HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-21z_--6
•
•
AGENDA
MELtZD1AN CITY COUNCIL
N~,RCIi 21, 1989
MIlVUTE`S OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HE~,D Ng1RCdi 7, 1989: (APPROVED)
1: PUBLIC DARING: APPLICATION FOR COI~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY JESSE & MARY WILSON
FOR JOY SCHOOL OF MERIDIAN: (APPROVID)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR Al~~QG & ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A Cd~i & CFiI7RQ3 SCHOOL BY THE 5TONEHOUSE EVANGELICAL. CHURCHt (APPROVID)
3: REQUEST FOR TIME EX'I~TSION ON PR~•~~RV PLAT AMID CONIDITIONAL Al~'ION AMID
ZONING ON LOCUST GROVE SUBDIVISION BY CHET & IARRAINE HOSAC: (TABLED)
4: DEPAR'Ii~NT REPORTS:
•
•
MER~CDIAN CITY COUNCII, 1~RCH 21, 1989
Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford
at 7:30 p.m.:
Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Hob Giesler, Walt Morrow:
Membexs Absent: Bert Myers:
Others Present: Mary & Jesse Wilson, Chuck Liggett, Rocky Towle, Kevin Robertson,
Cory Robertson B.S.A. #90 ,Moe Alidjani, Jim Johnson, Paul Stutzman, Gary Smith
Gene Kindred, Wayne Crookston, Members of Scout Troop #126, K. Beumeler.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to approve the Minutes of the
previous Meeting held March 7, 1989 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Public Hearing: Application for Conditional Use Permit by Jesse & Mary Wilson
for Joy School of Meridian:
Mayor Kingsford: At this time I will open the Public Hearing, is there anyone from the
Public who wishes to offer testimony on this application? There was no response, the
Public Hearing was closed. Council M~nbers are there any questions or comments on
this request?
Giesler: 'T'here were sonroe requirements that were brought up in the Findings, do you have
any problems with any of those? °-°
Wilson: Not that I am aware of:
Mayor Kingsford: Mr. Wilson you received the Findings from the Plann~*+g & Zoning
Meeting and you have no problems with those?
Wilson: No:
Mayor Kingsford: Are there any other questions or cxenntents? There was no response, I
would then entertain a Motion to approve the Findings:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Tolsma to approve the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on the Joy School of Meridian as prepared for the Planning &
Zoning Commission:
Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Morrow, Xea: Giesler, Xea: Tolsma, Yea:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Giesler to approve the Conditional Use
Pern~it for the Joy School of Meridian at 1608 Meridian Street for Jesse & Mazy Wilson:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #2: Public Hearing: Annexing & Zoning with a Conditional, Use Peunit for a Church
and School by the Stonehouse Evangelical Church:
Mayor Kingsford: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone fret the Public
who wishes to offer testimony on this request?
Rocky Towle, Design Resources, I represent the client, Towle was sworn by the City
MER1nIAty cITY covNCIL
MARCH 21, 1989
PAGE # 2
Attorney.
Towle: Just any questions I can answer concerning the request.
Mayor Kingsford: Are there any questions of the Council M,~nbers?
Morrow: Have you read ACfID's recommendations in terms of the Trust Fund and in terms of
the right-away and those kinds of things?
Towle: Yes, one question we had when we were before the Planning & Zoning Commission
;, was the lenq{~, of the water line to be developed on the property and originally it was
stated that it would go the full length of the property on Ten Mile and we wish to do
that rather than what we had said in splitting it out before.
Tolsma: I think the original continent was to go to the center of the property.
Towle: That is correct but we want to continue it on so that it is completed and we
are done with our obligation.
Mayor Kingsford: We appreciate that and that is our Ordinance and it makes a lot
cleaner operation when it. is done this way. Is there anyone else from the Public
who wishes to offer testimony on this request? There was no response, the Public
Hearing was closed.
The Motion. was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to approve the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law as prepared for the Planning & Zoning on the request by the
Stonehouse Evangelical Church:
Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Morrow, Yea: Giesler, Yea: Tolsma., Yea:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Morrow to prepare an Ordinance for
the Annexation & Zoning of the property as described in the application for the
Stonehouse Evangelical Churchs
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Mayor Kingsford: The Conditional Use Perniit will be approved at the time the Ordinance
is passed:
Towle: Is there any problem with us proceeding with the drawings?
Mayor Kingsford: I do not see any, we have to pass the Ordinance and have it published
but the Council has approved the request.
Item #3: Request for a Time Extension on Prelimisiazy Plat & Conditional Annexation and
Zoning on Locust Grove Subdivision by Chet & Lorraine Hosac:
Mayor Kingsford:This goes back at least two years or mare, we have granted at least one
extension, is there any question or connnent of the council?
Morrow: Do we have the ability under our Ordinances to grant a second extension or
is that just on a Final Plat, currently we approve it for one year and then we can
grant one, one year extension, so they would not be eligible for an extension now
according to our Ordinances?
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCII, • •
MARC„EI 21, 1989
PAGE # 3
Mayor Kingsford: We have set a precedence doing it more than once, I guess maybe I
would like to offer up a reccumendation that we consult with the Hosac's, at the time
we ~~d this prior to the last bill effecting the property tax and it was not in our
financial interest to annex land until it was developed, I do not k we hurt our-
selves today under the current laws by annexing it, I guess it would be my rec:c~n-
endation that we go ahead and annex the property, it would still necessitate an
extension of the plat if that is still their desire and yours, if they are still
interested in annexation I would suggest we go ahead and annex it and forget the
conditional annexation. I suppose we ought to at least confer with then and it
maybe be my recc~¢nP.ndation that we table until the next meeting.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Tolsma to table the request by Chet
and Lorraine Hosac for an extension on Prel~m;nary Plat and Conditional Annexation
on Locust Grove Subdivision until the next meeting:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Department Reports:
Acting Chief, Kevin Robertson: I was just going to bring up to the Council, we have
been getting several reports as we do every spring about the accutnlation around town
and various locations what is termed under State Code as junk or abandoned vehicles
on the public streets, we are going to start going through town, taking an area at
a time and posting those vehicles that are parked on a public street that are in
violation to have those moved,it.~takes us a little time to post then and then you
have to go back to see which ones have been moved or which ones you have to tow but
we will start through town, if I could I would like to get the press to place something
in the paper that we would appreciate it if people would move any vehicles that are
inoperable or that are currently not licensed, those are in violation of the Code.
City Engineer: This is the latest draft of the proposal for a standard platting process
that is being developed through APA, (on file with these minutes) this was brought up
at the Board Meeting today and the Board. directed that it be sent out to all the
agencies for review and cx~nent, it will surface again at the next APA Board Meeting.
Basically it is a effort by Ada County and Ada County Highway District to more or less
standardize the procedure used by the various cities and the County for preliminary
and final plats for subdivisions. I am a menber of thiscommittee and basically the
items that are contained in this document we already have in our Ordinance. .One
problen that does exist is on the last page, iten #6 plat approval terms & conditions
and there has been a lot of discussion about the duration of preliminary plats, haw
long that should be and also concerning extensions and there has been no decision
or recommendation arrived at by the ccsr~ittee. The APA Baord is supporting. this
and is asking the various agencies to incorporate i..n .tYaeir Ordinances whenever
possible.
City Clerk: Let me ask you a question, if the Aria County Highway District approve this,
that will be more or less the rules of law because no one will be able to get a plat
signed unless they meet these requirrements as far as extensions or anything?
City Engineer: As far as extensions that is correct, this would apply to the lead
agencies of which each of the Cities are one and the County is one, the ACRD is an
approving agency which would be in response to a lead agency request.
Morrow: To clarify that question further, in this case for example we approve an
extension such as the Hosac's tonne and we make no further requirements on then
but for some reason ACHD should want to make additional requirements upon then, then
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 21, 1989
PAGE # 4
does that mean irregardless of what we say ACHD imposes the new requirement upon them?
Mayor Kingsford: I think we could grant an extension, I think ACRD could change their
requi_r~nents, they may have approved it and if it goes beyond that time, then they
would have the right to change those requirements before they sign the plat.
Morrow: Is that correct, Gary?
City Engineer: Yes, that is correct:
Mayor Kingsford: We could extend for our purposes all we wanted to, but it would be a
matter of ACRD may require additional items.
Morrow: The thing I am trying to get at here is one of the favorite things of mast
government agencies is to hold people hostage in updating whatever they wish to update
once a person is already into a project and you have people like ACDH and any of the
other twenty or twenty five agencies that have potential imput basically you have the
person held hostage, it seem to me if we are going. to grant sattebody extensions if we
are the lead agency so to speak the we ought to have the power to grant the extension
with or without any condition and not have to worry about the hassle about the other
agencies signing off on the plat.
Mayor Kingsford: I think there could be some trade off there, using that guide consider
it could be conceivable we could have approved a plat in 1950in Meridian where we didn't
require any curbs, gutter or sidewalk or anytlvng and they would have to accept that
today. I think the down side of that is, I agree with you wholeheartly we make things
to difficult for development, you are not going to have development. As I look at this
last page Gary, I notice you have put to long there on this 12 month and so forth, I am
not sure that I would accept that, I think that a reasonable long period of time might
be appropriate, you look at todays paper for example interest rates are going back up
we went through this in the late seventies and early eighties when we had a very rapid
turn in the economy and development stopped and I think it is appropriate that we be
reconnaisance with the economic times and have the flexibility to be able to meet that.
Morrow: I think a good example of that is Cherry Lane Subdivision, that subdivision is
still not ccanplete and for all practical purposes it is almost twelve years old.
Tolsma: The City Engineer and I visited a 1i.ttle bit about this, if they carte back in
and wanted to make changes in a subdivision, that there is no sense if they came back
and required six foot sidewalks, that would be inappropriate where the subdivision on
either side or surrounding it had a certain width sidewalk, if they came back and said
they were going to require ;six foot sidewalks from now on. If out in the middle of no
where then you would have to confirm with their specifications. As an example if a
preliminary plat had been on file for three years and there is sti_11 nothing developed
out there, then they should probably have to go back and conform with the new specific-
ations.
Morrow: If I understand what Gary is saying correctly we would be powerless to stop them
frcen requiring six foot sidewalks between two subdivisions with four foot sidewalks, is
that correct?
City Engineer: Basically they have the right of review on the time extension, if we
grant them that right of review and that is what part of this is all about and they
send that recorcenendation back and since they do need to sign the plat, I suppose they
have a hammer frcatt that standpoint. I think part of the process is going to be that
r~xIDlAty cITY covNCIL • •
MARCH 21, ],989
PAGE # 5
when on an extension, the request for an extension is sent out by the City of Meridian
to ACHD and the other Agencies that review it ,that the developer is also notified that
he needs to meet with ACHD and the other Agencies and work out any problems there might
be.
Mayor Kingsford: One other thing that has happened with regards to the ACRD very significant-
ally they have been given Ordinance power by the Legislature in the last 24 months, I am
not sure that we would have the ability to get around your quote held hostage issue, I
think what we do need to do is maybe work through this organization and try to get at
least an adequate period of time for them to deal with and also include in there scene
kind of language that is a little bit flexible that the agencies do have an open mind
towards keeping property in some kind of homogenous nature as you develop.I think that
in anything there are trade offs, I would like to see us go for a long period of time
possibility of an extension and for them to be flexible, to consider economic times and
the surrounding conditions.
City Engineer: I agree with you, I think in fact there was even a cce~rtnent that there
shouldn't be a limit on preliminary plat, maybe it should just be good a.s long as it
takes to develop, like Cherry Lane, we have a prel~m;nary plat on that but they still
need to have a provision to come back and say on a periodic basis the policy has changed
and any future plats will be required to jump through this hoop, whatever it might be.
City Attorney: My imput on the legal end of it , it would appear to me it would behoove
everybody , the Lead Agency, ACRD and everybody that whether or not you allay something to
continue forever without review, I think creates a problem if you have a change of hand
in ownership, I think it is a good idea to have some vehicle by which you review it,
maybe every three years, or every two years or whatever we come up with because you may
be dealing with completely different parties, you may have a different Council,different
P &Z, you may have a different developer or owner. You may have a different engineer, it
doesn't hurt to review and make sure what the understandings were, even though they may
have been written dawn in Ordinance form or on the plat or whatever. Make them scene in
for an extension at some period of time whatever you thought was reasonable.
Tolsma.: A classic case of that is the burn out at Crestwood:
Mayor Kingsford: That is an excellent point, I think that a change of ownership should
constitute a review, so they would know what was expected, I also agree there should be
some kind of time frame. Do you feel comfortable going back with the Council's thoughts
on this?
City Engineer: Yes, I do and if you have any other catanents before the next meeting
in April, I will take thegn to the meeting.
Morrow: One of the problem in dealing with agencies is that you may have the intent like
we are trying convey here to ACRD of flexibility but somewhere in the inter workings of
those agencies somebody loses tract of the concept of flexibility and it just simply
doesn't exist when it comes down to the practicalities of .implementing whatever the
program might be so it seem to me maybe we ought to incorporate scene language to the
point that if we are going to grant extensions that we take advisory imput from
agencies and not give the i~ression that the advisory imput is going to be incorporated
into the extension automatically or that it is not going to be incorporated. SoH[~e of
these things in terms of intent get lost.
Mayor Kingsford: Thats why I say something in a relative vague nature that allows scene
flexibility. Scenetame and I think maybe three years might be a good time that it should
E
MERIDrAN CITY COUNCIL • •
MARCH 21, 1989
PAGE # 6
be reviewed with all parties at least, sit down and see if it is still in the best interest
of the City or the Highway District.
City Clerk: As the Mayor & Council is aware the City traded the property located by the
United Methodist Church for the parking lot at the east of this building and the City
gas tank is located on that property and part of the transaction was for the Church to
move the tank, I guess they are thinking about maybe doing something with that property
and thinking about moving the tank, they are wondering if we want to move the tank or
do something else as far as some kind of arrangement for gas. I have done some investig-
ation and we can get a new tank installed for $6,000.00 if we do the digging, we need
to decide on a location.
Mayor Kingsford: I think it would be appropriate for us to look into this and maybe a
couple of other options check with the local Vendors in town and see if they would be
willing to have a key pump at their location. 'T'his might be in our best interest.
Mayor Kingsford: I have a couple of things, we made application to the State for scene
grant funds for 8th street park due to some of the restrictions they have we have with-
drawn that application. The other thing I wanted to bring up with regards to the noise
issue, the Hoof Ccsnpany employed Equi~.nt Noise Analysis to do a study and make rec-
onm~ndations to eliminate the noise at the Hoff Plant. The did do the study and I
visited with Mr. Hoff yesterday and they are in the process of implementing the
rec~snendations that were made, they are anticipating being able to drop the decimal.
level by half. Also in this study it does speak to their neighbor Can-Forand their
cyclones could cause a problem when Hoff implements the rec~endations.
Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Tolsma
and seconded by Giesler to adjourn at 8:10 p.m.:
Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEIDINGS:)
APPROVED:
KII~TGSFO ,
ty
Mayor, Council
P & ,~ Members
Atty, Eng, Ward, Stuart
Police, Fire, Gass
Hallett, Stutzman,
Valley News, Statesman
ACRD, NIl~ID, CDH ,ACC
SIDS APA
File (3)
Mail (3)
TOOTffiNAN-ORTON ENGINEERING ANY
HOSAC ENGINEERING
DAMS C. TOOTHMAN
(Retired)
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR., PEILS
PAUL 3. KUNZ, PEILS
STEVEN W. HOSAC, PEILS
nMOrHY a euROESS, PE
CHARLES P. SUNDRY, PE
DAVID O. POWELL, PE
GLENN K BENNETi, LS
1802 NORTH 33RD STREET
BOISE, IDAHO 83703
TELEPHONE (208) 342-5511
March 10, 1989
Mayor Grant Kingsford
Meridian City Council
City Hall
33 E Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Locust Grove Subdivision
Chet & Lorraine Hosac
Gentlemen:
This letter is to request ari. extension of the preliminary map
and conditional zoning approvals previously granted for the
subject project.
Considerable effort has been expended by my parents in initiating
a development program for this project. However, market and
economic factors have not allowed the development to proceed.
The unfortunate defeat of the school bond issue has effected this
along with the high cost of extending off-site utilities to the
project. Nevertheless, they have every intention to proceed
with the project when conditions warrant.
We are requesting that the approvals be extended to July 1,
1991. This would provide two springtime windows for beginning
the project. This would avoid the need to request an additional
extension next year in the event the project cannot begin by
then. If this cannot be granted, we would request at least a
twelve to eighteen month extension.
We appreciate your consideration of this request.
free to contact me if there are any questions.
Ve y tr y yours,
~~~
_Sgteven W. Hosac, P.E./LS
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
Please feel
cc: Chet & Lorraine Hosac
SWH/gh
-- •
e
P8018ttiIL@{NitrJAB80CiateBmc.
Equipment Noise Analysis
Hoff Forest Products, Inc.
Meridian, Idaho
PIA Project # 15709
March 10, 1989
Prepared for:
Hoff Companies
5257 Fairview Avenue
Suite 230
Boise, ID 83706
Prepared by:
Earl Mullins, PE
Senior Consultant
Paoletti/I.ewitz/Associates
40 Gold Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
• •
Paoletti/LewitzlAsaociates Inc.
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 2
Introduction
We visited the facility in Meridian last week to evaluate the noise produced
by normal plant operations at the Hoff Forest Products plant. This facility
produces machined wood trim products and operates twenty four hours daily
on three shifts. Some of the residents in nearby homes have complained
about noise. Measured noise levels were used to derive corrective measures
intended to reduce noise levels in the adjoining neighborhood.
umma
The cyclones can be sprayed with a vibration damping compound and the hog
building enclosure can be improved. These measures will noticeably reduce
noise produced by Hoff Forest Products equipment.
The adjoining business (Can-Fors Company) also has similar but larger
cyclones. These units produce roughly equal noise levels at the residences
and they require similar treatment. Both companies must execute the damping
treatment to affect any noteworthy noise reduction in the residential areas.
i ~
•
Paoletti/Lewitz/Associates Inc.
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 3
Eaui~ment Noise
All references to noise levels in this report will refer to A-weighted
decibels. Em~ironmental noise is almost universally measured in terms of
this unit, more commonly expressed as dBA. The A-weighted sound pressure
level measures the approximate subjective loudness of various sounds, taking
into account audible frequencies and the way that humans perceive relative
loudness. It is commonly used nationwide to assess environmental noise.
The primary noise sources on the site are the cyclones and the "hog". The
hog is a wood chipper that reduces shavings, sawdust and production scrap to
chips of a manageable size. After going through the hog, waste is blown
through pipes and into the cyclones. The cyclones are sheet metal cones
that vent away the high pressure air moving the waste chips, allowing them
to swirl and fall into a hopper for removal by truck.
Elevated cyclones are located 500 feet from the northernmost property line
and the hog is located at the northwest corner of the main production
building, approximately 600 feet from the property line. The nearest homes
are roughly 200 feet north of this property line, and complaints have been
registered by residents up to an estimated 2000 feet away.
One offending noise can be described as a semi-metallic "banging" associated
with the hog, particularly when it is heavily loaded with scrap wood. The
second problem is noise associated with swirling wood chips inside the
elevated cyclones. The chips "sandblast" the inside of the cyclones,
producing a hissing noise. There are no distinct or objectionable tones
associated with this noise.
We measured noise during the weekday afternoon of March 1st, and again that
evening after 9 pm. The noise level at the Hoff property line was 57 dBA,
and was primarily radiated from the cyclones. The hog made identifiable
sounds, but did not contribute to the measured noise level.
•
Paoletti/Lewitz/Associates Inc.
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 4
Noise in the Neighborhood
We measured noise at homes across from 528 Broadway Street, about 200 feet
north of the Hoff property line. These are the nearest homes, and are
exposed to noise levels of 55 dBA. Data was also taken at 1032 8th Street,
and a steady noise level of 47 dBA was recorded shortly after 9 pm. Both
hog and cyclone noise was clearly audible, but hog noise did not add to the
measured noise level.
We are not aware of any local noise ordinance or requirement specifying a
maximum allowable noise level. As such, we will recommend feasible
treatments to reduce noise noticeably in the surrounding neighborhood,
rather than designing to a target noise level.
Since the Hoff cyclones operate continuously, the noise levels in the
residential areas are substantially constant throughout the day and night.
Distinct events such as aircraft flyovers and local traffic routinely
produce temporary noise above the equipment levels reported.
Immediately east of the Hoff property is the Can-Fors Company, who has
similar cyclone equipment. We understand that this plant has been operating
for several years without previous complaint, and has two elevated cyclones
much larger than the Hoff equipment. The Can-Fors cyclones operate on only
two shifts, and therefore do not run beyond midnight or prior to 6 am. We
understand that noise complaints began after Hoff started 24 hour operations
last year.
Based on our analysis, both sets of cyclones contribute about equally to the
noise heard at a distance. It is our opinion that both Hoff and Can-Fors
cyclones must be similarly treated to reduce noise in the area. Noise
complaints may have been prompted by the new cyclones which run all night,
even though their noise does not appreciably raise the ambient noise level
in the neighborhood.
If only one company treats their cyclones with damping compound, noise at
the homes is expected to drop by 2-3 decibels, which is the minimum change
detectable to a typical listener under ideal conditions. Therefore, both
companies must pursue noise reduction equally to get a noticeable noise
reduction in the area.
•
Paoletti/Lewitz/Associates Inc.
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 5
trtt rt nation Measures
•
These recommendations are intended to reduce the noise discernibly in the
surrounding neighborhood, rather than trying to meet a particular property
line noise level. Primary mitigation measures are presented in order of
relative effectiveness, as follows:
1. The hog is currently enclosed in a sheet metal building with interior
particle board walls. The conveyor entry opening is large, and allows
too much noise to escape from this building. The conveyor entry should
have an enclosure built as follows:
The enclosure should be constructed of 3/4" exterior grade plywood,
and can be open only on the top and bottom to provide for cooling
air circulation. Both sides must be enclosed, and the whole
structure must extend up at least 6 feet above the roof of the hog
building. The conveyor opening should be as small as possible
without interfering with conveyor function. The inside surfaces of
the enclosure should be covered with a sound absorbing material such
as 2 inch thick Owens Corning duct liner board, Armstrong Stonebrook
vinyl-faced fiber glass board, or any similar material rated at NRC
0.70 or better. Stonebrook may be more desireable as it is not
porous and cannot collect sawdust, a definite fire hazard. The top
of the enclosure should be angled toward the south to help direct
the noise away from homes, and to protect the sound absorbing liner
from direct exposure to the elements.
Owens Corning Fiberglass duct liner board is available from OCF Boise
(208/378-1400), and Armstrong Stonebrook is handled through Acoustical
Specialties in Pocatello (208/233-2694).
Any other openings in the hog or hog fan buildings should be closed off
as completely as is practical.
2. At least 50~ of the inside surfaces of the hog building should be
covered with a sound absorbing material such as 2 inch thick Owens
Corning duct liner board, R-11 glass fiber batts or 2 inch thick
Armstrong Stonebrook board.
f
•
Paoletti/Lewitz/Associates Inc.
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 6
•
3. Block the existing openings in the "hog fan" shed. Cooling air may be
provided using a small fan which intakes through 6 feet of lined sheet
metal duct, and exhausts through a lined rectangular elbow and six feet
of lined duct, oriented downward. This will adequately contain fan
noise within its building. No measures are necessary for the relay fan
at this time.
4. Treat the cyclones with a spray-on damping material. This will inhibit
metal vibration when the inside surfaces are hit by flying wood chips,
and should reduce the noise from the cyclones significantly. The
damping material is very similar to automotive rustproofing compound.
This treatment is most important for the elevated cyclones, but should
probably be applied to the five ground level cyclones as well.
Use a 1/8" thick coating of either Blackford Aqua-Plas (714/734-3660),
Peabody/Kinetics KDC-E-162 (614/889-0480), or Soundcoat GP-1 (516/242-
2200) for this application. Spray the damping compound on the entire
cyclone and the pipe underneath each cyclone for maximum effect.
Secondary treatments may also be implemented if a small additional increment
of noise reduction is needed once all primary treatments are executed.
5. Install a sound absorbing material on the main production building,
which will reduce hog and hog fan noise reflections off of this surface.
A material such as 2" thick mylar-wrapped USG Thermafiber mineral wool
could be installed under perforated aluminum, with 50$ open area
(National Perforated Metals 800/225-9050). This will provide a durable
sound absorbing outdoor surface. Any durable product rated at NRC 0.60
or better will also be acceptable.
6. Insulate the chip transport pipes with 1 or 1-1/2 inch thick semi-rigid
glass fiber insulation, and then packet the insulated pipes with 20
gauge aluminum. This will noticeably reduce noise radiated from these
pipes.
~. , e
•
Paoietti/LewitrJAssociates Inc.
r:
Hoff Forest Products
March 10, 1989
page 7
Conclusions
Full implementation of the primary recommendations above should reduce noise
at the north property line by 7-10 decibels. This degree of noise reduction
should be perceived as a "halving" of the existing noise. Comparable noise
reductions will be experienced at nearby homes onl i both plants treat
their cyclones equally and simultaneously. There is little to be gained by
spraying damping compound on the Hoff Forest Products cyclones independent
of treating the Can-Fors cyclones.
Improving the hog enclosure will be advantageous in either event.
• •
COIINTY-T~TIDE AGREEMENT
STANDARDIZED PIATTING PROVISIONS
March 13, 1989
Platting Simplification Committee
• •
COIIPT!-i~IDB AGBEEl~'! OB S?A1®ABDIZBD PIATTII~G PBOVISIOHS
I. DEFINITIOPS 1
Agency with Jurisdiction 1
Development Proposal 1
Lead Agency 1
Preliminary Plat Approval Period 1
II. THE "LEAD AGENCY" ROLE IN PLAT APPROVALS 1
Preliminary Plat Application 1
Final Plat Application 2
Time Eztension Application 2
III. PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY PLAT 2
IV. PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTENT GUIDELINES 2
V. GUIDELINES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTENTS 3
A. Application Form 3
B. Vicinity Map 3
C. Preliminary Plat Map 4
D . Attachments 6
VI. PLAT APPROVAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 6
Duration of Preliminary Plat Approval 6
Status of Final Plats Submitted During Preliminary Plat Approval
Period 6
i J - i
cow-~$ AGREEa~T op
I.
~ING PROVISIONS
Development Proposal: a formal request to subdivide parcels of land by virtue
of a plat in accordance with the Idaho code.
Lead Agency: that government agency which has primary jurisdiction over
planning and zoning for the Development Proposal. A Lead Agency is
identified as follows, depending upon location of the proposed develop-
ment site:
-- For a site outside the Area of City Impact of any city, Ada County
is the Lead Agency;
-- For a site within existing city limits. that city is the Lead
Agency;
-- For a site within an Area of City Impact and not within the city
limits, the Lead Agency is determined by the applicable Area of
City Impact Agreement.
Preliminary Plat Approval Period: the period of time between approval of a
Preliminary Plat by the Lead Agency and expiration of that approval.
Reviewin¢ Agency: any agency which must review a subdivision plat application.
II. "LEAD AGENCY" OLE IN PLAT APPROVALS
A "Lead Agency" shall be designated for every application for prel i-ninary plat
approval, according to the Lead Agency definition, above. The same agency
will be the Lead Agency for the final plat application and for any time
extension to be considered unless annexed, in which case the annexing city.
assumes responsibility as the Lead Agency.
Preliminary Plat Application: A Lead Agency assumes the following respon-
sibilities whenever a Preliminary Plat application is filed with it:
-- To accept only applications meeting the minimum requirements specified
in section V: Guidelines for Preliminary Plat Contents.
-- To notify all other [Agencies with Jurisdiction] (see definition above;
generally includes planning departments, irrigation districts, sewer
districts, etc) of the application by distributing copies'of the propos-
al stating the schedule for its consideration.
-- To distribute copies of the application documents to all Agencies with
Jurisdiction.
