Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said that this issue had been addressed in past discussions and a recent task force. He <br />said it was acceptable to him to add this item to the work program. Mr. Kelly asked staff to <br />summarize the history of the issue. Mr. Johnson said he would also make the history available to <br />Mr. Bettman. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that there was a deficiency in not being able to declare a home unsafe. He spoke <br />in general terms about a specific case he had been working on. Mr. Rayor asked that the code <br />reference be faxed to him. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would not support this motion at this time because it established a new <br />work program item. Mr. Meisner noted that there was a State housing code and he did not want <br />to have duplication. He said that the cost implications were very significant. He referenced the <br />work on the issue of a recent council committee, the Council Committee on Infrastructure and <br />Planning Services. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that there be a review of the historical work on this issue. She said that <br />she would support the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed 4:1, Mr. Meisner voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to prohibit detached accessory or secondary dwellings. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that this issue was closely related to the issue of maintaining home ownership. <br />She said that the proposed code change came from the Planning Commission because of <br />suggestions that there was a desire for detached dwellings. However, Ms. Taylor said that she <br />had heard that this will discourage home owners and cause them to leave the neighborhood. <br />The main complaints regarded noise, traffic, and trash. If there are more units, there will be <br />increased problems. She said that there was also concern about enforcement of owner <br />occupancy requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that as to enforcement, there was a prior motion which passed which would require <br />that information to be recorded with the deed would be noted during any change of ownership. <br />Mr. Kelly said that he liked the idea of small detached dwellings. He asked Mr. Farmer how this <br />issue was addressed in other cities. Mr. Farmer said that there could easily be a work session <br />on this item. He said that the trend around the country was to provide for accessory or <br />secondary dwelling buildings, with safeguards in place. He gave options of safeguards which <br />might be considered. Mr. Farmer said that it was a policy choice but reiterated that the trend was <br />to allow such units with safeguards. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that other than the safeguard of one of the two buildings being owner-occupied, <br />were there other safeguards with might fit into LUCU. Mr. Farmer said that there were some <br />safeguards which go into detail, in terms of design, door placement, trying to make the unit look <br />like a single unit. <br />Mr. Kelly said that potential single-family standards was also on the list of future work program <br />items. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He said he did not understand why being <br />detached versus attached made a difference. He spoke to a perception that "density is evil." <br />Mr. Meisner cited an example at a neighborhood meeting, during which participants identified a <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />