041119 HEX EUCLID PLN51139 RUE
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 1 of 16
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In The Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN-51139 RUE
)
Mercury Michael )
)
For Approval of a Reasonable Use ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
Exception ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a reasonable use exception to allow the construction of a single -family residence,
with associated appurtenances, on a vacant lot encumbered by critical areas, off of Euclid
Avenue NE, is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to address specific impacts of the
proposal.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on April 11, 2019.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Annie Hillier, City Planner
Rik Langendoen, Applicant Representative
Mercury Michael, Applicant
Steve Christensen
Danielle Gordon
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report, dated April 11, 2019
2. Master Land Use Application, dated December 19, 2018
3. Owner/Agent Agreement, dated January 25, 2018
4. Letter from Annie Hillier to Mercury Michael, dated May 15, 2018; Memorandum from
Peter Corelis, P.E., to Annie Hillier, dated May 8, 2018; Site Assessment Review, dated
May 8, 2018; Letter of Transmittal, dated May 8, 2018; Chronological Control Sheet,
dated May 7, 2018
5. Notice of Incomplete Application, dated September 7, 2018;
6. Applicant Response to Notice of Incomplete Application, received December 19, 2018
7. Revised Project Narrative, with Project Plans, dated December 19, 2018
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 2 of 16
8. Site Plan (Figure 3), revised November 28, 2018
9. Wetland Delineation, AquaTerra, LLC, dated April 16, 2018
10. Wetland Mitigation Plan, AquaTerra, LLC, dated October 9, 2018
11. Email from Annie Hillier to Rik Langendoen, dated December 20, 2018, with email
string
12. Notice of Complete Application, dated January 2, 2019
13. Notice of Application, undated
14. Affidavit of Publication, Bainbridge Island Review, dated January 11, 2019; Classified
Proof, published January 11, 2019; Certificate of Posting, dated January 13, 2019
15. Technical Memorandum from Rik Langendoen, dated January 21, 2019
16. Email from Andrew Fiscus to the Planning and Community Development Department,
dated January 31, 2019
17. Memorandum from Peter Corelis, P.E., to Annie Hillier, dated March 19, 2019
18. Comment Memorandum from Todd Cunningham, dated February 5, 2019
19. Staff PowerPoint Presentation, dated April 11, 2019
20. Comments from Danielle Gordon, dated April 11, 2019
The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based on the testimony and
exhibits:
FINDINGS
Application and Notice
1. Mercury Michael (Applicant) requests approval of a reasonable use exception (RUEX) to
allow construction of a single-family residence and associated impro vements, including a
driveway and septic facilities, on a vacant lot containing a wetland and an associated
wetland buffer. The unaddressed property is off of Euclid Avenue NE, between NE
Endicott Street and NE Lafayette Avenue.1 The RUEX would allow for development of
a single-family residence, not to exceed 1,200 square feet, with a reduced wetland buffer
of 25 feet and a 15-foot construction setback. As mitigation for the proposal, the
Applicant would remove invasive species throughout the site and wo uld install a variety
of native vegetation in a 1,800 square foot mitigation area within the remaining wetland
buffer. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 and 7 through 9; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10;
Exhibit 19.
2. The City of Bainbridge Island (City) determined that the application was complete on
January 2, 2019. On January 11, 2019, the City provided notice of the application and
the associated open record hearing by mailing or emailing notice to property owners
within 500 feet of the subject propert y and to reviewing government departments and
agencies, and by publishing notice in the Bainbridge Island Review. On January 13,
2019, notice of the application and associated hearing was also posted at the project site.
1 The property is identified by tax parcel number 41670000240003. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3. A
legal description of the property is included with the project plans. Exhibit 7.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 3 of 16
The City received one public comment in response to its notice materials: Andrew Fiscus,
who lives at the adjacent property to the south, expressed concern that the location of the
proposed residence would create privacy concerns and that allowing development of a
residence on a property with a protected wetland that drains into the Port Madison Water
Company’s property, or the Puget Sound, is ecologically insensitive. Mr. Fiscus suggested
that the septic drainfield be sited close to the south property line to allow an increased
setback between his residence and the proposed residence. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page
4; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 16.
State Environmental Policy Act
3. The City determined that the proposal is exempt from review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington
(RCW), and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1)(b)(i), because it
would involve minor new construction. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1.
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surround ing Property
4. The property is designated “Residential District -2” under the City Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the City’s Residential District designation is to provide for less intensive
residential development and a variety of agricultural and forestry uses. City
Comprehensive Plan, LU-22. City staff analyzed the proposal for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and identified goals and policies applicable to the proposal,
including:
Using mitigation sequencing to develop properties adjacent to or adjoining critical
areas to account for the present and future need to reduce the potential for
personal injury, loss of life, or property damage due to flooding, erosion,
landslides, seismic events, climate change, or soil subsidence.
Employing conservation design methods and principles such as low-impact
development techniques for managing stormwater and wastewater, and using
green building materials and high-efficiency heating and lighting systems.
Protecting wetlands and riparian areas.2
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 5 and 6.
5. The 0.37-acre property is within the “Residential 2” (R-2) zoning district. The purpose of
the R-2 zoning district is to “provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with
special Island character consistent wit h other land uses such as agriculture and forestry,
and the preservation of natural systems and open space, at a somewhat higher density
than the R-1 district.” Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 18.06.020.C. Single-
2 City staff specifically identified the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant to
the proposal: Environmental Element Policies EN-1.2, EN-4.1, and EN-5.6; Land Use Element Policy LU-
14.1. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 5 and 6.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 4 of 16
family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 zone. BIMC Table 18.09.020. Exhibit 1,
Staff Report, page 6.
6. Within the R-2 zoning district, certain dimensional standards apply. Specifically: a
required minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit; minimum lot depth
and width of 80 feet; and maximum lot coverage of 20 percent. BIMC Table 18.12.020-
2. Setback requirements include: front yard setbacks of 25 feet; side yard setbacks of 5
feet (minimum) and 15 feet (total); and rear setbacks of 15 feet. BIMC 18.12.020. Two
parking spaces are required for each primary dwelling. BIMC 18.15.020. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, pages 6 and 7.
7. Project plans show that the proposed single-family residence would meet the parking
requirements and the minimum width and depth requireme nts, as well as the minimum
setback requirements. The maximum lot coverage allowed on the 16,117 square foot
property would be approximately 3,223 square feet. Because a RUEX is proposed,
however, lot coverage would be limited to 1,200 square feet, as required by BIMC
16.20.080.F. As noted above, at approximately 16,117 square feet, the property is
smaller than the minimum lot size allowed in the R -2 zoning district. Under BIMC
18.30.050, however, nonconforming lots that were lawfully created and record ed with the
county auditor’s office, as occurred here, may be used for permitted purposes
notwithstanding the minimum lot area, width, or depth requirements of the municipal
code. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 6.
8. The property is bounded to the west by Euclid Avenue NE and surrounding properties to
the north, south, and east are also zoned for residential development and generally
contain single-family residences. In addition, the Port Madison Water Company owns
several nearby properties. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 7.
Critical Areas
9. The site is undeveloped, and site topography generally slopes to the north and east.
AquaTerra, LLC (AquaTerra), prepared a Wetland Delineation, dated April 16, 2018,
addressing on-site critical areas. The wetland delineation was based on fieldwork
conducted on February 5, 2018. AquaTerra identified a Category IV depressional
wetland in the northern portion of the property, consisting of forested canopy with
emergent vegetation made up of red alder, English ivy, lady fern, salmonberry, sword
fern, and Indian plum. A seasonal stream flows east out of the ponding area of the
wetland. No signs of recent disturbance were noted. AquaTerra determined that the
Category IV wetland would, in normal circumst ances, require a 40-foot buffer, with an
additional 15-foot building setback. BIMC 16.20.140.I.4, Table 6. Exhibit 9.
10. The wetland and associated buffer cover approximately two-thirds of the subject
property. During the pre-development and application process, the Applicant contended
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 5 of 16
that development of a single-family residence on the property would not be possible with
strict application of a 40-foot wetland buffer or through buffer modification, which would
allow the wetland buffer to be reduced by 25 percent under BIMC 16.20.110. Reducing
the wetland buffer by 25 percent would still result in insufficient space being available to
construct a single-family residence with necessary infrastructure, including an on-site
septic system, stormwater system, and space for off-street parking, especially when
accounting for the required 15-foot building setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
City staff assessed the site through the site assessment review process, as required by
BIMC 16.20.080.A, and concurred that developing the property with a single-family
residence would only be possible through the reasonable use exception process. Exhibit
1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 11.
11. The City code identifies aquifer recharge protection areas (ARPAs) as critical areas that
must be protected. BIMC 16.20.100.E.1 requires any proposed development or activity
requiring a site assessment review located within the R-2 zone to designate an ARPA.
The City determined, however, that only 3,617 square feet of the site would be required
to be retained in an ARPA and that the wetland and proposed buffer (which must be
maintained in perpetuity) already occupy a greater area than this. Accordingly, City staff
determined that designating an ARPA on-site would be unnecessary. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 13.
Reasonable Use Exception
12. The City code provides for a reasonable use exception (RUEX) where the City’s critical
areas ordinance (Chapter 16.20 BIMC) would deny all reasonable use of the property;
where there are no reasonable alternatives with less impact to the critical area or its
required buffer; where the proposal minimizes the impact through mitigation sequencing;
where the proposed impact is the minimum necessary; where the inability to derive
reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the Applicant; where the
proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development; where the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public
healt h, safety, or welfare on or off the property; and where any alterations are mitigated.
BIMC 16.20.080.
13. The Applicant proposes construction of a 1,200 square foot, single-family residence with
a 500 square foot driveway and on-site septic system. To minimize adverse impacts to
the wetland and buffer, the residence would be constructed in the southwestern corner of
the parcel. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would be employed to minimize
ground disturbance activity and excavation, especially within the wetland buffer.
Specifically, pin piles or piers would provide foundation support for the residence (as
opposed to slab-on-grade construction), resulting in minimal excavation and/or ground
disturbance within the wetland buffer. This would result in much of the residence being
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 6 of 16
cantilevered above the ground by 10 to 12 feet over the wetland buffer.3 No stairway or
direct access to the proposed wetland mitigation area, wetland buffer, or wetland would
be provided from the residence. Because the property is not located within the City’s
sewer service area, an on-site septic system would be installed south of the residence,
along with a septic drainfield, which would be installed in the southeast corner of the
property. The 16-foot “alley” where the septic system would be installed, between the
residence and the southern property line, would remain undeveloped to allow future
access to the septic drainfield. This site configuration would also allow for a staging area
along the southern property line during construction of the residence, and provide
additional privacy for the residence sited on the property to the south. As proposed, the
site layout would result in a reduction of the required wetland buffer from 40 to 25 feet.
As noted, however, much of the residence would actually be cantilevered above the
impacted buffer, minimizing buffer impacts. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 9 and 10;
Exhibit 7; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 19.
14. The Applicant would submit a Stormwater Site Plan for review and appro val prior to
development. Conceptually, the Applicant intends to use full-downspout infiltration,
combined with permeable pavement, in areas that support stormwater infiltration.
Surface stormwater from the driveway and parking surfaces would receive pre -treatment
prior to being discharged. All Hardscaping would be constructed of permeable materials
or contain wide permeable jointing, where feasible, to allow infiltration. Finally, diffuse
flow methods, including level spreaders, would be used to discharge bypass surface
stormwater from the adjoining property to the south into the wetland, to provide for
increased hydrological recharge. Exhibit 7.
15. Peter Corelis, the City’s Development Engineer, reviewed the proposal and determined
that it would be co nsistent with applicable stormwater regulations and that the proposal
would protect the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available
science as it pertains to the incorporation of LID techniques for the purpose of handling
of stormwater, retaining vegetation, and mimicking natural hydrology to the maximum
extent feasible. Furthermore, he determined that the site plan conforms to the City’s
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. Mr. Corelis recommended that
use of the minimal excavation foundation systems for portions of the structure within the
wetland buffer and treatment of stormwater (as proposed) be included as conditions of
approval for the RUEX. Exhibit 18.
3 Access to the residence would occur from the street level. The topography of the site is such that a flat
shelf exists on the southern portion of the property where the driveway, entrance to the residence, garage,
on -site septic system, and septic drainfield would be constructed. The topography then slopes north, at
between 32 and 14 percent grade, toward the wetland. The proposed residence would be cantilevered over
a portion of this slope. Exhibit 15.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 7 of 16
16. Todd Cunningham, the City’s Building Official, also reviewed the proposal. He noted
that the project must comply with the City’s construction codes, as adopted in Chapter
15.04 BMC, and that soils review would be required to ensure compliance with
provisions of Chapter 4 of the International Residential Co de. Exhibit 17.
17. AquaTerra prepared a Wetland Mitigation Plan, dated October 9, 2018, addressing
impacts that would result from reducing the 40-foot wetland buffer to 25 feet and
addressing the compensatory mitigation that would be necessary to ensure t he integrity,
function, and value of the Category IV wetland on-site and to ensure that no net loss of
wetland function would result from construction of a single-family residence. The
Wetland Mitigation Plan notes that much of the property, including the existing wetland
buffer, consists of non-native plant species, including English ivy and dead nettle.
Accordingly, to mitigate for permanent impacts to the wetland buffer from development
of a 1,200 square foot residence partially within the buffer area, the Applicant would:
Remove low-lying invasive vegetation throughout the site.
Add mulch to areas where invasives are removed to help prevent re-establishment
of invasive species and promote the growth of native species.
Install appropriate sedimentatio n and control measures, during construction, such
as silt fencing.
Restore 1,800 square feet of the remaining, degraded wetland buffer with native
vegetation.
Minimize light pollution by directing lights away from the wetland.
Minimize noise impacts by placing noise-generating equipment away from the
wetland.
Keep all toxic materials out of the wetland and its buffer.
Prevent materials and debris from entering the wetland and its buffer.
Keep noise and artificial light to a minimum.
Monitor the re-established area for no less than 7 years to ensure long-term
survival of installed vegetation.
Exhibit 10.
18. The Applicant submitted a project narrative addressing the criteria for a RUEX under
BIMC 16.20.080. The project narrative suggests that the proposal would meet the criteria
for a RUEX because:
The wetland and buffer encumber the majority of the property. Because of the
small size of the lot, other techniques such as buffer averaging would not be
sufficient to create a functional building envelope. Obt aining a RUEX is the only
way to create a buildable lot.
The proposal would minimize impacts on the wetland and buffer through
appropriate mitigation sequencing, including installation of low-impact fencing
between the residence and wetland buffer; selecting native plants for the
mitigation area that would provide light and noise screening; using elevated
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 8 of 16
walkways around the single-family residence within the wetland buffer area;
directing lights away from the wetland; utilizing a low-impact foundation design;
establishing covenants to avoid the use of pesticides on the property; dispersing
stormwater runoff from the adjacent parcel to the south into the wetland; and
utilizing full-downspout infiltration combined with permeable pavement to
provide on-site infiltration of stormwater.
The impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use
of the property. An alternative site design was considered that would have
entailed siting the residence approximately 5 feet from the southern prop erty line
and installing the on-site septic system to the north, within the wetland buffer.
This, though, would have required upwards of 700 cubic yards of fill to be placed
within the wetland buffer and mitigation area (to provide a level area for the
septic system) and would have significantly reduced the available size of the
mitigation area. Installation of retaining walls may also have been necessary
under the design alternative. In addition, no readily available construction staging
area would have been possible under the alternative site design. Based on these
considerations, the Applicant determined that the site layout, as proposed, would
allow reasonable use of the property with fewest impacts to the wetland buffer.
The wetland and buffer were existing conditions and not created by the Applicant
or the previous property owner.
One single-family residence would be built on the lot, and the residence would
have a total building footprint of no more than 1,200 square feet. The proposed
residence would be modest in scope and have the minimum necessary impacts on
the wetland buffer.
AquaTerra provided a mitigation plan that, to the maximum extent feasible,
mitigates the impacts on-site. Replanting native vegetation and removing
invasive vegetatio n would enhance the existing habitat. Implementation of the
mitigation plan, along with best management practices during construction, would
result in no net loss of critical area function and values.
The proposal would not pose an unreasonable threat t o public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the site and would be consistent with other building and zoning
regulations.
All other adjacent parcels have been developed. No adverse cumulative impacts
are anticipated from development of the site.
Exhibit 7.
19. City staff also analyzed the proposal for compliance with the RUEX criteria from BIMC
16.20.080 and generally concurred with the Applicant’s assessment. Staff specifically
noted:
The Applicant would not be able to develop the lot without the requested RUEX.
Lot coverage of 1,200 square feet is considered reasonable on lots encumbered by
critical areas or associated buffers.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 9 of 16
Given the small lot size, site topography, and the property’s location, there do not
appear to be any other reasonable alternatives to the proposed use that would
achieve the same purpose for the Applicant with less impact to the critical area
buffer.
The proposal minimizes impacts on the wetland buffer in accordance with
mitigation sequencing requirements under BIMC 16.20.030. Specifically: the
residence would be located outside of the wetland itself and in the outermost
portion of the wetland buffer; the proposal avoids the use of fill and/or retaining
walls by placing the septic system on the flat, southern portion of the site; the
project avoids grading within the wetland buffer by incorporating natural
topography into the site design; the proposal includes a garage as part of the 1,200
square foot SFR, which would help minimize pollutant runoff; a low impact
approach would be used to minimize ground disturbance and excavations; the
residence would be cantilevered over the wetland buffer, minimizing impacts;
fencing and signing would be provided along the wetland buffer edge, to prevent
encroachment; light would be direct away from the wetland and buffer and the
Applicant would establish covenants to restrict the use of pesticides on-site;
invasive species would be removed from the site; enhancement of an 1,800 square
foot mitigation area would be provided; and site monitoring would occur for at
least 7 years.
The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow
reasonable use of the property. The City considers a 1,200 square foot building
envelope as reasonable when a lot is encumbered by critical areas, provided
enough mitigation is proposed to adequately compensate for impacts. Site
alternatives were considered and deemed infeasible.
The inability of the Applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the
result of actions by the Applicant or the Applicant’s predecessor.
Proposed total lot coverage would not exceed 1,200 square feet.
The proposal would not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare on or off the property.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 10 through 16.
Testimony
20. City Planner Annie Hillier testified generally about the property and the process of
reviewing the proposal. She noted that the wetland and buffer cover the majority of the
property and that the request to allow the construction of a single-family residence on the
lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Ms. Hillier explained that the
proposed single-family residence would be sited as far south as possible, away from the
wetland on-site, while still allowing for an appropriate buffer with the residence to the
south and an adequate area for an on-site septic system and septic drainfield. She also
explained that a 1,200 square foot residence is equivalent to others in the area and is the
maximum the BIMC allows through a RUEX. Ms. Hillier noted that the slopes on-site
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 10 of 16
do not meet the definition for geologically hazardous or steep slopes. She also noted that
a final mitigation plan must be submitted that specifically addresses the wetland functions
and values and how the proposed mitigation would impact these functions and values.
Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
21. Applicant Representative Richard Langendoen testified that the Applicant looked at
several possible site configurations and determined, ultimately, that the curr ent proposal
would have the fewest impacts on the wetland and its buffer. He explained that the site
layout would allow perpetual access to the septic drainfield, through the 16 -foot setback
between the residence and southern property line, and that the same area would provide a
construction staging area and privacy for the property to the south. Mr. Langendoen
stressed that low-impact development techniques would be emphasized, including
cantilevering much of the single-family residence above the wetland buffer, and that best
management practices would be used during construction. He also noted that hydrologic
recharge would occur on-site in that diffusers would be installed to capture and divert
rainwater into the wetland buffer. Testimony of Mr. Langendoen.
22. Area resident Steve Christensen testified that he owns property to the north and does not
object to the proposal but wanted to ensure that stormwater from the proposal would not
impact his own property and that discharged stormwater would be appropriately treated
prior to discharge. Testimony of Mr. Christensen.
23. Danielle Gordon, who lives south of the property, testified that she is concerned the
development will impact the privacy of her own property, based on the proposed location
of the residence. She noted that the project would seem to have significant impacts on
the wetland and believes developing the property would negatively impact quality of life
in the neighborhood. Testimony of Ms. Gordon.
24. Mr. Langendoen testified in response to Mr. Christensen’s concerns and stressed that
stormwater from the proposal would have no additional impacts on adjoining properties
because all stormwater would be infiltrated on-site and post-development conditions
would mimic pre-development conditions. He further noted that discharged stormwater
would likely be of higher quality than currently exists. In response to Ms. Gordon’s
concerns, Mr. Langendoen noted that the Applicant takes quality of life issues seriously
and would take measures to ensure t hat impacts to the southern property are limited but
impacts from construction would be temporary. He stressed, however, that protection of
the wetland and buffer is considered a priority under the municipal code and that has
dictated where the proposed residence would be located. Mr. Langendoen also explained
that the inhabited portion of the home would be focused toward the north and that any
windows on the south side of the residence, facing south, would actually be located in the
garage. He noted that existing vegetation along the south property line could be retained
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 11 of 16
but access to the septic drainfield to the east must be retained in perpetuity. Testimony of
Mr. Langendoen.
25. Applicant Mercury Michael testified that he has no intention of impairing the privacy of
adjacent property owners. He intends to build a fence between the property lines but
would be happy to explore installing a vegetative buffer , such as with bamboo, instead.
Mr. Michael stressed that the house is oriented toward the north (i.e., the garage is sited
on the south), which would further ensure privacy between the two residences.
Testimony of Mr. Michael.
Staff Recommendation
26. Ms. Hillier testified that City staff recommends approval of the application, with
conditions. Mr. Langendoen testified that the Applicant would adhere to the conditions
of approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13 through 15; Testimony of Ms. Hillier;
Testimony of Mr. Langendoen.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has authority to hear and approve, approve with conditions, deny, or
remand a request for a reasonable use exception. BIMC 2.14.030; BIMC 2.16.100; BIMC
16.20.080.E.
Criteria for Review
Criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions are as follows:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property;
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the
critical area or its required buffer;
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
5. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is
not the result of actions by the app licant, or of the applicant’s predecessor,
that occurred after February 20, 1992;
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for
residential development;
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off the property;
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance
with mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 12 of 16
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent wit h
the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area
functions and values;
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
BIMC 16.20.080.F.
The criteria for review adopted by the City of Bainbridge Island City Council are designed to
implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In
particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed de velopment to
ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level
of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.
Conclusions Based on Findings
With conditions, the proposal would comply with the reasonable use exception criteria of
BIMC 16.20.080.F. The City provided reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on the
application. The City determined that the proposal was exempt from SEPA review. A wetland
and wetland buffer cover the majority of the Applicant’s property to the extent that strict
application of the City’s critical areas ordinances would deny all reasonable use of the property.
Neither the City nor public comments suggested any alternative uses for the property. The
Applicant is proposing lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. The Applicant submitted a wetland
delineation and a mitigation plan setting out mitigation sequencing that would minimize the
impact on critical areas. The mitigation plan also det ermined that the proposal would be the
minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Alternative site plans were
considered but the Applicant, the Applicant’s consultants, and City staff determined that the
present proposal would have the few est impacts on the wetland and its buffer. The lot was
created prior to the adoption of the City’s critical area ordinances and is not the result of any
action of the Applicant .
The Applicant proposes construction of a 1,200 square foot, single -family residence with a 500
square foot driveway and on-site septic system. To minimize adverse impacts to the wetland and
buffer, the residence would be constructed in the southwestern corner of the parcel. Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques would be employed to minimize ground disturbance activity and
excavation, especially within the wetland buffer. Specifically, pin piles or piers would provide
foundation support for the residence (as opposed to slab-on-grade construction), resulting in
minimal excavat ion and/or ground disturbance within the wetland buffer. This would result in
much of the residence being cantilevered above the ground by 10 to 12 feet over the wetland
buffer. No stairway or direct access to the proposed wetland mitigation area, wetland buffer, or
wetland would be provided from the residence. Because the property is not located within the
City’s sewer service area, an on-site septic system would be installed south of the residence,
along with a septic drainfield, which would be installed in the southeast corner of the property.
The 16-foot “alley” where the septic system would be installed, between the residence and the
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 13 of 16
southern property line, would remain undeveloped to allow future access to the septic drainfield.
This site configuration would also allow for a staging area along the southern property line
during construction of the residence, and provide additional privacy for the residence sited on the
property to the south. As proposed, the site layout would result in a reduction of the required
wetland buffer from 40 to 25 feet. As noted, however, much of the residence would actually be
cantilevered above the impacted buffer, minimizing buffer impacts.
The Applicant’s mitigation plan contains monitoring and contingency plans, along with
enhancement of the remaining wetland buffer. The City determined that the wetland delineation
and mitigation plan are based on the best available science and would result in no net loss of
critical area functions and values. The mitigation plan addressed the cumulative impacts of the
proposed development and determined that there would be no negative cumulative impacts if the
request is approved.
Conditions are necessary, including those to ensure that work is completed in substantial
compliance with submitted plans; construction limits are temporarily fenced; a split -rail fence is
installed along the edge of the wetland buffer; appropriate signs are installed on the split -rail
fence; a final mitigation plan is submitted for approval; all mitig ation plantings are installed; that
a maintenance assurance device is provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
that the Applicant record a notice of title regarding the presence of the wetland; that no refuse is
placed in the wetland buffer; that stormwater on-site is appropriately managed; and that the
project complies with relevant construction, building, and fire codes. Findings 1 – 26.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a reasonable use exc eption to
allow the construction of a single-family residence, with associated improvements, on a vacant
unaddressed lot off of Euclid Avenue NE containing a wetland and wetland buffer, is
APPROVED, with the following conditions:4
1. Work shall be completed in substantial compliance with the design and specifications
included in the RUE file, including:
a. Utilization of a minimal excavation foundation system per the 2012 Low Impact
Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound for the portion of the structure
within the wetland buffer. Negligible fill and/or ground disturbance shall occur
within the wetland buffer and building setback.
b. Cantilevering the portion of the SFR that is located within wetland buffer
approximately 10-12 feet over the ground surface, wit h no stairway or other direct
access to the wetland buffer.
4 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts of this proposed project as well as
conditions required by City code.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 14 of 16
c. Limiting the removal of significant trees to those identified in the narrative (4 red
alder trees located outside of the wetland buffer) and minimizing the removal of
native vegetation. Significant trees in the vicinity of the construction area shall be
clearly marked on the site plan, with those proposed for removal clearly labeled.
d. Locating construction staging outside of the wetland buffer.
e. Establishing covenants to restrict the use of pesticides, as well as herbicides or
fertilizers on the project site.
f. Implementing the proposed minimization steps included on pages 3-5 of the
Revised Narrative (Exhibit 7) under “Proposed Site Development.”
2. Prior to the issuance of any permits for development, vegetation removal, land clearing,
or grading, the Applicant shall have the construction limits temporarily fenced. The
construction limits shall be minimized to the extent practicable within the wetland buffer.
The fence shall be clearly marked on any construction or clearing plans submitted with
the building permit application. The fence shall be made of durable material and shall be
highly visible. The fence shall be inspected as part of the required permits. The
temporary fencing shall be removed once the construction activity is complete and
replaced with permanent fencing (see condition #3, below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the wetland buffer, a maximum
of 5 feet away from the SFR. 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 on the building permit.
4. A minimum of two signs indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be
placed on the fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit. Signs shall be made
of metal or a similar durable material and shall be between 64 and 144 square inches in
size.
5. A final mitigation plan shall be submitted and appr oved prior to the issuance of any
permits for development, vegetation removal, land clearing, or grading. The final
mitigation plan shall be updated to address the criteria under BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b,
Environmental Goals and Objectives, including:
a. Identification of functions and values; a complete description of the relationship
between and among structures and functions sought;
b. Review of available literature and/or known like projects to date in restoring or
creating the type of critical area proposed;
c. Likelihood of success of the proposed compensation project at duplicating the
original critical area; and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 15 of 16
d. Likelihood of the ability of the created or restored critical area to provide the
functions and values of the original critical area.
e. The final mit igation plan may need to be amended to meet the conditions of the
City Development Engineer, if a dispersion trench is located within the buffer
(Condition 12, below).
6. The mitigation plan shall clarify the area in which invasive species will be removed.
Consideration shall be given to removing invasive species throughout the project site to
the maximum extent practicable, to improve the likelihood of success of the mitigation
plan. If this is deemed infeasible, justification must be provided and the like lihood of
success must be discussed. Any bare areas after invasive species removal shall be
replanted with native vegetation, in addition to the native species proposed to be planted
with the 1,800 sq. ft. mitigation area. Consideration shall also be given to removing the
English laurel on the site, and any other invasive species that may be present.
7. All mitigation plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an
assurance device shall be provided in accordance BIMC 16.20.160.
8. The final mitigation plan shall include performance standards based on the goals and
objectives identified in the revised plan. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the
City by December 31st of each monitored year, for 7 consecutive years.
9. If the performance standards in the mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval.
Any additional permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained
prior implementing the contingency plan.
10. The Applicant shall submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of the building
permits, documenting the presence of the critical area onsite with the Kitsap County
Auditor. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a critical
area buffer and the application of this chapter to the property, and shall provide notice
that limitations on actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The notice must be
recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.
11. No refuse, including but not limited to household trash, yard waste and
commercial/industrial refuse, shall be placed in the buffer.
12. The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer:
a. The minimal excavation foundation system proposed shall conform to the
definition as cited in the City’s adopted LID manual, published as the 2012 Low
Impact Development Guidance Manual For Puget Sound, and shall contain a
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Michael Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51139 RUE
Page 16 of 16
combination of driven piles and connecting components at, or above grade and
allow the foundation system to engage deeper load-bearing soils without having a
to dig out and disrupt upper soil layers.
b. Surface stormwater from the proposed structure and from the adjacent propert y to
the south shall discharge and disperse at a location and in a manner consistent
with BMP T5.10B – Downspout Dispersion Systems. A dispersion trench is
required where less than 50 feet of vegetative flow path is provided. Trenches
shall be placed as far upland from the wetland as feasible, but no closer than 10
feet downgradient from the reserve on-site septic field. Individual splash blocks
may be utilized where the vegetative flow path is at least 50 feet downgradient of
the discharge locations.
13. The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City
Building Official:
a. The project shall comply with the City of Bainbridge Island construction codes as
adopted by Chapter 15.04 BIMC.
b. A soils review is required for the project to ensure compliance with the provisions
of Chapter 4 of the International Residential Code.
Decided this 25th day of April 2019.
ANDREW M. REEVES
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center
EXHIBIT LIST
Euclid House RUE
PLN51139 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing:
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Staff Report Dated
4/11/19
2 Application (revised) Received
12/19/19
3 Owner/Agent Agreement Received
08/16/18
4 Preapplication Summary Dated
05/15/18
5 Notice of Incomplete Application Dated
09/07/19
6 Applicant Response to Notice of Incomplete Application Received
12/19/18
7 Revised Project Narrative Dated
12/19/18
8 Site Plan Dated
11/28/18
9 Wetland Delineation Report (revised) Received
03/06/19
10 Wetland Mitigation Plan (revised) Dated
10/09/18
11 Emails re: Buffer Modification Various
12 Notice of Complete Application with Information Request Dated
01/02/19
13 Notice of Application with Hearing Date Published
01/11/19
14 Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting Various
15 Response to Information Request - RUE Alternatives Assessment Received
01/22/19
16 Public Comment Received
01/31/19
17 City Development Engineering Comment Dated
03/19/19
18 City Building Official Comment Dated
02/05/19
19 Planner Power Point Presentation Admitted
04/11/19
20 Public Comment D. Gordon Admitted
04/11/19
21
22
23
24
EXHIBIT LIST
Euclid House RUE
PLN51139 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing:
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT LIST
Euclid House RUE
PLN51139 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing:
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Staff Report Dated
4/11/19
2 Application (revised) Received
12/19/19
3 Owner/Agent Agreement Received
08/16/18
4 Preapplication Summary Dated
05/15/18
5 Notice of Incomplete Application Dated
09/07/19
6 Applicant Response to Notice of Incomplete Application Received
12/19/18
7 Revised Project Narrative Dated
12/19/18
8 Site Plan Dated
11/28/18
9 Wetland Delineation Report (revised) Received
03/06/19
10 Wetland Mitigation Plan (revised) Dated
10/09/18
11 Emails re: Buffer Modification Various
12 Notice of Complete Application with Information Request Dated
01/02/19
13 Notice of Application with Hearing Date Published
01/11/19
14 Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting Various
15 Response to Information Request - RUE Alternatives Assessment Received
01/22/19
16 Public Comment Received
01/31/19
17 City Development Engineering Comment Dated
03/19/19
18 City Building Official Comment Dated
02/05/19
19 Planner Power Point Presentation Admitted
04/11/19
20 Public Comment D. Gordon Admitted
04/11/19
21
22
23
24
1
Exhibit 1
Department of Planning and Community Development
Staff Report
Project Euclid House RUE
File No. PLN51139 RUE
Date April 11, 2019
To City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Project Manager Annie Hillier, Planner
Request The request is for a reasonable use exception (RUE) on a lot that contains a
category IV wetland and associated buffer, for the development of a single-
family residence.
Address **no situs address**, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tax Assessor # 41670000240003
Environmental Review The project is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i).
Hearing Examiner Review
The hearing examiner shall review the reasonable use exception (RUE) application and conduct a public
hearing pursuant to the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal’s compliance with the RUE review criteria
discussed below.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the RUE, with conditions.
2
Part I: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The proposal is for a single-family residence (SFR) and associated driveway and septic facilities. The
applicant requests a reasonable use exception (RUE) to develop the property, as the parcel is
significantly covered by a category IV wetland and its associated buffer. To mitigate for impacts to the
wetland buffer, the applicant proposes enhancement in the remaining buffer on-site. Four red alder
trees, 13 to 16 inches at diameter breast height, will be removed, all of which are located outside of the
wetland buffer.
As conditioned, the project meets the eleven decision criteria for RUE review and approval in BIMC
16.20.080.F.
Figure 1 – Site Plan
3
Part II: GENERAL INFORMATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Assessor’s Record Information:
Tax lot number 41670000240003
Owner of record Larry R. Pritchard
Lot size 0.37 acres (16,117.2 sq. ft.)
Terrain:
The topography generally slopes to the north and east, with a total vertical relief of about 14 feet.
Site Development:
The site is undeveloped.
Access:
The site is accessed off of E Euclid Ave. NE.
Public Services:
Police City of Bainbridge Island Police Department
Fire Bainbridge Island Fire District
Schools Bainbridge Island School District
Water Port Madison Water Co.
Sewer n/a – septic proposed
Surrounding Uses:
Surrounding uses are primarily single-family residential, except the Port Madison Water Co. owns
several properties nearby.
Existing Zoning:
The site is zoned R-2 (2 units per acre).
Surrounding Zoning:
The surrounding zoning is R-2 (2 units per acre) and R-1 (1 unit per acre).
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as a Residential District area.
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the surrounding area as a Residential District area.
4
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map, Aerial Image, and Zoning:
Part III: APPLICATION BACKGROUND
Date: Action:
May 8, 2018 Preapplication conference held
May 15, 2018 Preapplication summary sent to applicant (Exhibit 4), including comments
from Development Engineering
August 16, 2018 Original application for RUE submitted, then resubmitted on 12/19/19 with
revision to project contacts (Exhibit 2)
September 7, 2018 Application deemed incomplete (Exhibit 5)
December 19, 2018 Applicant submitted responses to Notice of Incomplete Application (Exhibit 6)
January 2, 2019 Application deemed complete, and information request sent (Exhibit 12)
5
January 11, 2019 Notice of Application with hearing date published (Exhibit 13)
January 22, 2019 Applicant submitted response to information request (Exhibit 15)
Part IV: PUBLIC COMMENTS (1 total) (Exhibit 16) Note: an additional comment was received after the
end of the comment period on February 1, 2019; the additional comment is available in the project file.
Questions/concerns raised:
One commenter expressed concern about the location of the proposed SFR relative to his home, and
suggested that the septic system be placed on the south side of the proposed SFR to allow for more
space between structures. The commenter also stated that the proposal does not seem like the best
ecological choice.
Staff Response: The proposed SFR is located 16 feet from the shared lot line to the south, and the
septic system is proposed between the SFR and the lot line, as suggested by the commenter. The
mitigation plan concludes that the proposal will result in no net loss of wetland function, as required
under by the City’s critical areas ordinance (BIMC 16.20). The granting of an RUE balances private
property rights with necessary and reasonable regulation to protect the island’s designated critical
areas.
Part V: AGENCY COMMENT
Agency: Action:
Fire District Approved, no conditions
City Development
Engineering
Approved, with conditions (Condition 12, Exhibit 17)
City Building Official Approved, with conditions (Condition 13, Exhibit 18)
Part VI: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
The project aligns with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies:
1. Environmental Element
Policy EN 1.2: Taking into account the present and future need to reduce the potential for
personal injury, loss of life, or property damage due to flooding, erosion, landslides, seismic
events, climate change or soil subsidence, properties adjoining or adjacent to critical areas must
be developed in observance of the following principles in descending order: [see mitigation
sequencing, below].
Staff response: The proposal utilizes mitigation sequencing, as described below. Steps taken to
avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts are described in review criteria #3 for RUE
approval.
Policy EN 4.1: Employ conservation design methods and principles such as low impact
development techniques for managing storm and waste water, green building materials, high-
efficiency heating and lighting systems.
Staff response: The proposal includes a low-impact foundation design, which will reduce soil
disturbance and storm-water impacts on the site.
Policy EN 5.6: Protect wetlands and riparian areas.
6
Staff response: The applicant is proposing to enhance a wetland buffer. The SFR will be
cantilevered above the wetland buffer and will not encroach on the wetland edge. A fence will
be installed to prevent intrusion into the wetland and buffer.
2. Land Use Element
Policy LU 14.1: The Residential District area is designated for less intensive residential
development and a variety of agricultural and forestry uses.
Staff response: The proposal is for a single-family residence with limited lot coverage.
Part VII: LAND USE CODE ANALYSIS
The following Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations apply to the proposal:
1. BIMC Title 18 Zoning
A. 18.06.020 Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 zone is to provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with
special Island character consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and
the preservation of natural systems and open space, at a somewhat higher density than the
R-1 district.
Staff response: The proposal is for the construction of one home and the preservation of the
wetland buffer outside of the area impacted by the development and as conditioned by the
project.
B. 18.09.020 Permitted Uses
Single-family dwellings, and accessory uses and buildings to single family residences, are
permitted uses in the R-2 zone.
Staff response: The request is for the construction of a single-family residence, a permitted
use in this zone.
C. 18.12.010 Dimensional Standards
Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions
The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 20,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth and
width of 80 feet.
Staff response: The lot area is 16,117.2 sq. ft. The lot width and depth are approximately 110
ft. The lot is nonconforming to minimum lot area for the R-2 zoning designation. Pursuant to
BIMC 18.30.050, any nonconforming single lot, tract or parcel of land that was lawfully
created and recorded with the county auditor’s office may be used for the purposes
permitted by this title notwithstanding the minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth
required.
Maximum Lot Coverage
The maximum allowed lot coverage is 20% in R-2 zoning.
Staff response: The maximum lot coverage allowed on the lot is 3,223.44 sq. ft. However,
the maximum allowed lot coverage for RUEs is 1,200 sq. ft.
7
Setbacks
In R-2 zoning, the front yard setback is 25 feet. Side setbacks are 5 ft. min, 15 ft. total. The
rear setback is 15 feet.
Staff response: The applicant is proposing a 25 ft. front setback, and a 16 ft. setback from
the south, side lot line. The north side setback and rear setback exceed the standard
setbacks.
D. BIMC 18.15.020 Parking and Loading
Residential dwelling units are required to provide two spaces for each primary dwelling.
Staff response: The applicant is proposing a garage and driveway that will accommodate two
parking spaces for the dwelling.
2. BIMC Title 16 Environment
The wetland delineation report submitted with the application (Exhibit 9) identifies a category IV
wetland on the north side of the subject property. The impact of land use is considered
moderate, therefore the wetland requires a 40 ft. buffer by BIMC. The 40 ft. buffer consists
mostly of herbaceous vegetation and groundcover. The wetland area contains forested canopy.
English ivy and nettle, invasive species, are also identified in the report as present on the site.
Figure 3 – Wetland and buffer
8
A. BIMC 16.20.080 Reasonable Use Exceptions
Applicability and Intent
An applicant may request an RUE pursuant to BIMC 16.20.080.A when a site assessment
review pursuant to BIMC 15.20 or a pre-application conference demonstrates that: 1. The
subject property is encumbered to such an extent by critical areas and/or critical area
buffers that application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the subject
property; 2. Reasonable use of the subject property cannot be achieved through Buffer
Modification (BIMC 16.20.110 and 140) or a Habitat Management Plan (BIMC 16.20.110);
and 3. Alternatives to development through an RUE are not available or acceptable.
Staff response: The wetland and buffer cover approximately 2/3s of the subject property.
Buffer modification allows the buffer to be reduced up to 25 percent of its required width.
The applicant attempted to reduce the buffer by 25 percent but found that this would not
provide a reasonable building area that also provides the required 15 ft. setback from the
buffer (Exhibit 11). A Habitat Management Plan is a report that evaluates measures
necessary to maintain, enhance and improve terrestrial and/or aquatic habitat on a
proposed development site, and is not applicable to the development proposal or site. The
only way for the applicant to develop the site with the proposed SFR is through a reasonable
use exception.
Reasonable Use Review Criteria
The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on
the proposal’s compliance with all of the RUE review criteria described below.
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property;
Staff response: The applicant evaluated buffer modification and found that the resulting
building area would not be large enough to accommodate the proposed development,
while also providing the required 15 ft. setback from the reduced buffer edge. Without
an RUE, application of the critical areas ordinance would not provide a building envelop
large enough to accommodate a 1,200 sq. ft. SFR.
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area or
its required buffer;
Staff response: Single-family residential development is permitted in the R-2 zoning
district. Other permitted uses in the same zoning district, such as a passive recreation
park, may have less impact to the critical area buffer. However, given the small lot size,
the steep-sloping topography into the wetland, and property’s location, which offers no
unique viewpoints or specific recreational opportunities, such a use would not be a
reasonable alternative to a single-family residence. There do not appear to be any other
reasonable alternatives to the proposed use that would achieve the same purpose for
the applicant with less impact to the critical area buffer. A reasonable alternative to the
proposal might also be an SFR with less impact to the critical area or buffer, which is
evaluated below under review criteria #4.
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
9
Staff response:
Avoiding impacts
• The SFR is located outside of the wetland and in the outermost portion of the
buffer.
• The proposal avoids the use of fill and/or retaining walls by placing the septic
system on the flat, southern portion of the site (described in Exhibit 15).
• The project avoids grading within the wetland buffer by incorporating natural
topography into the site design.
Minimizing impacts
• The proposal includes a garage located within the SFR, which will minimize
pollutant runoff.
• The proposal includes incorporation of a Low Impact Development (LID) approach
to minimize ground disturbance and excavations.
• The SFR will be cantilevered over the wetland buffer with no stairway or other
direct access to the wetland mitigation area, buffer, or wetland, which minimizes
the potential for intrusion.
• Temporary construction entrances and access roads will be comprised of inert
materials. Recycled concrete will be prohibited.
• The proposal includes fencing and signage along the wetland buffer edge, to
prevent encroachment.
• The proposal includes directing lights away from the wetland and establishing
covenants to restrict the use of pesticides.
Additional minimization steps are documented on pages 3-5 under “Proposed Site
Development” in the Revised Project Narrative (Exhibit 7). The project is required to
implement these steps as proposed, unless otherwise stated in the written findings,
conclusions, and conditions.
Rectifying impacts
There are no opportunities to repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected
environment as the project represents a permanent impact to the buffer.
Reducing or eliminating impacts
The project cannot reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and
maintenance, as the project represents a permanent impact to the buffer.
Compensating
• The proposal includes the removal of invasive species. However, it is not clear
from the proposal if invasives will be removed throughout the buffer or only in
the replanting area. Staff recommends that invasives be removed throughout the
entire buffer, in order to prevent re-establishment. (Condition 6)
• Enhancement with native species is proposed in an 1,800 sq. ft. area of buffer,
between the proposed SFR and the wetland.
Monitoring the impact
The proposal includes monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of seven
years.
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property;
10
Staff response: The project proposes to impact approximately 20% of the onsite wetland
buffer (in the area to the west and south of the wetland), but will be cantilevered above
the ground surface within this area. Staff asked the applicant to consider reversing the
orientation of the septic tanks and SFR, to move the SFR even farther away from the
buffer edge. As described in Exhibit 15, the applicant concluded that this would impact
more of the wetland buffer, as approximately 700 cubic yards of fill and possible
retaining walls would be necessary to support the septic tanks and SFR, due to the
sloping topography of the site. The original proposal, which includes an LID foundation
system and the septic system located on the flattest portion of the site, appears to
present the least impact to the wetland buffer.
A smaller SFR may result in less impact to the critical area. However, the underlying
zoning supports the proposed size of the SFR, which is limited to 1,200 square feet. The
City has considered an SFR of 1,200 square feet reasonable for a lot that is encumbered
by critical areas, provided enough mitigation is proposed to adequately compensate for
impacts.
An SFR located closer to the right-of-way – for example, with a front setback reduced to
5 ft. – may also have less impact to the wetland buffer, as an even smaller portion of the
SFR would be cantilevered over the wetland buffer edge. Such a proposal would require
a zoning variance in addition to an RUE. However, staff did not recommend that the
applicant apply for a zoning variance, based on the Hearing Examiner’s decision for
another RUE (Olsen RUE, PLN51183 RUE), where the applicant testified that although a
variance from the front yard setback might be possible, the cost was excessive, and the
front yard play area would be reduced. In this instance, the City had recommended that
the applicant seek a zoning variance as one way to significantly reduce the overall
impact area, per the Department of Ecolo gy’s guidance on impact avoidance and
minimization. The Hearing Examiner’s decision upheld the applicant’s proposal, which
included other means of reducing impacts such as shifting the house one foot away
from the wetland edge and removing a boardwalk in order to reduce the impact area.
For this application, the Euclid House RUE, the applicant is proposing to reduce impacts
by limiting the amount of fill and ground disturbance within the wetland buffer, and
locating the majority of the SFR and the driveway completely outside of the buffer.
5. 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;
Staff response: 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. The wetland and buffer were likely present before the
current owner purchased the site in 1985.
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development;
Staff response: Under BIMC 18.12.050, Rules of Measurement, lot coverage means that
portion of the total lot area covered by buildings, excluding up to 24 inches of eaves on
each side of the building, any building or portion of building located below
predevelopment and finished grade. Any portion of a slatted or solid deck located more
11
than five feet above grade shall be counted towards lot coverage. The proposed total lot
coverage is 1,200 square feet.
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property;
Staff response: As conditioned, the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the property (Conditions 1-13).
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
Staff response: Wetland mitigation plan requirements are provided in BIMC
16.20.180.G. Note that a replanting ratio of 1.5:1 is not required, as stated in the
mitigation plan. Rather, the mitigation plan is required to contain goals and objectives
that are related to the functions and values of the original critical area, in accordance
with BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b. As described in the mitigation report, “much of the existing
buffer consists of non-native plant species, English ivy (Herdera helix) and dead nettle
(Lamium galeobdolon).” However, a discussion of the functions and values of the
original critical area is not provided.
To compensate for the impact to the wetland buffer, the applicant is proposing to
remove invasive vegetation on the site, and to install native vegetation within an 1,800
sq. ft. area. While this may be adequate to compensate for the loss of wetland buffer
function, it is not clear from the mitigation plan what those functions are. It is also not
clear in what area the invasive species will be removed – the entire buffer and wetland,
or only in the replanting area. Staff also observed a significant amount of English laurel
on the site, an invasive species that is not identified in the mitigation plan.
To meet all of the environmental goals and objectives under BIMC 16.20.180.G, the
following conditions should be required:
• A final mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of
any permits for development, vegetation removal, land clearing, or grading. The
final mitigation plan shall address the criteria under BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b,
Environmental Goals and Objectives, including: identification of functions and
values; a complete description of the relationship between and among
structures and functions sought; review of available literature and/or known like
projects to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed;
likelihood of success of the proposed compensation project at duplicating the
original critical area; and likelihood of the ability of the created or restored
critical area to provide the functions and values of the original critical area.
(Condition 5)
• The final mitigation plan shall clarify the area in which invasives species will be
removed. Consideration shall be given to removing invasive species throughout
the project site to the maximum extent practicable, to improve the likelihood of
success of the mitigation plan. If this is deemed infeasible, justification must be
provided and the likelihood of success must be discussed. Any bare areas after
invasive species removal shall be replanted with native vegetation, in addition
to the native species proposed to be planted with the 1,800 sq. ft. mitigation
12
area. Consideration shall also be given to removing the English laurel on the
site, and any other invasive species that may be present. (Condition 6)
Figure 4 – Mitigation proposal
13
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values;
Staff response: The mitigation plan does not identify the functions and values of the
original critical area. However, the protection measures proposed and conditioned are
consistent with best available science. The mitigation plan also concludes that the
proposal will result in no net loss of critical area functions and values, but supporting
analysis is not provided. If Condition 5 is upheld by the Hearing Examiner, it will be clear
which functions and values are protected by the proposal and how no net loss of those
functions and values will be achieved.
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action;
Staff response: Cumulative impacts are the combined effects on the environment
caused by past, current, and future activities. The proposal addresses, and is
conditioned to address, cumulative impacts by siting and designing the development to
have a minimal impact on the critical area and mitigating for any permanent loss of
buffer function. Future impacts are addressed by ensuring that mitigation areas will be
maintained in perpetuity and monitored for success, and by taking measures to prevent
future encroachment into the critical area by installing fencing along the buffer
(Condition 3).
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
Staff response: The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and
standards of the BIMC. An analysis of these regulations and standards is provided
throughout the staff report.
B. BIMC 16.20.100 Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA)
Aquifer recharge areas are areas that have a critical recharging effect on groundwater used
for potable water supplies and/or that demonstrate a high level of susceptibility or
vulnerability to groundwater contamination from land use activities. In accordance with
WAC 365-190-100, the entirety of Bainbridge Island is classified as an aquifer recharge area
to preserve the volume of recharge available to the aquifer system and to protect
groundwater from contamination.
Staff response: Pursuant to BIMC 16.20.100.E.2.b, the ARPA shall include all existing native
vegetation on a site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total site area. A lower
percentage is allowed if necessary to achieve a development area of at least 12,500 square
feet on a parcel. The lot is 16,117.2 square feet in size. With an allowed development area
of at least 12,500 square feet, only 3,617.2 square feet would be required to be retained in
the ARPA. The wetland and buffer occupy more than this area and must be protected and
maintained in perpetuity (Condition 10), therefore designating a second and smaller ARPA is
unnecessary.
C. BIMC 16.20.140 Wetlands
Wetland Buffers
Buffer widths are based on wetland category, scores for habitat functions on the rating
form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. A 15-foot structure or hard surface
setback is also required from the edge of any wetland buffer. Any other buffer modification
14
resulting in a reduced buffer area, other than noncompensatory enhancement or buffer
modification, requires a Reasonable Use Exception pursuant to BIMC 16.20.080.
Staff response: The wetland is a category IV wetland with a low level of function for habitat
and a moderate impact of land use. The required buffer is 40 ft. The proposal results in a
reduced buffer area and is appropriately requesting an RUE.
Fencing and Signs
Wetland buffers shall be temporarily fenced or otherwise suitably marked between the area
where the construction activity occurs and the buffer. Fences shall be made of a durable
protective barrier and shall be highly visible. Silt fences and plastic construction fences may
be used to prevent encroachment on wetlands or their buffers by construction. Temporary
fencing shall be removed after the site work has been completed and the site is fully
stabilized per city approval.
Staff response: The project is conditioned to provide temporary fencing prior to
commencing construction and to maintain the fencing until the work is complete and site is
fully stabilized (Condition 2).
The director may require that permanent signs and/or fencing be placed on the common
boundary between a wetland buffer and the adjacent land. Such signs will identify the
wetland buffer. The director may approve an alternate method of wetland and buffer
identification, if it provides adequate protection to the wetland and buffer.
Staff response: Permanent fencing and signs are proposed by the applicant. Fencing shall be
installed along the buffer edge, and shall be a maximum of 5 feet from the proposed
residence. Fencing shall be indicated on building permit plans. (Conditions 3 and 4)
Wetland Mitigation Requirements
All development, uses and activities proposed to impact wetlands shall be mitigated
according to this section and the mitigation sequencing steps outlined in BIMC 16.20.030.
The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that each step of
mitigation sequencing has been adequately addressed prior to approval of impacts to
wetlands.
Staff response: As described above, the mitigation plan is required to contain goals and
objectives that are related to the functions and values of the original critical area. The
project is conditioned to meet this requirement (Condition 5). The project also adequately
utilizes mitigation sequencing and is conditioned to further minimize impacts to the buffer.
A wetland critical areas report and wetland mitigation plan is required to address impacts to
the wetland and associated buffer. Compensatory mitigation may occur at the site of the
allowed impacts or at an off-site location.
Staff response: A wetland delineation report (Exhibit 9) and wetland mitigation plan (Exhibit
10) have been provided. The mitigation plan proposes on-site mitigation in the form of
buffer enhancement. It appears that on-site mitigation is feasible, although a final mitigation
plan shall be submitted prior to site development (Condition 5).
The City shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of five years and
up to 10 years, or until the director determines the mitigation project has met the
performance standards specified in the wetland mitigation plan. The wetland mitigation
15
plan shall provide specific performance standards for monitoring the mitigation project.
Performance standards shall be project-specific and use best available science to aid the
director in evaluating whether or not the project has achieved success.
Staff response: The monitoring plan proposes a seven-year monitoring period. Reports will
be submitted to the City by December 31st of each monitored year. It is not clear that the
performance standards are project specific, which include monitoring the survival rate of all
planted vegetation and invasive species. The final mitigation plan shall include performance
standards based on the goals and objectives identified in the revised plan. (Condition 8)
Consideration should be given to performance standards that are specific to controlling the
particular species of invasive plants on this site, survival rates of specific species to be
installed, and percent cover by native species, for example. Previously approved mitigation
plans have proposed a 90% survival rate for native plants and no greater than 10 percent
cover by invasive species. Consideration should be given to the rates proposed, which are 75
percent and 20 percent, respectively.
D. BIMC 16.20.160 Performance and Maintenance Surety
The director shall decide when a performance surety is required of an applicant, and the
acceptable form of such surety. The amount and the conditions of the surety shall be
consistent with the purposes of this chapter; provided, that the minimum amount of the
surety, when required, shall be 125% of the estimated cost of performance. A performance
surety shall not be required when the actual cost of performance, as documented in a form
acceptable to the director, is less than $1,000.
Staff response: All plantings that are a part of the mitigation plan shall be installed prior to
final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall be provided in accordance
BIMC 16.20.160 (Condition 7).
E. BIMC 16.20.070.G Notice on Title
The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical area or buffer on which a
development proposal is submitted shall file for record with the Kitsap County auditor a
notice approved by the director in a form substantially as set forth in Subsection 2 of BIMC
16.20.070.G. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a
critical area and buffer, the application of this chapter to the property, and that limitations
on actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The applicant shall submit proof that the
notice has been filed for record before the city shall approve any development proposal for
such site. The notice shall run with the land and failure to provide such notice to any
purchaser prior to transferring any interest in the property shall be in violation of this
chapter.
Staff response: The applicant shall submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of
the building permits, documenting the presence of the critical area onsite (Condition 10).
Part VIII – CONCLUSIONS
1. Site Characteristics
The property contains a category IV wetland and a 40 ft. wetland buffer that together cover a
significant portion of the lot.
16
2. History
Appropriate notice of the application was published. The application is properly before the
Hearing Examiner.
3. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The proposed reasonable use exemption request is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Land Use Code Analysis
With appropriate conditions, the proposal conforms to all applicable regulations in the
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed in accordance with BIMC Chapter
2.16.020.R.2.
17
Conditions:
1. Work shall be completed in substantial compliance with the design and specifications included in
the RUE file, including:
a. Utilization of a minimal excavation foundation system per the 2012 Low Impact
Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound for the portion of the structure within
the wetland buffer. Negligible fill and/or ground disturbance shall occur within the
wetland buffer and building setback.
b. Cantilevering the portion of the SFR that is located within wetland buffer approximately
10-12 feet over the ground surface, with no stairway or other direct access to the
wetland buffer.
c. Limiting the removal of significant trees to those identified in the narrative (4 red alder
trees located outside of the wetland buffer) and minimizing the removal of native
vegetation. Significant trees in the vicinity of the construction area shall be clearly
marked on the site plan, with those proposed for removal clearly labelled.
d. Locating construction staging outside of the wetland buffer.
e. Establishing covenants to restrict the use of pesticides, as well as herbicides or fertilizers
on the project site.
f. Implementing the proposed minimization steps included on pages 3-5 of the Revised
Narrative (Exhibit 7) under “Proposed Site Development”.
2. Prior to the issuance of any permits for development, vegetation removal, land clearing, or grading,
the applicant shall have the construction limits temporarily fenced. The construction limits shall be
minimized to the extent practicable within the wetland buffer. The fence shall be clearly marked on
any construction or clearing plans submitted with the building permit application. The fence shall be
made of durable material and shall be highly visible. The fence shall be inspected as part of the
required permits. The temporary fencing shall be removed once the construction activity is complete
and replaced with permanent fencing (see condition #3, below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the wetland buffer, a maximum of 5 feet
away from the SFR. 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 on the building permit.
4. A minimum of two signs indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be placed on the
fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit. Signs shall be made of metal or a similar
durable material and shall be between 64 and 144 square inches in size.
5. A final mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any permits for
development, vegetation removal, land clearing, or grading. The final mitigation plan shall be
updated to address the criteria under BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b, Environmental Goals and Objectives,
including:
a. Identification of functions and values; a complete description of the relationship
between and among structures and functions sought;
b. Review of available literature and/or known like projects to date in restoring or creating
the type of critical area proposed;
18
c. Likelihood of success of the proposed compensation project at duplicating the original
critical area; and
d. Likelihood of the ability of the created or restored critical area to provide the functions
and values of the original critical area.
e. The final mitigation plan may need to be amended to meet the conditions of the City
Development Engineer, if a dispersion trench is located within the buffer (Condition 12,
below).
6. The mitigation plan shall clarify the area in which invasive species will be removed. Consideration
shall be given to removing invasive species throughout the project site to the maximum extent
practicable, to improve the likelihood of success of the mitigation plan. If this is deemed infeasible,
justification must be provided and the likelihood of success must be discussed. Any bare areas after
invasive species removal shall be replanted with native vegetation, in addition to the native species
proposed to be planted with the 1,800 sq. ft. mitigation area. Consideration shall also be given to
removing the English laurel on the site, and any other invasive species that may be present.
7. All mitigation plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an assurance
device shall be provided in accordance BIMC 16.20.160.
8. The final mitigation plan shall include performance standards based on the goals and objectives
identified in the revised plan. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City by December 31st of
each monitored year, for 7 consecutive years.
9. If the performance standards in the mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval. Any additional
permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained prior implementing the
contingency plan.
10. The applicant shall submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of the building permits,
documenting the presence of the critical area onsite with the Kitsap County Auditor. Such notice
shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a critical area buffer, the application of
this chapter to the property, and that limitations on actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The
notice must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.
11. No refuse, including but not limited to household trash, yard waste and commercial/industrial
refuse, shall be placed in the buffer.
12. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a. The minimal excavation foundation system proposed shall conform to the definition as
cited in the City’s adopted LID manual, published as the 2012 Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual For Puget Sound, and shall contain a combination of driven piles and
connecting components at, or above grade and allow the foundation system to engage
deeper load-bearing soils without having a to dig out and disrupt upper soil layers.
b. Surface stormwater from the proposed structure and from the adjacent property to the
south shall discharge and disperse at a location and in a manner consistent with BMP
T5.10B – Downspout Dispersion Systems. A dispersion trench is required where less
than 50 feet of vegetative flow path is provided. Trenches shall be placed as far upland
from the wetland as feasible, but no closer than 10 feet downgradient from the reserve
on-site septic field. Individual splash blocks may be utilized where the vegetative flow
path is at least 50 feet downgradient of the discharge locations.
19
13. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City Building
Official:
a. The project shall comply with the City of Bainbridge Island construction codes as
adopted by the BIMC, Chapter 15.04.
b. A soils review is required for the project to ensure compliance with the provisions of
Chapter 4 of the International Residential Code.
Euclid Residence
4167-000-024-0008
N/A
family residence new construction due to wetland-related encumbrance
X
Request for Reasonable Use Exception for a maximum 1200 square foot single
Mercury Michael (under contract)
701 Winslow Way East
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Mercury@CharterRealEstate.com 206.780.6075
Kelsey Laughlin Seabold Engineering
20903 Indianola Road NE Civil Engineer
Poulsbo WA 98370
Kelsey@SeaboldEng.com 360.930.4668
Brenda Ruddick AquaTerra LLC
11951 Miller Road Wetland Biologist
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Arbutus5@gmail.com 206.619.3167
Nathan Cleaver Nathan Cleaver Septic Design
262 NW Thompson Rd. Septic Designer
Poulsbo WA 98370
Nathan@NathanCleaver.com 360.598.6546
N/A
4167-000-024-0008 N/A Mercury Michael (under contract)
ELECTRONIC FILES AND FOUR (4) PAPER COPIES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL
SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
Mercury Michael December 19, 2018
[ Owner/Agent Agreement II
The undersigned is (are) the owner(s) of record of the property identified by the Kitsap County
Assessor's account number 4-'-1::...6.:'-7' -0=0=0""--0==24-'---0=-0"'=0;:3;.. _
located at ---=0--_=E u cl=id=-:R:.=d -----------------
Bainbridge Island, Washington . The u ndersigned hereby gives (give) consent and approval to_
Exhibit 3
-----M''-"e- rc u r-... M ich a""e'"" an_d_/or A aro n M_u_r..p., h_,y_ to act on his/her (their) behalf as
his/her (their) agent to proceed with an application for (please check all items that apply):
C8J preapplication conference
C8J planning permits
('8] construction permits (i.e. bui lding, water/sewer availability , right-of-way, etc)
·--
on the property referenced herein . This agreement authorizes the agent to act on the owner's \rt.,"'
behalf for the above checked applications through (date or specific phase) 12/15/2018 or jl tf}
0-+ -f-.e y l ·U h ,:i -f c... ei.d-> lJ A : c h ev1€..r O C C c\.rS -f \ rs+. (ti ·{(.
1- ,£.?-19" J1/dMJr,1;BttW
DATE OWNER OF R ORD
.
/-zr=-L?
DATE
DANIEL MIRANDA
Notary Public
State of Washington
M y Appointment Expires Dec 22 . 2018
STATE OF WASHING TO N
SS.
COUNTY OF p /<. • "'
On this -Z.. $""µ. day of "'S v..-..J °"'"' . 20-.!_L before me, the undersigned , a Notary Public in and for
the State of Washingon , duly commi .p ionetl a!1d swam, personally appeared:
"- . I .... "'.:> "R· • ... . L Our It 'D,.. . c..lr.o..-
to m e nown as the i ndi vidual(s) described i n an w ho executed the foregoi n g instrument, and acknowledged to
me that he/she/th ey signed and sealed the said instru ment , as his/her/their free and volu ntary act and deed for the
uses and purposes therein mentioned , and on oath stated th a t he/she/they was (were) author ized to execute said
i nstrument.
WrrNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SE4L, hereto affixed the day and year in this certifica e ab
7
N otary Public in and for the State of Washington
R e sidin g at f-l_._I "-'r" -----------
M y ap p oi ntment expires : _1_·._,,/ - i.,..._ 2 0 1- _· _
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
Exhibit 4
May 15, 2018
Mercury Michael
1140 Wing Point Way NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for meeting with City staff on May 8, 2018 to discuss your proposal to construct a single
family residence on a property encumbered by a wetland and wetland buffer. A summary of the land
use review process, applicable Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations, comments from
reviewers, fees, submittal requirements, and next steps is provided below.
General Information
Pre-Application Conference Date: Nov. 14, 2017
Project Name and Number: Euclid SFR PRE - PLN51139
Project Description: Construct SFR on lot encumbered by wetland and wetland buffer
Project Address: Lot 24 at Port Madison
Tax Parcel Number(s): 41670000240003
Tax Parcel Size: 0.37 acres
Zoning/Comp Plan Designation: R-2
Planning Contact: Annie Hillier
Development Engineer: Peter Corelis
Land Use Review Process
Land Use Applications Required
Reasonable Use Exception: BIMC 16.20.080 – A reasonable use exception (RUE) is intended to ensure
reasonable use of a property when reasonable use of that property cannot be achieved through any
other means. Given the extent of the wetland and wetland buffer, and the inability to achieve
reasonable use of the property through other means, an RUE appears to be the only way to develop
the property as proposed. Criteria for review and approval under BIMC 16.20.080.F must be
addressed in the application materials, which includes a maximum total lot coverage of 1,200 square
feet, and a mitigation plan developed in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.G.
A complete and detailed written statement of the reason(s) for requesting the RUE and how the
proposal will meet the decision criteria (11) for review and approval under BIMC 16.20.080.F is an
application requirement. One of the decision criteria (#2) requires that the applicant demonstrate
that there is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area or its
required buffer. It does not appear that buffer modification (BIMC 16.20.140.I.8), either through
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
buffer width averaging or buffer width reduction, is feasible on the site given the small lot size and
the extent of the encroachment. The applicant shall provide an analysis of alternatives considered,
including buffer modification, as a part of the written statement.
The RUE application requires a critical areas report prepared in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.F,
which includes a site plan that shows surveyed wetland boundaries, and a mitigation plan prepared in
accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.G. I recommend providing these code references and a copy of the
new CAO to the wetlands professional working on this proposal, as a new CAO was recently adopted.
See the attached Administrative Manual for additional submittal requirements.
Fees
Planning Fees: $3,816
Approval Body
Quasi-judicial decision by Hearing Examiner (BIMC Table 2.16.010)
City staff will send a tentative hearing date to the applicant prior to the Notice of Application.
Review and Recommendation
BIMC 2.16.100:
Director (review and recommendation)
Planning Commission (optional)
Public Hearing (report presented to hearing examiner)
Other required reviews and supplemental information:
Critical Area Report, including Mitigation Plan
Kitsap Public Health District review
Bainbridge Island Fire Department review
Planning Division review
Development Engineer review
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Requirements – Planning Checklist
BIMC 2.16 – Land Use Review Procedures
Review procedures for a Reasonable Use Exception are outlined in BIMC 2.16.100 and BIMC
16.20.080.
BIMC 16.04 – Environmental Policy
The project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act, as provided in WAC 197-11-800.
BIMC 16.12 – Shoreline Master Program
The subject property is outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
BIMC 16.20 – Critical Areas
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
The wetland delineation and categorization provided with the preapplication materials identifies a
category IV wetland onsite. Note that under the new CAO, residential development in R-2 zoning
adjacent a category IV wetland requires a 40 ft. buffer. The majority of the subject parcel appears to
be encumbered by the wetland, buffer, and 15 ft. impervious surface setback from the edge of the
buffer.
Refer to BIMC 16.20.140.H for standards for specific development, uses, and activities within
wetlands and buffers. Compliance with these standards must be demonstrated in application
materials (in the critical areas report and mitigation plan, for example), to the extent that they are
applicable. It appears that H.1 (private road construction, i.e. driveway) and H.5 (utilities) are
applicable to this proposal.
Refer to BIMC 16.20.100 for Aquifer Recharge Protection Area requirements. For this project, the
ARPA shall include all existing native vegetation on a site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total
site area. A lower percentage is allowed if necessary to achieve a development area of at least
12,500 square feet on a parcel. The ARPA may include the wetland and wetland buffer. Please show
the proposed ARPA on the site plan submitted with RUE application materials. Note that the ARPA
shall be documented on a notice to title prior to building permit issuance; this will be a condition of
the RUE approval.
BIMC 18.09 – Use Regulations
Development of single family residences is a permitted use under BIMC 18.09.020.
BIMC 18.12 – Dimensional Standards
Lot Coverage: 20%*
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Side Setback: 5 ft. min,15 ft. total**
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Max Building Height: 30 ft.
*Lot coverage is limited to 1,200 square feet for RUE’s. Lot coverage is defined as: that portion of the
total lot area covered by buildings, excluding up to 24 inches of eaves on each side of the building, any
building or portion of building located below predevelopment and finished grade. Any portion of a
slatted or solid deck located more than five feet above grade shall be counted towards lot coverage.
**the applicant is encouraged to establish the minimum side setback from the south lot line. Any
alternative, such as that proposed on the application materials submitted with this pre-application
conference, must be demonstrated necessary through mitigation sequencing.
BIMC 18.15 – Development Standards and Guidelines
Development shall comply with the parking standards as set forth in BIMC 18.15.020, which requires
two spaces for each primary dwelling unit.
BIMC 20.04 – City Fire Code
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
Department/Agency Comments
Development Engineer Comment:
Peter Corelis provided the attached comments and can be reached at (206) 780-3759 or
pcorelis@bainbridgewa.gov.
Bainbridge Island Fire District Comment:
The Fire District did not have any comments specific to this proposal.
Kitsap Public Health District Comment:
Steve Brown provided the attached comment and can be reached at (360) 337-5285 or
steve.brown@kitsappublichealth.org.
The fee for a Reasonable Use Exception is $3,816, due at time of submittal. Please review the City’s
Administrative Manual (http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100) for submittal
requirements. Once you are ready to submit an application for the Reasonable Use Exception, contact
Planning and Community Development at (206) 780-3770 or PCD@bainbridgewa.gov to schedule an
intake appointment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 780-3773 or
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov.
Sincerely,
Please note that information provided at the pre-application conference and in this letter reflects existing codes and
standards, currently available information about the site and environs, and the level of detail provided in the pre-
application conference submittal. Comments provided pursuant to pre-application review shall not be construed to
relieve the applicant of conformance with all applicable fees, codes, policies, and standards in effect at the time of
complete land use permit application. The comments on this proposal do not represent or guarantee approval of
any project or permit. While we have attempted to cover as many of the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire
related aspects of your proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your land
use permit application may reveal issues not identified during the is initial review. If the city’s pre- application
review indicates that the City intends to recommend or impose one or more conditions of permit approval, and if the
applicant objects to any of said conditions, the applicant is hereby requested and advised to
Annie Hillier
Planner
The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code (International Fire
Code, 2015 Edition).
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
provide written notice to the City of which conditions the applicant objects to and the reasons for the applicant’s
objections.
Department of Public Works - Engineering
Memorandum
Date: May 8, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planner, Planning and Comm. Development
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN51139 PRE – Michael SFR
Project Description:
The proposal is to construct a single-family residence (SFR) within a wetland buffer. The subject parcel is
identified by tax id 4167-000-024-0003 and is located along the eastern side of Euclid Avenue NE in the
City of Bainbridge Island.
Comments:
1. New access to the COBI ROW shall be improved to the standard paved residential driveway approach
detail DWG. 8-170.
2. The land use application shall demonstrate how storm water shall be handled in conformance with
current Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 15.20. See the enclosed Site Assessment Review
(SAR) recommendation letter for implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) design.
3. The site is not located within the COBI water or sewer service areas.
4. Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs) per BIMC 15.30 shall be required for issuance of a building permit
for a new single-family residence.
Please note that information provided in this letter reflects existing codes and standards, currently
available information about the site and environs. Comments provided pursuant to preapplication review
shall not be construed to relieve the applicant of conformance with all applicable fees, codes, policies,
and standards in effect at the time of complete land use permit application. The comments on this
proposal do not represent or guarantee approval of any project or permit. While we have attempted to
cover as many of the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire related aspects of your proposal as possible
during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your land use permit application may reveal issues
not identified during the is initial review.
Page 1 of 1
280 Madison Avenue N
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.2016
SITE ASSESSMENT REVIEW: COMPLETED
Date: May 8, 2018
SmartGov Case No.: SAR80087
Owner: Mercury Michael
mercury@mercurymichael.com
206.780.6075
Mailing Address: Lot on Euclid Ave | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Applicant/Agent: Aaron Murphy
Applicant/Agent Email: aaron@adm.architecture.com
Project: Euclid SFR
Site Location: Lot on Euclid Ave | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tax Identification No.: 4167.000.024.0003
This completed Site Assessment Review (SAR) letter serves as an endorsement from the Department of Public Works
of the project with recommendations to achieve Low Impact Development (LID) to the maximum extent practicable
based on the Department of Ecology’s Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The
following LID recommendations apply to the site as it has been presented in the application to reduce vegetation
removal, minimize hard surface installation, and mimic natural hydrology. This assessment is non-binding, unless the
recommendations are as required under BIMC 15.20. Application for permits with the City of Bainbridge Island for
which a SAR is required shall be in substantial conformance with this proposal, or, else a new SAR shall be required.
Project Surfaces/Thresholds:
Threshold Proposed Project
Proposed New/Replaced Hard Surface Total 1,700 SF
Proposed Land Clearing/Disturbance 3,600 SF
Existing Site Impervious Coverage (0%)
Total Site Area 16,117 SF
Site Previously Developed Under Adopted Stormwater Regulations
(after 2/10/1999) NO
Type of Development (New or Redevelopment) Redevelopment
Recommendations:
• This project proposes to construct an approximate 1,200 SF residence with a 500 SF driveway and an associated
on-site septic (OSS) drainfield. Part of the house will be located in a wetland buffer.
• An application for a building permit will require the project demonstrate compliance with applicable minimum
requirements (MRs) # 1 through 5 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual through development of a
Stormwater Site Plan (SSP – MR #1), which is the comprehensive report containing all the technical information
and analysis necessary for the City to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater
requirements. Contents of the SSP will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site
characteristics, and contain site-appropriate development principles, as required, to retain native vegetation and
minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible.
• The project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), also called an Erosion Control Plan (MR #2)
that applies to all land-disturbing activities and temporary impacts associated with the project. A well followed
SWPPP with established clearing and disturbance limits and clearly thought out phasing helps to minimize
unnecessary destruction of healthy soils during the construction process.
• The SWPPP should accompany any clearing, grading, or building permit submittal.
280 Madison Avenue N
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.2016
• Temporary construction entrances and access roads shall be constructed of inert materials. Recycled concrete is
strictly prohibited.
• All soils disturbed and compacted during construction/clearing must be amended to restore soil health to ‘GOOD’
hydrologic conditions by tilling in compost or stripped and stockpiled topsoil where soils allow.
• Retaining or planting trees within 20 feet of hard surfaces is recommended to reduce peak stormwater runoff
amounts.
• Site soils and areas that support infiltration (shown not to meet the infeasibility criteria of the stormwater
manual) would require full-downspout infiltration or a rain garden sized per the Rain Garden Handbook For
Western Washington meeting the ‘GOOD’ performance standard. Please follow List No. 1 of MR #5 for the
required on-site best practices to achieve compliance with the stormwater code for hard surfaces.
• The project shall consider utilizing minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual For Puget Sound as means of minimizing impacts to the site and the adjacent wetlands. A bid
comparison/analysis shall be submitted demonstrating the applicant has engaged the appropriate design and
construction professionals to explore this foundation system option. The bid shall be obtained from a designer or
installer with previous experience building with this technology.
• Surface stormwater from driveway and parking surfaces shall receive pre-treatment prior to discharging to the
wetlands or leaving the site by directing stormwater to vegetated dispersion strips, rain gardens where soils allow,
or the use of permeable pavement (outside of the ROW only), or other alternatives consistent with MR #5, On-Site
Stormwater Management of the stormwater manual.
• Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing where feasible to
allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater.
• Diffuse flow methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader) should be used to discharge bypass surface stormwater from
the adjoining southern lot into the wetland. It is recommended that where a level spreader dispersion trench is
utilized to that it be placed a minimum of 25 feet upgradient of the wetland boundary, 50 feet is preferable.
• Full-dispersion does not appear to be feasible given that the wetland may not be included as part of the 65%
retention area, nor used in the 100-foot overland dispersion path for stormwater management per BMP T5.30 of
the stormwater manual. [Note, the wetland may be used as part of the designated 65% Aquifer Recharge
Protection Area (ARPA)].
Summary
These recommendations are not fully inclusive of all requirements for the site proposal, but represent a comprehensive
look at addressing low impact development based on a site specific analysis of the project proposal. Don’t hesitate to
contact COBI Development Engineering with any further questions or concerns. This letter will be required as a submittal
to the follow-on application for subsequent permits.
Peter Corelis, P.E.
Development Engineer
Public Works, Engineering
Page I of 2
D
CITY O F
BA T N B RTDGE I S LA N D
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND . MAY 0.3
Deprutmen t of Plan.ning & Community Development i
280 Mad ison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 9 1W !TSAP p
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov HEALTH DI
Website: www .bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
PROJECT NAME
EUCLID SFR PRE
ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL DATE
04/19/2018
TRANSMITTAL DATE
04/22/2018
PROJECT NUMBER
PLN51139
SUFFIX
PRE
PROJECT TYPE
Preapplication Conference
PROJECT STREET ADDRESS OR ACCESS STREET
LOT 24 AT PORT MADISON
TAX PARCEL NUMBER
41670000240003
CITY PROJECT MANAGER
ANNIE HILLIER
PHONE
(206) 780-3773
EMAIL
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
REVISION RECEIVED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON SMALL LOT ENCUMBERED BY WETLANDS
REVIEW PACKET TO
0 SAR APPLICATION REVIEW - SAR REVIEW QUEUE 0 BUILDING REVIEW - BUILDING REVIEW QUEUE
0 FIRE DEPT REVIEW - JARED MORAVEC 0 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING REVIEW QUEUE
1-1,E/l 1 TH DISTRICT REYIEW r LUt.s e... v. e_µ\) d Q... c_ V"\ (.... ' :'I cl L- v lll'---f 5 '
0 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REVIEW -
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING REVIEW QUEUE
(. c:..- il.- &hD.J .,
(..._ j
Owner(s)
LARRY R PRITCHARD
Contact(s)
LARRY R PRITCHARD
PH: E-MAIL: PH: E-MAIL:
ITRANSMITTED DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT!
HEALTH DISTRICT CHECK
DOCUMB'NT 2
SAR APPLICATION
DOCUMENT3
OWNER/AGENT AGREEMENT
18
Page 2 of 2
D
CITY OF
BA I N"BRlDG E TS LA N D
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Depa rtment of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Av n ue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa. smartgovcommunity .com/portal
DOCUMENT4
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DOCUMENTS
APP-PROJECT
DOCUMENT6
SITE PLAN
COMMENTS DUE BY : I 05106120181
:i MENTS : See Ached Comm IB/Conditi . c;_- ----'--.}_i""'
Please Print Name: "S _, ..:>
R ECEI V ED
....: AY O 2018
i' KITSAP PUBLIC
HEALTH DISTRICT
EUCLID AVE NE Bainbridge Island
CHRONOLOGICAL CONTR OL SHEET
LAND USE - Other
Applicant: Larry Pritchard
Tax ID: 4167-000-024-0003
Contractor: N/A
Memo :51139 BP:N/A DCD-LU: N/A
RECEIVED ON INITIALS ACTI ON TAKEN/COMM E NTS ROUTE TO DATE
Printed: 5/3/2018 8:59 AM
05/03/2018 MC Received Preapp from COBI via SB. Comments due by 05/06/18. 05/03/2018
5-1-1 N) ... J e.tAJ SV11\ Q J\ {M- Ib,.<)t)t) J.
I sA w :\\ r . vJ -6
r,. L'lu-t) \) . be.f.o., e b I J c. ,()e..r...,. '"-
n )
1 5\ u c..... r d .
Exhibit 5
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
EUCLID HOUSE RUE OWNER: LARRY R PRITCHARD
16415 15TH SW APPLICATION
RECEIVED: August 16, 2018
PERMIT NUMBER: PLN51139 RUE
SEATTLE, WA 98166-2823
PROJECT MANAGER: Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RUE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A WETLAND
PROJECT LOCATION: Euclid Ave NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
DATE DETERMINATION MAILED: September 7, 2018
TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED:
• Revised Site Plan – it does not appear that the mitigation area as depicted in the mitigation report
will fit in between the SFR and wetland edge as depicted on the site plan, which shows only 4 ft.
between the SFR and wetland edge.
• Revised Wetland Delineation
o Figures for Depressional Wetlands, pg. 2, appear to be missing
o Please show work for question H 2.0, pg. 14
• Revised Mitigation Plan – please refer to BIMC 16.20.180.G for report contents, including:
o Plot Plan Requirements:
▪ A legal description and a survey (boundary and topography) prepared by a
licensed surveyor of the proposed development site, compensation site, and
location of existing critical area(s) on each. This shall include wetland delineation
and existing wetland acreage
▪ Zoning setback and critical area buffer requirements;
▪ Construction phasing and sequence of construction;
▪ Site cross-sections, percent slope, existing and finished grade elevations;
▪ Soil and substrate conditions;
▪ Grading and excavation plan, including erosion and sediment control plans needed
for construction and long-term survival; substrate stockpiling locations and
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
techniques, and source controls needed for critical area construction and
maintenance;
▪ Landscape plans indicating species, types, quantities, locations, size, spacing or
density of planting; planting season or timing; planting instructions, watering
schedule and nutrient requirements; source of plant materials or seeds; and,
where appropriate, measures to protect plants from destruction or predation; and
▪ Water control structures and water-level maintenance practices needed to achieve
the necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod characteristics, etc.
o Environmental Goals and Objectives; this section appears to be completely missing from
the mitigation plan. Within this section, please comment on site selection – why was the
mitigation site selected? Please also comment on the likelihood of future encroachment
into the mitigation area, as it directly abuts the SFR.
o Performance Standards; this section appears to be completely missing from the mitigation
plan.
o Detailed Specifications; this section appears to be completely missing from the mitigation
plan.
o Monitoring Program; this section appears to be incomplete.
o Please revise the Regulatory Requirements section on page 3; there is no reference to a
1.5:1 ratio in Table 7 of the municipal code.
o Please note that the proposal must protect the critical area functions and values
consistent with best available science and result in no net loss of critical area functions and
values. The mitigation proposal must provide analysis of how this will be achieved.
o If any of the mitigation plan requirements are not applicable to this project, please
provide a detailed explanation as to why the information is unnecessary.
• Revised Project Narrative – the narrative must explain how the proposal will meet each decision
criteria (refer to BIMC 16.20.080.F). Please provide a detailed explanation under each individual
criterion. Particularly, please be sure to address how:
o The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing* (see BIMC 16.20.030), (describe or list the actions taken for each step of the
sequence);
o The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use
of the property; and
o The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action.
*During the mitigation sequencing process, the applicant shall consider steps to minimize impacts
to the wetland/buffer, including:
o Low impact fencing between the SFR and wetland buffer, and other efforts to prevent
future encroachment;
o Plants between SFR and wetland should be chosen based on ability to provide light and
noise screening, i.e. densely planted trees/high stature shrubs;
o Using elevated walkways around the SFR, rather than at-grade;
o Direct lights away from wetland;
o Low-impact foundation designs.
See Table 7 under BIMC 16.20.140.I for other examples of measures to minimize impacts. The
measures should be included in the proposal and coordinated with the mitigation plan.
Please note: Please submit the information requested within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in cancelation of the
application in accordance with the following provision:
BIMC 2.16.020.H Voiding the application due to inactivity. A land use application, whether determined to be complete
or incomplete, for which approval has not been granted, may be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to respond
to the department's written request for revisions, corrections, or additional information within 60 days of the request.
The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time period the applicant provides
and subsequently adheres to an approved schedule within specific target dates for submitting the full revisions,
corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department. (ORD 2004-12 § 1, 2004)
Sincerely,
Annie Hillier, Planner
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 6
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
EUCLID HOUSE RUE OWNER: LARRY R PRITCHARD
16415 15TH SW
APPLICATION SEATTLE, WA 98166-2823
RECEIVED: August 16, 2018
PERMIT NUMBER: PLN51139 RUE
PROJECT MANAGER: Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RUE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A WETLAND
PROJECT LOCATION: Euclid Ave NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
DATE DETERMINATION MAILED: September 7, 2018
TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED:
• Revised Site Plan – It does not appear that the mitigation area as depicted in the mitigation report will fit
in between the SFR and wetland edge as depicted on the site plan, which shows only 4 ft. between the SFR
and wetland edge. Applicant response: See Figure 3 in AquaTerra 2018b.
• Revised Wetland Delineation
o Figures for Depressional Wetlands, pg. 2, appear to be missing. Applicant response: See Figure 2 in
AquaTerra 2018a.
o Please show work for question H 2.0, pg. 14. Applicant response: See Page 29 of pdf in AquaTerra
2018a.
• Revised Mitigation Plan – please refer to BIMC 16.20.180.G for report contents, including:
o Plot Plan Requirements:
▪ A legal description and a survey (boundary and topography) prepared by a licensed
surveyor of the proposed development site, compensation site, and location of existing
critical area(s) on each. This shall include wetland delineation and existing wetland
acreage. Applicant response: See Figure 3 in AquaTerra 2018b, and Figure 1 (page 9) in
the Narrative Statement.
▪ Zoning setback and critical area buffer requirements. Applicant response: See Figure 3 in
AquaTerra 2018b, and Figure 3 (page 11) in the Narrative Statement.
▪ Construction phasing and sequence of construction. Applicant response: See Figure 3
(page 11) in the Narrative Statement.
▪ Site cross-sections, percent slope, existing and finished grade elevations. Applicant
response: See Figure 4 (page 12) in the Narrative Statement.
▪ Soil and substrate conditions. Applicant response: See Figure 2 (page 10), and pages 2 and
3 in the Narrative Statement.
Page 2 of 3
▪ Grading and excavation plan, including erosion and sediment control plans needed for
construction and long-term survival; substrate stockpiling locations and techniques, and
source controls needed for critical area construction and maintenance. Applicant
response: See Figure 3 (page 11), and pages 3 through 5, in the Narrative Statement.
▪ Landscape plans indicating species, types, quantities, locations, size, spacing or density
of planting; planting season or timing; planting instructions, watering schedule and
nutrient requirements; source of plant materials or seeds; and, where appropriate,
measures to protect plants from destruction or predation. Applicant response: See pages
4 and 5 in AquaTerra 2018b.
▪ Water control structures and water-level maintenance practices needed to achieve the
necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod characteristics, etc. Applicant response: See page 4,
Regulatory Requirements, paragraph 2 in AquaTerra 2018b
o Environmental Goals and Objectives; this section appears to be completely missing from the
mitigation plan. Within this section, please comment on site selection – why was the mitigation
site selected? Please also comment on the likelihood of future encroachment into the mitigation
area, as it directly abuts the SFR. Applicant response: See Page 3 in AquaTerra 2018b.
o Performance Standards; this section appears to be completely missing from the mitigation plan.
Applicant response: See Page 5 in AquaTerra 2018b.
o Detailed Specifications; this section appears to be completely missing from the mitigation plan.
Applicant response: See Pages 3 through 6 in AquaTerra 2018b.
o Monitoring Program; this section appears to be incomplete. Applicant response: See Page 5 in
AquaTerra 2018b.
o Please revise the Regulatory Requirements section on page 3; there is no reference to a 1.5:1
ratio in Table 7 of the municipal code. Applicant response: See Page 4 in AquaTerra 2018b.
o Please note that the proposal must protect the critical area functions and values consistent with
best available science and result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. The mitigation
proposal must provide analysis of how this will be achieved. Applicant response: See Page 5 in
AquaTerra 2018b.
o If any of the mitigation plan requirements are not applicable to this project, please provide a
detailed explanation as to why the information is unnecessary. Applicant response: All mitigation
plan requirements would be implemented.
• Revised Project Narrative – the narrative must explain how the proposal will meet each decision criteria
(refer to BIMC 16.20.080.F). Please provide a detailed explanation under each individual criterion. Applicant
response: See pages 5 through 7 in the Narrative Statement. Particularly, please be sure to address how:
o The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation sequencing*
(see BIMC 16.20.030), (describe or list the actions taken for each step of the sequence). Applicant
response: See page 6, criterion 3 in the Narrative Statement.
o The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the
property. Applicant response: See page 6, criterion 4 in the Narrative Statement.
o The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action. Applicant response: See page 7, criterion
10 in the Narrative Statement.
*During the mitigation sequencing process, the applicant shall consider steps to minimize impacts to the
wetland/buffer, including:
o Low impact fencing between the SFR and wetland buffer, and other efforts to prevent future
encroachment;
o Plants between SFR and wetland should be chosen based on ability to provide light and noise
screening, i.e. densely planted trees/high stature shrubs;
o Using elevated walkways around the SFR, rather than at-grade;
o Direct lights away from wetland;
o Low-impact foundation designs.
o See Table 7 under BIMC 16.20.140.I for other examples of measures to minimize impacts. The
measures should be included in the proposal and coordinated with the mitigation plan.
Applicant response: See page 6, criterion 3 in the Narrative Statement.
Page 3 of 3
Please note: Please submit the information requested within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in cancelation of the
application in accordance with the following provision:
BIMC 2.16.020.H Voiding the application due to inactivity. A land use application, whether determined to be complete
or incomplete, for which approval has not been granted, may be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to respond
to the department's written request for revisions, corrections, or additional information within 60 days of the request.
The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time period the applicant provides
and subsequently adheres to an approved schedule within specific target dates for submitting the full revisions,
corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department. (ORD 2004-12 § 1, 2004)
Sincerely,
Annie Hillier, Planner
Applicant Responses-Related References
AquaTerra, LLC (AquaTerra). 2018a. Wetland Delineation, Euclid Property. October 10, 2018.
AquaTerra, LLC (AquaTerra). 2018b. Mitigation Plan, Euclid Property. October 9, 2018.
Page 1of
14
Exhibit 7
December 19, 2018
City of Bainbridge Island
Planning & Community Development
Attn: Anni e Hillier, City Planner
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washi ngton 98110
RE: Revised Narrative Statement Supporting Reasonable Use Exception Application
Euclid Avenue Vacant Parcel,Lot 24,Port Madison
On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Mercury Michael,this document presents to the City of Bainbridge
Island (CoBI) the reasons for requesting a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) for the subject
property, which is encumbered by a wetland.
This application is provided subsequent to the preapplication PLN51139 PR - Michael Single
Family Residence (SFR) dated May 8, 2018. The Site Assessment Review (SAR) was completed per
SmartGove Case No.: SAR80087 and a SAR letter was provided by CoBI to the applicant as of the
same date mentioned above.
This application has also been revised to address the "Notice of Incomplete Application" dated
September 7, 2018, which follows this narrative statement with the specific pages where the
respective responses can be found in this application.
Existing Conditions
Referring to Figure 1,the followi ng summarizes the existi ng site conditions of the subject parcel:
• Approximatel y 16,117 square feet (0.37 acres) in size and situated on the east side of
Euclid Avenue Northeast, approximately 200 feet north of the intersection with Northeast
Lafayette Avenue.
• Located in Section 34, Township 26N, Range 02E, and legally summarized as Lot 24, Plat
of Port Madison.
• The tax parcel number is 4167-000-024-0003.
• Bounded to the west by Euclid Avenue Northeast, and to the north,east and south by lots
with SFRs.
• The Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property zoning as R-2.
• The topography generally slopes to the north and east, with a total vertical relief of about
14 feet.
• Is undeveloped, and the vegetation consists of a forested canopy within and surrounding
a wetland, including deciduous trees (mostly red alder and one maple), lady fern, sword
fern,salmonberry, and Indian plum. Invasive vegetation includes English ivy, nettles and
non-native blackberries. The red alder trees range in diameter between 12 and 21 inches,
and the single maple tree is 43 inches in diameter.
• The wetland is situated within the northern portion of the parcel. The center of the
wetland is seasonally ponded and fed by the upstream watershed that discharges surface
water to the wetl and via a 12-inch diameter culvert beneath Euclid Avenue. The surface
Page 2of
14
water then flows to the east through the wetland and exits the property via another 12-
inch diameter culvert.
• Based on the wetland delineati on (AquaTearra 2018a) and subsequent site civil survey,
the wetland is approximately 3,488 square feet (0.08 acres) in size, which is about 22
percent of the total parcel'.The wetland is bounded to the east by the eastern property
boundary and coincident fill soil associated with the adjacent parcel.
• The wetland was rated based on functions according to the Revised Wetland Rating
System for Western Washi ngton {Ecology 2014b) as Category IV, which are regulated
according to the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) Critical Area Ordinance (CAO)
Title 16.20.160.
o The land use impact is high.
o Category IV wetlands with a high land use receive a standard buffer width of 40
feet from the delineated edge.
o The total buffer width for the wetl and is 40 feet with an additional 15 feet of
building setback.
o All activities are prohibited within the wetland and its buffer except those
specified in BIMC CAO (AquaTerra 2018a).
