My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 7: Action: Ordinance on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 12/14/09 - City Council Meeting and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency
>
Item 7: Action: Ordinance on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:55:10 PM
Creation date
12/11/2009 10:55:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
12/14/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
439
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
My name is Lauren Hulse and I live in Ward 3. <br />I am speaking now to the Parking recommendations made by the Planning Commission. <br />While I applaud the use of “shared cars” to lessen the number of cars on the road, I do not <br />agree with the idea of allowing developers to eliminate 3 parking spaces for every 15 <br />parking spaces they are required to provide, up to a potential reduction of 9 spaces minus <br />the space or spaces required for the “shared car”. <br />This would require signing an agreement with the city that a shared car could be <br />available. Our cities enforcement of code is “complaint driven” at this time and we do <br />not have the resources available to start a “proactive” enforcement program to check on <br />the varied agreements made between developers and the city. This means that neighbors <br />would once again have to “enforce” the agreements made by the city with developers. <br />If “shared” cars prove to be economically unviable, an unintended consequence would be <br />that a development could end up with up 9 fewer parking spaces that would have been <br />required and NO “shared car”. How would developers add back parking spaces? What if <br />they could not lease additional spaces from a neighboring property within 1/4 mile? <br />Would the city require that a property stop leasing a certain number of bedrooms to <br />compensate for the reduced parking? <br />Until the day we have a viable “proactive” enforcement program and we remove the onus <br />of neighbor’s having to report violations, the city should find an alternative way to <br />incentivize the use of “shared” cars. We all know we need to reduce the use of cars but <br />this is not the answer at the moment. Let’s wait 2 or 3 years and see how “shared” cars <br />work in Eugene and then once again discuss the issue. <br />I ask also that you please remove the provision that allows tandem parking off an alley all <br />the way to the front setback. Instead, it should be at least 30' from the front setback. We <br />prefer not to have parking lots for front yards. <br />Thank you. <br />Lauren Hulse <br />th <br />1256 E. 20 Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97403 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.