Based on.the response, the applicant will be required to plant the requested number of trees <br />on the site adjacent to the lot requesting the plantings. With written agreement from the <br />property owner the location and plantings can be adjusted. If the property owners do not <br />respond to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the mailing, the applicant will not be <br />required to provide additional trees along that lot boundary. <br />To ensure the long term survival of the trees if they are requested, the following condition of approval <br />is also warranted: <br />The final tree preservation/landscape plan (Sheet 1-1) shall show the location and species of <br />required new trees (proposed trees plus additional screening as requested by the neighbors) . <br />to be planted on the development site. <br />• New trees to be planted on the development site shall be a minimum caliper of 2" for <br />deciduous trees and a minimum height of 6-feet for coniferous or evergreen trees at'time of <br />planting. <br />• The proposed trees shall be planted a minimum of ten feet from structures and must be <br />located outside any easements. <br />• The plantings must be inspected and approved prior to the City granting final approval of the <br />building permit. <br />• A note shall be added to Sheet L-1 noting that "Watering and general maintenance of <br />replacement trees shall be conducted by the owner or lessee in a manner that ensures their <br />establishment and long-term survival." <br />Adequate Screening - The term "adequate screening" is discretionary. Testimony provided by Bill <br />Kloos on behalf of the Oakway Neighbors and other public testimony asserts that "adequate <br />screening" should mean completely block the view. Locally, this term has not been implemented to <br />mean that views (in this case of the cell tower) would be eliminated, but rather screened to a <br />reasonable extent. The Hearings Official in the tentative PUD decision for Good pasture LLC (PDT 09-1) <br />noted that in the case of Sunburst Homeowners Association v. City of West Linn, 17 Or LUBA 401 <br />(1989) LUBA upheld a city determination that the 25-foot-trees would adequately buffer a 110-foot <br />tail water tower. LUBA noted that the term "adequate buffer" gave the city discretion, and did not <br />require the city to ensure that views of the water tower would be eliminated. The term "adequate <br />screening" in the Eugene Code is similarly discretionary. The findings below from the staff report <br />establish that the PUD provides "adequate screening". <br />In that tentative PUD approval (PDT 09-1), which was appealed to the Planning Commission and <br />upheld, an adequate amount of screening was considered to be a combination of a six-foot fence and <br />new landscaping to screen three story apartment buildings. In this case, while the mono-pole is 25- <br />feet taller (75-feet high as compared to 50-foot high apartments) it is not as bulky and setback a <br />greater distance. The existing landscaping on this site is also mature and obscures potential views of <br />the tower from much of the surrounding area. Therefore, the existing mature landscaping combined <br />with the proposed and additional required plantings is found to provide "adequate screening" and the <br />proposed tentative PUD complies with the applicable criterion. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 <br />HO Agenda - Page 1 <br />