CC Minutes - 10/10/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Klein invited questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that staff did not recommend the council act as the initial decision maker because while the City had received no claims to this point, when the council adopted the Goal 5 protection ordinance several thousand properties would be affected, so it may receive several variance applications. Staff was attempting to avoid having the council deal with a claim if it did not wish to do so. He pointed out that if a single councilor wished to review the application, it could do so if within 14 days of the denial. Otherwise, the council would have to deal with all the applications. He did not know how many claims would be forthcoming once the Goal 5 inventory was adopted. Ms. Taylor believed the council was more responsive to the electorate than the Planning Commission and its actions were more in the public eye. She did not want the Planning Commission to make the initial decision. Mr. Pryor did not object to the Planning Commission making the initial decision given the council’s role as ultimate arbiter of the issue. He determined from Mr. Klein that the focus of the discussion was on potential Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein said that staff was suggesting to the council that the process be one that would apply not only to the Goal 5 protection ordinance, but to any new regulations the council might adopt in future years that had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein clarified that the staff proposal would allow a property owner to file an application for a variance from the Goal 5 protection ordinance. The property owner would have to state why the City’s action would reduce the value of a property and what they would like to do on the property. The City would review the application and the Planning Commission would make a determination to grant or not grant the variance. The City Manager would give the council notice of the decision. Speaking to the differences in what was being proposed and the existing process, Mr. Klein said in this case, the City would require the property owner to produce evidence to demonstrate their belief the ordinance would reduce a property’s value. He added that under the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims process, the City told property owners they need to state why they believed a regulation reduced a property’s value, but whether the City would be able to enforce that provision was unclear due to a lack of case law providing any precedent. He believed the inclusion of the variance process in the ordinance would put the City in a better position to place that burden on the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein said if a variance application was denied by the commission or council, the property owner could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s remarks, Mr. Kelly said he would oppose the proposal if it required a council majority to review a commission decision, but was comfortable with it since a single councilor or the mayor could request such a review. The only difference he perceived between the proposed and existing process was the initial decision maker. Each process included council review. He asked about other substantive differences. Mr. Klein did not perceive any. Ms. Muir pointed out that in the existing process, the City Manager’s only role was in denial of an application. Mr. Kelly had no interest in a piecemeal process focused on different ordinances. He wanted something that was broader than the Goal 5 protection ordinance. Related to that interest was a question as to whether the variance should apply to new land use regulations or existing regulations and the implications of applying the variance to existing regulations. Mr. Klein said given the lack of any claims based on existing regulations, it made more sense to him to adopt a process limited to new land use regulations. He said that the council might encounter unintended consequences if it attempted to extend the variance to all the existing regulations. He suggested the topic was more appropriately discussed in executive session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 4 Work Session