Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Carroll noted consensus agreement for the Planning Commission to provide direction to staff to <br />incorporate information for City Council on how this program might work. <br />ParkingPackage <br />Mr. Hledik stated the parking proposal had support from neighbors and the development community, with <br />consideration of items already addressed by the commission. He was ready to move forward with a <br />recommendation to the City Council. <br />Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik and was ready to move forward. <br />Mr. Lawless concurred with Mr. Hledik and was ready to move forward. <br />Mr. Mills concurred with Mr. Hledik. He said concerns raised by Mr. Inerfeld, that the goals and policies <br />of the City were not being changed, were valid. This addressed a specially impacted area where policies <br />have had negative impacts which the commission needed to address. <br />Ms. Beierle appreciated the work done but was concerned about flexibility and the general difficulty with <br />raising parking minimums opposed to lowering them. She reluctantly supported the proposal. <br />Mr. Carroll supported some of the strategies presented including car share and tandem parking. He still <br />opposed minimum parking requirements based on the findings. He opined driving was a privilege and <br />there were no standards on whether individuals deserved a parking space. He reviewed concerns related <br />to specific proposed language included in the AIS. He asserted he could not support the minimum <br />parking requirements and would vote against the recommendation. <br />Ms. Jerome suggested language for a commission motion which Mr. Lawless put forth. <br />Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend adoption of parking <br />ordinance with revised definition of "bedroom" that included privacy and access <br />components instead of the specialty code and floor area provisions and provide <br />Council with: <br />1. Additional information regarding offsets between reduction in <br />parking requirements for some types of developments city wide and <br />increase in parking requirements for other types of development in the <br />University area. <br />2. A response to testimony regarding tandem parking, specifically the <br />30-foot setback, broadening applicability of tandem parking and figures <br />to clarify tandem parking. <br />3. Options for reducing parking requirements for the use of shared <br />cars for the University area developments subject to this ordinance's <br />increases <br />. <br />Mr. Duncan had concerns about approving a motion that the commission had not thoroughly read but he <br />trusted that staff accurately reflected the commission’s intent in the proposed language. <br />DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 9 <br /> <br />