Reader comments
Zoning proposal irks residents near rivers

All properties have an easement restrictions, even for those with water rights. Do any of these homes have water rights to the creek? This ordinance makes sense and does more to protect the homes and creeks than it does to infringe on developing land along the creek banks. I have seen many homes I thought were too close to the creeks and felt they were living there on borrowed time and could be serverly damaged in a high water year runoff. These creeks are natural routes for excessive water in wet years and it should have more protections to keep the creeks clear of homes and buildings. These same homeowners in a flood will ask why the city didn't do anything to protect them, well, this is one of those efforts. The developers are probably behind the whole thing and getting the residents riled up so they can develope and do more damage to the creeks. Water and runoff is more curcial than these homeowners wishes to further develope creek banks unsafely. The natural path of the creeks must be secured and protected. The homeowners are not being forced off their land as implied although some should be.

I think this type of zoning change is long overdue throughout the valley. I understand the challenge it is to homeowners, but if natural vegetation were restored the stream banks will be more stable, there will be less flooding and more wildlife to see. It should also reduce future pollution as less fertilizer is used and water infiltration increased due to less compaction of the soils. In the long run this type of change should will benefit everyone. The emphasis on off site pollution should continue to be stressed. We indeed all life down stream and clean water should be important to us all.

Our stream, rivers and wetlands are a sacred trust. Property rights are not absolute. I would love to convert my duplex to a four-plex to improve my cash flow, but those zoning meanies won't let me because of small details like parking etc. Are my property rights being violated? No it's just part of being a good citizen. Come on you whiners, buck up do what's right.

I live on Emigration Creek and want to protect the land as much as anyone else. That's why we love living here. I also want to protect my children by putting up a fence to keep them away from the water. I'm happy to consult with all the experts necessary to ensure it's done correctly. There is a basketball court in our yard perched directly above the creek (previous owners put it in) and we would like to move it farther away from the creek and return the area to it's original state with scrub oak etc. Under this ordinance, we can't do this even though it would benefit the natural path of the creek. We aren't whiners.

I agree with the posters above. Mother of 4, your thoughts are admirable. I would think however, that you could get a permit to do what you'd like if it benefits the natural path of the creek. Some of the landowners agruments aren't sound. Losing 200 feet of your property for instance - does he expect that he can just build what he wants over the top of the creek? And the proposed ordinance does affect possible erosion problems. The new development would likely require armoring of the stream bank. This results in increased erosion adjacent to the armoring. It is the cities responsibility to protect land owners from flooding and erosion problems along these creeks.

One part to be considered is the impact of stormwater runoff causing stream flows to rise rapidly during storms. This results from impermable surfaces - roofs, patios, roadways, parking lots causing preciptation to runoff quickly rather than soaking into ground, and slowly seeping out later to sustain stremflows.
Any new driveways, patios, walkways, etc. should be required to be made of permeable pavements - concrete or ashphalt, that lets the water soak in and minimizes disturbance to the natural hydrology.