HEX Liljeblad RUE Decision 080516August 5, 2016
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
HEARING EXAMINER
REPORT AND DECISION
Subject: Liljeblad Reasonable Use Exception
File number: PLN50261RUE
Location: No house number, off Hidden Cove Road, within S4, T 25N, R 02E.
Tax Parcel No. 042502-2-058-2008.
Request: A Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to allow the construction of a
single family residence, driveway, well, septic drainfield and
catch basin on a vacant property encumbered by a Category III
wetland and an associated 60' water quality buffer.
Environmental
Review: A Mitigated Determination of Non -significance (MDNS), in accordance with the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was issued on June 30, 2016.
Applicants: Edle & Bo Urban (Ubbe) Liljeblad
241 Shepard Way NW
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Zoning: R-0.4, one residential unit per 2.5 acres.
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: OSR-0.4, Open Space Residential, one residential unit per 2.5 acres.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Site Characteristics
1. Assessor's Record Information:
a. Tax Lot Number: 042502-2-058-2008
b. Owners of record: Bo Urban (Ubbe) & Edle Liljeblad
c. Lot sizes: 1.2 acres or 52,272 square feet
d. Land use: Vacant
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 1
2. TERRAIN:
The property is relatively flat and gradually slopes from west to east.
3. SITE DEVELOPMENT:
The site is undeveloped.
4. ACCESS:
Vehicular access to the site is from an easement off Hidden Cove Road.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a. Police: Bainbridge Island Police Department.
b. Fire: Bainbridge Island Fire District.
c. Septic: Kitsap County Health District
6. SURROUNDING USES
a. North:
Single Family Residential
b. East:
Single Family Residential
c. South:
Single Family Residential
d. West:
Undeveloped
7. EXISTING ZONING:
The site is zoned R-0.4, one unit per 2.5 acres.
8. SURROUNDING ZONING:
The surrounding vicinity is zoned R-0.4, one unit per 2.5 acres.
9. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Open Space Residential, one unit per 2.5 acres (OSR-0.4).
10. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Open Space Residential one unit per 2.5 acres (OSR-0.4).
B. Procedural Background
11. A pre -application conference was held on June 9, 2015, and the applicants applied for a
Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) and Special Use Review on June 23, 2015. The applications were
deemed complete on July 21, 2015, with a notice of application and SEPA comment period published
on July 31, 2015. The comment period ended on August 14, 2015, with no comments received.
12. Staff requested from the applicants on November 6, 2015, revisions to the wetland report to
address differences between it and the drainage plan. The various site plans needed to be consistent
and the setbacks required verification. After delays were encountered, on April 20, 2016, staff sent a
Notice of Incomplete Application to the owners specifying that the application would be deemed void
if requested information were not received by June 20, 2016. The applicants submitted the missing
information on June 6, 2016, including a revised wetland report.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 2
13. On June 30, 2016, the City issued pursuant to SEPA a mitigated determination of non-
significance (MDNS) with an appeal period ending on July 14, 2016. No appeals were filed.
14. Staff determined that a separate Special Use Review is not also required when an applicant is
applying for a Reasonable Use Exception, the established practice being to process all development for
a new single family residence and any accessory structures through the Reasonable Use Exception
review.
15. No public comments were received during the comment period. A Health District comment
letter dated October 8, 2015, addressed the setback requirements for the well. The applicants will need
to submit a building site clearance application for proposed on-site sewage disposal and private water
supply with their building permit application. The Fire Marshal comment letter dated July 27, 2015,
requested that the project comply with the applicable provisions of the Fire Code and that the access
road not be less than 12 feet wide with 13.5 feet overhead clearance, a matter also to be reviewed at
building permit submittal. The Building Official provided a comment letter on July 15, 2015,
specifying building permit review procedures.
16. The applicants are proposing to discharge stormwater from the access road via a catch basin
into the wetland buffer within a level spreader Swale. The roof stormwater is proposed for discharge to
a splash block with dispersion. The City's Development Engineer reviewed the drainage plans and
requested a maintenance plan be developed for the stormwater system that will handle roadway runoff
from the existing unnamed easement road.
