Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Tandem parking limitations. Bedroom definition. Car sharing credit. Parking increase and associated policy implications Ms. Harding directed commissioners to the October 13, 2009 letter from Rob Inerfeld. She added staff did not expect an appeal of the solution, noting the Home Builders Association and several members of the development community supported the increase in parking as currently written for the limited geographic area. Mr. Hledik was not ready to buy into the premise that if you “don’t build it they won’t come” based on testimony of university neighbors. There was national evidence presented by the university neighbors and students who testified at the public hearing that the City would be achieving its purpose by increasing density next to the university. The students were walking and biking to and from the University of Oregon (UO). This however, did not negate the issue that they brought cars to their off campus residences. The number of cars was increasing as density increased, and while students were not bringing cars to campus, they were being used for going to work, shopping and other purposes. The cars would come regardless of whether accommodations were provided for them. Testimony indicated that while the UO was exceeding code requirements on the number of spaces it provided there was still an overflow of cars. As suggested by Mark Gillem, this was not a design solution but rather a policy issue. Although Mr. Hledik agreed with Mr. Gillem, Mr. Hledik thought the policy issue was a UO rather than a City policy issue. While the UO had the prerogative to issue an edict limiting the number of cars on campus, the City would be hard pressed to take similar action. Mr. Hledik was also concerned by the state Department of Land Conservation and Development’s (DLCD) reaction to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). He noted the City was reducing the requirements for senior and disabled housing. There had to be recognition that as density increased there would be an increase in automobile use and parking requirements. There was testimony that the number of bedrooms per unit had increased, which was the genesis of the automobile requirement. Mr. Lawless stated the proposal represented a good representation of the balancing that takes place between the needs of the individual citizens and the greater public good. Mr. Duncan had not noted an analysis that senior and disabled housing had excess parking, and through the balancing efforts parking was removed from this segment and dedicated to university area housing. Ms. Harding responded that information had been gathered by committee members and staff through a survey of existing affordable housing developments and their parking demand. Additionally, staff had coordinated directly with affordable housing developers to verify that such a reduction made sense. She noted the decrease was proposed city-wide while the increase was proposed for a limited geographic area. Mr. Duncan was concerned that the commission was being asked to support a finding without sufficient information. He had observed that several local retirement homes had full parking lots. Ms. Harding suggested additional analysis could be conducted. Tandem parking limitations. Mr. Carroll opined while there was testimony in support of the proposal there were still unanswered questions about the tandem policy and related items. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 6