Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Syrett - said she doesn't love the exception framework but recognizes the particular <br />pressures that these neighborhoods have been under; said the current exceptions that these <br />neighborhoods have are for valid reasons and she would vote in favor of the motion. <br />Councilor Pyror - said there was a reasonable argument to be made for why neighborhoods are <br />different; asked how the bedroom and occupancy exceptions relate to the removal of owner - <br />occupancy in the state bills; said he would support the motion. <br />Councilor Semple - asked if this is one of the issues that is being challenged now; asked if the <br />"five unrelated people rule" comes in when figuring out occupancy; asked what the effect would <br />be of deciding one way or another as far as getting remanded or sued; asked about the <br />difference between regulations and C C&Rs; asked how it will shift things if all R-1 zones become <br />R-2 zones with HB 2001 and the refinement zones are mostly R-2 zones; said she thinks this <br />might make the refinement plans moot. <br />Councilor Yeh - said she was not in favor of either of Councilor Zelenka's motions because she <br />does not think that these motions will get at some of the behavioral problems that people have. <br />Councilor Taylor - said that if HB 2001 is implemented, every neighborhood will be threatened <br />and she would prefer if this applied to all neighborhoods; said she would vote for the proposed <br />amendment asked about the enforcement of C C&Rs. <br />Councilor Clark- said that Western Title has a record of all CC&Rs and they are not hard to find; <br />asked if the City will issue a permit if it knows about existing CC&Rs and if advisement is given <br />when individuals apply for permits. <br />Councilor Zelenka - said he's often surprised about what students put up with in cramming a <br />ridiculous number of young adults into small spaces; said this impacts the livability of the <br />neighborhoods; said that his amendments are directly related to design and siting and he hoped <br />council would support the motion. <br />Councilor Semple - asked if having five unrelated people in a house is a complaint -driven issue <br />and whether it could be addressed in the university area by simply taking complaints. <br />VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 7:1, Councilor Yeh opposed. <br />MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to <br />amend Section 8 of the ordinance to retain the standard entitled "Maximum Bedrooms" <br />currently located at EC 9.2751(17) (c)7 and to renumber the remaining subsections <br />accordingly. <br />Councilor Taylor - said the motion should apply to the whole city. <br />VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 7:1, Councilor Yeh opposed. <br />Councilor Semple - said that her potential motions came from constituents related to the JWN <br />and S-C refinement areas, acknowledging her respect for these standards and the complicated <br />nature of the issue; explained that while her motions address parking, the state is eliminating <br />any requirements for on -site parking; asked how that affects these refinement zones; asked <br />who would challenge it if council made the refinement zones different; said she'd like to protect <br />the zones but doesn't know how to do that if council isn't addressing parking. <br />MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to <br />amend section 18 to delete the entire proposed amendment to subsection <br />9.3625 (3) (d)3; and to replace the entirety of the proposed amendment to subsection <br />9.3625(7) with the following: (7) Parking Standards. (a) Except as provided in (3)(d)3. <br />Above and subsection (7)(b), below, each dwelling shall have one on -street or on -site <br />vehicle parking space for every three bedrooms, rounded up to the next whole number <br />MINUTES - Eugene City Council January 21, 2020 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />