CC Minutes - 03/14/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

“Authorized modification: The current Land Use Code is waived, and the land use code in effect on July 31, 2001, one day prior to the effective date of the Land Use Code Update is re-imposed for the subject property.” Ms. Bettman offered the amendment because she believed the resolution demonstrated one of the problems with Ballot Measure 37. She thought it imperative to avoid allowing applicants to cherry-pick the code for the provisions they preferred. She did not know if the application of the old code in this case would benefit the property owner, but thought for fairness and consistency, those who objected to the code imposed on their property since they purchased it should not be able to take advantage of the provisions they preferred in the current code. Mr. Clark found it troubling that some referred to Ballot Measure 37 as “the problem or the danger or the consequences,” a negative tone which he believed presupposed the council’s actions about what was right. He thought one of the councilors’ duties as elected officials was to safeguard people’s rights, and that was what Ballot Measure 37 was intended to do. He did not find all the claims troubling when people were acting to protect their rights. He asked the effect of the amendment. Mr. Klein said the legal effect of the amendment would be to take the property back to the code in effect before the update. Heather O’Donnell of the Planning Division indicated that many of the commercial standards in the current code were in the past code as well. The only standard that appeared to make much of a difference was the height standard; prior to the update there was no height restriction in commercial zones. Now the height limitation was 120 feet, which did not appear to be an issue in this case. Ms. Solomon felt the amendment being offered was illogical. If Ms. Bettman felt the code was so valuable, Ms. Solomon questioned why she would want to forego all of it on the basis of one Ballot Measure 37 application. She said the council should be careful in such instances, and asked what the council’s reaction would have been if height was an issue for this project. She found the amendment counter-productive. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about what year the property was purchased, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated it was purchased in 1994. Noting that the language she offered was drafted by Mr. Klein, Ms. Bettman asked why the amendment referred to the day before the code was adopted as opposed to 1994. Ms. Bettman said the theory she was proceeding under was that such claimants wanted to be subject only to the code in place when they bought their property and no other code. She thought that to be consistent, the council should direct that the property in question revert to the code provisions in place at the time of purchase. That may or may not provide more latitude to the property owner while at the same time denying those property owners the benefit of the updated code as well as giving the City a consistent standard. Mr. Clark moved to extend time for the meeting until the council completed the item. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about the principle involved in the amendment and what would happen if extended to other properties with older claims. He asked if that would mean the council would go back to no code in some instances, because in that case, he could “not go there.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 14, 2007 Page 2 Work Session