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

Home Browse Search

2. Determine if the resource site is significant 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized 4. Weigh ESEE consequences.and determine whether to allow mining 5. Determine ESEE Consequences of potential ~ew conflicting uses within the impact area 6. Determine if the application. meets the Lane Code rezoning requirements ofLC 16.252 and if the variance to the mining setback should be granted under LC 16.217(7); Note: The rezoning and setback variance determination recommendation is a single jurisdiction decision for the Lane County Planning Commission. 7. Developing a program to allow mining. (Step Six of the Goal Five Rule) Ms. Schulz said staff would like recommendations for each step even if it was a recommendation to deny. She said recommendations needed to be based on the information in the record so elected officials could know the entire scope of the process used by the planning commissions in order to proceed. Mr. Carmichael recommended taking each step one at a time with individual votes. Lane County Planning Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki questioned which steps would be combined decisions for the two commissions. Ms. Schulz said there would be joint deliberations until step six. She said the item for the variance request was for Lane County only. Step 1. Adequacv of the Information City of Eugene Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter stated for the record that Eugene Planning Staff concurred with the County staff report. Ms. Schulz said the applicant needed to provide information regarding quantity, quality and location sufficient to determine whether the standards and conditions were satisfied. She said County staff felt that conditions had been satisfied. She said the conceptual site reclamation plan was listed as Exhibit 49 in the record. She said the full reclamation plan had been provided during the written record process. Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ms. Schulz said Lane County Planning had waived the traffic. impact analysis. She said staff had reviewed the information provided by the applicant and had determined that the increase in traffic was not sufficient to require further analysis. She noted that road improvements were scheduled for the next 20 years in that area. Regarding minimizing conflicts with existing uses, Ms. Schulz noted that information was included with the staff report as Attachment Two. She added that a site plan was also required to determine if the application had the basic information provided. She said the applicant had provided enough information to meet the application threshold basis for the application. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath reg~ding hours of operation and whether 8 am. to 10 pm. was a standard time frame for hours of operation for businesses in the County, Ms. Schulz said the times were in response to noise limitations established by the State. She said noise requirements changed at 10 pm. Mr. Yeiter added that the hours proposed were also consistent with the City's noise ordinance. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission . ' . . July'25~2006,' " Page 2