STAFF REPORTPLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 1 of 17
Date: January 11, 2016
To: Gary R. Christensen, AICP
Director
From: Christy Carr, AICP
Senior Planner
Project: Terp Single-Family Residence
File Number: PLN13508 SVAR/VAR
I. Summary of Request and Recommendation
The applicant is proposing to construct a 3-story, single-family residence on an undeveloped lot on the
face of a marine bluff and wholly within the shoreline buffer. The proposal includes a 1,200 square foot
house, 455 square foot parking area/driveway, 240 square foot deck, a retaining wall necessary for slope
stabilization and a path to the shoreline terminating at a new “notch” in an existing concrete bulkhead
to allow access to the beach.
The subject property is located in the R-2 zoning and Shoreline Residential shoreline designations. The
proposal requires the following land use review and permit approval (applications and site plan are
included in Exhibit 1, 2 and 5):
Single-family residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction requires a shoreline
substantial development exemption (SSDE);
Development on the face of a marine bluff requires a shoreline variance (SVAR);
A zoning variance (VAR) is required to exceed maximum lot coverage; and
A zoning variance (VAR) is required to encroach into the front yard setback.
As conditioned, the proposed land use review procedures and permit requests are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the applicable sections of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and the Shoreline
Master Program. The City recommends approval with conditions of two zoning variances, shoreline
variance and shoreline substantial development exemption. Conditions are provided in Section X.
II. Environmental Review
This project is exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 1(b)i.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 2 of 17
Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity
Figure 2. Project Zoning
N
N
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 3 of 17
III. Findings of Fact
A. Site Characteristics
Tax Assessor Information
Tax Lot Number
Owners of Record
Lot Size
Land Use
042402-3-031-2009
Jason and Lauren Terp
3,920 square feet (.09 acre)
Single-family residential
Terrain Face of a marine bluff (>40% slope over 10 feet high)
Soils Kapowsin gravelly sandy loam
Dystric Xerorthents
Existing Site Development None
Access Point White Drive NE
Public Utilities South Bainbridge Island Water
South Island Sewer Service Area
Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designation R-2; OSR-2
Shoreline Designation Shoreline Residential
Surrounding Zoning/Comprehensive Plan
Designation
R-1 and R-2; OSR-1 and OSR-2
Surrounding Uses Single-family residential
IV. Zoning Analysis (BIMC Title 18)
An analysis of the proposal’s consistency with applicable sections of the City’s zoning regulations is
provided in the following sections.
A. BIMC Chapter 18.09.020 Permitted Use Table
Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district.
B. BIMC Chapter 18.12 Dimensional Standards
The standard lot dimensional standards for residential zone districts are outlined in Table 18.12.020-2.
Please see the site plan, submitted with the Variance application (Attachment A).
a. Density and Minimum Lot Area: The density in the R-2 zone is one unit per 20,000 square
feet of lot area. The minimum lot area in this zone is 20,000 square feet. The lot area of
the subject property is 3,920 square feet, which is less than one-quarter the minimum
lot size of the zoning district. Consequently, the lot is not subdividable and can only
support one single-family residence. The lot qualifies as a nonconforming lot pursuant
to BIMC Section 18.30.050.
b. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage for the property is 20 percent. Twenty
percent lot coverage for the subject property is 784 square feet (3,920 x .20). The
applicant is proposing a 1,200 square foot single-family residence. The applicant is
requesting a variance to exceed the lot coverage by 11 percent, approximately 416
square feet or 30.6 percent.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 4 of 17
c. Setbacks: The required setbacks in R-2 zone are 25 feet front yard, minimum 5, 15
combined side yard setback. The site plan submitted with the application indicates that
the required minimum side yard setbacks are met. The applicant is requesting a zoning
variance to reduce the required minimum front yard to 17 feet from Point White Drive
NE (edge of pavement). The proposed front yard setback is zero feet from the edge of
the right-of-way.
d. Building Height: Maximum building height within the R-2 zone is 30 feet, measured from
average grade to the mid-point of the highest gable. The proposed building height is 28
feet, 3 inches.
V. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
An analysis of the proposal’s consistency with applicable sections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is
provided in the following sections.
A. Introduction: Overriding Goals and Principles
Preserve a reasonable use of the land for all landowners.
The costs and benefits to property owners should be considered in making land use decisions. In
making the decision on this application the City has weighed the benefit to the property owner vers us
any cost or impact the proposal would have on the neighbors, public or critical area.
B. Land Use Element Goals
OS 1.1 Protect open space, critical areas, and agricultural uses through public and private initiatives,
including open space tax incentives, cluster development, PUDs, transfer and purchase of development
rights, public land acquisition, greenways, conservation easements, landowner compacts, limiting the
amount of lot coverage, and other techniques. While this is a variance that would provide an
exceedance in dimensional standards, the proposal is complying with use standards, height limitations
and is consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood.
