Laserfiche WebLink
no opportunity for home ownership. She had no data about the homeownership rate for flag or <br />alley lots, saying that anecdotal evidence indicated that they were often rentals because they <br />lacked amenities desired by homeowners. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to <br /> change the code to prohibit the creation of alley access lots in residential <br /> zoned areas, and that further consideration be given in a work plan to <br /> address neighborhood concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained that the intent of his motion was to prevent new alley access lots from being <br />created after adoption of the code update because of their effect on surrounding properties, the <br />lack of community connection for such residents, the many unimproved alleys in the city, and <br />their constraints on emergency access. The work plan would ensure that the council gave <br />further thought to the issue after adoption. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly said that by alley access, he meant a lot <br />that only took automobile access from an alley. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr understood the difficulties of reaching lots that were only accessible by alleyway, and the <br />condition of the housing stock was often questionable. However, removing the potential of such <br />developments would permanently eliminate them from the housing stock thus making housing <br />less accessible and more expensive. He suggested that the problems associated with alley <br />access lots be addressed rather than eliminating the possibility entirely. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Farr. However, he thought such developments were too problematic <br />right now and wanted to vote for a motion that left alive the possibility of working on alley access <br />issues sometime in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked about the scope of the issue the motion was intended to address. Ms. Bishow <br />said that the city currently had about 500 such lots developed with dwellings. Those were legal <br />uses that would be continued after adoption of the code. She did not know how many were <br />owner-occupied. Mr. Pap8 asked if the word "alley" was well-defined. Ms. Bishow said that staff <br />would work to ensure it was well-defined. She added that now the code allowed for the creation <br />of an alley access lot on an alley created before 1982, which meant that such lots could only <br />occur in the Eugene downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. She said that narrow rural <br />streets would not be defined as alleys. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs suggested that the motion could be separated into two motions, noting that the issue <br />raised by Mr. Rayor regarding the future work program item could be addressed by a second <br />motion, if the first motion passed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman favored the motion. She acknowledged that most of the alleys in question were in <br />developed neighborhoods in the urban core where the City wanted to preserve single-family <br />housing and the tree canopy. She appreciated Mr. Farr's issue about the loss of housing <br />opportunities, and indicated she planned to offer a motion to create a cottage zone as another <br />way of densifying neighborhoods and had other ideas as well. Without those other strategies, <br />the council was considering the motion in a vacuum. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman addressing some of the problems resulting from alley lots, cited the expense to <br />existing homeowners from alley improvements triggered by a majority of neighbors, the loss of <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />