Laserfiche WebLink
MCWtD Board of Managers �, <br /> .�anuaiy 14,241Q � : <br /> Page 2 � .�- ��� ? <br /> i <br /> immediate project. This is currendy part of the City°s regulations. It ensures there will ! <br /> be room far the buffer in the firture. <br /> ' <br /> 3. Prapased Rule:Buildings can be carr.struetec�'up 10 the edge of the bu�'er. <br /> Gomment: There should be a setback from the buf£er£or bui�dings. 4rono's wetland ; <br /> regi.siations require a 2Q foot building setback from the buffer. This provision uvas based <br /> oa the City's experience with properties whece hauses wer.e constructed up to ti�e edge of <br /> the buffer. The praperty owners complained about the lack of a usabte y�rd or n�t being <br /> able w walk aronnd their house because of the unmowed buffer. The setback is intended <br /> to reduce the pmpensity of yards ta g.raduaily encroach on the bnffer and to pro�zde for <br /> access ta ail sides of buildi,�s. (The re�uirement for markers at the edge af the�uffer is <br /> flne that we intend to add to our regulations.) <br /> A�. Pra�aased Rule:A project thrrt drsturhs mor�than S,(1D0 sg�uare feet of lanci or incturles <br /> the ex�avation of mors thun 50 cubzc yarrls would trigger the bu,�`'er requirement. <br /> Comment: To be reasonalile th$re should be some conne�tion betwcen the buffer <br /> improvement requizernent at�d the tr�ggering event. Simply excavating ar dishubing land <br /> may not have$petmanent impact on a wetland. The follawing criteria(fram the City's <br /> regulations) shauld be added: 1-The partion of the pcoperty being disturbed must dtain <br /> to the wetland. 2- There must be a net increase in the square foatago af imperviaus <br /> surface that drains to the wetland or results in the relocation of impervious surfaces closer i <br /> to the wetland,or resuits in changes to drainage patterns that the District's Engineer � <br /> determines witl increase the velacity or rate af runoffto the wetland. � <br /> S. Propvsed Rule•Froposed b�'er widt�rs are utider rhan requrred by the Ciry but bu�j"er � <br /> crveraging i,s allowed. ; <br /> ; <br /> Comment: The addition of erosion.aontrol per.mits as a trigger for bu�'fer improvement � <br /> - will result in the regulations being applied ta develapeci properties. Implementing a <br /> wetland buffer requirement on a developed property where the location of existing <br /> structwes,improve.ments,ar�d progerty Iines must be taksn into consideratian is much <br /> more difficult than fox a new development. Gity regulatians a11ow buffer avera�ing as <br /> well as redirecting drainage to an area wheie a buffer is feasible,use of rain gardens,and <br /> other methods ta achieve results equivalent to a standard buffer. Other options besides <br /> buffer averaging should i�e aflowed to avaid creating severe hardships for ptoperty <br /> owners. <br /> 6. Proposed Rude: The rules propose an enfarcement process similar to xhose required when ! <br /> a w�tland is f Iled and mitiguted ; <br /> Commeni:This process wauld seerr�to be excessive for individual lots. We coll�ect an � <br /> escrow to guarar►tec installation and establishment of buffers. Staff per#'orms compliance ' <br /> checks. R.ather than losing a growing seasan while we remind the pmperty owner about <br /> the inspection report, our sta.f�can make the inspection and quickly issue any necessary <br /> i <br /> ! <br /> i <br />