My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 3-13-19 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
CMO
>
2019
>
03-13-19
>
Agenda Packet 3-13-19 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2019 4:19:12 PM
Creation date
3/1/2019 4:16:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City_Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
City_Council_Meeting_Type
Work Session
City_Council_Meeting_Date
3/13/2019
City_Council_Effective_Date
3/13/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Housing Tools and Strategies Action Inventory 13 Recommended Actions <br />A. Remove Barriers in the Land Use Code <br />Action <br /> Impact <br />Explanation <br />Level of <br />Support <br />Does this action increase housing affordability, <br />availability, and/or diversity <br />separate space within the primary unit’s <br />structure. <br /> <br />A 2017 state law requires all cities in Oregon to <br />allow ADUs in all single-family zones. <br />with 7% opposing <br />the option. <br />parking space for the ADU unit, minimum lot sizes for <br />a lot to be eligible for an ADU, and other regulations <br />that make it difficult to convert existing structures <br />into an ADU. <br /> <br />Removing or editing these regulations will increase <br />the number of parcels that allow an ADU. Strategic <br />Economics analysis for the HTS process stated that if <br />owners of 5% of potential ADU lots were to build one, <br />the number of units added would be 2,150, which is <br />equivalent to about 1/3 of all dwelling units <br />permitted in Eugene from 2008 through 2017. <br />LU- <br />12 <br />Reduce parking <br />requirements for certain <br />multi-family housing <br />types along key corridors. <br />Multi-family parking requirements include a <br />parking ratio of one space per dwelling unit <br />unless in the South University or West University <br />neighborhoods. Developments are granted a 50% <br />reduction by way of adjustment review for <br />demonstration of alternative modes to the site in <br />a parking-traffic study. <br /> <br />Accommodating parking can be an expensive and <br />resource-intensive requirement. Builders are <br />required to balance number of units with how <br />many parking spaces can be accommodated. <br />Surface parking increases stormwater <br />requirements; structured parking dramatically <br />increases construction costs. <br />HTS working <br />group supported <br />this option (70%) <br />in the preliminary <br />vote. <br />Yes - Lowering the required number of spaces <br />reduces development costs (as the development can <br />construct fewer parking spaces). That land can be <br />utilized for additional units, stormwater treatment, <br />or green space. <br /> <br />Lowering the required number of parking spaces <br />could encourage the development of more multi- <br />family housing by eliminating the adjustment review <br />process for parking, which adds time and <br />administrative costs. <br /> <br />However, a lower parking ratio can cause the number <br />of cars parked on nearby streets to increase. A recent <br />housing development on River Road received a 0.5 <br />parking ratio and it has caused issues with overflow <br />in the surrounding neighborhoods. <br />LU- <br />13 <br />Revise the land use <br />appeal process to include <br />shared costs for recovery <br />of legal fees by the <br />prevailing party. <br />Eugene’s land use code allows any party to appeal <br />a land use decision. If a housing project requires a <br />land use application, there is an opportunity to <br />appeal that decision. The appeal process adds <br />time, legal fees, and uncertainty for the builder. <br />HTS working <br />group supported <br />this option (56%) <br />in the preliminary <br />vote. <br />Yes – There is evidence that appeals which lack legal <br />merit have stopped housing developments, as they <br />have created delays and added legal costs. <br /> <br />March 13, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.