Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

request. He said the July 25, 2006 poll. was only a straw poll. In response to a procedural question raised at the August 29, 2006 Lane County Planning COlnnlissioll meeting., Mr. Ho\ve, UpOl1 consulting \vith the County Counsel, said it was not legally required for connnissioners to listen to recorded tapes of prior deliberations they had nlissed. M.r. Sullivan s8:id he had listened to the tapes of the deliberations nleeting in question. III response to ~1s. Colbatll, Mr.. Ho\ve said if the impact area need.ed to be greater than 1,500 feet; it should be raised ltIdividually with each issue discussed.. He added that Goal 5 established an auto111atic 1,500 foot inlpact area around the perimeter of the subject property in a PAPA. plan anlendnlent Furthenl1ore, he stated that because the variance process \\r~s a separate one, the connnissioners should assunle a request for a related variance \vas approved.. Mr. I-Io\ve concurred with Mr. Sullivan's .assertion that that the applicant \vould not request a variance in the residential zoned area, but \vould ask for a variance in tIle agricultural area. In response to Mr. Cannichael, Mr..Ho\ve iterated tbat the variance issue bad beell adequately addressed; in that the assumption tllat.the variance was approved. In response to Ms.. Arkin, ~Ms. Schulz said there "vas nO.1l1ap of the variance locati011 in the record. However, a written legal description of the subject property, Exhibit 50, shows the site. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe stated. that the Planning Conunissions could make a recomtnendation to the elected officials to address minil11.izing the impact of fencing at the site. Mr. Carmichael opel1ed. the discussion, comnlencing with: · Determine if ",ining conflicts can be lninilnized: o Groundwater: · Is tllere a conflict due to groundJvater? Mr. Siekiel~Zdzienicki sought clarification of the location of the low-permeability barrier \vithin the 150 foot setback. Mr. Ho\'ve stated that the aquaclude bad been well presented in the. rec,ord around the perimeter of tIle expansion area. Ms.. Schulz said the aquaclude had never been removed from the proposal, explaitling that it.\vould be constructed to provide the mitigation for reduction of ground.\vater in the area. She concurred \vitl1 Ms. Arkin's statem.ent dIat EGR'sFebruary 16, 2006 E,xhibit 55 contained a diagram that illustrated the ground\vater barrier. The question, Mr. H,owe stated, was tl1.ere c.onflict due to ground\vater? Ms. Colbath called for a Eugene Planning COlumission straw vote that asked: Was there a conflict due to groundrvater lvithout the aquaelude. The result of the straw vote was 5:0 that there \vas a conflict due to ground\vater. The Lane County Planning Commission took a stra\v vote, 6:0 that there \vas a conflict due to groundwater. MINUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County and EugenePlannulg Comnlission Page 2