BURLINGAME, FRANK & JOANN 2006-04-13
CITy CLERK
F~J'HHNGS ANn RECOJViMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMli'lER
CITY OF BAJNnnlDGE ISLAND
1n the Ivlatter of the Application of
Fi~ANK AND JOANN BURLINGAME
SUB12598
for prelimi!1?ry plat approval of the
8-Lot "Maplewood Subdivision"
Introduction
Frank and Joann BiJrlingame have applied for preli rninary 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 parlies were represented as f(dJo..vs: the Director, PlaiHling and CommunilY
Development Department (peD or Department), by Thomas Bonsell, Planner, and the
A..pplicant, 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 [Exb;l:Jlt 45], and Applicant's
response to thos,e comments [Exhibit 46]. The record was closed <!,gail1 on I\1arch 15,
2006.
For the purposes of this recommendation, all section numhers refer to the Bainbridge
Isla.nd Municip,1.J Code (J3l1'vlC or Code), as amended, unles~ othenviseindicated.
Recommended Conditions comprise Appendix A found at the clld of this document.
After due consideration of all the information in the record, inc!l.'ding t11at presented at
the public hearing, the following sball constitute the findings, conclusions, and
rccGmmendation of the Hearing Examiner in this matter.
Findings
SIlE lJE<';CRIl'rJUN
1. The subject propelty or 4.36 acres (tax lot #41,69-000-049-0(2), just east of State
Route 309 and 50ut]1 of Murden Cove, is located 'lortheast of v/hcre Yaquina Street and
~'IorC1n Road intersect to form a corner The site is generally rectan,:sular in shape,
bounded by Moran Road 011 the west, Yaquina Street on the south, Hemlock Street on the
cast, and single-family residenc~s 011 the north. The east-west dimension of the site is
approximately 608 ft. and the north-south dimension is approximately 317 it. lExhibit
41; Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 1]
SUI312598
Pag'2 ! of 24
2. The legal description 1,:1 the prelin:;nary plat map [Exhibit 41] is:
Replat of Lot "ii), Plat of Rolling Bay City, Volume J, Page 11 NW l/~,
N\V ~~ & S\V ~~l, NW V4, Sec. 23, T. 2)J'!., R.2E, W.M. City of'Bainbridge
Island, Kii,ap County, Washington.
~. The majority (lfthe \vooded site is undeveloped. An existing residence, accessory
dwelling unit, shed and greenhouse (ire located in the eastern third of the site, with access
to Yaquma Street via a gravel driveway about 80 it. west of Hemlock Street. [See
"Existing Conditions", Sheet 417, Exhibit 10; Exhibit 43].
4. Site topography is characterized by a gentle slope down to the northwest with a
steeper, moderate slope (I5% to 27%) in the norihwest quadrant at the head of a broad
topographic draw (see shaded area designating slope greater than 15%, Sheet 4/7, Exhibit
I D). [Exhibit 11, page 21 peD staff c1eermined that, "due to the soil type, Kapowsin
Graveny Loam 0-15 percent", the site is not considered geologically hazardous. [Exhibit
40, Stall Report, page 6; Testimony of Bonsell]
5. Vegetation includes mature tfees (e),:., big-leaf maple, red alder, and Douglas fir),
with an understory of sword fern, '.voody shrubs and herbaceous grol.lnclcover. Red alder
and herbaceous groundcover dominate the steeper slopes. [Exhibit 11, page 2]
6. The property is zoned residentiiaL R-2 (oi":c unit per 20,000 sq. ft.), and the
Comprehen:;ive 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 COli1prchensi'v c Plan designations. [Exhibit 40, Staff Rr;;poJi, pages 6-7,
Exhibit 16, Application, page S; Testimony of Bonse!l]
SUBDIVISION PRUI'CJSAL
7. Application for tlte "Maplewood Subdivision" [Exhibit 16] \vas filed on July 13,
2005. The application proposed eight residential lots all 4.36 'lcres. The plat maps
associated with the application are She,~ts 1/7 through 7/7 (original submittal inclw..kd
Exhibits 1 A through 1 G). ~everal of the sheets were revised during the peD revie\,,!:
Cover Sheet, Sheet 1/7, see Exhihit 3A; Existing Conditions, Sheet 4/7, see Exhibit 3B;
Setbacks and Easement Details, Sheet 617, see Exhibit 3C). Attached to the Staff Report,
[Exhibit 40J is a set of the most current maps at reduced size. Exhibit 33 has detaib
(meets and bounds) for the proposed building sites.
r.:ODose~Ql~
8. The proposed lots would range in size from 19,1 18 sq. ft. to "14,336 sCj. ft.
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 would be the largest lots ane! both would have rectangular shape;
the oth(~f lots would have somewhat irregular shapes and vary in size [see "Lot Details",
Sheet 5/7, Exhibit 1 E]. Consistent \vith the cluster lot development requirements [BIMC
SUB 12598
Page 2. cf 24
! 7.04.080.A5], all the lots would be more than 50 ft. \vide, no lot would have a homesite
that e"\.cceds 10,000 sq. ft., and each homesite would be within 25 ft. of any adjacent
homesite [see Sheet 6/1, Exhibit 3C and Exhibit 33].
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
LQt}
TO r {IoL
J-e2t Size HOI1}c Site
"~4,336 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
29,528 sq. ft. 10.000 sq. ft.
13, llW sq. ft. 9,999 sq. ft.
20,76X sq. ft. 9,932 sq. ft.
1C),l IS sq. f1. 10,000 sq. ft.
22,222 sq. n. 9.857 sq. ft.
IS,YlS sq. tt. 10,000 sq. rt.
2 L057~<;L__L 9.994 sq. ft.
190,127 sq. ft. (4.36 acres)
q 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 Y 2quina
Str<:ct (via an easement entering the pmperty ahout 250 ft. w\.,:~t of Hemlock Street).
lnitially the accessory dwelling unit Vvould remain on proposed Lot I, but the Applicants
intend in fut~lre 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 [s.;;e Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C] and the maps should be
revised to indU(h~ it.) Lots 5, 6, and 7 are proposed to have access fi-om Moran Road (via
an easement roadway entering the property about i 60 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 ::,ho,.v11 in Sheet 6/7, Exhibit 3C and described hy the
engineer [Fxhibit 8, page 2], the graveled access roadways from the tv"o access points
wouid be linked by a reinforced grass fire lane restricted by bol1ards. Except for
emergency vehicles, there would be no through travel. (The Fire MClrshal1 discourage,>
use ofbollards; no alternative means ofprevenling through travel have been put fOrVvard)
1 n f'ras t QJj::ture/Jl.tiI it i ('~
laThe 8ccess, within the 20-ft. wide access and utility easement, would have a 12
it-wide driving surface of cnJshed rock with 3-f1. wide shoulders, [see Sheet C I, Exhibit
2A: and Sheet C2, Exhih:t 213]. Both the Public Vlorks Department [Exhibit 35] and the
Fire Marshall [Exhibit 24J advise that a condition of preliminary plat approval [see
Recommended Condition 18] should be that the alii design and construction be consistent
with City's standards for this type of access dnd the private roact(s) be designated as
private [see R::cOI!1rnended Condition 4].
11 The applicant's engineer estimated the actual distance behveen the cotner and the
proposed Moran Road access point to be aprroximately 100 ft. The required sight
distance is 115 ft. To remedy for this discl epaney, the engineer notes that the corner
would need to be graded to the nOliheast [Exh ibit 8; Sheet C 1, Exhibit 2 A].
SUBl25'JS
Page 3 of 24
Apprnximately 80 ft. north of the proposed access onto Moran Road, ie, the driveway for
the a~!jacent rcsidcnc(;s [see aLa Finding 41].
12. The sul1ject propelty is vv'ithin City of Bainbridge Island's current water service
bound'll)' and can be served [see non.-bmding commitment letter, Exhibit 13]. All 8-in.
w1ter !Twin:vould be extend;;cI to serve proposed Lots 2 lhrough 8 trom the existing mC1in
in Moran Ruad [Exhibit 8, p<lge 2; Slwet C 1, Exhibit 2/\.]. See Recommended Condition
4d. The existing well within proposed Lot I would continue to serve that lot and the
exis1.ing well within proposed Lut :2 would be de\:oinmissioned [Exhibit 37]. (The two
existing wells are marked on Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 388.)
].3. ^ fire hydrant is located ahout 80 ft. nOl1h of the subject property in the Moran
Road right-of-vv'ay. A fire hydrant is proposed within the subdivision adjacent to the
access roadway near the southeast corner of proposed Lot 4 [Shl~et C], Exhibit 21\].
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 prelimina:y approval: for this proposed subdivision (with conditions
noted in Exhibit 37). A soil log [Exhibit 2J is in the file, but it has no indication as to
when and by whom it was prepared (the geotech report - Exhibit I] -. mentions soil logs
"by others" had be considered for that repOli). 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 8n on-site system must be a minimum of] 2, ')00 sq. fl.
in size; system design and location within the lot must get Health District approval a1 the
building permit stage.
1'). A geotechnical slope evaluation [Exhibit 11], as required by the City's
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordin,~nce (ESA), was submitted with the subdivision
application. Th;s report focused on the nOl1hwest [propo3ed 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 h<~.s 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] 0.). 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 nalth.
] 6. Stormwater from the tutu(e residences would be collected from impervious
surfaces (e.g., roofs, driveways, ete) and routed either directly to the public stormw8ler
system or detained for controlled release, in.i.1ltration trenches are proposed on Lots 3
SUP. ] 259g
Pabc -+ of 2~
through 8 [Sheet C 1, Exhibit 2A]. R(~commended Conditions 3, 4c, nnd i 1 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 ;-eviewed 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
constmcrion would fellow City standards. Recommended Conditions 3,4, 16, rind 18
address these concerns.
.PJ~~servinR-Tre~'Lal1<iEstapli~ing Lan<iscal~ 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 Statf 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 i3 primarily
located in the westcm and south-central portions of the site. The Tree Retention Plan
[Sheet 717, Exhibit 1 G] indicate') that many existi!l1g trees within the tree canopy along
the frontage of both streets would be retained. The tree retention area would be
approximately 35,000 sq. it. (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
l10l1hem boundary the retention area 'Nould be approximately 30 ft. wide in proposed Lot
5 and 60 ft. wide along about half the northern boundary of proposed Lot 4. Alllhe trees
within the designated retention areas are proposed to be retained.
20. The i\.pplicants testified at hearing about their plans to enhance perimeter
plantings in the southwest corner and along the no;1hern subdivision boundary. Ovel 150
native and compatible plant'S (e.g., Pacific dogwood, serviceberry, vine maple, salal, cle.)
have been purchased [list in Exhibit 44J and wiJ] 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. [1.
Burlingame]
21. No planting plan has been submitterl and the required landscape perimeter bufTer
[see DIMe] 7.04.070.A.4.d] is not specifically designated on any of the preliminary plat
ma}Js. (The Tree Retention Plan, described in Finding 19, would retain significant trees
within some of landscape bufTer area.) The enhancement proposed at hearing includes a
sketch [Exhibit 44] that shows thirteen of the red cedar trees [see Findinz 20] along the
northern perimeter and five in the southwest corner. The PCD Staff Repol t recommends
[StatI'Rep011, page 2, #5J that 8n approved landscapE" plan be required to indicate "where
and how" the landscape perimeter butfer would be enhanced to achieve a "filtered
screen" in accord with BIMC 18.85.070. [See Recommended Condition 5.]
SUBI2598
Page 5 of 24
22 Grading wl.Julcl t'C nccrss3ry for construction of th,.; access rcad, driveways and
homesitcs. The quantity of grRce-i mau;>rial ha3 not been estimated, but cleJring and/or
grading would require a permit [Recommended Conditions I and 3] and all graded
materials hauled irom lhp, site \'vould be required t\) be properly disposed of [see
Recommended Condition 7]. l\ plan for erosion control ('rESCP) "vould he reqllircd by
ReC0ll11,lCnded Condition 10 and, during construction, these rncasurcs would have to be
imple:nented 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 constI1lction, all trces and areas slatcd for preservation would bc required
by Rec\)mmended Condition ::; to be protected (i. e., temporary fencing to be installed
1)1 ior 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.
PC!) C( iNSJDERATION AND RFCOMMENDAi'l( )]\1
24. As part of its consideration of the subject application [Exhibit 1-3], the
Department did environmental review, including a SEP A threshold determination. An
Environmental Checklist [Exhibit 23 J was included with the application. Notice of the
application and SEPA comment period was originally published on July 23, 2005 and
\'\'as republished 011 August JJ, 2005 [see Exhibits 25, 26, 29). The Applicant provided
the required posting ofland use action signs on August 13, 2005 [Exhibit 31l
25. During the Department's r~~view of this application two comment letters were
received [Ashahi, Exhibit 27; McClosky, Exhibit 30). The Staff Report [Exhibit 40, page
7] notes the issues raised and provided responses (in bold) as follows.:
..
Increased run-off from trec removal during the constmction phase of the
project: The proposed plat is in conformance with thl~ subdivision
regulations which requires the presel'Ving of 15 percent of the trees
by count or 3U-pcrcent 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 Dt'partment of
Public 'Vorks and has n~ceived preliminary approval. The
subdivision has been required to reflect recommendations contained
within the geotechnical report specifically addressing sto,'mwater
concerns. (Condition 4g)
II
Trame and Pedestrian Safety: Concerns were raised regardinl~ traffic
on Moran Road and the safety of the proposed entrance into the
subdivision. The Public Works Department has r'cviewed the
application for sight distance and compliance with the design and
construction standards and has recommended approval.
SUB12:'i9X
Page 6 of ::'A
In. 0:1 OctcJer 6, 2005 the Director issued a SEP A Determination of
l\;o:1signiflcance (DNS) [Exhib;t 39). Notice of th,n decision was properly given. The
DNS W:iS not appealed (Exhibit 40, Staff Report, page 1; Testimony of Bonsell).
Zonim! and Land Use
------~_._-~~--.~---~~
27. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning provIsIOns of BIMC
Chapter 18.30 10r the R-2 zone. The subject site has a total area of 190, L sq. ft. and the
minimum lot size in the zone is 20,000 sq. ft. The allowable number of lots is the total
area divic1ed by the minimum lot size. That calculation indicates that the maximum
number or lots permitted by the zoning is nine. [See Sheet 5/7, Exhibit IE for lot sizes,
configuration and dimensions; Exhibit 40, Staff Repoi1, page 11; TestinlOny of Bon sell]
28. The Director correctly determined [Exhibit 40, pages 8] that: the homesites are
v,ithin the 10,000 sq. ft. maximum allowed by the Code; nil lots would be more than 50
teet 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:
II Maximum homesite size: 10,000 sq. ft.
" MaXln1Um lot coverage: 4,753 sq. ft.
" Distance between homcsites: 25 ft. maximum
II Distance between buildings: 1 () ft. minimum
II Distance betvveen buildings and subdivision boundary: 15 ft. minimum
II Distance between buildings and access easement: 15 ft. minimum
II Distance between buildings and Hemlock Street ROW: 15 ft. minimum
· Distance bchveen buildings on Lot 7 and Yaquiua Street ROy\!': 44 ft. minimum
" Distance bet\veen buildings on Lot Rand Yaquina Street RO\V: 2Y ft. mininmm
" Distance between buildings on Lot 5 and rvloran Road ROW: 43 ft. minimum
" Distance between buildings on Lot 6 and Moran Road RO\V: 34 ft. minimum
29. The 2(/:.'0 maximum lot coverage limitation for the R-2 zone would be met. That
is, each of the kIts has been 8.ssigned allowahie coverage of 4,753 sq ft. (i.e., an eqlial
share of the 20%, coverage allowed for the entire 1190,127 sq. ft. parcel [Exhibit '-10, page
81). 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
si~es" uf 10,000 square feet or less arc designated on each \ot as the maximum area for
development disturbance. All the homesitcs designated are within this limit and are
within 25 feet of each other as is required [size information in Exhibit 33; configuration
shovVll 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
SUB 125~\g
Pag.: 7 of 24
access roadway would be a private stre~t; maintained by the property owners [see
Recommended Conditions 4 and ! I]. The [\Jo!1--iVlotorized Transportation Plan does not
c1e';iU1ate the adjacer.t streets for required bike lanes and/or pedestrian paths [Staff
Repol1, Exhibit 40, page 01. The ~;taff Report was revised at k:aring to eliminate tl~::
incorrect statements thai half-. street improvements had be proposed ur required for Moran
and Yaquina [Testimony ofBonsellj.
Review and COrl}mentby_Q1~I.:.-,1g~Il<:::j~_~
32. During its review of the app!ici1tion, peD requested that City departments reviev;
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 arc included in thi: record.
pept/ Agt?J10'
.. Fire Marshall
Exhibit
24
II PublIc Works
34
Comment
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 (100 feet and locations 1111lst be submitted to
Public Works and the Fire Department for approval;
the access road must meet standards set fOlth by
Fublic Works and be constructed prior to final
subrlivision approval.
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 complian"e with sight distance requirement; a/i
utilities shall be designed to minimize adverse
eff;~cts and to preserve trees and roadsi de
vegetation.
33. The Public Works Department has issued a Certificate of Concurrency [Exhibit
34] in conformancewilh B[j\lC Chapters 15.32 and 15.40. As defimed by BIMe
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.
pirectQLS Rccommenclati.Q.!l
34. The Staff Report regarding the subdivision application was issued on February 6,
2006. The Direclor recommenus that the subdivision be approved with numerous
conditions [pages 2 through 5, Exhibit 40]. The Recommended Conditions in Appendix
SUBl25<JX
Fag.: 8 of 24
A at the end oCtitis Recommcnch.tion are based upon the Director's conditions, modified
by the Hearing Exarniner in response to informc.tion received during the hearing process.
l'i The Applicant has sl.ibmitted a "Tree Retention Plan" (Sheet 7/7, Exhibit I G) that
shmvs where the tree canopy ",,:ould be retained (all significant trees within the designated
<(reas of the canopy would be retained). No significant trees within the landscape
iiCllmeter butYer outside the canopy buffer are identified to be retained. The Director's
Staff Rep0l1 [Exhibit 40, pages 2 and 11] recommends that the Applicants be required to:
i) provide a tree survey showing the locations of significant trees and indicating wbch
are to be preserved, including retaining all significant trees within the landscape
perimeter buffer; 2) suhmit a landscape plan showing where and how the landscape
perimeter buffer would be enhanced; and, 3) during construction, protect trces siated for
preservation.
36. A "filtered screen", at least 25 ft. wide, consistent with the filtered screen
requin::ments of RIMC 18.85.070.8.3, is required "along the subdivision boundary" [see
Finding 57]. Recommended Condition _' includes this requirement and there should also
be a conclition 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. Ivlitigation of environmental impa::ts associated with constmction as
related to: erosion/sedimentation, runof( and pollution [6, 10, 13]: air
quality [7, 9]; protection for significant trees [5, 12]; noise [14];
historic/archaeological resources [15 J.
b. rvriligation of environmental impacts associated with long-term
residential use of the site as related to: stormwater control [4c, II];
preservation of significant trees [5]; schools [17]; light and glare [8].
c. Provision of adequate access [2, 4]; appropriate utiiity infrastructure
and imlProv~ments [4, 16]; preservation and maintenance of landscape
setbacks [5]; corilpliance with zoning requirements and conditions of
subdivision approval [2].
38. The Director correctly conclucled that the proposed subdivision, with the proper
conditions, w0uld be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable sections
of thc Bainbridge Municipal Cude, including the Subdivisions Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinance.
PUBLIC HElJ{ll'!U
39. ]\iotice of the public hearing to be held on December 1, 2005 was published on
November 16, 2005 [Exhibit 36]. rhat hearing was canceled and rescheduled to
SUB 125lJ8
PdgC 90fH
Febnlary 23, 2006 with noticl~ mailed and published January 31, 2006; notice posted on
the property Febnmry 8, 2006 [Fxhibil ~:ojl
40. During the public hearing, the Department's reprt~sentative testified regarding th,~
Staff RepOl-t and the Director's recommendation l Testinl\Jny of Bonscll]. Th,' fJirectur's
representative noted several minur c()rrections f\)r the St2JT F1cpOll [L;h;bit 40j:
"Condition 3g" in E.I.a on page 8 shoul:d read "Condition 4g"; the t;1 st sentence in F.:.g
011 page 9 should be eliminated as half street improvements are not proposed; alld, the
second sentence in Recommended Condition 4. e on page 2 should read "...600 f(:ct
apart" not "...300 feet apal1". 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].
4]. The comments of those members of the public Vlho gave testimony 8bout the
proposed subdivision at the hearing, are summarized bdow:
· Eliz1!Qeth 6ih-,1Q.! Lives to the nOlth: concerned about runoff I see comment letter, Exhibit
27J: since tree cutting \\a~: done on the subject property (about 4 years ago), runoff to her
property has increased.
· Yince Mattson Spoke on behalf of a neighbor with young chil(Jr,.::n who is concerned
about s:l.fe pedestrian access along Yaquina and Moran. rraffle bas increased iJl the
neighborhood and some provisi(\n needs to be made for safer pedestrian use: would likc
to see shoulder provided.
II JGl.iAibabi Lives adjacent to the north [see comment letter. Exhibit 27]. His property is
downhill and runoff 1i-0I1l the BUllingamc propl.;rty comes on to his property and the
McClosky property (east of his property). After tn.:es were removed from the Burlingame
property fOLlr 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. 1 Ie wants the
/\pplicants to take corrective action to protect his property and specilically requested
installation of a drain running thc length of the property] ine he and l\kClosky share with
the subject property. Traffic satd) at the proposecI access to Moran R0ad south of his
driveway, \\;as also a concern. They have had several near misses V.ilh cars traveling
from the Moran/Y aquina comer in excess of the posted speed lir11Je the proposed access
is located closer to thl.; MOfamYaquina comer, posing an increased risk of accidents.
42. The draw on the subject property is part of a drainage way [see lFindin.<:>; 15 and
Drainage Map, Exhibit 8] that continues through the adjacent properties to the north,
eventually f()rming a creek that tlows to Murden Cove. The toe of the slope was cut
,vhen the driveway for the neighboring properties to the north was constructed. This
"daylighted" lhe shallow groundwater, which began seeping through the face of that cut
and causing problems on those propelities soon after construction. (Seeping at the
driveway cut also was ohserved by the geotech; see Exhibit 11, page 3.) [Testimony of
Bonsell; Tf~stimony of J. Burlingame; Testimony of F. Burlingame; Testimony of
Skinner; Testimony or!. Ajhahi]
SUB 125()X
Page 1 () of 2l
43. FollO\ving the close of the hearing, vvritten comment was received from Edus
Warren [Exhibit 45]. This comment voices the concern that streets in the neighborhood
lack shoulders or sidew{llks and increased auto traffic is making ti)ot and bicycle travel
more and E1Dre risky. ,'\1r. Warren asserts that this subdivision would "significantly
increase" the volume uf traffic on J'vloran Road, Yaquina Street and Fernc1itf Avenue,
with commensurate increased risk for pedestrians and bicyclists. He advccates that no
large-scale development be permitted in the East Central area until a comprehensive plan
for dealing vvith increased traffic volumes is designed and implemented. Mr. Warren also
assens that, given the high water table and the site topography -- leading to a stream that
discharges into Murden Cove .- the proposrJ on-site septic systems would pose a threat to
thtJ water quality of Murden love. I Ie SUt;gests that no tllrther development in the are:l
be permitted until a comprehensive plan for dealing with human waste can be designed
and implemented.
