Laserfiche WebLink
nity EmployerPE • "p..PE • n, P.E •To:Planning Commission <br />From: <br />Date: <br />MPG <br />October?, 1997 <br />Subject: <br />1S97 <br />State of Minnesota Environmental Revie'’' ' uirements: <br />EAW/EIS Status of LGA’s Saga Hill i rojects <br />ix-Iot <br />t west <br />I with <br />\iture <br />rth of <br />hould <br />fficult <br />the <br />curve <br />y cul- <br />cation <br />led on <br />mitary <br />irLots <br />tmaps <br />ixceed <br />I plans <br />srshed <br />Both projects are partially within the Shoreland Management District, hence per 4410.4600, Subpart <br />12, neither project is "exempt" from the EAW/EIS process. <br />Each project is far below the 250-unit threshold above which an EAW is mandatory in the 7-county <br />metro area per 4410.4300, Subpart 19, and each project does not impact wetlands nor cause other <br />impacts reaching any of the mandatory EAW thresholds, hence each project is not in mandatory <br />EAW category. <br />Likewise, each project is far below the 1,000-unit threshold for which an EIS is mandatory in the <br />seven-county metro area per 4410.4400 Subpart 14. <br />These two projects in staffs opinion are separate, unrelated, and not 'phases' of a greater <br />development plan. Each project could happen independently of whether the other is ultimately <br />approved. Further, they are not contiguous, but are separated by more than 500’ of public and <br />privately owned lands. As a result, it would be improper to consider them as a single unit for <br />EAW/EIS status assignment. <br />Both projects could be subject to a 'discretionary EAW' initiated by either the City or by a citizen <br />petition of at least 25 individuals. In the case of a petition, the Council shall order preparation of an <br />EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners demonstrates to the Council's satisfaction that <br />because of the nature or location of the project, the project may have the potential for significant <br />environmental effects. <br />Summary <br />1. The two projects are independent of each other. <br />2. Neither project is in a mandatory EAW or EIS category. <br />Neither project is in an "exempt" category due to being partially in the Shoreland Distnct. <br />Both projects could be subject to a Discretionary EAW if the Council so orders pursuant to <br />its own initiative or in response to a citizen petition.