06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. MacInnis asked for clarification of th~ term "developed" and asked who de- termined when more than a 28-foot street width was required. Mr. Teitzel said e that development under standard city policy meant when the property was divided into lots that would utilize all of the property, or if a higher use developed - church, planned unit development, apartment, anythingof higher density - so that a wider than 28-foot street would be necessary to handle the traffic generated. In further answer to Ms. MacInnis, he said that if the existing single-family house was replaced with another, that would not trigger collection of the assessment, only if a higher use was made of the property would that occur. In response to Mrs. King, Mr. Teitzel again explained that assessment at this time was against only ,the approximately 110 feet of the original frontage, the balance would be deferred at no. interest until that property was developed to a higher use. Councilman Hamel wondered if the assessment against the single-family portion could be based on 28-foot paving (as in a previous assessmenf; hearing) with the balance of the property assessed on a 36-foot width. But Mr. Teitze~ noted that that assessment was against property already..s'ubdivided, that in this intance there would be no way of knowing the size of the lot on which Mrs. King's home. was located until the property was further developed. Ms. MacInnis asked whether the property would have a' corner lot if Mrs. King refused to accept from the city the property not used for right-of-way, saying that would substantially reduce the frontage. Mr. Teitzel explained that they would not have a corner lot, and that the parcel left over to be deeded to the owner of abutting property was necessary for access to the undeveloped portion of that ownership, any normal subdivision would required that frontage for access. Mr. Anders asked whether ~cceptance of assessment based on the 28-foot width On the entire property at this time would be an option. Mr. Teitzel answered that the difference between that and the 36-foot width would still have to be paid e upon subdivision of the property. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed (on approximately lID-foot . frontage on 28-foot basis, difference between 28- and 36-foot widths on the lID-foot frontage as well as the amount assessed on the new frontage to be deferred until subdivision and/or development to higher use occurs). Councilman Williams reviewed the objections as shown in the report and noted unanimous vote of the panel to levy the assessments as proposed. Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to accept the report. 6/18/75 Motion carried unanimopsly. Approve F.Code Amendment, Noise Ordinance - Copies of proposed ordinance were distributed wi th agenda. The amendment would prohibit most construction noise between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Assistant Manager explained that to avoid poten- tial problems that might occur in the area of housing rehabilitation in ancitipated neighborhood redevelopment programs (under community and housing developm~nt activi- ties) the ordinance was drafted to provide that owners of single-family dwellings or duplexes would be allowed to work on their residences until 10:00 p.m. unless complaints were received from their neighbors. He called attention to summary already delivered to Council showing 22 of 28 codes of other cities allow building construction between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., one to 9:00 p.m., one to 8:00 p.m., and four to 10:00 p.m. e Madge Lorwin, 550 East 15th Avenue, thought Eugene could stop construction noise at 6:00 p.m. if other smaller cities were doing it. And she expressed concern about the noise created by those people who would be allowed to do their own work until 10:00 p.m. She noted the proposal didn't cover occupants of dwellings, only ~Sl 6/23/75 - 21