Laserfiche WebLink
CU 95-13 Page 3 <br />Continued <br />• aggregate bin was not properly adjusted, causing the plant to run too <br />hot (another way Commercial Asphalt adjusts their operation for odors <br />is to turn the temperature down). Commercial Asphalt's response to <br />this complaint was to shut the plant down until the aggregate bin was <br />adjusted appropriately. When the plant started up again the odor <br />problem had dissipated. <br />Having complaint calls go directly to Commercial Asphalt, appears to be a <br />much more efficient and timely way of dealing with the odor issue. <br />Commercial Asphalt Co. has gone as far as not to run their plant under <br />certain weather conditions. Staff feels Commercial Asphalt has been <br />cooperative in dealing with the odor issue. <br />The question for the City Council is whether or not Commercial Asphalt has <br />been able to keep odors at an acceptable level and they should have their <br />permit renewed, or odor levels are at an unreasonable level and their permit <br />should be denied. <br />Recommendation <br />Attached to this memo is a conditional use permit that, except for a few <br />• minor wording changes, is the same as the 1994 permit. The one exception is <br />the permit that is attached to this memo is good for two years. The one <br />issued in 1994 was only good for one year. <br />The Planning Commission is recommending approval of this permit. Staff <br />has re-notified the neighbors, including those who complained in 1995, of <br />this renewal process. However, there was no one at the Planning <br />Commission public hearing opposed to this renewal. <br />.] <br />6-27comm/bz/stever <br />