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
With the results of the appraisal, the claimant alleges that the estimated “Potential <br />Measure 37 Claim” on the property is $111,000, quoted as follows: <br /> <br />1) Estimated Value of Subject Property under the hypothetical condition and <br />extraordinary assumption that it is zoned with no special overlay restrictions <br />allowing or up to seven residential units effective May 11, 2006 <br />…………………………………………………………………… $446,000. <br /> <br />2) Estimated Value of Subject Property as currently zoned (S R2) effective May <br />11, 2006…………………………………………………………… $335,000. <br /> <br /> Potential Measure 37 Claim:……………………………… $111,000. <br /> <br /> E. Exemptions. <br /> <br />Finally, a Measure 37 claim would not be valid to the extent that one or more of the <br />regulations fell within one of the five exemptions under the Measure. Regulations <br />adopted for the purposes of protecting the public health and safety or were adopted to <br />prevent nuisances, or comply with federal law, then the regulations are exempt under <br />Measure 37, even if they otherwise constitute “land use regulations” that “restrict the use’ <br />and “reduce the fair market value” of the property. This claim is not subject to any of the <br />five exemptions. <br /> <br /> <br />IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br /> <br />Based on the analysis above, the City Manager has determined that Ms. Bush’s claim is <br />valid. In lieu of the request for compensation as described above, and based on the <br />claimant’s subsequent proposed agreement with neighbors, the City Manager is <br />recommending that a waiver or modification of some of the regulations be approved to <br />allow the claimant to develop the property to an extent that would have been permitted <br />under previous regulations and that would satisfy her intentions with the claim. (It <br />should be noted that, since no formal development application has been filed, the City has <br />not conducted an exhaustive evaluation of all the regulations that may apply at the time <br />the owner applies for a building permit. The additional regulations that will apply at that <br />time are typical of new construction and will not exclude the construction of a new <br />dwelling unit on the property.) <br /> <br />Although the original claim alleged that all of the Chambers Special Area Zone standards <br />restricted development of her lot, Ms. Bush has proposed to comply with the following <br />modified regulations, as agreed upon by the claimant, the abutting neighbors, neighbors <br />across the street, and representatives of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors, if allowed to <br />develop one additional dwelling: <br /> <br /> Recommended modifications to Chambers Special Area Zone Development <br />Standards Applicable in S-C/R-2 Subarea: <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.