CC Minutes - 10/11/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner said that both the reasons suggested by Ms. Nathanson were relevant to the issue. He said that even a four-guest bed and breakfast in an R-2 zone had some impact. He agreed with Mr. Farr that a bed and breakfast operator intending to operate on a sustained basis would make every effort to make parking available and convenient for guests. He thought that four vehicles for a smaller bed and breakfast operation was probably not an unreasonable impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Meisner said that streets were not for vehicle storage, and he did not want large bed and breakfasts in the R-3 and R-4 zones to rely on the City streets for parking. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's concern that front yards would be converted to parking. Ms. Childs said that ten years ago the City had done a study of bed and breakfasts in the community and made several changes in the code because of concerns about large-scale bed and breakfasts in the R-1 and R-2 zones, resulting in the reduction of the number of allowed guest rooms. She said that those changes generally addressed the issue of neighborhood impact, and she believed the parking requirement was a holdover from older requirements and was not necessary as a minimum requirement given the scale of the use. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements to require a conditional use permit for bed and breakfast facilities in R-1 and R-2. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding item (f) on the Consent Calendar, Ms. Bishow said it clarified that off-street parking was prohibited in required front-yard setbacks. The City would allow parking in the setback in a driveway leading to a garage. She said that houses with already established parking in the front-yard setback were not complying with the current code. Mr. Pap8 asked what would occur if the parking was legally created before, for example, a property annexed. Ms. Bishow said that if the parking complied with land use laws in effect at the time of construction, the use was a legal nonconforming use and would be grandfathered in. Mr. Farr asked how the City would enforce the code regulations the council was now considering given the current lack of money for enforcement. Ms. Bishow said that after the council completed its revisions, staff would return with a cost impact analysis and assist the council in a review of tradeoffs and choices as they related to staffing requirements. Mr. Rayor did not perceive clear standards and objectives that could be reviewed at the Permit and Information Center as adding significant costs, as opposed to regulations that the City was required to confirm compliance with in the field. Ms. Bishow responded that to the degree the City increased or broadened its range of regulations, there were additional staff resources needed to ensure compliance, no matter how clearly the code was written or whether the review required field work. Ms. Bettman said that as the council looked at ways to change zoning and allowable uses within the urban growth boundary, it needed to establish some things to maintain livability and walkability. She cited Jefferson Street as an example of a street where additional parking for secondary dwellings had been accommodated in the front yard or the setback. She was concerned that as more secondary dwellings were allowed, without an outright prohibition, paving of front and back yards would become more of an issue. Mr. Farr said that he understood those MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 5 Work Session