Laserfiche WebLink
S.� No EAW or other environmental document is required for this activity. <br />�.4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />f�. � The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL of the INTERIM USE PERMIT subject <br />to the following conditions: <br />a. The IUF shall be limited to the temporary storage of contractor equipment, j ob <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 />k�. 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 />climi�ate/red�uce wheel tracking of mudldirt to a minimum. <br />�. The subj ect area must be fenced (minimum height of 6 feet) and include a <br />lockable gated entry. <br />�i. Nadeau Excavating must install silt fencing around the periphery of the 1 acre site <br />as a"best managementpractice" (to be approved by the City Engineer) to control <br />potential stockpile erosion in the event of rain. <br />�. 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 mudldirt on adjacentroadway surfaces. <br />�, Truck hauling of material must use the southern access to Cleveland Avenue. <br />�. 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 />'�,� PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br />�.1 On March 7,2007, the Roseville Planning Commissionheld the public hearingregarding <br />the Nadeau Excavatingrequest. 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 />�.� 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. � 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_12CA_032607.doc Page 3 of 4 <br />