New Search
• On the issue of tree numbers: your transmittal document states that the "City will not <br /> require more trees than shown on approved PUD and PEPI plans." In looking at <br /> Administrative Rule R- 7.280, which governs the planting standards for street trees in new <br /> development, R- 7.280 -D states that "A Street Tree Plan shall...Reflect the spacing of <br /> trees, which shall average 30 curb feet on center along all existing and newly created <br /> streets within or abutting the development site while meeting the location standards of <br /> these rules, unless the provisions of Sections 9.2175(3)(c) or 9.3815 (2)(e)3 of the <br /> Eugene Code, 1971 require a different spacing of trees." Planning staff confirmed to me <br /> that neither of those special zoning citations is applicable in this case. Based on program <br /> experience, I have found that specifying a certain number of trees in plan documents can <br /> lead to false expectations. When all the infrastructure is finally in place, there often are <br /> less spaces for trees than originally planned. But, just as I would prefer not to require a <br /> certain specific minimum number of trees, knowing that less may be the result, so I <br /> cannot say that a certain number will be all that is required, especially when that <br /> maximum number does not appear to comply with the standard of the Rule of averaging <br /> 30 feet on center. As I indicated in my first review of the plans, there appears to be room <br /> for about 10 more trees than are shown on the plans and noted as "projected" on the <br /> design team's inspection and tracking forms. The language that addresses this issue best <br /> is the original language supplied: "The City of Eugene will not hold Arlie to the <br /> recommended number of trees, but instead to the required number of trees based on field <br /> conditions and Administrative Rule R- 7.280." <br /> • Regarding your design team's original proposal that the sidewalk on Crescent Avenue be <br /> allowed to meander outside of the public right -of -way into the public utility easement, the <br /> Hearing Official's decision on this issue was made on May 28, 2004. Her ruling stated <br /> that the sidewalk could meander, but that it had to remain in the right -of -way. I did give <br /> a copy of your letter of August 31 to Jeff Lankston, Director of the Public Works <br /> Maintenance Division for his information; courtesy copies you listed in that letter <br /> included Kurt Corey, Director of Public Works and Tom Coyle, Director of Planning and <br /> Development. I do not believe I have the authority to overrule the decision made by the <br /> Hearing Official; I will send a copy of your September 15 letter to Jeff Lankston and <br /> Kurt Cory for their information. You certainly can raise this issue with either or both of <br /> them as you feel appropriate. <br /> I hope you find my remarks helpful in completing the application process. If there is some issue <br /> you feel I am not understanding, please feel free to call me to arrange a meeting with me and <br /> Johnny Medlin. We would be glad to try to answer any other questions you have. You can reach <br /> me at 682 -4819 through the end of this week. I'll be out of town at a conference October 4 <br /> through the 7th. I might not have the answers at hand immediately, but I'll do my best to provide <br /> answers in a timely manner. <br /> Sincerely, 'X <br /> O <br /> Mark R. Snyder <br /> Urban Forester <br /> cc: Johnny Medlin, Director, Parks and Open Space Division <br /> Jeff Lankston, Director, Maintenance Division <br /> Kurt Corey, Director of Public Works <br /> 1 <br />