New Search
"EUGENE Public Works <br /> • Engineering <br /> City of Eugene <br /> December 19, 1994 - 858 Pearl Street <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97401 <br /> (503) - 687 -5291 <br /> Mr. Jim Breeden <br /> Breeden Homes <br /> 366 E. 40th Avenue, Suite 250 • <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97405 • <br /> RE: LYNNBROOK 11, WETLANDS <br /> Dear Mr. Breeden: <br /> Thank you for your November 2, 1994, letter requesting a public drainage designation for <br /> the wetland areas within your proposed development, vacation of an off -site private <br /> drainage easement, and other related issues concerning the wetland areas in <br /> Lynnbrook II. I apologize for any confusion that may have occurred due to our failure to <br /> respond in writing. We had concluded that your letter was a submittal for the subdivision <br /> plat review and that we would respond through that process. <br /> We have reviewed your request and have drawn the following conclusions: <br /> 1. We strongly support your suggestion to place restrictions in the declaration of <br /> covenants, conditions, and restrictions for Lynnbrook II and, in addition, to identify <br /> the wetland area as an important natural resource. It is our belief that the more <br /> one can include natural features as an amenity to a development, the greater the <br /> ownership will be by the future residents. You've shown that it can work well in <br /> your Timberline developments. <br /> 2. The north -south ditch, as you described in section 3.3, provides most of the <br /> drainage between the two wetland areas. In addition, the ditch or natural drainage <br /> way serves an area outside the City's Urban Growth Boundary, but is not <br /> interconnected with any future drainage system the City contemplates. For <br /> drainage purposes, we have no current or foreseeable future purpose for a public <br /> easement over the wetlands. <br /> 3. Based on the information submitted with your letter, we don't see a need to direct <br /> the roof drainage to the wetlands. It seems that an alternative of connecting to the <br /> road drainage system would be more appropriate. If the purpose of connection is <br /> todprovvide more flow to the wetlands, we question the need given that most of the <br /> roof .flow will occur during the wet months which will also meet the hydroperiod - -- <br /> nee c s the wetlands. Our concern is that by introducing additional flow to the <br /> wetland and also restricting discharge by using a standpipe system, you may in <br /> effect destroy the stable wetland that exists there now. <br />