Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/01/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon November 1, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Land Use Code Update Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the meeting would be the conclusion of Land Use Code Update (LUCU) matters. She noted that motions that were tabled or postponed from the October 30, 2000, meeting were before the members of the council, as well as new proposed motions. A list of proposed motions was used by members and staff, beginning with motion B and continuing through motion M. Mr. Torrey noted that motion "B," carried over from the October 30, 2000, meeting, had been withdrawn by Mr. Rayor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to allow motorcycle sales and service in I-2. Mr. Kelly noted that although it was a specific property that brought this issue to the table, there was a more general issue that needed to be addressed. He pointed out that most of the motorcycle establishments are currently in the industrial zones; although the current zone does not separate motorcycles from automobiles, there was a difference in noise impact. Ms. Bettman stated that she was in favor of the motion, but expressed reservations about making changes in the code to accommodate specific businesses. However, she said she was more supportive of motorcycle sales and service business in I-2 than in C-2. She said that this highlights the distinctions between the two zones. She further said that she would support the upcoming motion to clarify uses permitted in various zones. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kelly noted that both motions D and E were a result of previous discussions that made modifications to I-1. He explained that his motivation behind motion D was that I-1 allows more office-like uses, so the same standards that apply to commercial zones should apply. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code so that relevant commercial standards from 9.2170 will also apply to office uses in industrial zones. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of the motion. She said that a concern she had had about expanding the uses in the industrial zones is that they are high intensity uses, which might not necessarily be open to the public. She said that the more that could be done to allow the 15 percent for commercial development and a broader range of office uses and supporting uses, the more that can be done to make the area pedestrian and transit friendly. Mr. Rayor said that he too supported the motion and asked how office space was regulated in I-1 before it was amended last week. Mr. Kelly said that none of the commercial standards would have applied. Ms. Bishow said that within I-1, the general standards would apply, like requiring underground utilities. She said that the commercial standards that do not apply were building window requirements, building orientation, pedestrian circulation, etc. Ms. Bishow noted that there were commercial standards that the council has directed staff to include in the revised code that move toward a walkable pedestrian-oriented urban environment. Ms. Bishow said that staff would be looking at those and recommending which were appropriate for the different industrial zones. Ms. Bishow asked if the motion was specifically targeted to office development in the industrial zone. Mr. Kelly said that it was, and that he had considered amendments to the motion. Mr. Kelly withdrew the motion. Mr. Meisner withdrew his second. Mr. Kelly suggested that "office" be changed to "office style" to indicate uses that are like an office, rather than a specific office category in the permitted uses. The second change was to suggest that the proposal apply to I-1 zoning only. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code so that relevant commercial standards from 9.2170 will also apply to office style uses in the I-1 zone. Mr. Rayor said he supported the concept as represented. Mr. Meisner said that he also supported the motion. He said that he liked the concept of looking at uses, not just zones. He asked if I-1, I-2 and I-3 uses were isolated from areas where pedestrians would use them. Ms. Bishow said that in general, the I-2 and I-3 uses are in large concentrated areas within the city. Mr. Meisner noted that it appeared that I-1 zones were relatively small and were often adjoined by residential and commercial uses. Mr. Kelly said that he had restricted the motion to I-1 primarily because that was where office style uses were opened up in I-1. Ms. Bettman said that she had similar concerns and was disappointed that I-2 was eliminated from the motion. She noted the 15 percent commercial allowance in I-1 and asked if the commercial standards would apply. Mr. Kelly said that it was his intent. Ms. Bishow said that staff understood the intent for non-manufacturing uses and that it would also look at relevancy carefully. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 2 Work Session The motion carried unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to add the new "Information Technology Services" (ITS) category with a list of permitted uses in commercial zones, consistent with other office-style uses in commercial zones. Retain the size limitation at 9.2161(1) for C-1. Mr. Rayor returned to the discussion regarding motorcycles, speaking about the use as being "homeless" and said that he saw this as being a similar issue. He asked if adding this to the code or adding it to the definition would make more sense. He said that he supported the motion but wondered if expanding the definition, rather than expanding the table, would have the same effect. He asked staff to consider adding new uses as definitions through administrative rule, rather than code amendments. Ms. Bishow said that she concurred that the Land Use Code could not try to identify all emerging businesses. However, she suggested that if there was a choice to regulate a business differently, then there should be a separate category. She said that staff will look carefully at which uses are placed in it. Mr. Kelly suggested that industry people in the ITS businesses be contacted as staff considers this change. Mr. Rayor noted that if a definition was added, it would be clearer to identify what the table says is conditional, permitted, or not allowed uses. He said that while he supported the motion, he was not clear of the intent of the motion. He asked if the intent was to fit the list of uses under "administrative, general and professional offices." Ms. Bishow said that some of them might be because they operate in that type of environment. She said that it could be argued that e- commerce companies are selling and trading goods, so is that retail or office? If these uses are added to the code, under a new broad category of ITS there will be more clarity as to where they are permitted and less need for staff interpretation. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to amend Table 9.2170 to increase the maximum allowed building height in C-1 from 35 feet to 50 feet except for buildings within 50 feet of AG, R-1 or R-2 zoned property. Clarify this new standard by amending section 9.2171. Ms. Bettman said that she would vote against the motion because she felt there was already limited C-1 zoned property and that the purpose of C-1 was to serve the surrounding neighborhood. She said that a building height of 50 feet was not appropriate for C-1. Mr. Kelly said that he would also oppose the motion. He said that C-1 zoned property was a limited resource. Although the motion was stated in general terms, the language was taken from a specific property owner's request from the Willakenzie area. Mr. Kelly referenced the Willakenzie Neighborhood Plan, saying that the intention of such zoning was to serve neighborhood needs. Mr. Meisner said that the would oppose the motion, concurring with the comments by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He asked further about the location of C-1 versus GO zoning. Ms. Bishow said that she was not sure if the siting, in general, was more or less C-1 or GO MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 3 Work Session surrounded by R-1 and R-2 zones. She noted that there are neighborhoods in the city which are planned for high density uses. Ms. Bishow said that Ms. Bettman was correct that it would be appropriate to have neighborhood services in scale with surrounding neighborhoods. However, she questioned why one would limit the commercial facilities to 30 feet in height if the surrounding neighborhood has eight to ten stow buildings, which is possible. Mr. Meisner concurred with the staff assessment. Mr. Meisner posed a follow-up question, asking what the "current" standards were for GO zoning. Mr. Jacobson responded said that the existing height for GO was 45 feet, unless it is adjacent to residential zone; then the height restriction was 25 feet. Mr. Rayor said that while there was some merit to this proposal, he would vote against the motion. He suggested that this be a future work item or there needs to be a better idea of how there could be a blending GO graduated height scale, so that there was not a precedent for doing this. Mr. Jacobson said that there was currently a graduated scale in the GO zone. Mr. Rayor said that such uses should not overshadow the neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman asked if there was less GO land than C-1 land. Ms. Bishow noted that a map was available which would show the various zoning areas. Ms. Bettman said that the only way she would support this motion was if the upper two or three stories were housing. Mr. Jacobson showed the GO designated lands on a large map. Adjoining zones appeared to be primarily R-3, C-2, or C-3. Mr. Jacobson also showed the C-1 zoned areas on the map. Mr. Kelly said his concern was not the height compatibility, but getting uses in the C-1 zone which would support services for the surrounding area. He said that he would support allowing a higher building height for C-1 if it were part of a node, for example. Ms. Bettman noted that there was already a work program item to look at ways to encourage residential uses above commercial. Mr. Kelly said that he would oppose this motion and invite staff to present tools which might encourage residential above commercial property. Mr. Meisner concurred with the comments of Mr. Kelly. Ms. Bettman said that she believed that there may be some new C-1 zones created, which would serve neighborhoods. Mr. Rayor asked for clarification of the 50 feet restriction. Ms. Bishow responded that the portion of the development site within 50 feet of AG, R-l, or R-2 would have the lower height limit of 35 feet. She said there were examples of developments that had the portion of the building within 50 feet of the property line as a three-stow height, backed by four and five stow portions of the building farther away. Mr. Torrey suggested that the councilors who were not present could come to one of those present to ask for a reconsideration. The motion failed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to clarify uses permitted in the various zones and to make other conforming amendments to address public testimony and broad policy direction of the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that the next two motions were as a result of a prior discussion regarding the "Other" category. He said if a property stays in PL zoning, there may not be any public notice of development even though there may be an intensification of use. As an example of his concern, Mr. Kelly cited a University parcel which had been a parking lot. It was now going to become a 70-unit apartment complex, which would not have gone through any kind of public input, except that there was a site review overlay zone on the property. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the PL Public Land zone to require either a site review or conditional use permit for the intensification of a use within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. Mr. Rayor asked for clarification on the example. Mr. Kelly said that the parcel would stay as PL use when being transformed from a parking lot to student housing. Mr. Rayor asked if the intent was to have a notice at 300 feet, or to actually require a Type II or higher procedure. Ms. Bishow said that it was the staff understanding of the motion that if a development was proposed on a PL-zoned property and was zoned within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property, and there was intensification of use, then there would be notice provided and an opportunity for public comment before the decision is rendered. For permitted uses, it would be a Type II process, and a Type III process for a conditional use permit. Mr. Kelly said that the 300 feet was not the trigger for the notice provision. Mr. Farmer said that most typically, zoning ordinances do not have a PL designation. Zoning does not speak to ownership and that perhaps, sometime in the future, this issue will be revisited. He said that in general, it would be appropriate to deal with intensification of use. Mr. Rayor said that he supported the motion and that public lands should have the same standards as privately held property. Mr. Meisner said that he did not understand why there was a PL zone. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kelly said that the intent of motion I was to address the issue brought forward by Mr. Farmer and step back and take a broad look at PLzoning. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to add as a future work program item the evaluation of the PL Public Land zone, including the need for a distinct PL zone, the list of permitted uses and notice requirements for changes in the intensification of use. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to add as a future work program item to find ways to reestablish home ownership in the University area to increase long-term residency. Ms. Bettman said that motion reflected a concern that she had for some time regarding the diminishing owner-occupied housing in the University area. She suggested that the University neighborhoods be the first area that would be studied. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Rayor said that he supported the intent of the motion, but asked how it fit into LUCU. He suggested that this may not be the proper forum for such a discussion. Mr. Meisner said that as a future agenda item, it does not mean that it must fit within the Land Use Code. He said that it could be a policy goal, as stated in the Whiteaker Plan Update. Mr. Meisner asked if the issue was limited to west of the University. Mr. Kelly said that it was also an issue to the east of the University. Ms. Bettman said that it was also an issue to the south. Mr. Johnson suggested that the motion went beyond the scope of LUCU and has general fund impacts beyond the Planning Division. He said that it was important to appropriately prioritize this issue, and the next, in the list of other priorities coming not only from this process, but other City processes. Mr. Meisner asked if there should be a work session to further discuss this issue. Mr. Johnson said there were already policies which speak to increasing home ownership. He asked how LUCU relates to home ownership in one area of the city. It is similar to work that the City is already doing in other areas. Ms. Childs said that it might also be useful if staff outlined the priority recommendations from the West University Scoping report and a status report on what has already been done for the council. She said that the public safety recommendations received highest priority and have already been implemented. Ms. Bettman said that admittedly, she did not have all the answers, which is why she asked that this item be considered for the future work program. Ms. Bettman said that it was her motivation to see how LUCU might be used to have an impact on home ownership. Mr. Johnson said that Ms. Bettman's explanation was useful. Mr. Kelly provided additional feedback to the City Manager, suggesting that there needs to be a discussion on the prioritization of those items on the work program. He said it would help to have staff identify other departments that might be involved. Mr. Johnson concurred. Ms. Taylor said that she felt that there were parts of LUCU which were detrimental to home ownership. She said that this seemed closely related. Mr. Meisner said that with the clarification, he would support the motion. Mr. Meisner asked that Planning staff provide updates on issues such as the implementation of the West University Plan and comparable efforts. Mr. Rayor said that he would support the motion. He said that it might effect cottage zoning, but that the disconnect with the code was disconcerting. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to add as a future work program item to investigate the adoption of a local housing code to improve the condition of housing. Ms. Bettman said that the motion was one way to address the lack of a local housing code which might reestablish long-term residency in some of the neighborhoods. She said she would like to establish a local housing code to preserve housing stock. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that this issue had been addressed in past discussions and a recent task force. He said it was acceptable to him to add this item to the work program. Mr. Kelly asked staff to summarize the history of the issue. Mr. Johnson said he would also make the history available to Mr. Bettman. Mr. Rayor said that there was a deficiency in not being able to declare a home unsafe. He spoke in general terms about a specific case he had been working on. Mr. Rayor asked that the code reference be faxed to him. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support this motion at this time because it established a new work program item. Mr. Meisner noted that there was a State housing code and he did not want to have duplication. He said that the cost implications were very significant. He referenced the work on the issue of a recent council committee, the Council Committee on Infrastructure and Planning Services. Ms. Taylor suggested that there be a review of the historical work on this issue. She said that she would support the motion. The motion passed 4:1, Mr. Meisner voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit detached accessory or secondary dwellings. Ms. Taylor said that this issue was closely related to the issue of maintaining home ownership. She said that the proposed code change came from the Planning Commission because of suggestions that there was a desire for detached dwellings. However, Ms. Taylor said that she had heard that this will discourage home owners and cause them to leave the neighborhood. The main complaints regarded noise, traffic, and trash. If there are more units, there will be increased problems. She said that there was also concern about enforcement of owner occupancy requirements. Mr. Kelly said that as to enforcement, there was a prior motion which passed which would require that information to be recorded with the deed would be noted during any change of ownership. Mr. Kelly said that he liked the idea of small detached dwellings. He asked Mr. Farmer how this issue was addressed in other cities. Mr. Farmer said that there could easily be a work session on this item. He said that the trend around the country was to provide for accessory or secondary dwelling buildings, with safeguards in place. He gave options of safeguards which might be considered. Mr. Farmer said that it was a policy choice but reiterated that the trend was to allow such units with safeguards. Mr. Kelly said that other than the safeguard of one of the two buildings being owner-occupied, were there other safeguards with might fit into LUCU. Mr. Farmer said that there were some safeguards which go into detail, in terms of design, door placement, trying to make the unit look like a single unit. Mr. Kelly said that potential single-family standards was also on the list of future work program items. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He said he did not understand why being detached versus attached made a difference. He spoke to a perception that "density is evil." Mr. Meisner cited an example at a neighborhood meeting, during which participants identified a MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 7 Work Session problem with crime in the neighborhood. Those concerned were residents of the second dwelling, not the primary dwelling residents. He suggested that this be further addressed when single-family standards are addressed. Mr. Johnson reminded councilors of the policy framework related to the issue, specifically the maintenance of the urban growth boundary in its current location and Growth Management Policy 2, which encouraged in-fill, mixed use, redevelopment and higher density development. Mr. Rayor said that for the record, he would like to hold the urban growth boundary. He said that he did not know what other options might be. He said that he did not agree with the rationale that there should be no infill. Ms. Taylor suggested that a detached dwelling would be more likely to have nonfamily residents. She said that her feeling was that infill should be about filling in vacant lots. She said that people's neighborhoods do not have be destroyed to avoid expanding the urban growth boundary. She said that if this motion fails, then she would propose to prohibit detached dwellings until there are design standards. Ms. Bettman said that she had mixed feelings about the motion. She said that it could be a way to get around the alley issues. Ms. Bettman suggested that asset mapping might be a benefit. She suggested that it might be beneficial to add a geographic component to the proposal where higher density neighborhoods might be exempted. Referring to secondary dwellings, sub (E), on page 93 of the code, Ms. Bettman asked how this applied to the secondary dwelling. If there is a single family lot, which is zoned R-2 or R-3 and a detached dwelling is placed on the parcel, what would be the density requirement? Ms. Bishow said that secondary detached dwellings are only allowed in the R-1 zone, and only if there is a 9,000 square foot lot, twice the size of a single lot. However, secondary dwellings are not a technique for achieving density in the medium- and high-density zones. Ms. Bishow referred to the use table on page 91. Mr. Torrey said that he hoped that this motion would be defeated. The word "prohibit" was too restrictive. He suggested that there must be a way to put conditions in place that would make it acceptable to have a secondary dwelling. Mr. Meisner said that he agreed with the comments by Mr. Rayor. He said that the motion presented last week was very temporary until additional information is received. To the comments of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Meisner said that it was ironic that residents in the Iow-density areas do not want any part of this type of infill and that they want the density to go into other areas. He added that asset mapping may address this issue better. To the comments by Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner said that no one is crazy about growth, but the growth rate in this area is much lower than other areas of the state. Mr. Rayor asked for the reference for 9,000 square foot lot. Ms. Bishow directed members to page 93, (2)(E), section 9.2750, R-1 net densities of 14 dwellings per acre translates to a 9,000 square foot lot. No minimum requirement, but the maximum density equates to the minimum land area required for each unit. Mr. Rayor asked if there was a modification of off-street parking required on a residential lot. Ms. Bishow said that there was one required off-street parking for both the primary and secondary units. She said this may put more cars on the street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 8 Work Session The motion failed, 3:2, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in support. Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to prohibit detached accessory or secondary dwellings until design standards are adopted. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the code to reduce the maximum size of secondary dwellings from 800 square feet to 600 square feet. Ms. Taylor said that the current maximum was 600 square feet and that she felt 600 square feet was sufficient for a secondary dwelling to accommodate a living room, bathroom, kitchen and bedroom. Ms. Taylor said that families with children live in 800 square-foot units. Ms. Kelly said that he was unclear on the impact of this motion. He asked staff for feedback on the 600 versus 800 square-foot discussion. Ms. Bishow said that 600 was the minimum square footage that seemed suitable for a living area. She added that when the Planning Commission recommended increasing the allowed size, it felt that the 800 square-foot unit might be more attractive for long-term residents and create more stability within the neighborhoods. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He agreed that families can live in 800 square feet, but did not want to reduce the square footage so that secondary units are not available to families. He said that he did not want to practice discrimination through a motion such as this. He said that both 600 and 800 square foot units are small. He noted that he lives in a 900-square foot home. Ms. Bettman said that 800 square feet was good for a single parent and child, but that was not the issue. Ms. Bettman asked if the Planning Commission had established the 800 foot size on the basis of any data that showed that the secondary dwelling might be for home ownership rather than rental. Ms. Bishow said that there was no data regarding the tenancy of secondary dwellings. She said that the current experience was that the home owner was tending to stay in the larger home. Ms. Bishow said that the Planning Commission felt that the larger unit might be more attractive to more people. Mr. Rayor said that he did not support the motion. He said that he wanted to look at alley lots and ensure that there were not big structures on alley lots. He said that he would like to look at standards for this type of infill. He said that if there could be a separate lot, there could be separate, affordable ownership. He spoke to an example of a cottage at 975 square feet. If alley lots are brought back after the moratorium, then the secondary dwelling could become a second lot and allow Iow-cost ownership. Mr. Rayor asked if the secondary unit could have its own attached garage. Ms. Bishow said that the code, as drafted, does not prohibit sharing an existing garage or allowing the secondary unit to be built with a garage. However, as a safeguard, there is a limit of the area that is covered by impervious surface. She referred to page 97 of the draft code. Mr. Rayor said that this was still a concern for him. He suggested that the accessory unit be a single-story building. He spoke about allowing for Iow-scale development that resulted in comfortable housing. Mr. Farmer said that the question raised by Mr. Rayor was important. He said that there could be a four-car garage with an 800 square-foot dwelling on top. Mr. Rayor expressed concern that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 9 Work Session four-car garage could be transformed into living space. He did not support the motion, but would support other controls. He said he would like to see 800 square-foot maximum for the building with only a carport. The structure should be a single stow. Mr. Kelly said that he would like to see a motion to direct staff to ensure adequate compatibility safeguards for accessory dwellings. Mr. Kelly said that he understood that there be clear standards. Ms. Bettman said that would be supportive of language that limited square footage, including a garage. The motion failed 4:1, with Ms. Taylor voting in support. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to direct the City Manager to create additional compatibility safeguards for secondary dwellings. Ms. Bettman asked if the motion could be more detailed. She suggested a dwelling of 800 square feet with no more than 200 square feet for a carport or garage. Mr. Kelly said that he did not want to do that until staff had more time to review the issues involved and respond. Mr. Rayor said that he concurred with the motion. He like the term "massing" and felt that this was understood. He asked if there was a height limitation. Ms. Bishow clarified that if a secondary dwelling was detached from the primary dwelling, the maximum height is 20 feet. If it is attached, part of the main dwelling, the height limit is 30 feet. For the record, Mr. Rayor asked staff to come back with something that ensures small total developments of small mass. He wanted to prevent out-of-scale development. Ms. Childs said that in the visit to Arenco Station, one of the structures was an accessory unit over a two-car garage. Mr. Meisner noted that the two-car garages were also the garage structure for the main house. He said that the concerns he had heard were more about four-plex structures with multiple levels. The motion passed 4:1, with Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Bettman clarified later in the meeting that she voted in opposition in error. She asked that her vote be recorded as in support on this motion. There was no objection. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Other Issues Mr. Kelly spoke about other issues that came from e-mail he had received. He asked the council to address the issue of diversity of housing types, specifically providing more opportunities for single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, which requires a conditional use permit in R-3. He asked why it required a conditional use permit in R-3 (referencing page 91). Ms. Bishow said that she did not recall exactly, but that SRO was a new housing type being introduced into the code. She noted that it was permitted in R-4. Mr. Kelly asked if there was interest in allowing SROs in R-3. Ms. Taylor said that she did not understand why they were not permitted anywhere. Ms. Bettman noted that there appeared to be consensus to allow SROs in R-3. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to allow single-room occupancy housing as an outright permitted use in R-3. Mr. Rayor asked to look at the zoning map to identify R-3 property. He said that some R-3 was adjacent to R-1 and that he would not support the motion. He added that the conditional use permit seemed appropriate for "odd uses." Mr. Meisner asked how an SRO was an "odd use." He said that single rooms were no more intense than apartments. Ms. Bishow said that four single rooms are equivalent to one single housing unit in calculating density. Mr. Kelly said that he continued to support the idea. One of the council's the goals was to encourage a variety of housing types. He said that SR©s might have less impact on neighborhoods than apartments. Ms. Taylor said that she would not allow any provision for cars and concurred that it would have less impact. Responding to Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor acknowledged that his choice of words could have been different. He said that if four rooms equals one unit and the maximum density is 56 to the acre, there could be 200 SR©s per acre. He asked what the parking requirement was. Ms. Bishow said that the parking requirement was one parking space per unit (four SR©s). Ms. Bettman said that she initially interpreted the concept as a boarding house, but it was beginning to sound like a quad. Ms. Bishow said that the term "quad" had been removed from the code and that in the new code "single-room occupancy" is used. Ms. Bettman said that it was allowed, but as a conditional use. She said that the conditional use seemed appropriate to allow neighbors to have input on parking, orientation of the structure, and other key issues. Mr. Meisner said that neighbors would not have the right to weigh-in on apartment complexes within R-3. He asked why one was permitted with no neighborhood review, but the other would not. Mr. Rayor asked if a quad was a permitted or conditional use in the previous code. Mr. Jacobson said that it was permitted outright. The motion carried 4:1, with Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kris Aanderud) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 11 Work Session