Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Colbath explained that the Eugene Planning Commission denied approval based on non-mitigating <br />factors and based its approval on the 150 foot variance being approved. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath adjourned the Eugene Planning Commission meeting at 8:15p.m. <br /> <br />The Lane County Planning Commission took a brief one minute rec~ss. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael said two issues needed to be addressed, that of a zone change request and the 1,500 foot <br />setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe explained that because of where the Planning Commission ended up on the post acknowledgement <br />plan amendment, PAPA, the Planning Commission was recommending that the applic.ant had not met the <br />requirements for that, therefore, the Planning Commission could not proceed with the zone change and the <br />variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the setback was like sacred land that served asa buffer zone--"don't mess with." <br />The proposal to put the aquaclude in the setback was classified as construction by County Counsel, and <br />construction should not be in the setback. He disagreed with the applicant that the aquaclude could be and <br />should be in the .setback. He said the UGB would gradually expand and it would be a mistake to minimize <br />the setback where it adjoined the tree nursery. He opposed a variance from the setback. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Arkin, Mr. Becker said the Planning Commission had made a recommendation in <br />opposition to the zone change, thus the variance was a moot point. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe suggested that the Planning Commission determined that as a result of the recommendation of the <br />PAPA not meeti~g the Metro Plan requirements, the application for the zone change and the setback variance <br />Were not appropriate to be dealt with at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael asked if the Planning Commission was willing to accept Mr. Howe's statement as a motion. <br /> <br />Mr~ Dignam proposed accepting Mr. Howe's statement as a motion. Mr. <br />Becker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael said the next meeting would take place on at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael adjourned the Lane County Planning Commission at 8:23 p.m. <br /> <br />(Recorded.by Linda Henry) <br />m: \2006\/ane 'county\/and management division \planning commission \lcpc06083 O. doc <br />