Laserfiche WebLink
MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Syrett, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to amend <br />Section 8 of the ordinance to change the references from 8 feet to 10 feet currently <br />located in EC 9.2751(17)(a)3.b, EC 9.2751(17)(b)S.a, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9.a, EC <br />9.2 775 (5) (e) 3.a. <br />Discussion <br />Councilor Clark - asked how HB 2001 alters the density calculation and how that will impact <br />the issue of density; asked why it is a good idea to land on decisions around ADUs prior to <br />LUBA's decision coming up in a few weeks; asked about the definition of accessory dwelling <br />unit and the mandate in HB 1051 to continue with clear and objective standards and if the City's <br />definition is clear and objective; said that a really clear definition of ADU will be needed in order <br />to later address incentives; asked if the City could use its own definition for ADU and not the <br />states. <br />Councilor Taylor - said she thinks that in order to call something an accessory dwelling it needs <br />to be accessory to something; said she supported discussing each item separately, noting that <br />she would vote against the motion unless they are separated; said she did not think the state <br />should preempt the City's authority especially on land use issues and anything to resist the <br />preemption should be considered. <br />Councilor Semple - asked how Councilor Syrett's amendment differs from Councilor Yeh's <br />amendment at the last work session regarding slope. <br />Councilor Pryor - said he thinks the impact the proposed motion will have on aesthetics is <br />minimal, but it improves the ability to have a decent -sized wall and so he is supportive. <br />VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 8:0. <br />Councilor Zelenka -said that he does not like this law because it's a one -size -fits -all structure <br />that will likely have many unintended consequences; spoke about the area around the <br />university that has unique pressures related to student housing and that the bill will actually <br />make low- to moderate -income housing disappear in this area; said keeping the two provisions <br />in his motion are reasonable design and siting standards to maintain the livability in these areas <br />related to maximum bedrooms and occupancy. <br />MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to <br />amend Section 8 of the ordinance to retain the standard entitled "Maximum <br />Occupancy" currently located at EC 9.2751(17)(c)8 and to renumber the remaining <br />subsections accordingly. <br />Councilor Semple - said she had mixed feelings about this motion because she wants it to be fair <br />to everyone, but also agreed that the university area is a different situation; expressed concern <br />about using the "cookie cutter" approach, but there are neighborhood differences. <br />Councilor Clark- said he agrees with the intent of the motion and that the university area <br />reflects a different use around an event center; said he'd like to leave the ordinance broad and <br />general because what Eugene looks like today might change for tomorrow and other areas <br />might also be impacted later; said he would not support the motion, though he likes the idea. <br />Councilor Taylor - said she would vote for the motion if it applied all neighborhoods but was <br />not supportive if it is only restricted to university neighborhoods. <br />Councilor Evans - asked what the affect would be if the motion was applied to all neighborhoods. <br />Councilor Clark - asked what argument was used in favor of the standard as reasonably related <br />to siting and design. <br />MINUTES - Eugene City Council January 21, 2020 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />