11/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-~._~ ,-.....-----. that he was p~yi~~Jmore-'-tJl~jlJ'-o;jce i;;:--th;-b'ike p;th"portion- oY-t-h;; -;;;-t;'~~;;t;----that State funds supposedly were used for that purpose (to which he contr i lluted through State taxes) in addition to the assessment and in addition to city taxes. He suggested that the : 'Council consider t~king some 'action to avoid that type of assessment. . '4It John D. Peacher sa~d he had bought the property at 4462 Hawthorne Drive about four months ago and didn't think that the street improvement was all that great. He described it : as a drag strip and said one child already had been hit. He asked if it was true; if the ; bikepath was declared a hazard, that the on-street parking could be removed. And he 'wondered why the bike path had been installed on the traffic sidecf the parking initially 'if it was thought a hazard might be created. Mr. Tei tzel answered that the ci ty had the option of removing parking from any street in the city. He said design of the street was discussed at length in public~hearing resulting in a decision that a path adjacent to the : traffic would be less hazardous than would he the possi bi,Ii ty 'Of bikes darting from behind 'parked cars into the traffic flow. He said that without doubt there would be adequate public hearing if any action was ever contemplated for removal of on-street parking from ' . Echo Hollow Road.: ! , ' I 'Mr. Peacher continued that it appeared ~here was considerable traffic on Echo Hollow that ,didn't originate there, the general public traveling from outside areas to swimming meets, ,school functions, church functions, etc. And he inquired whether it was correct that con- 'sideration ,was being given to blocking Royal Avenue at Belt Line Road. Counci.Iman McDonald : referred to other arterials in the ci ty assessed to abutting p'roperties which were used by ;people other than'those living there. Mr. Teitzel explained that it was not intended to ;"block" Royal Avenue. When Belt Line was constructed, he said, it was intended to close j a !the intersection at Royal Avenue onto Belt Line and use an overpass for crossing. There I 11' ;has been no decision yet in that regard. I . I \~r. Peacher then asked if Bancrofting was available to everyone and remarked that the 7% ~nterest on $1000 for ten years would add another $700 to the assessment. He said he had' ! ijust received his notice of assessment and wondered whether other neighbors, if they hadn't received their notices yet, ,woulA,have,~,c:hance to be heard. He added that in the four month;--h~-had lived on this property he had called :s~v;ral Limes for;'ore poTice----\ ,patrol on Friday evenings and Saturdays when school functions were in 'progress but had \ no response. Councilman McDonald explained that Bancrofting was available but that the \ :interest was paid on the principal balance only and would decrease over the ten-year period. \ (Mr. Keller told Mr. Peacher that when the contract was awarded for this project the '. :estimate of the anticipated assessment/was fairly accurate. He added, in view of Mr.Peacher'::;; : short residency on the street, that the improvement should really be considered in light of what was there initially - a country type gravel road which was really dangerous for children riding bikes. He suggested that Mr. Peacher continue to call the police and to encourage his neighbors to do the same when speed laws were violated. He said the council bill would be before the Council at the November 12 meeting for second reading and final action. . Mr. Teitzel in response to Mr. Peacher's co~ments on ,use of the street by school and church I 4It patrons said that church and school propert~es abutt~ng the street were assessed on the . '- basis of a 36-foot equivalent. Church properties, he said, were not considered a commercial \ land use and were not zoned commercially, and assessments were based on land use zoning. ! Bassell Montgomery objected to assessment against 100-foot frontage of his property at 1120 Echo Hollow Road on which a BPA easement was located. He said that restrictions pre- 'vented any type of improvement on that easement which might provide income for meeting the assessment. And because of the situation of the easement in relation to the balance ,'of his property there was no possibility of future subdivision to make use of, that land. '-"He said it involved almost one-half of his property and that the'city recognized the lack of benefit when sewer on Echo Hollow Road was not installed abutting that piece of land. Mr. Montgomery continued that a 40-foot easement was granted for a drainage channel which destroyed his blueberry patch. He said he was reimbursed for that easement and for the blueberry bushes although not to the extent he felt was their potential value. He felt ' ~the assessment against the lOO-foot frontage abutting the easement was unfair and unjust I and asked for consideration of some adjustment. He said he understood the policy on assess- I 'ments but never understood a policy to which there could be no exceptions for hardship cases./ , ; ~ouncilmen McDonald and Keller were shown a map of the area on which the Montgomery property: '~as pointed out. Mr. Teitzel acknowledged that the property under discussion did contain' - i~ BPA transmission line and a drainage channel (subsequently tiled by the city). However, '~ che pointed out, city policy was to assess street frontage to easements and that had been [done on several occasions in s,imilar circumstances. He noted that a smaller property [lying behind Mr. Montgomery's had been charged for frontage abutting the BPA easement ;running through it. 4'" ~~~ 11/12/74 - 14