Laserfiche WebLink
imposed conditions was a term that would be debated and interpreted as each particular <br />application came forward. She said this was one reason why staff recommended removal of the <br />subsection (a) regarding self-imposed hardship. <br />Councilor Meisner said he would not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly said he would support the amendment because the language in the current <br />ordinance was too broad. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon said she would not support the amendment. She said staff needed to be <br />flexible in reviewing adjustment requests. She stressed the importance of listening to the <br />judgement of staff and added that not every request needed a public hearing. She said the <br />amendment was not fair to business or the development community. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said the amendment was based on the original language of the existing code <br />and actually allowed more flexibility than the original code although not as much as the proposed <br />language. <br /> <br />The amendment failed, 4:2; councilors Kelly and Bettman voting in favor. <br /> <br />é <br />In response to a question from Councilor Pap regarding the reason why conifer trees were not <br />counted as canopy trees, Ms. Bishow said this was one of the reasons the Planning <br />A@ <br />Commission had recommended removal of the word canopy from Ordinance 5 as a specific <br />A@ <br />code mandate for basic landscape areas. She said there had been a suggestion by the council at <br />the February 24 work session for staff to provide a change in the code definition of canopy from <br />A@ <br />the current definition. She said that doing this would put the council in a situation where it was <br />amending a part of the code that had never been the subject of a public hearing. She said it <br />would have broad implications for the code document if the council started considering changes to <br />code sections that were not included in the Fall 2002 code amendments. <br /> <br />é <br />In response to a question from Councilor Pap regarding whether there were conifer trees that <br />provided good canopy shade, Ms. Bishow said there were and added that many trees that would <br />not meet the code standard of one canopy tree per 30 linear feet. She reiterated that this was <br />why the Planning Commission had recommended removal of the word canopy in the proposed <br />A@ <br />Ordinance 5. She said there were truly magnificent trees that would not be counted as canopy <br />A@ <br />trees. She said the Planning Commission had trusted the judgement of landscape architects to <br />come up with landscaping ideas without the requirement of using canopy trees as defined in the <br />current code. She said the council had directed staff to keep the word canopy in the proposed <br />A@ <br />code language and continue to regulate the kind of trees that could go into a landscaped area. <br />Ms. Bishow reiterated that there was no change to the requirement of canopy trees in parking <br />A@ <br />areas. <br /> <br />é <br />Councilor Pap seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the <br />motion by removing the word canopy from Ordinance 5. <br />A@ <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Solomon regarding current allowances for adjustment in <br />planting canopy trees, Ms. Bishow said a developer could currently request an adjustment to the <br />canopy tree standard. She noted that approval criteria would have to be met before an <br />adjustment was granted. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 9 <br />C <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />