Written by I received an interesting email regarding the Shoreline Master Plan yesterday. Council President Don Persson expressed some concerns regarding the Renton’s proposed Shoreline Master Plan. The staff examined Don’s concerns, and provided an initial response back. I’m not sure if this will settle all the issues or not, but the interchange will probably be of interest to many people.
_____________________________
Councilmembers,
In Julia’s absence, I’m forwarding the following response Erika Conkling wrote in response to concerns expressed by Council President Persson as a courtesy to the rest of the Council. Please let Erika, Chip, or I know if you have additional questions or concerns.
Have a great holiday weekend!
________________________________________________
From: Don Persson
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:51 AM
To: Julia Medzegian
Subject: SMP/ Planning and Development Committee
My concerns on the SMP are:
1.) We are not the most restrictive of any city
2.) The non-conforming use issue, do not want people who have built their homes using and following all the legal codes in place, to now all of a sudden become a legal non-conforming use. In the Highlands we were able to work around this problem.
3.) If a house burns down or needs to be replaced it should be able to be rebuilt on the same foot print as it currently has.
4.) Bulkheads should be able to be repaired and replaced
5.) Same with docks
6.) Rewards for taking out bulkheads, if they do not damage adjoining properties
From: Erika Conkling
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:51 AM
To: Julia Medzegian
Cc: Alexander Pietsch; Chip Vincent; Terri Briere
Subject: RE: SMP/ Planning and Development Committee
Julia-
Thank you for forwarding Don Persson’s concerns. They were addressed in the Planning and Development Committee meeting and the Committee asked me to share the answers with the whole council via email. I have copied and pasted his concerns below (in black) and provided my answers (in blue). Would you please distribute to the full council?
Don Persson’s concerns on the SMP are:
1.) We are not the most restrictive of any city
In a memo to Council dated May 11, 2010, Renton’s proposed rules were compared to other Lake Washington jurisdictions on three sample issues. These issues were chosen because they have received the most public comment from Lake Washington property owners. Despites some differences in how communities approach these issues, the table very clearly shows that Renton is about the same, or slightly less restrictive, than the other Lake Washington jurisdictions. Mercer Island, which has proposed rules notably less restrictive than most jurisdictions, has received notice from the Department of Ecology that the setback/buffer and dock standards are unacceptable and would not be approved as written. It is also important to note that the Bellevue rules, which are more restrictive than Renton’s, are based on rules that the City of Bellevue has had in place for about seven years. Those rules have not resulted in the types of problems that Renton residents have expressed concern about in regards to the SMP- such as loss of property values or inability to maintain properties.
2.) The non-conforming use issue, do not want people who have built their homes using and following all the legal codes in place, to now all of a sudden become a legal non-conforming use. In the Highlands we were able to work around this problem.
Typically, the biggest problem with a home being declared to be non-conforming is that it cannot be expanded or enlarged. A non-conforming home may be maintained and repaired and enjoyed as-is in perpetuity. Non-conforming homes are able to be insured, to get loans or refinance, and to be rebuilt if they are destroyed by fire. In the proposed SMP, there are even provisions that allow non-conforming shoreline properties to be expanded if improvements are made to the shore area- such as planting vegetation or installing light penetrating materials on an existing dock. In this way the burden on non-conformity is less for shoreline property owners than any other property owner in Renton- they would have options for expansion where non-shoreline owners do not. Another interesting fact about non-conformity is that if you look at the shoreline setback requirements in the Renton Municipal Code today… 42% of the single-family properties on Lake Washington are already non-conforming. If the proposed setback rules are put into place 57% of the properties would be non-conforming. That is only a difference of 15%, which is a very low number considering this is a major change in regulations.
3.) If a house burns down or needs to be replaced it should be able to be rebuilt on the same foot print as it currently has
Yes. If a house burns down it may be rebuilt on the same foot print it currently has.
4.) Bulkheads should be able to be repaired and replaced
The proposed rules do not limit the repair or replacement of existing bulkheads. The confusion here comes from the proposed rules that read that if a use changes (for example from industrial to commercial use), or a non-conforming property expands its footprint by more than 500 square feet- the property owner would be required to have an evaluation done to see if the bulkhead is really needed for that property. Most properties will not even trigger the provisions that require a review of the bulkhead. The rules that determine if a bulkhead is needed are firmly established in the state shoreline rules. If a bulkhead is needed, it may continue to be repaired or replaced. If removing a bulkhead will cause more environmental damage than it will fix, it may be kept.
5.) Same with docks
Existing docks may be repaired and significant portions may be replaced, but the proposed rules do set a threshold in which the repair of a dock is so great that it is considered a full replacement. In the proposed rules 100% of the surface materials of a dock may be replaced, and 50% of the pilings (or pilings, floats and other support materials for floating docks) may be repaired or replaced. If the repair exceeds that amount, the resulting dock is considered a full replacement. New or fully replaced docks must comply with the rules in place for new docks, which includes size restrictions. These rules were proposed to allow all normal and routine maintenance to occur on existing docks. By the time a repair is needed which requires removal of more than 50% of the pilings, the property owner is really building a new dock.
6.) Rewards for taking out bulkheads, if they do not damage adjoining property’s
There is no formal reward system for taking out bulkheads. However, for properties that are able to do so, there are benefits to the environment and the property owner. Removal of a bulkhead and restoration of the shoreline typically creates a naturally sloping beach which can be safer, more usable for recreation and entertaining, and more attractive to people and wildlife than bulkhead conditions. A properly designed and engineered bulkhead removal and shore restoration should not damage adjoining property, and there are several solutions for protecting property from the wave action and erosion that is caused by adjacent bulkheads. If you are interested, more information about this is available in the document: Green Shorelines: Bulkhead Alternatives for a Healthier Lake Washington www.seattle.gov/dpd/greenshorelines
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
Recent Comments