Laserfiche WebLink
This "trade" does not seem to reflect the reasonableness of the flexibility of the <br />ordinance. It would be a reasonable accommodation if the proposal was to improve the <br />development facing the area that required the transition plan, however to "trade" for <br />property features that face away from the transition areas does not align with the intent <br />of the ordinance. We believe the ordinance is clear in requiring a transition plan with <br />adjacent properties and should be implemented for this property and alternatives such <br />as improving the rear facing of the structure is not a reasonable alternative to a <br />transition plan. <br />• Because of the openness of the adjacent property, it is important that a transition buffer <br />is included to prevent unintended assumption of property lines or public open spaces. <br />Without the transitions, there may be future conflicts involving neighbors that do not <br />realize the adjoining areas of the PUD are private property. The transition plan would <br />define these areas and ensure future homeowners are aware of the property lines and <br />features to avoid these conflicts. <br />2. Review of required grading plan. <br />• For lots 1-14 it is important that the grading plan addresses the concerns regarding tying <br />into elevations of adjacent properties, the required transition plan, and prevent any <br />impact to the adjacent wetlands. <br />3. Required wetland protections. <br />• Lots 1, 5, 6, and 7 have structures located in wetland buffer area. <br />• Buffer averaging is not an acceptable practice. The purpose of a buffer is to protect the <br />adjacent wetland. While averaging may appear to be protective on paper, in practice it <br />will not provide the necessary protection as required by the Wetland Conservation Act <br />(WCA) or the intent of the ordinance. There shall be minimum buffer distances <br />maintained even if averaging is allowed and 50 feet (as indicated below) will provide the <br />necessary protection of this resource for the greater public good and comply with state <br />laws and the ordinance. <br />• Chapter 117-145.2.c shall be implemented for this development. Therefore, there <br />should be additional review of the drainage plan and grading plan. Consideration should <br />be given to utilizing a buffer distance in alignment with the new Minnesota Buffer Law <br />(2019 MN Statues 103F.48) of 50 feet to provide the protection of this valuable resource <br />and review the buildability of lots 1, 5, 6 and 7. There should be no rain gardens in the <br />buffer area to ensure the integrity of the wetland buffer. <br />• With regards to the WCA, it is important to consider the detrimental impact that the <br />additional stormwater, both in amount and rate of runoff, will have on the wetland and <br />would be in violation of WCA. Additional water at a faster rate will degrade the wetland <br />and does not meet the intent of WCA. <br />Based on the above comments we request that the plat be adjusted to include a transition plan along <br />lots 8-14, the grading plan be scrutinized to ensure compatibility with adjacent property elevations, <br />and wetland protections be implemented to ensure no impacts and full compliance with the letter and <br />spirit of WCA. We appreciate the time and consideration of the Commission and recognize that the <br />property should be developed but in an orderly fashion that minimize impact on the environment and <br />