09/16/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

alternatives for parking except in the front yard for the other parcels. If the appeal is denied, he asked if they would have to pave the south access. If the e appeal is upheld, the whole process will be denied. He objects to the fact that there is no alternative parking except for in the front yard and that is also the objection of those who signed the petition that was distributed to the council. Mike McLain, 3509 Coburg Road, stated that he is one of the principals in this lssue. He stated that if the appeal is upheld then everything will remain the same and the property will remain status quo. The parking situation on both of these parcels is not different than anywhere else in town. People allover town back out of the driveway onto the street. The parking spaces are legal and comply with the code. The original proposal was for alternative access which has been used for the past 12 years and is the logical way to use this property. Paving would destroy existing landscaping and there will have to be two sharp 90 degree turns past the garage as well as destroying garden space for the lot. He urged the council to ignore the legal staff's position on this matter. There are a number of!iituations where alternative access has been approved. He would like the council to direct the Planning staff to change the code when it is logical and beneficial to the city, which this is. In rebuttal, Mr. Seigel stated that the council is being requested to allow a "horse trade." Those parking spaces are legal. The council is being asked to allow alternative access and this would solidify it. Someone has occupied a chicken coop and an apartment off a garage and that is what is being upheld as status quo. If they park in the back, this would help alleviate the parking problem. He would suggest denying the appeal and have staff come back with a plan to alleviate the problem. e Mr. Croteau reiterated that staff's position is to have the panhandle driveway paved if the appeal is denied and the partition is approved. The lot to the north, Tax Lot 2701, is not germane to this issue. In regard to parking improve- ment, single-family residents have permission to park there. The decision of land use is not discretionary, but rather a right of the property owner. Mr. Hamel asked if this is an improved street. Mr. Croteau said that it is an improved street with gutters and it is a standard width for that type of street. Mr. Hamel asked if there are sidewalks on this street. Mr. Croteau responded that there are not. Mr. Hamel asked what would happen if sidewalks were required. Mr. Croteau stated that access could accommodate sidewalks. Ms. Miller stated that in many ways, it is too bad that the council cannot be more flexible for additional open space and garden space and less paving. Those living there would be happier with more green and less paving. She would like the Planning staff to look at a way to try to preserve the extra flexibility as infilling occurs. Although parking in the front yard is not socially accept- . able, people do it allover town. It is the same situation whether it is a paved singular driveway or gravel. Mr. Obie stated that the council is compelled to deny the appeal for reasons previously stated. He would like the Planning staff to prepare a revised ordinance to allow more open space and less paving. Also, he would like to know e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 6