Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Solomon asked Senior Planner Terri Harding why the Planning Commission had removed the language. Ms. Harding responded that the commission had wanted to encourage the use of tandem parking as broadly as possible. She related that by doing this it would allow some lots that had no alley access to utilize the tandem parking option. She said there were other protections in the code that limited the use of parking within the front setback and to 50 percent of the frontage of any lot. Councilor Clark asked if the effect of the provision would be to allow tandem parking in fewer developments. Ms. Harding thought this was correct. Councilor Clark asked if an affirmative vote on the amendment would create a demand for more on-street parking. Ms. Harding replied that she did not believe this was so because the tandem option validated an option that was already being built in a widespread fashion in that area, but could not be counted toward parking minimums. Councilor Zelenka observed that there were almost no lots in the area that did not have alley access. He pointed out that the language had been unanimously supported by the ICS group. He said it was for esthetic reasons – instead of looking out on cars, windows would look out on the street and it would promote tandem parking, in the rear. Councilor Pryor asked if there was an unintended consequence that it could limit or reduce the amount of tandem parking that could occur. Ms. Harding replied that it was true in certain situations, such as trying to do parking on the back of a lot that had street and alley frontage, using the alley. Councilor Pryor asked if very many properties would be affected. Ms. Harding said this was hard to answer. She noted that the set of parking amendments applied to the whole West University Neighborhood (WUN) and the circumstance she had described was fairly typical of an intersection of a street and an alley. Councilor Pryor said it was always possible to come back and amend it further if experience proved it necessary. Nonetheless he was not certain how to vote; he did want to have parking lots behind buildings but he did not want to cut out parking spaces. He asked if the Planning Commission had some information that led them to believe the language would have an impact on parking. Ms. Harding replied that they had testimony submitted to them from Landscape Architect,Carol Schirmer. She said the Planning Commission had recommended using language with the broadest applicability. Mayor Piercy asked if it had been discussed in the ICS meetings, adding that the ICS had been a broad group. Ms. Harding replied that it had been discussed but she could not recall the vote on the item. Councilor Zelenka thought he recalled that the vote had been 15:1. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 6:2; councilors Solomon and Clark voting in opposition. Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to delete Section 7 from Council Bill 5014 and to renumber sections accordingly so that ordinance would take effect in accordance with Section 32 of the Eugene Charter. Councilor Brown said by removing the section the ordinance would go into effect in 30 days and this would not prevent someone from putting in a building permit in the interim. Councilor Clark supported the amendment. He stated that while he shared the goal of limiting on-street parking to the greatest extent possible, he wanted to ensure that anything they passed would go into effect in the near term. He was concerned that people would be discouraged from engaging in public participation, such as a group like the one that worked on the ICS, if they saw that their work was disregarded or undone in any way. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting