Eugene planners propose microvillage, SRO and middle‑housing code changes to meet state deadlines

City planning staff on May 18 presented a package of land‑use code amendments intended to expand housing choices and meet state deadlines, introducing a new microvillage housing type and updating single‑room occupancy rules.

Rebecca Gershow, principal planner, told the Eugene City Council the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis shows Eugene must accommodate roughly 26,000 new housing units over the next 20 years — about 1,600 units a year — including roughly 700 units annually affordable to lower‑income households. The adoption package staff described focuses on regulatory changes to help meet that need and align local code with state law.

"We have an immense housing need," Gershow said, summarizing the state analysis and framing the multi‑package approach that will bring additional action items to council over the next four years. The package staff presented Tuesday includes three broad threads: create new housing types to increase capacity, reduce regulatory barriers for housing and jobs, and encourage compact development around centers and corridors.

Leah Rausch, senior planner, described the proposed microvillage housing type as a Eugene‑specific option that would allow very small dwelling units (under 400 square feet) clustered with shared community buildings and services. "Microvillage housing is a new housing type in our land use code" Rausch said, adding the design includes shared kitchens and amenities and a size bonus for accessible or affordable units.

Rausch said microvillages would be envisioned as larger developments with a minimum of eight dwelling units and at least one community building per 20 dwellings, and could include limited neighborhood commercial uses to support on‑site services and workforce opportunities. She contrasted microvillages with single‑room occupancies, noting SROs must be independently rented and may have shared bathroom or kitchen facilities, consistent with recent state law changes.

Heather O'Donnell, another senior planner, framed the middle‑housing amendments as part of compliance with House Bill 2138 and a related state model housing code for cities over 25,000 people. O'Donnell highlighted that permitting for middle housing has already grown substantially since the 2022 changes — staff cited a 294% increase in middle‑housing permitting, from an annual average of 26 to about 102 permitted units per year — and said the new amendments would add technical fixes, additional places to build, and new incentives for developments that provide at least one accessible unit or an affordable homeownership unit capped at 120% of area median income.

Among other measures in the package, staff proposed allowing child day‑care uses and certain residential care homes in more zones, a modest increase in R‑1 maximum building height from 30 to 35 feet (to allow a full third floor in some configurations), an expedited process for specific residential land‑use applications, and temporary extensions of some land‑use approval expirations to respond to market uncertainty.

Councilors asked detailed questions during the work session. Several raised concerns about neighborhood character and privacy related to the proposed R‑1 height adjustment. "How do you determine in concert with the character of the neighborhood whether or not this kind of building is appropriate with R‑1?" one councilor asked. Staff responded that current rules already permit three stories under some roof profiles and that the 35‑foot proposal primarily provides flexibility around rooflines rather than a wholesale change in where taller buildings would locate.

Councilors also pressed staff on SRO conversions, asking whether SROs could be added to sites with existing single‑family dwellings and what defines required shared facilities. Rausch said SRO definitions follow state law (units independently rented, sharing kitchen or bathroom facilities) and that detailed shared‑facility standards would be governed by the building code rather than the land‑use code. On conversions, staff noted concerns about detached SROs relying on an existing single‑unit dwelling for services and said their draft approach aims to avoid creating units that lack basic, in‑unit facilities.

Some councilors praised local examples such as Everyone Village as a model for microvillage‑style living but asked how proposed expansions would address wetland mitigation on some sites; staff said Parks is exploring additional mitigation property and that staff would follow up with more details.

Councilors also raised quality concerns about recent new construction and asked what the code package could do to ensure habitability. O'Donnell said building quality and habitability are enforced through the building code and the city's rental housing program, and that preservation and quality improvements are part of a housing production strategy staff plans to bring forward in 2027.

Staff reiterated the procedural next steps: public notice for the planning commission public hearing in June, planning commission deliberations and recommendation in July, further refinements based on public input, and return to council in the fall with the goal of meeting the state's end‑of‑year deadlines for required adoption steps.

The council did not take formal action Tuesday; the proposals will advance through the planning commission and subsequent public hearings before any adoption vote.

What happens next: staff will post hearing notices and materials for the planning commission in June, and council will receive the commission recommendation after July deliberations. Additional adoption packages and land supply work are scheduled through 2027 to support any eventual UGB analysis.