10/08/1990 Meeting (2)
City of Eugene
10/08/1990 Meeting (2)
7/23/2007 11:16:25 PM
11/2/2006 4:55:59 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br /> e boundary (UGB). A separate process will be developed to address changes to <br /> the area inside the city limits. Mr. Lowe explained that the draft ordinance <br /> included in the council's packet contained several errors which have been <br /> corrected in a revised version provided this evening. <br /> Mr. Lowe said that the draft ordinance contains separate appeals process <br /> provisions for two different appeals processes: Option A outlines a process <br /> involving the Eugene Hearings Official, and Option B indicates that the Lane <br /> County Board of Commissioners would hear appeals to tree issues. The Eugene <br /> Planning Commission recommends adoption of Option A. Mr. Lowe added that <br /> both planning commissions recommend that any ordinance adopting changes to <br /> the current tree preservation code be formally reviewed within two years. <br /> The Eugene Planning Commission recommends that the draft ordinance, as <br /> amended by the Lane County Planning Commission, be forwarded to the Lane <br /> County Board of Commissioners for adoption. The Lane County Planning <br /> Commission also forwarded the ordinance to the board but did not include a <br /> recommendation for approval or rejection. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman regarding a memorandum from the Home <br /> Builders Association of Lane County, Mr. Lowe clarified that a specific <br /> permit fee structure has been included in the revised ordinance before the <br /> council. <br /> Answering questions from councilors, Mr. Lowe said that the Eugene Planning <br /> Commission unanimously recommended Option A. The Lane County Planning <br /> Commission was unable to reach consensus, so did not take a formal vote but <br /> - forwarded the ordinance to the board with no recommendation. <br /> Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. <br /> Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, considered the purpose of the ordinance <br /> to be the protection of something of value that is unique to Eugene. She <br /> commended staff for involving affected citizens in developing what she <br /> considered a fair proposal. She encouraged the council to recommend that the <br /> Lane County Board of Commissioners adopt the ordinance, and she supported <br /> Option A. <br /> Richard Wright, 1043 Mill Street, supported the proposed ordinance, which he <br /> considered a workable compromise that addresses a public health issue. <br /> Barry Davis, 1775 East 43rd Avenue, said that property owners receive <br /> benefits in exchange for the burdens imposed by land regulation and that <br /> owners of land in the UGB benefit when that land is annexed to the city. He <br /> urged the council to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance and <br /> stressed the importance of hiring an urban forester who recognizes that the <br /> value of the vegetation and wildlife on UGB land exceeds the value of timber <br /> harvest on that land. <br /> Brian McCarthy, 1848 Madison, identified himself as a landscape architect who <br /> supported the proposed ordinance. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.