Laserfiche WebLink
Howards's property was necessitated by the current Eugene Code. Ms. Cahill offered to <br />· work with Mr. Howard to try to get what he would accept as a definitive answer from the <br /> Planning Division. <br /> <br /> Mr. Howard also objected that his property was being assessed because it was <br /> zoned, commercial even though it had always only contained a residence. Ms. Cahill <br /> explained that the assessment was based on the intended use of the property., and not a <br /> temporary use. Just as Mr. Howard was having storm water assessments directly charged <br /> to his property because of the potential for future development, so the City sought to <br /> assess the drainage charged based on the likely maximum use of the property, as <br /> specified in the Eugene Code. <br /> <br /> Mr. Howard also objected to the fact that he was being charged an additional <br /> amount because of the street trees and other improvements that were not the subject of <br /> general assessment. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that it was established policy that in <br /> circumstances where direct charges were assessed, there was a component of charges for <br /> all project costs. Mr. Howard had requested the storm drain be installed at this time <br /> because it would avoid the potential of larger charges in the future when the property <br /> developed. This request led to a direct charge for Mr. Howard's property, and the direct <br /> charges reflected a proportional charged based on the total improvement costs. This <br /> process was set forth in the Eugene Code. <br /> <br /> With the exception of the question of remonstrances, the Heatings Official did <br />grant the requested extension of time to file remonstrances. After hearing additional <br />details concerning Mr. Howard's request for an extension of the hearing, the Hearings <br />Official was of the opinion that a resolution of the matters would not affect the process, <br />and, for that reason an extension would not be appropriate. The Hearings Official stated <br />that there were alw~tys a series of changes to be expected in a project as it moved <br />forward. Therefore the proposed assessment was not a final and binding amount on the <br />project. Final assessments and charges would be resolved after the project was <br />completed. Resolution of some of the particular concerns were a matter of policy- such <br />as the assessment according the property's zoning - which could only be resolved by the <br />City Council. Resolution of some questions, such as whether a storm drain extension was <br />necessary for Mr. Howard's property, would have to be resolved by the Planning <br />Division. Ms. Cahill's offer to request clarification would help, but ultimately Mr. <br />Howard must decide the matter for himself, as he has done on a preliminary basis by <br />.requesting the storm drain lateral extension. <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles Meeker was the next property owner to respond with specific <br />questions. His initial concern was with the matter of the utility relocation. Mr. Meeker <br />was concerned that property owners would be 'assessed for a City choice as to which trees <br />would be cut down. Ms. Cahill and Mr. Ramirez explained that the City was not being <br />charged for EWEB movement of the utility poles. The City had not actually decided <br />which trees should be removed. The trees that were "spared" were on the grounds of the <br />MWMC plant, and had been retained at the request of MWMC because of their <br />relationship to the operation of the wastewater treatment plant. Ms. Cahill reviewed the <br /> <br /> <br />