HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 9; South Coast Asphalt; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (20)MEMORANDUM
DATE : August 28, 1978
TO : James Hagaman, Planning Director 4
FROM : Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT: SOUTH COAST ASPHALT - STORAGE SILO
Attached is a letter from Hap L'Heureux as attorney for South
Coast Asphalt. In this letter Hap explains the request is to
install an 82 foot tall asphalt storage silo near the existing
2 asphalt batch plants.
Furthermore Hap indicates that he has reviewed this installation
with me and that I have concluded that no amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit or height variance is necessary. In
conclusion Hap asked for a review of my analysis and to inform
him immediately if there is a disagreement. He finishes by
indicating that the order will be submitted within 10 days of
August 1, 1978.
As per a telephone conversation Don Rose had with Hap yesterday it appears that the order has been made for the storage silo since there was no reply by this department and the letter was
in our office for over 3 weeks. Although I believe that we are not responsible for replying in a set time frame as may be desired by an applicant, I do think we have the obligation to immediately
respond now that the problem has been noted.
Nevertheless my reason for preparing this note, is to explain my findings on this matter.
does the CUP permit the addition of the storage silo, the other
issue is - can this silo be higher that the height limit of the zone?
There are two issues one being
Regarding the issue on the CUP, I concluded that a CUP did not need to be reopened because the last adopted CUP (Resolution
No. 204) does not reference a plot plan. It appears that the Planning Commisssion at that time approved only a use with certain operating conditions. actual development itself. This approval was in April 1961, since that time many structures and buildings have been built, removed or relocated on this site without ever requiring a CUP.
The only subsequent CUP was for a temporary trailer on the site. This however came under the requirement of the code requiring such process for a temporary trailer.
They were not concerned with the
.
KEMORANDUM - JAMES HAGAMAN August 28, 1978 Page Two (2)
Furthermore, I concluded that the silo would make the operation more efficient in that it would require less night operation to
provide asphalt for early morning deliveries. The asphalt would be prepared in the afternoons and stored in the silo and be ready for delivery early in the morning.
The problem with the height is a little more difficult, in fact / it brought to my attention a slight error in our new definition of
i height calculation and an older inconsistency with provisions for
' height of structure. Section 21.46.020, which is titled height of enthouses and roof structures, appears to deal only with
tructures on top of buildings. However, there are structures
that are not normally found on top of buildings, i.e, walls, chimneys, smokestacks, towers, etc. We have interpreted this section to mean those structures that do not
have roofs and therefore do not need to meet the height restrictions of any zone. Furthermore do not need to meet
the height restrictions of any zone. Furthermore in the M- Zone
under 21.32.050, it indicates that no building shall be over 35' in height and under the definition of building (Section 21.0460) is any structure having a roof. These definitions have always been consistent except for the minor interpretation necessary on section 21.46.020.
\...
A side issue however is that I believe our latest definition of building height may add some confusion to this consistency between structures and buildings in that it uses both "building" and "structure". It also indicates that the structure must have a roof. At a later date we should consider deleting structure from this definition.
At Don's first review of this request he did not agree with my findings at least as Hap had explained them in his letter of August 1, 1978. Furthermore, as an important side issue, Don is concerned ing of this silo in the floodplain.
He believes that it require a Special Use Permit approval by our City with Don and believe that he should check this out further with Tim. If this is true, I believe we should notify Hap immediately on our findings of
zoning requirements of the silo and the floodplain problems with the siting.
Bud Plender
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
BP/ar