01/28/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

one-and-one-half stories. The amendment has received high priority status in the growth management study and was recommended for ... approval by the Joint Housing Committee and the Planning Commission. .., Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2061--an ordinance concerning duplex, triplex, and four-plex regulations; amending section 9.310, 9.322, 9.324, 9.534, 9.550, 9.586, and 9.592 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Obie asked for the reasons behind the particular lot sizes. Mr. Sloat replied that originally the required lot sizes were greater. With the goal of compact urban growth, it was discovered that over the past few years, 10,000-square-foot lots for duplexes are satisfactory. Mr. Obie said in Springfield, a duplex can be built on a 6,000-square-foot lot. He would like to see Eugene consider using smaller lot sizes than 10,000 square feet, possibly 6,000 or 8,000 square feet. He asked how livable a 6,000-square- foot lot would be. Mr. Farah replied that the questions Mr. Obie was asking could be part of the Code update and could be handled by Code modifications at a later date. Staff would like to move ahead in small increments ~ as these changes can be handled within the existing Code. Mr. Obie feared they would not get back to addressing this problem. He urged a two-week study with return to the Council of the amendment. Ms. Schue felt staff came to this meeting with the feeling this was the most they could attain at this time. The Joint Housing Committee expected opposition. She said she would support the smaller lot size, assuming citizen support and adequate research. Ms. Smith pointed out that a change in lot size would send the amendment back to Joint Housing and the Planning Commission. She recommended voting on this amendment with Council recommendation to Joint Housing and the Planning Commission that they consider smaller lot sizes. Ms. Miller felt it was appropriate to vote on the present amendment and ask staff to return with some additional information on lot sizes, answering such questions as--what sorts of development can be put on the lot size and how a house looks when it is on a lot. She urged passage of the amendment before the upcoming construction season. e 1/28/80--4