08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ---~ R. Third Avenue Alignment Easement, Pearl to Lawrence (Southern Pacific Company) - iManager explained that Southern Pacific owned property between Pea.rl and Lawrenee Istreets,on the north side and parallel to their main track~ which was a heavily' !used thoroughfare on an alignment usually referred to as the 4th Avenue connector. iFrom time to time SP approached the city with regard to buying the property for . :dedication as a street but wanted to be protected against being charged for its j improvemen t. Staff felt that would result in too expensive a right-of-way. Fur- fther negotiation resulted in an offer to request Council authorization with the recommendation that if the easement was dedicated the city would refrain from initiating normal street improvements for a ten-year period. Manager pointed out that it was an unimproved~ graveled street and would be a constant nuisance, re- I quirin<J upkeep and perhaps an asphalt mat to city specifications during that ten- year period costing as much as $20,000. He also pointed out that at some future time there might be need for the right-of-way because of its being the alignment I for the long-discussed 1st to 4th connector. Or it could be used for some other transportation facility. Manager added that owners of private property lying be- tween the alignment and Skinners Butte have delayed development pending clarifica- tion of the status of the right-of-way, and there has been some thought a portion of that property should be acquired to protect the Butte park property. I , Councilman Williams wondered if agreeing not to initiate street improvements would preclude accepting a:petition for the improvement of the right-of-way from , ,owners of property abutting the dedication. Manager said the proposal was that I ithe dedication would be granted if the city did not initiate any improvement that would result in assessment against the railroad. It was understood an opinion I e ifrom the City Attorney's office would be sought on interpretation of the term , I I" ini tia te improvements" prior to the August 12 Council meeting. l i l , Councilwoman Campbell said she could support acquisition of ~he property if it ! ~was an attempt to protect the Butte and park area, but she was hesitant about approval if it was an attempt to construct a future arterial.at that location. i Manager said the intent in making the recommendati'on was to try to preserve its I I present use without knowing whether anything would be done with it in the future. i He said it was receiving extensive use by industrial traffic between the Ferry ,Street bridge and industrial area, to-the west, and as a necessary part of'the city's street system needed protection against possible closure by Southern Paeific. He couldn't guarantee, he said, that the alignment would never be built there. I Councilman Williams noted the protection afforded by the Charter amendment re-. ;quiring a vote before any major arterial construction. Councilman Wood wondered if dedication of the--street..-'Woul.d. encourage development of the private property lying between the right~of-way and the Butte, or if there had been any attempt to acquire that private property. Manager answered that it would enhance the opportunity for development, adding that the city tried to :acquire the right-of-way in fee simple rather than as a dedicated street in order ! to have control but SP was not willing. He said the attorney for the owners of . jthe private property had taken the position that there was right of access that jwould have to be cleared and had offered to make that ef~ort if the dedication of 1 the right-of-way did not clear it. However, it appeared the property could be (developed anyway. Ed Smith, Parks director, said there had been no attempt to purchase the other property. , ' I Further discussion took place with regard to adverse ownership and possible pur- ~chase of property between the street and the Butte, resulting in the understanding , that' 'the-,matter-'would"be 'Tield -Ovid' 'pend1.hg: 'r"eceipt 'of" aii"'op1.ii.ion'froiii The -.. Comm ,City Attorney with regard to interpretation of the words "initiate improve~ ' 7/24/74 :ments" in the proposed agreement, and ~nformation with regard to possible File ,purchase of the property lying between the propOsed dedication and Skinners, ',-~ ,. ,Butte,. . ...' Manager distributed copie~of City Attorney's opinion with regard to the term "initiate improvements" as us.ed in Southern Pacific proposal to dedicate' the easement. Since the attorney's opinion was that initiating improvements was not limited to simply who brought the matter up the first time the proposed dedication with a ten-year iimitation on improve- ments would in effect protect Southern Pacific against assessment no matter who initiated improvement of the street. Manager added that there would be brought to the Council results of some negotiation on privately owned property lying between the dedication under discussion and park property. J .- ..--:----.--,............~~-. ._.....--_.-.--~-_.. .--....-.-.... ..- ..._:... .---'-_'._.. - _';:'- n_'_. S. WeyeI'haeuser Tree Farm Tour - Counc1J.""was advised that the weiierhaeuser' .1 sour tentatively scheduled for August 2 was postponed until later in the Comm ,fall because there was not enough participation' at this time to make it 7/24/74 worthwhile. -. "\ "- File - 8/12/74 - 16 2&~