• After applying the wetland buffers, the proposed site development would not be feasible
in the absence of the RUE.
Referring to Figure 2 through 4, the following summarizes the existing soil conditions and slopes
greater 10 percent:
• The majority of the parcel is mapped as underlain by McKenna gravelly loam (USDA 1980).
The stated properties and qualities are as follows:
o Slope: O to 6 percent
o Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to densic material
o Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
o Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to
moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
o Depth to water table: About O to 6 inches
o Frequency of flooding: None
o Frequency of ponding: Frequent
o Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches)
• The southeastern corner of the parcel is mapped as underlain by Kapowsin gravelly ashy
loam (6 to 15 percent slopes) (USDA 1980). The stated properties and qualities are as
follows:
o Slope: 6 to 15 percent
o Depth to restrictive feature: About 29 inches to densic material;About 25 inches
to cemented horizon
o Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
o Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water {Ksat): Very low {0.00 to 0.00
in/hr)
o Depth to water table: About 11to 24 inches
o Frequency of flooding: None
1The northern wetland boundary was not delineated. However, the southern delineated boundary approximately follows the 36 foot
topographic contour so the northern boundary is shown continuing in this fashion
Page 3of
14
o Frequency of ponding: None
o Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.3 inches)
• The entire parcel is mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (Haugerud 2005) as underlain
by Vashon till, which is typically "glacially consolidated, low-permeability unit comprising
unstratified clay, silt, cobbles and boulders with ubiquitous coarse-grai ned lenses and is
an extensive surficial unit throughout the south-central Puget Lowland" (Knoedler 2014).
• The slopes outside the wetland are generally more than 10 percent, but generally less
than 15 percent. Isolated slopes are as steep as about 32 percent.
Proposed Site Development
The following summarizes the proposed site development:
• The applicant proposes to construct a two-three story 1,200 square foot single-family
residence (SFR) with a 500 square foot driveway and associated on-site septic (OSS)
drainfield (Figures 3 through 5).
• The proposed site development would incorporate all recommendations presented in the
SAR review letter to allow reasonable use of the property; the recommendations were as
follows:
o The application for a building permit would include demonstrated compliance
with applicable minimum requirements (MRs) 1through 5 of the City's adopted
stormwater manual through development of a Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) (MR 1),
which is the comprehensive report containing all the technical information and
analysis necessary for the City to evaluate a proposed development project for
compliance with stormwater requirements. MRs 1through 5 are as follows:
• MRl- Preparation of SSPs'
• MR2 - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP)3
• MR3 - Source Control of Pollution
• MR4 - Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
• MRS - On-site Stormwater Management, including Applicable Best
Management Practice (BMP) T5.14A: Rain Gardens.
o It is understood that the contents of the SSP would vary with the type and size of
the project, and individual site characteristics, and contain site-appropriate
development principles, as required, to retain native vegetation and minimize
impervious surfaces to the extent feasible.
o A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), also called an Erosion Control
Plan (MR2), would be prepared to address all land-disturbing activities and
temporary impacts associated with the project.
• A well followed SWPPP with established clearing and disturbance limits
and clearly thought out phasing would minimize unnecessary destruction
of healthy soils during the construction process.
2 MRl - Preparation of SSPs would normally not apply because the 2,000 square feet threshold for hard surfaces and 7,000 square feet for land
disturbances would not be exceeded. However, the applicant would implement the SAR letter-related recommendation to prepare the SSPs.
3 MR2 - Preparation of Construction SWPP would normally not apply because the 2,000 square feet threshold for hard surfaces and 7,000
square feet for land disturbances would not be exceeded,but the project would at a minimum consider all 13 Elements of Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention and develop controls for all elements that pertain to the project site (Ecology 2014a).
Page 4of
14
• The SWPPP would accompany any clearing,grading, or building permit
submittal.
o Temporary construction entrances and access roads would be constructed of
inert materials. Recycled concrete would be prohibited.
o All soils disturbed and compacted during construction/clearing would be
amended to restore soil health to 'GOOD' hydrologic conditions by tilling in
compost or stripped and stockpiled topsoil where soils allow.
o Retaining or planting trees within 20 feet of hard surfaces would be implemented
to reduce peak stormwater runoff amounts.
o Site soils and areas that support infiltration (shown not to meet the infeasibility
criteria of the stormwater manual) would include full-downspout infiltration
(splash blocks) combi ned with permeable pavement". List No. 1of MRS would be
implemented for the required on-site best practices to achieve compliance with
the stormwater code for hard surfaces.
o The project would utilize minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012
Low Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as means of
minimizing impacts to the site and the adjacent wetlands. A bid
comparison/analysis would be submitted demonstrati ng the applicant has
engaged the appropriate design and construction professionals to explore this
foundation system option. The bid would be obtained from a designer or installer
with previous experience building with this technology.
o Surface stormwater from driveway and parking surfaces would receive pre-
treatment prior to discharging to the wetlands utilizing permeable pavement
(outside of the ROW only), or other alternatives consistent with MRS, On-Site
Stormwater Management of the Stormwater manual.
o Hardscaping would be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide
permeable jointi ng where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface
filtration of surface stormwater.
o Diffuse flow methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader) would be used to discharge
bypass surface stormwater from the adjoining southern lot into the wetland. The
level spreader dispersion trench would be placed 2S to SO-plus feet upgradient of
the wetland boundary.
o Full-dispersion would likely not be feasible given that the wetland may not be
included as part of the 6S percent retention area, nor used in the 100-foot
overland dispersion path for stormwater management per BMP TS.30 of the
stormwater manual. However, the wetland would be used as part of the
designated 6S percent Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA).
• To minimize adverse impacts to the wetland, the SFR is proposed to be constructed in the
southwesternmost corner of the parcel (Figure 3).
• The proposed development would incorporate a Low Impact Development (LID) approach
to minimize ground disturbance and excavations, especially where wetland setbacks
would be encroached upon.
4 Due to the site civil survey determining that the site slopes are steeper than mapped by the Bainbridge Island GIS maps, it was determined
that a rain garden sized per the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington meeting the 'GOOD' performance standard was not feasible.
Page 5of
14
• The type of proposed foundation support would minimize the amount of excavation and
ground disturbance needed. Pin piles or piers are proposed for foundation support within
the designated wetland buffer and building setback area, which would result in minimal
excavation and/or ground disturbance (Figures 3 and 4).
• The site development would require a new right-of-way access to Euclid Avenue, and
transportation impact fees (TIF) would be applied. An approximately 500 square foot
driveway would be constructed between Euclid Avenue and the SFR garage (Figures 3 and
SJ.
• The site is not located within the COBI water or sewer service areas and would therefore
require an OSS. The septic tank and related features would be installed south of the
proposed SFR, and the drain field would be installed to the east of the SFR (Figures 5 and
6).
o The primary drainfield would avoid both the wetland buffer and building setback
buffer.
o The reserve drainfield would be within the building setback buffer but avoid the
wetland buffer.
o Both the primary and reserve drainfields would be situated apparently cross-
gradient to the onsite wetland. Therefore, groundwater discharge from the septic
drainfields would likely not impact the onsite wetland.
• Four red alder trees ranging in diameter from 13 to 16 inches would need to be removed
to allow the constructi on of the SFR and related site development (Figure 1). All four trees
are outside the wetland buffer area. Existi ng invasive plants (primarily English ivy, nettles
and non-native blackberry) would be removed and wetland mitigation planting with
native vegetation would be implemented per the wetland Mitigation Plan to enhance the
existing wetland function (AquaTerra 2018b).
• A 16-foot-wide building setback area would be established between the SFR and the
southern property boundary to allow the installation of the septic system and provide for
a critical construction-related staging area. No other areas are available onsite outside
the wetland and related buffers, or within the immediate proximity of the site, for
construction-related staging.
Criteria and Applicant Responses for the Review and Approval of the RUE
The following are the eleven criteria for the review and approval of an RUE {BIMC Title 16, Section
16.20.080), all of which have been addressed by the proposed site development as presented in
the above narrative and attached supporting documents. Responses describing how the proposed
site development would address each decision criterion are also presented:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property.
o After applying the wetland buffers, the proposed site development would not
be feasible in the absence of the RUE.
o All reasonable use of the property would be denied per the application of the
BIMC Title 16, Section 16.20, under other forms of application for SFR
construction on the subject parcel.
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area
or its required buffer.
Page 6of
14
o As described above under Proposed Site Development, the proposed site
development has been minimized to the least reasonable extent and designed
to mitigate impacts to the wetland, and may improve the function of the
wetland when compared to the exi sting conditions due to the implementation
ofthe Mitigation Plan (AquaTerra 2018b) and the diversion of stormwater from
the adjacent parcel to the south to the wetland.
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing {BIMC 16.20.030).
o The proposed site development would include the following actions to
minimize impacts to the wetland and buffer in accordance with mitigation
sequencing:
• Low impact fencing between the SFR and wetl and buffer,and signage
to prevent future encroachment;
• Plants between SFR and wetland would be chosen based on their ability
to provide light and noise screeni ng,i.e. densely planted trees/hi gh
stature shrubs;
• Using elevated walkways around the SFR within the wetland buffer,
rather than at-grade;
• Directing lights away from the wetland;
• Low-impact foundation designs;
• Establish covenants to avoid the use of pesticides within the parcel;
• Disperse stormwater runoff from the adjacent parcel to the south into
the wetland; and
• Utilize full-downspou t infiltration (splash blocks) combined with
permeable pavement to disperse stormwater collected from the SFR-
related roof and driveway into the near-surface soil upgradient of the
wetland.
• Other actions described above under Proposed Site Development,
including the SAR letter recommendati ons.
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property.
o The proposed site development has been reduced to the extent practicable
utilizing best avai lable science for mitigati ng adverse impacts to the
envi ronment through the implementation of actions presented in the
Mitigation Plan (AquaTerra 2018b), SAR letter recommendations,and BMPs.
5. 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.
o The applicant and the applicant's predecessor did not engage in property-
related actions after February 20, 1992.
Page 7of
14
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development.
o The proposed SFR footpri nt woul d not exceed 1,200 square feet.
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the property.
o The proposed site development would not pose an unreasonable threat to the
public health, safety, or welfare on or off the property through the
implementation of actions presented inthe Mitigation Plan (AquaTerra 2018b),
SAR letter recommendations, and BMPs.
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with mitigation
requirements applicable to the critical area altered.
o The proposed site development would mitigate impacts to the wetland area
through the implementati on of actions presented in the Mitigation Plan
(AquaTerra 2018b), SAR letter recommendati ons, and BMPs.
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values.
o The proposed site development would protect the critical area functions and
values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of
critical area functions and values through the implementation of actions
presented in the Mitigation Plan (AquaTerra 2018b), SAR letter
recommendations, and BMPs.
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action.
o The proposed site development would address cumulative impacts through the
implementation of actions presented inthe Mitigation Plan (AquaTerra 2018b),
SAR letter recommendations, and BMPs. The parcel to the west and upgradient
of the subject property is owned by the Port Madison Water Company and it is
our understanding would not be developed in the future. All other adjacent
parcels have been developed. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are
anticipated within the foreseeable future.
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
o The proposed site development would be consistent with all relevant and
applicable regulations and standards.
Summary of Reasons for RUE Request
Per the CoBI Administrative Manual Planning Permit Submittal Requirements, and the documents
received during the Pre-Appl ication meeting,the followi ng summarizes the reasons for requesting
the RUE:
• Per the applicati on of BIMC Chapter 16, Section 16.20, under other forms of application
for SFR construction on the subject parcel,all reasonable use of the property would be
denied.
• Upon review and consideration by all the professionals engaged for this project (including
architect, wetlands biologist, civil engineer, and septic designer), the collaborative
Page 8of
14
#Br Mtltaet
evaluation of the parcel has shown the RUE be the only viable alternative to allow
construction of a SFR on the subject parcel,considering the wetland-related constraints.
• The inability of the applicant to derive an expected and reasonable use at this subject
parcel is not due to any actions of the applicant or the current seller (applicant's
predecessor).
• The proposed development would not pose an unreasonable threat to the health,safety,
or welfare, on or off the subject property, and off-site mitigation would not be required.
• The proposed development is consistent with all relevant and appl icable regulations and
standards, including all eleven above-mentioned criteria for considering the approval of
an RUE.
Thank you for your consi deration of this application,and feel free to contact me if you have a
question.
Sincerely,
Mercury Midlllfoec 19,2018)
Mercury Michael
References
AquaTerra, LLC {AquaTerra). 2018a. Wetland Delineation, Euclid Property. October 10,2018.
AquaTerra, LLC {AquaTerra). 2018b. Mitigation Plan, Euclid Property. October 9, 2018.
Knoedler, Eric Nathanial. 2014. Physical Characteristics and Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity
from Grain-Size Distribution for Vashon Till, South-Central Puget Lowland, Washington.
U.S. Department of Agri culture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservati on Service. 1980.Soil Survey
of Kitsap County, Washington. https://websoi lsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Web site accessed
December 16,2018.
Haugerud, Ralph. 2005. Preliminary Geologic Map of Bainbridge Island, Washington. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1387,Versi on 1.0.
Washi ngton State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2014a. 2012 Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington, as Amended in December 2014.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2014b.Revised Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington. Effective January 2015.
Page 9 of 14
FIGURE 1-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PLAN
. .JI'•" ...... '/
-/ ;- "-.J/.r" -...t\,.s V fr.ll'l N' ....... ......... u -
•.
--=-- --....,,_---- -:::":"
,- --
- " ,,. ,_ -!!<->.i -
"' ,
- ·1' -----------
.,, -·
J ..T._C,ff_> ,. _- _.
1,' ,, ()"' ' x ob '_ ,....---- ..,...
• -•v..-""'..-.rc,_ I) ..,.....,.., ....... ....
- .!!/"t.:.!..t ":f:.. """o •V q,.1., - =1:.::r
#"OWT •o< '--•\ 06>--· .,_.,
·,
Q-°"'""1)1. My•
..... ""0· a.. .. ... . --w.
(• bi«'; ,• , ..J
Or ,·.. ............. _ - J. ,._,.... --...c _ _ -ffd ...,,, \
I
z. ... ..,_....,_,,.,..- OT• ..
... , ••._·n {!r.c '· --- -f
! " _ ..._,__ f.M Hir..ljWl,,..,J. l _, ._ , _ _ _ ol!IM _ '- _ ...._
ft:t.M.,W /,loW Wl'.Uf. - · ,,.,. x.• ---- ,.........,..
,, \ c\: •.fl'JW)
¢ .. I 'll
\\
\
. .
I , , - \. ' ., Qi, ;:s ! \ ,,.,. I
- t/I C..1!,;t,lltf!fl 'i l .1•••'*"
.
'..,,
S. U' :;:r... ;rf") -=-... t_. _':,.
I
I
..:"-..,/ \:..(}"' .
'll ;;;, . i I "
I
I
' l _ _
_
I O"' 2'- -_-_ -------- -. '-·- - -
'7 :::
L'-1
', _ __ _
.iS i
'
---
-------
...-..._...
. .... <>-.J"
....,,
i
0 _.,. It t:H' !.'!.
_c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,---
/ ___(\'
:rD.
..o.. ·r··
.. o
/':..,,.
t.
!'.-...
,. ,,,, C/'"'"i 11£ 0:-l!rloS ii\>/'° ,.. ' _,__ LS " A' •...,:. .. '°'""...
--
-
I
f,f ,..., t-_::_
r
IACtNlfY !IA/'
S£C.J4, T 26N., R.2£.. W.M.
Pl> s..i<J
·....... - '/ t:;
L ...,I
Topography
c.f •P<l<f ot
Government Lots I
St.C.J4, 126N., R.2t.., W.M.
& 2
w ' . CAAHnC §CAUi
ADM/ · OLDSJORTDY ·OH
A C 0 lNtD SUf.Vf'YNG. UC
f015 Ht l'ICS ST (.Jfl))77f-42#1 i k
Ci'!y ct Sdrtblidge ldono.
it.sap G:Ju,ly. r01 1'M.:ot\ M H110 CYA'n41-nH
,!.:' . P..r- ared for: MerCU'T'JI MichML ..,.,,.. ....,,.,.,.,, S(i(Jtf 1.m,1•
-PUT 1/ 1
Page10 of
14
/
LEGEND
EXISTING PRoPe.RTY UN£S
EXISTING ROAD
EXlrnNG MN<.'lllCONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR -'\
I
SITE PLAN
SITE PBADONPUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA & 'ilTE
OBSERVATIONS. TOl'OGRAPHtC INFORMATION BASED
ON SIJRV(V OYAGO LAND SUMYING DllTCO 928.18
OllTUM. NAVD88
SCALE· l"•lO-
o rs 30 60
/
/ / /
/ ,::,'<-
/ /
CONCEPTUAL L.l.D.SITE ASSESSMENT
EUCLID AVENUE - MICHAEL RESIDENCE
R .v1. E. PRE-APPLICATI ON SUBMITTAL / / $"' / / - ....._ ........ I S EA BO LD
ENGINEER ING LLC
/
/ PC BOK 445IND A NOLA1 WA 9B342
360,930.4668 ll[NQ N££R@9£A80l..0 £NQ,C0M
/ bj, 0-6.)016,EA. RCVtSlD'°"'TH At:.o SITE SURVEYASRl9UlSTtD.
/ /
7<llWMINERS(lUORWYWMJACVH£A,EruLtTEB C 2
BAINMOGl. ISV.NO. W"' 98110
2067806075
n'lel'ttcrr com 2 C F" 2
FIGURE 2 - L.lD.SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN
/
6)
/
/
/ /
Page11 of
14
FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
S EA B O LD
EN GINEER ING LLC
PO Box 445 INDIANOLA, WA 983 42
360.930.4668 ENGINEER@ 5EABOLOENG.COM
:
T
.\
SITE CROSS
SECT\ON N-S
I
I
w
z::> I
0 :::;
w
Proposed Construction Phallncand Sequencing
• Construction timingshall be planned for dry weather conditions.
• Erosion central BMP's shall be Installed prior to any site soll disturbance.
• Clearing limits shall clearly be delineated to p"""'nt soil disturbance to the minimum for utility and
resid•ntial construction.
• Septic dralnfleld wrll llkely be Installed first and soils fullystablllzed pnor to excavation forhome
foundation to minimize the amoulTI of exposed soilsat any given time.
• Once foundation excavation be1lns, excess soilwlll most likely be hauled away dueto llmlted space
for stockplllng on-<lte.
• Early application of driveway1ravel w llbeinsbllled to mainta n 1ocess ind stabilzed construction
partdn1.
• Chipped vegetation or off-site mulch shallbe used ta fullystabilize and cover any exposed soils.
• All mitigation for minimization of impactsto the wetland buffer will be followed asoutlined by the
wetland blologlst.
• Sb11in1of earthwork- and construction-related materials shall occur n the area between the
proposed residence and southern property boundary.
G111dlng a Eiav..lon Pl•n
• Grading ind excavation shill be limited to the orea outside the wetland buffer.
• P n piles or pierfoundiltion support for the proposed residence shall be util zed within ttie wetland
buffer to limit sitedisturbance.
• The project shall considl!'r all 13 Elements of Construction Stormwater Pollution Pf'l!'Vention and
develop colTlrols for all elements thatpertain to the project site (Ecology 201.4a)_
• The area between the SFR and southern property boundary shall be used for staging of ear1hworks-
1nd construct on-related materials.
SITE CROSS
SECTION E-W
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN BASED ON SURVEY BY AGO
SURVE'YING INC. DATED 9.28.20 18 & PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE DATA.
DATUM: NAVD88
SCALE: 1·- 20'
o ·- 0 10 20 40
1
4S:
11.28.2018
SITE SECTION LOCATIONS
EUCLID RESIDENCE
Page12 of
14
'5
0+.00 1 +00
6f>-<-----------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+------------+-n l
PROPOSED
40' R.O.W. DRIVEWAY HOUSE -------j APPROX .--j wz TO HOUSE MFE-48.0'
s -I
- ROAD I ::; 2_% ---- EX.GRADE
1.17% 5.4 0.08% - 2.28% 5.48% 0.25% ii1 FLOWUNE TO
"- RAINGARDEN
·O
-- --n5%
4 0
o+'oo 1 +00 1+49
SITE SECTIO N EA ST - WEST
SCALE:1·- 10'
1+50 1 +00 0+.00
w l---------PR 6 D I
I!: I .. ,
WETLAND WBEUTFLFAENRD --BSU-ET-LBD-AINC-KG --l !!! { ---- 14.62%
3.11'\0 :I!::; 0
5.1 39; 4.05% 0.54%
l(}-+--------------+------------+-------------f-------------+------------+------------ ,f--:30
1+50 1 +00 0+00
SITE S ECTIO N NO RTH - S O UTH
SCALE: 1·- 10·
11.28.2018
SITE SECTIONS
EUCLID RESIDENCE
S EA B O LD
EN G I NEERI N G LLC
PO Box 445 INDIANO LA, WA 98342
360.930.4668 ENGINEER@ S EABOLOENG.COM
FIGURE 4 - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CROSS SECTIONS
Page13 of
14
PARCELINFOR MATION
TAX IC)- 4167-<)00-024..0003
ARCA0l7-ACR£S. Afl900;( 16.117 SF &
I& 7.0NING·Q..2
9t)llOINr.(FTAA("W
FRONT 2S.FT • 2 rTORY OR LESS l-tOl.J'l:E
SIOCS S.rr. IS f"T TOTAl - r..r- ,,.;: -.:/ "'"" - - -- - - - -- --- -- ll'[All 1sn 1STORVOQUUI<
'•.,:•...•"•.,''..,'•.•,• , ,'--.,_ ,·..•-,..•., TOl'OGMNIOCCON<OU1SOTHCNOl>T>ICONOOUNOMV ·
(r r.. -s -· "' I ••
CRITICALN!t<AC CATl:GOR'V IV ut/STlANO
• • k/0£UN£ATrDVV£TlANO y \l/£TI.ANOAR£AONSIT£ l,488-SF ON SJTC 7.8.QO.SF W£Tl.ANO SUfFCR ARCA
1 . . .. .. .. PER AOlM.fEll'M UC 'NOTE·TH( NORTHLRN wm.ANO BOUNOAR'V WAS NOT MOIJS'i;N(ll'OACMM(NT INTOWGTLANO 8UFJ'(ll oa SF
.":... D ; 6 tE ,-<, .....::'::': OATf0 4 1t>Z018' N ED
(
6 P'POPOHO IMPERVIOVS AR'-'S·
l( k·:.·.-:.·,; ;:·:.·.·:.·:.·.·:.·:.:.·:.·.·::.·: -·j K UIOWN CONTINUING N THIS rAHION P'nOPOSCO OOIVCWAV- soosr
PROPOSliOROOn'O P· l,200SJ'
TOTAL PAOPOSliO IMPG:RVIOUS: 1.700-SF
! 0:z<:7?::<:<<:<?::}L·;. : ON SITS n"ORMWATliR '1MP'$:
ROOFTOP' 00\A.INSPOUT OtSPCRSION; BMP n roe
OOIVCWAV1PCRM£.A9l( MVC:MENT: 9MPT!> 1; "' \ !\ \l -'-'<<:2{·::>:.'..; /-· 1 z
CJ :::J SPVJHSUXKi TY'P - • I
moM rouNCTION \.. r-.},,s r - , '
PORT /- ... "" '
M.<\JNTAIN5 MIN " ,,. j8
( ( " \_ <U J .1,,,"' ' '
/ ' ' : "-"-. 2 ED - ;•q _ _ /
I/ / '; _ ;;-- ,+--.......--...--.....- I ---;:;)11 'I ""'
PORT J M"°"°"
UIFAYFrrA I -- -- ,) I PROJECT LOC.-.TION ,Ir"""°'"" ./ .., 1 ,
I FWl/fDP I c.I \.[ @A -fk , I 0"1Yt'WAVIV'f>I / ,,- /
I
rIm _.,.-J 'C,,,RMEABU PAVEMEm ()' I r .,.,",,'"..".".,"_"r _J \
PORTM/.OI /
su r -Sll-
WA TfllCO - - -r-T-tt -7 - - / -- - - --t' . / OIVll NNOr·fOU2 : PLf-N / "' 'f 1 13°" ltl:ROUlt: Nt:.tGHaofl'S J IC>8 OSS ! COMl'ONCNTSSJ l()WN Pl!R,.......TM.ANCl Avrd
7fo -:"."'" \J===17 V IC IN ITY MA P j I 1 32°1 I 1
}' TAXIO•i 167-000<>li--000.) KAll'·I"• 1000 NEf (CrlON.:li IOWNSH IP 16 NORIHRANGE l EA5T / ,j / CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN l o / /
/ EUCLID AVENU E·MICHAEL RESIDENCE 1 / / R.U.E.PRE-APPLICAT ION SUBMITTA L
S TE: PLAN
srrc Pl.AN BASCO ON l'U8UCLV AV/\tlABU DATA 'sm;
08SERV>TIONS: TOPOGRAPHICINFORMATION SAS.ED
ON SUJMY8Y AGO I.A.NO WRVfYINGOATfO 97R 16
OATUM:NA\/Oe8
SCALE 1· •20'
0 10 20 40
S EA BO LD
ENGINEERING LLC
,.0 Dex 44 5" NO A NDLA, WA 9e342
:JOO,'ill::ll0,40011 B:NOINl:t:R@•1t:AliOL.OCNO,CCI"'
- .- ..- 1 /j\ 11z xnllJ f,o, Jlf'Vl"'f1lwrn ...r9nr11AVn'A llr!)t1f11n
Ol:IEil ONEC : !(:, LAUCHLIN 101! v'rEB I[31;] ,......
ORAWN: J. AOAM s.i-JNBRDGE ISlAND,Wll 98110
IC. LA UGHLIN l06180.60/S
Mil 1.10 M(IKURVKllARTCAAu.t.CSrATt:COM I oi=- !2
FIGURE 5 -UTILITY PLAN
Page14 of
14
I EGEHQ
t"X r ./::t 10" No Build
Soil Log ---- BIUlillding En ....................... <b.3cl<
_ ·- Exis'ting Sep-cic • Compoc'
Tir-e-e
\t1:nt
(A) O•>.n Oiut
(B) Trlil T.ank
(C) NuWaYe-1" N'.R-600
(O} Air 81.oYlr"Cr
(E) Pump T.anlc
(F) Spli-tt.•r
10>e 7'9'_
.·--- -------·...---.-----------------.--..----------
1
I
I
I I
Ir
I
I
'
l
·ax:r.CTI?;o T-
VIC I N ITY PlAN
:BHDICOTJ' !;I lxl
L:.J
n'
ZXJCTING 91JL'l'
I I
I
7 .- ....,.
i ...,
- tJ.Uo.eoWtr.t.. oAA.lrJAO!: I
\ I I
z
.....
1
1·
-'\;'I1"..
II . WET•u
CATrEAG•ORAYRJ!JA
ao • )
11'-1 V
w-;
MJW;IJliJW
'L"O'TCAlJ'lT.NOllO) OP
I1 -......le-
II =- - ..J. - .-.. ,,..;, .........._ PLA0<>12ro
!QB' tn::LDD:Q.
' C'E'T'llACK I a I
1
I ',_ \
;;> -
'·
: : J OQ:OOPl"Rn'L.A..ND_/"
I
'
.............
J
I • I . .
:....
r· Io.;O,'r'TAC'2RJ4U; ..-·" 1}·- ' ll )C:)4t". J:;..R:!:WJ::.VJ:I .A.ltlt.A ,,,. : • •oaa mat0.arro:_r) :-;--=- - -· - ,; • &iOCV'J> 1
) I I I
i
I '',, CL3 /'
....,._: 'G :"'" .. .. ,:-
!,<.» : CTT ,,.
: ' ........._ _ OAYl.JOKTU -muanoi:;·c DJ;Arn ,,,..,,. ,....ew.oie : .
i • .;.,.: t 1 1 : RD
A
------------
...- T-POw...,.F1mca LnIZ
---.... ·--.......-...
(Ae.tm.tr.n 71'.0P'G-TY Lnll2) I
PROPERTY LINES BASED ON COUNTY RECORDS:
PORT MAD SON #30031.01/0311906 ,Vol.OJ Pg.003
CONTOUR LNES SOURCED FROM:
copyr1ant Ill 19'93'-Z013 KilMp Coonty <ilS.
AU righ.tc H
SCALE:1" - 20'
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
®
Nothon ClaOYar Sa, ptlc- Ouign, Inc.
Phone: (3601 6SB·6&46, F•.: 360-698-6648
292 "IW Thomp&CHt Road,P-oul DO,WA 04370
Ema.JI:n1.tnan@ndlat1C1eav ar.com
QISTOMER: MERCURY MICHAEL
TAX ll #· 4167-000-024-0003
LOCATION: LOT' 24;E\Ja!ID A\/U lJE I'.£
BAINBRIDGEISLAND,WA 98110
ORAWN BY: ICS
DESIGN BY: NATHAN N. CLEAVER
OAT"E: Z3 MAR 2018.RE\/: 14 A.UG Z018
FIGURE 6 -SEPTIC PLAN
Page 11of 14
Exhibit 8
FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
S EA B O LD
EN GINEER ING LLC
PO Box 445 INDIANOLA, WA 983 42
360.930.4668 ENGINEER@5EABOLOENG.COM
\ I
SITE CROSS I
SECT\N N-S
I
Proposed Construction Phallncand Sequencing
• Construction timingshall be planned for dry weather conditions.
• Erosion central BMP's shall be Installed prior to any site soll disturbance.
• Clearing limits shall clearly be delineated to p"""'nt soil disturbance to the minimum for utility and
resid•ntial construction.
• Septic dralnfleld wrll llkely be Installed first and soils fullystablllzed prior to excavation forhome
foundation to minimize the amoulTI of exposed soilsat any given time.
• Once foundation excavation be1lns, excess soilwlll most likely be hauled away dueto llmlted space
for stockpiling on-<lte.
• Early application of driveway1ravel w llbe insbllled to maintainaccess ind stabilzed construction
par1dn1.
• Chipped vegetation or Dff-site mulch shallbe used to fullystabilize and cover any exposed soils.
• All mitigation for minimization of impactsto the wetland buffer will be followed asoutlined by the
wetland blologlst.
• Sb11in1of earthwork- and construction-related materials shall occur n the area between the
proposed residence and southern property boundary.
G111dlng a Eiav..lon Pl•n
• Grading ind excavation shall be limited to the orea outside the wetland buffer.
• P n piles or pierfoundiltion support forthe proposed residence shall be utilized within ttie wetland
buffer to limit sitedisturbance.
• The project shall conside-r all 13 Elements of Construction Stormwater Pollution Pre-vention and
develop colTlrols for all elements thatpertlin to the project site (Ecology 201.4a)_
• The area between the SFR and southern property boundary shall be used for staging of earthworks-
andconstruct on-related materials.
SITE CROSS
SECTION E-W
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN BASED ON SURVEY BY AGO
SURVE'YING INC. DATED 9.28.20 18 & PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE DATA.
DATUM: NAVD88
SCALE: 1·- 20'
10 20 40
5'
BUILDING
SETBACK
11.28.2018
SITE SECTION LOCATIONS
EUCLID RESIDENCE
Exhibit 9
Wetland Delineation
Euclid Property
4/16/2018
AquaTerra, LLC
11951 Miller Road
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
206-619-3167
Page 2 of 4
AquaTerra, LLC
Introduction and Background
A wetland delineation was performed for parcel number 4167-000-024-0003 located on Euclid
Ave NE between NE Endicott Street and NE Lafayette Ave in Bainbridge Island, Washington.
The property is 0.37 acre in size. It belongs to Larry Pritchard and is located in Section 34,
Township 26N, Range 02E. The wetland is located in the northern portion of the subject
property. The purpose of the wetland delineation was to establish the wetland boundary and its
associated buffer for a future structure.
The parcel slopes down to the north towards the wetland. There are no existing structures on the
property. The vegetation consists of a forested canopy surrounding the wetland. The remainder
of the property is consists of a few alders, shrubs, and herbaceous species. There is one existing
wetland that is located on the northern property boundary. The center of the wetland is
seasonally ponded and has a permanently flowing outlet. The outlet is a culvert through which
the water flows to the east and exits the property. It is unknown where the water travels to the
surface again. A second culvert crosses under Euclid Ave NE, feeding the wetland.
NRCS Soil Survey
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey shows one type of soil on the
subject property: 32-McKenna gravelly loam. Norma soil is a 10 percent minor component of the
soil type and known as a hydric soil.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
The US Fish and Wildlife Service NWI mapper does not show the onsite wetland. There are four
other wetlands within a mile of the subject wetland. The subject wetland is within 0.1 mile from
the Puget Sound. None of the wetlands shown on the mapper tool are associated with the onsite
wetland. The City of Bainbridge Island (COBI) GIS mapper shows the onsite wetland. The
COBI mapper has several wetlands within a mile of the subject property. None of them are
associated with the subject wetland.
Page 3 of 4
Wetland Delineation
Methodology for a routine wetland delineation was used in accordance with guidelines in the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (US Army Corps of Engineers 2010).
Fieldwork was conducted on February 5, 2018 under cloudy skies and approximately 50°F
temperatures. The property is accessed from Euclid Ave NE. There is one depressional wetland
in the northern portion of the property (Figure 2). The onsite wetland vegetation is a forested
canopy with emergent vegetation. Pink flagging tape was used to mark the wetland edge and
labeled W-1 through W-7 (Figure 2).
The onsite wetland vegetation is a forested classification. It consists of red alder (Alnus rubra),
English ivy (Hedera helix), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis),
sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis). No signs of recent
disturbance were noted. Therefore the delineation was done on the basis of the existence of
normal circumstances on the site.
Two data points were dug. The first data point (Test pit 1) was dug 10 feet north of flag W-3, a
second data point (Test pit 2) was dug uphill of the wetland, just south of flag W-3. The
vegetation surrounding Test pit 1 was dominantly hydrophytic. The soils met the parameters for
hydric soils. The soil was found to be a silty loam with a Munsell reading of 10YR 2/1 and no
redoximorphic features from 0-6 inches below the surface. The soil from 6-21 inches was a loam
with a Munsell reading of 10YR 4/1 with 10% soft masses (10YR 4/6). There was water in the
pit to 8 inches below the surface and the soil was saturated to the surface (See Data Forms in
Appendix A)
The vegetation surrounding test pit 2 was not dominantly hydrophytic. The soil did not meet the
parameters for hydric soils. The soil was found to be a loam with a Munsell reading of 10YR 3/3
and no redoximorphic features from 0-22 inches below the surface. There were no signs of
hydrology present (See Data Forms in Appendix A).
Page 4 of 4
Wetland Rating
The wetland was rated based on functions provided by the wetland according to the Revised
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology 2014). The hydrogeomorphic
classification for the wetland is depressional and was rated as a depressional wetland. The
overall score for the wetland is 14, making it a Category IV wetland. The water quality function
score is 6 and the hydrologic function score is 4. The potential for providing habitat function is 5.
(See Rating Form in Appendix B)
Category IV wetlands are regulated according to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC)
Critical Area Ordinanace (CAO) Title 16.20.140. The land use impact is moderate. Category IV
wetlands with a moderate land use receive a standard buffer width of 40 feet from the delineated
edge (CAO 16.20.140, Table 6). The total buffer width for the wetland is 40 feet with an
additional 15 feet of building setback. All activities are prohibited within the wetland and its
buffer except those specified in BIMC CAO.
Summary
There was one freshwater wetland found on the southern portion of the property. The wetland
was delineated on parcel 4167-000-024-0003. The wetland is rated as a Category IV wetland and
regulated under the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and Critical Area Ordinance. Category IV
wetlands with moderate land use receive a buffer total of 40 feet. The total wetland buffer will be
40 feet with an additional 15 foot building setback from the delineated edge of the wetland.
Sincerely,
Brenda Ruddick
Wetland Biologist
AquaTerra, LLC
4/16/2018
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
*Image from Google maps
Subject parcel
Figure 3
Figure 5
Appendix A
Wetland Data Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Euclid Property City/County: Bainbridge Island Sampling Date: 2/5/2018
Applicant/Owner: Larry Pritchard State: WA Sampling Point: TP-1
Investigator(s): Brenda Ruddick Section, Township, Range: 34/26N/02E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status
1.Alnus rubra 35 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
35 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Y FAC+
2. Oemleria cerasiformis 5 N FACU
3. Hedera helix 100 Y FACU
4.
5. 155 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1. Athyrium filix-femina 5 Y FAC
2. Polysticum munitum 10 Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2. 0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL
species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210
FACU species 115 x 4 = 460
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 185 (A) 670 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.62
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Chris
2017-01-24 00:56:31
--------------------------------------------
None set by Chris
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6" 10YR 2/1 100 None silty loam
6-21" 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
X Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Euclid Property City/County: Bainbridge Island Sampling Date: 2/5/2018
Applicant/Owner: Larry Pritchard State: WA Sampling Point: TP-2
Investigator(s): Brenda Ruddick Section, Township, Range: 34/26N/02E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1. Hedera helix 50 Y FACU
2. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC+
3. Rubus armeniacus N FACU
4. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FAC
5.
80 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1. Lamium galeobdolon 50 Y NI
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2. 0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL
species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 U
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
FACU species 75 x 4 = 300
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 80 (A) 315 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.93
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-22" 10YR 3/3 100 None loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 20in
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Appendix B
Wetland Rating Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
1
Wetland name or number
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Euclid Property Date of site visit: 2/5/18
Rated by Brenda Ruddick Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training 10/06
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? _Y X N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions X or special characteristics _)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
X Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings 6 4 4 14
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
2
Wetland name or number
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Figure 4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Figure 2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Figure 3
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 Figure 1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Figure 5
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Figure 3
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
3
____
____
___
___
____
____
____
Wetland name or number
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
4
Wetland name or number
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
5
12
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 1
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source Yes = 1 No = 0 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/ of area points = 1 10
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/ of area points = 0
10
5
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6
✔ -16 = H 6-11 = M
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0
✔ 2-4 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
6
12
:
2
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is:
0 = L Record the rating on the first page
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
3
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 3
✔ -16 = H 6-11 = M
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2
✔ 3 = H 1 or 2 = M
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
• Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
• Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0
✔ -4 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
7
1
0
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: = L Record the rating on the first page
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:
Depressions cover >3/ area of wetland points = 8 4
Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/ area of the wetland points = 8 3
Trees or shrubs > 1/ area of the wetland points = 6 3
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/ area of the wetland points = 6 3
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/ area of the wetland points = 3 3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/ area of the wetland points = 0 3
Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above
12-16 = H 6-11 = M
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut
within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4
Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
3-6 = H or 2 = M
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer
YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 3
Add the points in the boxes above
2-4 = H 1 = M
ayah461
2015-02-25 19:54:18
--------------------------------------------
Accepted set by ayah461
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
8
:
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the
stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average
width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6
If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4
If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2
If the ratio is < 1 points = 1
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or
shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person
height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
Forest or shrub for >1/ area OR emergent plants > 2/ area points = 7 3 3
Forest or shrub for > 1/ area OR emergent plants > 1/ area points = 4
10 3
Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0
Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above
12-16 = H 6-11 = M
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to
human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above
2-4 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
9
8
1
2
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is:
0-3 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential: If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
L 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
L 1.1. Average width of plants along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes):
Plants are more than 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6
Plants are more than 16 ft (5 m) wide and <33 ft points = 3
Plants are more than 6 ft (2 m) wide and <16 ft points = 1
Plants are less than 6 ft wide points = 0
L 1.2. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest
points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either
the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area
of cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed.
Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6
Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/ of the vegetated area points = 4 3
Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/ of the vegetated area points = 3 3
Other plants that are not aquatic bed > 2/ unit points = 3 3
Other plants that are not aquatic bed in > 1/ vegetated area points = 1 3
Aquatic bed plants and open water cover > 2/ of the unit points = 0 3
Total for L 1 Add the points in the boxes above
-12 = H 4-7 = M
L 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
L 2.1. Is the lake used by power boats? Yes = 1 No = 0
L 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland unit on the upland side in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
L 2.3. Does the lake have problems with algal blooms or excessive plant growth such as milfoil? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for L 2 Add the points in the boxes above
2 or 3 = H = M
L 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
L 3.1. Is the lake on the 303(d) list of degraded aquatic resources? Yes = 1 No = 0
L 3.2. Is the lake in a sub-basin where water quality is an issue (at least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the
303(d) list)? Yes = 1 No = 0
L 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the lake or basin in which the unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for L 3 Add the points in the boxes above
-4 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
10
6
:
:
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential: If score is: 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is
0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value: If score is 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion
L 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion?
L 4.1. Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include Aquatic bed):
Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland.
> ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6
> ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 6 ft (2 m) wide points = 4
> ¼ distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 4
Plants are at least 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 2
Plants are less than 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 0
= M
L 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
L 5.1. Is the lake used by power boats with more than 10 hp? Yes = 1 No = 0
L 5.2. Is the fetch on the lake side of the unit at least 1 mile in distance? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for L 5 Add the points in the boxes above
2 = H 1 = M
L 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
L 6.1. Are there resources along the shore that can be impacted by erosion? If more than one resource is present,
choose the one with the highest score.
There are human structures or old growth/mature forests within 25 ft of OHWM of the shore in the unit
points = 2
There are nature trails or other paths and recreational activities within 25 ft of OHWM points = 1
Other resources that could be impacted by erosion points = 1
There are no resources that can be impacted by erosion along the shores of the unit points = 0
2 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
11
:
:
Wetland name or number
Rating of Site Potential If score is 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
12 = H 6-11 = M
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
1-2 = M
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
2-4 = H 1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
12
:
:
:
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
8
Wetland name or number
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows.
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is
0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6
Rating of Value If score is 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L
Add the points in the boxes above
Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
1 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
13
Wetland name or number
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
X The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
X Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
1
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
1
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
1
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
14
:
:
:
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
1
✔
Wetland name or number
0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
⎯ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
⎯ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
⎯ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
⎯ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
⎯ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
X Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
1
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6
Rating of Site Potential If score is 15-18 = H 7-14 = M ✔
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 1 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 2 = 3 %
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/ (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 25 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]12.5= 37.5 %
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
2
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2
✔ 4-6 = H 1-3 = M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
15
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
⎯
Wetland name or number
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
✔
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
16
Wetland name or number
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
⎯ The dominant water regime is tidal,
⎯ Vegetated, and
⎯ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
⎯ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
⎯ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
⎯ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
17
Wetland name or number
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
⎯ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
⎯ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
⎯ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
⎯ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
⎯ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
⎯ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland. ⎯ The wetland is larger than 1/ ac (4350 ft2) 10
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
⎯ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
⎯ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
⎯ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
18
Wetland name or number
This page left blank intentionally
Exhibit 10
Mitigation Plan
Euclid Property
10/9/2018
AquaTerra, LLC
11951 Miller Road
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
206-619-3167
Page 2 of 6
AquaTerra, LLC
Introduction and Background
One category IV wetland exists on parcel 4167-000-024-0003 located on Euclid Ave NE
between NE Endicott Street and NE Lafayette Ave in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure 1).
The property belongs to Larry Pritchard. It is 0.37 acres in size and is located in Section 34,
Township 26N, Range 02E. The wetland is located in the northern portion of the subject property
along the property boundary. A wetland delineation was conducted in 2018. The purpose of this
mitigation plan is to apply for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) for a future single family
residence.
The majority of the property is encumbered by the wetland and its buffer. The applicant has
designed a building plan that will avoid the greatest amount of impact to the wetland and its
buffer.
Existing Conditions
The parcel is located on the eastern side of Euclid Drive NE. It slopes down to the north toward
the existing wetland. There are no existing structures on the property (Figure 2). The property
consists of undisturbed vegetation. The northern portion of the property is a forested canopy with
a small seasonal ponding area. There is a seasonal stream that flows out of the ponding area to
the east. The seasonal stream continues on to the eastern adjacent property. The southern portion
of the property consists of groundcover and herbaceous vegetation. A fair amount of the center
of the property is encumbered by English ivy (Hedera helix). The herbaceous vegetation in the
northern portion is mainly dead nettle (Lamium galeobdolon), an invasive species. The onsite
wetland is regulated by Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC).
Project Description
The wetland and its buffer cover the majority of the parcel. Plans for the construction of a single
family residence will be submitted with a building permit. The building will be situated on the
Page 3 of 6
property to minimize the impact to the buffer and be as far away from the wetland as practicably
possible considering the need for a 15- to 20-foot-wide staging area between the building and
southern property boundary during construction. The single family residence will have a 1200
square foot footprint to meet the RUE regulations of no larger than a 1200 square foot footprint
(BIMC 16.20.080). A driveway will be installed to access the single family residence from
Euclid Ave. A significant portion of the property is covered with English ivy (Hedera helix) and
dead nettle (Lamium galeobdolon). It is recommended to remove the English ivy and dead nettle
to be replanted with native vegetation (listed below).
Environmental Goals and Objectives
It is the goal of this mitigation plan to uphold the function and value of the wetland and its
buffer. There will be no net loss of wetland function due to the construction of a single family
residence.
Much of the existing buffer consists of non-native plant species, English ivy (Herdera helix) and
dead nettle (Lamium galeobdolon). The removal of this low lying invasive vegetation will
benefit the wetland habitat. The function and value of the buffer will only increase by replacing
the invasive species with native shrubs and trees. The native vegetation will provide a dense
vegetation buffer for wildlife. The planting area includes the area between the single family
residence and the wetland. This area in particular is important to remove invasive species in
order to minimize the impact of the single family residence on the wetland. The effects to the
wetland will be best minimized by replacing the current ground-cover vine and herbaceous
vegetation.
Minimization and Mitigation Measures
Minimization/Avoidance for Temporary Impacts
During the course of the restoration, standard best management practices (BMPs) will be
implemented. These BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Installing appropriate sedimentation and erosion control where necessary, such as silt
fencing
Page 4 of 6
• Plant buffer with dense vegetation
• Minimize light pollution by directing lights away from the wetland
• Minimize noise impacts by placing noise generating equipment away from the wetland
• All toxic materials to be kept out of the wetland and its buffer
• Prevention of all materials and debris of entering the wetland and its buffer
• Keeping noise and artificial light to minimum, artificial light should be directed away
from the wetland when possible
Mitigation for Permanent Impacts
In order to mitigate for loss of vegetation from the impacted area, native plants will be installed.
All invasive vegetation will be removed prior to the planting process. English ivy and dead nettle
are the primary invasive vegetation. Once the invasive vegetation is removed, mulch will be
added to help prevent the re-establishment of invasive species and promote the growth of the
planted native species.
Regulatory Requirements
The impacted portion of the buffer will be no greater than 1200 square feet which will be
replanted at a ratio of 1.5:1. This is in accordance with 16.20.140 Table 8. This will require a
total of 1800 square feet of buffer restoration.
Planting must occur during the spring or autumn seasons in order to promote the survival of new
vegetation. Therefore, planting will be implemented October through November or March
through June. Plants can be bare root or potted. If planting is implemented during the fall, all
plants must be watered when there has been no precipitation for 2 days for a full year. If planting
is implemented in the spring, watering must occur when there has been no precipitation for 2
days. In both cases watering will continue every other day while no precipitation occurs.
Restoration and Enhancement
When construction is completed and the blackberries have been removed at least 3 inches of
mulch will be laid down to promote vegetation growth and deter growth of invasive species. All
invasive species in the section of the buffer to be re-established will be removed by hand. The
following are recommended species to be planted within the restored area:
Page 5 of 6
Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity
Western red cedar Thuja plicata 3 gal 15 ft 2
Red alder Alnus rubra 3 gal 15 ft 5
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal 6ft. 20
Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gal 6ft 10
Sword fern Polystichum munitum 1 gal 3ft. 20
Lady fern Athyrium filix femina 1 gal 3ft 20
The approximately 1800 square feet of restored buffer is highlighted within the red polygon in
figure 3.
Monitoring Program
The re-established area will be monitored for no less than 7 years. This is in accordance with
BIMC 16.20.180.G. No less than 7 sample plots will be randomly chosen after the project is
completed. These sample plots will be photographed every year and submitted to the City of
Bainbridge Island to demonstrate the success of the planted vegetation.
Performance Standards, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan
All restoration and enhancement will be completed within the compliance of the mitigation plan
(BIMC 16.20.180.G). In the first year, all planted vegetation will have 100% survival and the
removed invasive vegetation should have a coverage of less than 20%. Vegetation survival
should be at least 80% for the second year and at least 75% of the original planting for the third
year. Every year after, the survival shall be no less than 75% of the original as built mitigation
plan. If the percentage of surviving plants falls below the required amount, the vegetation shall
be replaced at the expense of the applicant.
The applicant shall demonstrate financial resources required to complete the scope of this
mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 6
Summary
A category IV wetland and its buffer encompass the majority of the subject property. The
property qualifies for a reasonable use exception permit. A single family residence with no more
than a 1200 square foot footprint, with proper minimization and mitigation, will be allowed to be
built on the property (BIMC 16.20.080). The applicant will minimize the impact to the wetland
and its buffer and restore the buffer by implementing the mitigation plan presented above.
Sincerely,
Brenda Ruddick
Wetland Biologist
10/9/2018
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
*Image from Google maps
Subject parcel
WETLAND MITIGATION AREA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 24, PLAT OF PORT MADISON, ACCORDING TO
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS,
PAGE 3, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY:
ADAMS, GOLDSWORTHY OAK, 9/28/2018.
1
Annie Hillier
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:44 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Thank you, Rik. I’ve received all of the documents.
Now that the wetland boundaries have been surveyed and the wetland appears to occupy a bit less area on the project
site, I thought that a buffer width reduction might be an option. Buffer modification allows the buffer width to be
reduced up to 25% for a home site, and septic facilities could go in the buffer with a critical areas permit if necessary.
This would be a less expensive and faster permit process, with no hearing, so I wanted to make sure that it has been
considered. In fact, an applicant is required to first consider this option, but the previously mapped wetland boundary
made it seem infeasible. Here is the buffer modification section, taken from BIMC 16.20.140:
8. Buffer Modification. On each site, only one of the following modifications to buffer widths may be allowed provided the
applicant demonstrates the need for modification through mitigation sequencing pursuant to BIMC 16.20.030 and the
modification that results in the retention of the greatest area of buffer is used.
a. Buffer Width Averaging. The width of a required buffer may be averaged if the applicant can demonstrate that
averaging can provide equal or greater functions and values as would be provided under the required buffer and all
of the following conditions are met:
i. The total area of buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
ii. Averaging cannot result in any portion of the buffer being reduced more than 25 percent of its required
width.
b. Buffer Width Reduction. The width of a required buffer may be reduced if the applicant can demonstrate that the
reduction will provide equal or greater functions and values as would be provided under the required buffer and that
this will improve the protection of wetland functions and all of the following conditions are met:
i. The buffer may not be reduced more than 25 percent of its required width.
ii. Native vegetation on other portions of the site is retained in order to offset habitat loss from buffer reduction.
After playing around with the site plan, it seems like this still might not leave enough of a homesite area (even if the
front setback were reduced), but I would love your thoughts. Please let me know what you think, and if you have any
questions, do not hesitate to reach out.
If we need to proceed with the RUE, then I will be going through the RUE completeness review over the next two weeks
and will let you know what the outcome is. We will discuss a hearing date once the application is deemed complete.
During the 120-day review process, it is common for the City to reach out with recommended revisions. I will try to send
those to you as early on in the review process as possible.
Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing from you,
1
Annie Hillier
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: Re: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
As noted in my voice mail message a moment ago, I am back from home after holiday travels.
Maybe we can do this via email.
Mercury and I had several questions following up with the telephone conversation you and I had last week in order to
better understand whether a single family residence could be constructed without requiring an RUE.
Assuming we are able to demonstrate that the wetland function of the developed parcel would be equal to or greater
than the pre-site development-related conditions:
1. Would the 15’ building setback from the wetland buffer still apply?
2. Would it be possible to allow a larger septic system (i.e. 3 or 4 bedroom) if the RUE is not required?
3. What would be the anticipated permitting-related time frame?
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Rik Langendoen
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:32 PM Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com> wrote:
No worries.
I hope you have an enjoyable holiday!
Rik Langendoen
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Ah, I understand. We are closed Monday and Tuesday next week, and I am planning on being out of the office on
Wednesday as well. Sorry about that! But I will certainly be in touch when I get back. Sound okay?
-Annie
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 2:29 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
1
Annie Hillier
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:55 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik,
Sorry, I got your voicemail at the very end of the day, after a long meeting, and didn’t have time to call. And now it is
quite early, so I will shoot you and email and we can chat today, if you’d like. I’ve responded in-text, below.
Thank you,
Annie
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
As noted in my voice mail message a moment ago, I am back from home after holiday travels.
Maybe we can do this via email.
Mercury and I had several questions following up with the telephone conversation you and I had last week in order to
better understand whether a single family residence could be constructed without requiring an RUE.
Assuming we are able to demonstrate that the wetland function of the developed parcel would be equal to or greater
than the pre-site development-related conditions:
1. Would the 15’ building setback from the wetland buffer still apply? Yes, the 15 ft. setback still applies. The code
reads: “A structure or hard surface setback line of 15 feet is required from the edge of any wetland buffer.
Minor structural or impervious surface intrusions into the areas of the setback, such as but not limited to fire
escapes, open/uncovered porches, landing places, outside walkways, outside stairways, retaining walls, fences
and patios, may be permitted if the department determines upon review of an analysis of buffer functions
submitted by the applicant, that construction and/or maintenance of such intrusions will not encroach into the
wetland buffer or adversely impact the wetland. The functional analysis shall include a functional methodology
supported by best available science. The setback shall be identified on a site plan and filed as an attachment to
2
the notice on title as required by BIMC 16.20.070.G (Notice on Title).” If this still leaves too little of a building
envelop, we can also see if reducing the front setback would help any (minor variance) – it looked like there was
unencumbered area along the front lot line.
2. Would it be possible to allow a larger septic system (i.e. 3 or 4 bedroom) if the RUE is not required? This is
subject to health district approval, but I would think yes. The septic system would have to be located outside of
the buffer to the extent possible, and then if it is necessary to utilize the buffer, you would need to meet the
standards under 16.20.140.H.5 (for utilities) and mitigate for any permanent impacts (to be described in wetland
mitigation plan). We would process this as a major critical areas permit, but it would be reviewed through the
building permit. The septic system would be allowed in the 15 ft. setback from the buffer without a critical areas
permit, provided it is demonstrated that the buffer/wetland will not be impacted.
3. What would be the anticipated permitting-related time frame? If only buffer modification is requested, then we
would review the buffer enhancement/mitigation plan with the building permit, which can take anywhere from
10-16 weeks. If buffer modification and a major critical areas permit is requested, we can still do concurrent
review with the building permit, but we would follow different administrative review procedures, which can
take up to 120-days.
Fees:
RUE – $3,816 (already paid for; refund issued if application is cancelled)
Buffer modification only - $1,526
Buffer modification and critical areas permit - $2,034.67
Buffer modification and minor variance - $3,942.67
The fees should not be used in making a decision as to which permit to apply for, but it is still valuable information. The
decision should come down to whether buffer modification is feasible on the site, either with another permit or not. If it
isn’t, then we should proceed with the RUE. I’m very sorry that we did not go into this detail during the pre-app phase –
again, at that point the wetland boundaries seemed to occupy more of the site. If you do decide to adjust the site plan
and apply for something other than the RUE, I can sit down with you to go over any submittal items that need to be
adjusted. I do not think it would be much… I’m curious what your thoughts are after digesting all this – let me know
when you are ready to discuss.
Thank you! -Annie
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Rik Langendoen
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:32 PM Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com> wrote:
No worries.
I hope you have an enjoyable holiday!
Rik Langendoen
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Ah, I understand. We are closed Monday and Tuesday next week, and I am planning on being out of the office on
Wednesday as well. Sorry about that! But I will certainly be in touch when I get back. Sound okay?
-Annie
1
Annie Hillier
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
No worries.
Thank you for the responses – very helpful.
I assumed the 15’ buffer was going to be required.
The challenge we are having is the proposed 16’ buffer between the SFR and southern property boundary would still be
needed for both construction staging and maintenance of the septic system.
So, even if we reduce the wetland buffer by 25% and rotate the SFR 90 degrees, we would still not be able to avoid the
15’ building setback buffer.
This is really unfortunate because I thought we could make this work…
Rik Langendoen
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 08:55 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik,
Sorry, I got your voicemail at the very end of the day, after a long meeting, and didn’t have time to call. And now it is
quite early, so I will shoot you and email and we can chat today, if you’d like. I’ve responded in-text, below.
Thank you,
Annie
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
1
Annie Hillier
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik, what if the SFR is rotated and shifted south to the 5 ft. setback, and the septic tanks switched to the north side of
the house, so that they are within the 15ft setback and construction staging area? We will ask for reverse orientation of
the SFR and the septic tanks for the RUE too, which I will send in a more formal letter. Would this get you enough area?
Thanks,
Annie
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
No worries.
Thank you for the responses – very helpful.
I assumed the 15’ buffer was going to be required.
The challenge we are having is the proposed 16’ buffer between the SFR and southern property boundary would still be
needed for both construction staging and maintenance of the septic system.
So, even if we reduce the wetland buffer by 25% and rotate the SFR 90 degrees, we would still not be able to avoid the
15’ building setback buffer.
This is really unfortunate because I thought we could make this work…
Rik Langendoen
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 08:55 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik,
Sorry, I got your voicemail at the very end of the day, after a long meeting, and didn’t have time to call. And now it is
quite early, so I will shoot you and email and we can chat today, if you’d like. I’ve responded in-text, below.
Thank you,
Annie
1
Annie Hillier
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:10 AM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
I thought the same.
I believe the remaining challenge is installing the septic system on slopes ranging between about 23% and 32%.
But it would prudent for us to have the engineer-of-record and septic engineer complete a CAD-related assessment to
confirm.
Rik Langendoen
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik, what if the SFR is rotated and shifted south to the 5 ft. setback, and the septic tanks switched to the north side of
the house, so that they are within the 15ft setback and construction staging area? We will ask for reverse orientation of
the SFR and the septic tanks for the RUE too, which I will send in a more formal letter. Would this get you enough area?
Thanks,
Annie
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
No worries.
Thank you for the responses – very helpful.
I assumed the 15’ buffer was going to be required.
The challenge we are having is the proposed 16’ buffer between the SFR and southern property boundary would still be
needed for both construction staging and maintenance of the septic system.
So, even if we reduce the wetland buffer by 25% and rotate the SFR 90 degrees, we would still not be able to avoid the
15’ building setback buffer.
This is really unfortunate because I thought we could make this work…
Rik Langendoen
1
Annie Hillier
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:24 AM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Attachments: image001.jpg
Also, based on my measurements, even if we reduce the building setback from Euclid, the SFR would still encroach upon
the 15’ building setback associated with the reduced wetland buffer by about 5’, assuming the 5’ building setback from
the southern property boundary would be still be required.
Rik Langendoen
From: Rik Langendoen
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:10 AM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
I thought the same.
I believe the remaining challenge is installing the septic system on slopes ranging between about 23% and 32%.
But it would prudent for us to have the engineer-of-record and septic engineer complete a CAD-related assessment to
confirm.
Rik Langendoen
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik, what if the SFR is rotated and shifted south to the 5 ft. setback, and the septic tanks switched to the north side of
the house, so that they are within the 15ft setback and construction staging area? We will ask for reverse orientation of
the SFR and the septic tanks for the RUE too, which I will send in a more formal letter. Would this get you enough area?
Thanks,
Annie
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Annie,
No worries.
Thank you for the responses – very helpful.
1
Annie Hillier
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Okay, well thank you for looking in to it. Do you think you would like to proceed with the RUE? I can give you more time
to think about it – next Thursday is when I would need to finish the completeness review for the RUE, which kicks off the
120-day review period.
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:24 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Also, based on my measurements, even if we reduce the building setback from Euclid, the SFR would still encroach upon
the 15’ building setback associated with the reduced wetland buffer by about 5’, assuming the 5’ building setback from
the southern property boundary would be still be required.
Rik Langendoen
From: Rik Langendoen
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:10 AM
To: Ann Hillier
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
I thought the same.
I believe the remaining challenge is installing the septic system on slopes ranging between about 23% and 32%.
But it would prudent for us to have the engineer-of-record and septic engineer complete a CAD-related assessment to
confirm.
Rik Langendoen
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Rik Langendoen
Subject: RE: Response to PLN51139 RUE Euclid House RUE
Hi Rik, what if the SFR is rotated and shifted south to the 5 ft. setback, and the septic tanks switched to the north side of
the house, so that they are within the 15ft setback and construction staging area? We will ask for reverse orientation of
the SFR and the septic tanks for the RUE too, which I will send in a more formal letter. Would this get you enough area?
Thanks,
Annie
From: Rik Langendoen <rik.langendoen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:59 AM
Exhibit 12
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
January 2, 2019
Re: Site Plan Review
File Name: EUCLID HOUSE RUE
Project Number: PLN51139 RUE
Submitted: August 16, 2018
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies.
Please consider the following:
• The City recommends that the SFR and septic tanks be reversed, with the SFR setback the minimum
distance (5 ft.) from the south lot line and the septic tanks located immediately north of the SFR.
o This would allow for the standard 15 ft. impervious surface setback between the SFR and
the mitigation area edge (with septic tanks located between), helping to prevent future
encroachment into the mitigation area than if it were directly abutting the SFR.
o This would also allow for construction staging area within the 15 ft. setback.
o Finally, the City bases its recommendation to the hearing examiner off the proposal’s
compliance with the RUE review criteria in BIMC 16.20.080. Placing lower impact
development (i.e. buried septic tanks with vegetation/lawn above) within the existing
wetland buffer and closest the wetland edge, as opposed to the SFR which represents a
permanent, substantial impact, would demonstrate compliance with RUE review criteria #3
and #4.
o Please see the attached document, illustrating this comment.
o If this is infeasible, please provide detailed information for staff to relate to the hearing
examiner.
• Please provide the proposed total impact to the wetland buffer, including any area necessary for
access and maintenance around the SFR.
• Please note that the following information is missing from the wetland report:
o a map of the ‘Hydroperiods’ is needed to answer question D1.4 and H1.2
o a map of the ‘Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland’ is missing from figure 3 and is
needed to answer question D2.2 and D5.2
o a map of the ‘Cowardin plant classes’ is missing from figure 4 and is needed to answer question
D1.3, H1.1 and H1.4
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
o the math is not shown on question H2.1 or H2.2
o question H2.3 needs to be justified
o the impact of land use is incorrect (it is considered moderate)
It does not appear that this information will impact the rating of the wetland or its boundaries, so the
City will continue to process the application based on the information provided. However, this
information must be supplied prior to hearing. The City may request additional information
regarding the mitigation plan during project review.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide
the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will contact you
when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
:<<.....·:·:-- ·
'
·r'"
/ <v
"
J
'
Itr=o::.:,:=... -...-_.../ ---::s-
PARCEL INFORMATION
TAX ID: 4167-000-024-0003
AREA: 0.37-ACRES,APPROX. 16,1 17-SF &
ZONING:R-2
BUILDING SETBACKS:
FRONT: 25-FT- 2 STORY OR LESS HOUSE
SIDES:5-FT, I S-FT TOTAL
REAR: 15-FT - 2 STORY OR LESS HOUSE
( ••.." •.... DELINEATED WETLAND .. • .. • .. PERAO UATERRALLC . i\:// "'."''./:/_j r3•
NOTE: THE NORTHERN WETLAND BOUNDARY WAS NOT
DELINEATED.HOWEVER. THE SOUTHERN DELINEATED
BOUNDARY APPROX IMATELY FOLLOWS THE 36 FOOT
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR SO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY
CR!T!CAL AREAS:CATEGORY IV WETLAND.
WETLAND AREA ON SITE:3,488-SF
WETLAND BUFFER AREA ON SITE: 7,880-SF
HOUSE ENCROACHMENT INTO WETLAND BUFFER:478-SF
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS:
PROPOSED ROOFTOP: l,200-SF \j:i:n><<2 IS SHOWN CONTINUING IN THIS FASHION. ·4 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY: 500-SF
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: !,700-SF
- • • • • C:..rEGORY IV· _- • • • ' • • • •_,_• • ·
ON-SITE STORMWATER BMP'S:
ROOFTOP: DOWNSPOUT DISPERSION;BMP TS.108
DRIVEWAY: PERMEABLE PAVEMENT; BMPTS.15
. .
"-::
(<J u u d b..-1. f .f.e.< Lll"\...(./
1,,v -(-c11tc..-<-
- .J - ......
/_. - ..J ...... .....
PORT // \: \ \ MADISON I / / \ \
/ 1 \ \ \
.I
\Ju. lMf>tU-+-
().tf l..-{)_,/ - SF
PORT
MADISON
BAY
\ \ LAFAYETTEA VE
PROJECT
LOCATION
PORT MAI DISON
WATER CO.
EROUTE NEIGHBORS
.I
.I ,,-I
/
/ /
/ -
R
DRAINAROUND HOUSE
/
/ ,.:«, - .:,", "''° 'I;-
(§VICINITY MAP
TAX ID:4167-000-024-0003
0 500 I,000 2,000
SCALE: 1"• I ,000'
/ ,,-,<-
/ .j5 /
/ /
/ /
NE !SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 26 NORTH RAN GE 2 EAST
CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN
EUCLID AVENUE - MICHAEL RESIDENCE
I Figure 3 I
SITE PLA N
SITE PLAN BASED ON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA & SITE
OBSERVATIONS. TOPOGR A PHICINFORMATION BASED
ON SURVEY BY AGO LAND SURVEYING DATED 9.28.18
DATUM: NAV088
SCALE: 1·"' 20'
0 10 20 40
/ /
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 24,PLAT OF PORT MADISON, ACCORD ING TO
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS,
PAGE 3, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY,WASHINGTON.
SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY:
ADAMS,GOLDSWORTHY OAK, 9/28/2018.
R.U.E. PRE-APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
S EA B O LD
ENGINEERING LLC
PO Box 445 INDIANO LA, W A 983 42
360.930 .4668 ENGJ NEER @SEABOLD ENG.COM
:=========:::::::: J;\ 12. 7.2018 J. E.A. REVI SED WITH A GO SITE SURV EY AS REQUESTED.
MERCURY MICHAEL 701 WINSLOW WAYE, SUITE B
BA!N BRJ DGE ISLA ND, WA 981 10
CHECKED: K. LA UGHLIN
Ml 1 1. 1 0
206.780.6075
MERCURY@ CHARTERREALESTATE.COM l 0 F 2
,·.\.L Pl e.. (.,,o Mv'\11..QM._ J
•
C 1
\
I
Exhibit 13
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application:
Date of Submittal: August 16, 2018
Project Name & Number: Euclid House RUE, # PLN51139 RUE
Project Type: Reasonable Use Exception
Applicant: Mercury Michael and Aaron Murphy (agents)
Owner: Larry R Pritchard
Project Site & Tax Parcel: *no situs address*, TA# 41670000240003
Project Description: The proposal is for a single-family residence with lot coverage limited to 1,200 square feet. A
reasonable use exception (RUE) is requested because the lot is encumbered by a wetland and its
associated buffer. An applicant may request a RUE when application of the critical areas
ordinance would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the subject property, and other alternatives
to development through an RUE are not available or acceptable.
Environmental Review: This proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant
to WAC 197-11-800.
Public Hearing: A public hearing date is schedule for April 11, 2019 at 1pm in the Council Chambers. This is a
tentative date only and is subject to change. Please check the Hearing Examiner page on the City
of Bainbridge Island website for current hearing dates.
Comment Period:
Send comments with
reference to project name
and number to:
pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
or
Department of Planning &
Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, WA
98110
For questions, contact:
Annie Hillier, Planner
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
or (206) 780-3773
Any person may comment on the proposed application, request a copy of any decision or appeal
any decision. The city will not act on the application for 21 days from the date of this notice.
Comments must be submitted by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 1, 2019.
Exhibit 14
PLN51139 RUE Euclid House
January 11, 2019
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing Mailing Zip
BENZ BECKY L 15888 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BIGGERS RAYMOND T & JULIE M 15680 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CAMPBELL GAIL 9582 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CHRISTENSEN S C & C L 15632 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE IS WA 98110-1146
FISCUS ANDREW L & FISCUS MEREDITH J 9376 ENDICOTT ST NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1110
FREDRICKSON KENT A & KATHARINA 318 WYATT WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1842
JOHNSON BETTY J TRUSTEE PO BOX 7 BEAVER WA 98305-0007
LANE ROBERT & TERRI 15660 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
LEIGH THOMAS A & CAROLYN K 15685 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MACKEY JAMES & SHERI 9426 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MANCEBO DAVID T & AURORA D 9692 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MCCAMBRIDGE MADELINE & 9414 NE ENDICOTT ST BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
NIKOMBORIRAK JAKDEJ & 9638 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
OSTERMAN THOMAS S & CATHLEEN 15650 EUCLID AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PABST FRED N & CANNESTRA CHRISTINE D 9402 ENDICOTT ST BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PETROFF YURI & TOSDALE KIMBERLY 15576 WASHINGTON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PORT MADISON WATER CO PO BOX 10731 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PRITCHARD LARRY R 16415 15TH SW SEATTLE WA 98166-2823
RAMSEY CLINTON & CHELSEA & 15588 WASHINGTON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 15520 Euclid Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 15670 Euclid Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 9629 NE Lafayette Ave Bainbridge Island WA 98110
ROBINSON ROSS & MARGARET FISH 9680 NE LAFAYETTE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1115
SCUMNIOTALES JOHN & JACQUELINE 9368 ENDICOTT ST NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SECREST THOMAS J & SUSAN M 9720 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SPICKARD NELSEN B & LAURIE D 15460 WASHINGTON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
TUSBERG GARY S & SULLIVAN K 15468 WASHINGTON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WILLIAMSON FLOYD F & MARY P 9630 NE LAFAYETTE AVE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ORG:
OBJ / PRJ:
CONTRACT #:
PO I:
Legal Invoice Date: 01/11/2019
Sound Publishing, Inc.
Unit Attn: AIR
PO Box 930
Everett WA 98206-0930
Bainbridge Island Review
Bill To:
City of Bainbridge Island-LEGALS
280 Madison Ave N
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Customer Account #: 80604980
Legal Description : BIR840557
Legal Description :City N otices
Desc: NOTICE OF APP Legal #: BIR840557
Ad Cost: $ 110.97
Ordered By: CARLA LUNDGREN Published: Bainbridge Island Review
Issues Ordered: 1 Start Date: 01/ 11/2019 End Date: 01/11/2019
Due: $ 110.97
Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-800-485-4920
City of Bainbridge Island-LEGALS
280 Madison Ave N
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Account #: 80604980
Invoice #: BIR840557
Due: $ 110.97
Subscribed this
f/// P<- day of
;
'.
Bainbridge Island Review
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Kitsap } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Bainbridge Island Review
a weekly newspaper. The said newspaper is a
legal newspaper by order of the superior court
in the county in which it is published and is
now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of the first publicati on of the
Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the
English language continually as a weekly
newspaper in Kitsap County, Washington and
is and always has been printed in whole or part
in the Bainbridge Island Review and is of
general circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Kitsap County, State of Washington, by order
dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a
true copy of BIR840557 NOTICE OF APP as it
was published in the regular and entire issue of
said paper and not as a supplement form thereof
for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication
commencing on 01/ 11/2019 and ending on
01/11/2019 and that said newspaper was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during all
of said period.
Washington .
Cily of Bainbrid&c Island- LEGALS 1 80604980
CARLA LUNDGREN
Page: 2 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 01/11/2019 08:13:14 am
Classified Proof
NOTICE OF
APPLICATION
The City of Bainbridge
Island has received lhe
following land use appli- cation:
Date of Submittal:
August 16, 2018
Project Name & Num-
ber: Euclid House RUE,
#PLN51139 RUE
Project Type: Rea- sonable Use Exception Applicant: Mercury Mi-
chael and Aaron Murphy (agents)
Owner: Larry R Pritch-
ard
Project Site & Tax Par- cel: •no situs address*,
TA# 41670000240003
Project Description: The
proposal Is for a single-
family residence with lot
coverage limited to
1,200 square feet. A
reasonable use excep-
tion (RUE) is requested
because the lot is en-
cumbered by a wetland
and ils associaled buf-
fer. An applicant may re-
quest an RUE when ap-
plication of the critical
areas ordinance would
otherwise deny all rea-
sonable use of the sub-
ject property, and other
alternatives to develop-
ment through an RUE
are not available or ac-
ceptable.
Environmental Review:
This proposal is exempt
from review under the
State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) pur-
suant to WAC 197-11-
800.
Page: 3 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 01/11/2019 08:13:14 am
Classified Proof
Meeting: A publtc hear-
ing date Is schedule for
April 11, 2019 at 1pm In
the Council Chambers.
This is a tentative date
only and is subject to
change. Please check
the Hearing Examiner
page on the City of Bain-
bridge Island website
for current hearing
dates.
Comment Period: Any person may comment on the proposed appli- cation, request a copy of any decision or appeal any decision. The city
will not act on the appli-
cation for 21 days from
the date of this notice.
Comments must be
submitted by no later
than 4:00 p.rn. on Fri-
day, February 1, 2019.
Send comments with
reference to project
name and number to:
pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
or Department of Plan-
ning & Community De-
velopment, 280 Madi-
son Avenue North,
Bainbridge Island, WA
98110 For questions, contact
Annie Hillier, Planner
ahllller@bainbrldge- wa.gov or (206) 780-
3773
Published: Bainbridge
Island Review
January 11, 2019
Legal #: 81R840557
'<:
CrTY OF
BAI NBRIDGE ISLAND
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
1,_ /v\ ei<:-- t.uRi K lW &El_, , certify that the following signs
,;g:_Proposed Land Use Action (# of si posted .
0 Clearing Permit (# of signs posted ) _J_ S 1 1 b
,%.. Public Hearing (# of signs posted
0 Other (# of signs posted )
were posted on -J..,/.__i1_> /·l°t
(dafe)
for the following application at the address listed below:
Project Name & Permit Number - Z u /1 'd /-hJ u. ? Ltfll.S-1 1 ..r &J /t?L<..f
Physical Property Address - N J ([, f-,.,.w ct..dd c<sc
Tax Assessor Number(s) - -'ll v 2 , 1p oo 2- v</ c)
ty of theperjury laws of the State of Washington that theforegoing is correct.
l It s / 1 9
Date I I
Instructions for posting signs:
• Sign must be posted with 5 business days of Notice of Application
• Sign must be posted where it is continually and clearly visible to passersby and neighbors.
• Sign must be posted overlooking the water on any >Naterfront property.
• Sign must be posted back-to-back and perpendicular to the access.
• Sign must be on the subject property, NOT inthe right-of-way.
• Sign must remain in place until project completion.
• Upon project completion and/or final decision, the applicant is responsible for removing signs.
Complete this fm·m within 48 lunus of posting the signs and return to
pcd J,bain h ndge\\ a.go ..
280 Madison Ave.N. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
DEP. RTMENT OF PLANNING AND CoMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
200 MADISOM AVENU E NORTH • BAl!'dBRIDGE !SLAMD, WA "' 98110-2824.
{206}780-3750 • pcd@bainbridgewa. gov
1J11'i1JW.bainbrldgewa.gov
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit 15
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Ann Hillier – City of Bainbridge Island Planner
FROM: Rik Langendoen – Applicant’s Project Manager
COPY: Mercury Michael – Applicant
DATE: January 21, 2019
FILE NAME: Euclid House RUE
PROJECT NO.: PLN51139 RUE
SUBJECT: Summary of RUE Alternatives Assessment & Comparison
Notice of Complete Application-Related Site Development Alternative
DISCUSSION:
INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum was prepared in conjunction the above-mentioned Reasonable Use
Exception (RUE) application submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island (CoBI) by the applicant on
December 19, 2018. The applicant received a Notice of Complete Application (NoCA) from CoBI dated
January 2, 2019 in which CoBI requested consideration of an alternative that consists of reconfiguring
the locations of the proposed single-family residence (SFR) and associated infrastructure presented in
the above-mentioned RUE application. If the alternative was found to be infeasible, CoBI requested
detailed information for staff to relay to the RUE-related hearing examiner. This technical memorandum
presents the requested detailed information.
The following presents a brief summary of both the applicant’s proposed site development and the
alternative presented in the NoCA, and then the results of an alternatives assessment that compares the
two different approaches and their respective anticipated outcomes.
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
As presented in the Narrative Summary submitted to CoBI in the above-mentioned RUE application, the
subject parcel is constrained by a Category IV wetland. After applying the relevant 40-foot-wide wetland
buffer and associated 15-foot-wide building setback per the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC),
there is insufficient space available for the construction of the proposed SFR with a 1200-square-foot
footprint, associated required infrastructure (on-site septic (OSS) system, stormwater drainage system,
combined driveway / off-street parking), and construction-related staging unless an RUE is approved
(Figures 1 and 2).
In addition, the subject parcel has a total vertical relief of about 12 to 14 feet, which creates challenges
in terms of providing foundation support for the SFR and related infrastructure without impacting the
wetland.
In summary, and as discussed in more detail in the above-mentioned Narrative Summary, the proposed
site development would incorporate all recommendations presented in the CoBI Site Assessment
Review (SAR) review letter dated May 8, 2019 to allow reasonable use of the property, including the
following key elements:
• The application for a building permit would include demonstrated compliance with applicable
minimum requirements (MRs) 1 through 5 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual through
development of a Stormwater Site Plan.
Page 2 of 8
• Site soils and areas that support infiltration would include full-downspout infiltration
(splash blocks) combined with permeable pavement1.
• Surface stormwater from driveway and other hard surfaces would receive pre-
treatment prior to discharging to the wetlands utilizing permeable pavement.
• The project would utilize minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low
Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as means of minimizing impacts
to the site and the adjacent wetlands, which would include pin piles or piers
(https://www.diamondpiers.com/how-it-works). Therefore, negligible fill placement
and/or ground disturbance would occur within the wetland buffer and building setback
area.
• To minimize adverse impacts to the wetland, the SFR is proposed to be constructed in
the southwestern corner of the parcel (Figure 1). The house would be cantilevered from
the street level utilizing the pin piles or piers, creating a 10 to 12 feet vertical separation
from the ground surface (Figure 2) with no stairway or other direct access to the
wetland mitigation area, wetland buffer and wetland, which would prevent
encroachment and demonstrate compliance with RUE review criteria 3 and 4 to the
extent practicable considering the site constraints.
• The proposed site development has been minimized to the least reasonable extent and
designed to mitigate impacts to the wetland, and may improve the function of the
wetland when compared to the existing conditions due to the implementation of the
Mitigation Plan2 and the diversion of stormwater from the adjacent parcel to the south
to the wetland.
The need for the OSS system creates several challenges in terms of the proposed site development. Due
to site constraints associated with the wetland-related buffer, topography, and soil conditions, the OSS
would require a buried pressurized system that would include two tanks and mechanical components
consisting of wastewater treatment and air blower, in addition to the drainfield. The OSS-related tanks
and mechanical system cannot be realistically installed on a slope without fill placement due to the need
for vehicle access for maintenance and possible repair after installation. Therefore, these components
are proposed to be installed between the SFR and southern property boundary, as highlighted on Figure
1. The OSS tanks and mechanical system installation would be at or near the existing site grades.
The 16-foot wide alleyway created by the underground OSS tanks and mechanical system would also
allow for vehicle and equipment access to the primary and reserve drainfields for maintenance and
possible repair after installation (Figure 1), as well as provide a critical staging area during the
construction of the SFR.
1 Due to the site civil survey determining that the site slopes are steeper than mapped by the Bainbridge Island GIS maps, it was determined
that a rain garden sized per the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington meeting the ‘GOOD’ performance standard was not feasible.
2 Existing invasive plants (primarily English ivy, nettles and non-native blackberry) would be removed and wetland mitigation planting with
native vegetation would be implemented to enhance the existing wetland function.
Page 3 of 8
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED IN NOCA
As described in the above-mentioned NoCA, and as shown on Figures 3 and 4, the recommended
alternative to the site development layout includes reversing the SFR and OSS in the north-south
orientation, with the SFR setback the minimum 5-foot distance from the southern property
boundary/lot line, and the OSS situated north of the SFR. The intent was to:
• Allow for the standard impervious surface setback between the SFR and the wetland mitigation
area edge, with the OSS tanks and mechanical components located between the SFR and the
wetland mitigation area edge, and to help prevent future encroachment into the wetland
mitigation area.
• Provide a construction staging area within the 15-foot impervious surface setback area.
• Improve on compliance with RUE criteria 3 and 4 as presented in the BIMC 16.20.0803 by
placing lower impact development (i.e. buried septic tanks and mechanical components) with
vegetation/lawn at the ground surface within the wetland buffer and closest the wetland edge.
The alternative as presented in the NoCA would be feasible and likely achieve the above-mentioned
intent if the subject parcel was flat lying with minimal topographic relief. However, due to the roughly 12
feet of topographic relief the alternative would require on the order of 700-plus cubic yards of fill soil
placement within the wetland buffer and mitigation area, and possibly encroach upon the wetland4.
Therefore, the mitigation area would be reduced in size by roughly 30-plus percent.
The fill would need to be imported and compacted in order to prevent post-construction settlement and
possible damage to the OSS-related piping and prevent erosion.
It may be possible to construct retaining walls to reduce the amount of fill placement, but the retaining
walls and related fill soil placement would need to occur within the wetland buffer and reduce the size
of the mitigation area.
ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & COMPARISON
In summary, the alternative recommended in the NoCA would be feasible and effective at achieving the
intended outcomes if the site was flat lying. However, when the site topographic relief is considered the
alternative would likely result in significant adverse impact to the wetland due to the need to add
significant quantities of fill soil and/or retaining walls. The alternative would likely not comply with RUE
criteria 3 and 4 as intended.
In comparison, the applicant’s proposed site development would include negligible if any fill placement
within the wetland buffer and building setback area, and minimal ground disturbance due to use of low
impact pin piles or piers for foundation support of the SFR. Because the SFR would be cantilevered from
the street level utilizing columns placed on pin piles or piers, thereby creating a 10 to 12 feet vertical
separation with no stairway or other direct access to the wetland mitigation area, wetland buffer and
wetland, it would prevent encroachment and demonstrate compliance with RUE review criteria 3 and 4
to the extent practicable considering the site constraints.
The following table summarizes the comparison between the applicant’s proposed site development
and NoCA-related alternative.
3 See BIMC 16.20.080, criteria 3 and 4, and BIMC 16.20.030 mitigation sequencing as required under criterion 3.
4 This is based on the assumption that the maintenance vehicle access corridor around the SFR would be 10 feet wide, and the corridor for the
OSS-related tanks and mechanical system would be 16 feet wide as required by the OSS system engineer.
Page 4 of 8
TABLE 1 – COMPARISON BETWEEN THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT AND NOCA-RELATED ALTERNATIVE
Comparison Criteria Applicant’s Proposed Site Development NoCA-Related Alternative
Proposed layout • OSS tanks and mechanical system located
along south parcel boundary, and installed
near existing grade.
• SFR located between OSS tanks with
mechanical system and wetland mitigation
area with SFR cantilevered over the slope using
pin piles or piers for foundation support within
the wetland buffer and mitigation area.
• SFR located along south parcel boundary
• OSS tanks and mechanical system located
between SFR and wetland mitigation area.
• Both the SFR and OSS tanks and mechanical
system would require significant fill soil and
possible retaining walls for foundation support,
which would significantly impact the wetland
buffer, mitigation area, and possibly the wetland.
Amount of fill in wetland buffer,
building setback & mitigation area5
Negligible if any Approximately 700 cubic yards (not including
swell/shrinkage of the soil from loose in truck to
compacted condition)
Encroachment upon wetland
mitigation area6
None Approximately 30%
Encroachment upon wetland
buffer7
Approximately 20%, but the cantilevered above
the ground surface.
Approximately 50% with possible impact to the
wetland
Compliance with RUE review criteria Would comply with RUE criteria 3 and 4 due to
minimizing the impact on critical areas in
accordance with mitigation sequencing (BIMC
16.20.030), and the proposed impact to the
critical area would be the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property (BIMC
16.20.080).
Would not comply with RUE criteria 3 and 4 as
intended due to not minimizing the impact on
critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030), and the proposed
impact to the critical area would not be the
minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the
property (BIMC 16.20.080).
5 Assuming all fill placement and no retaining walls. The slope of the fill soil as shown is likely at the steepest practicable angle (2H: 1V), and would likely be less steep, depending on geotechnical
engineering recommendations. Even if retaining walls were utilized, ground disturbing construction and fill soil placement would be necessary within wetland buffer, building setback and mitigation
area.
6 Same as footnote 4.
7 Same as footnote 4.
Page 5 of 8
FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH CROSS SECTIONS
N
CROSS SECTION LINE
(SEE FIGURE 2)
W E
S
FIGURE 2 – PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CROSS SECTIONS
Page 6 of 8
W E
N S
16’
OSS TANKS
+ MECHANICAL
EXISTING GRADE
Page 7 of 8
CROSS SECTION LINE
(SEE FIGURE 4)
N
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF FILL SOIL (ASSUMED 2H:1V SLOPE AS
CONTROLLED FILL FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT OF OSS TANKS / MECHANICAL
AND SFR, & MAINTENANCE VEHICLE ACCESS; SEE FIGURE 4)
FILL
OSS
FILL
FILL
W PERVIOUS
DRIVEWAY
HOUSE
E
S
FIGURE 3 – SITE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT AS RECOMMENDED IN NOCA
Page 8 of 8
FIGURE 4 – CROSS SECTIONS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT AS RECOMMENDED IN NOCA
MECHANICAL
W E
N S
16’
OSS TANKS PROPOSED HOUSE
+
OSS
FILL EXISTING GRADE
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF FILL SOIL (ASSUMED 2H:1V SLOPE AS
CONTROLLED FILL FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT OF OSS TANKS /
MECHANICAL AND SFR, & MAINTENANCE VEHICLE ACCESS; SEE FIGURE 4)
Exhibit 16
Jane Rasely
From: Andrew Fiscus <andrewfiscus@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 8:13 AM
To: PCD
Subject: PLN51139 RUE
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the property owner at 15520 Euclid Avenue NE. I am writing to express my concern with the proposed
home building at the adjacent property to the North PLN 51139. First the fence that was in place for many
many years was found to be significantly located into this adjacent property, so when Mercury Michael moved
and placed a temporary fence we realized just how close this proposed home would be to our present
structure. I did not want to argue this issue of correct property line but it is a large intrusion to our present
space. The proposed location of the home would be very close to the bedroom windows of our home at
15520. If the new home is allowed then I would strongly suggest the septic be able to be on the South side or
closer to our bedroom window to allow some more room between the two structures. I also have some issues
with building in what at one time was a protected wetland. The slope of the property and the potential
drainage into a seasonal pond and the shared Port Madison Water Company property or to the Puget Sound in
the other direction, does not seem like the best ecological choice to me. Thank you very much for your
consideration. Please contact me with any comments or questions.
Andrew Fiscus
Cell 206‐949‐9652
1
Page 1 of 2
Department of Public Works - Engineering
Memorandum
Date: March 19, 2019
To: Annie Hillier, Planner, Planning and Comm. Development
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN51139 RUE – Euclid House SFR
Project Description:
The proposal seeks a reasonable use exception to construct a single-family residence within a wetland
buffer on lot 24 of the Plat of Port Madison. The subject parcel is identified by tax ID no. 4167-000-024-
0003 and is located east of Euclid Avenue NE between NE Endicott Road and NE Lafayette Road in the City
of Bainbridge Island.
Recommendation For Approval:
I have completed a review of the above-referenced project materials received by the City on August 16,
2018. The reasonable use exception is recommended for APPROVAL based on the following findings
pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 16.20.080 and subject to the conditions.
1. The proposal is consistent with applicable regulations and standards as it pertains to surface
stormwater drainage per BIMC 15.20 and 15.21;
2. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science
as it pertains to the incorporation of low impact development (LID) for the purpose of handling of
stormwater, retaining vegetation, and mimicking natural hydrology to the maximum extent feasible;
3. The site plan conforms to the City of Bainbridge Island Design and Construction Standards and
Specifications, “the Standards”, where applicable;
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The project shall utilize minimal excavation foundation systems for portions of the structure within
the wetland buffer. The minimal excavation foundation system proposed shall conform to the
definition as cited in the City’s adopted LID manual, published as the 2012 Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual For Puget Sound, and shall contain a combination of driven piles and connecting
Page 2 of 2
components at, or above grade and allow the foundation system to engage deeper load-bearing soils
without having a to dig out and disrupt upper soil layers.
2. Surface stormwater from the proposed structure and from the adjacent property to the south shall
discharge and disperse at a location and in a manner consistent with BMP T5.10B – Downspout
Dispersion Systems. A dispersion trench is required where less than 50 feet of vegetative flow path is
provided. Trenches shall be placed as far upland from the wetland as feasible, but no closer than 10
feet downgradient from the reserve on-site septic field. Individual splash blocks may be utilized where
the vegetative flow path is at least 50 feet downgradient of the discharge locations.
Exhibit 18
COMMENT MEMORANDUM (Planning application)
To: Planner
From: Todd Cunningham, Building Official
Re: PLN51139 RUE, Building Program Comments
Euclid Ave NE APN: 41670000240003
Date: 2-5-2019
This submittal has been reviewed with the following comment/s generated:
1. The project shall comply with the City of Bainbridge Island construction codes as
adopted by the BIMC, Chapter 15.04.
2. A soils review is required for the project to ensure compliance with the provisions of
Chapter 4 of the International Residential Code.
Project Name:Euclid House RUE
April 11, 2019
Proposal:
1 SFR on a lot
containing a category IV
wetland and buffer
Request:
Reasonable Use
Exception (RUE)
Planner:
Annie Hillier
Applicant:
Mercury Michael
Existing Use:
undeveloped
Lot Size:
0.37 acres/16,117 SF
Zoning:
R-2 (1 unit per 20,000
SF)
Category IV wetland
and 40 ft. buffer + 15 ft.
building setback cover
majority of lot
RUE may be requested
when a property is
encumbered to such an
extent by critical areas
and/or critical area
buffers that application
of the CAO would deny
all reasonable use of
the subject
property
Hi, my name is Danielle Gordon and I currently live at 15520 Euclid Ave,which is
adjacent to the piece of land that we are discussing today. I would like to add my
husband’s and my input concerning this project.
I have read over many of the requirements that the developer needs to complete in order
to obtain a reasonable use exception. The land has been classified as a category 4
wetland area, and in one of the documents it reads that “The land use impact is high.”
And in the project narrative, it is written: “After applying the wetland buffers, only a small
portion of the parcel is available for construction of the SFR (Single Family Residence).
Therefore, in the absence of the RUE, the proposed site development would not be
feasible.” Based on just these 2 comments excerpted from the paperwork I am trying to
understand how the development of a house can proceed once these basic truths have
been noted. The land has been labeled unfeasible.
If you were to visit the site in real life and see the lot, it is basically a wetland ditch. There
is a steep bank on the right hand side of the property, which directly abuts the property
where we are living. This must be the buildable space as it’s been outlined in the
paperwork the developers have submitted. The impact this will have on anyone living on
our property would be high. Again, in the project narrative, this comment is included: “To
minimize adverse impact to the wetland, the SFR (Single Family Residence) is proposed
to be constructed in the southwestern most corner of the parcel, immediately north of the
adjoining parcel with a SFR.” Based on the site map, the structure would be built
between 5 and 15’ from the property line. Our buildings are currently also located very
close to the property line. So although the lot next to us is large, because it is basically a
slanted ditch, the house would need to be situated as close as possible to our house.
This would affect the light coming into our yard and house, and I assume will affect the
vegetation that is currently there. There are mature trees on the property which I’m
thinking might have to be removed to build, which could make the remaining slope
susceptible to erosion or slides. This would additionally affect our quality of life as our
current house is situated in a quiet little corner of Port Madison, where there is privacy
and a large amount of surrounding nature.
We are new to the Port Madison neighborhood, and in walking around the streets, this does
not seem the type of neighborhood where houses are crammed in one next to the other.
Houses are situated on generous pieces of land, and this feels like a project with little regard
for the existing feel of the neighborhood. Directly across the street from our house is one of the
other wetlands that is mentioned in the report, where ducks roam and peeper frogs and other
animals live. It’s a very pleasant spot. Building on the site adjacent would affect the
neighborhood and our quality of life in a negative way.
Having reviewed much of the related documentation on the Hearing Examiner’s page of
your website, I do understand that the developer is within legal limits on this project. With
all the new development going on all over the island, some of it tastefully done, some of
it not, I wonder if moral rights could one day be considered in how the city approves or
rejects proposals like this. I would like to request a review of if and how this development
relates to the comprehensive plan of the island. In my opinion it seems to be in
opposition to the goals of this plan.
Thank you.
Danielle Gordon