Laserfiche WebLink
Prior to Completion of Commission Recommendations on LUCU, which was the preferred option of the <br />Planning Commission. She said that it had been suggested the council might wish to separate action on the <br />tree regulations in a separate ordinance and adopt them before adoption of the full LUCU update (Option <br />3A). The other option, 3B, was to consider the recommendations related to tree preservation in the context of <br />the council's overall discussion of the LUCU update. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt Option 3A as presented by staff in <br /> the diagram accompanying the meeting materials. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor advocated for adopting a tree ordinance as soon as possible. She supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the additional public hearing before the Planning Commission. He also supported <br />Option 3A because it could be done quickly. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Childs said that the Chapter 6 and 9 changes would occur in <br />tandem and both would be the subject of a public hearing on March 28 before the Planning Commission. The <br />council would consider both chapters during its review of the Land Use Code Update. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would like staff to take the earlier draft ordinance (November 5, 1999) and identify <br />where each section went. He was concerned about language in the briefing statement about new and <br />expanded criteria for preservation of "significant vegetation." He said that he would not support language for <br />planned unit developments that was that "fuzzy," because he did not think it benefitted either developers or <br />citizens. He preferred the text from the November 1999 Chapter 6 revisions be included in the Chapter 9 <br />work. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr questioned whether the City had done sufficient outreach to those who would be most affected by <br />the ordinance, those who intended to purchase houses in the future. He wanted to ensure that those people <br />had the opportunity to attend the commission's hearing and to let the council know how they felt. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 supported Option 3B. He believed that there needed to be an integrated process, and the tree <br />ordinance was sufficiently integrated with land use planning at the current time that it did not need to given a <br />higher priority than other important City issues. He endorsed the additional Planning Commission hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also endorsed the additional commission hearing. She said that there were one or two things <br />she would have liked to have seen pulled out of the LUCU review and processed separately, but was <br />concerned that pulling the tree preservation regulations out of the review would lead to a rushed or incomplete <br />review, or could push the adoption of LUCU out farther. She did not want that process to take longer, and <br />suggested that best course might be to keep the issues together. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by <br /> substituting Option 3B for 3A. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he did not want the tree ordinance to slip if the Land Use Code Update review time line <br />slipped. For that reason, he preferred Option 3A and would oppose the amendment. Ms. Taylor agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee pointed out that the council was discussing a time line difference between processes of only four <br />months. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />