Loading...
2011 01-20Meridian Plannina and Zoning Meeting January 20, 2011 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 20, 2011, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Am I on? At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on January -- what's our date today? 20th, 2011. And let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Freeman: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and do have one addition to make. I want to add Item 4-E. We have a minor city code correction to discuss and to correct. So, with that could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of January 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Approve Minutes of January 13, 2011 Planning and Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 2 of 32 Commission Special Meeting C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 10-013 Dutch Bros. by Sun-Stone Meridian, LLC Located al 1351 E. Fairview Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permil Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and Existing Residence as Required by UDC11-4-3-11 A Freeman: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and tonight we have three items on the Consent Agenda, approved minutes of January 6, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Approved minutes of January 13th, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting. And the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 10-013, Dutch Brothers. Are there any corrections or additions? Rohm: I have none. Freeman: Could I get a motion? Rohm: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Okay. Before we get into our first item tonight I just want to review the process a little bit. I know some of you were probably here for one of these before, but we are going to review this anyway. We will open each individual item and the first thing we will do is hear the staff report as it applies to the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and, then, the applicant will have the opportunity to come forward and has up to 15 minutes to present their case for their application, after which time we will take public testimony and there is a sign-up sheet in the back. If you plan on testifying it would be helpful if you signed up on that sign-up sheet. You don't necessarily have to. Each person testifying will have up to three minutes to state their case, unless you're speaking for a group of folks, in which case we will ask for a show of hands to see who is being represented and, then, you will be given up to ten minutes to speak. After all the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity come up and address anything that he'd like to in the public testimony and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will deliberate and, hopefully, we will be able to come to a recommendation this evening. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 3 of 32 Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2011: CPAM 10-001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrusl IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of Land from Office to Medium Density Residential B. Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2011: RZ 10-004 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-E (Medium Density Residential) Zone C. Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2011: PP 10-003 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrusl IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4 Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Freeman: So, with that let's start with the first item on the agenda and we are going to hear Items A, B and C together. The continued public hearing from January 6, 2011, of CPAM 10-001, Waverly Place, a continued public hearing from January 6th, 2011, RZ 10-004, for Waverly Place. And a continued public hearing from January 6th, 2011, PP 10-003, for Waverly Place. And let's begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. This application was heard on November 18th by the Commission. The Commission voted at that meeting to continue this project and directed the applicant to meet with adjacent homeowners to address their concerns related to development of the site. The applicant has done so. Revised drawings have been submitted and they are included in the revised staff report. Hopefully you all got a copy of that. And I will just go ahead and run through the application again, since it's been quite sometime since you heard it before. The first application before you is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 4.9 acres of land from office to medium density residential. Second application is a rezone of 5.3 acres of land from the L-O, limited office district, to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district. And a preliminary plat consisting of 24 single family residential building lots and four common other lots on 4.9 acres of land. The site consists of 4.9 acres. Is currently zoned L-O and located at 2510 East Magic View Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. There are rural residential properties in Greenhill Estates Subdivision to the north, zoned R-1 in Ada County. Rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County to the south and east of this project. And to the west are residential properties in Woodbridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. A little history on this project. It was -- the property was Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 4 of 32 annexed in 2006 and a Conditional Use Permit planned development was approved for the development of six four-plex structures, consisting of a total of 24 multi-family dwelling units. The preliminary plat and final plat was approved but has since expired. The Conditional Use Permit planned development remains valid. Summary of the request. The applicant proposes to construct 24 townhome dwellings in clusters of two on individual lots, along with a one thousand square foot clubhouse and attached caretaker unit to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The internal public streets and underground utilities were constructed on the site as part of the previous approved development. Because the UDC no longer allows residential uses in the L-O district a map amendment and rezone is requested. What you see here on the screen is a copy of the proposed preliminary plat and landscape plan. A site plan was also submitted showing the configuration of the homes on the proposed building lots. This site plan has changed slightly. The clubhouse unit here in the lower right-hand corner, the footprint is -- has been changed to match the current floor plan. The applicant has submitted two different building elevations and floor plans for the proposed townhomes. The elevations consist of single story structures with two car garages. Construction materials consist of a mix of horizontal, vertical, and shake siding with stone veneer accents. This is a copy of the first building type and floor plan. Garages on the ends of the structures -- structure. And this is the second building type, which has the garages in the center, separating the two units and four plan. This is the elevation for the clubhouse and the caretaker unit. Building materials are consistent with the townhome units. All of these structures are subject to administrative design review with submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance application. You see the caretaker unit is located on the left side here. It's a two bedroom unit. Consists of approximately 1,200 square feet. It separates the clubhouse -- the garage here separates the dwelling from the clubhouse. Clubhouse is on the right-hand side here. And this is the floor plan. And the clubhouse area here is on your right. Dwelling's on the left. I'm going to skip back to the first slide here for a minute. No fencing was proposed with this application. We talked about this before when this came before you. Because of the probable extension of Hickory Way from the north here along the east property boundary of the site, staff recommends that any fencing that's constructed in this area be set back a minimum of ten feet from the subdivision boundary, consistent with the fencing standards for corner lots on which two streets abut the property. Staff also recommends landscaping be installed and maintained by the homeowner to the subdivision boundary in this area. The Comprehensive Plan proposed designation is medium density residential, which is consistent with the use and zoning proposed. The project is in compliance with the Unified Development Code. Written testimony has been received from Austin Jones and three letters of testimony have been received from the Woodbridge Homeowners Association. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed applications with the conditions and provisions in the recommended development agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: At this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 5 of 32 Rohm: I have none. Freeman: No? Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. Noriuki: Scott Noriuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive. Thank you. Staffs pretty much stated everything and I'd stand for questions. Freeman: Any questions? Rohm: I guess my question is did you have a neighbor meeting? Noriuki: Several. Rohm: Pardon? Noriuki: Several. Rohm: Good for you. That's all I -- right. Noriuki: And it's been a positive good experience. Rohm: All right. Well, good, then, I guess we will see how testimony goes and go from there. Noriuki: Wonderful. Thank you. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, did you have a question? Marshall: I was -- my question was along the same line. Freeman: Okay. Marshall: So, very happy with that. Thanks, sir. Noriuki: Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We will open it up to public testimony now. The first name on the list is Celeste Fox. Is that correct? And, please, state your name and address for the record when you get to the mike. Fox: My name is Celeste Fox. Can you hear me? 582 South Woodhaven Avenue, Meridian. And I live in Woodbridge Subdivision. Members of the Commission and Planning and Zoning, first, I want to thank the Commissioners for listening to Woodbridge neighbors to this project. By slowing it down you allowed us the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 6 of 32 opportunity to work with the developers in a way that gave us a greater comfort level as this goes forward. I think by involving the neighbors we all end up with a better product, which benefits Meridian as a whole. It also increases our level of confidence in Meridian's procedures for new developments. Secondly, I personally want to express my thanks to Scott, who has put in a great deal of effort to work with Woodbridge residents. He has been always professional, available, and interested in our opinions and willing to make changes as possible that would improve the quality of this development. The property owners are fortunate to have you working with them, Scott. I am here tonight to speak for myself and my husband Gene. Due to a limited amount of time before -- between when we received the most recent development and this scheduled meeting, we were unable to obtain a Woodbridge wide consensus that would allow me to speak for the board and the subdivision as a whole, although I know many of the residents are appreciative of this recent plan. Therefore, there may be some speakers that might have different opinions than what I express. Many of us in Woodbridge have reservations about the maintenance apartment attached to the clubhouse. When this presented originally this was perceived as a rental complex with an apartment manager residence. However, there has been a lot of effort to make substantial improvements to the overall development in terms of architectural features, design elements, and quality materials. In addition, we have been provided a lot more specific information about what is going to be built. An important element, in our view, is the clubhouse. Though it has that apartment attached, the clubhouse itself is now doubled in size, is architecturally much more attractive, is placed at a more attractive angle and has a fireplace and windows all around. When I last talked to you I called it a pumphouse. Well, it's now not a pumphouse. By making this clubhouse a real clubhouse, this project feels much more like a 55 plus community. Scott has been willing to add a clarification page to the development agreement, which outlines -- outlines items agreed to in our discussions, like stone, stucco, stamped stained driveways and other things like that. And I'll let Scott, you know, talk to that to make sure this is included. This allows us a comfort level that what has been presented is what we will see when this project is built, provided this -- it is approved through P&Z and the Council. In summary, I want to voice my support for this project. Thank you, again, Commissioners, Scott, and the owners who have been involved in this process. And my husband Gene says, please, move this plan forward and fill up the untidy area that borders our neighborhood. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Is Gene here to testify tonight? Okay. Thank you. Mary Jo -- can't read the last name. Would you like to testify? Okay. And Bernie Vader. Would you like to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like -- oh, is there anybody else that didn't sign up that would like to testify on this item tonight? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond to the public testimony? Noriuki: Just to say it was a positive experience. If there are any questions I'm happy to answer them. Freeman: Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 7 of 32 Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I may. I just want to say thank you. I appreciate it. It appears there is a vast difference between the last hearing and this and I'm so pleased to hear it. Noriuki: Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10- 004, and PP 10-003. Rohm: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded that we close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004, and PP 10-003 concerning Waverly Place. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Okay. Comments? Oh, I'm sorry. Did I forget something? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, no, you haven't. Before the Commission proceeds with their vote, Sonya has one point of clarification, just so that we can capture the additional provisions that the applicant has volunteered, so that we can get it both in the motion and, then, if the motion goes as I expect, it will move it forward to the City Council, because it's currently not embodied in the staff recommendation. Freeman: Okay. Sonya? Wafters: Commissioners, the applicant did submit an a-mail to me earlier regarding the clarifications and commitments of the applicant in regard to the material specs for the development. The e-mail, as I said, is dated January 20th. It is in the public record. It's -- for this application and the applicant just mentioned that he would like to include that in the development agreement. Freeman: Okay. So, that would be -- Wafters: I don't know if you have that in front of you or not, but -- Freeman: I think I do, but what you're saying is that will be included in the development agreement, so we don't -- Wafters: It sounds like the applicant wishes to do that. Freeman: Okay. Wafters: As an extra above and beyond. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 8 of 32 Freeman: So, we don't need to act on that tonight as a Commission? Wafters: If you would like you can make a recommendation that that information be included in the development agreement -- Freeman: Okay. Wafters: -- as a provision. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Discussion? O'Brien: Good project. I'm glad to see it's going forward like it was -- it is now compared to what we seen before. Freeman: Yeah. I guess I have got a comment. I just wanted to say thank you both to the neighbors and the applicant for getting together and being professional and resolving this. It has taken a turn around since the last time we heard and that's what we were hoping would happen and you took advantage of it. So, well done. Any other -- Yearsley: I just want to make a comment. Though I'm new to the Commission, I had a chance to go back and read the meeting minutes from the last meetings and I, too, was impressed at the change in attitudes regarding this project, so I was impressed at the work that they did together to make this both -- workable for both parties. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, just aquick -- Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I truly hope that other applicants in the future will look to this as an example of how hopefully development can be done in the City of Meridian, because when everybody is happy that's the way it should be, so -- Freeman: Agreed. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Boy, it's all been said. I'm proud of all of you and I will tell you I have been on this commission for quite awhile and this is the best outcome that we can expect is everybody's happy, so thanks for everybody's diligence and I know this will be a better project because of your involvement, so thank you all. Freeman: Okay. Well, with that could I guess a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 9 of 32 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move that we recommend approval of CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003, to include the material specifications as forwarded to the staff on 10-20-11 in the development agreement. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: And the balance of the staff report as well? Marshall: And the balance of the staff report, yes. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: It's still second -- okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: CUP 10-015 Southridge Subdivision Gravel Mining by Idaho Sand and Gravel Located at South of W. Overland Road and the Ridenbaugh Canal, and East of S. Ten Mile Road Within Future Development Areas of Southridge Subdivision Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Gravel Mining on Approximately 76 Acres of Land in the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts (CORRECTION: Property Zoning Districts are zoned R-2, R-4 and R-8) Freeman: Okay. Thank you. The second item on the agenda -- as soon as I find it I will tell you what it is. Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP No. 10-015, Southridge Subdivision gravel mining, beginning with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a Conditional Use Permit request for a construction sand and gravel mining operation on approximately 76 acres of land in the R-2, R-4, and R-8 zoning districts at Southridge Subdivision by Idaho Sand and Gravel. This property is located south of West Overland Road, southwest of the Ridenbaugh Canal, and east of the South Ten Mile Road, within future development areas of Southridge Subdivision. Bordering this property to the north and west is Overland Road and vacant land to the north in the development process zoned R-4, R-8, and TN-R. To the south are rural residential properties in Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions, zone RUT and R-1 in Ada County. To the east is vacant land in the development process for Southridge Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8, and to the west are rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County, Overland Road, and vacant land in the development process, zoned R-8. A little history on this property. It was annexed in 2007 with a development Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 10 of 32 agreement and preliminary platted as part of the Southridge Subdivision. The applicant proposes to conduct mass grading on the site to achieve a general slope to the northeast for future development of a residential subdivision on the site. Construction of the desired grading will result in excess material that will need to be exported from the property. These materials are proposed to be used as gravel and structural fills for state and local road agency projects. The applicant has submitted a site plan that you see here. It shows the project site, access and haul road, stockpile area, and crusher area. Vinyl fencing is proposed along Overland Road to screen the site. Wrought iron fencing is proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal and either wrought iron or masonry fencing is proposed along the south boundary. The current development agreement requires a masonry wall along the south boundary. If wrought iron is desired, an amendment to the development agreement will be necessary to change the fencing material. Dozers and scrapers and occasionally excavators and rock trucks will be used to strip the site of excess material. Water trucks will be kept on site for dust control. Material hauled from the site will be measured using a portable scale, which includes a small structure for the operator. Work will be conducted in the phases limiting the area of the site where work is active at any one time to allow vegetation to be retained on inactive areas to aid in dust control. Grading plans have been submitted showing the beginning and proposed finish grade of the site. You see on the plans there is also two ponds proposed. This is just across-view of the beginning and end elevations. Normal work hours for the mass grading gravel extraction, crushing, loading, hauling and weighing at scales are proposed from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on nonholiday week days. The applicant requests approval for extended hours of operation up to 24 hours on a case-by-case basis when required to serve specific projects upon written request to the director. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is low density residential, which is consistent with the future residential use of this property, but not the proposed use, as it is an interim use. The compliance -- this project is compliant with the UDC. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed use. Written testimony has been received from Scott Nichols and Jason Densmer, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. There are three outstanding issues that the applicant's representative noted in their response. Generally they did say that they were in agreement with the staff report, except for these three items. I'll just go over those real quick. In regard to condition number 1.1.2 in Exhibit B of the staff report, the applicant requests approval to modify the normal working hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., as requested originally, to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays. Staff is not in favor of extended hours of operation because of the proximity of residences that abut the site, as well as others in the nearby vicinity and the potential for adverse noise impacts on these residences from the operation of heavy equipment. Additionally, the city's noise ordinance prohibits noise that creates a public disturbance between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The second item is condition number 1.1.3. The applicant feels the requirement to submit surety for the cost of reclamation of the site duplicates procedures already in place by the Department of Lands that insure reclamation of the site. Because reclamation bonds held by the Department of Lands do not expire as long as the construction site is active, and once the site is no longer active, the applicant has three years to reclaim the site. Staff is concerned that it may be quite some time before reclamation of the site occurs after the use ends if surety is not Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 11 of 32 retained by the city. And, meanwhile, you have these residences, you know, abutting the site that have to deal with this. Therefore, staff does recommend a surety be held by the city for the cost of reclamation of the site. The last Item is condition 1.1.22. The applicant does not feel that 18 months term recommended by staff to conduct the proposed use is adequate, because of the extensive work to be down on the site and the current low demand for materials available from the gravel mining operation. Therefore, the applicant requests up to three years to conduct the proposed use. Because this site was never intended to be used for gravel extraction staff views the proposed use as an interim use to the residential subdivision approved to develop on this site. As a temporary use staff is of the opinion three years is excessive, because of the proximity of residential properties in relation to the project site and the impacts from the proposed use. Thus staff recommends a limitation of 18 months be placed on the project. To operate beyond this period a modification to the Conditional Use Permit may be requested by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff also recommends condition number 1.1.3, which requires the applicant to submit a bid for the cost of reclamation of the site, along with surety in the form of a cash or letter of credit, be modified to allow a bond to be submitted as an alternative form of surety. Staff also recommends a modification to condition 1.1.22 to add a requirement for all reclamation of the site to be completed prior to the end of the approved term of use. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Freeman: Thank you. Questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. There -- isn't there an operating gravel site just north of here? Wafters: Chairman Freeman, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, there was a previous gravel site in operation to the north, yes. Marshall: Has it ceased operations at this time? Wafters: Yes, it has. Marshall: And that was parallel with the widening of the interstate? Wafters: Yes. Uh-huh. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? O'Brien: Not at this time. Freeman: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 12 of 32 Densmer: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jason Densmer with the Land Group. Our address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm here tonight representing Idaho Sand and Gravel in their request for a Conditional Use Permit. Idaho Sand and Gravel was the contractor who is constructing the Ten Mile interchange project and also the operator of the gravel pit that you were asking about a minute ago. So, they certainly had some background in this area. From our experience with them they are an absolutely first class operation and if anyone's qualified to do this work I think they are a good choice. As Sonya mentioned we are in support of the staff report, understand its conditions, and agree with them, outside of the three conditions that she mentioned. As we worked with staff over the past few days -- since our response went in on Tuesday we have had a number of conversations with staff and with our neighbors and at this point we understand the condition 1.1.22 as it's been modified would require the completion of the reclamation within the 18 months. As restated in the written response, the demand for gravel from this site is low and barring some active economic good fortune it's probably going to remain low through that entire 18 months. The applicant will certainly do their level best to complete the work that's envisioned here, but what we are contemplating to do is not insignificant. There is just such a volume of material there that would need to be used into these highway projects that it will just take some time to do it. They are committed to do their best possible at 18 months, but in the event that they are not quite to the goal line at that point we would look for an opportunity to come back for a modification. Obviously with approval of this permit there will be 18 months of good history, as they will demonstrate to their neighbors and to the city that they are a first class operator, they know how to be a good neighbor and protect other people's interests around their operations. So, in 18 months if we need to come back to you, I look forward to showing you a good track record to rely on if you do need to make a decision to extend our time a little bit. With regard to condition 1.1.3, which has to do with bonding of the reclamation cost, we do think that there is a little bit of duplication there with what department of lands already will require of this under state statute, but it's not objectionable and we would be okay with the condition as written, which would mean that we would provide a bond to the city, as well as what we are already committed to do to Department of Lands. The last issue, though, is condition 1.1.2. It's a little bit more of a sticking point. I think in part at least there may be some misunderstanding of how the operation would be conducted in terms of mining the gravel and extracting it and completing the mass grading for the subdivision, there are periods of intense activity when a lot of the mass grading is happening and scrapers and noisier equipment are being used and from the get go it's understood that that would only occur between normal business hours, 8:00 to 5:00, nonholiday work days. There are other times, though, when less intensive activities are going on. Materials that have already excavated and crushed are sitting in a stockpile and loaders would just load them into trucks to be hauled to an ongoing road project. From the applicant's perspective there would be a lot of advantage in being able to do those quieter, less intense operations during some extended periods of time, particularly in the situation as we find ourselves here with an 18 month duration to complete a large amount of work, having limitations on work hours -- very stringent limitations on work hours, just compresses the amount of time that we have to complete the work. If extended hours were available, the applicant will limit their activities during those times to work far away Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 13 of 32 from the residential subdivision. The idea is to stockpile materials at the north end of the project near the Ridenbaugh Canal where they could be loaded and hauled from the site -- I won't say without anybody noticing, but certainly not with the degree of impact to neighbors as work near to the property line would have. We think that that could be handled by the applicant as a good neighbor situation, as opposed to a staff condition that requires returning to either the Planning and Zoning Commission or Council to have approval of those extended hours. We would suggest at least that if only on a trial basis to prove that we can really do it, that we would present and request to the planning director, who at an administrative level, could authorize some extension of work hours beyond the 8:00 to 5:00 for a specific purpose, a particular highway contract that needs gravel, you know, out of work hours to accommodate the traveling public that's in the roads zone between 8:00 and 5:00. So, for a specific project, for a specific length of time, we need five extra hours a day for three weeks to accomplish this particular contract and, hopefully, with Planning and Zoning Commission's approval your planning director could be empowered to grant that. Obviously, in order to do that we would need to be interfacing with our neighbors and assuring that they knew in advance and that their concerns were addressed in terms of mitigation or sound or anything else, so that we remain a good neighbor. That's how we would propose approaching condition 1.1.2 with regard to extended working hours. Outside of those topics I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. I also have a representative of Idaho Sand and Gravel here who could talk more in detail about how they would progress with the work, the equipment that they would use, anything else that might be of interest. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Jason, so you had some -- some town meetings -- or neighborhood meetings with the people that were concerned with this project? Densmer: We did. We had a -- you know, the prescribed neighborhood meeting and, then, in addition I have answered a number of questions from interested neighbors who called me and provided some information to them about what we are contemplating here. O'Brien: So, what was your take on their largest concern about this project? Densmer: My greatest conversation was with Scott Nichols, who is a neighbor immediately to the south of the project. He is here tonight and I understand he will be testifying a little later on. His greatest concern was the intensity of operations outside of normal work hours. From the people I have talked to, everyone has been supportive of the operations between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Everyone, of course, is rightly protective of their evening hours, they want to have barbecues in their backyards or they want to do things with their families at their homes -- a hundred percent justified to Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 14 of 32 be concerned about what this operation would have in an impact on their personal lives. With regard to the loading and hauling materials, I think that I have been able to clarify how that is distinctly different from running a scraper or grading or digging with track hoes, those kind of things, that are a lot more disruptive and I don't want to speak for anybody, because they are here to speak for themselves, but I hope that we have provided some level of comfort about what's really proposed. O'Brien: So, from I what understand, the purpose of this project is to bring that particular area that you have in question down to a grade level for development of subdivisions; is that correct? Densmer: That's right. O'Brien: Okay. Now, regarding contracts with different agencies as you had stated, you have to -- so, your work is driven by the contract itself over a specific period of time that you produce gravel for whatever project to -- okay. So, why is it necessary to wait until the contract is to be fulfilled -- why can't you I guess produce this gravel and get it ready for the trucks to load, instead of waiting for the contract, so that you could do it over time at a steady rate, instead of having to go, you know, everything at once. Densmer: In fact, that's precisely what would happen. The mass grading would happen in large bursts of activity that would move material to a crusher, crush it, and, then, stockpile it. And, then, it would be a long period of time while that stockpile was being used in these projects. So, for example, if a large pile was created, then, there might be a number of road projects that could use that pile and draw it down over time. The moving the material to the crusher and the crusher are that -- are those intensive activities that I mentioned that are -- could be more disruptive. Once the pile is there -- it's just a pile, it, obviously, is not particularly obnoxious, and loading material out of the pile to haul to a road project is also a quieter activity and that's the kind of thing that could happen, in our opinion, during these extended hours, but the intensive work would want to happen business hours. O'Brien: Okay. So -- Densmer: Does that speak to your question? Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could, just for a little clarification, I believe the scraping, crushing, and everything would happen between 8:00 and 5:00, but many of your contracts -- a lot of ITD work and contract work is often done 24/7 to be able to build a road, because we don't like closing down roads for long periods of time, I believe, and so some of your contracts could run 24/7 and so to supply those contracts, to actually win the contract, you have to be able to supply that gravel during the evening as well, so you would have to load out to be able to supply that over the evening; is that correct? Densmer: Exactly. In order to accommodate the public much road work occurs at night, because the roads are less busy, there is less danger to the public, less Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 15 of 32 inconvenience to people and so in order to supply work that's ongoing overnight, being able to access the gravel would be important. O'Brien: So, what you're saying, Commissioner Marshall and Jason -- so, there will be times when you're going to be operating 24/7? Densmer: We are requesting authorization on a case-by-case basis to operate extended hours. Ideally those extended hours would be 24/7 in order to be able to supply nighttime road projects, but that's certainly the Commission's discretion. O'Brien: So, I guess my question goes back to what I asked earlier about stockpiling this over a period of time, you say that some of these projects may take a long time to even come to fruition -- 18 months, as you said, may not be enough time to really take care of everything. So, why can't you do all this crushing during that period of time, so you don't have to do this rock crushing at different hours -- or off hours, if you will? Densmer: I think the answer is we will. The rock crushing and the mass grading would occur in condensed periods of time, but once it's condensed -- once it's crushed it will take some time for the roadway projects to consume that material and keeping at the site is the only option. In a roadway project, for example, you can't bring a large pile of material and stockpile it at the project, because it's the middle of a road. Am understanding -- O'Brien: Yes. I just thought it would be easier just to -- you know, if you're going to stockpile it at the site, which is -- it's there, it's just not crushed yet and you do that over a period of time during normal hours, if you will, that there wouldn't be any lull in that activity, that you would have that available when it comes time downstream, a year from now or whatever that might be. Densmer: That's precisely what we are proposing, is to crush over a period of time, but only during work hours and, then, have the crushed material available there to use. O'Brien: So, my last comment, then, I have lived in a couple different places near gravel activities -- gravel pit activities, and one of them is over here at Meridian Road and Amity and I live about a mile from there and that thing sounds like it's next door when that thing is going through the crushing process. It's very loud, especially even at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. You know, people work different hours. When I was working swing shift I'd sleep until 8:00, 10:00 o'clock, and that thing would go off and -- you know, it's very loud. So, that was just a comment that that is a real concern, I'm sure, that neighbors have, even at a distance, so -- anyway. Densmer: It's something we are certainly aware of and we will -- that's exactly the reason that we want to do the crushing in short periods, not, you know, every Monday for the next 18 months. We will just get in, crush, get out. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 16 of 32 Freeman: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Rohm: I just have one. Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: And -- front-end loaders, every time they back up they have a beeper on them and you can hear that beeper for miles and whether it's -- they are doing it between 8:00 and 5:00 or they are loading a truck in the middle of the night or extended hours, that -- that sound is prevalent and -- Densmer: Yes. Backup beepers, of course, are an important safety mechanism. Rohm: I know that. Densmer: But with that exact concern, Idaho Sand's equipment uses visual backup. They are blinking lights instead of beepers. They don't have beepers. Rohm: Thank you. That's the answer I wanted to hear. That's a great answer. Thank you very much. Freeman: Are there any other questions? Yearsley: I have a few. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: How much material are you anticipating mining out of this site? Densmer: It varies a little bit, because of the overburden and I don't recall the exact quantity. Around 500,000 yards. Yearsley: I have got a couple of concerns. On the three-to-one slope that you're proposing along the southern border, how are you planning to mitigate for that not looking like a huge scar face and what is to be done with that? Is that to become owned by property owners or what's to be done with that? Densmer: Yes. Through my involvement with the original entitlement approval of Southridge that south property line along the Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions was always kind of a matter of sensitivity. It's a border between two very different lot sizes and the homeowners to the south enjoy their views of the Boise front, it's just an awesome view from there. By reducing or by lowering that area of the site we are able to set the Southridge Subdivision down far enough that new homes and fences and those kind of things will be below the view lines of our neighbors to the south. As far as stabilizing the three-to-one slope, we will be replacing the top soil over it and, then, it will Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 17 of 32 be part of the lots in the future. So, the homeowners there in Southridge will be able to landscape that however they choose. Yearsley: Because I -- the subdivision that I live in has some pretty good size mounds that the property owners back up to and my concern with this is some of these -- this cut slope is over 30 feet high, so they will be visible from the interstate, from pretty much most of Meridian. My concern is that homeowners not taking care of it and it looking pretty ugly and not being maintained well and potentially even not keeping it watered to the point that you would have problems with erosion. Is there a way to mitigate that or -- I guess I'm a little concerned with the three-to-one slope. I would prefer a little higher -- a little bit more gradual slope of four-to-one or five-to-one slope to be able to hold the water moisture better, I guess is my concern. Densmer: Part of what our firm does is landscape architecture and we do a lot of berm design, even for the city in some instances. Our rule of thumb is that athree-to-one slope is about the right slope for a berm. It's moveable, you can, you know, use a walking or riding mower to keep it maintained. Although it's certainly a slope, it's not as steep as others. In fact, existing slopes on the property today are steeper than three to one. Through this whole area that the Ridenbaugh Canal is a high bank canal and a lot of the area where the Ridenbaugh is today is at or steeper than a three to one. So, in terms of the view from the interstate, of course, this will be nearly twice as far away from the interstate as the Ridenbaugh is and the slope will be similar to what's been there historically. In terms of policing future residents and how they maintain what would be visible, I think there will be opportunity in the future as preliminary plats for this area are presented to address that issue. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: Thank you. Any further questions? Yearsley: I have one more. Freeman: Go ahead. Yearsley: In the report it talks about phasing this so you can limit your amount of material you're moving. What size of areas are you planning on mining at this time? Do you have a specific area that you're looking at mining and to what size -- knowing this, you know, you create -- when you start mining like this you start creating a lot of dust and that's my -- one of the concerns that I have for the neighbors is the dust and trying to mitigate that dust problem. Densmer: Absolutely. Ours as well. The south portion of the property nearest to Val Vista Subdivision has been seeded and has an irrigation system established on it that's been working to compact dust. It was a bigger problem about a year ago, but that seeding and irrigation I believe has gotten that problem more or less under control. It's something that we are going to continue to police, though, and make sure that it doesn't Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 18 of 32 become a problem. In terms of the number of phases and how large they would be, at a minimum the process would use two phrases, with the initial phase being the area nearer to the Ridenbaugh Canal to excavate that area down to finish grade and get a good flat working surface that those stockpiles can be stacked up on and that allow the contractor to focus their efforts at the north end of the site. As that work gets done in kind of the phase one let's call it, phase two would be the area nearer to the south and as we move into that area the topsoil would be pulled back, stockpiled, the gravel would be extracted, pushed to the north end for crushing and stockpiling and to be hauled away and, then, the topsoil would be replaced. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Densmer: Thank you. Freeman: Okay. We will take public testimony now. The first person on the list is Joe Kendall. Kendall: I prefer not to speak. I might lose my temper. Freeman: Patsy Kendall. Dan Wilson. Okay. If you would state your name and address when you get to the mike for the record. Wilson: My name is Dan Wilson. I live in Aspen Cove. 2271 Aspen Cove. Well, yesterday afternoon a neighbor came and handed us some papers and mentioned that this was going to happen and that was the first I ever heard of it. So, I got on the Internet and looked at the testimony on the Tasa Subdivision. Their issues and concerns were dramatic and forcefully spoken. I would like to include their testimony here verbatim. I believe that was November 4th. And I also want to say that I think that we can all get along, but I'm very surprised and shocked and amazed that something on this magnitude could happen literally a thousand feet from my front door and a neighbor has to come up and hand me this with great angst. Now, what is the process that allows that? Freeman: Normally -- and this did happen, I believe we have record of it, any property within 300 feet of a property under question you're notified by mail of the proceedings. And that's a legal requirement. Wilson: Okay. Freeman: And I don't know if you're within that 300 feet. Rohm: There is a sign -- there is a three foot sign -- or maybe bigger. I don't know. And all of that is done with every project that comes before this Commission. Wilson: I have seen those signs and I know there is a big project going on there and I think it's being run well. This gravel excavation was a new thing to me. It -- all of a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 19 of 32 sudden it wasn't going to be buildings, it was going to be heavy excavation. And I know things have to get done, but I'm just dumbfounded at all of a sudden this -- the conditions would change to this effect and I know it's going to go forward and I think they have done a good job trying to address our concerns, but I just have to express my angst, for want of another word, of how this unfolded to me personally and my neighbors. And, yeah, there is a lot of signs, but none of them say, hey, we are going to take off 30 foot of gravel and I think it's done considering our views, so it needs to be done, but I'm upset. Freeman: So, your comments, if I understand, are mostly about the process, not so much the project itself, but you found out late and I apologize you found out late. These things are noticed several weeks in advance as a legal requirement and this one was. It could be you're outside the 300 feet perimeter. I'm not sure about that, but -- Wilson: Well, sound radiation goes a lot more than 300 feet, so I'm not outside the project. Freeman: Yeah, it does. Okay. Baird: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Yes. Baird: If I might address his request -- Freeman: Please. Baird: -- to include some other evidence. Sir, these hearings are sort of self-contained records and so we don't have the ability to incorporate the record from another hearing, so I would urge you, if you have some specific comments you want to make from what you have read, that you do so at this time. Wilson: Item 14 on the May 10th -- or the May 2010 meeting, Item 14 said will there be -- will the east side of Tasa Drive be used as a gravel pit in the future and you can refer to this, but it says no. I submit that to your record. Freeman: Okay. Wilson: I don't know what else can be said. It needs to happen, but I was surprised and pretty upset. Freeman: Okay. Thank you for your testimony today. Rick Brecks. Is Rick Brecks wanting to testify today? No? Alice Smith. Donald Smith. Please state your name and address for the record when you get to the mike. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 20 of 32 Smith: My name is Donald Smith. I live at 2141 Aspen Cove Drive. Now, you people sit up there and you think this is a joke. You really do. You sit there and you put money in your fat pocket. Did any of you ask what are you going to do to the homeowners? What happens to their property? If a guy wants to sell his house and here is a mining operation in his front yard practically. That's going to help him sell that house, isn't it. But you don't seem to care about that. You're worried about -- Freeman: Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, sir. Freeman: I would appreciate it if you would address the Commission with some courtesy. We have not -- Smith: I wish you would address us with some courtesy. Freeman: We have not made -- Mr. Smith, we have not made our comments or any decisions yet. We are going to hear everybody's testimony and, then, we will deliberate. So, please don't assume that a decision has been made either. Go ahead. Smith: You will deliberate all right. Like you did the last time that we did the other project. Okay. You come in and you put in a bunch of homes, we talked to you about it and everything was settled. The houses were going to be set at a certain level and it wouldn't block anybody's view. Now, we got to have a mining operation to get the houses down to view. That's the biggest bunch of baloney you guys have ever come up with. Now, whether you like it or not with courtesy, I wish you would be courteous enough to tell this guy -- hey, look, these people don't want a mining operation -- you don't want it in your front yard or this gentleman over here don't want it in his front yard and I'm sure you don't want it in your front yard. Now, you say 300 foot. How far is 300 foot? That's a football field. That's all that is, a football field. And you say we notify you within 300 foot with an operation this large and you say you notify someone within 300 foot. I hope they don't decide to drop an atomic bomb and you want to notice somebody at 15 foot of it, I guess, because that's the way you people think. But I wished you would consider this, because there is a lot of homes up there and a lot of money and a lot of people got time, money, invested in there and before you make a decision think about that. Not putting money in this guy's pocket, that's all he's trying to do, get this gravel out and make money and get out of there. We are still there. We are paying the taxes and we are there all the time. So, think about that before you make a decision. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could make a comment? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sir, if I could make a comment directly to you. Sir, I'm just a -- I am a citizen just like you. I'm a volunteer. I'm a citizen just like you. Sir, I am a citizen just like you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 21 of 32 I'm a volunteer up here. I try to do the best I can. I listen to you and I appreciate your comments. And, no, I'm not predisposed towards either side. I want to hear both sides. want to hear 15 sides. I want to hear everybody's side. He has a right to do what he wants with his piece of property, as long as he doesn't step on the toes of other citizens and -- and we have laws and I'll tell you the 300 foot is simply a law somebody -- somebody else passed. We didn't pass that. That's not our choice. We didn't go tell him he has to notify people within 300 feet. That's a law on the books of the City of Meridian and I would suggest you take that up with City Council if you'd like to see that changed. Freeman: Okay. We need you to speak into the mike if -- okay. And I'm going to give you about 30 more seconds to wrap up, because we need to keep moving. Smith: You said -- now, you're acitizen -- I'm sure you are a citizen here, but I would think just common courtesy would tell you why would you even do this? Did the county -- if this was going to the county and they were going to consider it into a residential area, do you think they would even consider giving this guy a -- allowing him to do this? don't think they would even consider it, much less do it. They wouldn't even hear him on it. They would just tell him, no, you ain't going to do it. Simple. Now, you people seem to think it's okay, so why don't you just tell him, no, you're not going to go mining in it. Simple. Easy. It's not hard to figure out. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Keith or Diane Ebling. Okay. Scott Nichols. Please state your name and address for the record when you reach the mike. Nichols: My name is Scott Nichols. I live at 2730 West Val Vista Court. I abut the Southridge proposal to the south. I just want to say for Commissioners and staff that we have been working with The Land Group with Ryan Russell out of Idaho Sand. I appreciate Sonya and Pete's input on this and I guess the thought and time that they have put into this whole proposal. Gravel extraction is, obviously, a controversial issue, but this has some very, you know, definite benefits for the community. This provides -- not only retains views of the adjacent owners, it provides some revenue to the owner, certainly, to the developer. I think that's Corey Barton Homes at this point. But it also provides us in the community, as I talked with Sonya and Pete, readily available natural resources that, you know, reduce the cost of construction contracts, they reduce the wear and tear on roads, they improve safety for us, they reduce truck haul costs or truck traffic on the roads and I think it's -- this is a really good example of, you know, interesting times make interesting bed fellows. When Southridge was first proposed it was very controversial, because of the different nature of the uses there and here two years later, three years later, we are looking at some real advantages of having that there and the developer working to put some advantages in place. So, that said, let me address three issues. First of all, there was a very definite misunderstanding about their request for 24/7 operations. I'm not going to address 24/7 operations other than to say that operations -- the gravel was hauled out of that site very early in the mornings, very late in the evening, we never knew it and in talking with my neighbors, who also abut the property just to the west, Steve Brizbos and his wife, my neighbor Ryan Russell, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 22 of 32 who can't be here, we don't see any concern with hauling that gravel out. Idaho Sand has put in lights, instead of beepers, so we won't hear beepers. So, if they want to go out and haul down gravel, that's an advantage to us to get that gravel out as quick as they can. And so Ryan -- I guess the plan says -- and we read again specifically there is no scraper, dozer, you know, crushing operations 7:00 to 7:00 or these extended hours. But I think it would be advantageous if you, the Commissioners, empowered your staff to say between these hours, you know, 7:00 to 7:00, for these projects if you need it let them come back to your staff and talk about that. Idaho Sand has a vested interest in really keeping the peace, so to speak, in having a clean run operation. I have known them for 20 years. They have always done what they said. They run a very good operation. Sorry about that. Two more things. Bonding. They do get double bonded. I understand absolutely -- Sonya picked up on some issues with regard to bonding that most administrators would never pick up on. I'm intimately familiar with bonding. I have administered those things for 20 years. Hopefully -- and I would certainly advocate that Idaho Sand and Gravel may be able to come back to the Department of Lands and in showing a bond with Sonya, the Department of Lands may have the latitude to waive their bonding requirement. So, you know, so they don't get double bonded, essentially. That being number two. Number three I forgot what it is. Sonya, what was number three? Jason? Eighteen months. Yeah. Three years to 18 months. I guess we, too, were concerned about the three year operation. I understand that the staffs concern limited to 18 months. This was a grading operation. It would be a travesty if they got halfway through this project and couldn't cut that bank down for my neighbors. I won't be as affected by the bank as -- by the size of that cut bank, but it is a definite advantage to my neighbors to be able to have that. So, we would -- you know, in general, if the operations go well, Commissioners, I think you will see us back here proposing that they finish that out and, Commissioner O'Brien, there are some -- some sequencing issues that I didn't understand also about the sequencing of the crusher. Apparently what we understand now is they are going to push to the crusher and those dozers only push so far and they push to that crusher, crush the material, stockpile it up and, then, they have to move that crusher back away from that stockpile and, then, they can push and crush again. We advocate them doing it as fast as they can, but they are subject to market conditions and things like that. So, there is some things out of their control. I want to thank the staff for just spending the time on it. think there is a good job and you ought to approve it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Nichols: Thank you. Freeman: Steve -- and I can't read the last name. Would you like -- would you like to testify? Okay. Is there anybody else that didn't sign up that would like to testify on this item? No. Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Rohm: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 23 of 32 Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing -- yes. Joe, did you want to interrupt? Marshall: Did the applicant get a chance to rebut any of the public testimony? Freeman: Oh, I'm sorry. The applicant -- yes, you're right. If the applicant would like to come up and address us again. Thank you for reminding me. And, please, state your name and address for the record again. Densmer: I don't have anything to add, unless you have questions you'd like to direct to us. Freeman: I wish I could pretend that I new that ahead of time, but thank you. Okay. We do have a motion on the table to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. We have closed the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Comments? Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are so many issues with this kind of a project. You know, unfortunately, it just seems like there is always going to be a win- lose it seems and I know we strive for win-win situations in all situations and I'm not sure we are going to be able achieve that all the way and I certainly can empathize with -- with the homeowners who live nearby a project like this. The only saving grace that I see is that fact that it's not going to go on forever and the places I have been living by seemed to do that very thing. They never go away. And that is one thing I like about having this bonded out to make sure that they comply with -- with the rules. 1 am for the project as -- as it stands right now as suggested. I don't know if I would want to extend -- if you extend something like this and, then, the reclamation is also extended and pretty soon you got a three year, you got a six year, and it goes on and that's not acceptable to me. So, I think -- I think that the -- sure, this is going to be economy driven, but I don't know how else we could address it. We have to put -- draw the line here, because we have to take in consideration, as much as possible, the homeowners in that area, but does the means justify the end? I don't know. I think in this case it will be -- after it's all over it's going to be a positive thing for the community. So, in that -- in that instance I -- I would agree that this -- this thing should go on as proposed. That's all I have. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Yearsley, did you want to add anything? Yearsley: You know, looking at this I had some initial concerns on the slopes and stuff. I understand -- I guess the term mining is always kind of scary to a lot of people. Realistically, this dirt had to be removed somehow. You either haul it off site and crush Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 24 of 32 it someplace else, which you have a lot of trucking cost and a lot of wear and tear on your roads or you crush it on site and get rid of it slowly -- get rid of it at a different rate. I guess I'm torn. I think at this point in time it's probably not a bad way to go, because we know that there is a limited time. So, I guess -- I agree the 18 months is -- would be my recommendation to not have it longer than 18 months and, then, also in conjunction with the crushing being only completed during the 8:00 to 5:00 and, then, potentially Planning and Zoning staff have the ability to extend the hours for hauling material off site would be -- would be my recommendation. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rohm, any comments? Rohm: I had lots of things I wanted to say, but both of these gentlemen have stated them very eloquently, but my one comment that I wrote down is there is light at the end of the tunnel and the bottom line is when this project comes to fruition the bonding that is required by the recommendations of staff insures that our community does not leave with -- is not left with a scar on the face of the community and I'm fully in support of the project and, secondly, I concur that the timing is not necessarily a known entity. The fact of the matter is 18 months may or may not be significant to extract the gravel and and -- and at the end of the day if, in fact, we limit the operations to something that is short of what is the optimum, then, everybody loses something along the way and so even though it may be 36 months before the project is done, I still believe that with the bonding required by the development agreement or where ever that's listed. Everybody is going to end up with exactly what is in the best interest of the community as a whole. So, end of comments. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: This site eventually needs to develop by the way it's got kind of an eye sore there. To do that it is going to have to be graded. To this extent not necessarily, but it's going to have to be graded period. This extent it does allow an ability to provide our roads with gravel that's necessary at a cost -- a little more efficient cost and travel cost and the like. So, it does save us significant money -- when I go to pay my taxes I'm going to save myself some money and get a better road system. It also is going to make the landowners some money and right now in tough economic times that's good for our economy. I am very concerned about the noise and the dust issues. I'm pleased to hear that some of those are being addressed, because that is a serious concern, especially with a gravel operation. Although they are absolutely necessary -- kind of necessary evil, I think those are the two biggest ills for them. If it were perfectly quiet with no dust I'm not sure everybody would ever complain, with no traffic, no dust. But I like to hear that the back loaders -- the front loader and like have been -- the back- up alarms are lighted, rather than audio. I didn't realize OSHA was allowing that now. That's good. I do believe that scraping and crushing operations should be limited to the 8:00 to 5:00 -- I think it needs to go forward. I think the very largest, loudest problems need to happen while we -- during the typical business day. I also understand, though, that to get the stuff moved off site a lot of the contracts are going to happen in the evenings. I like the idea of a case-by-case approval, as long as everything's being Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 25 of 32 operated quietly and we are not having any real problems, as long as we can try to mitigate that as much as possible. So, I'm in favor of the case-by-case approval at the staff level. I would like to remain at the 18 month -- I'd like to see this thing done, over with, and developed as fast as possible. I also understand that that may not be possible based on whether or not contracts come through and we are able to get the gravel out of there as fast as possible. Considering the fact that they can come back and just ask for an extension, a modification to this, I think that that's a good opportunity to check to make sure that everything is operating properly and we are moving forward. So, to be honest, I'm in favor -- I am in favor of the project. I am in favor of the staffs recommendations -- for surety as a bond -- yes. And understanding that we will probably have to see this again. I hope not. I hope it will be done in 18 months, but knowing that we will probably have to see it again if we only extend the 18 months. Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I don't have much to add. You know, understand construction needs to happen. One of the things that's a big buzz thing today, which I think is for everybody's benefit, are the ideas of sustainable design and part of what sustainable design means, like in a case like this -- it takes a lot less energy and a lot less waste to get materials that are close to .where the work is actually happening. That's actually a big plus environmentally and I think that's kind of what's -- what's pushing this and costs, of course, too. You know, I don't know that I would be in favor of every project similar to this. I think we would definitely have to take this on a case-by-case basis. What -- what is positive about this one, I think, is that -- and we have heard a few times -- that grading this site is something that's actually going to be beneficial to the neighbors. It's something that's going to happen in the future if it doesn't happen now and what's happening here really is grading with the added benefit of being able to use some of those materials and the other positive thing about this is this is temporary. It's going to be graded. It's going to be put back in a landscaped, planted condition before it gets further developed. It is going to improve the views of the neighborhood. I have read some testimony from people in the neighborhood. Frankly, have heard more positive testimony about this from the neighborhood than negative testimony and Ithink -- I think the neighborhood sees the benefits of this in general. Not everybody does. I understand that. And they have appreciated the fact that there are some hours of -- limitation of hours in operations being applied to this that staff has recommended that this not be prolonged forever, that we go with 18 months and that we look into a reapproval after 18 months and so overall given -- given the positive and the negatives, I think this is going to be beneficial to the neighborhood, actually. All of the neighborhood in the long run. And noise mitigation I think is one of the biggest concerns and if we stay within the hours of operation I think that that would be largely mitigated against. Frankly, I'm not sure about the extended hours. I have heard some of the Commissioners say that they are for the extended hours. I'm not going to be making the motion, so I will vote as I hear the motion. Any other comments? Any other discussion on anything that's been said here? Do we want to discuss amongst ourselves -- yes, Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 26 of 32 Marshall: The extended hours -- as far as my being in favor of any extended hours, on a case-by-case basis as contracts are awarded and they are needing to fulfill a contract, I'm only in favor of extended hours for the removal and movement of already processed gravel. I am not in favor of crushing or anything -- as the applicant stated, they would not be operating those pieces of equipment or these areas, other than the 8:00 to 5:00. Freeman: So, you're talking -- you're saying limited -- limited activities to removing the gravel from the site during those extended hours. Marshall: That is correct. Freeman: And are you talking about the same extended hours that have been discussed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. if we are discussing extended hours? Marshall: No. Freeman: Or are we talking about -- Marshall: I was suggesting 24/7 removal, but only the removal. No. Freeman: There could be some noise issues with that I think is the -- Marshall: Well, we did have neighbors come in and suggest that -- that the other gravel site was not creating any noise issues, but it's at the far end of the site that the front loaders -- the backup alarms were visual, not audible, and it would not be allowed without staff approval on a case-by-case basis. Freeman: Okay. I have a question of staff as we are discussing these various options and I hope we get them all covered when we make a motion. You mentioned a couple of conditions that have been modified since your staff report, I believe. One of them being the modification of the bond -- a bond would be acceptable, so -- Wafters: Chairman Freeman, that is correct. A bond would be acceptable means of surety. Freeman: Okay. And was there another one on condition number 1.1.2 or 1.1.22? Wafters: Nothing on 1.1.2. Freeman: So, that's the only additional requirement -- Wafters: 1.3 was the only -- 1.1.3 was the change, really. Freeman: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 27 of 32 Wafters: Oh. Excuse me just one second here. I actually did request that -- condition 1.1.22 had a requirement for all reclamation of the site to be completed prior to the end of the approved term of use. Freeman: Okay. Could you repeat that for me? Wafters: For clarification it's on your hearing outline. It's the last sentence. Modify condition 1.1.22 to add a requirement for all reclamation of the site to be completed prior to the end of the approved term of use. Just for clarification purposes. Freeman: Okay. Marshall: I'm trying to find that on here. Freeman: Yeah. Is that -- Marshall: I see 1.1.2, but I don't see that line you're referring to. Freeman: Isn't that additional -- Watters: It's under the staff recommendation. It's the last sentence on the end of the page. Marshall: If the applicant wishes to operate beyond this time period a modification to the Conditional Use Permit may be requested is the last line on mine. Friedman: Mr. Chairman Commissioners -- Marshall: Oh, I'm reading 1.1.22, not 1.1.2. Watters: That is correct. .22. Marshall: Oh, the sheet -- Freeman: The hearing outline. Thank you. Marshall: This one. Got you. Freeman: I've got that now. Marshall: Thank you. I appreciate that. Freeman: Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. Pete. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just as a point here, I would like to raise. I don't know what your final action will be, but if the determination of the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 28 of 32 Commission is that you want to vest the planning director with the ability to extend the hours on a case-by-case basis there is a couple of points I'd like to raise for your consideration. One is that if that is the case that we -- we provide reasonable notice to adjacent property owners that the director is considering an extension of those hours and, you know, I'll let you determine what is appropriate, whether it's five days, ten days, three days. Secondly, please, don't vest the director with the ability to allow it to go 24 hours. That would be, as we pointed out in the staff report, a violation of city code. Right now this is not the UDC, which is what the Planning Department is charged with administering and enforcing, it is the Meridian Code and it's the noise ordinance and that establishing hours of construction activity between, essentially, 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that is enforced by -- well, it starts at 6:00 and ends at 11:00. It can't go -- work past 11:00 o'clock. So, that's enforced by people that drive cars with lights on top of them. So, that's a ticketable offense, I believe. So, again, we can't authorize -- we would request not to -- Freeman: Okay. Friedman: -- be put in that position. Freeman: Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: But, Pete, didn't the -- what was the hours of the operation on the one just north of this? Friedman: The one just north -- Marshall: The gravel -- Friedman: That had -- that we had some issues on out there during the construction period. That was awhole -- that was established under a -- Commissioner Marshall, that was established under a temporary use authorization. It was -- that I recall, myself being out there a couple to nights kind of checking on what was going on and there was some activities going out there. My memory is a little foggy on what -- if there were some all night operations, how did we allow that, but it's -- you know, as we looked at it closer and in consideration of all the residents and in consideration of the city noise ordinance, we would not -- we would request not be put in that position. Freeman: Understand. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I just have a couple of thoughts on this. I think that the activities that the applicant is requesting to operate outside of 8:00 to 5:00 are just removal of the materials themselves and if, in fact, our city code -- not necessarily the UDC -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 29 of 32 stipulates that it occurs from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., then, as long as we only authorize them to extract materials during those hours and nothing outside of those hours, then, we don't need to involve the director at all, we just say that we -- the -- the operations of the crushing facilities and all that stuff is as proposed in the staff report and we only deviate for the removal of materials from the 6:00 to 11:00 and, then, we don't have to involve staff at all. Freeman: That seems reasonable to me. Ted, do you have any concerns with that as stated? Baird: Sounds reasonable. Freeman: My only concern on that, though, is how do we police to make sure that Idaho Sand and Gravel is a good neighbor is trying to be as quiet as possible during those hours, I guess. By letting the Planning and Zoning make that recommendation or that approval, we will be able to notify the neighbors in advance that this is going to happen and, then, also to make sure, because if by one time that they are being loud or very noisy or something like that, the Planning and Zoning can come back and say, no, because of this. That's my only concern by allowing that to happen all the time. So, guess that would be my -- I'd have a hard time allowing that to happen all the time. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Just a comment. As I stated in my opening remarks, how could we try to get this thing as much of a win-win situation as we can and I think that going all the way from -- from a -- what was it, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as the window to what they request is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but now we are saying that maybe we can go all the way to 11:00 p.m., I think -- I think that would really degrade the situation. I think the homeowner people are going to be even more upset, because we need to try to get them some leeway, some kind of compromise to make this thing work and I think that going past even 7:00 p.m. is really pushing it, even with trucks, loading them up. mean there is going to be some noise that's -- with the dumping of gravel in a steel bed of a truck and the front-end loaders are huge and so there is noise, the engine noise and all these things. So, I will not approve anything past 7:00 p.m. and my recommendation is 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., only because 6:00 p.m. is generally the dinner hour and people don't normally want to have that much more noise in their dining room. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I tend to agree with you. This is going to be difficult enough without us extending potentially noisy operations in the backyard of some of these neighbors. I would also be hesitant to extend the hours much beyond 7:00 p.m. I understand that that creates some complications for the owner in his operations, but this has to be a situation with some give and take. They are going to be parked behind some neighbors; they are promising to be good neighbors. I expect that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 30 of 32 we will see that happen. But I would not like to see operations, even just the extraction of gravel from the site happening as late as 11:00 p.m. I would be uncomfortable with that. Commissioner Marshall, you were going to comment again? Did I -- Marshall: No. I'm good. Freeman: Okay. Any other comments? Discussion? Rohm: I think that from the comments of the Commission that we can still extend the hours of extraction of materials from the site, but just limit it to that which is acceptable by the balance of the Commission and from input from the public. So, if, in fact, we just go from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m., whatever the number -- whoever makes the motion and not extend it all the way to 11:00, then, we have addressed the issue of the applicant needing to have opportunities and also the concerns of the public as a whole. So, I think that to say from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. might be a healthy compromise. Freeman: 6:00 a.m. -- and you're saying for those times that is for the removal of the material. Rohm: For the removal of material -- Freeman: Not for crushing and scraping -- Rohm: -- not for the -- not for the crush, right. Freeman: We are going to keep that at 8:00 to 5:00. Okay. Any other discussion? O'Brien: I agree with that. Freeman: Can I get a motion? Rohm: Commissioner Marshall, I think you're the guy that's best at this. Marshall: I think you guys got it down. I think -- Rohm: All right. I might need some help from staff on this, but I'm going to take a stab at it here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 10-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 20th, 2011, with the following modifications: That the removal of materials shall be granted an extension of hours from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. All other operations within the application will concur with the hours as stated in the staff report. Freeman: Yeah. Would you like to add the bond additional modification? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 31 of 32 Rohm: The addition of the bond as stated by the staff during their testimony would also be included. And, then, the last item would be all reclamation of the site to be completed prior to the end of the approved term of use. And I believe that's the end of motion. O'Brien: Clarification, please. Just for the -- just for the record, could we say that the normal hours of operations are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.? Is that -- Freeman: I think that was contained in as recommended by the staff report. O'Brien: Okay. Freeman: Right. Thank you for that clarification. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the application for CUP 10- 015, Southridge Subdivision gravel mining as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. City Code Modifications (Amended to the Agenda.) Freeman: Okay. The last item on the agenda is a city code minor correction regarding address and perhaps time. of meetings and I will turn it over to Pete to explain that to us. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Member of the Commission. The city attorney's office was going through our city code and they were looking at another commission and they realized that our code contains the place of your meetings and the time of your meetings. Well, right now the code still has you meeting over in the old City Hall, so that's an easily fixable situation. The other one -- but it still has your meeting times commencing at 7:00 o'clock. What we wanted to bring forth for your consideration and just really this is for your convenience, not ours, do you want to consider starting any earlier? Do you want to consider starting at 6:00 or 6:30 or would you like to maintain 7:00 o'clock? Friedman: My own personal feelings on that are that 7:00 o'clock works best. It's difficult for some of us who work to get here by 6:00 and I kind of like the opportunity to go home, wind down, get a snack and come back here. That's my two cents, but -- Rohm: I agree with your two cents. Yearsley: Well, I also think that we ought to be cognizant of the people who want to come testify. I think 6:00 is kind of tough to get them to come here at this time. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2011 Page 32 of 32 7:00 gives them a chance to get home, get whatever they need done and, then, come to the meeting if they need to be. So, I think 7:00 is probably an appropriate time. Marshall: I'm with 7:00 as well. I need to get home to feed my kids before I come down here, so -- Freeman: Okay. So, do we need to make a formal motion to edit the address of our meetings? Baird: No, Mr. Chair, you don't. We can -- I mean that's, basically, a factual error that we are correcting and you don't need to make any formal motion with regard to the time, since you're not changing anything. Freeman: Thank you. Can Iget -- Rohm: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED SCOTT~REEMAN - CHA ~ ~~ ~ ~~ DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~ `~ JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY C ERK O `~~ C+~FiPORq~' l~j, SEAL o c_~ O~ ST 1 sti' ~O