Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the definition of a large lot, Mr. Kelly said that a <br />large lot was defined at 20,000 square feet or larger. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the smallest tree that would come under the <br />proposed rule, Mr. Snyder said that regulated trees had to be eight inches in diameter at breast <br />height. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr raised concern over putting restrictions on housing because of trees. He said he was <br />against the motion because it was too restrictive of property rights. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was against the motion. He raised concern over added staff costs. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the motion was a step in the right direction and commented that the <br />proposed rule should apply to even smaller lots. She commented that removal of five trees a <br />year was like sequential logging. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 opposed the motion. He said that the rule would compete with solar light standards and <br />work against urban density. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the rule would apply to <br />diseased or dead trees, Mr. Snyder said that there would be exemptions for diseased and <br />hazardous trees. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding why Eugene differed from Springfield in <br />that they regulated eight-inch trees as opposed to five-inch trees, Mr. Snyder said that the eight- <br />inch rule was not a deviation from current regulations. He was not sure why Springfield had a <br />five-inch rule. <br /> <br /> The motion failed 5:3, with Mr Kelly, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that putting tree standards in Chapter 9 integrated tree planning with land use <br />planning. He believed that this would make things more straightforward for the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> change the code to include a new requirement that the City execute a <br /> performance agreement for all subdivisions to help enforce tree preservation <br /> plans. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the motion duplicated something that <br />already existed in the draft code, Ms. Bishow said that the performance agreement was currently <br />included in all land use applications that contained tree preservation standards except the <br />subdivision application. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding how much staff costs would increase as a <br />result of the passage of the motion, Ms. Bishow opined that the cost would be marginal. She <br />said that staff would come back to council with an overall picture of staff costs as a result of the <br />changes in the draft code. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />