02/28/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e burden of an access road to that overpass that would serve hundreds of residents who live south of 30th. He said that he had not received adequate notice of the Hearings Panel hearing on February 21 and noted that the notification letter from the City had been postmarked February 14. He said that on February 13 a friend had informed him of the hearing and that he had therefore written to the council regarding the matter on February 14--before he had received the notice from the City. He said that the notification letter from the City was not sent by certified mail, as required by City Code. He therefore requested that the council hold a hearing on the matter or return the matter to the Hearings Panel. He said he had consulted an appraiser to determine the benefit that would be provided to his property by the proposed improvements. He noted the appraiser had stated that, aside from the benefit for the sewer portion of the assessment, there would be no special benefit from the improvements. Mr. Matott acknowledged that the sewer work would benefit his property and said he was willing to pay this portion of the assessment. He felt that Lane County should be required to construct the access to the overpass as a part of the total overpass project. He said there was no curb or street access to the proposed project from his property. He said that if this was not possible, he requested that the council refer the matter back to the Hearings Panel so that he could go through the legally required assessment process. Mr. Matott said that if the council did not take this action, he would urge the council to have the City send its own appraiser to the site to assess special benefit to his property from the improve- ments. He said he would abide by that appraisal. He said that if the council did not grant these requests, he would request the council to instruct the Finance Department to allow the assessment to be deferred until the property is developed. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel said that improvement of this street was required by the planned unit development that Mr. Matott had constructed in 1981 and that this was documented in the records of the Hearings Official, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Mr. Teitzel stated that the timing of the improvements was an issue and agreed that if the overpass had not been constructed the improvements probably would not have been initiated until the property was developed. He said that improvements to Spring Boulevard had been included in the Master Road Plan for a number of years. Mr. Teitzel said he would need to verify with the Finance Department whether the required ten-day notification was provided for the Hearings Panel hearing. Mr. Teitzel said staff recommended awarding the contract. Councilor Obie suggested that the council's decision on the matter be postponed until staff can verify that the required public notice was provided. He asked Councilors Lindberg and Ball, who had served on the Hearings Panel for this item, if they believed there was a need for more testimony on the matter. Councilor Ball said he believed there was a need for more discussion, including addressing the question of whether the original purpose of the dedication of that portion of Spring Boulevard was to serve Mr. Matott's property or to connect Spring to 30th Avenue. He noted that Hearings Official Jim Spickerman had discussed the appropriateness of assessing improvements on all the property served. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 3