Laserfiche WebLink
applicability to the ordinance before the council. Mr. Klein responded that the case, as well as <br />other Fifth Amendment takings cases, provided for compensation of a property owner when a <br />government regulated property in a way that deprived the owner of some economic use of that <br />property. He said that the current test was whether a regulation prohibited all economically <br />viable use of a property. The ordinance before the council could potentially deprive a property <br />owner of some ability to use a portion of their property but not all the property. Mr. Klein referred <br />the council to page 4 of the ordinance, Subsection 3, which addressed exemptions to the <br />ordinance. Where the regulations would prohibit the use of the entire site or a third of the site, <br />the City Manager may grant a site-specific exemption. Mr. Klein suggested that there may be <br />cases where the property may be purchased by the City if the ordinance resulted in a property <br />that was not economically viable or be exempted. He was not aware of a property where the <br />ordinance would prohibit all economic use of the property, but if such a case existed it would <br />meet the exemption. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap8 asked how long the exemption process would take. Mr. Lyle said that staff would <br />meet with a property owner to discuss the development viability of a property, and he did not <br />think such a basic assessment would take long. Councilor Pap8 asked if there would be a <br />separate application process rather than approval of the development in order to get the <br />exemption. Mr. Lyle did not think there was a need for a separate application, noting that City <br />used a property review checklist that outlined the needed submittals. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein observed that the exemption provision was nearly identical to a clause in the West <br />Eugene Wetlands Plan, which had been in place for more than five years; during that time, he <br />was unaware of any instance in which the provision had been applied. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap8 referred to testimony from Mike Farthing and asked how staff would differentiate <br />where the ordinance would apply or Oregon Revised Statutes. Mr. Klein said that the City <br />Attorney would be able to consult with staff and determine if the ordinance did or did not apply in <br />a specific situation. The State statute referred to by Mr. Farthing dealt with land use criteria, and <br />the ordinance did not include land use criteria but rather police power regulation, was part of <br />Chapter 6, and its influence was beyond the land use arena. He believed that there would be <br />many instances in which the State statute would not apply. Mr. Klein reiterated his <br />recommendation that a reference to the State statute be included in the ordinance to guide staff. <br /> <br />At the request of Mayor Torrey, the council considered a series of amendments prepared by staff <br />in response to previously expressed council comments and concerns. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> adopting Amendment 1, Sunset Provision. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly did not support the amendment. He feared that the City could hit the sunset date, <br />be caught unaware, and the natural environment would be threatened. He pointed out that the <br />council could modify the ordinance or overturn it if it chose. He emphasized the interim nature of <br />the ordinance and he noted the City's ongoing work on State Goal 5 and the Endangered Species <br />Act listing of the spring chinook. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said that the council needed to agree on a specific sunset date if one is to be <br />established. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />