HEX DECISIONJanuary 30, 2017
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
HEARING EXAMINER
REPORT AND DECISION
ON SHORELINES AND ZONING VARIANCES
Project: Terp Single - Family Residence
File number: PLN13508 SVAR/VAR
Applicants: Lauren and Jason Terp
Request: 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. Development on the face of a marine bluff requires a shoreline
variance (SVAR); and zoning variances (VAR) are required to exceed maximum
lot coverage and to encroach onto the front yard setback.
Location: 3356 Point White Drive NE, adjacent to Rich Passage.
Environmental
Review: The project was determined to be categorically exempt from SEPA review pursuant
to WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(i).
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Site Characteristics and Procedural Background
1. The basic data describing the site and its setting are as follows:
Tax Assessor Information
Tax Lot Number
042402 -3- 031 -2009
Owners of Record
Jason and Lauren Terp
Lot Size (BIMC 18.12.050)
3,920 square feet (.09 acre)
Land Use
Single- family residential
Terrain
Face of a marine bluff ( >40% slope over 10 feet
high)
Soils
Kapowsm 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
R -2; OSR -2
Designation
Shoreline Designation
Shoreline Residential
Surrounding Zoning /Comprehensive
R -1 and R -2; OSR -1 and OSR -2
Plan Designation
Surrounding Uses
Single- family residential
2. The staffs report and exhibits submitted at the public hearing only minimally documented the
project's earlier procedural history. More concretely, some rather essential jurisdictional documents are
missing from the record: the portion of the Terp shorelines application describing the specific variances
requested; the City's actual shoreline exemption determination; and its actual SEPA categorical
exemption determination. The Terp proposal is uncontroversial, and there is no reason to suppose that
the underlying documentation has been mischaracterized by the staff report. So a delay simply to flesh
out the record may be unwarranted here, but any party believing otherwise may file a timely motion to
reopen the hearing for the purpose of supplementing the record with the missing documents. If such a
motion is received, it will be granted.
3. Shoreline and variance applications were submitted on June 7, 2016, and at some later point
determined to be complete. The project was deemed to be exempt from SEPA review and eligible for a
shorelines exemption. The legal lot of record is approximately 24,000 square feet in size, consisting
mainly of tidelands. Pursuant to BIMC 18.12.050, the "lot area" subject to City regulation is defined as
the portion located upland of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), in this instance comprising
slightly less than 4000 square feet. The discussions of lot area appearing below are thus predicated on
the City's specialized definition.
4. The public hearing on the consolidated shorelines and zoning variance applications was held on
January 18, 2017. No testimony was offered in opposition to the proposal. The hearing record was
held open through January 20, 2017, to allow staff to submit a correctly numbered list of proposed
conditions and allow for further comments on potential condition language changes.
5. Although the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations have been conveniently
codified at BIMC Chapter 16.12, the staff report citations are to the underlying document adopted at
Ordinance 2014 -14, which also includes general policy language. To avoid confusion, the Ordinance
2014 -14 SMP references have been retained within this decision. The final decision of the Hearing
Examiner approving the shorelines variance does not become effective until review by the state
Department of Ecology has been completed.
B. Shorelines Variance Review
6. BIMC 2.16.165.G(4)(a) provides the applicable decisional criteria for review of the shoreline
variance request:
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:
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;
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;
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;
iv. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area;
v The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford ford relief; and
vi. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
In addition, BIMC 2.16.165.G(4)(c) imposes the following further standard:
In the granting of all shoreline variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if shoreline variances
were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of
the shoreline variances should also remain consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW
or its successor and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline
environment.
7. The shoreline and zoning variance standards substantially overlap. To the extent that findings
within this shorelines discussion are applicable to the zoning review as well, or vice versa, they are
adopted by reference as findings for the corresponding parallel discussion.
8. Regarding basic SMP requirements, the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Shoreline
Residential designation specified in Chapter 3.0 in that it accommodates development that preserves
the natural character of the area and maintains shoreline vegetation buffers. Single - family dwellings are
a permitted use in this shoreline designation as stated in Table 4 -1. Pursuant to Table 4 -2, residential
development is subject to the shoreline 30 percent side yard setback and the zoning height and zoning
dimensional requirements specified in BIMC 18.12. As an undeveloped lot located in the Shoreline
Residential designation, Table 4 -3 imposes a shoreline buffer of 75 feet from the OHWM.
9. The proposal's consistency with applicable dimensional standards is described below:
Dimensional Standards
30% side yard 1 80' lot width x .30 = 24 feet
Proposed
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)
10. Under SMP Section 4.1.2 all shoreline development, uses and activities are required to result in
no net loss of the 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 or may use the Single Family Residence Shoreline Mitigation
Manual (Manual). The applicant submitted a site - specific impact analysis and mitigation plan.
11. Anticipated project impacts are described in the Site Specific Analysis and No- Net -Loss
Mitigation Plan submitted with the application. Project impacts include loss of non - native and invasive
species and potential water quality degradation resulting from new impervious surface area runoff.
Permanent direct impacts resulting from the project will consist of approximately 1,895 square feet of
vegetation removal and construction of 1,655 square feet of new impervious surface area. Vegetation
to be removed is mainly invasive Himalayan blackberry, plus one ornamental tree. No native vegetation
will be disturbed or removed.
12. Minor water quality and quantity impacts may result from additional stormwater generated by
the new roof surface and parking area to be discharged to Puget Sound. The Site Specific Analysis and
No- Net -Loss Mitigation Plan stated that no impacts will result from an increase in impervious surface
area because roof water is considered "clean." Roof water, however, can contain trace amounts pf
heavy metals from roofing and gutter materials, as well as some suspended solids and nutrients. Other
anticipated project impacts, including ground disturbance and ambient noise, will be temporary, as is
typical of single- family residential construction activity.
13. The Site Specific Analysis and No- Net -Loss Mitigation Plan did not address runoff from the
new gravel parking area nor the minor reduction in evapotranspiration and filtration that will result
from creating a new impervious surfaces. Between the road and the existing bulkhead lies a slope
inclined at about a 43% gradient that features loose fill above glacial till and lacustrine deposits. Slope
stability issues were evaluated by Aspect Consulting within a geotechnical report dated March 14,
2016. This report related that the underlying deposits "are relatively impermeable and not suitable for
concentrated stormwater infiltration."
14. The City's policy is, of course, to encourage onsite infiltration of stormwater to the maximum
extent feasible. To implement this policy the City's Development Engineer has recommended that the
potential for some diversion of roof downspout flows from shore outfall release to onsite infiltration be
evaluated and that the outfall design should include an energy dissipation pad to protect the beach
substrate from erosion. Slope stability is now supplied by the existing downslope bulkhead but likely
will be enhanced by proposed new lateral retaining walls. Some onsite infiltration could thus occur and
such possibility should be explored, but any proposed infiltration facilities should be reviewed and
approved by the project geotechnical engineer.
15. All proposed shoreline development, uses and activities must utilize the mitigation sequencing
set forth at SMP Section 4.1.2.6, which function for the proposed project is described in the Site
Specific Analysis and No- Net -Loss Mitigation Plan. In order to compensate for unavoidable project
impacts, the applicant is proposing to enhance the shoreline buffer with invasive species removal, soil
amendments and native vegetation plantings. As conditioned, this will include planting the entire area
of shore buffer Zone 1 (2,400 square feet). If BMPs are implemented properly and proposed mitigation
measures completed, short-term impacts will be reduced and shoreline ecological functions and
processes will experience no net loss.
16. As detailed in the staff report and proposed conditions, when mitigation is required the
applicant must provide a legal assurance that the mitigation area (all of Zone 1) will be maintained in
perpetuity through notice on title, conservation easement or similar mechanism. And if not completed
prior to final building permit inspection, a performance assurance or other security is required to
guarantee that mitigation work will be installed as proposed. When mitigation is required, a periodic
monitoring program also must be included as a component of the mitigation plan. The project's Site
Specific Analysis and No- Net -Loss Mitigation Plan includes the mandated monitoring program, with
annual monitoring reports to be performed over a 5 -year period.
17. At the public hearing Mr. Terp, the applicant, queried whether the mandatory language within
the staff condition imposing development limits in perpetuity on the Zone 1 buffer area could be
softened to allow for the possibility that future regulations might be less strict, in which case some
additional development activity could be contemplated. While the history of development controls in
Washington since the late 1950s has been one of constantly increasing severity of restriction, here at the
dawning of the Age of Trump one has to at least acknowledge the possibility that this trend could some
day be reversed. But, under any plausible circumstances, such removal of a recorded restriction would
require the concurrence of the City. Language has been added to the buffer note that would allow
future further buffer area development to be considered under a changed regulatory regime.
18. Pursuant to SMP 4.1.3, the subject property is subject to a 75 -foot shoreline buffer. Zone 1 of
the buffer includes the first 30 feet upland from the OHWM and Zone 2 contains the 45 feet
presumably remaining. But the approximate depth of the upland portion of the Terp property as
measured from the bulkhead (OHWM) to the edge of right -of -way for Point White Drive NE is only 63
feet. The lot is 80 feet wide. The total buffer depth is thus less than the standard 75 feet, and the buffer
area is approximately 5,040 square feet (80 x 63 = 5,040). The portion in Zone 1 is 2,400 square feet
(80 x 30 = 2,400), with the remainder in Zone 2 comprising 2,640 square feet (80 x 33 = 2,640).
19. The proposed 1,200 square foot single - family residence is to be located wholly within Zone 2
of the shoreline buffer. The site - specific impact analysis was based on creating a "reduced" 5 -foot
building setback. The mitigation planting scheme will accommodate reasonable access to the house.
The permanent development impact within the shoreline buffer consists of the area of the house (1,200
square feet) plus the gravel driveway /parking area (455 square feet) in Zone 2, as well as the deck (240
square feet) in Zone 1 — resulting in a total site development area of 1,895 square feet.
20. Pursuant to SMP Section 4.1.3.7.1.c, tree or vegetation removal within a shoreline buffer
associated with new construction may be allowed, but significant trees must be retained and the
requirements of SMP Section 4.1.2, Environmental Impacts, are to be met, including its replanting
provisions. No significant trees are proposed to be removed.
21. SMP Section 4.1.3.7.2.b states that when the required depth of a shoreline buffer for a single -
family residential property is reduced, Zone 1 must be restored in accordance with provisions of
Section 4.1.2.5. This means here that existing native vegetation must be retained and the entire
remaining area of Zone 1 must be replanted to achieve a 65% native vegetation canopy coverage within
10 years. Further, new lawns are not permitted in Zone 1 (SMP Section 4.1.3.6.4.a). The 5 -foot
building setback will be deleted. The applicant is also proposing to install a trail to the shoreline
terminating in a new "notch" in the existing concrete bulkhead, subject to verification from a
geotechnical engineer that any such alteration to the bulkhead will not compromise its structural
integrity.
22. SMP Section 4.1.3.8.3 imposes maximum size thresholds on non - habitable structures
appurtenant to a proposed single - family use within a shoreline buffer. The total square footage of all
such buildings or structures proposed to be located in Zone 1 must not exceed 10 percent of the Zone 1
shoreline buffer area. The total area of Zone 1 of the Terp shoreline buffer is 2,400 square feet. The
applicant is proposing to devote the entire Zone 1 structural allotment to a 240 square foot deck.
23. Mr. Terp has inquired as to whether additional space in Zone 1 could be dedicated to creating a
small yard area. For the reasons generally outlined above, such is not likely a feasible option at this
time. As noted, the entire Zone 1 permitted structural envelope has already been dedicated to the
proposed deck. So no yard could be created without reducing the deck area by an equivalent amount.
Plus no new grass plantings are allowed in Zone 1. Finally, installing a usable yard on the slope would
entail additional new grading that as yet has neither been proposed by the applicant nor reviewed by the
City. In other words, a new yard space cannot be approved at the hearing level without first remanding
the application back to staff for needed revisions and further technical review. While Mr. Terp has
survived the process to this point with both his patience and good humor admirably intact, undergoing
the further delay and expense attendant to a remand in order to pursue a minor and perhaps unattainable
alteration could prove to be a bridge too far.
24. The residence for the subject property is proposed to be located within a geologically
hazardous area featuring a steep slope greater than 40 percent. Due to the limited building envelope
available at the site, the proposed residence on the slope will require construction of two stories below
and one story above the adjacent road grade. The proposed project will excavate the steep slope at the
site for construction of the proposed residence. Shoring and retaining walls will be installed along the
roadway as well as downslope from the roadway toward the shoreline along both sides of the proposed
residence to accommodate its below -grade sections. The geotechnical reports submitted for the
application indicate that the planned construction will not decrease the global stability of the site, will
actually increase the stability of shallow fill soils beneath the right -of -way, and provide the required
minimum factors of safety for a landslide occurrence. The results of the slope stability analysis indicate
that the proposed project can be completed without negatively impacting either the site or the stability
of nearby properties.
25. Current stormwater management on the site consists of a 6 -inch corrugated plastic pipe that
exits a catch basin on the shoulder of Point White Drive NE, travels down the approximate middle of
the property, and then outfalls over the existing concrete bulkhead wall to Rich Passage. The
geotechnical report recommends that all contributory offsite and onsite stormwater be collected and
conveyed to a suitable discharge location. Even if the existing discharge location is retained, the outfall
will be need to be upgraded. Pursuant to SMP Section 4.1.6.6.3.a, the outfall must be a continuous heat
welded high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe constructed to keep the pipe stationary and off the
bank, with an energy dissipation pad or water dissipater installed at the end of the pipe.
26. As a legal nonconforming lot significantly encumbered by shoreline and critical area buffers,
the Terp parcel is mandated by SMP 4.2.1.7 to provide a building area not to exceed 2,500 square feet
with maximum lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. By meeting this standard the necessity for a second
shorelines variance is obviated. Residential development also must meet the dimensional standards of
BIMC Title 18.
27. A shoreline variance is required because the SMP prohibits development on the face of a
marine bluff. Since there are no upland areas on the property outside the marine bluff, a variance is
needed to make any reasonable use of the property. The bluff is an existing condition that in no way
was the result of the applicant's actions. Many properties in the vicinity are already developed with a
single - family homes located on the marine bluff face similar to that proposed by the applicant. Thus
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. The 1200 square foot building footprint approved
hereunder is the minimum variance necessary to provide relief consistent with the neighborhood zoning
and development pattern.
28. Except for two still vacant properties, nearby lots similarly situated are already developed with
single - family residences. Future development on already built bluff lots would likely be minor and not
require further shoreline variances. The proposal meets the intent of the underlying shoreline
designation and provides sufficient mitigation, as conditioned, to avoid causing adverse impacts to the
shoreline environment. After construction onsite slope stability should in fact be improved over the
current condition.
29. The proposal is consistent with the underlying shoreline designation, Shoreline Residential
Conservancy, which is intended to accommodate compatible residential uses while protecting,
conserving and restoring shoreline ecological functions and processes. The public interest will suffer
no substantial detrimental effect from issuance of the variance requested.
C. Zoning Variance Review
30. The decisional criteria governing approval of a major zoning variance are stated at BIMC
2.16.120.E:
1. A major variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
a. 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;
b. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by the
applicant;
c. 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;
d. 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; and
e. 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.
2. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision
criteria of the BIMC then the application shall be denied.
31. An analysis of the proposal's consistency with applicable sections of the City's Comprehensive
Plan demonstrates compliance therewith. The Plan's Overriding Goals and Principles include
preserving a reasonable use of the land for all landowners, with the costs and benefits to property
owners to be considered in making land use decisions. Land Use Element Goal OS 1.1 undertakes to
protect critical areas via various strategies, including placing limits on the amount of lot coverage. As
provided in Goal OS 4.2, the R -2 District is intended to recognize an existing development pattern of
two units per acre.
32. While this variance seeks to exceed normal dimensional standards, the proposal will comply
with all other use standards, including height limitations, and is consistent with the development pattern
in the neighborhood. The small size of the buildable lot area imposes constraints similar to those
affecting other nearby properties within the zone. The proposed single- family residence is consistent
with the use and intensity of existing development in the neighborhood.
33. Pursuant to the BIMC 18.09.020 Permitted Use Table, single - family dwellings are a permitted
use in the R -2 zoning district. Lot dimensional standards for residential zone districts are stated in
Table 18.12.020 -2. The density in the R -2 zone is one unit per 20,000 square feet of lot area, which is
also the minimum lot area. The code - defined lot area of the subject property is 3,920 square feet, less
than one - quarter the minimum lot size of the zoning district. The lot qualifies as a nonconforming lot
pursuant to BIMC Section 18.30.050.
34. The maximum lot coverage allowable for the property is 20 percent. Twenty percent lot
coverage for the subject property provides 784 square feet (3,920 x .20) of developable area. The
applicant is proposing a 1,200 square foot single - family residence and thus must obtain a variance to
exceed the permitted lot coverage.
35. The required setbacks in R -2 zone are 25 feet for the front yard and a combined 15 feet for the
two side yards, with a minimum of 5 feet to be provided on each side. The site plan submitted with the
application indicates that the required minimum side yard setbacks will be met. The applicant is
requesting a zoning variance to reduce the required minimum front yard to 17 feet from the Point
White Drive NE pavement edge, which will be zero feet from the edge of the right -of -way.
36. The subject property is a small legal nonconforming lot located in the R -2 zoning district. Its
nonconformity was not caused by any previous actions taken by the applicant. Many properties in the
vicinity are developed with a single - family homes that similarly exceed lot coverage limits and
encroach onto front yard setbacks. The applicant's variance request would allow site development
consistent with other properties in the vicinity. Relief from zoning dimensional standards is necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right— single - family development—
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
37. In 2005 zoning variances were granted by the City from lot coverage and front yard setback
requirements for two properties located nearby to the southwest in order to accommodate site
development nearly identical to the instant proposal. The reduction in the front yard setback requested
here would leave adequate space for parking and pedestrian use between the edge of the Point White
Drive NE pavement and the house. Locating the house within the front yard setback also facilitates
maintenance of an intact 30 -foot shoreline buffer on the opposite side. The variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
38. The zoning variances are required because of the small size of the buildable lot area and its
proximity to the shoreline. The unencumbered total lot area provides less than one - quarter of the
minimum lot size specified for the underlying zoning designation. After such area is further reduced by
zoning and shoreline dimensional standards, the remaining building envelope is insufficient to
accommodate reasonable residential development without the variance relief requested.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this consolidated zoning and shoreline permit
application proceeding. Applicable notice and SEPA requirements have been met.
2. The proposed residential use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the City's
Shorelines Master Program. As conditioned, the proposal meets the requirements of BIMC 2.16.165,
Chapter 16.12 and WAC Chapter 173 -27 for issuance of a shoreline variance permit. It also complies
with the standards stated at BIMC 2.16.120.E for issuance of a zoning variance.
3. The proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of the shorelines and will be
compatible with other permitted uses in the areas. It will cause no long -term or significant adverse
effects to the shoreline environment nor impose a detrimental effect on the public interest. The
proposal is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
DECISION
The shoreline variance and zoning variance permit applications of Lauren and Jason Terp (file no.
PLN13508 SVAR/VAR) are APPROVED, 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 that may be located in Zone 1 of the
shoreline buffer is limited to 240 square feet.
4. The engineering conditions of approval are as follows:
a. To provide a 3 -foot shoulder along Point White Drive NE, parking stalls
either perpendicular or parallel to the road shall be constructed so as to provide
a minimum of 3 feet clear distance from the travel lane fog line to any stall
edge, up to 6 feet where possible.
b. If any above -, at- grade, and below ground structures and appurtenances
(i.e. retaining wall tiebacks, etc.) extending beyond the property into adjacent
private parcels are proposed, they shall require express permission in the form
of a legal easement signed by the underlying owner(s) of the private land to be
encroached upon. Any such easement shall be recorded with the County
Auditor.
C. Temporary tiebacks for a shoring wall along Point White Drive NE 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. Unless the
City Engineer approves an alternative design, a 15 -foot wide easement based on
the surveyed location of the grinder pump system shall be executed 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.
1. The project will add or replace 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. The potential for
implementing partial or 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.
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. Any concept for onsite
infiltration shall be approved by the project's geotechnical engineer.
M. 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 runoff 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:
a. 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.
b. Establish and record a permanent conservation covenant, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, preventing future development within the
mitigation area. This may be accomplished through a notice on title recorded
with the Kitsap County Auditor. Provided that, the covenant or notice shall
state that if in the future City codes are amended to allow new development to
occur within the mitigation area, the lot owner shall not be precluded from
requesting that such covenant or notice be amended to conform to the new
regulations or from submitting development applications consistent therewith.
c. Record an indemnification agreement for geologically hazardous areas in
accordance with BIMC 16.20.150; and
d. 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
e. Submit geotechnical verification that new shoreline stabilization and flood
protection works will not be required for the life of the structure.
6. 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.
7. New shoreline stabilization and flood protection works are prohibited for the life
of the structure (75 years).
8. 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 6). 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.
9. Mitigation measures in accordance with the site specific impact assessment (as
revised per Condition 6) 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,
Conditions 10 and 11 do not apply.
10. Upon completion of mitigation measures in accordance with the site specific
impact assessment (as revised per Condition 6), 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.
11. 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.
12. All construction activities shall comply with noise limitations in residential
zones per BIMC 16.16.020.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
ORDERED January 30, 2017.
k pity of namunuge 151anu
A shoreline variance decision issued by the City's Hearing Examiner may be appealed to the Shorelines
Hearings Board in the manner described at BIMC 2.16.165.1.
(Please note: Washington Department of Ecology has final decisional authority for a shoreline variance
application. Normal procedure is that within eight days of the City's decision on the application, the
application packet will be forwarded to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology is
expected to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within 30 days.)
The exhibit list prepared by the Clerk of the Hearing Examiner's Office is attached.
Staff Contact:
Christy Carr, Senior Planner
EXHIBIT LIST
TERP PLN13O58 SVAR /VAR
Hearing Examiner: Stafford L. Smith
Public Hearing:
January 18, 2017
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
DATE
1
Application — Shoreline Development
June 7, 2016
Dated
2
Application — Variance
June 7, 2016
Dated
June 7, 2016
3
Site Specific Analysis and No- Net -Loss Mitigation Plan dated April 19, 2016
Received
4
Geotechnical Report — Aspect Consulting dated March 14, 2016
June 7, 2016
Received
5
Site Plan Maps dated March 16, 2016 and April 6, 2016
January 10, 2017
Received
6
Zoning Variance Decision Criteria Narrative
June 7, 2016
Received
7
Authorization for 3rd Party Review
June 20, 2016
Dated
8
Affidavit of Publication
June 24, 2016
Dated
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Aspect Consulting
September 12, 2016
F1-0
Dated
Notice to Proceed with Third Party Geotechnical Review
October 21, 2016
Dated
11
Correspondence between City and amec foster wheeler
November 3, 2016
Dated
12
Geotechnical Review — amec foster wheeler
November 3, 2016
Dated
13
City of Bainbridge Island Development Engineer Memorandum
November 20, 2016
Dated
14
Certificate of Posting Signs
December 31, 2016
Dated
15
Certification of Distribution and Posting /Affidavit of Publication
January 4, 2017
Staff Report — Revised January 18, 2017
Dated
16
January 18, 2017
Admitted
17
Applicant's Response to Staff Report
January 18, 2017
Admitted
_
18
City Development Engineer Memo re Shoreline and Zoning Variances
January 20, 2017
Dated
19
Applicant's Response to Staff Report (Revised)
January 20, 2017
Received