06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilwomen Beal and Shirey e voting no. Mayor Anderson expressed his displeasure at the behavior of some of those in the audience who during Council discussion of the issue were noisy, interrupting with impudent comments" etc. He noted that the Council operated with certain decorum, giving everyone who wished an opportunity to be heard, and since there would be further discussion and public hearing on this issue, he hoped those present would understand the request to maintain order so that a decision could be reached in a reasoned and logical manner. In response to Ms. Patoine, the Mayor said a public hearing would be scheduled on the issue within 30 days, that the committee would be appointed and start work quickly. E. Hearing Panel Report - June 16, 1975 was distributed to Council members: Present: Council members Tom Williams and D. W. Hamel; City Engineer Bert Teitzel. C.B.873 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area from projected 38th Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet, 2nd Phase (74-01) . There were no written protests on record or requests from persons to.be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. C.B.874 - Levying assessments for paving Fox Hollow Road (relocated) from 50 feet south of 43rd Avenue to East Amazon Drive, and Dillard Road from Fox Glen e to relocated Fox Hollow Road (74-36) Mrs. Bertha King, 4040 Dillard Road, represented by Judith MacInnis of Lane County Legal Aid, objected to assessment against her property on the basis that the street, because it was a "collector street," was not primarily for the benefit of the abut- ting property, rather that it was for the benefit of the public. Also, that the assessment against this property, if based on front footage, would be inequitable and unjust because of the peculiar boundaries of the property; that is, the property is a triangle, the front footage is the arc of a curve, and there is no rear prop- erty line. These objections were set out in a letter written by Ms. MacInnis, copies of which were presented to the panel. She claimed the benefi t of the im- provement to this property was not measurable on a front-foot basis, that assess- ment made on the basis of the footage of the curve would result in unequal assess- ments between parcels on opposite sides of the curve. . Bert 2'eltz~l, city engineer, reviewed the project, initiated by the Council, and noted the average f~ont-foot costs of $15.50 for 28-foot paving, $19.27 for 36-foot paving. He explained that right-of-way was acquired from the Kings for improve- ment of the Fox HOllow/Dillard intersection which substantially increased the frontage of the Kings' property. In negotiations for the right-of-way, the city agreed to defer collection of assessment against the extra length of frontage, collecting at this time only that based on the original length. He added that Mrs. King contacted staff and expressed concern about reduction of the sight dis- tance from her driveway. Staff had investigated that, Mr. Teitzel said, and with her permission would make arrangements for adequate sight clearance from the drive- way. IIr. 2'eitzel pointed out on a map Mrs. King's property and explained the con- figurations resulting from the relocation of Fox Hollow Road and the intersection improvement, including a strip of land obtained but not used which the city. agreed to deed to IIrs. King when and if the abutting undeveloped property was subdivided - or otherwise developed. He explained the current assessment against the property amounted to $1,720.21 on a 28-foot basis for the original frontage (about 110 feet), plus a deferred amount of $418.08 also on the original frontage (difference between 28-foot and 36-foot widths because of single-family use), and a deferred amount of $5,474.27 against the new frontage. 5~ 6/23/75 - 19