2022.10.03 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 September 28, 2022 Honorable Mayor Weidt and members of the City Council City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Re: DNR Comments on Dennis Properties Preliminary Plat and PUD Application for Downtown Hugo Dear Mayor and City Council, The DNR understands that the city wants to develop its downtown and achieve its vision for a more visible and attractive community gathering area. For this and other reasons the planning commission recommended approval of this project at their meeting on September 8, 2022. While we understand the desire for creating new and attractive community amenities, we believe this project is contrary to state law regulating shorelands and creates unacceptable impacts to Egg Lake, and we recommend denial as proposed. Dan Scollan, DNR Area Hydrologist sent a letter to the planning commission dated September 2, 2022, explaining our reasons for denial (attached). The proposed project deviates significantly from the required structure setback and impervious surface requirements for shoreland development in state rule and in your ordinance. The project proposes a 0-foot structure setback from the ordinary high-water level when 75 feet is required. Decks, parking lots, and buildings will be located along the shoreline and within the highly sensitive shore impact zone, where such development is prohibited. The project also proposes 84% hard surface cover (including 46% impervious cover with 38% permeable pavement) when a 25% impervious coverage limit is required. We understand that the city believes it can deviate from these standards by rezoning this parcel to a PUD district under section 90-141 of its ordinance. We respectfully disagree that the city can use this approach to circumvent its shoreland standards. As recognized by the Shoreland Management Act, shoreland standards are necessary to guide the wise development of public water shorelands, preserve their economic and natural environmental values, and to provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the state. See Minn. Stat. § 103F.201. The importance of preserving the value of shorelands is explicitly recognized in the Municipal Planning Act, which requires cities to uphold shoreland protections under Chapter 103F. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357. Moreover, a municipality’s shoreland ordinance must be at least as restrictive as the municipal shoreland management standards and criteria in Minn. Stat. § 103F.211. Nothing in state statute, the state shoreland rules, or the city’s shoreland ordinance allow for a shoreland parcel to be completely removed from shoreland regulation by simply rezoning it as a PUD. Allowing such a procedure would have the effect of negating the purpose of the Shoreland Management Act altogether. The variance process is an alternative mechanism for individual parcels to seek deviations from the standard shoreland regulations. See Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6. But even in the context of a variance, the deviations proposed as part of this development are so egregious that they completely undermine the Shoreland Management Act protections for Egg Lake. There are no beneficial environmental protection tradeoffs for this project and thus no justification for this level of