Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment C that community The full report and evidence from the Response Committee is intended to be submitted into the record. At this time, staff has not received the report and evidence. A full and detailed analysis of the proposal and applicable City code criteria has been formalized in the staff report for PDT 17-1. Staff notes that a geotechnical/geologic investigation submitted by the engineer found no significant geologic hazards that would impede or restrict the construction on the site. The investigation also concluded the site is geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, provided that specific recommendations described in the investigation are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found in the staff report at EC 9.8620(2), EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. Staff has recommended a condition of approval at EC 9.8320(6) in the staff report to ensure the recommendations in the engineering investigation are carried out during future development of the site. are in various forms of condition from good to poor. Most of the trees have not been actively maintained for decades, with a significant number of trees damaged by events such as ice storms and severe wind. The applicant has proposed preserving as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating tree preservation in one large area along the eastern border of the property with the heaviest tree population and thereby preserving larger stands of trees in their natural habitat. Preserving large stands of trees will limit further damage from windthrow, which isolated trees are more susceptible to. At this time, all of the trees shown on the lots in areas where construction may occur, also referred to as the buildable area, are listed as discretionary trees that could be removed if a building or structure is proposed. The applicant has proposed a one to one replacement for every tree that needs to be removed for development. It is also important to note that lots will be sold to individual owners and will develop at different times in the future. It is likely that these properties will develop sporadically over time and associated tree removal will occur in the same manner. Tree preservation and replacement are discussed in detail in the staff report at EC 9.8320(2), and EC 9.8320(4)(b) and (c). Testimony Received from Neighbors and Other Interested Parties Staff has received testimony in opposition of the proposed PUD from a number of other neighbors and interested parties. Many of the letters and correspondence received express concern about similar issues. The following is a summary of the issues raised: Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive Leading Up To The Site Pedestrian and bicycle safety conflicts with vehicles. No sidewalks for pedestrians. Sidewalks need to be installed. Roadways are too narrow at 18 feet wide and are substandard. Multiple blind curves on roadways. Vehicles cannot pass each other with a parked vehicle. Difficulty for emergency response vehicles to safely access site. Α Page 67