Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

931 Lorane Highway Eugene, Oregon 97405 26 September 2005. Dear Mayor Piercy, Dear City Councilors, RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2005 CITY OF EUGEI\IE PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Honorable Kitty Piercy, Mayor of Eugene Members of the Eugene City Council 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 The comments below concern our property at 931 Lorane Highway, tax lot 18-04-12-11-00600. The property lies within the site labeled E81. Our main objection to the proposed overlay zone fOf our property and a "category C stream" label for a drainage ditch located on the property: we do not believe it justifiable to lose control over a huge portion of our property to protect an already protected 1-2'-wide drainage ditch. The drainage ditch lies within a 30' utility easement (attachment 1). It is our understanding that utility easements usually measure 15' wide and that this 30'-wide easement is uncommonly generous. The easement protects a drainage ditch that meanders around manhole covers that provide access to the sewer below. The easement prohibits alteration of any kind, according to infonnation we received from the City of Eugene. The original E81 description (attachment 2) speaks of a "narrow, straightened drainage channel". The drainage ditch was indeed straightened when the sewer was installed. In fact, the entire area was dynamited to get to the 10-12' depth where the sewer ended up. The craters were filled with endless truckloads of rock in addition to soil and the land retains its "easy access" flat areas. In addition to the above easement, building limitations, and other restrictions already in place, protective standards apply to all slopes of 100k or greater, which includes the upper portion of our property. We have never Objected to any of the restrictions that protect the drainage ditch on our property, but we do strongly object to an additional overlay zone with 40' setbacks from the top of the bank, setbacks to protect a 1-2' -wide ditch that are equal to almost half of the setbacks proposed for the Willamette Riverl! We find such setbacks grossly excessive. Worse, section 9.4920(1)(c)1. of the proposed ordinance states (Italics added), For conservation setback distances measured from the top of the high bank, the top of the high bank is the highest point at which the bank meets the grade of the surrounding topography, characterized by an abrupt or noticeable change from a steeper grade to a less steep grade, and, where natural conditions prevail, by a noticeable change from topography or vegetation primarily shaped by the presence and/or movement of the water to topography not primarily shaped by the presence of water. Where there is more than one such break in the grade, the uppermost shall be considered the top of the high bank. On the west side of our property, the drainage ditch is situated 30-50' from our property line (surveys for this area are rather flexible on property lines) (attachment 1). We obviously cannot use the section between the west property line and the ditch for any purpose. On the east side of the ditch, the land does not rise significantly for approximately 40-45' and on that flattened stretch, Equisetum (horsetail) is common. In other words, this area can be considered to have vegetation primarily shaped by the presence of the water and if the uppennost (break) shall be considered the top of the high bank, one could conceivably establish a setback at 40' from the east side of that imaginary "top of the high bank". That means we may lose control over as much as 110-135' of our property to protect a 1-2'-wide, artificially made, already protected drainage ditch. With good reason, we can only consider such supposed "protective measures" nothing short of an insupportable, unjustifiable, blatant property grab. We have been told there will be no compensation for the loss of our assets. In fact, we are expected to continue paying all property taxes and insurance and assuming all liabilities and upkeep. In