Proposed Critical Areas regulations City Council comment summary and staff report, 11 22 05
Description
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Please note that comments will be regularly added to this comment tracking table as review of the proposed critical areas regulations continues – check the date for the most current edition of the table. New comments from 11/15/05 begin with item 20. A new staff recommendation has been added to item 16 regarding tree pruning in shoreline buffers. Additional staff comments/recommendations have been added at the end of the Council comment table. Staff Recommendation for Council City Council Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment (if Recommendation Number applicable) Incentives: How has staff Wetland and stream buffer No further changes identified. 1. considered comments about enhancement incentives are provided avoiding penalizing property in proposed buffer reduction code owners who have restored or sections 21A.50.290(7) and protected their buffers and 21A.50.330(6). Also, proposed SMC rewarding those who have already 21A.50.290(1) includes a recently developed their land in a way that added code provision that would apply has degraded buffer functions? buffers based on the previous Fellinge classification when voluntary restoration occurs. This section reads as follows: (c) Where wetland functions have been improved due to voluntary implementation of an approved stewardship, restoration and/or ...
Informations
| Publié par | Viot |
| Nombre de lectures | 20 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Please note that comments will be regularly added to this comment tracking table as review of the proposed critical areas regulations continues check the date for the most current edition of the table. New comments rom 11/15/05 be in with item 20. A new sta recommendation has been added to item 16 re ardin tree pruning in shoreline buffers. Additional staff comments/recommendations have been added at the end of the Council comment table. Council Staff Recommend Comment Council Comment Staff Response ation for Cit Council Code aAppmliecnadblme)e nt (if Recommendation Number 1. Incentives: How has staff Wetland and stream buffer No further changes identified. considered comments about enhancement incentives are provided avoiding penalizing property in proposed buffer reduction code owners who have restored or sections 21A.50.290(7) and protected their buffers and 21A.50.330(6). Also, proposed SMC rewarding those who have already 21A.50.290(1) includes a recently developed their land in a way that added code provision that would apply has degraded buffer functions? buffers based on the previous Fellinge classification when voluntary restoration occurs. This section reads as follows: (c) Where wetland functions have been improved due to voluntary implementation of an approved stewardship, restoration and/or enhancement plan that is not associated with required mitigation or enforcement, the standard wetland buffer width shall be determined based on the previously established wetland category and habitat score as documented in the approved stewardship and enhancement plan. In addition, the recently proposed
November 22, 2005
Page 1 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council Staff Recommendation for Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment if Number applicable) prescriptive lake buffer and associated buffer reduction incentives in 21A.50.351 Lakes and ponds Development standards, includes provisions that recognize and reward good lakeshore property stewards. 2. Buffers: Will proposed wetland No. It’s true that larger buffers could No further changes identified. and stream buffers make some affect the overall yield of new lots or properties undevelopable? units, but this is more related to the Fellinge city’s net density ordinance than buffer size. Proposed wetland and stream buffers are based on the best available science. Buffers are needed to remove sediment and pollution from surface water, provide nutrients, control temperature, and provide riparian habitat. Science clearly shows that larger buffers are more effective than smaller buffers (see BAS report). The buffer sizes proposed are consistent with those being adopted by other jurisdictions, and somewhat less than those recommended by the Washington Department of Ecology, which recommends buffers of 50 to 300 feet. Current regulations allow for buffer averaging and for some types of development when fully mitigated. Proposed regulations also include new incentive provisions to allow buffer
November 22, 2005
Cit Council Recommendation
Page 2 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 ecommendation fo CNCouomummnbceeirnl t Council Comment Staff Response StaCffo dRea Appmliecnadblme)e nt if r RecCoitm mCeonudnactiil on reduction in some circumstances. When reduction and averaging opportunities are not sufficient to allow development, applicants may then seek a reasonable use exception. Reasonable use exceptions are currently utilized to allow reasonable use of property that is entirely constrained by critical areas and buffers. Since more flexibility has been built into the proposed code, there should be somewhat less need for reasonable use exceptions. 3. Buffers: Has the City compared Yes, see comparison tables provided No further changes identified proposed wetland and stream for the Citizen Advisory Committee buffers to neighboring (CAC) meetings (found in CAC binder jurisdictions? and on the City’s website at the Fellinge following link: http://www.ci.sammamish.wa.us/Critic alAreas.aspx ) 4. Buffers: Suggest that staff look at The Edgewood buffer averaging No further changes identified. the City of Edgewood’s buffer example is similar to that used by averaging examples. Sammamish. Gerend 5. King County/City regulatory The King County Sensitive Areas Map No further changes identified. status of Pine Lake and Beaver Folio (December, 1990) illustrates Lake: The City is providing less Pine Lake and Beaver Lake as Class 1 regulatory protections for Pine wetlands and King County regulated Lake and Beaver Lake than King these lakes as Class 1 wetlands with a County did prior to the City’s 100-foot buffer requirement until
November 22, 2005
Page 3 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council Staff Recommendation for Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment if Number applicable) incorporation. King County about 1997. However, according to regulated these lakes as Class 1 staff with King County at the time, in wetlands with a 100-foot wetland order to be consistent with state buffer requirement. Department of Ecology definitions of Whitten wetlands, lakes, and shorelines, it was determined administratively that King County would regulate wetlands that occur along the shorelines of these lakes on a case by case basis. The state definition of wetlands does not include open water. This administrative change took place around 1997 before the City incorporated and resulted in some lake shore properties having no wetland restrictions at all, and some properties having Class 1, 2 or 3 wetland buffer restrictions. The City’s current regulation of these lakes under the Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the previous County administrative direction prior to the City’s incorporation. In addition, the proposed regulations provide buffer protection for lakes and ponds. 6. Lakes as Fish & Wildlife Habitat Lakes are included in the state No further changes identified . Conservation Areas: Please guidelines for classifying critical areas. describe BAS that supports WAC 365-190-080(5) Additionally, classification of lakes as Fish and the department of Fish & Wildlife Wildlife Habitat Conservation identifies Pine Lake as a priority
November 22, 2005
Cit Council Recommendation
Page 4 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 CNCouomumnmbceeirln t Council Comment Staff Response StaCffo dRee cApopmmliemnednmdeantito nif for RecCoitm mCeonudnacitli on a cable) Areas? In particular, describe BAS habitat area. that supports classifying Pine Lake as a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area even though it does not support a natural fish population. Whitten 7. Lakes: Do not support previous The recently proposed prescriptive No further changes identified . approach in first draft of proposed lake buffer and associated buffer code that would result in a lot by reduction incentives in 21A.50.351 lot analysis of lake shore Lakes and ponds Development properties. Lakes should be looked standards, treat all lake shore at holistically. properties consistently and should Whitten reduce the chance for wide differences in how similar properties are regulated. 8. Study Requirements for Fish & Staff has tried to develop code No further changes identified . Wildlife Habitat Conservation language that would reduce the Areas: Even though a prescriptive potential for uncertainties. For buffer is now proposed for lakes example, 21A.50.325 (1) states: and was previously required for wetlands and streams, will the Fish When appropriate due to the type of & Wildlife Habitat Conservation habitat or species present or the Areas study requirements still add project area conditions, the director further study requirements and may require a critical areas study. If costs? And will there still be the habitat conservation area is also uncertainties for lakeshore classified as a stream, lake, pond or property owners regarding a wetland , the stream, lake, pond or potential added buffer wetland protection standards shall requirements beyond the apply and habitat management shall prescriptive buffer? be addressed as part of the stream, Whitten lake, pond or wetland review,
November 22, 2005
Page 5 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council Comment Council Comment Staff Response StafCf oRdee cAommemnednmdeatnito ni ff or RCcoitm mCeonudnacitli on Number applicable) e provided that the City may impose additional requirements when necessary to provide for protection of the habitat conservation areas consistent with this chapter. 9. Lake Buffers: Why does the While science tells us that larger No further changes identified . proposed prescriptive lake buffer buffers provide greater protection, it include only a 50-foot wide buffer also tells us that the nearshore edge of requirement with potential to the lake is the most important to reduce to 20-feet wide? Why not protect. Staff and the Planning have a 75-foot prescriptive buffer Commission considered much larger requirement with potential to lake buffers, but concluded that they reduce to a 50-foot wide buffer? would be problematic to implement Whitten and likely create a larger number of non-conforming uses. Distances of 50 ft and 20 ft would be consistent with the existing shoreline setback requirements and therefore would integrate well with the regulations of the shoreline master program. 10. Lakes: Lake Sammamish is The various lakes in Sammamish do No further changes identified . utilized by salmonid species and so have unique individual characteristics. should have a different buffer However, applying a variety of requirement than Pine Lake and different buffers to different lake Beaver Lake, which are reportedly shorelines could create an overly not utilized by natural populations complex regulatory approach. The of salmonid species ( implies that original approach to require habitat the buffer on Lake Sammamish studies for all proposals along lake should be bigger than required on shorelines was discussed during the Pine and Beaver Lakes ). Planning Commission process, and
November 22, 2005
Page 6 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council StStaff Recommendation for Cit Council Comment Council Comment aff Response Code Appmliecnadblme)ent if Recommendati Number a on due to concerns over uncertainty and Lake Sammamish properties are cost, the alternative approach of a more fully developed with houses prescriptive buffer with reduction already located closer to the lake opportunities was favored. Additional than on properties along Pine and opportunities to discuss lakes and their Beaver Lakes and so the buffer on protection will occur with the update Lake Sammamish should be of the shoreline master program in different than on Pine and Beaver 2006-2007. Lakes ( implies that the buffer on Pine and Beaver lakes should be bigger than on Lake Sammamish ). Whitten 11. Lakes & trees: What protections Staff and consultants have not to date No further changes identified . does the proposed code have for identified science documentation that trees along our lake shorelines? Is specifically addresses trees and their it not even more important to role in algae growth. Lake edge trees protect trees in the greater lake are important for habitat, shading, basin to reduce wind that can temperature, and debris, and would be encourage algae growth in our protected by the proposed lake buffer. lakes? Should we have an overlay for tree protection in lake basins? Gerend 12. Lakes: Suggest including study The City is in the process of collecting No further changes identified . findings from ongoing Pine Lake data, but the data from this current water quality studies in our BAS study has not yet been compiled or record. analyzed. A draft report is expected in Whitten months to follow. 13. Lakes & SMP Conservancy Lot sizes could be addressed through No further changes identified . Designation: Lake Sammamish zoning and the shoreline master properties that have a Conservancy program. The current size requirement designation and an associated 50- for new lots in the Rural environment
November 22, 2005
Page 7 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 CCounciln t CounciStaff Recommendation for Cit Council Noummmbeer l Comment Staff Response Code Amliecnadblmee) nt if Recommendation app foot lake setback under our is 5 acres, with a reduction available to Shoreline Master Program have a minimum of 12,500 feet with paved important shoreline habitat that street access, public water and sewer, should be protected. We should and a lot width of 80 feet. For the consider minimum lot sizes to conservancy environment the protect these areas. minimum new lot size is 5 acres, with Whitten a reduction available to 40,000 square feet with a 150 foot lot width. These standards apply to any lot to be created with buildable area within shoreline jurisdiction. For existing lots that are under zoning (rural), or shoreline (conservancy) minimum standards, adjacent lots under the same ownership are considered one building site. Altering the zoning or shoreline requirements along lakes would require a more thorough study and include outreach to property owners. This is expected to occur in the update of the Shoreline Master Program. 14. Vegetation Restoration Proposed wetland, stream and lake No further changes identified . Incentives: We need to ensure we standards include incentives for provide incentives for restoration restoration and/or native planting. of native vegetation. Whitten 15. Special district overlay Erosion Staff has been corresponding by email Staff arranged for Mr. Booth to hazards near sensitive water with Derek Booth and other King attend a special meeting of the bodies (previously known in County staff (Lorin Reinelt and Tina Council on November 9th. King County as SO-190 Miller) originally involved in Overlay): We understand that developing overlay mapping and there is public concern regarding standards for King County. Staff has
November 22, 2005
Page 8 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council Staff Recommendation for Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment if Number applicable) the maps that the City will use to also supplied proposed code identify the overlay and regarding provisions for their review and standards regulating drainage comment. They have provided discharge into the “no disturbance emailed comments in response to areas within the overlay. We also comments supplied directly to them understand that staff has been in from the public. contact with Derek Booth, a previous King County employee that was involved in producing the original maps and standards related to this overlay, and that staff is working to arrange a meeting with Mr. Booth. Council would like staff to investigate whether Mr. Booth would be willing to present to Council on this topic. Multiple Council members 16. Tree trimming: Does the code The current clearing and grading and Staff suggests that Council allow for tree trimming for views critical areas codes restrict trimming in consider adding the following or wind protection? critical areas (see SMC 16.15.050(10) exemption to the Clearing and Whitten p 5 of section “B). To recognize the Grading chapter, SMC 16.15, to value of preserving views without tree allow tree pruning in shoreline removal, this section could be buffers: modified to allow selective trimming. 11. The pruning, limbing, and general maintenance of trees within lake and pond buffers of SMC 21A.50. Also, suggest adding to Chapter 16.15, Clearing and Grading, a
November 22, 2005
Cit Council Recommendation
Page 9 of 17
Council Comment Council Comment Number
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Staff Recommendation for Staff Response Code Amendment if applicable) definition for “pruning: Pruning means cutting or “ removal of branches and leaving at least two-thirds of the existing tree branch structure. Pruning does not include topping of trees. 17. CARA: In a previous study, Class 1 and 2 CARAs are based on the No further changes identified . several wells were shown to the location of wellhead protection areas south of Pine Lake. Should that for the public water system wells. area be considered a CARA? Class 3 CARAs include those high Whitten recharge areas previously mapped by King County. Additionally, individual wells are protected by a 100 ft wellhead protection area required by the Health Department. 18. CARA: Some uses are prohibited The use of hazardous substances is No further changes identified . in Class 1 CARAs, but allowed in proposed to be restricted depending on Class 3, which is rated “high the level of groundwater vulnerability. recharge. Shouldn’t those uses Class 1 CARAs, which are areas of 1-also be prohibited from high and 5-year time of travel to public recharge areas? water system wells, are considered the Gerend most vulnerable, followed by Class 2 and 3 CARAs. 19. Streams/Erosion: Concerned that Staff is familiar with the specific No further changes identified . creeks and ditches at the base of instance discussed, which required an slopes might lead to erosion as in enforcement action and was corrected. one specific situation. Huckabay
November 22, 2005
Cit Council Recommendation
Page 10 of 17
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 22, 2005 Council Staff Recommendation for Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment if Number applicable) 20. Property tax impacts. How is the The Assessor is not actively notified; No further changes identified . King County Assessor informed of however, notice on title is required buffers on properties? when a project is approved and the Huckabay assessor would come across this information when re-assessments are routinely completed. Ultimately, the Assessor’s valuation of property is based on market value. 21. Lake buffers. Would lake buffers The impact of buffers and setbacks on No further changes identified . make some properties individual properties would depend on undevelopable? the lot size and shape. The proposed Fellinge lake buffers are designed to be consistent with existing shoreline setbacks of 20 or 50 feet. Consequently, the new requirement is unlikely to make additional lots undevelopable. The reasonable use process would remain available for lots that are entirely constrained by critical areas and buffers. A new comparison table of lake buffers being considered by other jurisdictions has been prepared by staff for Council review. 22. Information for owners. How Several online information sources are No further changes identified . could property owners find out if available to the public. The City’s and how they would be affected by website has links to property lake or other critical area buffers? information that can be searched by Fellinge address or map: http://www.nwmaps.net/sammamish/
November 22, 2005
Cit Council Recommendation
Page 11 of 17
© 2010-2024 YouScribe