CC Minutes - 09/25/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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