Public Comment Summary Table

Ddonovan

Description

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, ...

Informations

• Publié par: Juviz
• Nombre de lectures: 19
• Langue: English

Extrait

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.