Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

J oint Meeting Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions Harris Hall-125 East 8th Avenue August 30, 2006 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Lane County Planning Commission: Jim Carmichael, Chair; Ed Becker, Vice-Chair; Juanita Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, JozefSiekiel-Zdzienicki; John Sullivan; Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Kent Howe, Planning Department. ABSENT: Lane County Planning Commission: Steve Dignam, Nancy Nichols, Todd Johnson. PRESENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, John Lawless members; Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: City of Eugene Planning Commission: Randy IDedik, Phillip Hudspeth. Mr. Carmichael convened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 5 :30 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Mr. Carmichael noted there were no members of the public who wished to make Public Comment. Ms. Schulz distributed a memorandum dated August 30, 2006; subject P A05-6151 Delta Sand and Gravel Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment. Mr. Howe offered the staff report and explained the; information " on the handout, noting L Recommendations from July 25, 2006 described the work completed by the commissions, II. Continued Deliberations identified issues yet to be discussed. Mr. How~ noted the role of the Planning Commissions .was to determine if conflicts existed, and if so, had the applicant s\Jbmitted mitigating proposals that would reduce and minimize those conflicts. Mr. Howe said with most of the issues, with the exception of the agricultural impacts, state standards needed to be met, adding if there was not a conflict under GoalS, state standards were met. He said it was not necessary for the commissions to word smith conditions. . Ms. Arkin asked how resource site significance issues should be :addressed when the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions held different views. Mr. Howe replied that each of the commissions would make recommendations to their respective elected officials who would "make the final decision. Mr. Howe opined different recommendations were not problematic. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he had voted yes on item I. Step 1 of the straw poll, and wished to change his vote. Mr. Carmichael noted no objections to Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki's request, and.asked that the record reflect his. request. He said the July 25, 2006 poll wa~ only a straw poll.... "