|
adequate buffer between structures and public waters, to limit property damage from water level
<br />fluctuations, and to limit the visibility of structures as viewed from the surface of public waters. Hugo Code of
<br />Ordinances, Sec. 90-1 defines structures as “any building or appurtenance, including decks, porches, sheds,
<br />foundations, or similar.” Just month ago, on August 1, 2022, the City of Hugo adopted an ordinance amending
<br />Sec. 90-137(2) with a requirement for a minimum 75 feet structure setback from the ordinary high water level
<br />(OHWL) of Recreational Development Lakes such as Egg Lake. However, Sheet C2.0, Overall Site Plan in the Civil
<br />Plans show SE Building #1 as close as 6 feet to the OHWL, NE Building #1 as close as 18 feet to the OHWL, and NE
<br />Building #2 as close as 13 feet to the OHWL. Moreover, the plans show decking (defined as a structure per Sec.
<br />90-1) covering more than 10,000 square feet and extending along 500 feet of Egg Lake shoreline as close as 0
<br />feet from the OHWL. If this application is approved, the City of Hugo would completely disregard this standard
<br />just 1 month after adoption.
<br />The application requests flexibility from these environmental standards under Hugo Code of Ordinances, Sec. 90-141,
<br />Planned unit developments (PUD). DNR notes that Sec. 90-141(a)(5), Purpose and intent, requires the applicant to
<br />demonstrate that their development plan results in “preservation and enhancement of natural features and open
<br />spaces, including but not limited to the width expansion of greenway corridors, conservation of wooded areas,
<br />development of buffer areas, reduction of impervious surface, and utilization of joint facilities and utilities.” This
<br />application, however, does not include an adequate natural buffer to Egg Lake and would increase the extent of
<br />impervious surface from pre-development conditions.
<br />Further, DNR notes that Sec. 90-141(j)(3), Coordination with other zoning regulations, item c, requires PUDs to be
<br />“coordinated with and in compliance with provisions of the natural environment-based regulations identified in this
<br />Code.” Our review, however, indicates this application is not compliant with the city’s natural environment-based
<br />regulations.
<br />The applicant cited the City of Hugo Downtown Plan & Design Guidelines in their PUD flexibility request. DNR notes that
<br />the Downtown Plan includes the following framework principle: “reduce the impact of development close to Egg Lake
<br />to improve lake quality and preserve wildlife habitat.” We also note that the Open Space and Storm Water
<br />Management Design Standards in the Downtown Plan provide an excellent illustration of a stormwater management
<br />approach to the shoreline of Egg Lake that would provide a natural vegetative buffer to filter pollutants and provide
<br />wildlife habitat. This application, however, is not consistent with this framework principle and design standard. Under
<br />this proposal, the shoreline of Egg Lake would be developed with parking areas and structures as close as 0 feet from the
<br />OHWL of Egg Lake.
<br />Public Waters Work Permitting Requirements
<br />Sheet C2.0, Overall Site Plan in the Civil Plans shows three docks with platforms extending beyond the ordinary high
<br />water level (OHWL) boundary of Egg Lake that do not meet the no permit required criteria in Minn. R. 6115.0210, subp.
<br />4(A) and DNR’s General Permit 2008-0401 for dock platforms. First, General Permit 2008-0401 allows riparian
<br />landowners to install a single dock platform up to 170 square feet in size. The plans, however, show three dock
<br />platforms for this single development. Second, General Permit 2008-0401 requires that a dock leading to a platform
<br />must be 5 feet or less in width. The plans, however, show docks 8 feet in width. As shown in this application, these over-
<br />sized docks require application for an individual DNR Public Waters Work Permit. Under DNR’s Public Waters Work Rules
<br />(Minn. R. 6115.0150 – 6115.0280), please note the applicant must show that the project represents the minimal impact
<br />solution to a specific need with respect to all reasonable alternatives. An 8-feet wide dock in a T-configuration, as used
<br />at many DNR public accesses, would be a reasonable, lower impact alternative for providing the desired access to Egg
<br />Lake. Since the proposed design is not a minimal impact solution, a DNR Public Waters Work Permit cannot be issued for
<br />these docks as proposed.
|