Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commission majority did not believe could be mininlized to an acceptable <br />level. The motion passed, ullanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe stated that the Lane County Planning <br />COnl111ission needed to address the variance issue in its motion to provide direction to the Lane County Board <br />of C01l11nissioneJ's. <br /> <br />1'he L,ane C:ounty Planning COl1unissioll took a recess fronl 8:00 p.m. to 8:05 p.m. <br /> <br />M.r. Canl1ichael, seconded by Ms. Kirkham, moved to recomnlend to the <br />Lane County Board of Conlrnissioners that the Planning C0111ffiission felt <br />the PAPA information \vas adequate al1d that the resource was not <br />significant. Lal1e County Plalming Comnlission did not find that the <br />conflicts witll dust, groundwater, \vetlands and flooding were minimized and <br />therefore could 110t recomnlend approval witIlout an ESEE allalysis. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkill stated the Plannitlg Com111ission never discussed \vhether or not it could approve tlle 1110t10n \vith <br />approval'of all ESEE analysis. <br /> <br />Followin,g a brief discussion, M:r. Cannichael \vithdre\v the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkin, secol1ded by Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, 1110ved to recommend to the <br />Lane County Board of Commissiol;.lers that the Planning Commission felt <br />the PAP A infornlatiol1 \vas adequate and that the resource \vas not <br />significant In addition, tIle Lane County PlannitlgComn1ission did not find <br />that the COllflicts with dust, groundwater, \vetlands and flooding could be <br />Inininlized to an acceptable level and therefore cannot recoffil11end approval <br />of the application. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said he would vote against the 1110tion. Addressing the members of the public ir! attendance, he <br />said \vhile he often spoke sternly and in'a straightforward manner, he had a great deal of compassion for the <br />residel1ts, in that he faced mall)' of ' the san1e challenges. He \vas confident that the Eugene City Council and <br />Lane County Board of Conlffiissiol1ers would be highly compassionate to\vards the residents of the area to <br />find balance in their decision. He applauded the residents for their patience, courte-sy and respectful <br />behavior. <br /> <br />The n10tion passed 4:2, with Comnlissioners Calwichael and Sullivan in <br />opposition. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcller tllanked the Lane County Planning Comlnission for tlleir efforts throughout this difficult <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said it was good to have a different perspective brought forth by the Eugene Planning <br />C:olnnlission on the issue. He added tllat the variance issue still needed to be discussed prior to the LCBCC <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Ho\ve said stafflleard the frustration expressed by tIle lay menlbers of the Plaruling Commission <br />regarding their lack of experienc.e and expertise. He adde.d it \vas not expected that the commissioners would <br />be experts on these issues, but rather it was the responsibility of the applicant and the opposition to provide <br />convincing infoflllation. He'added the LCBCC were not technical experts either, but relied upon the lay <br />body to nlake recoml11endations that \vould help them as they \vorked their \vay through the process. He <br />comnlended the con1ffiissioners for their work 011 the issue. <br /> <br />MINUTES- August 30, 2006 <br />Joint Lane County and E.ugene Planning COlnnliss1on <br /> <br />Page 11 <br />