C. Regulatory Review
17. BIMC 16.20.080.G states the criteria for granting a reasonable use exception from the City's
critical areas regulations:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property;
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal;
3. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow
reasonable use of the property;
4. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result
of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant's predecessor, that occurred after
February 20, 1992;
S. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet;
6. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property;
7. Any net loss of critical area functions and values, as determined by a qualified
consultant through the application of best available science, will be mitigated on-site to
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 3
the extent feasible if off-site options are not available. If off-site options, such as a fee -
in -lieu or mitigation banking program, are available, the mix of on-site and off-site
mitigation should be based on recommendations of the consultant;
8. A habitat management plan has been prepared pursuant to BIMC f 6.20. 060, unless it
is determined through the applicable review process that such a plan is unnecessary;
and
9. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
18. The City uses the Department of Ecology's (DOE'S) Washington State Wetland Rating System
for Western Washington for the purpose of establishing wetland buffer widths, wetland uses and
replacement ratios for wetlands. The wetland on the property is rated Category III. Both the wetland
and its water quality buffer encumber the site and result in very limited buildable area outside their
boundaries.
19. Category III wetlands are deemed to have a moderate level of function. A single -family -home is
defined in the code as a moderate impact land use. Moderate impact land uses for a Category III
wetland have a prescribed water quality buffer of 60' from the edge of the wetland. The wetland border
approaches the western edge of the property where it encounters the 20' access easement, with only a
very small portion of the northwestern corner of the site lying outside of the wetland and the buffer.
Only about 500 square feet of land exists outside the wetland and buffer, but even this area is
constrained as it lies both within the front yard setback and a 100 -foot well radius. Thus the wetland, its
buffer and applicable setbacks completely encumber the lot, and the applicants would have no
reasonable use of the property without the requested exception. None of the site constraints are due to
actions taken after February 20, 1992, by the applicants or their predecessors.
20. The applicants are proposing a 1,200 square foot residential footprint, a minimal driveway, a
catch basin, a well and a drainfield within the wetland buffer. The project will disturb approximately
3,500 square feet of wetland buffer during site construction. The applicants are proposing to restore and
enhance the buffer and wetland onsite to mitigate critical areas impacts. The project is conditioned to
identify the buffers in the field prior to any construction activities, provide fencing and restrict
herbicide and pesticide use to ensure long term protection of the wetlands after the introduction of the
residential use. The applicant is proposing to enhance the wetland onsite by adding additional plantings
to the entire wetland and buffer outside of the areas proposed for development, which equates to about
an acre of wetland enhancement.
21. The applicants' wetland report recommended mitigation methods that included directing
lighting away from the wetland, plantings and fencing. The report affirmed that the proposed single-
family home and all supporting activities (drainfield) are located as far from the wetland edge as
possible. The City is requesting that the invasive plants be removed from the wetland and buffer and
that the applicants provide a more detailed mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency action
plan with their building permit application. The Department of Planning and Community Development
shall approve the revised wetland mitigation plan as part of the building permit review and plantings
shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection. Staff has determined that a habitat
management plan is not required for this site.
22. Wetland buffers are to be temporarily fenced or otherwise suitably marked, as required by the
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 4
City, between the area where the construction activity occurs and the buffer. Temporary fencing shall
be removed after the site work has been completed and the site is fully stabilized. The City may require
that permanent signs and/or fencing be placed on the common boundary between a wetland buffer and
the adjacent land to identify the wetland buffer. No building permit shall be issued until the applicants
have submitted plans demonstrating that parking facilities will be provided and maintained. The
applicants are proposing a driveway and two parking spaces, as required. Site development will
comply with applicable regulations and standards, except those modified herein.
