Laserfiche WebLink
C) <br />. The use of 9.2751(17)(c)9 (area specific code addressing height/interior setback <br />requirements) was apparently intended to mislead anyone studying this case. While the goal <br />may have been to cast doubt on the fairness of area specific code standards, the complete <br />property would <br />picture reveals that without the area specific code amendments the claimants' <br />have been required to meet city wide standards and the city-wide standards are in some <br />cases more limiting. <br />Consider the following: <br />The city wide equivalent code section 9.2751(17)(b)5 (addressing height/interior setback <br />requirements) contains the same language as the area specific for parts a and b. However, <br />part c <br /> SDU over an accessory building as in <br />9.2751(17)(b)5 has a entitled “adjustments for an <br />th <br />9.8030(34(b) <br />9.8030(34)(b) <br />” (exactly the situation at 1775 E 30).allows for the conversion <br />all of <br />of a legally established building to a secondary dwelling but requires compliance with <br />three <br />“The secondary dwelling <br /> following conditions. The second of the three conditions states: <br />is limited to 600 square feet in total building square footage and 15 feet in height.” <br />An additional city wide standard 9.2751(3)d which states that “An additional 7 feet of building <br />not permitted in the R-1 zone <br />height allowed for roof slopes of 6:12 or steeper in the R-1. . .is <br />for secondary <br />dwellings, accessory buildings …” would also have affected the claimants' <br />ability to designate the existing building as an SDU without serious modifications. <br />In a Measure 49 claim such as this City Councilors should again insist on an independent <br />inspection of the property to accurately determine measurements of height, setback, square <br />footage etc. Accepting those of the claimant is not satisfactory. <br />In conclusion, one is left to contemplate what the motivation might have been for singling out <br />area specific <br />the 2014 R1 code changes as the claim fails to prove them responsible for a real <br />or hypothetical reduction in property value. For failing to prove usage restrictions, for failure <br />to provide legitimate appraisals, and for failure to prove a reduction in property value this claim <br />must be denied. <br />Submitted January 10, 2017 <br />by Carolyn Jacobs <br /> 2040 Agate St. <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97403 <br /> <br />