Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Pape thanked staff for the memorandum answering all of the property owners' questions and <br />concerns. He noted that one of the examples used by Mr. Bjorklund was in his ward and was a lot on <br />which a structure already existed. He said he understood that the structure was "grandfathered in." He <br />asked if the property owner would be able to rebuild or build something in the same footprint if the <br />structure were destroyed. Mr. Bjorklund said that the owner would be able to rebuild within that <br />footprint. He said that expanding the footprint within the conservation area would not be allowed. Mr. <br />Pape asked if the footprint could be reconfigured. Mr. Bjorklund said that would have to be done through <br />one of the adjustments, such as setback averaging. <br /> <br />In response to another question from Mr. Pape about easements, Mr. Bjorklund said that in the case of the <br />series of easements in the Lorane Highway area, some places included the stream and some places did not. <br />He said that after careful research, the City discovered that the easements were to allow the City access to <br />build and maintain an underground pipe. He said the stream meandered in and out of the easements and <br />was never meant to be protected by the easements. He said the easements did not protect the vegetation. <br />He said that the easements did restrict where a person could build but did not protect the resource. Mr. <br />Pape asked that the people concerned be given the information. Mr. Bjorklund said that he would <br />communicate with them. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape referred to a letter from PeaceHealth on page 159 of the packet. He asked for a clarification of <br />the Standards Review process mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the letter. Mr. Bjorklund explained <br />that Standards Review was the mechanism used to administer the adjustments with certain criteria. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about fair market value, Mr. Bjorklund said the provision <br />addressing fair market value was being recommended for removal from the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if vacant land would be treated the same as land with a house on it. Mr. Bjorklund said <br />that there was no place in the ordinance that treated one different from the other. He added that the <br />language in Section 9.8030 (21) (d) was created to make sure the City did not create an unbuildable lot, <br />but it did not refer to any definition of what was buildable or not. Mr. Bjorklund responded to other <br />concerns from Ms. Taylor by saying that while there were provisions to allow the City to prevent an <br />owner from dividing a lot in a way to receive reductions, there was no specific language preventing it. He <br />added that the adjustments were a one-time deal and one of the criteria was that an owner had not received <br />a previous adjustment. He said that owners could not keep reducing the setback through adjustments. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what would keep people from destroying any enhancements they might have made to <br />receive a reduction. Mr. Bjorklund said that would be a violation of the code and the City could require <br />them to put it back. He said that it would be prohibited activity to remove any native vegetation in a <br />conservation area. He said that an owner would have to show enhancement and that the property would <br />be inspected after the enhancement was completed. He said that the long-term enforcement would rely <br />mostly on complaints that vegetation had been removed or destroyed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he fully supported setback averaging. He also said that he did not think that the provision <br />under subsection (b) gave flexibility to staff but rather gave the opportunity to property owners to request <br />the setback be reduced as long as the remaining setback was enhanced. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he did not interpret the new adjustment subsection (d) to accomplish what staff said it <br />would, which was to primarily to effectively address unusual site situations where the /WR provisions <br />might otherwise prevent development on an entire lot. He said that the subsection appeared to him to be a <br />good deal more liberal and did not mention "unbuildable" in the provision. He said that he could imagine <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />October 24, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />