CC Minutes - 02/21/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

upgrades or improvements needed to occur because of the traffic impact. She averred that a TIA was just a part of conducting due diligence. Mr. Clark said while Ms. Bettman referred to this item as the council was relying on information from the applicant, he would be relying on the unanimous consent of both planning commissions to guide his decision. Mr. Yeiter noted that there were three questions under Traffic. The City could find a conflict due to traffic but it could also find such a conflict could be minimized through the imposition of conditions. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Yeiter affirmed that the planning commissions had not challenged the County’s assertion that a TIA was not needed because of the consistency of production. Mr. Zelenka surmised that this was because production would not be increased at this time. He pointed out that unless there was a conditional use that would dictate that production would stay at that level, it could change. He said if the gravel operation decided to double production there would be a concurrent doubling of traffic. He did not see how they could make this assumption without making a conditional use provision. Ms. Jerome stated that the first step would be to determine the impact area, which could not be more than 1,500 feet from the proposed expansion area boundary unless there were circumstances that warranted the consideration of a larger area. She noted that both planning commissions had found 1,500 feet to be the appropriate area. Mr. Zelenka indicated he would vote that this was a conflict because there was no indication that a conditional use was being considered and no TIA to indicate otherwise. Mr. Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that the council was to determine whether there was a current conflict as opposed to a conflict over a period of time. He related that he had some concern regarding the future of the company. He said if the current owners sold the business there would be no way to know how the future owners would choose to operate the business at this point. He did not know if the council could make this decision based on this potential. Ms. Jerome commented that this pointed to the importance of making conditions. She did not think the council could make a final decision without knowing where the County was going with respect to those decisions. Mr. Yeiter pointed out that aside from the County mining permits, production levels were also regulated by LRAPA and other agencies. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting by five minutes. The mo- tion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 8 Work Session