Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Joint Meeting <br />Lane County and Eugene Planning C ornmiss ions <br />Harris Hall-125 E,ast 8th Avenue <br /> <br />August 30, 2006 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br /> <br />Lane County Planning Commission: Jim CarmicllaeI, Chair; .Ed Becker, Vice-Chair; Juanita <br />Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki; John Sull.ivan; Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Kent <br />Howe, Plallning Department <br /> <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Lane County Plamling COffiluission: Steve Dignam, N aney Nichols, Todd Johnson. <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br /> <br />Eugel1e Planning COlnmission.: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon <br />Belcher, Pllillip (:arroll, John, L.awless men1bers;Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development <br />Depart111ent. <br /> <br />ABSEN'rr: <br /> <br />City of Eugene Plalml11g COffill1isslon: Randy Hledik (recused frOll1 the.proceeding), Phillip <br />Hudspeth. <br /> <br />MT. Carmichael convened the meeting of the.Lal1e County Plannltlg Con1mission at 5 :30 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath convened the lueeting of the Eugene PlalUlingColnmission at 5:30 p.ll1. <br /> <br />Those present introduced the111selves. <br /> <br />M:r. Camlichael noted there were no 111embers of the public who \vished to 111ake Public COl11ffienL <br /> <br />!vis. Schulz distributed a 111ClTIOral1dum dated August 30, 2006; subject PA05-6151 Delta Sand and Gravel <br />Post Acknowledgel11ent Plan Amend111ent. Mr. Ho\ve offered the staff report and. explained tIle information <br />on the handout, noting 1. ReCOln.mendations from Ju(v 25, 2006 described the \vork conlpleted by the <br />c0111missions, II. Continued Deliberations idel1tified issues yet to be discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe noted the role of the Planning COll1ffiissions \vas to determine if conflicts existed, and if so, had <br />the applicant subluitted mitigating proposals that ",'"ould reduce and mininlize those c.onflicts. Mr. Howe said <br />\vith most of the issues, vvith the exception of the agricultural impacts, state standards needed to benlet, <br />addin.g if there was not a conflict ullder Goal 5, state standards V'vere 'n1et He said it "vas not necessary for <br />the commissiol1S to "vord smith conditiol1s. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkin asked how resource site significal1ce issues should be addressed when the Lane County and <br />Eugene Planning COll1missions held different views. <br /> <br />Mr. Ho\ve replied that each of the cOlumissio:ns \vQuld n1ake recom111endatiol1s to their respective elected <br />officials who would make the final decision. Mr. Howe. opined different recomn1endations \Vere not <br />problematic. <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he had voted yes on item 1. ,Step 1 of the stra\v poll, and \vishe,d to cllange his <br />vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Can11ichael noted no objections to Mr. Siekiel-Zdziellicki's request, and asked that the record reflect his <br /> <br />MIN-u~rES- August 30, 2006 <br />Joint Lane County alld Eugene Planlling Commission <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />