Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Papé thanked staff for the memorandum answering all of the property owners’ questions and concerns. <br />He noted that one of the examples used by Mr. Björklund was in his ward and was a lot on which a structure <br />already existed. He said he understood that the structure was “grandfathered in.” He asked if the property <br />owner would be able to rebuild or build something in the same footprint if the structure were destroyed. Mr. <br />Björklund said that the owner would be able to rebuild within that footprint. He said that expanding the <br />footprint within the conservation area would not be allowed. Mr. Papé asked if the footprint could be <br />reconfigured. Mr. Björklund said that would have to be done through one of the adjustments, such as <br />setback averaging. <br /> <br />In response to another question from Mr. Papé about easements, Mr. Björklund 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 was <br />never meant to be protected by the easements. He said the easements did not protect the vegetation. He said <br />that the easements did restrict where a person could build but did not protect the resource. Mr. Papé asked <br />that the people concerned be given the information. Mr. Björklund said that he would communicate with <br />them. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé referred to a letter from PeaceHealth on page 159 of the packet. He asked for a clarification of the <br />Standards Review process mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the letter. Mr. Björklund explained that <br />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. Björklund 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. Björklund said <br />that there was no place in the ordinance that treated one different from the other. He added that the language <br />in Section 9.8030 (21) (d) was created to make sure the City did not create an unbuildable lot, but it did not <br />refer to any definition of what was buildable or not. Mr. Björklund responded to other concerns from Ms. <br />Taylor by saying that while there were provisions to allow the City to prevent an owner from dividing a lot <br />in a way to receive reductions, there was no specific language preventing it. He added that the adjustments <br />were a one-time deal and one of the criteria was that an owner had not received a previous adjustment. He <br />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. Björklund 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 be <br />inspected after the enhancement was completed. He said that the long-term enforcement would rely mostly <br />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 /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />