Laserfiche WebLink
listen to any councilor who had alternate language that would achieve that objective. He added <br />that he would be open to exempting lots that had under a certain number of trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner raised a concern that the example Ms. Bishow used would become the norm if the <br />motion were passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr opined that trees were what sold residential lots. He trusted the judgement of the people <br />who were trying to sell a particular piece of property. He disagreed with the idea of minimum <br />percentages. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson called for ideas from staff to get closer to the stated objective. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor opined that a minimum percentage was safer in that it would eliminate the practice of <br />totally clear cutting lots. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding other options, Ms. Bishow said that there <br />were choices for a PUD regarding wetland preservation, protection of scenic views, hillside <br />development, and appropriate locations for roads. She said that if a specific percentage of tree <br />preservation were implemented, it would place trees at a different level than those other <br />components and would make finding an appropriate balance more difficult. She suggested an <br />alternative of requiring an applicant to demonstrate that they had explored alternative design <br />scenarios. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs noted that a major shift had occurred over the last five years regarding how tree <br />preservation was looked at. She raised concern that only looking at percentages would drive <br />someone to pick trees on a lot to be preserved that would not survive in the long term just to <br />meet a required percentage. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would not make the motion. He complimented staff on its feedback. He <br />called for staff to provide information on Ms. Bishow's suggestion of requiring applicants to <br />demonstrate that they had explore alternative design scenarios to preserve as many trees as <br />possible and to provide a definition of the term "broadest degree attainable." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the next proposed motion came out of the discussion of possibly putting the <br /> th <br />new federal court house on 5 Avenue. He noted that the Skinner Butte height limitation <br />currently only went south to the railroad tracks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to expand the Skinner Butte height limitation area south to <br /> 6th Avenue, so the north side of 6th Avenue would be included in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that it made perfect sense to include the north side of 6th Avenue in the height <br />limitation area. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the east and west limits of the height <br />limitation area, Ms. Bishow said that the limits were Washington Street on the west and the Ferry <br />Street Bridge on the east. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />