Agenda Packet 2-24-20 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session January 21, 2020 Page 4 (i.e. a four-bedroom dwelling must have at least two parking spaces). For purposes of this subsection, each uninterrupted twenty feet of lot line that abuts a street right-of-way where parking is legal within the entirety of that twenty feet shall count as one on-street parking space. The twenty feet may not include any portion of a curb cut. (b) When there are two or more dwellings and there is no on-street parking space, as defined in subsection (7)(a), above, the parking space requirement shall be waived for one dwelling that has primary vehicle access from the street and no more than three bedrooms. [(b)](c) No portion of a vehicle parking area may be located in the area defined by the Street Setback minimum standard (i.e., from which structures, other than permitted intrusions, are excluded) or between the street and the residential building façade that faces, and is closest to, the street. And to renumber the code sections and cross-references accordingly.  Mayor Vinis – asked for clarification about what this motion would be changing from the draft ordinance.  Councilor Clark – asked about Eugene’s density and how that number related to other cities; suggested that other city’s densities are different than Eugene’s; said that the legislature didn’t take livability factors into account when they decided the reasonable criteria for siting and design; said parking is one of the most obvious livability issues, influencing the ability for buses and garbage trucks to drive within street lanes; said the parts of town in Councilor Semple’s motion are where the most likely dangerous realities will occur by forcing more cars to the street; said the legislature was wrong and the City should be able to require on-site parking for each of the people who live in a dwelling.  Councilor Zelenka – asked if the amendment would basically put a requirement on ADUs to have either on-street or on-site parking; said the state legislation explicitly prohibits local regulations related to owner-occupancy requirements or requirements to construct addition off-street parking; asked if the amendment would require in some circumstances additional off-street parking; asked how an on-street parking space is determined for a dwelling.  Councilor Pryor – clarified that this amendment is specific to properties with a second dwelling, not all property; asked about the scale of impact if this motion were to pass; said he doesn’t want to change regulations to address a problem that doesn’t exist in some areas, but if the intent of the motion is to restrict this to an area that is already having parking problems, he could support the proposed remedy; expressed concerns about running afoul of state law that might have to roll back later.  Councilor Syrett – clarified that this amendment would only apply to JWN zone for any ADU development; asked about waiver of parking requirement for one dwelling that has a primary vehicle access from the street and no more than three bedrooms and how that would apply to an ADU above a garage or backyard cottage without vehicle access; said she has too many questions about the impact and will not support the amendment.  Councilor Taylor – said East Amazon no longer has street parking and asked if that meant that those houses could not have an accessory dwelling; said she has a problem with this motion only applying to Jefferson Westside.  Councilor Clark – said he would vote in favor of the motion because there won’t be a lot of ADUs built in Jefferson Westside; talked about the traffic issues that will impact River Road and Santa Clara where ADUs are likely to be built; suggested that this will help inform how this amendment will apply in one area when the question comes up if it should be applied in other areas later. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED 6:2, Councilors Yeh and Syrett opposed. February 24, 2020, Meeting - Item 2ACC Agenda - Page 8