44. The Applicant requc:,tcd and Vias granted the opportunity to respond to the
comments made by Edus Warren. l\fr. Burlingame [Exhibit 461 observes tr.at Yaquina is
a "quiet country road" (not an arterial or collector) with "adequate grassy shoulders,
vihich allow bikers and walkers to easily move out of the traftic 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 arc"." He is aware of the odors in the Murden Cove area and has been told that its
S01lfce is rotting plant material exposed to the su!\ when the tide is out. He believes that
the proposed septic systems would have nothing to do with that situation.
,15. The neighbors' complaint that the proposed access to Maran Road is too close to
thi~ Yaquina/Moran corner, is consistent with the engineer's conclusion that grading
would be necessary to improve the sight line [Exhibit 8, page 2]. 'ehe engineer estimattd
the actual sight distance to be approximately 100 ft., but this seems to be substantially
underestimated. On both the site map [Exhibit C]] and the plat map [Sheet 517, Exhibit
I E] the scaled distance from the YaquinalMoran corner to the :Moran access point is en
the order of ]60 ft. The distance from the YaquinalMoran corner to the Yaquina access
point would be approximately 280 ft. (and there is approximately 200 n. between the
Yaquina Street access point and Hemlock Street)
46. There is not sutlicient 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] f~}und
adequate capacity exists to accommodate these gew 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 "reinfcrced grass pavement" to the west, so that the "reinforced gravel pavement" east
of it w~)Uld serve proposed Lots () and 7 as well as Luts 3,4 and 8 rs~e Sheet Cl, 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 tv.ice [he required
SUBI2)()g
Page 11 of24
s;trht distance in both dir~ctions, ~ou]d serve five lots (i.e.., Lots 3, 4,6,7, and 8) instead
oftlnee lots as propuse:d (i.e., Lots 3, 4, anJ 8). The acce~;s road to t'v~oran Ro(~d \Vou)r;
need to be the gravel pavement for a relatively "hort distance in order to serve Gn!y Lot S
and it should stop short or the steep slope area [see Sheet 4/7, Exhibit 3B].
47. The project engineer testified tliRt the stonnwater drainnge and infiltration
systems would meet Dep<:.rtrnent ofEcoi!ogy and City requirements [see "Notes', Exhibit
2A, and Recommended Conditions 3. .~, 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
WheelerJ
48. Giv,'n the toposraphy, a drain along the northern property line as requested by tile
neighbor [see Finding 41], would not be able to solve the problem of the runoff corning
on to the neighboring properties. To be effective, a ditch or drain needs to be on the
downhill side of the cut 'Nhich is located on the neighboring properties, not on the subject
property. The eXisting nll10ff problems had their origin in the develloprllent of the
adjacent property, but what happens on the siJbject 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 constmcted to avoid an increased rate and/or quantity
of stormwaler being directed toward the draw. To that end, it is important that all the
recommendations of the geotechnical en8incer [Exhibit 11, pages 4 and 5] by followed
(including avoiding construction in the draw and maintall1ing 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 chrect contradiction to the
recommelldations of the gt::otechnical engineer. The alignment of the access should be
changed so that it is not within the steep slope area.
MUNICIPAl U JDE
(fL). The "Definitions" section [BI\1C 17.04.040] of the Subdivision chapter include
the following definitions of interest in revievving this application:
"('!ustC!r dev!opment " means a group ofodjoinin:-; homesite areas situated 1!1
Ll suitahle arC!a r~/ (1 propert)', designed 111 slIch ({ /11O/1n;,:,- that jClcllitate\' {he
e/ticil!nt lIse (~( !and by reducing disturhed arc as, impervioIlS\lII:/(u::es, 1Itl!iO'
extensions and roadways. whi!e providing .Ie)r the protectiun uf" valued open
space features.
* * *
"Nexihle lot de,\ign" means (1 desi,I.:/1 process which pCrJmts/lexibility in lot
develupment and t:ncli1lragcs a more crcalive approC!ch than trm/itiu/1al lot-hy-
lnt suhdivislOn. The flexihle 10,' design process includes lot design standards,
guidance on the placC!/lient oj" hl/i/dings, lise of' op!:n spuces clI1d circulation
which best (ie/dresses site clwracteristics. Jllis deSign process !x:nmts clustaing
(!l !ots, with a mricty (~f'lot sizes, to pruvidc uren span:, Jnuintain is!ond
characler Lind rm/!ect the lslwul".\' /1ulilrul ,\)'.\fems. The criteriu .li)r the It.yuut
SUBI2.'i()l)
Page ] 2 of 24
and design or lots. induding a minimUfrl jwvC'cr:tar,e or open space and a
minimum 1m size are dcscrihetl ill ('!IajJtus j 7.0) am! /7.12 Blll,1C
* * *
"Home'-ite arca" means the arco of"a lot dC!licfcd on the jrlce uf"a plat that is
intended f;)r development of" a residential dwelling andor accessory dwelling
Imi/.
* * *
"Landscape perimeter" !neans a landscolJe hll(Ter locf.7tul along a
subdivision bOllndar.v. The landscape perimeter may conft7in estahlished native
vegetation or additionallClndscaping
* * *
"Preliminary plat" means a drawing (If"a proposed suhdivision, wlllch shmvs
the general r'y01lt of" lots. tracts, streets. Lilld olher injc)onatioll required by this
chapter, resolutions, ordinances or administrative rules of the department..the
basis jar approval or disapproval uf"the general layout ora subdIvision.
50. BIMC 18.85.010 defines ",\'ignUicant Iree" to mean:
A, l'.\'erf{reen tree J () inches in diU/lie tc>r or grealer, measuredfour
fcet above existing grade; or
B. f)eciduous Iree /2 inches ill dianzeler or greater, measured four
feel abO\ c existillg bTrade..
<; 1 BIMC 15.32.030 provides that prelin:.inary plats of five or more residential lots
shall be subject to a concurrency test.
SlJ..bdivi~Qll Revjew Process and PurPSl~~
52. BIMC 2.16.025.B.2 classifies action on a subdivision application as a quasi-
judicial land use decision. BlMC 17.04.093 further provides that subdivisions are to be
reviev,ed by the City Council in accordance with the decision procedures of BIMC
Chapter 2.16 and the decision criteria of BUvlC ] 7.04.094.
.')3. The expr,~ss "PwfJose" of tile subdivision chapter [BIMC 17.04.020] includes the
follo"vving:
. to regulate the suhdivision of" land to promote the public health. safety and
general wel(are.. To carry out this purpose andfilrther the comprehensive plan
policies addressing residentiCll suhdivision uf land. this chapter establishes a
.flexible lot process that promotes the 1))'e,lr>rvat/on o{ open sfJace. consolidation
of upen space. and clustering (~l deve!o!lInent within re.lidentia! subdivivions.
TIns process limits the development impact area. minimizes impervious surfl1ce
ar(!a and provides jar y,reater .flexibility in the division and estahlishment uj'
residential lots.
54. BIMC 2. ] 6.11 0.C.2 directs the Hearing Examiner, follov\ling a public hearing, to
make a recommendation to the City Council prior to the tlnal decision on a subdivision
application.
SUB1259X
Page ]] of:::4
Zoniw.U!J1~LE~~;v,J-Ql ~ro\'isi,-,ns
55. Bll'vIC ] ~.2,:LO 1 0 ~'tatcs tfut tIle puq,use cf tht': R.2 7()(:~ is to .. .provide for
residential neiJ.!,hhori/Oodv ill WI increased j'!I!SIlY /!I U rlllal cllI'iro:lJill:nt. ..
56. Subdivisions established pursuant to the flexible lot design process arc subject 10
the development standards of SIrvlC 17.04.080.A., including lhe followi;lg. (When usin~~
the cluster provisions, the stanc.!;1rdsL(:if mi~ljnH;m kit size, setbacks, minimu10 lot
dimensions, lot coverage, and open space, do not apply.)
A. /Jcvclllpment ,')'tandards
l. Dei/sit}'
a. 'the number (if residemial lots created ill a suhrJivlsion sha/! not
exceed the densiry provisions (!/BfM(' '/'itll! 18:
* -I< *
2. Almilllutn Lot Yiz!' Requirl.'!r;I!n!s.
b. Twelve thousemd .fivl! hundred square .feet .. if septic drmn/ie(d is
located within the (ot..
* * *
3. Lot j\f:.?lhac~s ancl !Jilnen\'iotiull?equ/rclll(?ll!S.
a. All lot's ::hall be 50Fct ,ride at the nzinimum lot ,\'idth.
b. Inso/hr as proCl/ca/, sUe lot lilies shall he at nght (Ingles to strert
lines. . size. shape. uno' o!"/cnta/julI uf IOls shall he ajJJ!rnpriate ji:r the type: of'
developmellt ond /lse contenilJluled
c. ,')'elbach.
i. nuiiding to building. lI!i.'1lrm.tm JOfl'CI separation:
ii. Bllilding to exfc'nur proper!)' line. A1inimu/II j 5.Ji;et,
iii. fill/filing to right-.ol H OJ' . . lJIliiimillil 15f()ut sethack.
il!. lJllildir,g to. . (lcG'e"s cosell/ent. minimum 15j!)ol scihack.
* * *
d. Afa:rimlllJl rot ('overc:,~;e os spec(/ied in 11111.1(' Title 18 shall he
assigned to each lot..
4. Landscape Hu/1"ers.
* * *
h. Roarl.\ide Ht~,'7j]'." lDo not apply: :::cc 18.30.08';J
* ,~ *
d. Landscape Perimeter Clilster SlIhdivlSWJ1 Ortion. prnpcrty with
gross area orone {/cre or marc... located in.. R-.? (I 25/oot landscape periml'Ier
shali he r2C]lIired aLong the slllJd;vls.!on houndary.
5. Cluster Deveiopmenl ()plioll. ('/i,.ltcring, or de velupment mo)' lIe sc/ectrd
as on optionul swndard. It" UII applimnt chooses to c!1!.I te r development. the
open space prmisions ({ BI/'v1(' 17. (N. 082 shcdl not appIJ'.. Ihe j(i!lofVIJIg
requirements shall apply tu duster development.
a. Humesile Area.
i. In R-2.. a liIaxinl/lm homesite arm or }O.O()O sql/are feet shedl he
provh/ed/or each lot und shed/ he Jepicled on /hl!A;'cc oj/he plat.
'" * *
SUB 125(;g
hgc 14 of 24
iii The purpose of the homesite orea is to define t!U! mayimum
disturhcmce arca i()r development 0/ the primm~v residential dvvelling, garog.:s
ami accessory dwelLing unitfor each lot vl'ithin [he suhdivision.
iv. {}ther alluwed uses Clnd stn/crures mny he located withn the lot
and oUlside the home,\itc aJ'('(/; provided that all other apph..:ahle requirements
(!(Ihe Bainhridge Island .11"ilflicipal Code arc satielfied
b. Homesite ('Iustering.
i. The purpose l~rclustcrlJ1g is tofhcilitate th.: eflicient use (~fland hy
reducing disturhed areas, Imperviuus slIifaccs, utility extensions and roadwuys,
wh: Ie prOViding .fi;r the protection oll'Olued open space feO!ures listed in B1111C
f 7. 04.082. C.
ii. Hmnesifes shall he located in cluster groupings and the efficient
location of il~fi'astrltctllre shall he liS cd to liloximi::e the undeveloped area in {f
jle.1.rble lot design subdivision
iii. To .(Licditate clustering, homesite,1 o((rmJ' or more shall constitute a
elustcr grouping.
iv. To prolllote clustering, ol! homesite,I' III a cluster grouping shall
od./,)in or be locuted a maximum o(25feet apartji'om unother hOJnl!site..
':< * *
13. Landscape .)'tandards. Landscaping shall he estahlished consistent with
the requiremcflfs ol suhsection A.4 of this section and street tree plaming
requirements oj' Chapter] 8. 85 RlkfC, and an)' ()fhi'r signijicant tree /'i!tention
re'Jitil'ement.
('. Roods ({YJd Pedestnan Access Perlonnance Standards.
1. E,isting road,t'ay charocter shall hI! maintained where practical.
2. RIJods and access shall he consislent with the standards set forth in
"City of Bainbridge lslond Design and ('o/1.llnlction Standards ond
Spcc(ficaticns." To miv:imize imperviolls ."lIr~~7ces, puNIC nghts-of~.t'aJ' access
eusements' und roadways shall not he greater thun the minimum reqUIred to meet
slandl,rds. Connections to existing (I!/~sile roods which ahut the suhject propert}'
shah he required where rracricahle, except through crll/cel l?rcas anelor their
bujl:':rs.
3. f'arillfion from Rood Requirements. A variation ji'mn the mad
requil'cmcnts and standards contained Within th'! "City oj" liainhridge Island
I)csIgn and Constmetion Standarcl.y and Speci/icolions" may he approved by the
ci:yengineer, ij"slIch (J reductIOn met'ts the pWj70ses oj"this chapter.
'!. ,)'treet nome.\', trL?!lic regulatol} signs and mOllboxes shall be
pl'{J>'ided. The location of these shall be indiculed Oil the plat.
J. Transit stops shall he provldl:d as recommended by Kitsap TraVIsit.
6. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access within a suhdivisiol1
and onto the site shall be provided through walkways, paths, sidcH'alks, or trails
and shall be cons/stem wlfh the non motorized tramportation plan, Ordinance
2002-09. .)!Jecial emphasis shali be placed on providing pedestrian acce,\s to
proposed recreational and or open space areas.
57. DIMe 17.04.070.A4 provides requIres as a 2.5-11. wide landscape perimeter
buffer:
"" * *
SUB 12598
Page 15 or 24
d. ],andscape Perimeter ('luster SuhdivislOll ()piion. TYhen the
cluster dn-e/opmclIl optioil is selected.. .lor I)roret~v with a gross area ri
OIlC acre or more .luccI/ed in...R-2.a 25-f()ollVide lund\'cuue /Jail;l! iI//'
, j ,
shalf he re?IJircd a/ong the suhdlvision h()(ftuiwy
e, Allowed rOW/SLapl! Hlll/~'r Aclil'itin:
j, Po/ahll! water wt!/Is and lIell how'!!s:
ii. On-site storm water if?filtratiull ,\J'srems lI'hele tIlt! \cgetated
features (~lthe hlt/fcr are no! ad\'erse(v impm:ted:
Iii. Ingress und egress, Il'herc thl! access nms al'1J)}'oximale~v
perpendicular to the landscape perimeter:
iv. [lnJergroulld ulilities, where they rufl approximateZv
pelpendh:ular to the lafld\'co]Je f'l!rimeter: pmvi(Md, that disturhance is
minimized and the h/!fler is revegetated L~rter COllstruction:
v. Nonmotorized trails and /rail maintenance necessm)' 10
provide j(Jr s(!/ety and visihility: und
vi. Plan/lIlf,; (!f" ve)!,etertioll.
f Landscape 1);41;;r Requirements.
i. In order to hl{/f(;r the visual impact r!f the proposed suhdivisiot!
and protect (~tr-site views. filtered screen land\..;oping, pursuant to RIA1('
18.R5.070,B.3 and j,'1.85.070.C, shall he required for...!and\.cape
perimeter hl!ffers where estahlished \'eKdcltioll call1lot provide such
screemng.
ii. All natiw! shruhs and siXfl(/icaflt trees shall he retained within
all landscape hutfer,\', n:cept th((/ linn/ed removal may he ulluwed for
permitted actiVIties located within the b{f(er arc'
iii. Required hmd\cupe h1o'la lvidth may hu rcc/!u;ed /hroup;h hl{ffer
averaging ill accordance lvi/h thi' cn/eria ill HIlvl(, !8.85JJ7U..
SliQgi vi ~5lJl1\J2ProvaLCril~ri i!
58. The criteria for preliminary subdivision approval, found at BIMC 17.04.094,
requi1'e that:
A. The subdivision moy he oJlproverl or approved with modUication ~I
j. The applicable suhc/ivisiol1 development ,\tdndc>rds oj" 811\1'('
17. (j.f oxn, 17.04 OX2, ondor 17. 04.rJR5 ore satis/it'd:
2. The Ilrelilninmy subdivision fJ/ukcs a[Jl!J'('!!J'iate provisions f21r
th'.! public health. saF."y and genL'ral (lml public I/se and intctest..
3. The preliminm:v residcl1tlOl sl/hdivislOn has heen prejian:,d
consistent with the requirements o(theflexihle lot design process:
4. Any portion oj" a suhcli',ision lIwt c(ln/oins (J critical (//'('(1, os
defined 117 Chapter 16.2fJ Hf/y!(', con/ill'nis to all requirements oj"tho( chopter:
5. The city enp;;ineer determllles (hat the pn.:lltr/lI1wy suhdivls/on
fJ/eets thefallowing:
CI 'l'he sllh~/in\'i()n conj"orms (() regulalions com.;emil1J! drainage..
SUB 125YX
Page I () of 2+
h. {lie suhdiv!sion }nll not cmlse an IIndue hl/rden Oil the drainugc
basin or Waler quality and will not unreasol1oh(v intr.!r/L're }Iith the lISr.! und
elljoymcnt of properties (!()wnstrcam.
e'. The street,\ lUll I pedestrian ways CIS proposed olig,n H'i/It arr., ({iC
uthen1i;se cormlin(/tlld with streets servin,'S odjaccnt properties.
d The streets Wid pecl.:strian ways as proposed arc adequate to
accoll,'fIlodare anticljJCltcd tra[tic.
e. The suhdivision c(lnfimns tOf/iC requirements (~(lhis chapter and
the sfandards in the "('if)' or Bainhrillge Is/and DeSign and Construction
Stcmdnrds and c)}'ecifica(.'ol1s," except as otherwise uuthorized hy in Bj/v/C
1 !. O-!. OXO. ( '. 3;
6. The pnlpusal comp11l's wilh all opp/icahle provisions oj" this
code, Chapters 58.17 011;/ 36.70A RCW, and oil oth.:r ol'plicohlr.! proviSions if
state andf<!dera! /aws and regululio!is: aw}
7. nil: proposal is in accord wilh the <.:ity's compn:hen.l'ive pion.
R. A [JJ'optlscd subdiviSiOn shall not he ap[Jrol'ed unless writtenfindmgs are
nude (Ivlt the puNic 1/.1'(' and /luert'st will hr.! served hy the' plutting ot'such
.I'll h; Ii vis I on.
I..;EQ! JI:~EJ) FT1\lIJINCS
59. The Flexible Lot S~andards of BIMC 1704("80 would be satisfied by this
subdivision with the Recommended Conditions. Fjnding(~;) that ~upport that
determination arc noted belo'w. The standard.:) of 17 04 08U.A.2. and 17.04.080.A3
'Nou!d met althuugh they are not required [see Finding 58].
C()d ~~ei=hQl1
17.04.080.A
1. Density I.irnits:
a. J..'.ifjht lots arc within the demity permitted by
R..2 zoning.
Eill ding
27
2.
Minimum Lot Size Rcquir.:;mcnt:;:
A:lI lots rl1i;et tile 12,500 sq. ft. minim.um size for lots
with on-site septic systems. (Individual systems hwe
not been designed and has not been determined where
on those lots with steep slopes and high groundwatf,;r
these faciliiies could be sited.)
8,28
* * *
"2
~i .
Lot Setbacks and Dimensional Requirement,.
n.. 1\11 lots are 50 feet wide at the minimum lot width.
b. The lots are appropriate size, shape, and orientation.
c. All setbacks meet minimum requirernents.
d. Maximum Jet coverage (4,753 sq. tt) is within
ma;ximum allowed.
8, 27-29
4. Landscape Buffers
25
SUB125l)~
Page 1'7 of 24
* +. *
b. R08dside Buffers arc not required.
c. Park and Conservatiun Easement Buffers arc not rCCjl:ir;'d.
d Lmcscape Perimeter ButTers.
Condition .'i \vould de:,il',oatc reouired 25-ft. wide' buffels,
'- I
with I)reservation of all si[miticant trees and enhancement
t ,-'
to provide filtered screen and on-gc,ing protecliun.
* +. *
5. Cluster Development Option
a. Homesite Areas do not exceed the 10,000 sq. ft.
maximum allO\ved in the R-2 zoning district.
b. Homesite Clustering. Homesites are within 25 ft.
* * *
8, 27-2()
17.04.080.C
L. 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 Specitications".
4. Traffic regulatory signs and mailboxes Vvould be
provided and their location indicated on the plat.
Conditiop 4
5. No transit stops have been recommended OJ Kitsap Transit.
6. Surrounding streets are not dcsign{lted in the NOl1..Motcrized 31
Transportation Plan for pedestrian and!\)[ bicycle circulation
improvements; the interior Joad(s) and driveways would provide
access.
SvbdiY.i:?i9JIJ)ecisiolli::xiteria: IlLYlC J704.021
60. BIMC 17.04.094.A. 1 requires that applicahle subdivision development standards
be satistied. Here, the applicable dC'ielopment standards are the Ficxible Lot Standard,,;
of BIMC 17 04080, including those of the Cluster Developmel~t Option at
17.04.080.A.5. As conditioned, the applicable standards would be met.
61. Consistent with BL\1C ] 704094A.2, the proposed subdivision, as conditioned,
would make appropriate provisions for the public health and ~,afety by p;'oviding all
necessary aId appropriate utilities, improvements. and dedications.
62. In satisfacioll 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 Arras Ordiinance (BlI\1C
Chapter 16.20) is not ncsessary as the Director has determined that there ::re no critical
SUB12.'i9X
Page \g of 24
areas. However, the recommendations of tbe geotechnical en~ineer included 111 the
hazardous areas forms [Exhibit ! 0] should be condition~, of appr~)Val.
64. BIMC 1704.0C)4A5 requires that the City Engineer determine that a subdi"ision
conforms to the applicable regulations and standards pertilining to dmim~ge and water
quality. The Public Works Department has reviev....e<.1 the p;-climinary subdivision
submittals and has final approval authority for the construction and instaliation of those
improvements.
65. This subdivision complies with ail applicahle prov1sIOns of the Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code and other applicable regu!:ltiollS as is required by BIMe
17.04.094.A6.
66. As required by DIMC 17.04.094.A 7. the proposed subdivision is in accord yvith
the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with its R-2 residential designation, th~
subdivision, as conditioned, wouU reflect neighhorhood character in density and t'/pe of
resider~ ;al development and by enhancement and maintenance of perimeter landscape
buffers.
67. As required by RIMe 17.04.0C)4B, public use .and interest wnuJd be served.
The subdivision, as conditioned, would provide the necessary and appropriate utilities
and public improvem~llts [realigned access roadway, stonmvater facilities, domestic
water, fire flow, and sewage treatment Elcilities] consistent with the public use and
interest. 1\150, the public use and interest wuuld be sl:fved by the provision of the
perimeter landscape bdfer and the retention cftrec.; within the existing tree canopy.
Co.ldusiom
1. The Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction in this matter is from RIMe 2.1 G.ll ec.2,
which directs th2t the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing and make a
recommendatiOn to the City Council on subdivision cpplications.
..., All requirements for notice and opportunity to comment have he,.~n met. This
matter will be properly before the City Council consistent with the provisions of BIMC
17.04.095 that gllvern Council's consideration of preliminary subdivisions.
3. The eight lots proposed are \vithin the maximum density permitted on an R-2
zoned site of this size [se,~ finding 27] and would be an appropri,l.te density relative to the
Comprehensive Plan desigr.ation and the surrounding neighborllLlod.
4. A SErA Determination of Ncnsignificance (DNS) was properly issued by PCD.
That determinatiul1 was not appe,lled. Recommended Conditions 6-15 and 17-18 should
be imposed to ensure the necessary and expected mitIgation of potential environmental
impacts [see Finding -= 7 J
SUB!25'JX
P,lPC : ') of 24
<,
5. Development of the proposed lots \vl~u]d mean the los5 nf many trees and a l1l2.jor
change in the appearanc,: of the site, particularly jl~ the ,vestern tVv"C)..thirds where home:;
would replac~ forest and undeveloped :~ll1d". How~ver, as conditioned, the proposed
bndsc8pe perimeter buffer and retention of the tree canopy would screen views of the
new residences consistent with the City's pelicies. ISee Findings 18-21,35-30.]
6. In order that significant trees are protected ancl retained, the conditions of
approval should include the requirement for a tree survey that al~curatdy identifies an~1
maps all significam trees (as cldined by BIMC 18.85). All significant trees within the
tree canopy retention arC(lS [shown on Sheet 7/7, Exhibit I G and observed by the
applicable building setbacks in Recommended Condition 211 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 sileo Here, the lots meet the Code requirements
for "clustering", but the proposed configuration of the 1'1at puts the access tilrough the
one area on the subject site where consltruction should be avoided. The t1exibility of the
Subdivision Ordinance should be employed here to avoid placing the access in the steep
slope area. The access should be shined to the south, out of the area of 15% or greater
slopes [see finding 48]. The access should also he revised to minimize the number of
lots served by the Moran Road access point [see Finding 46].
8. As conditioned, the subject subdivision 'Nould comply with the flexible lot
standards of BIMC 1704.080.
9. The subdivision, as conditioned, should be approved a:.' it meets all the
preliminary subdivi~)i(\n decision criteria of BL\1C 17.04094.A. and it \vould serve the
public uJe and interest [BIMC 1704.094.B] by providing new housing opponui1itie3
consi~,tent ''lith 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" [SU1312598], be APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS 1..22 THAT COMPRISE APPENDIX A.
Entered this 13th Jay of April 2006.
______signegin origiDal______
Meredith A Gctches
City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner pro tem
Concerning Further Review
The City Council Inakcs the City's final decisions on preliminary subdivision
applications City Council decisioJl procedures are found at BIMC 2 L 6.) ) O.
SlJRl25tJX
P:lge 2U of 24
APPENDIX A
HECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
MAPLEWOOD SUBDiVISION
/SUB125981
1. The following note shall be pl:1ccd on the final plat: Prior to :lllY clearing or grading on
individual lots, a clearing, grading, or building permit shall be obtained frum the City.
2. The final plat shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat maps, <g:;
~,ollilition~d alliLillmro\ _cd bl1hc Ci1y-1~)1lIlQl: Sheets I through 7 and Sheet C I n:viseJ
to shnw the access realigned and reconflgurcd :;0 that it is out of the area having 15% or
greater slopes and the number of lots served by the l\'loran Road access point is
minimized: and_ Sheet 6 ("Setbacks and Eascl'nent Details") revised to identit~ the extent
of the perimctLT buffer, the tree canopy ! ~tentlOn area, and the significant trees to llc
retained.
3. r~o clc~ring or grading for roads~ drainage facilities.. trails or other subdivision
improvements shali occur until a plat utilities pe:-Illit has been submitted, rev ic"vcd and
approved bv the Department of Public Works Applicant shall apply to the Department
of Ecology t0r a Comtruction Stonrmatcr permit and provide a copy of the application
with a subrnittal for Plat Utilitv Permit.
':: To the sati:;faction of the City Engineer, the plat utiiities shall include, but not be limited
tG the following:
a. Themailboxlocationandd.:signapprovedbytheloe<1.IPostmaster.Ivlailboxes or
their SllppOl ts syste:l1s shall not extend over or within ollt:-foot of any travckd \\,1)
including siJe\vaiks and paths, bicycle lanes, shoulders, Of auto iancs.
b. Private streds shall follow city standards and signage shall ksignate the street as
--PVT'. The aeccss shall be realigned to the south so as 10 be outside the arca with
l5~;) or gr~atcr slop:: and the number of lots served by the Moran access point sh.lll
be minimized.
c. The applicanf s engineer shall provide calculations and a design for surface water
h:l:1dling per the Department of Ecology Stonmnrer Management Manual and the
City's Design and Constmction St1l1dards and Specifications.
d. The water main.., shO\\ll Oil thc prelimll1ary subdivision shail bc constructed to meet
city standards.
e. The applicant's Plat Utility Permit shall include fire hyurat!ts to the satisfaction of\.he
Fire District and in accordance with elty's Design and COllstmction and
Specifkation O\VG ) 0-11 O.
f The applicant's engineer shall design ali utilities to miniwize the adverse effects on
road-sick amenities and to preserve trees and other roadside vegetation.
g. All phas;;:s of design and cullstlllction shall be comply with the rccomn1cndaticn
cOllditivlls contained in the Meyers Biodynamics geotechnical report dated June 16,
2005 tExhibit II, pages 4 and 5 J..
h. Applicant shall apply to the Department of Ecology' for a Construction Stannwater
p'.:rmit and provide a copy of the application with the submittal for the Plat Utility
Permit.
SUB125'Hi
Page 21 of 24
.:; As part of the submittal for flnal plat appro\aL the applicant shall providc\ to the
satisfaction o['th,; Dir.:ctor. tll.; iolio\\'lllg:
a. Jl]L~tl1}'.ey that arc'lratdv indicates the location of significant trees~ identities
trees to be prescrn'd. de:)lgnatcs th,: lWLlndarics of ~hc tree retention areas Ifrom
the Tree Retcntion Plan. Sheet 7/7. Exhibit I C I: and. sho\Vs landscape perimeter
buffer at least 25-ft. wide ~!long the subdivision boundary. All significant trees
wiLhin the bndscapc perin,';tcr buffers and \vithin the .:m:as marked for rdention in
the Tree Retention Plan shall be n:tdinccl.
b 1_ancl;;I:.f'l12c_ Enhanccln\.:nJ _anciJ.lLotQ..\JiolL.Plan that: indicates wherc and how the
bndscapG perimeter buff..:r will to be enhanced with vegetation (ie, designating
location. numbt:r, size and t~ pe of plants) in order to comply with the -.tlltercd
scrcen" reqUIrements of BIM C Section I X. X.'i070 (as proposed at hearing, Thuja red
cedars should be pbnted within the draw on Lots 4 and 5); notes that all trees slated
for prL;servatioll shall he prolected bv temporary chain link fencing or orange
constl1lction fencing prior to and during land disturbance Isee also Condition 12]:
and, appropriate CC&Rs that specify th;lt each I,.)t c\vner shall be respollsiblc for
maintaining the landscape pel imeter bu tIer wirhll1 his or her property boundaries
consistent with the Landscape Enhancement and Plotection Plan. including
protection and replacement of significant lrces and nalivc non-invasive plants so trlat
the filtered screen IS maintained and significant trees preserved. The CC&Rs shall
also note that in order to recucG the adverse effects of stOf111\\ater nmocr and erosion
and to maintain slope stability. significant trees and native non-invasi\e vcgdatiol1
should be rctained and preserved. On Lots 4 and 5 significant trees located within
the areas of I ')'10 or greater slopes and outside the budding el1\'dopcs. should be
retained.
6. All graded mat<.;rials removed from the subdivision sh:.lll be hauled to and deposited at
Clty approved locations (Note: local regulatIons require that a grade/fill permit is
obLlined for any grading or tllllllg of 50 cubIC yards of material or more. and a SEPA
Threshold Determination is reqUIred for any till over 100 cubic yards).
7. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities. contractors shall
conform to Pugct Sound Clean Air Agency Regubtiol1s, which insure that reasonable
precautions arc taken to avoid dust emissions. (BIl\fC Section Ih.03(40)
8. In accordance with BlMC Chapter 15:14. to prGvent off sit\~ glare or light intmsion.
exterior lighting shall be hooded or shielded so that on-site illumination is not visibk
from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
9. To mitigate impacts on air quality. ekarcd vegetation mllst be rcmo\cd from the site.
processed by chipper, or some by olh:r method of disposal that docs nol rcquir,: burniug.
10. Public \Vorks tlnds that the proposed Jctivity is likely to cause mC::lsurablc degradation of
surface wak quality without a proper temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan
(TESCP). Therefore prior to any copstruction within this subdiviSIOn, a TESCP shall be
submitted and apprO\cd by the City. Prior any eonstmc[ion occurring bl:t\vecn October]
and April 3 L a TESC P specifically addressing wet weather conditions shall be revie\\ed
and approved by the City Engineer.
SUB125'JR
Page 22 of 24
11. Priva1\;ly h.,;ld stonnwatcr t~(;ilitics ::.lIJd access require ongoing future operalion 2nd
maintcm:nct:. Prior to final plat approv::ll, the appliram shall submit ;lfid record a
stann water faeil ities' Operation and Maintenance Plan and a Declar;uion of Covenant
(n:eetmg t:l(~ fi.'qlJJremcnts uf BIlVl(' 15.2 J), that specifics \, ho will be rc:;pansiblc for
appropri.ltdy rnaintainmL;. repairing and replacing the facilities as needed, Also prior to
final p:at approval the ~lppi,icant shall submit ~u,\ record a ~;atisfactory homeowners
;l.gn;ement that \\ill be binding on [,Itun: OWlHTS of lots :3 through 8 to be rcsponsilile for
maintaining a'Jd repairin::; the access roadway and the utilities within the easement in
good working order.
12. The constnlction staging areas shall be outside of landsc3pe buffers. Prior to issuance 0f
any permit that allows clearing, construction fencing or silt fencing sha II be rlac:ed
adjacent to landscape buffi:;rs and trees slated for preservation shall be protected by
temporary cha1ll1ink fencilig or orange .;onstruction fencing
13. On site mobile fueling from temporary t;mks is prohibited unless thr.: apphc:ll1t prcvides
and is granted approval for a Pcrrnit and Best Mal:agemcnt Pbn that addres::;cs propos(:d
location, duration, containment training, v::mda\ism and cleanup. (Rcfen.:nce I. Uniform
Fire Code 7904.5.4.2.7 and 2 Dq.Jartment of Ecology, Stormwatcr Man:1gcmcnt ivhmual,
August 2001, see Volul11;': IV "Source CO!:trol BMPs for Mobik Fueling of Vehicles Cljld
Heavy Equipm..;n(') (Chapter 173-304 WAC)
!4. In order to miti:;ate ;;10Y noise impacts, all constmction ;lctivity is restricted to 7:00 AM to
7:00 PM v,eckdays and 9 00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturdays. ConstructIOn ;v.:tivitie5 shali be
prohibited Sundays and legal hoLdays.
i 5. If any historical or 8rchaeological arti facts arc uncovered dllfing excava.tiol1 or
construction. Contractors shall stop work and immedialely notifv th~ Department of
Planning and Com.liJ,.nit:>, Development and the Washington Stall.: Uffice of Archaeology
and Historic Pr~servation.
i 0. Public and private jmprovemc~lls. facilitie<;, and infrastructure. c:J!1 and off the site that an~
r~(I'l\fed fOJ the suhdivision shall be completed, have finJIll1spectiol1 and approval, prior
to final plat approval. Approval (If public facilities will be shown by a formal ictter of
acceptance from lhc City Engineer. An assurance device accept:lblc to the City may he
used (in Jlicu of physical completion) to secure and providf': for the completion of
necessary facilities which arc not considered hy the Engineering Department to be life,
lJ\.:alth, or s,&:ty related iiems. Any such aSSUDt1ee device shall be in place prior to fined
plat approvJ.J, shall enumerate in detail the items being assured, and shall require that all
such Items \Vll! be compieted ;md approved by the City Within om: year of the (btc of
final plat approval While lots creawd by the recording of the final plat may be sold, no
occupancy of ::I\1Y structure will be a!lowed ulllil the required impH.h'ements are formally
accepted by the City. !\dditlOnaily. a prominent note on the flce of the fin<\l pbt
dra'wing slnll state: "The lots created by this plat are subject to conditions of a(\
assurance device held by the city for the nllnpletion of Cf:l't~~jn necessary facilities.
Building permits may not be issued '\nd/oi' occupancy may not be allowed until such
llcceSS31'Y facilities are completed and approved by the City of Bainbridg<e Ishwd.
All purchasers shall satisfy themselves as tu the status of completion ofthc necessary
facilities,"
SUB 1259(;
P,lge 23 of H
17. Sennol imp(let fCI.:s shall bc paid in acc\.)rdancc with the fcllowing provisions. For Lots 3-
X. prill" to fimd pial ap!Jro\'ul. the applicant SlId:t P'"'v aile half oftbe sciHY.l1 impact fee in
CCfCCl at the time of l!n,d pLn :Jpproval. SUbSCqUl~l1t to plat rccuruation ;),1'-1 prior to
building permit issuance, an applicant c('I1:otrncting a residence on '.111Y ('1' tll'~ created lots
shall pay one half of t11(: schoul i:npactl"l:e in eft~:ct at Ii\'-: tim,: of bu;JJlIlg permit
iss:J:wcc For Lots 1 ~~nd 2. school jJllpact t~'es vI'ill k n:quircd \\I1\:n buildi!1g 0;' creating
:1l1 AD U on tht; lot
! 8. Prior to issuance of any building or utility permit for improvemclJt :1CtIVitlCS, final
cordruction plans meeting City of Bainbridge Island D,;slgn and Construction Standards
and Specifications, shall bl,:; submitted to and approved by the City of Bainbridge bland
Public Works Department. Designs for on-site septic ~ystcms mllst be approved by the
Kitsap County l-Icaith District prior to issllzmcc of building for re~;idcnccs. Prior to final
approval. the Distnct ~hall be provided with the geotcehnical evaluation by 1\:1yers
Engineering, dated June 16. 2U05 IExhibit I]] and whatever soils information the District
requires. As recomm,:nd.:d b~' the geotechnical engineer I Exhibit 1 L page 4], storm water
intlltration systems shall not be located on grades grc::tter than 15% [see shadeJ area
5hcct ~f/7, Exhibit 3B] or within the dra\\.
19. All lot corners shall be staked with three..quarter inch galvanizt;d iron pipe ~ll1d locator
stakes along with all other applicabk survey provisions of state and City rcgubtions.
20. A plat certificatt; shall be provided with the final pbt applic;ltiol1.
21. Building setback and Jot coverage ncquiremcnts mLlst be shown 011 the tinal plat:
.. Maximum homesite size: 10.000 sq. ft
!II Maximum lot coverage: 4)53
!II Di::;tance bct\\ecn homesites: 25 ft. maximum
,. Distance bet\\\;el\ butldings: 1(\ H. minimum
m Dis!ancl.'. bet'Acen buildings and subdivIsion boundary 15 ft. mmimum
II Distance be[ween buildings and internal roadway/casement: 15ft. minimum
.. Distance between buildings and Hemlock Street ROW: 15 ft. minimmn
· Distance between buildings Gn Lot 7 and Yaquina Slred ROW: 44 ft. minimum
.. Distance bctw.:en buildings all Lot 8 and Yaquina Street ROW: 29 ft. minimum
" Distance bel\\'een buildings on Lot 5 and :\1oran Road ROW: 43 ft. minimum
II Distance between buildings on Lot 6 and i\1oran Road ROW: 34 ft. minunulIl
22. Conditions L 3a, 3g, 5 -t), 11-14, 16 and 20 Shell! be Iiskd on the final plJt mylar.
SLJB125\)8
Page 2-1 of" 2-+