Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Wetland. Even if there were no flowing water, this site would be recommended for protection as a wetland site. No change is recommended. For further discussion of the issue of blockage of this stream segment see staff response under #96 below. 58. Reer. Doug & Sharon, 1786 Moonshadow, Eugene. Regarding Site E37 0, South Rills at Barber; within city limits. Ris testimony notes that the stream in Site E37 0 is intermittent and flows out of a roadside ditch, that two streams that flow year-round are not included in the inventory, and that it is these two other streams that flow into the wetland area AMA-14 ("Barbur Park") rather than the stream mapped as E37 O. Staff response: The Heers own an undeveloped parcel (1803162303100), of approximately 0.66 acres, off of Barber Drive at South Shasta Loop. It is a long, narrow lot, approximately 300 feet long by 90 to 120 feet wide. It appears that most of the Reer's concerns and noted inconsistencies are the result of City mapping errors related to streams in that area. Staff agrees that the open ditch mentioned by Mr. Heer is primarily a roadside ditch that extends from South Shasta Loop down the length of the Reer property, along the toe of the adjacent hillside. The portion of this drainage ditch along South Shasta Loop is not included in the adopted Inventory. The portion of the ditch that flows through the Heer property was incorrectly included as part of site E370. There are 2 other streams in the immediate area that were intended to be included in site E370;a portion of one of these was inadvertently excluded. These 2 streams appear to be the year-round streams to which Mr. Heer refers, and both streams flow into the wetland area below (AMA-14), which adjoining neighbors call the "Barber Park" wetland (it is not a City park). The east stream segment crosses the comer of the Reer property at South Shasta Loop, approximately 10-20 feet into the property. The west stream segment does not intersect the Heer property. Previous City mapping of this site contains the following errors: 1) incorrectly shows site E370 as including the roadside ditch and extending across almost all of the Heer property; and 2) inadvertently omits a portion of the westernmost stream. Correctly mapped, a 40- foot setback on the site E370 would extend into the Heer property approximately 15 to 40 feet at the southwest corner. Currently, a gravel access driveway into the property lies within this area. This driveway is the only access into the property. As the fWR provisions are currently drafted, an existing gravel driveway with no associated buildings would not qualify as "exempt development" under draft section 9.4920(5). This situation raises an question that was also raised by a number of other property owners who spoke with staffby phone, and that is whether a new private access road could cross a stream protected under the IWR overlay zone, where that access point is the only access available to serve a parcel. Staff initially concluded that the draft fWR provisions allowed such an access with a Type II standards review under 9.4930(3)(b). However, as drafted, that provision would only allow such an access if it is a public improvement and if it is either required by the Land Use Code or specified in an adopted land use plan. In order to ensure allowance of a private stream crossing where no other access to a legal lot is ~