City Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property. The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so." (Page 4) It also appears that the staff may not have provided the statutorily required public notice of this claim and attempted to fly another exception to neighborhood protections under the radar. The City has already been subject to two remands from the Oregon Court of Appeals for failing to provide public notices required by statute in the "Oakleigh Meadows PUD" appeal. Now this happens. At some point the City Council needs to hold the City Manager accountable for flouting public notice laws and subverting Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 -- Citizen Involvement. The City Manager also bears responsibility for simply rubber-stamping the Measure 49 claim as written by Bill Kloos rather than doing "due diligence" to protect the community interests. Thank you for your consideration. -- Paul _________________ On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: This just in ... According the figures included with the M49 application, the existing dwelling is a 27'x32' "ADU" above a garage. That equals 864 sq. ft. The code in 2013 had a max of 800 s.f., which this dwelling appears to exceed. See EC 9.2741(2)(a)1: " The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet ..." If this is accurate, the M49 claim is invalid. Of course, staff needs to determine the exact square footage of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling also may actually conflict with the 2013 max height standards. This will require a site plan to determine. In any case, the Council must leave the record open to determine whether or not the existing dwelling actually met the 2013 SDU standards, as claimed. For the record, I object to approval of this claim because the existing dwelling would not have met the 2013 standards for a secondary dwelling unit. 2