-- To notify all Agencies with Jurisdiction of the date on which the
governing body of the Lead Agency approves the Preliminary Plat. Rote:
this date initiates the formal Preliminary Plat Approval Period (see in
section I, definition above), regardless of vhea approval is received
from other agencies.
1
The applicant is sti• required to file formal appli• ions with all agencies
where such applications are required. and to pay all accompanying fees direct-
ly to those agencies. It is strongly recoaended that contact udth all
interested government agencies, especially tLa Ada County flighray District, be
initiated prior to filing with the Lead Agency.
Final Plat Application: The role of the Lead Agency for final plats is
identical to that for preliminary plats ezcept for the following modification:
Final plat approval will not be made by the Lead Agency until fter all
other required approvals are received. ezcept that these approvals shall
not include signatures of the Ada County Engineer, Ada County Clerk. or
Ada County Secorder since these certifications are received after Lead
Agency approval. When a plat application site has been given prelimi-
nary plat approval while in Ada County jurisdiction and is annexed prior
to final platting, the annexing city may review the application under
the conditions of approval granted by Ada County.
It behooves developers, therefore. to initiate the final plat application well
in advance of the expiration date for preliminary plat approval.
Time Extension Application: Once a time extension application is accepted by
the Lead Agency, that agency notifies all other agencies with jurisdiction,
seeking a response within fifteen (15) days (silence is interpreted as "Ap-
proved; no comments need to be given").
2 Other agencies which require additional
n Lead Agency promptly. (Where
~ p7 Agencies, the time eztens on application
the Lead Agency for consideration_of the
act~ti of theZead Agency governing boar
ime to consider the extension will
changes are required by one or more
is taken to in board of
than es). A letter describing the
will be sent to all other agencies.
III. POBPOSE OF PBELZSINASY PLAT
The purpose of a Preliminary Plat is to allow a project developer and all
agencies with jurisdiction reach a common set of expectations regarding a
proposed development. The following Guidelines are intended to accomplish
this goal; however, where these Guidelines are unnecessarily restrictive.
prior written agreement between the developer and the Lead Agency for a
specific proposed development may modify these guidelYnes.---- - - ---
Approval of a Preliminary Plat application by any agency represents that
agency's commitment to the applicant insuring adherence to the agreed-upon
terms for a finite period.
IV . PIIHPOSE OF PBELIlQNABY PIdT CONTENT GDIDEI.I~S
These Guidelines are based on the belief that a Preliminary Plat shall provide
sufficient information to properly evaluate an entire proposed development.
All are reviewed for compliance by the Lead Agency prior to accepting the
2 - -- -- _... --::.
- - -_~ ~=
f i
application. Hence • Preliminary Plat submitted fo•eview which does not
adequately contain the information established under these Guidelines or which
is not complete may be returned without action.
V . GQIDET~4ES FOB PBELffilQABY P'!~? COPTEP'rS
Minimum required components for all Preliminary Plat applications in Ada
County or any of its cities shall include an Application Form, a Vicinity Map,
a Preliminary Plat Map and Attachments. Each component is described more
fully below.
A. Application Fora
1. Name of the proposed development and its legal description.
2. Name, address and telephone number of each of the following:
a. the owner of record. with the owner's signed statement clearly
expressing approval for the proposal as presented;
b. subdivider/developer; and
c. qualified person (engineer, land planner or surveyor) responsible
for the preliminary plat map.
3. A statement of intent regarding the proposed development which is
sufficient to identify applicable ordinances and regulations, and which
identifies the minimum lot size to be developed.
4. Any of the following information which, by prior mutual agreement
between the developer and the Lead Agency, may better be provided in
written form than on the preliminary plat.
5. All other information required on the Lead Agency's Application for
Preliminary Plat Approval.
B. Vicinity Map
A vicinity map, drawn to a scale of not less than three htmdred feet (300') to
the inch, which includes the proposed development and sufficient area around
it to provide adequate orientation and landmark identification for someone
unfamiliar with the vicinity. All the following elements are to be included:
1. A minimum of 600' beyond all boundaries of the proposed development.
2. A north point.
3. Location and names of all streets and roadways.
4. Clear identification of the boundary of the proposed development and its
proposed roadway alignments.
3
S. Names of all adjoining developments. with locat'~on of all intersecting -
boundary lines.
6. Location of city limits falling within or adjacent to the proposed
development.
7. Existing zoning of all portions of the proposed development area;
proposed zoning (including boundary lines, where applicable) sufficient
to define intended uses of all portions of the proposed development
area.
8. Any additional information required by a receiving agency for its
deliberations. ~
C. Preliminary Plat Map rJ t.J~~~a~ ~R~/'~"~
A 24" x 36" plat map, drawn to a scale of of less than one hundred feet
(100') to the inch which shows th om let proposed develoflment including an
area not less than one hundred feet ') beyond all boundaries of the
proposed development. (Note: a smaller scale or different size plat map may
be used for large proposed developments with prior written approval from the
Lead Agency.) All the following features are to be shows on the plat map:
1. A graphic scale, north point and date of preparation.
2. Name and signature of person preparing plat.
3. Name of owner/developer.
4. Name, firm name and address, and telephone number of primary contact
person.
5. Lot layout with lot numbers and approzimate dimensions of each lot,
including the approximate number of square feet of all lots not in
conformance with listed minimums for the proposed zoning or the stated
intent on the application. Nhen the proposed development is an exten-
sion of an existing platted development, lot and block numbers for all
previously platted portions of the development shall be included.
6. Identification of all proposed public use areas, parks, school sites,
etc. with designated uses listed on the map.
7. Proposed locations, widths, direction of slope and names of all streets,
allays, highways, and private roads within the proposed development
(including all future street extensions shown with dotted lines).
8. In areas where street or private roadway grades may not conform with the
Reviewing Agency's required minimum or maximum slope: approximate
grades of existing and proposed streets, and private roads within and
immediately adjacent to the proposed development (Note: additional
information may be required by the Reviewing Agency after initial review
of Plat Map).
4
9. Approzimate ce~erline radii of all curves on pu-blic or private roads
and alleys.
10. Approximate location of ezisting and proposed irrigation lines. tale
drains, wells, pipelines, and sewer and water lines within the proposed
development.
11. Location, width and direction of flow of all ezisting water courses,
irrigation drains and storm drains within and adjacent to the proposed
development, and location and description of the proposed method of
providing flood and erosion control.
12. Location and identification of all potentially dangerous areas, includ-
ing geologically hazardous areas, areas subject to inundations or flood
hazard, and areas of_high groundwater.
13. Approximate location and width_of all existing or proposed easements or
rights-of-way.
14. Contour lines based on IISGS datum with intervals of not more than five
feet (5') for parcels with a general slope of greater than five percent
(5$) or intervals of not more than two feet (2') for parcels with a
general slope of less than or equal to five percent (5$), which contour
lines shall extend a minimum of one hundred feet (100') beyond the
proposed development boundary, and if the proposed development is
bordered by a drainage channel, extending the additional distance
necessary to show the far side of the drainage facility.
Note: in areas where such datum are not available, this requirement may
be waived by prior written agreement between the developer and the Lead
Agency.
Special Requirements: Where required by any reviewing agency OR where the
proposed development may have significant impact on adjacent developments, the
following additional information may be required.
-- Approximate location of all existing buildings or structures
external to the proposed development, including identification of
current use of each.
-- Approximate location and direction of flow of existing sewer and
drainage systems when the access point is greater than one hundred
feet (100') beyond the proposed development's perimeter boundary.
-- Approximate location of any areas of fill or excavation and
estimated volume of material to be moved.
-- For multi-phase developments, the proposed boundaries of each
phase and the sequence of phases to be developed. The phasing
sequence used should utilize consistent lot and block numbering
patterns .
S
. •
B. Attachments
• ~"
1. An 8 1/2" a 11" photoreduction of the Vicinity lYap suitable for public
presentation.
2. An 8 1/2" a 11" photoreduction of the Preliminary Plat suitable for
public presentation.
Note: If either the Vicinity lisp or the Preliminary Plat is so large that is
does not fit conveniently on a single 8 1/2" a 11" photoreduction, the
developer should work out with the Lead Agency how to photoreduce (e.g.,
~ multiple sheets; single sheet of different dimensions, atc.), the ma or
S _ _x~ plat .
~o VI. PIdT AP?ROVAL 1gB~S APD COHDITIOPS '`~
Vn~~~
Duration of Prelimina at A royal: Preliminary Plat shall
,~~~ become null and void slue (12) wont / ty (60) onths} after the day the
~~~ Lead Agency approved
Extension option IInl i nt -four (24 month extensions are er-~
matted, b onditions ma be added b an cy with Jurisdiction to
each request for extension. Application or t e eaters ons must a made to
the Lead Agency and fees paid before approval of the Preliminary Plat expires.
Status of Final Plats Submitted During Prel i~ainar~r Plat Ap4roval Period: Final
plats submitted for approval during the Preliminary Plat Approval Period shall
be reviewed by the Lead Agency using the criteria stated in the conditions of
approval established with Preliminary Plat Approval. Conditions of approval
for the Preliminary Plat may require modification if:
1. ...federal, state or local laws affecting the approved
Preliminary Plat are changed; oz ~
2. ...final engineering requirements differ from those in the
Preliminary Plat; or
3. ...any changes made by the developer between Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat require modification in order to
maintain integrity with.current laws and policies (changes
which might invoke this provision include but are not
limited to phasing, lot density, street layout and drain-
age); or
4. ...the required approval of any other Reviewing Agency is
contingent upon making plat modifications.
CB:pd/CB PLATPROP
cc: File 530/Platting Simplification
6
J