Title
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR A HOTEL AT SUNDBY ROAD AND WEST PAGE STREET.
Body
CITY PROPOSAL:
RESOLVED, that the city council finds as follows:
(a) Pursuant to City Code Section 50-18.1, on July 18, 2022, Kinseth Hotel Corporation submitted an application requesting the City review and concur with a wetland boundary and type delineation for property at Sundby Road and West Page Street in Duluth; and
(b) The wetland application included a wetland delineation report for the property completed by a Minnesota certified wetland delineator (Note: The wetland delineation report text stated the parcel identification numbers for the property as 010-2710-04594, 010-2710-04590, 010-2710-04593, but failed to state that parcel 0101-2710- 04575 was also included in the delineation as shown in the “Delineation Area” on Figure 3 of the report); and
(c) Upon review of the wetland application and following consultation with the wetland technical evaluation panel, on August 24, 2022, the city issued a Notice of Decision approving the wetland boundary and type delineation; and
(d) Pursuant to City Code Section, 50-37, on August 10, 2022, Kinseth submitted an application (PL 22-143) for planning review for a hotel on the property, with final information constituting a complete application being submitted on September 7, 2022; and
(e) At its October 11, 2022, regular meeting, the planning commission, after considering public testimony and information from the applicant, approved the planning review with a vote of 7 yeas, 1 nay, and 0 abstentions; and
(f) On October 21, 2022, the city received a notice of appeal requesting the city council reverse the planning commission’s approval; and
(g) At its December 19, 2022, meeting, the city council heard the appeal and found that the application for planning review met all applicable provisions of Chapter 50 of the city code and affirmed the decision of the planning commission to approve the planning review; and
(h) On March 14, 2023, the city received notification that the Environmental Quality Board had designated the city as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to review a citizen’s Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) as the hotel project was still pending before the city because a building permit had not been issued; and
(i) Duluth City Code section 2-41 grants to the planning commission the authority to serve as the RGU and make final decisions on environmental reviews including a petition for an EAW; and
(j) When the planning commission makes a final decision on an environmental review, Duluth Code Section 50-37.1.O(4) allows for appeals of final planning commission decisions to the city council if such appeal is filed within 10 days of the planning commission’s decision, and such appeal shall be heard at the city council’s next scheduled meeting following receipt of the appeal; and
(k) The Petition for an EAW identified and provided supporting information on the following areas of concern about the hotel project’s potential to have significant environmental effects: impacts to nearby Miller Creek and on-site and surrounding wetlands from an increase in stormwater runoff caused by increased impervious surface area - specifically reduction in groundwater base flow to Miller Creek and the wetlands, and increase in pollutants (i.e., chloride, pathogens, and sediment); impacts to Miller Creek from removal of vegetative buffer; increase in stream temperature of Miller Creek stemming from increased stormwater runoff; and impacts on a state-listed endangered plant species - floating marsh-marigold; and
(l) In considering the evidence of the potential for significant environmental effects, the planning commission as RGU and the city council in hearing an appeal, must take into account the following factors listed in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7. The following factors shall be considered:
i. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.
ii. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors:
a. whether the cumulative potential effect is significant;
b. whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect;
c. the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and
d. the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.
iii. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.
iv. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs; and
(m) For the planning commission’s consideration at its April 11, 2023, meeting, city planning staff evaluated the statutory criteria and prepared a memorandum and findings recommending denial of the EAW Petition because: the project as designed would not impact wetlands on the property; city on-site stormwater management requirements would result in a decrease in the volume of stormwater leaving the property as compared to existing conditions and protect surface water and groundwater from pollutants; the project design met all shoreland setback requirements; the floating marsh-marigold is not present on the property; and any potential significant environmental effects will be controlled by permits and regulations; and
(n) As recorded in the minutes from its April 11, 2023, regular meeting, the planning commission considered public comment and documents in the record, and approved a motion to grant the Petition for an EAW based on the Petition as presented and the need for information on the potential impacts of the proposed project on hydrology including groundwater impacts on nearby Miller Creek and floodplain impacts; the motion passed on a vote of 6 yeas, 2 nays, and 0 abstentions; and
(o) On April 14, 2023, pursuant to City Code Section 50-37.1.O(4), the city received an appeal from Kinseth Hotel Corporation requesting the city council reverse the planning commission’s approval of the Petition for an EAW and asserting the areas of concern stated in the Petition for an EAW had been fully considered previously in the administrative process; and
(p) At its May 8, 2023 meeting, the city council heard the appeal; and
(q) Upon consideration of the record as a whole, the city council finds that the record supports the planning commission’s findings and conclusions as set out in the planning commission’s April 11, 2023, motion to grant the Petition for an EAW.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision of the planning commission to grant the Petition for an EAW is affirmed.
Statement of Purpose
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This resolution affirms the April 11, 2023, decision of the planning commission to grant a citizen’s Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a proposed hotel at Sundby Road and West Page Street.
Project proposer, Kinseth Hotel Corp., filed an appeal of the planning commission’s decision on April 14, 2023, requesting the city council reverse the decision of the planning commission asserting the areas of concern stated in the Petition for an EAW had been fully considered previously in the administrative process.
Planning Commission Decision: April 11, 2023
City Council Appeal Received: April 14, 2023
City Council Appeal Hearing and Decision at Its Next Scheduled Meeting Following Receipt of the Appeal: May 8, 2023