Laserfiche WebLink
problem with crime in the neighborhood. Those concerned were residents of the second <br />dwelling, not the primary dwelling residents. He suggested that this be further addressed when <br />single-family standards are addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson reminded councilors of the policy framework related to the issue, specifically the <br />maintenance of the urban growth boundary in its current location and Growth Management Policy <br />2, which encouraged in-fill, mixed use, redevelopment and higher density development. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that for the record, he would like to hold the urban growth boundary. He said that <br />he did not know what other options might be. He said that he did not agree with the rationale <br />that there should be no infill. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that a detached dwelling would be more likely to have nonfamily residents. <br />She said that her feeling was that infill should be about filling in vacant lots. She said that <br />people's neighborhoods do not have be destroyed to avoid expanding the urban growth <br />boundary. She said that if this motion fails, then she would propose to prohibit detached <br />dwellings until there are design standards. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she had mixed feelings about the motion. She said that it could be a way <br />to get around the alley issues. Ms. Bettman suggested that asset mapping might be a benefit. <br />She suggested that it might be beneficial to add a geographic component to the proposal where <br />higher density neighborhoods might be exempted. <br /> <br />Referring to secondary dwellings, sub (E), on page 93 of the code, Ms. Bettman asked how this <br />applied to the secondary dwelling. If there is a single family lot, which is zoned R-2 or R-3 and a <br />detached dwelling is placed on the parcel, what would be the density requirement? Ms. Bishow <br />said that secondary detached dwellings are only allowed in the R-1 zone, and only if there is a <br />9,000 square foot lot, twice the size of a single lot. However, secondary dwellings are not a <br />technique for achieving density in the medium- and high-density zones. Ms. Bishow referred to <br />the use table on page 91. <br />Mr. Torrey said that he hoped that this motion would be defeated. The word "prohibit" was too <br />restrictive. He suggested that there must be a way to put conditions in place that would make it <br />acceptable to have a secondary dwelling. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he agreed with the comments by Mr. Rayor. He said that the motion <br />presented last week was very temporary until additional information is received. To the <br />comments of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Meisner said that it was ironic that residents in the Iow-density <br />areas do not want any part of this type of infill and that they want the density to go into other <br />areas. He added that asset mapping may address this issue better. To the comments by Ms. <br />Taylor, Mr. Meisner said that no one is crazy about growth, but the growth rate in this area is <br />much lower than other areas of the state. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked for the reference for 9,000 square foot lot. Ms. Bishow directed members to <br />page 93, (2)(E), section 9.2750, R-1 net densities of 14 dwellings per acre translates to a 9,000 <br />square foot lot. No minimum requirement, but the maximum density equates to the minimum <br />land area required for each unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if there was a modification of off-street parking required on a residential lot. Ms. <br />Bishow said that there was one required off-street parking for both the primary and secondary <br />units. She said this may put more cars on the street. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />