My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: PH on Resolution Concerning Measure 37 Claim (Brown)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 03/12/07 Meeting
>
Item 3: PH on Resolution Concerning Measure 37 Claim (Brown)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:45:06 PM
Creation date
3/8/2007 2:40:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
II. SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on the analysis set forth in Section III below, the City Manager has concluded that <br />the subject claim is valid. Since the City has no funds with which to pay compensation, <br />the City Manager is recommending a modification to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within <br />the /TD Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, Eugene Code section 9.4530(3)(a) <br />and Map 9.4510, to reduce the FAR from 1.0 to .65 (described further below). <br />Measure 37 generally grants a property owner the right to compensation (or waiver at the <br />option of the government) if five substantive requirements are met. First, the regulation <br />must constitute a “land use regulation” as that term is defined by Measure 37. Second, <br />the public entity against which the claim is made must have enacted a new regulation or <br />enforced a regulation that was in effect prior to the Measure 37 effective date (December <br />2, 2004). Third, the regulation must “restrict the use” of private property. Fourth, the <br />effect of the regulation must be to cause a reduction in the fair market value of the <br />property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of Measure 37’s five exemptions. <br />As discussed below, the regulations that are the subject of this claim qualify as land use <br />regulations, were enacted prior to the Measure 37 effective date of December 2, 2004, <br />effectively restrict previously allowed uses on the property, and reduce the property’s fair <br />market value. Further, the regulations do not fall within one of Measure 37’s five <br />exemptions. Therefore, the claim is valid. <br />III. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM <br /> A. Ownership. <br />Measure 37 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific <br />regulations for “owners” as that term is defined by the Measure. Ballot Measure 37, <br />Section 11(C) defines “owner” as “the present owner of the property or any interest <br />therein.” <br />Based on the information submitted by the claimant (warranty deed 9480311) and <br />available in the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City <br />Manager concludes that the subject lot was acquired by DMB Green, LLC and, by <br />documentation thereof, recorded on November 16, 1994. The property is currently owned <br />by DMB Green, LLC. Mr. Brown, on behalf of DMB Green, LLC has also provided a <br />copy of the operating agreement for DMB Green, LLC, indicating that Mr. Brown is one <br />of several members with a percentage ownership interest in DMB Green, LLC. <br /> B. “Land use regulations.” <br />Measure 37 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations which <br />constitute “land use regulations” as that term is defined by Measure 37. Measure 37 <br />defines land use regulation, with respect to local governments, as “local government <br />2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.