Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

4. Weigh ESEE consequeI1cesand detennine wllether to allo,v mining 5. Determine ESEE Consequences of potential new conflicting uses within the impact area 6. Determine if the application. meets tIle Lane Code rezol1ing requirenlents ofLe 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 pro gran] to allow nlining. (Step Six of the Goal Five Rule) Ms. Schulz said staff \'vould like recoffiluendations for each step even if it \vas a recoml11endation to deny. She said recomnlendations needed to be based on the infonllation in the record so elected officials could know the entire scope of the process used by the planning commissions in ord.er to proceed. M.f. Carmichael reconlmended taking each step one at a time with individual votes. Lane County Planning Conilllissioner Jozef Zdzienicki question.ed which steps \vould be combined decisions for the t\vo commissions. Ms. Schulz said there would be joint deliberations until step six. She said the item for the varial1ce request \vas for Lane County 0llly. Step 1. . AdeQuacv of the Information City of Eugene Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter stated for the record that E,ugene Planning Staff concurred "vith the COUl1ty staff report Ms. Schulz said tIle applicant needed to provide information regarding quantity, quality and location sufficient to determinevvhether the standards and conditions were satisfied. She said County staff felt that cond.itions had been satisfied. She said the cOllceptual site reclamation plan ,vas 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 Plalm1tlg had waived the traffic impact an.alysis. She said staff had revie\ved the i~formation provided by the applicant and had detenn1t1ed that the increase in traffic was not sufficient to require further analysis. She noted that road improvenlents \V~ere scheduled for the next 20 years in that area. Regarding mininlizing conflicts with existing uses, Ms. Schulz noted that information \vas included \vith the staff report as Attac.hment Two. She added that a sit.e plan was also required to determine if the application had the basic information provided. She said the applicant had provided enough infoffi1ation to nleet the application threshold basis for the application. In response to a question from Ms. .Colbatll regarding hours of operation and whetller 8 anl.. to 10 pm~. 'was a standard tinle frame for hours of operation for businesses in the County, Ms. Schulz said the times \vere in response to noise litnitatiolls established by the State. She said noise requirelnents changed at 10 pnl. Mr. Yeiter added that the hours proposed were also consistent with the City,' s noise ordinallc'e. Mr. Zdzienicki conlmented that h.e did not belie~Te the applicant had adequately addressed conflicts in Step 3 and therefore he could not approve step one. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Conlmission July 25, 2006 Page 2