02/11/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e types of housing development show a 1.15 car ownership ratio. She clarified that the proposed reduction in parking requirements would apply to the Uni- versity's student family housing developments only. Mr. Nicholson asked whether the parking requirements would be adjusted if the tenant mix was altered from family to single students. Mr. Chenkin responded that if the University wished to change the nature of its development, it would be required to go through a re-occupancy process. It would have to satisfy all regulations pertaining to the new use as a part of this process. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Johnson said that according to the University's study at Amazon student family housing, 68 percent of the residents own 1 car, 20 percent own 2 cars, and 12 percent do not own cars. Ms. Bascom said that this proposal was reviewed and supported by both the Social Goals Committee and the Housing Policy Board. She said that it is interesting to note that a survey taken at the Amazon student family housing facility has revealed that 98 percent of the tenants either walk, bicycle, or ride the bus to the campus. While it is possible that the reduction in park- ing requirements may indeed increase congestion on the street, it is also possible that it may reduce car ownership in that area. Mr. Boles said that he will support this ordinance but expressed disappoint- ment that the ordinance encourages alternative modes of transportation by way of decreasing parking requirements, but does not provide incentives to alter- native modes usage. He asked that the council be willing to examine the ordinance further in the future to establish such positive incentives. Mr. MacDonald supported Mr. Boles suggestion and strongly recommended that a policy for restricted parking be adopted to protect surrounding neighbors from parking congestion. Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. MacDonald on the need to implement a restricted parking program in those areas and asked whether there is a way to incorpo- rate that within this ordinance. Mr. Gleason said that this issue needs more study; if the council is interested in doing this, it should direct staff to conduct a further review. Ms. Ehrman expressed her support for the proposed changes, commenting that it it furthers the council's housing and transportation goals. CB 4280--An ordinance amending sections 9.015, 9.586, and 9.587 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4280 was read the second time by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 3