CC Minutes - 01/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was that Ms. Bishow had indicated in her response to a question from him that the City required specific evidence in the application that there would be long-term shared parking available. The adjustment review mentions that, but it was not included in the new language related to the 25- percent reduction, and he suggested it be cross-referenced. Ms. Bettman said the impact of the changes for required off-street parking for the schools was not easy to determine from the code. She asked staff for a small table showing some examples of existing parking at schools, and how much it would be reduced or increased by the code language before the council, specifically for high schools. She said that high schools spent considerable money for their parking lots, which concerned her. Ms. Bettman wondered what the schools were doing in terms of bus pass programs and alternate modes. She was not ready to support an increase in the parking maximums for high schools at this time without more data about the impact that parking would have. Mr. Pap8 asked if the 25-percent number was a fixed percentage regardless of what was saved. Ms. Bishow said that was correct; instead of requiring each use to provide the full amount of off- street parking, the applicant could request up to a 25-percent reduction without a land use permit being required and it would be granted as a matter a right. She confirmed that a greater parking reduction could be requested through the adjustment review process, and in that case the applicant would have to demonstrate how the impact would be mitigated, such as through an alternate modes program. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the code language applied to any development, redevelopment, or green field. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding increased parking at high schools. He was concerned about the ratios proposed for the high schools, and noted that student traffic was a significant component of the transportation problem. He did not think that higher level of use was sufficient reason to tie up more space for parking, and requested an option that left the high schools "whole" without requiring additional parking minimums. He requested such a calculation prior to the public hearing. He acknowledged the tables provided by School District 4J but said he had not calculated a ratio. Ms. Bishow noted that the school district provided two tables, which were found on pages 77 and 115 of the council packet. Mr. Kelly noted the new ratio would allow for an increase of 243 additional spaces at North Eugene High School and 258 additional spaces at South Eugene High School. He did not think that was the trend the City was trying to encourage, particularly among youth. He acknowledged the concern of the impact of parking on residential neighborhoods, but suggested that could be managed by residential permit parking programs. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's latter point. Ms. Nathanson noted the school district's response to Planning Commission questions, found on page 112 of the meeting packet, which stated that the current amount of student parking was not a radical change from the past but appeared to be a slight increase since the reduction of bus transportation serving high schools. She wanted to see improvement in the level of school district-Lane Transit District (LTD) collaboration, and that appeared to be decreasing rather than increasing. She termed the issue a peak hour traffic issue that created complaints in the neighborhoods. She was not sure how to address the problem, but was concerned because of the interrelationships between the high schools, transportation, and land use. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff prepare alternative ratios for public comment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session