11-14-16 Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, the Claimants’ existing structure met the height requirement for a detached secondary dwelling. However, the code-prescribed manner for measuring the building height of a detached secondary dwelling that went into effect on April 12, 2014 (quoted above), prevents the Claimants from converting the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. That is, based on the measuring method adopted in 2014, the Claimants’ existing structure exceeds the maximum height allowed for a detached secondary dwelling. Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a “land use regulation” that “restricts the residential use” of the subject property because their existing structure satisfied the height requirements for a detached secondary dwelling prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526 but no longer satisfied the height requirements after the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Stated another way, prior the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Claimants could have converted the existing residence to a detached secondary dwelling unit and constructed another, primary, residence on the subject property. In fact, in June of 2014, Claimants sought a building permit to do just that. However, because Ordinance No. 20526 went into effect on April 12, 2014 (approximately two months prior to the Claimants seeking a building permit), the City could not issue Claimants the building permit to convert the existing residence into a secondary dwelling. On March 12, 2013 (one year before the regulation was enacted), Claimants could have converted their existing structure into a detached secondary dwelling and constructed a new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property.The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so. Following adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. Claimants could no longer convert the existing dwelling into a detached secondary dwelling unit because, based on the manner in which the structure must be measured, the existing structure is too tall to qualify as a detached secondary dwelling unit. Thus, the residential use currently allowed on the Claimants’ property is restricted by EC 9.2751(17)(c)9.,when compared to what was allowed on the Claimants’ property prior to the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526. D. Reduction in Value The regulation restricts the residential use of the subject property in such a way that reduces the fair market value of the property. Claimants submitted appraisals of the fair market value of the property one year before the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. (March 12, 2013) and one year 2 after the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. The March 12, 2013, appraisal provides a property value of $470,000. The March 12, 2015, appraised provides a property value of $410,000. As of the date of this Recommendation, there is nothing in the record that contradicts the accuracy of the appraisals submitted by Claimants. Accordingly, the appraisals confirm that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which restricts the residential use of the Claimants’ property, reduces the fair market value of the Claimants’ property. E. Exemptions Finally, a Measure 49 claim is not valid if the challenged regulation falls within one of the exemptions under the Measure. Regulations adopted to protect the public health and safety, prevent nuisances, or comply with federal law are exempt under Measure 49, even if they otherwise constitute “land use regulations” that “restrict the residential use” and “reduce the fair 2 Measure 49 requires the reduction in fair market value of the property be demonstrated through an appraisal that meets certain requirements. ORS 194.310(2). The appraisal submitted by Claimants satisfies those requirements. Page 4 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER