5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BRIGGS n,Nn MORGAN City of Falk River Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Page 2 B. CITY STAFF'S THREE ISSI?FS DO NOT STATE BASES FOR I)ENI,4L 1. Lechina's opinion fails to state a basis for denial To the extent that it is used as a basis for denial, Ledvina's opinion has three fatal problems. First, I.,edvina conspicuous)}~ fails to identify what City requurements are not met. He cannot; there are none. Second, Ledvina's opinion that ERL's plans need to be further developed to satisfy Ml'CA's requirements is t~•ue, but ERL's satisfaction of Ml'CA's requirements is between ERL and the agency. And, third, City can (and thus must) address Ledvina's concerns with 1RI.,'s compliance with MPCA's requirements through CUP conditions, ~.ZOt a denial. T'i°i.skr~ v. Citt~ of 1"Ijtrite Prxrlt, 566 N.W.2d 349, 357 (Minn. App.), re>>ieu~ denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997); L'eit USA, Inc. v. ,Sherbet°1Ze Crncnty, No. A08-0581, 2009 WL 605722, at *4 (Minn. App. Mar. 10, 2009), rc~vievv denied (Mann.. May 27, 2009). 2. City Staffs concern with the removal of the screening provided by the trees in the undisturbed 8.6-acre "buffer" area fails to state a basis for denial To the extent that it is used as a basis for denial, City Staffs concern with the removal of the screening provided by the trees in the undisturbed 8.6-acre "buffer" area has three fatal problems. First; the photographs, with site line diagrams, from MPCA's EIS tell a much different story than. that which is verbally described by City Staff.I See Ex, 169. "There is absolutely .nothing in the photographs which indicates how the "[r]emoval of the existing trees and buffer would have a substantial impact on the visibility of the Landfill, making landfill operations a City Staff describes the "buffer" area and its threatened impact as follows: The existing buffer consists of a mostly native, undisturbed area witih an elevated topographic terrain. "l'he existing terrain, which is covered by several hundred native, mature 11•ees, acts as a visual screen of the Landfill. if solid waste were to be deposited in this area, all of the existing trees would be removed and tl~e existing elevated terrain reduced and excavated to accommodate the deposit of solid waste. Removal of the existing, trees and buffer would have a substantial impact on the visibility of the Landfill inalcin~ landfill operations clearly visible from 2~ 1st Avenue azld potentially the residential areas to the west, for an extended period of time while the 13.7-acre existing buffer area is filled with solid waste and a new buffer is established to the south, on the adjoining property. 5/7/10 City Staff Report at 4 ~( (3) (emphasis added).