Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson said that she understood the intent of the motion but she was concerned that bed <br />and breakfast operations would be able to be sited without input by adjacent residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart thought that eliminating the minimum parking requirement increased flexibility for bed <br />and breakfast operators. If such individuals found it in their best interest to provide additional off- <br />street parking, they could do so. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the original motion would not prevent a bed and breakfast operator from <br />providing more parking, but it would ensure, through the conditional use permit process, that the <br />front yard of a bed and breakfast operation was sited to avoid paving of the front yard to <br />accommodate parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Bishow that the motion would apply to any bed and breakfast of <br />any size in the cited zones. He was not concerned about the motion as it concerned home <br />occupations, but pointed out large bed and breakfast operations needed considerably more <br />parking than small bed and breakfast operations. Bed and breakfast operations attracted visitors <br />to a neighborhood, Mr. Meisner said, and that created an impact on neighborhoods. He <br />preferred the conditional use permit approach for bed and breakfasts in R-1 and R-2 zones in the <br />original motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Bettman said that her original motion was not <br />specific to the R-1 and R-2 zones; it had applied to all bed and breakfasts in all zones. Mr. Fart <br />suggested that the motion be amended to refer to the R-1 and R-2 zones. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he was not concerned about the motion as it related to bed and breakfasts in <br />the R-1 and R-2 zones for the reasons cited by Mr. Kelly. However, he did not support the motion <br />as it applied to large bed and breakfasts in R-3, R-4, and commercial zones because the motion <br />would essentially allow for the provision of no parking at all. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that in the case of a tie he would vote against the motion, not because he <br />opposed the concept but because he did not like crafting the update "on the fly." <br /> <br />Ms. Childs suggested that the council consider revising Table 9.6410 to ensure that one parking <br />space per guest room was required in bed and breakfasts with five or more bedrooms. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion to revise <br /> Table 9.6410 to provide a minimum of one parking space per guest room for <br /> bed and breakfasts with five or more guest rooms and to eliminate the <br /> minimum parking requirement for home occupations. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what the motion was attempting to achieve: was it a space for every room, <br />or to decrease the impact on neighborhood streets? Ms. Bettman said that her intent was to <br />protect the less intense residential development of R-1 and R-2 zones from the creation of <br />parking lots, a more intense use. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed that a conditional use permit was needed to protect neighborhood livability. <br />She said that in some places in Eugene there was no on-street parking, and even a two-bedroom <br />bed and breakfast would be a nuisance to the neighbors if it was full all the time. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />