PC Comment Summary Table10-31-05

Ddonovan

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005 Comment Comment/Initials Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission Number Code Amendment (if Recommendation applicable) Overlays: The proposed changes to Comment noted. Please see staff No further changes identified. No further changes. 1. 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 ...

Informations

• Publié par: Soim
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 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. No further changes. 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 Modify to include proposed multiple comments about penalizing responses in Public Comment alternative discussed in October alternative lake and pond property owners who already are Response Matrix (item 28). Wetland 25, 2005 staff memo. buffer language described in doing “the right thing” by restoring and stream buffer enhancement October 25, 2005 staff memo buffers and rewarding those who incentives are provided in proposed to the Planning Commission have already “ruined” their land buffer reduction code sections with the following two (Tilliacos) is compelling. Comments (21A.50.290 (7) and 21A.50.330 (6). modifications: on this point will be useful. SH  In addition, please also see October Modify subsection Bill Way, a professional in this 25, 2005 staff memo that discusses an 21A.50.351 (1) and (3) (b) to field, cautioned about over- alternative approach that would include “up to 25 percent, or regulating. SH require a prescriptive buffer from the no less than 6 feet, may be OHWM of lakes and ponds with used for shoreline access.”  

Page 1 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   Perhaps stronger language and buffer reduction options such as incentives for restoration required in vegetation preservation and the code. SH, RC restoration, etc.  

  Modify subsection 21A.50.351 (2) to include “to protect other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.” and remove areas of “ high habitat value.” 3.    Lake Buffers: One presenter A 150 foot prescriptive buffer is not Please see lake and pond buffer Modify to include proposed commented about the circumstance proposed for lakes. In the current and alternative discussed in October alternative lake and pond in which a property adjacent to a proposed code, buffers are to be 25, 2005 staff memo. buffer language described in property that is adjacent to the lake required from the critical area itself October 25, 2005 staff memo (Pine Lake in his example) would and are not affected by property lines. to the Planning Commission be subject to the 150 ft buffer Buffers, setbacks and other with the following two requirements, and that this seems regulatory restrictions are only modifications: 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 Modify subsection circumstance is appreciated; and applied to the property being 21A.50.351 (1) and (3) (b) to does it make sense to alter the code permitted. In addition, please see include “up to 25 percent, or to allow for this circumstance? SH lake and pond buffer alternative no less than 6 feet, may be  discussed in October 25, 2005 staff used for shoreline access.” memo.  Modify subsection  21A.50.351 (2) to include “to protect other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.” and remove “areas of high habitat value.” 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

Page 2 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005    threshold to instead state "within allowed to u ze past tili   Can the implementation of low Buffer reduction options tied to the distance equal to the largest studies from impact development techniques aid restoration incentives are provided in potential required buffer" to neighboring in some of these buffer conjunction with required wetland avoid studies when clearly properties, if encroachment and costly study and stream buffers. Incentives outside of buffers.   confirmed that the issues? This ranges from the include some low impact study findings remain aforementioned deck and shed to development techniques, which accurate and homes, etc. Should this be written would still require City review to applicable to proposed into the code as a way to avoid ensure that they are implemented as development. costly environmental studies for the intended. Please see additional staff small, back-yard do-it-yourselfer? responses in Public Comment Modify 21A50.130 (1) (a) to SH Response Matrix (item 4). read:    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;  

Page 3 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   5.    SO-190 Overlay: The Stahl Staff supports overlay district Please see the staff memo revised Modify to include proposed presentation on the SO-190 overlay changes presented in the staff memo October 25, 2005, which overlay language changes is detailed and deserves a detailed and attached table dated September discusses proposed changes. described in the revised response in the fashion of a 29, 2005, and as updated on October October 25, 2005 staff memo submittal to a DEIS and FEIS 25, 2005, that would expand the to the Planning Commission response. SH application of the overlays in some with the following  instances, provide for some modification: What is the basis for the city discretion, and increase consistency seeking to, in essence, reduce the with the zoning code. Please also see Modify 21A.85.050 (2) (d) to size of the overlays? Specifically, staff responses in Public Comment include “techniques to what studies have been done to Response Matrix (item 36). achieve standards adopted by support the proposed changes? SH the city that will  demonstrably minimize…” Please provide a before-and-after map of the changes to the overlays In addition, mention and highlight the changes. SH recognition of continued  public concern regarding mapping issues in the Planning Commission memo to the City Council. 6.    Lake Definition:  Staff has There was a period of time when No further changes identified. No further changes. 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,

Page 4 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   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. 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.   No further changes. 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 Modify 21A.50.300 (7) to queried the proposal to use a regulates whether and how any 21A.50.300 (7). delete (b). 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

Page 5 of 19

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   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 Modify to include proposed Presenter Burkholder (spelling?) Comment Response Matrix (item 28). alternative discussed in October alternative lake and pond testified he created a wetland Please also see October 25, 2005 staff 25, 2005 staff memo. buffer language described in through restoration and now is memo that discusses an alternative October 25, 2005 staff memo penalized because of the larger approach that would require a The following could also be to the Planning Commission buffer that now applies. SH prescriptive buffer from the OHWM added to SMC 21A.50.290(1): with the following two  of lakes and ponds with buffer modifications: reduction options such as vegetation (c) Where wetland functions preservation and restoration, etc. have been improved due to Modify subsection 1  voluntary implementation of 21A.50.351 ( ) and (3) (b) to Staff also suggests an addition to the an approved stewardship, include “up to 25 percent, or wetland buffer section that would restoration and/or no less than 6 feet, may be apply buffers based on the previous enhancement plan that is not used for shoreline access.” classification when voluntary associated with required restoration occurs.   mitigation or enforcement, Modify subsection the standard wetland buffer 21A.50.351 (2) to include “to width shall be determined protect other fish and based on the previously wildlife habitat conservation established wetland category areas.” and remove “areas of and habitat score as high habitat value.” documented in the approved stewardship and enhancement In addition, modify SMC plan. 21A.50.290(1) to include:

Page 6 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005    

(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.    10.    Reasonable Use: Presenters Reasonable use exceptions are No further changes identified. No further changes. 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 Modify to include proposed some complex things concerning Comment Response Matrix (items 30 alternative discussed in October alternative lake and pond “wind edge” and said buffers of 5- and 31). Please also see October 25, 25, 2005 staff memo. buffer language described in

Page 7 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   30 feet are the most critical areas. 2005 staff memo that discusses an Please discuss. SH alternative approach that would  require a prescriptive buffer from the OHWM of lakes and ponds with buffer reduction options such as vegetation preservation and restoration, etc.  

 

October 25, 2005 staff memo to the Planning Commission with the following two modifications:     Modify subsection 21A.50.351 (1) and (3) (b) to include “up to 25 percent, or no less than 6 feet, may be used for shoreline access.”   Modify subsection 21A.50.351 (2) to include “to protect other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.” and remove “areas of high habitat value.”    

  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 Modify SMC21A.50.280 (1) language, as discussed at the PC. regarding the term “considerable “considerable” proposed (d) as follows: SH impact.” language could be changed to read as follows: “Stormwater infiltration     The use of the word “significant” has may be prohibited for all a foundation in SEPA and is SMC 21A.50.280(1)(d) or a portion of a site that occasionally necessary. Section Stormwater infiltration may includes use of hazardous 21A.50.280(2)(a) was reviewed and it be prohibited for all or a substances to prevent was determined that the word portion of a site that includes groundwater “significant” was needed to clarify use of hazardous substances contamination.” the intent of the regulation.    to prevent groundwater  contamination.  

Page 8 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   (“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 (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 .

No further changes.

No further changes.

No further changes.

No further changes.

Page 9 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   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 geotechnical report if no adverse impact would result. The intent of the second exemption related to created slopes, is to grant 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.    A-28, (3) (a). I raised the question Multifamily projects would be No further changes identified . 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

No further changes.

No further changes.

Page 10 of 19

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response Including Planning Commission Final Recommendation October 31, 2005   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   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  definition for “native vegetation”

No further changes.

No further changes.

Page 11 of 19