Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Delta Sand and Gravel Meeting Date: April 21, 2008 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 ISSUE STATEMENT Delta Sand and Gravel has applied for amendments to the Metro Plan, a change in zoning, and two variances to allow an expansion of their aggregate resource extraction business (quarry) onto a property located immediately outside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) north of Hunsaker Lane. Because this is a Type II Metro Plan Amendment, local land use regulations require approval of both Eugene (the home city) and Lane County. Lane County acts unilaterally on the zone change and variances. On February 21, 2007, the City Council began deliberations on this item. As part of those deliberations, the council determined that the application did not meet the Statewide Planning Goal 5 test for demonstrating that the site is a significant aggregate resource site. This determination, if adopted, would result in a City decision to deny the application. On February 20, 2008, the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted an ordinance and findings that would approve the application; however, the County’s approval of the application is not effective without Eugene’s approval. At this time, the council is asked to complete deliberations and to adopt an ordinance and findings. Three draft ordinances with coordinated findings have been prepared for council consideration, as follows: deny 1.Ordinance 1: An ordinance and findings that review all the relevant criteria and the application based on several criteria, including: a. The City Council’s previous determination that the applicant failed to prove the site contains significant aggregate resources, and; b. A finding, based on the Planning Commission recommendation, that the impacts of dust were not adequately minimized. The findings attached to the first ordinance also explicitly identify a few criteria that have not been thoroughly addressed, since the Goal 5 findings are sufficient alone to warrant the denial (e.g. Statewide Planning Goal 3). If the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) were to remand the matter, the City could provide a more thorough analysis of these identified criteria. The City Attorney believes that identifying these criteria now better ensures that if LUBA disagrees with the City’s primary bases for denial, the matter would be remanded for further consideration (and not simply reversed). deny 2.Ordinance 2: An ordinance and findings that the application based solely on the council’s previous determination that that the applicant failed to prove that the site contains significant aggregate resources; and F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080421\S080421A.doc