Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

change from single-family houses to high-rise apartments also disadvantaged low-income families. Rents were higher, and the quality of life lower. She urged the commission to move the community away from a monoculture of high rises in livable neighborhoods. Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing and determined commissioners had no questions at this time. 3. Parking Strategies (CA 09-07, RA 09-03) Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing. Ms. Harding provided the staff report. She said the proposal before the commission was a package of strategies recommended by the Parking Strategies Implementation Team and the purpose of the package was to improve the compatibility of new multi-family development by tying parking requirements to the unique needs of certain types of development. She described the impacts of the amendments, saying that they would require more off-street parking for apartments with three or more bedrooms near the University of Oregon; require less parking on a citywide basis for low-income, senior, and disabled housing; would recognize tandem parking as a viable parking form and allow tandem parking to count toward parking minimums in certain areas of the west and south university R-3 and R-4 zones; would clarify the City’s requirements for off-site parking spaces and improve enforcement mechanisms; and would adjust dimensional standards for parking space and revise the WUN refinement plan policy, which currently included a statement about reducing parking on a per unit basis. Ms. Harding identified a discrepancy on page 35 of the packet, saying the table should be corrected to indicate that tandem spaces would not be allowed for studio, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom dwellings. Laura Potter , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, expressed support for the recommended parking requirements as a fair compromise. She strongly supported the allowance of tandem parking and advocated for the inclusion of a car-share program. She believed such a program provided an incentive for long-term solutions to reducing cars on campus. She said that while the association liked the parking requirements, it did not like the provision of bedroom that accompanied it. The association found it restrictive, and asked that the commission move the package forward without provision C related to bedrooms. Mark Gillem , 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, observed that he had no problem recently finding parking in the WUN. He advocated for empirical evidence to identify where a parking problem existed. He maintained that as more buildings were constructed near campus, driving decreased. Less driving meant a decreased need for cars and less demand for parking. Mr. Gillem believed that inappropriate student housing was damaging the South University Neighborhood and to some degree the WUN. He suggested the City was attacking the right problem with the wrong solution. Mr. Gillem recommended a parking requirement be implemented in the WUN that precluded students living in student-oriented housing from having cars. He maintained that the University of California-Berkeley had such a program and residents who applied for parking were denied it because of their residence in a no-parking building. Mr. Gillem further maintained that the Berkeley campus was surrounded by a wide no parking zone that had facilitated the construction of housing next to campus to reduce parking and automobile demand. He advocated for an appropriate balance between parking, buildings, and open space. Rick McAlexander , 1110 Jacobs Drive, generally supported the parking requirements as being carefully crafted and well-thought out. However, he was concerned about the definition of a bedroom (definition part c) as he believed it was far too broad. Any room of 70 square feet with a large window could be defined as a bedroom. He also objected to exempting the potential of tandems for certain one-, and two- bedroom units; if tandem parking was to be counted and it was a viable parking solution, he questioned DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 7