SMP comments for the Planning Commission Oct 2008
Posted By Dwight on January 11, 2009
The following letter was submitted to the Planing commission on 10/30/08. I used my allotted 3 minutes of public testimony to describe my concerns further. At their next meeting the Shoreline Master Plan was modified and approved by the Committee. I will review and comment on the revisions once they are made public.
D.K. MARTIN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
5101 E Lake Sammamish Parkway NE
Sammamish, WA 98074
Phone: 425-868-4217 Fax: 425-868-2076
Contractor License #DKMARCI119DU
Sammamish Planning Commission
Public Hearing 10/30/08
Comments
Dear Planning Commission members,
While I applaud your efforts to keep Sammamish a great place to live and work, I am very concerned with both the tone and content of the Draft Shoreline Master Plan.
Purpose and Intent
The stated purpose of the plan is to provide effective and reasonable regulations for development, use, and restoration of the shorelines. 25.01.010(1), also to manage shorelines in a “positive, effective, and equitable manner”. (2)
Recent Code changes created many Non-conforming structures.
By including Lakes in the Critical Areas update and increasing the buffers around Lake Sammamish many homes are now considered non-conforming. Given the existing railroad grade, and the proximity of the Parkway to the shoreline waterfront owners have had little choice as to the placement of their homes. Many, if not most of them are located within the 50’ buffer and building setback required from Ordinary High Water.
Even the partial exemptions allowed in the Critical Areas Code are removed from the Shorelines Plan. 25.01.070(3)
Shoreline residents would not be allowed to add on to their homes. Typically when codes are made more restrictive some exemptions are included that allow existing owners to use and enjoy their property. Use and enjoyment should include the right to improve their property. The partial exemptions in the Critical Areas document should also be allowed; 25.01.070(3) should be removed from the plan.
Shoreline Restoration is required of those who remodel or renovate interiors.
Requiring those who want to remodel or renovate their home to restore their shoreline to a natural state is unreasonable and certainly not equitable. Buildings have a life-cycle. Remodeling and improvement of existing structures should be allowed without removal of bulkheads and planting of buffers. (section 25.10.100 excludes lakes from the description of sensitive areas, therefore the after mentioned exemptions do not apply). Section 25.10.100 requires restoration of shorelines, removal of bulkheads and planting buffer vegetation of those who want to renovate their homes, even in the existing building envelope. Simply renovating 50% of the area of a house requires restoration of 50% of the shoreline area. This is excessive, and not equitable.
Altering the exterior of an existing building is considered a “new use” and requires shoreline mitigation. 25.02.010(28) and 25.308.010(2d).
The definitions section considers exterior improvements as a “new development”. Alterations such as windows, siding, and trellises, should be allowed without required mitigation.
Other excessively restrictive sections of the Plan:
Interior Lighting is limited to some unknown amount by some unknown standard. 25.08.010(5b) on page 34.
Docks are allowed to a certain size, but then are restricted to an undefined “minimum size required for moorage”.Page 36c(ii)
However, docks are only allowed when a mooring buoy is “not feasible”. When would a buoy not be feasible? Does this wording make all docks non-conforming? Remember, the first rule of mitigation is avoidance. Codes should specifically allow what is allowed and specifically restrict what is restricted.
I respectfully ask that the planning committee carefully study the proposed plan and reject the over bearing and inequitable rules noted above.
Sincerely,
Dwight K. Martin
President
D.K. Martin Construction Inc.
Comments