CC Minutes - 09/26/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

designated as site E-81, the main feature of which was a one-to-two-foot-wide drainage ditch. He stated that it had been protected by a 30-foot easement since 1969 and was a stormwater drainage ditch which ran for a few blocks and disappeared into a culvert. Mr. Wild felt calling it significant was “quite a stretch” and protecting it from its property owners was “pure overkill.” He underscored that the reason the City could designate it in the first place was because the 40-plus property owners had preserved the site intact for 40 years, practicing good stewardship. He opined that PDD now wished to protect the site from its lawful owners, the “ones who had cared for it.” He said the huge setbacks would disallow owners from taking responsibility for the condition of the ditch. Mr. Wild averred that, beyond that, the ordinance would take over 30 percent of the property and would not compensate property owners in any way. He related that assurances had been made by staff that the City would not maintain any part of the site but would only regulate it. He called it ridiculous that the E-81 drainage ditch would be given half the protection the Willamette River was given. He hoped the council would consider the recommendation from the CDCA to lower setbacks to 20 feet. Bonnie Chappa , 999 Lorane Highway, stated that she had been fighting the proposed Goal 5 overlay zone that affected their home since 2003. She was outraged that 80 feet of her property was now being considered for setbacks to allegedly protect an already protected drainage ditch that ran through the property. She echoed Mr. Wild’s concerns. She stated that on her property, the land around the drainage ditch had been developed and landscaped and included a pedestrian bridge. She noted there was also an exposed sewer line crossing the ditch. She said the ditch had only seasonal water in it. She predicted that an 80-foot setback would reduce the value of her property. She related that she felt deceived by PDD staff as they had stated when looking at the ditch that the setback would likely be only 20 feet on either side of it. She urged the council to vote against the larger setback for her property. Cheryl Hunter , 5320 Nectar Way, was concerned about the process being considered specifically regarding the context of the East Amazon headwaters. She thanked the council for steps taken to preserve the land. She wanted to see the process completed and the upland forest included in the recommendations for the Goal 5 inventory. She supported moving forward with the inventory in order to conduct the proper inventory of these lands, specifically because the presence of rare species required it. She noted that Mr. Fodor had spoken about this. She asserted that the East Amazon headwaters area was a high quality riparian zone. She urged a temporary moratorium on development of the higher ranked upland habitat because it was “better than continued piecemeal development.” Ms. Hunter opined that creating a moratorium would be a more effective use of staff because it would allow staff to develop a standard of protection in a thoughtful and rational process that could then be applied to all Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications instead of one at a time. Ms. Hunter said whether or not the council believed the land should be developed, it would create “gridlock and uncertainty” in the land development process. She averred that instead of creating a comprehensive policy for protecting resources, the process of this protection would be forced into the PUD process. She felt staff would be forced to determine the question of protection for each parcel considered for development. She also wished to speak in support of the developers’ concerns regarding working with the steep properties. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, wanted to speak to the motion Councilor Taylor made in the work session to place a temporary moratorium on development in areas in the Goal 5 mapping that ranked 66 points or above in natural resources. She thought the community would have an opportunity to speak on the motion. She wished to express concern about the “rushed Goal 5 process” and the development that continued in the Goal 5 inventory. She thought it irresponsible and illogical and a waste of taxpayer’s money to allow MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session