Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> e located on North Grand Street (Joint Venture) (M 81-12) (memos, map, <br /> and packet of information distributed) <br /> Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. <br /> Mr. Croteau stated this is an appeal on a minor partition. The minor partition <br /> was approved by the Planning Director several months ago. The property adjacent <br /> has three existing units and the rear part of the property has a garage and a <br /> converted structure on the south corner which is used as a dwelling. The <br /> condition of the minor partion is for one of the two rear dwelling units to be <br /> vacated. The applicant requested to use an access drive through Tax Lot 2701 <br /> which is to the north of the site and is under his ownership and that was <br /> approved. The Planning Commission upheld the decision to approve the partition <br /> and it was appealed to the council. Staff discussed this issue with the City <br /> Attorney and determined that an alternative access would not be permitted by <br /> City code. Option 1 would be for the council to approve the appeal and deny the <br /> minor partition; Option 2 would be for the council to support the Planning <br /> Commission and Planning Director's appeal and deny the minor partition. ~aff <br /> would recommend that if council wants to support the decision they should <br /> require that the panhandle drive on Parcel 1 be paved and that the applicant not <br /> be allowed to use access across the northern property (Tax Lot 2701). <br /> Ms. Schue asked if the original reason for not using a panhandle designation for <br /> this parcel was because of the existing use. Mr. Croteau responded that that is <br /> correct. Also, a hedge would have to be removed. Alternative access is not <br /> allowed at present in the code so it could not be approved. During the code <br /> e update, staff would like to increase flexibility in dealing with problems of <br /> this nature for infilling. If the partition is approved, the panhandle drive <br /> should be paved. Mr. Hamel added that during the addition of the section of the <br /> code dealing with panhandle lots, much work was involved and that should be <br /> considered before changes are approved. <br /> No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and <br /> minutes were entered into the record. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Jeff Seigel, 247 Grand, identified himself as the appellant. The parcel on the <br /> north portion of the property has two houses on it. The front one was moved <br /> there in 1967. The back unit is attached to the front unit. Because of lack of <br /> adequate parking, people began parking on the front lawn. The adjacent parcel <br /> has two dwellings on the rear which have had access through the other property. <br /> The original objection was to the single driveway which is only 15 feet wide and <br /> is serving as the only driveway for four residences. It also serves as the <br /> turnaround for four cars. He objects since this would cause the front parcels <br /> to have parking on the front lawns. Grand Street is 30 feet wide and if this is <br /> approved the front lawn would be the only place where these people could park. <br /> He lives across the street and sees those four cars having to back out onto the <br /> street. There have been two cars hit in the last year that have been parked in <br /> front of his house. Grand Street is also a signed bike path. Paving would help <br /> with the parcels on the north but there would still be singular access with no <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 5 <br />