1994 Tree Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

A major factor to note here is that this ordinance change should have no effect on existing single family residences less than 20,000 square feet in size. This category contains most of Eugene's property owners and they re- main exempt from the ordinance. Another factor is the inclusion of "subdivisions" and "major and minor parti- tions" into the plot plan definition. While PUD do have some criteria to look at for tree felling these others don't. Adding them into the "plot plan" definition and then not requiring the additional criteria in 6.320 (2) which was added seems to be going to opposing directions. The most significant impact seems to be placed on the individual homebuilder who wishes to construct a home in the South Hills. New provisions which may add to the permittees cost include: 1. Preparation of a logging plan when the request for felling trees exceed ten trees. The private small land owner who wishes to remove trees from a small parcel would likely not be qualified to prepare this plan and would need contract for its preparation with a forester. Raising the number of trees to 25 would mitigate most of this problem. 2. Requiring the small land owner, with more than 10 trees to remove, to wait for 30 days to receive approval to fell trees will stop the current perceived time saving practice of clearing the parcel in preparation for placement of foundations for a house while awaiting the building permit which is being processed at the PIC. Raising the number of trees to 25 would miti- gate most of this problem. Another alternative would be for the builder to obtain the building permit at an earlier date which would avoid this issue. 3. Making staff responsible to determine if the notification process is needed in cases where less than ten trees is removed without creating crite- ria for making that decision will like result in controversy either way staff decides. 4. The addition to the criteria in 6.320 (1) (c) for permit issuance of the statement "including scenic and wildlife values" introduces arbitrary crite- ria for evaluation. The decision on what "scenic" means will vary from per- son to person and wether you are a person who is looking at the site from a distance or the person who wishes remove trees to look out from the site at other scenic amenities in the surrounding landscape. A similar arbitrary criteria addition in 6.320 (2) (b) would likely result in staff decisions that "any" wooded area would perceived by "someone" in a future development as an attractive on -site amenity and should be retained. This in effect may be saying that no permit should be issued for wooded areas. 5. The new Tree Ordinance establishes the right to charge fees for processing tree felling permits. Recovery of staff expenses would be the basis for the fee which would be established. A three tier approach for the establishment of fees would best fit the different types of applications historically re- ceived. Staff # of Trees Felled Typical Reason for Felling Hours Fee