PC Comment Summary Table10-25-05

Ddonovan

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005 Comment Comment/Initials Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission Number Code Amendment (if Recommendation applicable) 1. Overlays: The proposed changes to Comment noted. Please see staff No further changes identified. the Overlays appear to reduce the responses in Public Comment effectiveness of the intent of the Response Matrix (item 35). The Overlay Districts. See specifically overlay section would be moved from the Tilliacos and Stahl comments. SMC 21A.85 to SMC 21A.50 SH primarily for ease of use, particularly for the public. Having all of the What is the reasoning (which you applicable provisions located in the may have explained, but same portion of the code assists the information overload sometimes public in determining the occurs) of moving the Overlays into requirements applicable to their other code sections, rather than property. Moving the overlays within keeping them as a stand-alone? Is Title 21A has no effect on their there any particular reason against regulatory authority; regulations keeping the Overlay codes separate? protecting the overlays will apply to SH properties regardless of location of standards in the code. 2. Incentives: The general and Comment noted. Please see staff Please see lake and pond buffer multiple comments about penalizing ...

Informations

• Publié par: Metheg
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   Comment Comment/Initials Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Plannin Commission Number Code Amendment if Recommendation   applicable) 1.    Overlays: The proposed changes to Comment noted. Please see staff No further changes identified. the Overlays appear to reduce the responses in Public Comment effectiveness of the intent of the Response Matrix (item 35). The Overlay Districts. See specifically overlay section would be moved from the Tilliacos and Stahl comments. SMC 21A.85 to SMC 21A.50 SH primarily for ease of use, particularly  for the public. Having all of the What is the reasoning (which you applicable provisions located in the may have explained, but same portion of the code assists the information overload sometimes public in determining the occurs) of moving the Overlays into requirements applicable to their other code sections, rather than property. Moving the overlays within keeping them as a stand-alone? Is Title 21A has no effect on their there any particular reason against regulatory authority; regulations keeping the Overlay codes separate? protecting the overlays will apply to SH properties regardless of location of  standards in the code.       2.    Incentives: The general and Comment noted. Please see staff Please see lake and pond buffer multiple comments about penalizing responses in Public Comment alternative discussed in October property owners who already are Response Matrix (item 28). Wetland 25, 2005 staff memo. doing “the right thing” by restoring and stream buffer enhancement buffers and rewarding those who incentives are provided in proposed have already “ruined” their land buffer reduction code sections (Tilliacos) is compelling. Comments (21A.50.290 (7) and 21A.50.330 (6). on this point will be useful. SH In addition, please also see October   Bill Way, a professional in this 25, 2005 staff memo that discusses an field, cautioned about over- alternative approach that would regulating. SH require a prescriptive buffer from the OHWM of lakes and ponds with   Perhaps stronger language and buffer reduction options such as

Page 1 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   incentives for restoration required in vegetation preservation and the code. SH, RC restoration, etc.   3.    Lake Buffers: One presenter A 150 foot prescriptive buffer is not Please see lake and pond buffer commented about the circumstance proposed for lakes. In the current and alternative discussed in October in which a property adjacent to a proposed code, buffers are to be 25, 2005 staff memo. property that is adjacent to the lake required from the critical area itself (Pine Lake in his example) would and are not affected by property lines. be subject to the 150 ft buffer Buffers, setbacks and other requirements, and that this seems regulatory restrictions are only unreasonable. I tend to agree on required if/when a permit is needed to principal. Further discussion on this authorize an action and then only circumstance is appreciated; and applied to the property being does it make sense to alter the code permitted. In addition, please see to allow for this circumstance? SH lake and pond buffer alternative discussed in October 25, 2005 staff   memo.     4.    Study Costs: The idea of requiring Response to this issue was included Include language to allow (As noted in the Public people to undertake costly studies in the public comment summary development to use past studies Comment matrix item 4) for a deck or shed within buffers matrix, provided to the Planning from neighboring properties, if was a point of concern expressed by Commission on October 13, 2005, adequate. Modify 21A.50.120 to the PC. This discussion was and as subsequently updated, include: deferred to deliberations. Staff suggesting potential code changes as Modify language which currently (5) A development discussion required. SH noted. identifies a 215 foot study proposal may be allowed  threshold to instead state "within to utilize past studies   Can the implementation of low Buffer reduction options tied to the distance equal to the largest from neighboring impact development techniques aid restoration incentives are provided in potential required buffer" to properties, if confirmed in some of these buffer conjunction with required wetland avoid studies when clearly that the study findings encroachment and costly study and stream buffers. Incentives outside of buffers.   remain accurate and issues? This ranges from the include some low impact applicable to proposed aforementioned deck and shed to development techniques, which development. homes, etc. Should this be written would still require City review to into the code as a way to avoid ensure that they are implemented as Modify 21A50.130 (1) (a) to costly environmental studies for the intended. Please see additional staff read:

Page 2 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   small, back-yard do-it-yourselfer? responses in Public Comment SH Response Matrix (item 4).       

Identification and characterization of all critical areas and buffers within the distance equal to the largest potential required buffer that can be reasonably ascertained from the subject property.   Modify 21A.50.110 (2) (a) to read: Confirm whether critical areas or buffers have been mapped or identified within the distance equal to the largest potential required buffer applicable to the development proposal area;   5.    SO-190 Overlay: The Stahl Staff supports overlay district Please see the staff memo revised presentation on the SO-190 overlay changes presented in the staff memo October 25, 2005, which is detailed and deserves a detailed and attached table dated September discusses proposed changes. response in the fashion of a 29, 2005, and as updated on October submittal to a DEIS and FEIS 25, 2005, that would expand the response. SH application of the overlays in some  instances, provide for some What is the basis for the city discretion, and increase consistency seeking to, in essence, reduce the with the zoning code. Please also see size of the overlays? Specifically, staff responses in Public Comment what studies have been done to Response Matrix (item 36). support the proposed changes? SH     Please provide a before-and-after map of the changes to the overlays and highlight the changes. SH

Page 3 of 16

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005  

6.    Lake Definition:  Staff has There was a period of time when No further changes identified. provided a definition of “lake,” yet King County designated Pine and KC also identified Pine Lake and Beaver Lakes as Class 1 wetlands for Beaver Lake was Class 1 wetlands. regulatory purposes, but this was I’ve always been confused about prior to adoption of the Department this and any different treatments in of Ecology’s wetland manual. King codes the competing classifications County now follows Ecology’s call for. Guidance on this will be guidance on small lakes, which greatly appreciated. SH would designate only those portions  of the lakes meeting wetland criteria, including vegetation, as wetlands. This County administrative change 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

Page 4 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   regulations regulate lakes and naturally-occurring ponds as critical areas. This topic is further discussed in the October 6, 2005 Planning Commission packet materials.   7.    Structure Replacement: A The proposed code revisions would No further changes identified.    presenter raised the question about not alter the non-conforming use replacing a home within a buffer section of the code, Chapter 21A.70 that’s destroyed by fire [or other SMC. This section allows for natural disaster]. Please discuss. SH replacement of a non-conforming  structure on the same footprint within 12 months of its destruction.   8.    Wetland Alterations: A presenter The current and proposed code Staff suggests deletion of (b) in queried the proposal to use a regulates whether and how any 21A.50.300 (7). wetland as an R&D pond (Section wetlands may be used for stormwater A, pg 37, 7(b); and the elimination detention. Staff agrees that of LSRA and RSRA from language. stormwater detention should not be A-Pg. 38 (c). SH allowed in wetlands. Staff suggests  revision of 21A.50.300 (7) (b). Please see staff responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (item 24).   The Locally Significant Resource Area (LSRA) and Regionally Significant Resource Area (RSRA) designations pertain to King County code and do not have effect within the city of Sammamish.   9.    Created/Restored Critical Areas:  Please see staff responses in Public Please see lake and pond buffer   Presenter Burkholder (spelling?) Comment Response Matrix (item 28). alternative discussed in October testified he created a wetland Please also see October 25, 2005 staff 25, 2005 staff memo. through restoration and now is memo that discusses an alternative penalized because of the larger approach that would require a The following could also be

Page 5 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   buffer that now applies. SH prescriptive buffer from the OHWM added to SMC 21A.50.290(1):  of lakes and ponds with buffer reduction options such as vegetation (c) Where wetland functions preservation and restoration, etc. have been improved due to  voluntary implementation of Staff also suggests an addition to the an approved stewardship, wetland buffer section that would restoration and/or apply buffers based on the previous enhancement plan that is not classification when voluntary associated with required restoration occurs.   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.   10.    Reasonable Use: Presenters Reasonable use exceptions are No further changes identified. repeatedly claimed 150 foot buffers currently utilized to allow reasonable make their lots unbuildable and use of property that is entirely question the “reasonable use constrained by critical areas and exception” as a way to build. Please buffers. Flexibility in each of the discuss. SH sections has been built into the  proposed code and should reduce somewhat the need for reasonable use exceptions. Please also see staff responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (items 9 and 10).   11.    Lake Buffers: Bill Way discussed Please see staff responses in Public Please see lake and pond buffer some complex things concerning Comment Response Matrix (items 30 alternative discussed in October “wind edge” and said buffers of 5- and 31). Please also see October 25, 25, 2005 staff memo. 30 feet are the most critical areas. 2005 staff memo that discusses an Please discuss. SH alternative approach that would

Page 6 of 16

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   require a prescriptive buffer from the OHWM of lakes and ponds with buffer reduction options such as vegetation preservation and restoration, etc.     Comments Related to S ecific    Code Lan ua e:   12.    “Significant” vs. “Considerable” Staff recognizes the lack of clarity To avoid the use of the word language, as discussed at the PC. regarding the term “considerable “considerable” proposed SH impact.” language could be changed to    read as follows: The use of the word “significant” has a foundation in SEPA and is SMC 21A.50.280(1)(d) occasionally necessary. Section Stormwater infiltration may 21A.50.280(2)(a) was reviewed and it be prohibited for all or a was determined that the word portion of a site that includes “significant” was needed to clarify use of hazardous substances the intent of the regulation.    to prevent groundwater  contaminatio . n   (“Hazardous substance” is defined by 21A.15.585.) 13.    A-6, 21A.50.060 Partial Exemptions Comments noted. Staff have No further changes identified .   (e) (i) and (ii). This entire section is reviewed the proposed language and poorly worded and difficult to have not found areas where language understand. SH could be improved, however the Planning Commission may request changes as a result of deliberations.     14.    A-6, (3): introductory graph does On page A-6, 21A.50.060 Partial No further changes identified .    not place any time frame “where Exemptions (3) (d) limits the time   previous critical areas reviews” frame to 5 years. Provision (d) have been done. This theoretically further states that if more than 5 years

Page 7 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   (and perhaps legally) could mean have passed since previous studies 10-15 years ago or more. I don’t were conducted and accepted and site believe this should be open-ended. conditions have clearly not changed, SH the director may determine that  additional studies are not needed. (d): “if a new review would be This allows the City to reduce study unlikely to provide new requirements and costs for an information….” How is this applicant when previously supplied determined? Who makes this studies clearly remain adequate.    determination? This seems subject to “arbitrary and capricious” challenge. SH    15.    A-9, 21A.50.090 about half-way No, this is a listing of the available No further changes identified . down: “The wetland management maps and inventories of critical areas. erosion hazard near sensitive water bodies….” Does this conflict with previous “landslide” references in any way? SH   16.    A-10, 21A.50.120 (1): The first No, the last sentence adds those areas No further changes identified . sentence discusses landslide hazard not covered by the first part of the areas; the last sentence refers to section to those areas in which a erosion hazard areas. Is there any critical areas study is required. conflict in language? SH   17.    A-25 (7): “The following are This section allows an exemption No further changes identified . exempt….” I think I prefer “may from the landslide hazard provision be” rather than “are.” I’m leery of a for natural slopes of 40% or steeper, blanket exemption, unless I am but under 20 feet vertical elevation misunderstanding the intent here. change. The exemption would be Please discuss. SH granted after the review, and city   approval, of a geotechnica eport if l r no adverse impact would result. The intent of the second exemption related to created slopes, is to grant

 

 

 

Page 8 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   the exemption to artificial slopes. Re-grading of a created feature (road side slopes, engineered fill, etc.) is subject to all other requirements of the Sammamish Municipal Code, King County drainage manual and other applicable requirements.   18.    8, (3) (a). I raised the question Multifamily projects would be No further changes identified . A-2 of the definition of “commercial” at considered residential use. However, the PC meeting and received a in most jurisdictions, these types of satisfactory answer, but I wonder if structures are issued as “commercial” a clarifying definition somewhere building permits. This is due to the else is needed considering that King differing code requirements, and County (from whence we got our sometimes the different staff who code) defined multi-family as process and inspect the permits. “commercial.” SH Mixed use projects would be   How does a mixed use project like considered commercial, if both Saffron get defined? As commercial and residential uses are commercial? SH located within the same structure, for the purposes of this section.     19.    A-36 21A.50.300, the introductory The introductory paragraph refers to No further changes identified . paragraph, refers to “complete the different categories of exemptions exemptions, partial exemptions and listed elsewhere in the ordinance. exceptions…” Please discuss this one a bit more. SH Introduction of non-native or invasive  wildlife would include circumstances (3) There shall be no introduction such as bringing in non-native frogs, of…wildlife…” What does this mammals, etc. that could negatively mean, exactly? (What is the affect the natural ecosystem. meaning of “introduction”?) SH  Enforcement would be through How is this enforced? SH project review of proposed mitigation  plans and the species proposed for

 

 

Page 9 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   What about domesticated animals, planting. Code enforcement action is horses, goats and cattle, etc? SH an option, if areas in critical areas or  buffers are disturbed and/or landscaped with non-native vegetation.     Domesticated animals would not be considered wildlife, and are addressed elsewhere in the code.   20.    A-37 (5) (a). This does not allow for The City should consider the No further changes identified . the possibility that a pump station opinions of the sewer providers in may be preferable from an determining the feasibility of pump environmental standpoint to sewer stations versus gravity flow systems. lines for gravity. (This obviously is a sewer district thing. SH The code currently contains a it  defin ion for “native vegetation” (f) Does “native” vegetation (to (21A.15.790) that refers to vegetation Washington state) need to be native to the Pacific Northwest. identified? Is something that is native to Eastern Washington This section has multiple provisions acceptable to Western Washington? that would limit and require What was the rationale behind mitigation for any vegetation removal deleting native to King County? SH proposed by a provider to develop a  new sewer utility corridor. (g) and (h): The sewer district is infamous for wanting to mow down a 50-foot wide swath of trees and vegetation to build a narrow pipeline corridor. See Section 36 and the sewer line extension from 32nd St. to the Jarvis compound as two examples. This was also the proposal in my old neighborhood. I believe restrictions need to be written into the code for this

 

Page 10 of 16

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 24, 2005   propensity to rape-and-scrape on the part of the sewer district. SH   21.    A-38 (iv): Why was this reference Information on the Puget Sound No further changes identified . deleted and what is the Research Wetlands and Stormwater Research Project? SH   Project can be obtained from the following weblink:   http://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/ weturban.htm    City staff will continue to learn from research such as this project and consider future code amendments to reflect those results.   22.    A-40 21A.50.310 (4). “In-kind” is Comments noted. Ms. Mockler’s No further changes identified . not defined (though perhaps that’s studies have documented a high rate what the ratios are about later on?) of mitigation failure, and recommend SH improved mitigation guidance as a  result. That is largely why higher I still note that Anna Mockler  mitigation ratios are proposed .   concludes wetland mitigation does   not work. SH   23.    A-41 (6) (c) iii: how can “proposed” A mitigation plan based on proposed No further changes identified . mitigation conducted “in advance” impacts can sometimes be be shown to be successful for at implemented in advance, depending least one year? Please discuss this upon the specifics of the project. entire section. My first reaction is This might be particularly useful for a negative. SH road or utility project where the   mitigation may be proposed in an area to be unaffected by project construction. The mitigation plan would include maintenance and monitoring provisions, and the

 

 

 

Page 11 of 16