Laserfiche WebLink
dwelling (or the primary dwelling if it is constructed later), the owner shall <br /> provide the city with a copy of a notice that has been recorded with the Lane <br /> County Clerk that documents the requirement that the secondary dwelling or <br /> primary dwelling is, and will remain, owner/occupied." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how the document would show up in subsequent years. Ms. Bishow said that <br />a title search would reveal the document. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor confirmed with Ms. Bishow that the accessory dwelling would be sold along with the <br />primary house because the two structures were located on a single legal lot. Ms. Bishow said that <br />the buyer would make the investment choice to purchase two houses, a large house and a small <br />house. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked what occurred when someone who lived out of town inherited a property with an <br />accessory structure and wanted to rent the property. Ms. Bishow said that one's heirs would <br />either need to sell the property to someone who lived there or sell it to someone who intended to <br />live there. Mr. Pap8 asked how the heir would know about the limitation. Ms. Bishow said that it <br />was possible the City would receive a complaint, and if the complaint was founded, the City would <br />work with the owner to ensure enforcement occurred. Heirs would also learn about the owner- <br />occupancy requirement through the title report. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Bishow that the property owner could live in either the accessory <br />or primary structure. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation in Ordinance 3 to reduce the setback <br /> requirements for flag lots in R-1 to ten feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern that there were many single-family residential neighborhoods <br />with an underlying zoning of R-2. She was concerned about treating R-2 differently than R-1 for <br />that reason. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to include <br /> R-2 zoned land. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that in terms of infill development, he perceived R-2 land as a half-way point <br />between the lower density R-1 zone and the higher density R-3 and R-4 zones. He thought it <br />made sense to not be so restrictive as to prohibit infill development in R-2, but give it more of a <br />buffer like that in R-1 neighborhoods. He said that the motion already reduced the flag lots <br />setback significantly, and he was comfortable with that given the testimony the council received on <br />the topic. However, he was not comfortable with reducing the setbacks in R-2 zones to five feet, <br />as the next motion proposed to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 did not support Ms. Bettman's amendment because he was concerned the result would <br />be that the City would not get the density it was after. He said the City must find a way to narrow <br />the setbacks. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />