Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Kelly commented that when the MUPTE ordinance had been adopted, the majority of the council <br />did not codify quality provisions that had been proposed at one point. He noted that the proposal indicated <br />some quality features, such as a large front porch and balconies on the units, but nothing in the exemption <br />would require the builder to fulfill the intent of the initial design proposals. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly added, for the record, that though he served on the West University Neighborhood board he <br />had abstained from voting on the recommendation the neighborhood association had submitted to the <br />council. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ asked Mr. Klein to comment on whether conditions could be placed on such an exemption. <br />Mr. Klein asked the council to postpone the vote until the end of the meeting so that he could review the <br />code and give informed advice. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to table the item <br /> until the work session scheduled for December 6. Roll call vote; the <br /> motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Poling and Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br />3. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: <br /> An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, <br /> 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an <br /> Immediate Effective Date <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to briefly speak about the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein recalled that the council held one public hearing and a revised ordinance, with revisions in bold <br />and strike out, was contained in the agenda packet. He indicated the changes sought to address issues that <br />arose either at the work session on Ballot Measure 37 or at the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey outlined the procedure for testimony. He opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mona Linstomberg, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, related that real estate ads were now suggesting that <br />homeowners who believe they were affected by Ballot Measure 37 should call for help and information. She <br />commented that the implications of the measure were mind-boggling. She said several aspects of the <br />ordinance could work to level a skewed playing field. She encouraged the City Council to hold public <br />hearings on recommendations from the City Manager related to Ballot Measure 37 issues and claims as <br />often as possible to keep it an open process with public notice and review. She approved of Section 2.095, <br />whereby neighboring property owners could seek redress in State Circuit Court for reduction in the value of <br />their property caused by a waiver of land use regulations on adjacent property. She supported adoption of <br />the ordinance because, while Ballot Measure 37 spoke to the preservation of the public health and safety <br />under exempt land use regulations, the Eugene ordinance spoke to the preservation of public health, safety, <br />and welfare. She felt Measure 37 served certain private property rights possibly to the detriment of the <br />property rights of others and possibly to the detriment of the community's welfare. <br /> <br />Jim Welsh, 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Association of Realtors (EAR), <br />pointed out that both the EAR and the Oregon Association of Realtors (OAR) had been silent on Ballot <br />Measure 37 prior to the election. He asked the council to think about the City's response to the measure in <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />