Laserfiche WebLink
him as strange. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey stated there are no finding of facts in regard to the site plan, which is <br />what they are addressing now. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanson stated access onto McKinley is inadequate. Also, whether or not the ground is a <br />wetland is an issue. He found a USGS web-site where they use their system to detect the amount <br />of moisture in the ground level. He reviewed a map that showed this area marked off as wetlands <br />in 1994, which was a dry period. He stated a friend of his experience determining wetland from <br />vegetation found. He indicated some of the plants show this is definitely a wetland. He <br />reviewed a photo showing some of those plants including some of the trees. He said this <br />happens to be the exact location where they are proposing to build their transfer station: on top of <br />the wetland. There is a prohibition of building a transfer station on wetlands accord to state <br />statute. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Nixt stated as far as the wetland issue, it appears the Conditional Use Permit <br />rests on the determination that this is not a wetland and,he presumes they are commissioning <br /> / <br />someone experienced to make a determination on that. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski responded an appointment is scheduled with Becky Lawson from the <br />Anoka Conservation District, and she will write a letter on her findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanson asked what basis they are using, as he understands only the DNR can set aside <br />wetlands and USGS is considered an official bond for determining wetlands. This area was <br />determined a wetland in 1994. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Nixt said they are currently looking at the site plan and they can grant the <br />applicant's request for a site plan on the determination of the other issues. As far as how that is <br />accomplished, that is not within their parameters. They are not qualified, nor does he want to <br />challenge Mr. Hanson's work and research. He suggested Mr. Hanson work with City Staff, they <br />have technical input from the City Attorney to make a legally correct conclusion. They do have <br />a very learned individual to make sure that is done. He stated that at this time he would like to <br />get back to the site plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanson stated the site plan is of particular concern to them. The whole upper holding pond <br />is at one of the highest elevations on the site and he did not see any provisions on how water <br />from the lower area will get to that pond. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated there are two ponds on the site, one is in the northern area, and <br />the other is in the southeast comer. A portion of the site will drain to the north, and the lower <br />portion will drain to the southeast. The two are interconnected with a pipe and flow to the storm <br />water system. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/May 2, 2000 <br /> Page 20 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />