2015.04.21 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Director Gundlach stated it's important to acknowledge a Yard Waste Transfer use exists on site and is allowed through the ECOA. This was permitted in 2010 even though it is unrelated to MPI's excavation business. The area devoted to yard waste is relatively small compared to the proposed 100' x 100' road salt storage shed. This use has also produced numerous odor complaints over the years. Staff finds the nuisance issues (odor) and truck traffic associated with this use, combined with the impacts of the aggregate crushing /recycling use (truck traffic, noise, dust), including the unsightliness of both uses combined, are all the site can support being adjacent to a Natural Environment lake and a Regional Park. Introduction of a third use could negatively impact the immediate surroundings and the residential neighborhood to the west by further degrading aesthetics and increasing noise and traffic. In recognition the "stacking" of uses could have unintended negative land use impacts, the ECOA has been amended whereby all uses require a special use permit. This will allow appropriate City review, including notification to the neighbors, of future uses proposed by MPI or other future landowners. Planning Director Gundlach commented that by expanding the aggregate crushing /recycling and associated materials storage use to 17 additional acres, several conditions within the ECOA required amendment to ensure the original intent of the ordinance was preserved. The existing ECOA limits how much pile storage can be accommodated on site to 30% of the total land area. Because the applicant is nearly doubling their land area, staff believes 30% is no longer appropriate as too much land could be covered in piles of either processed or unprocessed aggregates, creating unsightliness. Adding to the unsightliness is the removal of tree cover from the 17 acre expansion property that provided a significant amount of screening for the existing piles. The applicant will be unable to manufacture screening of the same magnitude that was removed, giving further reason to reduce the amount of pile storage from the original 30% of total land area. Staff recommends leaving the pile storage percentage to 30 %, but using only the land that is available for pile storage and not total land area. This seems reasonable in that every property has a set of inherent constraints and one should not benefit from those constraints if negative impacts result (unsightliness). In this instance, those inherent constraints are both related to the use of the property (sound mitigation berm and wall) and would exist regardless of the use (overhead electrical transmission lines). The applicant's site plan notes areas with use constraints. Additionally, staff prepared a map to help depict where piles could be stored. Staff would recommend denial of the applicant's request to use total land area for the calculation of pile storage, and would recommend using 30% of the pile storage area. Planning Director Gundlach recommended the rubble pile be further limited as the rubble pile is responsible for the majority of negative impacts, such as noise, dust, and unsightliness. Staff recommends the rubble pile be limited to 15% of the pile storage area. This equates to four acres of rubble, which the applicant is agreeable to. Planning Director Gundlach reported the applicant's proposed site plan depicts a 1000' rail siding to be constructed adjacent to the existing tracks. The applicant's narrative states MPI currently utilizes the existing railroad tracks for import of certain aggregate products with an intent to gradually increase use of the tracks to accommodate expanded product lines. With increased use of the tracks, the applicant desires to construct a 1000' rail siding that can accommodate up to 10 rail cars. The applicant's narrative states federal rail laws prohibit stopping/blocking of the main lines, thus the need for the siding. Staff acknowledges the site is adjacent to railroad tracks and thus should be permitted to make reasonable use of rail transport. Staff's primary concerns related to construction of the rail siding includes: • Unsightliness of cars sitting on the tracks for long periods of time • The noise associated with hooking and unhooking 4