09/26/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to the statements made by Ms. Waldstein in regard to the auth- e ority of the Planning Director, Mr. Jacobson said that section B.1.(h) of the September 26, 1983, proposed amendment had been modified to call for a review of the facilities by the Planning Director to ensure that all the approval condi- tions were being met. In response to a concern stated by Mr. Obie, Mr. Jacobson said that the restriction calling for owner-occupation for facilties in RA and R-1 districts, with modification in R-2 districts, had been included as a . response to the concerns of the residents. He said that it was hoped that the restriction would ensure compatibility with the residential nature of the area. He said staff felt this restriction would be a balance between allowing the facilities but maintaining the owner-occupancy requirement. In response to a question by Ms. Schue, Mr. Jacobson said that each house must have two parking spaces in an RA or R-1 district, or one and one-half spaces if it is a multi-family unit. He clarified that a two-guest room bed and breakfast facility in a R-1 district would need four parking spaces. Councilor Smith asked if the changes in the original amendment were an attempt to meet the concerns of the SUNA members. Mr. Jacobson said that he and Mr. Chenkin had attended a SUNA meeting and changes had been made in the requirements for RA and R-1 districts, to include the requirements for separa- tion of facilities, year-end review, and parking spaces. He said that he and Mr. Chenkin had attempted to explain to the SUNA members the task of drafting the code amendment and that it would be up to the council to decide if such facilities were appropriate for RA and R-1 districts. e In response to a question by Mr. Hansen, Mr. Jacobson said that most of the responses in favor of establishing these facilities were for R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. He said that few responses had been received from RA and R-1 districts. He added that he had not received any complaints on the operation of the facili- ties, but acknowledged that a problem possibly existed with parking. He said that the Campus Cottage facility in the R-3 district had received positive neighborhood response and no formal complaints had been received by the Planning Department. CB 2683--An ordinance concerning bed and breakfast facilities; amending sections 9.252, 9.312, 9.326, 9.338, 9.340, 9.352, 9.366, 9.380, 9.394, 9.410, 9.422, 9.436, and 9.586 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emer- gency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Hansen said he has stayed in numerous bed and breakfast facilities and that he was pleased to provide a method for development of these facilities in Eugene. He said, however, that he was concerned that RA and R-1 districts would give outright use of a facility limited to two bedrooms. He said that it might be appropriate to exclude these two districts until the program is developed. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1983 Page 3