Laserfiche WebLink
four-car garage could be transformed into living space. He did not support the motion, but would <br />support other controls. He said he would like to see 800 square-foot maximum for the building <br />with only a carport. The structure should be a single stow. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would like to see a motion to direct staff to ensure adequate compatibility <br />safeguards for accessory dwellings. Mr. Kelly said that he understood that there be clear <br />standards. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that would be supportive of language that limited square footage, including a <br />garage. <br /> <br /> The motion failed 4:1, with Ms. Taylor voting in support. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to direct the City Manager to create <br /> additional compatibility safeguards for secondary dwellings. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the motion could be more detailed. She suggested a dwelling of 800 <br />square feet with no more than 200 square feet for a carport or garage. Mr. Kelly said that he did <br />not want to do that until staff had more time to review the issues involved and respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he concurred with the motion. He like the term "massing" and felt that this <br />was understood. He asked if there was a height limitation. Ms. Bishow clarified that if a <br />secondary dwelling was detached from the primary dwelling, the maximum height is 20 feet. If it <br />is attached, part of the main dwelling, the height limit is 30 feet. For the record, Mr. Rayor asked <br />staff to come back with something that ensures small total developments of small mass. He <br />wanted to prevent out-of-scale development. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that in the visit to Arenco Station, one of the structures was an accessory unit <br />over a two-car garage. Mr. Meisner noted that the two-car garages were also the garage <br />structure for the main house. He said that the concerns he had heard were more about four-plex <br />structures with multiple levels. <br /> <br /> The motion passed 4:1, with Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Bettman clarified <br /> later in the meeting that she voted in opposition in error. She asked that her <br /> vote be recorded as in support on this motion. There was no objection. The <br /> motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />Other Issues <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly spoke about other issues that came from e-mail he had received. He asked the council <br />to address the issue of diversity of housing types, specifically providing more opportunities for <br />single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, which requires a conditional use permit in R-3. He asked <br />why it required a conditional use permit in R-3 (referencing page 91). Ms. Bishow said that she <br />did not recall exactly, but that SRO was a new housing type being introduced into the code. She <br />noted that it was permitted in R-4. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if there was interest in allowing SROs in R-3. Ms. Taylor said that she did not <br />understand why they were not permitted anywhere. Ms. Bettman noted that there appeared to <br />be consensus to allow SROs in R-3. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />