MEMO FROM APPLICANTPO Box 10577
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Date. January 18, 2017 (REVISED JANUARY 20, 2017
To.
From.
Re:
Planning File Number:
Hearing Examiner - City of Bainbridge Island
Christy Carr, AICP — Senior Planner, City of Bainbridge Island Department of
Planning and Community Development
Lauren & Jason Terp, Applicant
Terp Single - Family Residence, Response to Staff Report, REVISED TOLL
JANUARY 18, 2017 HEARING
PLN13508 SVAR /VAR
OWING
Applicant is grateful to the Planning Department staff for their effort throughout the 14 months during
which we have been working on the referenced project. We are in receipt of the staff report dated
January 11, 2017 and respectfully offer the following comments and requests. Applicant has identified
edits and additions to this memo made following the hearing with the use of italics:
In section IX. of the report, decision criteria vi., applicant notes that, in additional to meeting the
minimum safety standards as summarized in the report, the project will yield the public benefit of
improving slope stability at the property;
- Regarding condition 4. b., Applicant understands that 4. d. is meant to supersede 4. b. but a third party
may read these as independent requirements. Applicant has been informed that COBI will permit a
revocable license but not an easement. Applicant requests that 4. b. be revised to make clear an
easement is not required in the case of tiebacks under the right of way. Please note for information that,
as discussed with the Development Engineer, tiebacks are currently contemplated in the right of way but
not neighboring private properties;
- Regarding condition 4, I., the property opted in when the LID was created and has been making annual
payments toward the assessment. Prior to purchasing the property Applicant confirmed with Christy
Shipman of COBI that the balance had amortized down to "'$11k. Applicant made the assessment
payment due in 2016 and confirmed that the current balance outstanding is $10,261.24 (statement
attached). Applicant does not believe the latecomer fee is due;
Regarding condition 6. a., Applicant notes that a "permanent and irrevocable conservation
covenant...preventing future development within the mitigation area" has the potential to unduly burden
the property at some point in the future if then- current development standards permit some activity
prohibited by the recorded covenant. Applicant notes that many of the similar conditions cite code
sections setting forth that they are required but that this one does not.`.. Applicant requests that this
condition be deleted as it simply d
manufactures a future conflict;
uplicates whatever requirements prevail currently and potentially
- Regarding condition 6. f., Applicant prepared the shoreline view setback graphic some time ago and has
attached a site plan showing same hereto. Applicant hereby requests that the shoreline view setback
requirement be deemed satisfied at this time and this condition be removed;
Regarding condition 7. a., Applicant notes that the SMP requirement for 100% planting of zone 1
effectively deprives the subject property of a usable yard. Staff has explained to Applicant that no RUE.
type exclusion affording some minimum yard area exists and that Staff has no mechanism available to
afford relief. Considering that this is a foreseeable situation likely impacting at feast some other small lots
in COBI, perhaps such a mechanism should exist? Applicant notes this burden for the Hearing Examiner's
benefit and requests consideration for any relief from this condition the Hearing Examiner may be
empowered to offer. As discussed during the hearing, Applicant requests that any unused portion of the
2,500 square foot allowable building area maybe used as a yard on the level portion of the site waterward
of the proposed building footprint, which is located in zone 1. Applicant notes that steep slopes will remain
to the sides of the house (Northeast and Southwest of the proposed footprint), leaving only the proposed
deck and space in zone 1 available for typical recreating;
- Regarding condition 4. K., further to discussion at the hearing, Applicant requests . the condition be
amended to state that the grinder pump access easement should be of a sufficient size to allow access
rather than specifying a 15 foot width. Depending on final site layout, the more advantageous side of the
site to locate the grinder pump maybe of insufficient size to accommodate a 15 foot wide easement;
Thank you for your effort and consideration. If you have questions or require further information please
do not hesitate to contact Jason Terp.
Si rieere ly,
z
6
Laure &{Jason
Enc. LID amortization schedule (Submitted for the record at the hearing and not attached)
LID account history (Submittedfor the record at the hearing and not attached)
Site plan with view setback line (Submitted for the record at the hearing and not attached)