OS 4.2 The R-2 District is intended to recognize an existing development pattern of two unit per acre.
Due to the size of the subject property the lot is similarly constrained to other properties within this
zone. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the use and intensity of development in
the neighborhood.
VI. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Analysis (BIMC 16.12)
Compliance with applicable sections of the Bainbridge Island SMP is described in the following sections.
A. Section 3.0: Shoreline Designation Policies and Regulations
The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Shoreline Residential designation in that it
accommodates development that preserves the natural character of the area and maintains shoreline
vegetation buffers.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 5 of 17
B. Section 4.0: General (Island-wide) Policies and Regulations
Table 4-1. Shoreline Use and Modification
The subject property is located in the Shoreline Residential shoreline designation. Single-family
dwellings are a permitted use in this shoreline designation.
Table 4-2. Dimensional Standards
Pursuant to Table 4-2, residential development is subject to the shoreline 30 percent side yard setback
and height requirements and zoning dimensional requirements found in BIMC 18.12. The proposal’s
consistency with applicable dimensional standards is provided below:
Dimensional Standards Required Proposed
30% side yard 80’ lot width x .30 = 24 feet 25 feet
Side yard 5’ minimum/15’ total 10 feet minimum/25 feet total
Front yard 25 feet 17 feet from edge of pavement;
0 feet from right-of-way
Height 30 feet 28 feet, 3 inches
Lot coverage 20 percent (784 square feet) 30.6% (1200 square feet)
The proposal requires a zoning variance to reduce the front yard setback and exceed the maximum lot
coverage.
Table 4-3. Shoreline Buffers
The subject property is located in the Shoreline Residential shoreline designation on an undeveloped lot;
as such, the shoreline buffer is 75 feet.
C. Section 4.1.2: Environmental Impacts
All shoreline development, uses and activities are required to result in no net loss of ecological functions
and processes necessary to sustain shoreline resources. In order to demonstrate compliance with this
provision, an applicant is required to submit either a site-specific impact analysis and mitigation plan,
when needed, or may use the Single Family Residence Shoreline Mitigation Manual (Manual). The
applicant submitted a site-specific impact analysis and mitigation plan.
Anticipated Impacts of Project Activities
Anticipated project impacts are described in the Site Specific Analysis and No-Net-Loss Mitigation Plan
submitted with the application (Exhibit 3). Project impacts include loss of non-native and invasive
species and potential water quality degradation resulting from new impervious surface area.
Permanent direct impacts resulting from the project are limited to approximately 1,895 square feet of
vegetation removal and 1,655 square feet of new impervious surface area. The majority of vegetation
to be removed is invasive (Himalayan blackberry). No native vegetation will be disturbed or removed.
One ornamental tree will be removed.
Potential water quality and quantity impacts may result from the project due to additional stormwater
generated from the new roof surface and parking area. The Site Specific Analysis and No-Net-Loss
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 6 of 17
Mitigation Plan states that no impacts will result from an increase in impervious surface area because
roof water is considered “clean;” however, roof water can contain heavy metals from roofing and gutter
materials, suspended solids and nutrients that will be discharged to Puget Sound in higher volumes and
more concentrated flows.
Other anticipated project impacts will be temporary and of short duration typical of single-family
residential construction. These include ground disturbance and ambient noise.
Mitigation Sequencing
All shoreline development, use and activities must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in
a manner that protects ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. All proposed shoreline
development, uses and activities must utilize the required mitigation sequence of SMP Section 4.1.2.6.
Mitigation sequencing includes the steps taken during project planning and implementation that are
meant to find the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative to achieve a project need. Use
of mitigation sequencing for the proposed project is documented in the Site Specific Analysis and No-
Net-Loss Mitigation Plan.
No Net Loss Standard
All shoreline development, use and activities must result in no net loss of ecological functions and
processes necessary to sustain shoreline resources. Permanent direct impacts resulting from the project
are limited to approximately 1,655 square feet of vegetation removal and new impervious surface area.
In order to compensate for unavoidable project impacts, the applicant is proposing to enhance the
shoreline buffer with invasive species removal, soil amendment and native vegetation planting. As
conditioned, this will include planting the entire area of Zone 1 (2,400 square feet)(See Section D,
below).
The Site Specific Analysis and No-Net-Loss Mitigation Plan does not address runoff from the new gravel
parking area or the reduction in evapotranspiration and filtration that will result from the overall area of
new impervious surface area. To mitigate for these impacts and as recommended by the City’s
Development Engineer (Exhibit 13), on-site best management practices (BMPs) consistent with BIMC
15.20 and consideration of partial or full disconnection of roof downspouts directing stormwater to
splashblocks to facilitate infiltration shall be evaluated to the maximum extent feasible and the outfall
design will include an appropriate energy dissipation pad to protect beach substrate from erosion, if
needed (Condition 4 and 5a). In addition, water quality of the proposed parking area shall be addressed
including consideration of paving around open-grated catch basins, adding underdrained permeable
pavement, oil/grit separators or filter inserts in catch basins (Condition 4).
Provided that BMPs are implemented properly, and proposed mitigation measures are completed, it is
expected that short-term impacts will be reduced and that there will be no net loss to shoreline
ecological functions and processes as a result of the project.
Mitigation Surety and Assurance
When mitigation is required, the applicant must provide assurance that the mitigation area will be
maintained in perpetuity through notice on title, conservation easement or similar mechanism. As
conditioned, the landowner will establish and record a notice on title preventing future development
within the mitigation area (all of Zone 1; 2,400 square feet).
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 7 of 17
If not completed prior to final building permit inspection, a performance assurance or other security is
required to assure that mitigation work is installed as proposed. As conditioned, the applicant will
submit to the City an assurance device (bond/surety) in an amount of 125 percent of the cost of
completing the mitigation installation. The assurance will be refunded to the applicant upon completion
of the mitigation installation (Condition 8).
When mitigation is required, a periodic monitoring program must be included as a component of the
required mitigation plan. The Site Specific Analysis and No-Net-Loss Mitigation Plan includes a
monitoring program sufficient to meet the monitoring requirements. Annual monitoring reports for a 5-
year period will be required (Condition 11).
A maintenance assurance in the amount of 50 percent of the maintenance and monitoring costs is
required. The maintenance assurance device shall be held by the City and refunded to the applicant at
the conclusion of the monitoring period, minus any costs incurred by the City to complete monitoring
and maintenance activities (Condition 10).
D. Section 4.1.3: Vegetation Management
Vegetation Management Standards
The subject property has a 75-foot buffer. Zone 1 is measured 30 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) and Zone 2 is comprised of the remaining 45 feet of the total buffer. The lot is 80 feet
wide. The approximate depth of the property – measured from the bulkhead (OHWM) and the edge of
right-of-way/property line at Point White Drive NE is 63 feet. Given these dimensions, the total buffer is
less than the standard 75 feet and is approximately 5,040 square feet (80 x 63 = 5,040) in total area. The
area of Zone 1 is 2,400 square feet (80 x 30 = 2,400) and the area of Zone 2 is 2,640 square feet (80 x 33
= 2,640).
The proposed 1,200 square foot single-family residence is located wholly within Zone 2 of the shoreline
buffer. The site-specific impact analysis includes a “reduced” 5-foot building setback. It is anticipated
that plants installed as mitigation will be placed to accommodate access to the house; however, a
formal setback is not permitted. The permanent area of impact within the shoreline buffer is the area of
the house (1,200 square feet) plus the gravel driveway/parking area (455 square feet) plus the deck (240
square feet) – a total of 1,895 square feet.
Pursuant to SMP Section 4.1.3.7.1.c, tree or vegetation removal within the shoreline buffer that is
associated with new construction may be allowed, but must retain significant trees and shall meet the
requirements of SMP Section 4.1.2, Environmental Impacts, including replanting provisions. No
significant trees are being removed.
SMP Section 4.1.3.7.2.b states that if the required depth of a shoreline buffer for a single-family
residential property is reduced in accordance with the Shoreline Structure Setback provisions of Section
4.1.3.11 or other reductions allowed through this Program, Zone 1 must be restored in accordance with
provisions of Section 4.1.2.5.
SMP Section 4.1.2.5.3 provides; If the Shoreline Buffer is altered or reduced pursuant to provisions of
Section 4.1.3, Vegetation Management or Section 4.2.1, Nonconforming Uses, Non-Conforming Lots, and
Existing Development, the following shall occur in Zone 1:
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 8 of 17
a. Retain existing native vegetation; and
b. Plant the entire area of Zone 1. Obtain 65% vegetation canopy coverage within 10
years.
Additional vegetation management regulations in SMP Section 4.13 require that new vegetation planted
in the shoreline buffer must be native species using a native plant-community approach of multi-storied,
diverse plant species that are native to the Central Puget Lowland marine riparian zone (SMP Section
4.1.3.5.5) and new lawns are not permitted in Zone 1 (SMP Section 4.1.3.6.4.a)
While the mitigation plan included in the site-specific impact analysis suggests an approximate 1:1 ratio
of replanting, replanting standards in SMP Section 4.1.3 and 4.1.2 do not include or require mitigation
ratios. The specific vegetation management regulations referenced above are applied unless the
applicant choses to use the Single Family Residence Shoreline Mitigation Manual (which does include
mitigation ratios for replanting). The mitigation plan requires revisions to be consistent with applicable
vegetation management standards, including (Condition 6):
Plant the entire area of Zone 1 (2,400 square feet). Obtain 65% vegetation canopy coverage
within 10 years. Canopy coverage is defined as “the crown area of native shrubs and trees as
measured from plan view”;
Any new vegetation planted in the shoreline buffer must be native species using a native plant-
community approach of multi-storied, diverse plant species that are native to the Central Puget
Lowland marine riparian zone;
No new lawn area is permitted within Zone 1; and
Delete the 5-foot building setback.
SMP Section 4.1.3.8.1 allows for “one (1) hand installed pervious trail to the shoreline not more than
four (4) feet in width, which may include hand installed steps, designed to minimize environmental
impacts. For single-family residential development vegetation trimming is limited to two (2) feet on
either side of the trail. The applicant is proposing to install a trail to the shoreline terminating in a new
“notch” in the existing concrete bulkhead. Vegetation may be trimmed up to two (2) feet on either side.
As conditioned, verification from the geotechnical engineer of record that any alteration to the existing
bulkhead will not compromise its structural integrity is required prior to building permit issuance
(Condition 5e).
SMP Section 4.1.3.8.3 provides maximum size thresholds for non-habitable structures appurtenant to a
single-family use within the shoreline buffer. The total square footage of all buildings or structures in
Zone 1 must not exceed 300 square feet or 10 percent of Zone 1 of the shoreline buffer area, whichever
is less. The total area of Zone 1 of the shoreline buffer is 2,400 square feet. Ten percent of the shoreline
buffer area is 240 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 240 square foot deck. The total area of all
non-habitable structures located in Zone 1 of the shoreline buffer is limited to 240 square feet
(Condition 3).
Shoreline Structure View Setback
The site plan submitted with the application does not depict the shoreline structure view setback line as
required by SMP Section 4.1.3.11. The proposed primary structure must be located landward of a line
drawn between the most waterward points (including any deck over five feet high) of the primary
structure on the abutting property to the west and the primary structure within 100 feet to the east of
the subject property line. The shoreline structure view setback line must be accurately shown on the
site plan submitted with the building permit application and verified prior to building permit issuance
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 9 of 17
(Condition 5g).
E. Section 4.1.5: Critical Areas
The subject property is located within a greater than 40 percent steep slope geologically hazardous area.
The proposed residence will be located within the steep slope geologically hazardous area and its
associated buffer. Due to the limited building envelop available at the site, the proposed residence will
consist of two stories below the road grade and one story above the road grade. Retaining walls will be
required along the roadway, and extending away from the roadway toward the shoreline along the sides
of the proposed building to accommodate the below-grade portions of the residence.
The proposed project will modify the steep slope at the site for the proposed residence through the
construction of a temporary shoring wall and a permanent below-grade wall build into the steep slope
with maximum heights of 20 feet or less. The geotechnical report (and addendum) submitted with the
application (Attachment 4 and 9) indicate that the temporary shoring wall and permanent below-grade
wall, constructed as recommended in the report, will not decrease global stability of the site during or
after construction, and will actually increase the stability of shallow fill soils beneath the right-of-way.
The geotechnical report and addendum demonstrate that the project meets the required minimum
factors of safety for both the landslide occurrence in the near vicinity of the project and the larger
geologically hazardous area complex that traverses Point White Drive NE and continues upslope. The
results of the slope stability analysis indicate that the proposed project can be completed without
negatively impacting the site or nearby stability.
The City requested a third-party review of the applicant’s geotechnical report (and addendum) from
Amec Foster Wheeler. This review found that the geotechnical engineer of record adequately addressed
the slope stability and provided suitable recommendations for design of the structures.
Recommendations from the third-party reviewer and City’s Development Engineer are included as
conditions of approval (Condition 12 and 13).
F. Section 4.1.6: Water Quality and Stormwater Management
Current stormwater management on the site consists of a 6-inch corrugated plastic pipe that leaves a
catch basin on the shoulder of Point White Drive NE, travels down the approximate middle of the
property, and outfalls over the existing concrete bulkhead wall to Rich Passage. Foundation drainage,
under-slab drainage and retaining wall drainage are required to maintain slope stability. The
geotechnical report recommends that all onsite stormwater and the existing drainage line from the
street level catch basin be collected and conveyed to a suitable discharge location as determined by a
Civil Engineer. Given the need to de-water the site to maintain slope stability, the site is not suitable for
concentrated stormwater infiltration and an outfall is necessary.
