05/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e must be assessed for both frontages, even if access is only taken off one of the streets. Mr. Teitzel explained that this differed from the assessment policy on panhandle lots which had been instituted so that owners of panhandle lots which have limited street frontage paid assessments for a minimum frontage of 60 feet. Ms. Wooten asked how many owners of double-frontage lots involved in the project under consideration had objected to the assessment. Mr. Teitzel said that he did not know. Several people had objected at the neighborhood hearing, and one objection has been made in writing. He indicated that several people were present to testify to the council tonight. Ms. Wooten felt uncomfortable with the existing double-frontage policy. She asked that at a future meeting the policy be explained to her and perhaps reviewed in more detail. Ms. Schue expressed confusion over figures in the staff notes: She asked whether property owners were being assessed for 20- or 28-foot street widths. Mr. Teitzel responded that the street will be improved to a 36-foot width. He said that the assessment policy specifies that on an arterial or collector, the existing residential or duplex lots pay for a 20-foot-wide street, and that those properties which are of a multi-family nature, such as the planned unit development, or which are undeveloped, pay for a 36-foot width. He did not believe that there were any 28-foot assessments on this particular project. Mr. Haws asked if there were any alternatives available to the council in assessing double-frontage lots other than that used in the Willamette Street situation. Mr. Teitzelsaid that staff had reviewed its records on double- frontage assessments and had found that the council had never wavered in its policy of assessing both frontages. He indicated that the only other alterna- tive suggested in the past was for the City to pick up the bill for one lot face. Mr. Haws said that the City did not want to pay the assessment of someone else's lot and that this had been his reason in the past for supporting the existing assessment policy. He felt that if the policy were changed now, someone would get a "free ride." Mr. Obie said that there were two issues before the council, one being the assessment policy itself and the other being the Goodpasture Island proposal. He said that he has always felt that the existing assessment policy is not only unfair to those property owners involved, but also in opposition to much City policy and direction. He said that he had always gone along with the policy, based on arguments similar to those cited by Mr. Haws. He felt, however, that .with the advent of the systems development charge which provides funds for city-wide improvements, his view of the policy had changed. He felt that the council needed to debate this issue and should seriously consider using systems development funds for improvement of streets where there is a double-frontage issue, particularly when one of the streets is an arterial which affects people on a city-wide basis. Mr. Obie requested clarification of the layout of the proposed improvements. Mr. Teitzel referred to a map of the project. He indicated that the project only goes as far as Happy Lane, because a County study is currently under way on how to deal with the Delta Highway/Goodpasture Island Road interchange. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1981 Page 5