EAGLE MOUNTAIN — City Council officials in Eagle Mountain followed the will of a vocal audience on Tuesday night and unanimously denied a gravel pit operation that sought to function on the outskirts of town.

On April 10, the Planning Commission gave the operation a conditional-use permit that would have allowed drilling, sifting and sorting gravel on the project's site, but Councilwoman Linn Strouse, who lives in a nearby subdivision to the site's intended location, appealed the decision on behalf of her neighbors.

"Residents who felt strongly that some of these issues could be more adequately addressed (asked) that I submit a request to put the ... gravel pit issue on the next possible City Council agenda for council review and approval," Strouse said in her request to appeal the decision.

About 70 residents attended the meeting on Tuesday while council members discussed the operation's specifics for nearly three hours.

At issue was whether the 30-acre project — located north of state Route 73 and west of Mounta Airey Drive — was considered a large-scale operation. Because the area is in an agriculturally zoned area, large-scale operations are prohibited.

The project's developer, Isaac Patterson, said his site plan originally did not include a gravel pit, only a subdivision and school. But Patterson said the excavation was seen as a way to flatten a hilly area on the property and put houses on top.

"We know what we're doing," Patterson said. "Our primary concern is to develop this as a residential development. We have an exit strategy (out of the gravel pit)."

According to Patterson, the excavation would have produced about $100,000 annually for the city coffers in sales tax. The excavation would also have required about 110 truck trips to and from the area daily.

The Planning Commission gave Patterson conditional-use approval for a excavation pit based on several conditions, some of which were that he control dust and debris on the site, add an acceleration and deceleration lane to state Route 73 and not excavate lower than 5,210 feet.

Neighbors said they were concerned about the noise the excavation could make. A majority were also concerned that approving the pit would create an unwanted precedent.

"The gravel pit as proposed is a prohibited use (in an agricultural zone) and should not have been issued as a conditional-use permit," said Greg Helm, a resident who made a formal presentation against the project at Strouse's request. "To approve (the pit) under our laws would be a mockery of our code. By approving this, we are setting a dangerous precedent for our future development."

Helm and several other residents became emotionally charged during the meeting — some shouted boos and gave applause to the ideas they favored. Several times, the residents criticized the city's planning director, questioning whether he had enough experience to propose a conditional-use permit that would protect the city.