Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Ms. Schulz said there had been a lot of ground'Vvater testimony sublnitted into the record. She expressed her belief that the conflict could be minil11izedby the construction of the lO'WT permeability barrier. In response to a question from ~1s. Colbath regarding whether there had been other instances of similar barriers being used, Ms. Schulz said there had not. She said the applicant had nlad.e his case in the record regarding how the barrier would function.. Mr. Digtlanl clarified that a low penl1eability barrier had not been seen in Lane Count}'. He said it \vas his recollection that the tecImiqlle had been used successfully else\vhere. He stressed that this \vas a relevant fact and asked staff if there are other places this technology is used. There was general. consellSUS to table the item until a future meeting so staff could review the record for specific examples of the technology being used in other areas of the country and address the issues raised by the commission. . TraffIc Ms. Schulz said staff had accepted and \valved the applicant's requirementto conduct a traffic inlpact analysis bec,ause the level of change of traffic on the roads would not rise to a level of significance. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding COllcenlS raised by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Yeiter said gravel pernlits had a life expectancy and tnlck'traffic was \vorked in to that expectancy.. He said the streets use,dwere scheduled for itnprovements. He ackno\vledged that in the future the area "VQuld be more developed and there could be an issue in 20-30 years. tvls. Colbath commented that the City\vas not sure.what the long term plan ,vas going to be for the roads/intersections and there ,vas sonle movement to the idea of increlnental impact and development paying its share for road improvenlents in the area. Mr. Yeiter said the concern was that there ,vould be more difficulty in the future wIlen traffic levels increased. due to future development if Delta \vas still operating at that time. Ms. Schulz said the level of change in traffic did notfise to the threshold \Vllere the applicant \vas required to do further al1alysis. She noted that road improvements would be done in .the future to increase traffic capacity in the area. Mr. Zdzienicki said the projected gro\\lth in traffic was 1 percent. He said the current operating permit aUo~red 2 n1.111ion tOllS per year and Delta was currently close to that limit so there would not be Sigtlifical1t truck traffic added. Mr. Belcher commented that it vvouldbe unfair to penalize Delta for any future gro",rth and development in the area. He remarked that the City concern \vas not valid. Mr. Duncan said l1e supported the staff conclusiol1. Mr. Dignanl said he accepted. the staff conclusion. He stressed that there ,vas no conflict with transportation in the application. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 16