23. Not surprisingly, the proposal lies in a area characterized generally by high groundwater tables.
A neighboring property owner, Frank Nance, expressed concern at the public hearing that the shared
access driveway may need to be further elevated to avoid adverse impacts from construction vehicles
and equipment. Plus staff identified a need to specify a site construction staging area location between
the driveway and the drainfield and perhaps to impose seasonal limits on construction activity. In
addition, a high water table will likely impose constraints on the septic design and may require a
mound or other alternative system. RUE review provides little more than a conceptual framework for
further planning, with most specific design decisions deferred to the building permit stage. The
conditions proposed by staff have been modified to reflect these further future concerns. With such
conditions included, no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property
will be posed.
24. In summary, the property is constrained by the following factors: nonconforming lot size (1.2
acres in a 2.5 acre zoning district), a 20 -foot access and utility easement along its western border, and a
wetland with a 60 foot buffer and an ancillary 15 -foot building setback. The site lacks sufficient area
outside the wetland and its buffer to construct a single-family home with a drainfield, driveway and
well. With a lot area of 52,720 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 10% for the R-0.4 district,
the zoning would support a maximum footprint of 5,272 square feet on an unconstrained parcel. The
impact of the proposed building envelope on the wetland buffer will the minimum necessary to
accommodate a reasonable residential use of the site consistent with zoning, and no reasonable
alternative use is available.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this reasonable use exception review proceeding.
Standard notice and SEPA procedural requirements have been met.
2. The application meets the requirements of BIMC 16.20.080.G for granting a reasonable use
exception from the City's critical areas regulations. These regulations, if strictly applied, would deny
all reasonable use of the applicants' property. No reasonable alternative to the proposal approved
hereunder exists. Applicable regulatory requirements can be met, and, as conditioned, the proposal does
not pose a threat to the public health, safety or welfare.
DECISION
The reasonable use exception application of Edle & Bo Urban (Ubbe) Liljeblad (file no.
PLN50261RUE) to establish a minimal residential building envelope in a wetland buffer is
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 5
SEPA Conditions:
1, In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna, the roofing material is to be of
a non -leaching material that is not harmful to wetlands. Examples of non -leaching materials are, but
not limited to, metal and tile roofs. Asphalt composition is not acceptable.
2. A split -rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the 15' setback from the single family
home. The fence may contain gates to access the restoration area and shall provide a clear
distinction between native vegetation buffer area and any future landscaped area. The rails shall be
high enough to allow small mammals and wildlife to pass through. The fence shall be indicated on
the building permit application and in place prior to final inspection of the building permit.
A minimum of two signs indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be placed on
the fence.
4. As indicated on the site plan, the total lot coverage shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. The building
permit shall be reviewed to ensure that the maximum allowed lot coverage is not exceeded.
Prior to commencing any construction activity, the applicant shall have the wetland buffer
temporarily fenced between the areas of construction activity, a maximum of 15 feet from the
proposed residence. The fence shall be made of durable material and shall be highly visible. The
fence shall be inspected as part of the building permit. The temporary fencing shall be removed
once the construction activity is complete and replaced with permanent fencing (see condition
below).
6. The applicant shall mitigate impacts to the on-site wetland and its buffer through native plant
installation and invasive species removal. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall
submit a revised wetland mitigation plan including mitigation goals and objectives, performance
standards, maintenance and monitoring measures and contingency actions. The mitigation plan
shall be in substantial compliance with BIMC 16.20.110 — Mitigation Plan Requirements — and may
incorporate previously completed reports for the subject property and use guidance provided in
Weiland Mitiaation in Washington State: Part 2 - Develops a Mitigation Plans (Version 1, March
2006, Publication #06-06-011 b). The mitigation plan shall provide sufficient information, clarity
and detail to demonstrate the proposed mitigation actions and maintenance and monitoring
measures are adequate to achieve established mitigation goals and objectives. The Department of
Planning and Community Development shall approve the revised wetland mitigation plan as part of
the building permit review and plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection.
7. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan with their building permit
application and shall submit an annual monitoring report for up to seven years.
8. To reduce the impacts on the wetland, the applicant shall limit the amount of lighting on the
exterior of the residence to the minimum necessary, shall install motion sensor lights to the rear of
the house facing the wetland, plant dense vegetation around the buffer and record a covenant to
limit the use of pesticides.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 6
Project Conditions:
9. The proposed residence shall meet the setback and height requirements for the R-0.4 zoning
district. To ensure the 25 foot front yard setback is met, the applicants shall have the 20' easement
and 25' setback marked and inspected by planning staff prior to commencing construction.
10. The applicants shall submit a building site clearance application for on-site sewage disposal with
their building permit application. The location, construction and operation of the on-site sewage
disposal facilities shall be designed to avoid causing unmitigated adverse impacts to the wetland or
its water quality.
11. The building permit application shall be reviewed for compliance with the fire marshal's
requirement for the access road. Building permit review shall include the designation of an
adequate onsite construction staging area having reasonable offsite access and located outside
drainfield boundaries. The adequacy of the offsite access route shall be evaluated and upgrades
required, if necessary to avoid degradation from construction phase impacts. Site disturbance
activities and heavy vehicle access may be restricted to the dry season.
12. Any and all work that requires a permit shall be applied for. Building plans and review shall be
subject to the 2012 International Codes, or such subsequent edition as may be adopted by
Bainbridge City Council at time of building permit application.
13. The applicants shall apply for a Bainbridge Island Form #B 111 Petition for Road Name and Form
#13104 Addressing Request to secure a road name for the unnamed access drive and an address for
the proposed single family residence. These are required as a component of any building permit
application.
14. A maintenance plan shall be developed for the stormwater system proposed to handle roadway
runoff from the existing access road. The plan shall be submitted with the building permit
application.
15. The applicant shall record a notice on title specifying the presence of the wetland and the mitigation
plan prior to the issuance of the building permit.
ORDERED August 5, 2016.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 7
City of Bainbridge Island
The Hearing Examiner is authorized to make the City of Bainbridge Island's final decision regarding a
RUE application. A party with standing may seek judicial review of this decision by filing a timely suit
in Kitsap County Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act.
The exhibit list prepared by the Clerk of the Hearing Examiner's Office is attached.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION - 8
Staff Contact:
Heather Wright, Senior Planner
EXHIBIT LIST
UBE & EDLE LILJEBLAD
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
PLN50261 RUE
Hearing Examiner: Stafford L. Smith
Public Hearing:
July 27, 2016
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
DATE
1
Application — Reasonable Use Exception with Site Plans
06/23/2015
Received
2
Wetland Study Report dated May 12, 2015
06/23/2015
Received
3
Environmental (SEPA) Checklist with Staff Comments
06/23/2015
Received
4
COBI Memorandum — Building Division Comments and Conditions
07/15/2015
Bainbridge Island Fire Department Memorandum
Dated
5
07/27/2015
_ _ _
Notice of Application and SEPA Comment Period and Affidavit of Publication
Dated
6
07/31/2015
Published
7
Development Engineer Request
09/30/2015
( Dated)
8
Kitsap Public Health District Memorandum
10/08/2015
Correspondence between Planner and Wetland Biologist Clarifying Septic and Storm
(Dated)
9
11/06/2015
Water
Correspondence between Septic Designer and Planner
(Dated)
10
12/03/2015
(Dated)
11
Request for Revisions from COBI's Review of Wetland Report
02/08/2016
(Dated)
12
COBI's Request for Wetland Information
03/02/2016
Planner's email to Applicant re: Wetland Update
(Dated)
13
03/09/2016
(Dated)
14
Notice of Incomplete Application
04/20/2016
Revised Site Plan from Applicant
(Dated)
15
05/05/2016
(Received)
16
Updated Wetland Study Report dated June 6, 2016
06/06/2016
Dated)
17
Email from Planner re: Wetland Report Update
06/13/2016
(Dated)
18
SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
06/30/2016
(Dated)
19
Notice of Public Hearing and Certificate of Distribution and Posting
07/08/2016
Staff Report
(Published)
20
07/18/2016
(Dated)
07/20/2016