Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

to a chart with information on the increase in bedrooms per unit in the WUN while parking requirements had not changed. He pointed out there were 850 residents in WUN who depend on on-street parking permits, and that parking was the only parking those residents had. Mr. Baker said the data suggested that 82 percent of new multi-family projects would meet the code language recommended, and the projects that complied had a significantly higher density than the projects that did not comply. The projects meeting the parking requirement was even higher in the SUN. th Deborah Healy , 360 East 15 Avenue, shared a chart that showed an increase in bedrooms per parking space in SUN between 1995 and 2009 from 1.5 bedrooms per parking space to 3.5 bedrooms per parking space. The ICS proposal brought that number to about 1.8 bedrooms per parking space. Ms. Healy supported the ICS proposal because it avoided the potential excesses indicated by the chart. It provided ample provision for flexibility for developers as long as they were realistic and reasonable. She said that students did not drive to campus when they lived close by. Students used their cars to drive to work and could not run errands to west Eugene between classes using the bus. Ms. Healy argued for a reasonable approach. She suggested that if the City allowed tandem parking for one-bedroom apartments, it meant that two people who did not live together had to negotiate the movement of their cars. She argued for allowing tandem parking in situations where one was required to have more than one parking space, and that was for three- to four-bedroom units. She thought the same was also applicable to the WUN. Gordon Anslow , 4493 Paddock Drive, noted his own work as a developer on two- and three-bedroom multi-family developments. He said that the market place was responding to some of what was occurring, and the message was that such developments could not get built without parking. He spoke to the subject of tandem spaces, which he had been developing for some time, saying they worked well for students who did not need to use their cars every day. His tandem spaces were for individual units, although he thought they should be allowed anywhere. Mr. Anslow pointed out that generally, more parking on a site resulted in less housing on the site. He asked the commission to consider his submitted suggestions as they related to parking design. He was generally supportive of the ICS Task Team but suggested that a requirement tied to square footage, in the same way as was done in other parts of Eugene, would eliminate controversy related to the use of bedrooms. If the commission choose to retain the definition of bedroom in provision c, he believed that dining rooms and kitchens could be construed as bedrooms, and suggested it be modified to read that bedrooms were rooms defined by walls with interior doors leading into them and do not lead into other rooms other than bathrooms and closets. Bill Aspegren , 1939 Alder Street, submitted into the record an e-mail from Gordon Anslow with data collected and presented to the Parking Implementation Team and a Harris poll regarding how many cars students use. He expressed support for a car-share program but he did not support a reduction in parking requirements if one was in place. Reducing the amount of on-site parking spaces made cruising and illegal parking worse. He said that his research indicated that a large development was needed to support one shared car. Mr. Aspegren said the theory was that the availability of a shared car would incent students to leave their cars at home, but he thought it was almost impossible to measure that and the reduction would be insignificant. He pointed out that reducing parking spaces were forever. He asked how spaces would be added if a shared car contract was terminated. He also pointed out that the City was not equipped to enforce the provision. Mr. Aspegren said that City staff concluded the proposal for a shared car was premature and planned to monitor some existing car share programs near the UO to see if there was a correlation between the number of student-owned cars and share car program. Steve Gab , 1818 Villard Street, perceived two common threads in the testimony provided the commission. One thread was that somebody goofed. As goofs, Mr. Gab cited the “stealth” zoning of the Jefferson- Westside Neighborhood that changed the nature of the R-2 zoning, the imposition of a building height in the SUN that was way out of proportion when compared to any other Oregon community, and parking restrictions that could be manipulated by creative developers. The second common thread was that DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 9