Laserfiche WebLink
D. Create additional tree preservation standards to enhance protection of <br /> "Heritage Trees" and design a process to identify heritage trees in the <br /> community. <br /> E. Update the South Hills Study and/or work on special code provisions <br /> for the/HD hillside development overlay zone. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the reason behind Item D, Mr. Kelly said <br />that there was currently an awkward process of identifying heritage trees and he was interested <br />in a process that would identify them over time. As an example, he said that neighborhood <br />groups or volunteer groups could be enlisted to nominate specific trees. He stressed that <br />heritage trees on private land had no protection whatsoever. He said the purpose of the motion <br />was to look into that fact. <br /> <br />Regarding item A, Ms. Nathanson asked if residential development was being encouraged in <br />places where there currently was none, or were places that already had second stow residential <br />being encouraged to add third and fourth stories. Mr. Kelly said the motion was intentionally left <br />broader. He said that the motion was in response to testimony that the draft code did not go as <br />far as it should in promoting mixed use. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that not only upper stow development be encouraged but also <br />adjacent building development on single lots as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pulled Item A. <br /> <br /> Items B-E of the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested, to general consensus, that item A be tabled until there was discussion <br />of commercial development standards and density. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that motion 3 was initiated by Mr. Kelly. She noted that staff had a concern <br />regarding the concept of always having a minimum required percent of tree protection. She said <br />that in applicable land use applications the suggestion was 35 percent for areas zoned R-1 and <br />20 percent for all other areas. She noted that the draft code allowed the developer the option of <br />having a development request evaluated according to clear and objective standards where there <br />was a percent of tree protection required or meeting a certain outcome-based approach where, <br />to the degree possible, they preserve trees. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said the primary staff concern with minimum thresholds was that there could be <br />situations where other community objectives could not be achieved if there was such an <br />emphasis placed on trees. Achieving density or preserving other natural resources, such as <br />wetlands, might not be possible if a certain percent of trees needed to be preserved. She said <br />that there was another concern that if discretionary criteria was used to approve a land use <br />application that had a quantifiable standard, then that would become the norm or benchmark. As <br />an example, she surmised that an applicant, rather than trying to preserve as many trees as <br />possible, would stay at the 20 percent level. <br />Mr. Kelly said that his intent was to avoid discretionary language that talked about preserving <br />trees to the "greatest degree attainable." He commented that he had seen Hearings Officials say <br />that the greatest degree attainable was zero. He said that he was trying to put in a set amount <br />that would avoid that much discretion by a Hearings Official. He expressed his willingness to <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />