My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
City Council
>
2018
>
09-24-2018
>
Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2018 3:52:19 PM
Creation date
9/26/2018 3:36:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
276
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
1 <br />LAWLER Daniel R <br />From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> <br />Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:36 PM <br />To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <br />Cc:LAWLER Daniel R; BROTHERTON Kathryn <br />Subject:Zelenka clarifies "use"; staff confirms "use" NOT restricted; City Attorney advice to <br />Council could violate "Equal Protection" <br />September 11, 2018 <br />Mayor and Councilors, <br />Thank you for the unanimous decision to reopen the record for the "Moore" Measure 49 Claim (City <br />File M49 18-1). <br />Although the discussion was brief, there were several very important "takeaways": <br />1. Councilor Zelenka clarified the "use" that is at issue in this claim. <br />2. Staff member Dan Lawler confirmed that the "use" allowed for the subject property has <br />not been restricted. <br />3. The City Attorney provided legal advice to the Council that, while not clear, could be <br />misinterpreted in this (and other) M49 decisions, resulting in the City Council violating <br />the "Equal Protection" provisions of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions. <br />I will submit more extensive testimony prior to the deadline; however, I wanted to point out these <br />items while councilors had their discussion fresh in their minds. <br />1. Councilor Zelenka clarified the "use" that is at issue in this claim. <br />In an exchange with Dan Lawler, Councilor Zelenka clarified Eugene Code's "One-Family Dwelling" <br />as the use permitted in the R-1 zone and which is the subject use of this M49 claim. Zelenka's <br />question to staff was answered by Lawler stating: <br />"This isn’t about an ADU, the claimant desires to build a primary, single-family dwelling, not <br />an ADU." <br />Eugene Code variously uses "single-family dwelling" and "one-family dwelling" in a synonymous <br />manner. The code defines "Dwelling, One-Family" (EC 9.0500). The code states the purpose of the <br />R-1 zone, in part, as: "The R-1 zone is designed for one-family dwellings with some allowance for <br />other types of dwellings, * * * * *." (EC 9.2700) The code lists "One-Family Dwelling (1 Per Lot in R- <br />1)" as the first "Residential" use under the Table 9.2740, which "identifies those uses in the <br />residential zones that are: (P) Permitted * * * * *." <br />The second "Residential" use Table 9.2740 is (now) "Accessory Dwelling," which was previously <br />"Secondary Dwelling." <br />September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.