PC Packet 08-19-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Editing the criteria to be included within the ECOA ordinance. This ordinance was originally written to accommodate the applicant's existing 21.5 acre site. The expansion land doesn't necessarily meet the original criteria established for inclusion in the overlay. Staff proposes to revise this section and refer to a map instead, leaving no interpretation of which properties are eligible for the Overlay. However, some of the original conditions remain intact as they are important to mitigate negative impacts to the general public and especially adjacent and nearby uses. • Including an agricultural use as a permitted use — the applicant purchased property they have not proposed to use for pile storage, but would like some reasonable use. This mainly consists of a 650 feet long section of property that abuts Old Highway 8 NW at the east end and a portion of property on the Rush Lake or south side of the railroad tracks. After discussions with the applicant it was decided by both parties to use this property as a buffer from Old Highway 8 NW and Rush Lake. This ensures the unsightliness and negative impacts of the pile and equipment storage areas are not readily noticeable driving along Old Highway 8 NW. The applicant has proposed to preserve their right to use this property for crops (fruits, vegetables, and plants), hence the agricultural use addition as a permitted use. • Revision to condition F of the special use permit section relating to aggregate crushing, recycling, and equipment storage. City staff is very concerned about keeping controls in place that limit how much material can be piled on the property. Exterior storage is only permitted as an accessory use and in this case a use accessory to the applicant's excavation/construction business. Exterior storage as a principal use is not permitted under the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested to keep the current 30% storage standard in place but allow credit to be given for areas not being used for storage. Staff is not supportive of this proposal. Staff has prepared a revised condition F, which is a 3- pronged approach to limiting pile storage: o Limit how much total land area can be devoted for pile storage. This is proposed at 50%. Thus, of the applicant's 42.5 acres, they can use approximately 22 acres for pile storage/processing area. o Within that 50% land area, only 40% may be used for piled material. The applicant was asking for 6.4 additional acres for pile storage combined with the 5.85 acres allowed within their current site area for a total of 12.25 acres. Based on 40% of the pile storage area represented on the Site Plan (existing and expansion property), this would allow for approximately 9 acres of storage area. This reduces the acreage available for pile storage by approximately 3.25 acres. Staff finds this reasonable. o Thirdly, staff would propose introducing a cap on the size of the unprocessed rubble pile. This pile bears the brunt of most of the negative impacts, such as noise, dust, unsightliness, etc. Staff proposes a cap on the unprocessed rubble pile of 20% of the pile storage area, or approximately 4.4 acres. For reference purposes, and based on 2009 and 2012 aerial photos, this pile has increased from 85,000 SF (2 acres) of surface area in 2009 to over 128,000 SF (3 acres) of surface area in 2012. The size of the rubble pile from 2012 equates to 13% of the proposed pile storage area. This provides the applicant the ability to grow the rubble pile by over an acre in surface. Additionally, the applicant has estimated they transport approximately 250,000—500,000 tons of processed material off the site in a given year. Being the 2012 rubble pile volume has been estimated by staff at 200,000 tons,this shouldn't be problematic for the applicant to work with.