10/25/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" '"" .' . - Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. . She said that she opposed the shared housing or accessory unit concept, since it had the effect of allowing duplexes where they were not previously permitted. She felt that this was an "outrageous and ill-timed" effort to create duplexes in single-family neighborhoods in Eugene, particularly in those neighborhoods with larger homes. She noted that she had followed these proposals during their discussion by the Joint Housing Committee and had expressed her concerns to that group. She said that the provision of three off-street parking spaces would not necessarily be adequate to keep cars of building residents from being parked in the street. Ms. Johnson said she did not understand why the Joint Housing Committee was discussing creation of more housing when the population of the area was declining and when there was currently excess housing in all neighborhoods and at all price ranges. She said that she and other landlords in Eugene were fighting the problem of vacant units and unpaid rents. She felt that the proposed ordinance would take more tenants out of existing rentals and could add to the City's current "housing crisis". She urged the council to put the ordi nance on a "back burner" unt i 1 the area's popul at ion has caught up with the vacancy rate. Phil Rose, 89976 Shore Lane, said that he served on a Lane County citizen committee concerned with housing issues. He said that group had given money to a designer to design separate dwelling units that could be placed on a person1s property to house that person's relatives. He felt that the proposals before the council lost sight of the intention to serve relatives of the property owner. He questioned whether it was a good idea to build more units at a time when existing units were being turned back to the bank. He said he could see both pro's and con's to the proposals. e There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Chenkin responded to some of the concerns that had been raised in testimony. He said that the shared housing proposal would only apply to owner-occupied buildings and that there were maximum size limits for the accessory unit. He felt that these restrictions eliminated the parallel of shared housing with creation of a duplex. Mr. Chenkin addressed the question of limits on the total number of residents in a building under the shared housing proposal and referred to the provision in the proposed ordinance, which states that unless all the people in a unit are related, then the total number of residents is a maximum of five. Mr. Chenkin said he believed that Mr. Rose was referring to the "Granny Flat" proposal, which was still being considered by the Joint Housing Committee, and which would provide for a movable unit to be constructed temporarily on a person's property to house a relative. Mr. Chenkin noted that the Federal Government had made a grant to a Eugene designer to design a prototype "Granny Flat" unit. Councilor Hamel urged the council to pay attention to the concerns raised by Laura Johnson. He felt that the largest demand for the types of housing being proposed would be in the area near the University of Oregon and that existing traffic and parking problems in that area could be magnified by these uses. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1982 Page 5