Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> " ~. <br /> . <br /> Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the abatement of <br /> e the dangerous property located at 2444 University Street, and to <br /> direct staff to prepare specific findings and an appropriate <br /> resolution for adoption by the Eugene City Council. <br /> Mr. Obie said that while his motion did not include the specific performance <br /> dates mentioned above, those dates were understood to be applicable and could be <br /> used in the resolution if staff felt that was the best way to proceed. <br /> Councilor Schue said she felt that repair of the building was the best solution <br /> and urged staff to work to encourage this to happen. <br /> Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. <br /> B. Cottage Unit and Shared Housing Code Amendment (CA 82-3) (memo, <br /> background information distributed) September 13, 1982 <br /> Recommended approval by Planning Commission <br /> Vote--6:0 <br /> Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning. Mr. Chenkin said that the code <br /> amendment before the council had two separate components. He said that the <br /> cottage unit proposal would allow splitting of a parcel of land in the R-2, R-3, <br /> R-4, RG, and RP zoning districts that had alley access, to allow construction of <br /> a separate cottage unit on the rear parcel. He said that the shared housing <br /> proposal would allow a homeowner to rent or lease a portion of his/her home as a <br /> separate, accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Chenkin said that shared housing could <br /> help ease the financial burden of home ownership, thereby helping people remain <br /> e in their homes. Mr. Chenkin said that in both cases there would be no increase <br /> in density over that allowed in the zoning districts in which the parcels were <br /> located, since the cottage units were only being recommended for multi-family <br /> zoning districts, and since the shared housing would retain the existing City <br /> Code requirement that the building could not be occupied by more than five <br /> people unrelated by blood or marriage. <br /> Councilor Miller asked how this Code requirement would be enforced. Mr. Sercombe <br /> responded that such restrictions had been upheld by the courts in the past and <br /> said that he would, at a future meeting, provide the council with information on <br /> this requirement. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Marsha Swartz, 116 Knoop Lane, said that she had spent a great deal of time <br /> trying to find an affordable solution to the problem of having her 80-year-old <br /> mother live in a separate unit in or near her home. She said that both proposals <br /> before the council contained good solutions to her problem and those of people <br /> in similar situations. She urged the council to adopt the ordinance. <br /> Scott Bartlett, 1123 Sarber Drive, said that he had testifed before the Planning <br /> Commission on this matter. He felt that both proposals were good examples of <br /> Eugene's progressive spirit in land use issues and would assist property owners, <br /> such as himself, who need flexibility in order to continue to own their homes. <br /> He said that such measures were particularly needed in view of the present <br /> e state of the economy. He urged the council to pass the ordinance. <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1982 Page 4 <br />