Laserfiche WebLink
The motion failed, 3:2, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in support. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit <br /> detached accessory or secondary dwellings until design standards are <br /> adopted. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to reduce the maximum size of secondary dwellings from <br /> 800 square feet to 600 square feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the current maximum was 600 square feet and that she felt 600 square feet <br />was sufficient for a secondary dwelling to accommodate a living room, bathroom, kitchen and <br />bedroom. Ms. Taylor said that families with children live in 800 square-foot units. <br /> <br />Ms. Kelly said that he was unclear on the impact of this motion. He asked staff for feedback on <br />the 600 versus 800 square-foot discussion. Ms. Bishow said that 600 was the minimum square <br />footage that seemed suitable for a living area. She added that when the Planning Commission <br />recommended increasing the allowed size, it felt that the 800 square-foot unit might be more <br />attractive for long-term residents and create more stability within the neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He agreed that families can live in 800 <br />square feet, but did not want to reduce the square footage so that secondary units are not <br />available to families. He said that he did not want to practice discrimination through a motion <br />such as this. He said that both 600 and 800 square foot units are small. He noted that he lives <br />in a 900-square foot home. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that 800 square feet was good for a single parent and child, but that was not <br />the issue. Ms. Bettman asked if the Planning Commission had established the 800 foot size on <br />the basis of any data that showed that the secondary dwelling might be for home ownership <br />rather than rental. Ms. Bishow said that there was no data regarding the tenancy of secondary <br />dwellings. She said that the current experience was that the home owner was tending to stay in <br />the larger home. Ms. Bishow said that the Planning Commission felt that the larger unit might be <br />more attractive to more people. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he did not support the motion. He said that he wanted to look at alley lots <br />and ensure that there were not big structures on alley lots. He said that he would like to look at <br />standards for this type of infill. He said that if there could be a separate lot, there could be <br />separate, affordable ownership. He spoke to an example of a cottage at 975 square feet. If alley <br />lots are brought back after the moratorium, then the secondary dwelling could become a second <br />lot and allow Iow-cost ownership. Mr. Rayor asked if the secondary unit could have its own <br />attached garage. Ms. Bishow said that the code, as drafted, does not prohibit sharing an existing <br />garage or allowing the secondary unit to be built with a garage. However, as a safeguard, there <br />is a limit of the area that is covered by impervious surface. She referred to page 97 of the draft <br />code. Mr. Rayor said that this was still a concern for him. He suggested that the accessory unit <br />be a single-story building. He spoke about allowing for Iow-scale development that resulted in <br />comfortable housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that the question raised by Mr. Rayor was important. He said that there could be <br />a four-car garage with an 800 square-foot dwelling on top. Mr. Rayor expressed concern that the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />