My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2: PH on Bush Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M37 06-1)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 11/20/06 Public Hearings
>
Item 2: PH on Bush Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M37 06-1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:21:02 PM
Creation date
11/16/2006 10:41:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/20/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
provisions limit the density on the subject site, pursuant to the requirements of EC <br />9.3065(3)(a), the owner is unable to add at least one additional dwelling unit as would <br />have been permitted under previous regulations. EC 9.3065(3)(a)1.c. restricts a property <br />over 9200 square feet (the subject lot is approximately 10,905 square feet) to a maximum <br />of three dwelling units. In fact, four dwelling units are currently constructed on the <br />property. The effect of the regulations is to disallow the addition of previously permitted <br />additional dwelling units on the property and to render one of the dwelling units legally <br />non-conforming. <br /> <br />Since submittal of the claim, Ms. Bush has entered into discussions in a collaborative <br />spirit with abutting neighbors, neighbors across the street from the property and <br />representatives of the affected neighborhood organization, the Jefferson Westside <br />Neighbors, to seek a mutually agreeable solution to her claim. Members of the Jefferson <br />Westside Neighbors played an active role in developing the Chambers Special Area Zone <br />regulations and representatives of the neighborhood group sought to participate in <br />discussions regarding resolution of the claim. Following discussions, Ms. Bush <br />determined that she would be satisfied to construct one more dwelling on the property (as <br />opposed to three additional dwellings the claim alleged could be built) and would comply <br />with specific standards within EC 9.3050-9.3065 as described in the Recommendation <br />section below. Ms. Bush, the neighbors and the neighborhood organization have reached <br />an agreement that is in the process of being reduced to writing and signed. The draft of <br />that agreement is consistent with the proposed waiver described below. <br /> <br /> C. Enactment/Enforcement. <br /> <br />Measure 37 states that a property owner has a claim if a public entity “enacts or enforces <br />a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective <br />date” of Measure 37. The relevant provisions in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code which the <br />owner alleges have reduced the property value of the subject lot are EC 9.3050-9.3060, <br />enacted on December 12, 2005 and EC 9.3065, enacted on December 14, 2005. Since <br />these were enacted following the effective date of Measure 37 (December 2, 2004) the <br /> <br />claim meets this requirement. <br /> <br /> D. Restriction on use, reduction in value. <br /> <br />A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 37 claim only if the regulation would <br />“restrict the use” of private property and have the effect of reducing the fair market value <br />of property. The specific regulations which the claimant states has restricted use of the <br />property are EC 9.3050-9.3065 from the Chambers Special Area zone. These regulations <br />generally restrict the density and limit the form and volume of structures on the property. <br /> <br />The claimant submitted an appraisal, the purpose of which, as written on page 1 is “to <br />provide the appraiser’s best estimate of the market value of the subject property with its <br />current restricted zoning, S-R2, as of the effective valuation date.” (May 11, 2006) The <br />appraisal, prepared by Charles E. Thompson & Assoc., Inc., concludes that “there is <br />excess land (that) could accommodate three additional units.” Therefore, the appraisal <br />evaluated the value of the land as currently restricted by the land use regulations versus <br />the value of the land with the maximum allowed development under previous regulations. <br /> 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.