Agenda Packet 2-24-20 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session January 21, 2020 Page 3  Councilor Syrett – said she doesn’t love the exception framework but recognizes the particular pressures that these neighborhoods have been under; said the current exceptions that these neighborhoods have are for valid reasons and she would vote in favor of the motion.  Councilor Pyror – said there was a reasonable argument to be made for why neighborhoods are different; asked how the bedroom and occupancy exceptions relate to the removal of owner-occupancy in the state bills; said he would support the motion.  Councilor Semple – asked if this is one of the issues that is being challenged now; asked if the “five unrelated people rule” comes in when figuring out occupancy; asked what the effect would be of deciding one way or another as far as getting remanded or sued; asked about the difference between regulations and CC&Rs; asked how it will shift things if all R-1 zones become R-2 zones with HB 2001 and the refinement zones are mostly R-2 zones; said she thinks this might make the refinement plans moot.  Councilor Yeh – said she was not in favor of either of Councilor Zelenka’s motions because she does not think that these motions will get at some of the behavioral problems that people have.  Councilor Taylor – said that if HB 2001 is implemented, every neighborhood will be threatened and she would prefer if this applied to all neighborhoods; said she would vote for the proposed amendment asked about the enforcement of CC&Rs.  Councilor Clark – said that Western Title has a record of all CC&Rs and they are not hard to find; asked if the City will issue a permit if it knows about existing CC&Rs and if advisement is given when individuals apply for permits.  Councilor Zelenka – said he’s often surprised about what students put up with in cramming a ridiculous number of young adults into small spaces; said this impacts the livability of the neighborhoods; said that his amendments are directly related to design and siting and he hoped council would support the motion.  Councilor Semple - asked if having five unrelated people in a house is a complaint-driven issue and whether it could be addressed in the university area by simply taking complaints. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 7:1, Councilor Yeh opposed. MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend Section 8 of the ordinance to retain the standard entitled “Maximum Bedrooms” currently located at EC 9.2751(17)(c)7 and to renumber the remaining subsections accordingly.  Councilor Taylor – said the motion should apply to the whole city. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 7:1, Councilor Yeh opposed.  Councilor Semple – said that her potential motions came from constituents related to the JWN and S-C refinement areas, acknowledging her respect for these standards and the complicated nature of the issue; explained that while her motions address parking, the state is eliminating any requirements for on-site parking; asked how that affects these refinement zones; asked who would challenge it if council made the refinement zones different; said she’d like to protect the zones but doesn’t know how to do that if council isn’t addressing parking. MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend section 18 to delete the entire proposed amendment to subsection 9.3625(3)(d)3; and to replace the entirety of the proposed amendment to subsection 9.3625(7) with the following: (7) Parking Standards. (a) Except as provided in (3)(d)3. Above and subsection (7)(b), below, each dwelling shall have one on-street or on-site vehicle parking space for every three bedrooms, rounded up to the next whole number February 24, 2020, Meeting - Item 2ACC Agenda - Page 7