Laserfiche WebLink
73 Chair Traynor ask the City Planner what the standard was for reviewing Interim Use <br />Permits. The City Planner indicated that the is no stated standard or list of criteria that is <br />used to review Interim Use Permits - because they are not required to follow zoning or <br />comp plan requirements. The City Planner added, in the case of the proposed temporary <br />use, issues related to dust, noise and vibrations would be logical choices of items that <br />require further analysis and consideration as to their potential impact on the surrounding <br />community. <br />7.4 Member �akezxaan asked the City Planner to re�view/describe the difference between the <br />proposed crushing operation and others in the past. The City planner indicated the Shafer <br />Construction received Council approval (�U�) for a crushing operation on a vacant parcel <br />at Walnut and Terminal Road. The equipment used was larger than what is proposed <br />here; the purpose was to recycle the former County Road C and use it as sub-base. There <br />were no recorded complaints. The other recent crushing operation occurred with the <br />Target redevelopment — this operation did not receive an IUP, was located within 200 feet <br />of multi-family residential, and experienced dust issues. <br />7.5 The applicant, Theresa Greenfield (Rottlund HomaslDavid Bernard Builders & <br />Developers), Jim Wutzke, Frattalone Companies and Jason Kunze, Braun Intertec, <br />provided details on the proposed recycling operation. <br />7.6 Members of the Planning Commissionasked questions of the City Planner and specific <br />questions regarding dust, noise and vibrations of the applicant and the applicant's <br />representatives. <br />7.7 Karen Milton addressed the Commission with a question regarding the timing of the <br />temporary operation— if the site is to be used until 2008 when would crushing be <br />completed a second time. Theresa Greenfield stated that they hope to complete all <br />crushing this construction season, but if they are unsuccessful in acquiring the Hagan <br />parcel they would come back before Planning Commission seeking an extension. Milton <br />added that based on current language in ��P, the applicant could crush until May 2007. <br />Greenfield stated that their intention is to e�'ush only until the second or third week of <br />February 2007. Milton asked how wildlife would be impacted. Greenfield stated that no <br />detailed analysis had been completed — but noise and vibrations from 35 W and industrial <br />activities— has not appeared to impact existing wildlife. She added that there will <br />continue to be construction activity that will generate noise and vibxatio�s. <br />7.8 Tamara McGehee, asked how the it�rn/k�ear�ng was noticed. The City Planner indicated <br />that staff used the recent Council supported notification process whereby the longest <br />length of a project site is used as the notificationdista�ce/zad��s. In the case of this <br />request the distance was 1,000 feet. McGehee commented on the aerial photo indicating <br />distance form the crushing site and wondered the distance to Veritas. The report indicated <br />450 feet to the structure. <br />P�3717 RCA_OS2206\ Page S of & <br />