Cedar Falls City Council continued its year-long effort to improve parking downtown as it considered two ordinances to improve the situation.
During the Council’s recent meeting, streamed on YouTube, it was noted that more than a year ago, they proposed eliminating shared parking and increasing the amount of parking per unit to 0.75 spaces, with a minimum of one space per unit if all units were one-bedroom floor plans. During the meeting, it was noted that the planning commission also backed increasing the per-unit spaces. The commission objected to eliminating shared parking.
There was an effort late last year to change all shared parking codes and adopt one parking space per bedroom, and the planning commission again balked at eliminating shared parking, the Council learned.
“The ordinance that’s on the table then, is to increase the required parking, which has to be on site or could be on a property that’s directly abutting it,” Planning and Community Services Manager Karen Howard told the Council during the meeting. “So if you had a property that was right next door that had extra parking, you could make an arrangement. So I think that’s the only accommodation for like if you had a tight site and you were required to put a certain number of parking spaces on there, there is an allowance for the required parking to, to be on an abutting site.”
The Council first discussed eliminating shared parking downtown, which would have residential property owners sharing their parking spaces during specified hours of the day. While it would not ban shared parking for developments downtown, they noted it would no longer require the city to take part in shared parking.
“In planning and zoning, the motion was denied with one aye and seven nays,” Mayor Rob Green said before the votes. “It was a very lopsided vote.”
The Council rejected the shared parking ordinance, with four members voting against it.
The Council also considered a second ordinance to increase the parking spaces per residential unit to one space per bedroom. It was noted during the meeting that the change would force properties to find additional parking to meet the requirements.
Ultimately, the Council rejected this ordinance by the same 3-4 vote.
