New Search
However, when comparing these costs to those using the option in which the <br /> City plants and establishes the street trees we arrive at similar figures. For <br /> example, a lot with 90 -100 feet of street frontage could require three trees costing <br /> $900 - $1200 depending on whether it was classified as a local or collector street. <br /> A lot with 50 -60 feet of street frontage could require two trees costing $600- $800. <br /> Therefore, depending on the average size of the subdivision lots, these costs <br /> are accurate and generally within the range of cost anticipated. Therefore, there is <br /> no need to adjust the rule <br /> Comment 16: Every lot is subject to a set of CC &Rs that require the <br /> approval of a Landscape Plan that includes Street Trees. In those CC &Rs the <br /> homeowner is required to maintain the trees. If they do not then the Architectural <br /> Control Committee or the City of Eugene has the right to enforce the CC &Rs. <br /> Finding: Section 7.280(3) of the Eugene Code, 1971 requires a developer <br /> to obtain approval of a Street Tree Plan prior to receiving approval of the final plat. <br /> The purpose of placing this task on the developer is to insure that a single entity, <br /> instead of a series of future property owners, is made responsible for ensuring tree <br /> planting and establishment occurring within the street right -of -way. While a <br /> developer may include City imposed PUD conditions in the CC &Rs the City does <br /> not directly participate in the establishment or enforcement of CC &Rs. CC &Rs are <br /> used by the developer to set and communicate development conditions on future use <br /> of the private lots prior to their sale. In addition, since the right -of -way is not a <br /> part of the private lot, CC &Rs are not valid for placing conditions on facilities <br /> within the public right -of -way. <br /> Comment 17: It seems that this issue could be handled much less <br /> expensively if it were treated the same as weeds on vacant properties, wherein the <br /> City notifies the owners of noncompliance and if not corrected, the City acts. <br /> Finding: The program referenced for control of "weeds" on vacant <br /> properties is a code enforcement program intended to reduce the potential fire <br /> hazard during the summer by requiring removal of uncontrolled vegetation. It is <br /> impracticable to recover the costs of inspection of all vacant lots within the City <br /> solely from those where violations are found to exist. Therefore, the "weed" <br /> program does not have the ability to recover the full costs associated with providing <br /> the service. <br /> In contrast, the tree planting program implemented by these administrative <br /> rules is intended to ensure that development standards and the goals of the Local <br /> Street Plan and Urban Forest Management Plan are met. The benefitted properties <br /> Exhibit B to Street Tree Plan Agreement <br />