:, .. m l:'"S (J) -.. C~ I.~I... .c.t: (I'J ~:::'r
((') """ to) C~; ,..., ....J ~,1...i i::::j
........ ~::::. (h _S: ':E: C:J 0.. ..,.~ ::;::;: i:t; i.JJ
C'::r c:::;; 0'" ........
~;~ 1...... ~ ,",.", <t: :;-:( t., L.1.4 t~! LJ..I
c':! -:t: IJ:: _".J ~::. M~_l
L.I,J ::l':: ...,~ :# f.- -~ L':J.. U"J ::F~-: ;;~ ;:;:~ CL >-.
;;C ;.-- ..~ W :::.:: }o..-. ~~: C=l L.U h UJ f. i::l:! 0_ {J.j CCI
>-. c::i w .:;.r.:: u... t..) i:r.:: g5
to- t..... t-. ,,-:0 ~ -I W ::ta: LLI ..::( (~~::
......r. ....., (0 U _....l 1.I... (r'.. c..,:. ~':f"
..:'C .r::t: ...... l....l 'l~. ....-1 ~~ I....:. u:! ..::::
i;!M. W ("J ~:Cl 1-..... f-- ....... W.. ~.~ 0':' t... 1~:~~ <C ....~
c. (I:: t.--. ,:c; l.l.: ::E:: ~::::~ t-~l :;~... ..j, x <r:
-..., .-~-! <i. ~.~_l <r '-' (~I ~I_.