My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/14/1975 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1975
>
04/14/1975 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:01:00 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:09:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/14/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />i /I vi ew of the vaCilllCl1 rilte ,in Churchill Villaye and tile i.'collomi C si tuat,ion <br />~vllich lvoulrl preclude development of other adjacent: pro/iort-ies. She added <br />t:lwt Ilt.:'r attorney llild dc/vised her "she had a case" l>C!CdllSC of failure of the <br />ci ty to give her proper notice of construction of the ,roject. <br /> <br />In response to Councilman Bradley, Ms. Martinsen said she finally received <br />notice through the U. S. National Bank in Portland tilat it h1as orig.inally <br />sent to the Ma,in Branc I in Eugene and subsequently forwarded to several other <br />Jiranches before arr.i v ing in t:he trust department in Por tlilnd. The second <br />notice, she said, was received on the Friday before the date of panel hearing, <br />d~ad1ine for giving notice of intent to appear at the hearing was Thursday. <br /> <br />Bert Teizel, city engineer, explained that the street improvement was a re- <br />quirement for approval VI} the Planning Commission of the c"hurchill Village PUD. <br />The developer of that PlJf) had prov,ided the ci ty wi tll deed for the riyllt-of-way <br />tllrouclh tlle Martinson property at the time of petitionilHI the street paving. <br />'I'his portion of the street Ivc1S cons tcucted to dCCOll/lllOdate a sec:ond phase of <br />the PUD which did not ll/iltericJl.izc. Mr. 'l'citzel said there ~viJS on file an <br />earnest money ayrc7em,!nt hetween C. L. and D. V. Ogle and Ms. Martinson with <br />regard to possibl(! plJf) on the Martinson property cJS we.ll as the request from <br />Churchill Village for the second phase. Since the city had the deeded right- <br />of-way, it ~vcnt alwad with the improvement on that basis with the understand- <br />inCf that everllone concerned tvas aware of it. Mr. 7'eitzel ,Hlded that legal - <br />requirement for notice Iv,]S cOlllplc'd with bl] advertisinq in loccJ1 /Jclper, ZJnd <br />that courtesy not.icl.'s tvU{'(' ~~ent 1';0 property mvners involved. The notice to <br />Ms. Martinson, acconlinCJ to rccorcls, WilS :;cnt to the IJ. S. National Dallk CJnd <br />cl cOPt! S,?llt to Mr. Oe;)". Notices ~v('T'e also sent to School /)istr_ict 4,] and <br />Churchill VilIayc> since t!H'.'Y own property abutting tJ)(.' street improvement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MS. Martinson saie/ t,llcre ~vas no va.licl aqrecment w,ith Mr. 0</10, ,it was not <br />completed. NciUlcr Wd.'; tlll.'re il contract with Churchill Villac7c. She said <br />tlJC.:re was no litiyation involved, in response to COuTJc.i.llllan Hamel. <br /> <br />Nr. 'J'cit7.cl /JOinr:<.'rj (Jut 1:11.11: tIlL' streel right-of-wall was deu(/crl bl] NS.Ncirtinson <br />ufJ(} t:lJ('> II. ,c;. Ndtiolldl /1,1/11\ ill oreIer I{) cOIII/Jlete tilL' DClc:el: cunfl,.'ction betlveefl <br />RJilcl} lI.i II UO.:Jcl dlUl li<!r/elsL'1l l<Odrl. ".ls. Nart,/nson sdid sIlt.' WLlS dwcJrc of that, <br />in res/Jo/Jse 1:0 rJucst iOllilll1 from Counc.; lman IIcJlflc1, 1m I: ShL' hul /Jnt been c1WcJrc <br />of dl)l./ })/'()!Josc'rl ./ /I/fJro V L'lIIen t. <br /> <br />Councilman Ii:/Ine,l \vonclen.cJ jf the assessment could VL' deFerred. Mr. 'l'eit:zel <br />an:ilvcrc(1 thelt t:hc eli ((erence IJetween the 36-foot and J8-foot \vl(llhs could be <br />. <br />deferred. Ie didn1 t appCiJr there could be anythiny other than that s,ince <br />all legal n..'C{uireJllcnts IveH~ met and the improvement h1as accomplished in <br />accordance w.ith chi.1rtcr provisions. <br /> <br />Ms. Martinson re.itcrated her contention that Oregon latv had not been follOlved <br />in tlJilt slle hcJrl not receiveclnotice of intent to make th;JimUl'ovclllent. <br />Mr. 7'c'itzel didn't see anI) legal problem since it was a quc::;tion of \vhather <br />Mr. Ogle had any legal right in the property. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilmiln Bradley asker] \vhet/Jer there would havc been any change in the situa- <br />tion had Ms. NcJrtinson received notice as she wished ami filed a remonstrance <br />at the first hearing. Mr. TeitzL'.l said there woul'd have heen none, that her <br />property constituted 27'J{, of'the total properties ahutting the'improvement <br />lie said there were no others objecting to the assessment. Ms. Martinson <br />questioned the perccmta'fe figure stated, maintaining that she WcJS being <br />c1ssesscd lOO~~ of the cost for tIle .improvemcnt alJutting her JJro[>crtl} lvhich <br />she had not requested. <br /> <br />\~3 <br /> <br />4/14/75 - 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.