Pursuant to SMP Section 4.1.6.6.3.a, the outfall must consist of:
i. A continuous heat welded high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe; and
ii. Devices to keep the pipe stationary and set off bank; and
iii. An energy dissipation pad or water dissipater installed at the end of the pipe. The
dissipation pad shall extend the minimum distance necessary to protect the beach
substrate.
As conditioned, the applicant will provide a drainage plan with geotechnical concurrence demonstrating
compliance with these standards and applicable standards of the City’s stormwater regulations (BIMC
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 10 of 17
15.20) prior to building permit issuance. Additional conditions of approval from the City’s Development
Engineer are included as conditions of approval (Condition 13).
G. Section 4.2.1.7: Encumbered and Nonconforming Lots
The subject property is a legal nonconforming lot that is significantly encumbered by shoreline or critical
area buffers since it does not contain a building area of 2,500 square feet or more available for a single-
family residence and normal appurtenances unrestricted by buffers from shorelines or critical areas.
Such properties are required to provide a building area not to exceed 2,500 square feet with maximum
lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. The building area means the entire area that will be disturbed to
construct the home, normal appurtenances (except drainfields), and (ornamental) landscaping. The
applicant is proposing a building area less than 2,500 square feet, comprised of the house (1,200 square
foot lot coverage) and driveway/parking area (455 square feet) for a total of approximately 1,655 square
feet. As conditioned, development on the subject property is restricted to a maximum lot coverage of
1,200 square feet and maximum building area of 2,500 square feet (Condition 2).
H. Section 4.2.2: Cultural Resources
New shoreline use and development must preserve and protect cultural resources that are recorded by
the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation or local registry and
resources that are inadvertently discovered during use or development activities. No known cultural
resources are present on the subject property. As conditioned, the applicant will follow applicable
procedures if, during construction, the subject property is found to contain, or have a significant
probability of containing, cultural resources (Condition 16).
I. Section 5.9: Residential Development
Residential development must meet the dimensional standards of BIMC Title 18, Zoning and shoreline-
specific design standards. Consistency with these standards is described in Section VI-B, above.
Consistency with other shoreline-specific standards is described below.
Structures in the side setbacks may not exceed four (4) feet in height from existing grade. No
structures are proposed in the side setbacks.
No more than a total of 200 square feet of impervious surface is allowed in the side yard setback
outside of the shoreline buffer. There is not side yard setback outside of the shoreline buffer
on the subject property.
SMP Section 5.9.6.1.a requires residential development be located and designed to avoid the
need for shoreline stabilization and flood protection works for the life of the structure. Since
there is an existing bulkhead, it can be repaired as needed pursuant to applicable SMP
provisions in effect at the time of repair; however, new shoreline stabilization and flood
protection works are prohibited for the life of the structure. Geotechnical concurrence with
this provision is required prior to building permit issuance (Condition 5f).
VII. Consolidated Project Review – BIMC 2.16.170
The purpose of this section is to offer a consolidated process for use at the applicant’s option when a
proposed development or use of land will require more than one approval. The intent is to provide a
single process in which a single decision-maker will make all land use decisions on the application. Any
combination of land use applications except for building and other construction permits may be
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 11 of 17
processed under the consolidated project review process. The proposal is being reviewed under
consolidated project review at the request of the applicant.
VIII. Major Zoning Variance Decision Criteria (BIMC 2.16.120.E)
The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed maximum lot coverage and reduce the minimum front
yard setback. Variances are the mechanism by which the City may grant relief from the provisions of the
zoning ordinance where practical difficulty renders compliance with certain provisions of the code an
unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics of the subject
property and where the purpose of the comprehensive plan is fulfilled. The major variance process may
be used for deviations from zoning standards in BIMC Title 18 that exceed the threshold for minor
variances under BIMC 2.16.060. A variance is authorized only for lot coverage, size of structure or size of
setbacks.
The applicant submitted a narrative summarizing the existing development pattern in the neighborhood
and describing how the proposal is consistent with the decision criteria for a variance (Exhibit 6).
A major variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
1. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except those
provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in accord with the comprehensive
plan;
As conditioned, the variances would allow single-family development consistent
with the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by
the applicant;
The subject property is a legal, nonconforming lot in the R-2 zoning district. The
applicant has not created this nonconformity through any other property
adjustment process, such as a subdivision or boundary line adjustment.
Therefore, the need for the variance has not arisen from previous actions taken by
the applicant.
3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but that is
denied to the property in question because of special circumstances on the property
in question, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which the property is
located;
Many properties in the vicinity are developed with a single-family homes where
their homes and or accessory structures exceed lot coverage and encroach into
the front yard setback. The applicant’s variance request would allow site
development consistent with other properties in the vicinity. Relief from zoning
and shoreline dimensional standards is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right – single-family development – enjoyed
by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 12 of 17
4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located;
The proposed variances – to exceed maximum lot coverage and reduce the front
yard setback – would result in site development that is consistent within the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Many of the homes in the
vicinity are similarly located at or near the Point White Drive NE right-of-way and
have similar lot coverage. In 2005, zoning variances were granted for lot coverage
and front yard setback requirements for the two properties to the southwest to
accommodate site development nearly identical to what the applicant is
proposing. The reduction in front yard setback would still leave space for parking
or pedestrian use between the edge of pavement of Point White Drive NE and the
house. Further, locating the house within the front yard setback allows for
maintenance of a 30-foot shoreline buffer. The variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity.
5. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the size,
shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of the subject
property, or factors necessary for the successful installation of a solar energy system
such as a particular orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar
access.
The proposed variance is requested because of the non-conforming size of the lot
and proximity to the shoreline. The subject property (.09 acre) is less than one-
quarter the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning designation (20,000 square
feet). Due to zoning and shoreline dimensional standards, a building envelop could
not exist without relief granted through a variance.
IX. Shoreline Variance Decision Criteria (BIMC 2.16.165.G)
“The purposes of a shoreline variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk,
dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program, where there are extraordinary
or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the master
program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management
Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020 or its successor” (BIMC 2.16.165.G).
The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance to allow for development on the face of a marine bluff.
SMP Section 4.1.5.8.3 provides: “All proposed development on the face of a marine bluff or in the
required buffer area shall be prohibited.” While some minor exceptions from this prohibition are
provided, single-family residential development is not one of them. The prohibition of development on
the face of a marine bluff is considered a performance standard from which relief may be granted
through a shoreline variance.
Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM), and/or landward of any wetland, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, may be
authorized, provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 13 of 17
i. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the
applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the
property.
The strict application of a performance standard set forth in the SMP precludes reasonable
use of the property by prohibiting development on the face of a marine bluff.
ii. The hardship described in subsection G.4.a.i of this section is specifically related to the property,
and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and
the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the
applicant’s own actions.
The Applicants have not taken any action to create the hardship, as they purchased the
property in 2015 and have left it largely as-is. The unique conditions of the property include its
small size, shallow depth and a geologically hazardous area (steep slope). There is no place on
the property where a single-family residence can be located that is not on the face of the
marine bluff.
iii. The design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses
planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not
cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.
Many properties in the vicinity are developed with a single-family home on the face of a
marine bluff. The proposal is consistent with the underlying shoreline designation, Shoreline
Residential Conservancy. This purpose of the Shoreline Residential Conservancy designation is
to accommodate compatible residential uses while protecting, conserving, and restoring
shoreline ecological functions and processes. New residential development that preserves the
natural character of the area is a principal use of the shoreline designation. Adverse impacts
to the shoreline environment will be avoided through preservation and enhancement of Zone
1 of the shoreline buffer and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to
minimize water quality and quantity impacts.
iv. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties
in the area.
The construction of a single-family residence and deck is consistent with other development in
the area and does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
v. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
The variance is requested to afford relief from the prohibition of development on the face of a
marine bluff. The variance is necessary to allow for any single-family residential development
and is therefore the minimum necessary to afford relief. The SMP’s encumbered and
nonconforming lot provisions allow for a building area not to exceed 2,500 square feet and a
maximum lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 1,200 square foot
house with a building area of 1,895 square feet. The proposed deck is 240 square feet, which
is within the allowable area for non-habitable structures in Zone 1 of the shoreline buffer.
vi. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The proposal would have no
detrimental effect on the public interest.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 14 of 17
Public notice was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and
also to the general public via legal notice in the newspaper of record and signs at the
property. No public comments were received.
The proposal meets the intent of the underlying shoreline designation and provides sufficient
mitigation, as conditioned, so as to result in no adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.
The public interest also includes public safety, including the safety of the future inhabitants of
the proposed residence. As summarized in Section VI-E, above, the geotechnical report
submitted with the application demonstrates that the project meets the required minimum
factors of safety for both the landslide occurrence in the near vicinity of the project and the
larger geologically hazardous area complex and concludes that the proposed project can be
completed without negatively impacting the site or nearby stability provided the construction
follows the recommendations in the report. The City’s third-party reviewer concurred with
these findings. Recommendations from the third-party reviewer and City’s Development
Engineer are included as conditions of approval. Provided the geotechnical recommendations
are incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the proposal will not have
detrimental effect on the public interest.
The variance request must consider the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the
area and whether, if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where
similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances would remain consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
The vast majority of nearby lots are already developed with single-family residences so future
development on those lots would likely not require a shoreline variance. There are two undeveloped
lots within the project vicinity. Both of these properties are similar in size and contain marine bluffs so
would likely require a shoreline variance to build a single-family residence. Site development on these
properties would need to meet the minimum factors of safety for slope stability as well as result in no
net loss of ecological function and process. Taken together, additional requests should not cause
substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
X. Conclusion and Recommendation
As conditioned, the proposed land use review procedures and permit requests are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the applicable sections of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and the Shoreline
Master Program. Appropriate notice of application was made and comments were considered. The
application is properly before the Director.
Recommendation: Approval of two zoning variances, shoreline variance and shoreline substantial
development exemption subject to the following conditions:
1. All work must be in substantial compliance with the proposed site plan submitted with the
application (date-stamped January 10, 2017) and Site Specific Analysis and No-Net-Loss
Mitigation Plan (dated April 19, 2016) except to comply with the conditions below.
2. Site development is limited to 1,200 square foot lot coverage and 2,500 square foot building
area.
3. The total area of all non-habitable structures located in Zone 1 of the shoreline buffer is
limited to 240 square feet.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 15 of 17
4. All conditions of approval from the City’s Development Engineer are conditions of approval,
including:
a. To provide a 3-foot shoulder along Point White Drive NE parking stalls both
perpendicular and parallel to the road shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 3
feet clear distance from the travel lane fog line to any stall edge or up to 6 feet where
possible.
b. Above-, at-grade, and below ground structures and appurtenances extending beyond
the property (i.e. retaining wall tiebacks, etc.) shall require expressed permission in the
form of a legal easement signed by the underlying owner(s) of land to be encroached
upon. The easement shall be recorded with the County auditor.
c. Temporary tiebacks for a shoring wall shall require a Right-of-Way permit.
d. Retaining wall tiebacks in the City ROW shall require a license agreement.
e. Rerouting of the storm drainage from under Point White Drive NE through the subject
property to the shoreline shall require a Declaration of Covenant For Maintenance of
Private Stormwater Facilities per Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 15.21 naming
the City as grantee with the power to enforce maintenance of the system.
f. Application for a construction permit shall include a Stormwater and Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), otherwise known as an erosion control plan, to be prepared
by a licensed civil engineer.
g. The building foundation plan shall be prepared by having the geotechnical engineer and
foundation designer coordinate and determine specific foundation types and locations,
as recommended the by the third-party geotechnical reviewer.
h. The application for a construction permit shall be reviewed and receive concurrence
from the geotechnical engineer of record. The concurrence shall be supplied in the form
of a plan review letter and a signed a stamped Step 2 Form: Construction in a
Geologically Hazardous Area.
i. Construction monitoring of geotechnical related tasks such as erosion control,
excavation, soldier pile and tieback installation and testing, pin piles, footing subgrades,
and drainage shall be required during the construction phase.
j. An as-built certification letter and Step 3 Form: As-Built Certification signed and stamped
by the geotechnical engineer shall be required prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy (temporary or permanent).
k. The site will be served by City sewer via a force main in Point White Drive NE. An on-site
grinder pump shall be required to convey sewerage to the City system. The pump shall
be owned and maintained by the City. A 15-foot wide easement based on the surveyed
location of the grinder pump system shall be written prior to completion of the project
allowing the City to service the pump station. The standard grinder pump operated by
the City is an EONE DH071. The applicant is responsible for providing engineering
calculations for the grinder station design to verify the system’s capability to discharge
into the “common” force main without impacting upstream and downstream
connections.
l. The parcel is subject to a Local Improvement District (LID) assessment levied by the City
of Bainbridge Island in the amount of $18,656.89 for the South Island Sewer LID (LID No.
20). Payment of the latecomer fee shall be made prior to hooking up to the sewer
system.
m. The project adds or replaces more than 800 square feet of impervious surface. On-site
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent feasible shall be required
consistent with BIMC 15.20. Consideration of partial of full disconnection of roof
downspouts and directing stormwater to splash blocks to irrigate the 30’ wide Zone 1
before being intercepted and discharged through a shoreline outfall shall be evaluated.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 16 of 17
Drainage directed first through vegetation reduces heavy metals from roofing and
gutter materials, suspended solids, nutrients, and mimics pre-developed conditions such
as evapotranspiration and filtration.
n. The Shoreline Master Program, BIMC 16.12.030(C)(3)(d)(ii) relating to single-family
residential parking design and location. Single-family parking shall assure that surface
runoff will not pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Water quality of
the parking facility and stormwater runon from the roadway shall be addressed. Options
to enhance water quality from these surfaces may include paving around open-grated
catch basins, adding underdrained permeable pavement, oil/grit separators or filter
inserts into catch basins.
5. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Prior to building permit issuance, the
applicant shall:
6. Submit a drainage plan with sufficient detail to demonstrate the proposed new outfall
meets the requirements of SMP Section 4.1.6.6. Geotechnical engineer concurrence is
required to verify that the stormwater system will not result in potentially adverse impacts
to the landslide hazardous area or the structural integrity of the existing bulkhead.
a. Establish and record a permanent and irrevocable conservation covenant, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, preventing future development within the mitigation
area. This may be in the form of a notice on title recorded with the Kitsap County
Auditor.
b. Record an indemnification agreement for geologically hazardous areas in accordance
with BIMC 16.20.150; and
c. Establish and record a Notice to Title for Critical Areas in accordance with BIMC
16.20.190.
d. Submit geotechnical verification that the proposed “notch” in the existing concrete
bulkhead will not adversely affect its structural integrity.
e. Submit geotechnical verification that new shoreline stabilization and flood protection
works will not be required for the life of the structure.
f. Provide a site plan showing the shoreline structure view setback.
7. The mitigation plan included in the site specific impact assessment shall be revised as noted
below and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final building permit
inspection:
a. Plant the entire area of Zone 1 (2,400 square feet). Obtain 65% vegetation canopy
coverage within 10 years. Canopy coverage is defined as “the crown area of native
shrubs and trees as measured from plan view”;
b. Any new vegetation planted in the shoreline buffer must be native species using a
native plant-community approach of multi-storied, diverse plant species that are native
to the Central Puget Lowland marine riparian zone;
c. No new lawn area is permitted within Zone 1; and
d. Delete the 5-foot building setback.
8. New shoreline stabilization and flood protection works are prohibited for the life of the
structure (75 years).
9. Prior to final building permit inspection, the applicant shall submit an estimate of costs to
complete mitigation, maintenance and monitoring activities specified in the site specific
impact assessment (as revised per Condition 8). If mitigation measures are not complete
prior to final building permit inspection, the landowner shall submit to the City an assurance
device conditioned on performance of required mitigation measures in an amount of 125
percent of the cost of completing the required mitigation, maintenance and monitoring.
The performance assurance shall be refunded to the applicant upon completion of the
mitigation measures.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR Page 17 of 17
10. Mitigation measures in accordance with the site specific impact assessment (as revised per
Condition 8) shall be completed within 12 months of final building permit inspection. Should
the applicant fail to implement mitigation measures within 12 months, the City will use the
performance assurance to fund the required mitigation actions. If the City is required to
implement the mitigation measures, Condition 11 and 12 do not apply.
11. Upon completion of mitigation measures in accordance with the site specific impact
assessment (as revised per Condition 9), the landowner shall submit a maintenance and
monitoring assurance in an amount of 50 percent of the cost of five (5) years of
maintenance and monitoring. The maintenance assurance shall be refunded to the
applicant upon completion of the five year monitoring period minus any funds needed for
the City to perform corrective actions or perform monitoring.
12. Monitoring reports documenting and evaluating the performance of the mitigation
measures are required annually. Monitoring reports must demonstrate that minimum
performance standards are being met and/or provide recommendations for contingency
actions. These reports shall be received by the Department of Planning and Community
Development no later than December 31 of each monitoring year.
13. All construction activities shall comply with noise limitations in residential zones per BIMC
16.16.020.
14. Any use, construction, placement, removal, alteration, or demolition of any structure, land,
vegetation or property in a manner that violates the terms or conditions of this exemption
shall be considered a violation of the Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program and be
subject to the applicable violations, enforcement and penalties provisions of the Program.
15. Any new mitigation and landscape plantings shall avoid or minimize the need for chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that could contaminate surface or ground
water or cause adverse effects of shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide
processes.
16. Application of fertilizer shall utilize BMPs outlined in the City’s adopted Stormwater
Management Manual and direct runoff of fertilizer chemicals into adjacent water bodies is
prohibited.
17. Work shall immediately stop and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and the Department of Planning and Community Development shall be
immediately notified if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during
excavation or construction. Construction shall only continue thereafter in compliance with
the applicable provisions of law.
XII. Appeal Procedures:
The decision of the Hearing Examiner becomes the City’s final decision which may be appealed in
accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.P (zoning variance) and 2.16.165.I (shoreline variance).
Attachments:
Hearing Examiner’s Exhibit List