La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
Télécharger Lire

Public Comment Summary Table

De
3 pages
City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Public Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 6, 2005 Comment Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Code Amendment (if applicable) Study costs: What can be Current regulations already require studies to be completed when a Suggest the following be developed into code amendments: done to reduce the study cost proposed development may affect a critical area. Proposed 1) Include language to allow development to use past studies from burden to citizens? critical areas regulations may trigger added study requirements for neighboring properties, if adequate. proposed developments associated with critical areas. Proposed 2) Modify language which currently identifies a 215 foot study regulations [21A.50.120 (2) and (3) as well as 21A50.130 (2) and threshold to instead state "within 215 feet or the distance equal to (3)] include provisions for study relief in some circumstances. the largest potential required buffer, whichever is less" to avoid Additional provisions could further reduce study costs. studies when clearly outside of buffers. Minor development: The Please see Hypothetical Scenario #2. The proposed code treats No further changes identified City should consider whether minor development, when proposed in a critical area or buffer, full review and study similar to the current code. A limited expansion of a single family requirements should apply to residence is allowed, ...
Voir plus Voir moins
City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process
October 6, 2005
Comment
Staff Response
Staff Recommendation for Code Amendment (if applicable)
Study costs
: What can be
done to reduce the study cost
burden to citizens?
Current regulations already require studies to be completed when a
proposed development may affect a critical area.
Proposed
critical areas regulations may trigger added study requirements for
proposed developments associated with critical areas.
Proposed
regulations [21A.50.120 (2) and (3) as well as 21A50.130 (2) and
(3)] include provisions for study relief in some circumstances.
Additional provisions could further reduce study costs.
Suggest the following be developed into code amendments:
1)
Include language to allow development to use past studies from
neighboring properties, if adequate.
2)
Modify language which currently identifies a 215 foot study
threshold to instead state "within 215 feet or the distance equal to
the largest potential required buffer, whichever is less" to avoid
studies when clearly outside of buffers.
Minor development:
The
City should consider whether
full review and study
requirements should apply to
minor development.
Please see Hypothetical Scenario #2.
The proposed code treats
minor development, when proposed in a critical area or buffer,
similar to the current code.
A limited expansion of a single family
residence is allowed, if it is no closer to the critical area.
Any changes to allow minor development in critical areas or
buffers would need to be justified by demonstrating that the
project does not result in a significant impact to the critical area or
by including mitigation.
No further changes identified
Restoration incentives &
disincentives:
The City
should provide incentives for
restoration of the nearshore
edge along lakes. The City
should avoid disincentivizing
restoration, especially along
lakes.
The City should allow
reduced requirements for
areas that have been
voluntarily restored.
Wetland and stream buffer enhancement incentives are provided
in proposed buffer reduction code sections (21A.50.290 (7) and
21A.50.330 (6).
In addition, please see lake buffer comments
herein.
No further changes identified
City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process
October 6, 2005
Lake buffers:
The City
should consider adopting a
prescriptive buffer for lake
protection and/or to provide
lake shore property owners
with more regulatory
certainty.
Staff is considering an alternative approach that would require a
prescriptive buffer from the OHWM of lakes with buffer reduction
options such as vegetation preservation and restoration, etc.
Further staff review is underway
Overlay districts:
Overlay
districts for erosion and
wetlands should be retained
in a separate section of the
code without modification to
ensure continued protection.
Staff supports relocating the overlay district section to be part of
the critical areas regulations and other format and organizational
changes that help clarify the code.
The regulations would
continue to be applied to parcels based on the map of the overlay
districts maintained by the department.
Relocation of the specific
requirements to 21A.50 has no effect on the substantive outcome.
No further changes identified
Overlay districts:
Comments
have been submitted with
regards to overlay
interpretation,
applicable mapping,
and proposed wording.
Staff supports overlay district changes presented in the staff memo
and attached table dated September 29, 2005 that would expand
the application of the overlays in some instances, provide for some
discretion, and increase consistency with the zoning code.
Staff is
reviewing comments, investigating related mapping issues, and
reviewing the language changes requested by citizens.
Further staff review is underway
CARAs:
Water districts have
provided minor suggestions
to the wording in the CARA
section.
Staff will review and consider incorporation of minor changes
recommended by the districts.
Staff will review and consider incorporation of minor changes
recommended by the districts.
CARA maps:
Why do
CARA maps appear to
include both well head
protection areas and recharge
areas?
The CARA designation is to protect
both
groundwater quality and
quantity.
Areas close to wells (wellhead protection areas) and
areas of high recharge both have the potential to effect quality and
quantity.
No further changes identified
Wetland & stream buffers:
Proposed wetland and stream
buffers will make some
properties undevelopable.
The City should consider
Proposed wetland and stream buffers are based on the best
available science.
Proposed regulations also include new
incentive provisions to allow buffer reduction in some
circumstances.
No further changes identified
City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process
October 6, 2005
smaller buffers.
Stormwater detention in
wetlands:
Stormwater
detention should not be
allowed in wetlands.
Staff agrees that this should not be included in 21A.50.290
Wetlands – Development standards.
Staff suggests revision of 21A.50.300 (7) (b).
Wetland buffer averaging
and reduction:
It should be
clarified that wetland buffer
averaging can not be
combined with wetland
buffer reduction.
Staff agrees and will investigate applicable language changes.
Staff will investigate applicable language changes.
King County/City
regulatory status of Pine
Lake and Beaver Lake:
Comments have been made
that the City has deviated
from King County with
regards to the regulatory
status of Pine Lake and
Beaver Lake.
The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (December, 1990)
illustrates Pine Lake and Beaver Lake as Class 1 wetlands.
However, according to staff with King County at the time,
in order
to be consistent with state guidance regarding differences between
the definitions, and consequent regulation of lakes, shorelines and
wetlands, it was
determined administratively that King County
would regulate wetlands that occur along the shorelines of these
lakes on a case by case basis.
This resulted in some lake shore
properties having no wetland restrictions at all, some properties
having Class 3 wetland buffer restrictions, some properties having
Class 2 wetland buffer restrictions, and some having Class 1
wetland buffer restrictions.
The City’s current regulation of these
lakes under the Shoreline Master Program is consistent with this
previous County administrative direction
prior to the City’s
incorporation.
The City also regulates wetlands and streams that
occur along shorelines under our current regulations.
The
proposed regulations regulate lakes and naturally-occurring ponds
as critical areas.
Please see illustrations provided.
Further staff review is underway
Reasonable use:
The term
“reasonable use” should be
more clearly defined.
“Reasonable use” is a legal term that evolves with case law based
on what the courts find to be “reasonable.” What is reasonable can
vary depending on surrounding uses, property characteristic, etc.
It would be problematic to establish a precise standard applicable
in all instances.
Un pour Un
Permettre à tous d'accéder à la lecture
Pour chaque accès à la bibliothèque, YouScribe donne un accès à une personne dans le besoin