My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 02/21/07 Work Session
>
Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:12:36 PM
Creation date
2/15/2007 8:51:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/21/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Belcher COI11IDented that holding to the .150 foot setback would have a positive iInpact 011 noise <br />mitigation. <br /> <br />Mr. Dignanl said he believed tl1ere \vas a conflict due to noise but the miti.gations suggested by the <br />applicant were adequate. He said he vvould support the Initigation me-asures as proposed. He stressed the <br />inlportance of looking at the big picture of all th.e nlitigation 111eaSUres beil1g proposed. <br /> <br />The Eugene Planning Comnlission took a straw vote and established general agreenlent <br />that there \vas a conflict due to noise. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote that the proposed ll1itigation measures \vere sufficient <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless reiterated that mitigation measures \vould comply \vith DEQ standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher questioned \vhether the DEQ standards were sufficient for the neighbors. lIe added that <br />construction of the lo\v pen11eability barrier \vould have its O\\ln inlpacts and raised concern that there was <br />not suffIcient mitigation. <br /> <br />Mr. Lanfear said the conflict was minimized if the noise metDEQ standards. <br /> <br />The result of the straw vote was 3:2 \vith COlnmissioners Colbath and CalToll voting in <br />opposition. <br /> <br />TIle Lane COUllty Planning C:ommissiotl took a straw vote alld unaninlously decided that <br />there was a conflict due to noise <br /> <br />The Lane County Planning COll1missiol1 took a straw vote on whether the conflict could be <br />minimized by the proposed mi.tigation lneasures. The resulting vote ,vas C0111missiollers <br />Cannichael, Dignam, and Nichols voting yes, Commissioners Arkin and Zdzienicki voting <br />n.o andC0111missionerBecker abstaining. <br /> <br />. Flooding <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should find that there "ras no conflict due to <br />flooding. <br /> <br />There was consensus to revieVvt the record and address the flooding conflicts at a future meeting. <br /> <br />. Groundwater <br /> <br />Staff recolnmended that the Planning Commission find that there ,vas a conflict due to groundlvater <br />that could be minimized by constructing tbe low permeability barrier. The applicant should be <br />directed to address the location of the IOlV permeability barrier and map its specific location in the <br />Operations Plan <br /> <br />MINUTES-Lane County Plalming Comtnission <br /> <br />July 25, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.