071910_VERHAREN_REYNVAAN_HEX_DECISIONDECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of the Application of
Timothy Verharen and Juli Reynvaan SCUP15528
For a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
Introduction
Timothy Verharen and Juli Reynvaan seek a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to allow the
replacement of a stairway down to their bulkhead at 8975 Woodbank Drive.
An open record public hearing was held July 9, 2009. LeAnn Ebe McDonald, Shoreline
Solutions, the applicants' agent, represented them. Joshua Machen, Senior Planner, represented
the Department of Planning and Community Development.
All section numbers in the decision refer to the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, unless
otherwise indicated.
After due consideration of all the evidence in the record consisting of the testimony and
exhibits admitted at the hearing, the following shall constitute the findings, conclusions, and
decision of the Hearing Examiner in this matter.
Findings
1. The waterfront property at 8975 Woodbank Drive owned by Timothy Verharen and Juli
Reynvaan (Applicants) has a steep staircase near their residence that goes directly down the bluff
to the bulkhead. Because Applicants regard its steepness as dangerous, they began construction
on a replacement stairway that would not be as steep. After being advised by the City that permits
were required, they made application for a shoreline conditional use permit. The existing
stairway is 36 feet long and approximately 144 square feet in area. Instead of going straight down
the bank, the proposed stairway would zig zag down the slope with two 5 by 10 foot landings and
be 40 feet long and approximately 260 square feet in area. A stairway appurtenant to a residence
is permitted outright if it is 120 square feet or smaller. Section 16.12.260. A new stairway larger
than the existing stairway and exceeding the 120 square foot limit requires a conditional use
permit.
2. The shoreline area where the subject property is located is designated Semi -Rural shoreline
environment. The Semi -Rural environment is intended to provide for transition between the urban
environment and the rural environment and protect natural resources such as banks and the
vegetation on steep banks. Section 16.12.140E.
3. The steep bluff at the subject site is a geologically hazardous area under Chapter 16.20
because it exceeds 40 percent in grade so a geotechnical report was required that would show that
SCUP15528
Page 1 of 6
construction of the new staircase would not cause instability to the slope and would be structurally
sound. Applicants submitted a report (Exhibit 5) that described the nature of the slope and its
soils and vegetation. The report concluded that the conditions at the stairway location have a
reasonably high degree of natural stability that would allow the construction of the proposed
stairway without affecting the bluff. The report did conclude that the conventional foundation
piers would not provide adequate resistance to long -term creep and sloughing of the surficial
coluvium layer of soils so recommended using driven needle or pin piles for each post for the
stringers and landings plus drainage and erosion control and revegetation where disturbed.
Structural calculations (Exhibit 6) were also provided in support of the recommendation.
4. The area of the stairway is also within the 50 -foot native vegetation zone along the shore
above the OHWM. In this area existing native vegetation is to remain, however a stairway is
permitted within the zone but revegetation is required if any vegetation is disturbed. The
vegetation on the slope, largely salal, ivy and ferns, will be left mostly undisturbed, as the
stairway will be built over it. No trees are proposed for removal.
5. Construction of the stairway should have no impact on the shore, as the stairway is to
terminate on the bulkhead.
6. The stairway can blend into the bluff and vegetation if left in natural wood or painted in
neutral colors. The view of the stairway from adjacent residences is obscured by a fairly dense
growth of mature trees.
7. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was issued for the proposal by the Responsible Official.
Conditions of the MDNS required a vegetation management plan and notification of the
discovery of any historical or archaeological artifacts during excavation or construction.
8. Bainbridge Island's Shoreline Master Plan, which is an element of the Comprehensive
Plan, contains policies and regulations incorporated into the Municipal Code applicable to this
proposal. Section 16.12.050, Archeological and historic resources, requires that work be stopped
and permission be obtained to proceed if archeological resources are discovered. The likelihood
of presence of these resources is slight because of the slope involved. Section 16.12.060, Clearing
and Grading, is to ensure that damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area be
minimized. Little disturbance is proposed as the stairway is to be built over the vegetation and a
condition is recommended to require revegetation of any that is disturbed. Section 16.12.070,
Environmental Impacts, provides regulations to minimize impacts of shoreline activities. Section
16.12.080, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, is intended to supplement the regulations in the
Critical Areas chapter to protect sensitive areas from disturbance and require replacement of the
resource function if there is disturbance. Section 16.12.090, Native vegetation zone, is intended
to protect natural character, among other purposes.
9. The Director recommended approval of the Shoreline Conditional Use subject to
imposition of conditions addressing the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, erosion
control, limit on clearing, aesthetics, obtaining a building permit, indemnification, and tree
cutting restrictions.
10. Section 16.12.380C(1) provides:
SCUP15528
Page 2 of 6
Uses classified as conditional uses may be authorized; provided, that the
applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020
or its successor and the policies of the master program.
b. The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the
public shorelines.
C. The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible
with other permitted uses within the area.
d. The proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the
shoreline environment designation in which it is located.
e. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. (WAC
173 -14- 140(1) or its successor.)
f. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the zoning
ordinance (BIMC Title 18) and the comprehensive plan (Ordinance No.
94 -21).
11. Section 16.12.35013 provides that:
1. The City of Bainbridge Island hearing examiner is vested with authority to:
a. Approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline variance and
shoreline conditional use permit applications after a public hearing and after
considering the findings and recommendations of the director, which shall be
given substantial weight; provided, that decisions may be appealed in
accordance with BIMC 16.12.370.B.
12. The policies of the Shoreline Management Act set out in RCW 90.58.020 include
protecting against adverse impacts to the land, to its vegetation, and to wildlife and the waters of
the state. With the recommended conditions, the proposed stairway would appear not to have any
adverse affect on any vegetation, wildlife or the waters.
13. The stairway would have no effect on the public use of the beach.
14. Because the stairway would not be readily visible from the other residences in the area,
there would not be a question of its compatibility with those uses.
15. The stairway would cause very little effect on the shoreline environment as there should be
little disturbance of vegetation and it would not extend further waterward than the existing
bulkhead.
16. The public interest would suffer no detrimental effect from replacement of the stairway.
17. With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed stairway would be consistent
with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
18. Notice of the proposed land use action was posted on February 23, 2010, and published on
February 19, 2010, and notice of the public hearing was published and mailed on June 18, 2010.
Conclusions
SCUP15528
Page 3 of 6
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.
2. Notice and public hearing requirements of the Code were met.
3. As the findings show that all of the criteria for approval of a conditional use are met, the
application should be approved with the recommended conditions.
Decision
The Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the following conditions:
SEPA MDNS Conditions:
1. Applicant is required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning and
Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation
or construction.
2. To mitigate the aesthetic impact of the stairway on the shoreline bluff and to ensure future
stability, water quality, and wildlife habitat, a vegetation management plan shall be
submitted prior to final inspection which includes, at a minimum, the following items:
i. A typical planting schematic for the restoration of any disturbed areas within the
50 -foot native vegetation zone;
ii. Maintenance schedule, to ensure on -going health of vegetation across the bluff face
and the native vegetation zone. Minor trimming of vegetation may occur to prevent
interference of the use of the staircase and to preserve views, as long as the trimming
does not threaten the health of the vegetation;
iii. A three -year maintenance assurance shall be provided to ensure the establishment and
health of the landscaping in accordance with BIMC 18.85.090D.
Other Conditions:
3. The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be met as indicated in the May
2, 2008, report. Specifically, drainage and erosion control measures shall be
incorporated to prevent runoff water from flowing over the top of the bluff, both during
and on a long -term basis after construction. Any sources of runoff water located near the
bluff should be intercepted by berms or swales and routed to an appropriate collection
point away from the bluff.
4. Any bare soils must be covered with straw matting. Revegetation shall be of native
vegetation.
5. Clearing shall be limited to the placement of the stairway and view maintenance.
SCUP15528
Page 4of6
6. To obscure the staircase from view, the staircase and all attendant features shall not be
colored or painted other than with neutral flat greens, browns or tans, so as to blend into
the native bluff soils and vegetation, and shall be non - reflective.
7. A building permit along with the appropriate geotechnical forms shall be secured for the
staircase. A professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington with expertise in
such features shall stamp the plans of the proposed staircase.
8. The geotechnical engineer's recommendation of using driven steel needle piles to
support each post for the new stairway stringers and landings shall be incorporated in the
plans prior to building permit issuance.
9. An indemnification /hold harmless agreement for the staircase on the shoreline bluff shall
be executed in a form approved by the City Attorney, pursuant to BIMC 16.20.150D.
10. Any trees proposed for trimming or the limbing of vegetation for the creation and
maintenance of view corridors shall follow the procedures established in Section
16.20.150F(6) or the person proposing the cutting shall demonstrate that there will be no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Entered this 19th day of July 2010.
/s/ Margaret Klockars
Margaret Klockars
Hearing Examiner pro tem
Concerning Further Review
NOTE: It is the responsibility of a person seeking review of a Hearing
Examiner decision to consult applicable Code sections and other
appropriate sources, including State law, to determine his/her rights and
responsibilities relative to appeal.
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the City in this matter. The State
Department of Ecology will approve, approve with conditions or deny the conditional use within
the 30 days of the date it receives the permit from the City. Appeal of the Department of Ecology's
decision is to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58.180 (or
its successor) and Chapter 461 -08 WAC (or its successor). To be timely, petition for review must
SCUP15528
Page 5 of 6
be filed within the 21 -day appeal period following the decision by the Department of Ecology. [see
BIMC 16.12.380].
SCUP15528
Page 6 of 6