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