Laserfiche WebLink
-�. <br />---. <br />5.4 No EAW or other environmental document is required for this activity. <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />6.1 The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the INTERIM USE PERMIT subject <br />to the following conditions: <br />a. The IUP shall be limited to the temporary storage of contractor equipment, job <br />materials (including manhole sections, trench boxes, manhole rings), sand and <br />cement (covered) and up to 4,000 cubic yards of granular material. <br />b. The subject site shall be limited to 200 feet by 220 feet (1 acre) in size. A 50 foot <br />wide construction access must be installed as a temporary entry to <br />eliminate/reduce wheel tracking of mud/dirt to a minimum. <br />c. The subject area must be fenced (minimum height of 6 feet) and include a <br />lockable gated entry. <br />d. Nadeau Excavating must install silt fencing around the periphery of the 1 acre site <br />as a"best management practice" (to be approved by the City Engineer) to control <br />potential stockpile erosion in the event of rain. <br />e. Street sweeping shall be used as necessary or as required by the Public Works or <br />Community Development Department (per the City Street Cleaning Policy — <br />attached) to minimize the affects of mud/dirt on adjacent roadway surfaces. <br />f. Truck hauling of material must use the southern access to Cleveland Avenue. <br />g. The Interim Use Permit shall be allowed for a period of 10 months (May 2007 to <br />December 2007) unless otherwise requested by Nadeau Excavation three months <br />prior to the expiration date (September 7, 2007). <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br />7.1 On March 7, 2007, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />the Nadeau Excavating request. No citizens were present to address the Commission. <br />Commissioners did ask the applicant for clarification on what types of items would be <br />temporarily stored at the site. <br />7.2 The applicant and Commission also noted a slight difference in the size of the storage <br />area 200 by 220 feet versus the 200 by 200 feet as stated in the staff report. The City <br />Planner noted the incorrect number in the report and recommended that condition 2 be <br />revised accordingly. <br />7.3 The Commission also was interested in the type of material to be stored, drainage <br />protection, and the quantity of construction equipment. <br />PF07-010_RCA_032607.doc Page 3 of 4 <br />