04/22/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e zones; 3) allow siting of subdivisions through the standard subdivision pro- cess in the RA and R-l zones; and 4) allow manufactured dwelling parks in the RA and R-l zones as a permitted use under clear and objective standards with site plan approval. Ms. Childs said that the Planning Commission discussed and held a public hearing on the manufactured dwelling code amendments on March 5, 1991. The Planning Commission reviewed the standards for manufactured homes on individ- ual lots which local governments may require under the new State legislation and after discussion, recommended that only those standards related to ther- mal envelope and foundation be required of manufactured homes on individual lots and in manufactured home subdivisions. Ms. Childs said that John Vanlandingham was available to answer questions. Mr. Gleason commented on the negative perception of manufactured housing that exists within the community and the barriers that are created to prohibit manufactured housing in residential neighborhoods. He noted that one way to ,begin removing the stigma attached to manufactured housing is to provide some assurances that manufactured homes will be built to the same standards as other stick-built homes and, that housing that is uncharacteristic will not be allowed in established residential neighborhoods. For this reason, he recommended that the council apply the full set of standards allowed by State legislation. Councilor Rutan opened the public hearing. John Vanlandingham, 1172 West 5th Avenue, testified on behalf of the Planning Commission in favor of the recommendations. He said that the public's atti- tudes toward manufactured housing are a reflection of housing constructed several decades ago and noted that there is little difference any more be- tween manufactured and stick-built homes. He emphasized the need to keep manufactured housing affordable, particularly for low-income citizens, and voiced concern that imposing the full set of HUD standards would increase housing cost. Don Miner, 2255 State Street, testified on behalf of Oregon Manufactured Housing Association in support of the ordinance. He stated that the HUD Code, as opposed to the Oregon CABO Code, is accepted in every state nation- wide. He said that it would be difficult for housing manufacturers to market housing that was manufactured to meet State housing standards. The associa- tion recommends that the council consider adopting the full set of standards for manufactured homes on individual lots allowed by State legislation in order to improve the likelihood that manufactured housing is fully accepted in the community. Mr. Miner distributed a list of those standards. There being no additional requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Childs said that if Eugene were to adopt only a portion of the standards allowed by legislation, it would be the only city in the state to do so. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 8