Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the proposed performance agreement <br />would cause delays in residential development, Ms. Bishow opined that it would not cause a <br />delay and added that if the agreement was required it would make any conditions of the <br />subdivision, such as those addressing tree protection, more understandable. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether the proposed motion would remove <br />any developable land from the inventory, Ms. Bishow said that it would not, and added that the <br />motion would simply give the City another tool to ensure compliance with standards. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether there would be any impact to the cost <br />of development, Ms. Bishow said that it would not as long as there was a willingness to comply. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the City's obligation for notification of <br />the public about what residents needed to do to comply with the new rule, Ms. Bishow said that <br />the City was striving to make the public more aware of tree protection rules and to be more <br />flexible in the kind of trees that could be used for replanting by providing a list of native species <br />that the public could work from. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor stressed the importance of putting the performance agreement in the deed for the <br />property when it was sold so the new owners would be aware of it at the time of purchase. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would support the motion because it made good sense by applying <br />exactly the same rule to subdivisions as planned unit developments and other land use <br />decisions. He believed that staff costs and costs to new home owners would be minimal. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding what the motion would achieve, Ms. Bishow <br />said that passage of the motion would add a new enforcement tool for subdivisions by requiring <br />the City to create a legal binding agreement with the property owner at the time they received <br />approval of the subdivision that they would adhere to the conditions of approval. <br /> <br /> The motion passed 6:2, with Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey took a short break to notify the council that there were 25 people signed up to <br />speak at the regular session's public forum speaking only to the tobacco issue. He called for <br />direction from the council since council rules said that the public forum could not exceed 30 <br />minutes and this time limit would not allow 3 minutes to speak for each person. There was <br />general consensus among the council to divide the 30 minutes allowed for the public forum by <br />the number of people signed up to speak and give each person an equal portion of time (though <br />less than 3 minutes). <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly directed the council's attention to item 4 on the motion sheet regarding subsequent <br />actions impacting trees. He called for consensus from the council that a motion was not needed <br />for this item and that staff would try to clarify the existing code language specified in his proposed <br />motion. There was general consensus. <br /> <br />Regarding the next motion, Mr. Kelly said that he wanted a pro forma records check so that new <br />owners would not cut trees that had been preserved, by the original developer, as a natural area. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />