New Search
the final plat occurs prior to submission of applications for building permits, it is not <br />anticipated that this requirement will impact building permit processing time. Since no <br />specific examples of "vagueness" are cited, no response can be made to that portion of the <br />comment, nor modification or clarification of the rules. <br />Comment 15: The added costs associated with the Local Street Plan amount to <br />$1,099 per subdivision lot. <br />Findin :The cost analysis cited was prepared using the option in which the <br />developer plants and establishes the street trees. while not debating the costs cited, a <br />number of the items listed represented subcontractor or supplier costs to be incurred by the <br />developer, and not practicable for city staff to verify. <br />However, when comparing these costs to those using the option in which the City <br />plants and establishes the street fees we arrive at similar figures. For example, a lot with 90- <br />100 feet of street frontage could require three trees costing $960 - $1200 depending on <br />whether it was classified as a local or collector street. A lot with 50-~0 feet of street frontage <br />could require two trees costing $d00- $500. <br />Therefore, depending on the average size of the subdivision lots, these costs are <br />accurate and generally within the range of cost anticipated. Therefore, there is no need to <br />ad j ust the rule <br />Comment lb; Every lot is subject to a set of CC&Rs that require the approval of a <br />Landscape Plan that includes Street Trees. In those CC&Rs the homeowner is required to <br />maintain the trees. If they do not then the Architectural Control Committee or the City of <br />Eugene has the right to enforce the CCB~Rs. <br />Findin :Section 7.2803} of the Eugene Code, 1971 requires a developer to obtain <br />approval of a Street Tree Plan prior to receiving approval of the final plat. The purpose of <br />placing this task on the developer is to insure that a single entity, instead of a series of future <br />property owners, is made responsible for ensuring txee planting and establishment occurring <br />within the streetright-of-way. while a developer may include Cifiy imposed PUD conditions <br />in the CC&Rs the City does not directly participate in the establishment or enforcement of <br />CC&Rs, CC&Rs are used by the developer to set and communicate development conditions <br />on future use of the private lots prior to their sale. In addition, since the right-of-way is not <br />a part of the private lot, CC&Rs are not valid for placing conditions on facilities within the <br />publicright-of way. <br />Comment 17: _ 1t seems that this issue could be handled much less expensively if it <br />were treated the same as weeds on vacant properties, wherein the City notifies the owners <br />of noncompliance and if not corrected, the City acts. <br />Fib: The program referenced for control of "weeds" on vacant properties is a <br />code enforcement program intended to reduce the potential fire hazard during the summer <br />by requiring removal of uncontrolled vegetation. It is impracticable to recover the casts of <br />inspection of all vacant lots within the City solely from those where violations are found to <br />Exhibit B to Street Tree Plan Agreement <br />97-00421 <br />