05/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e with a little over 750 feet of double frontage. Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Teitzelsaid that both of these projects were requested by the School Safety Committee, and that the Bailey Hill project had been requested for three years by that committee. Mr. Obie felt that since this was a council-initiated improvement, there was no immediate urgency to commence the project. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the project be tabled and that the Mayor be asked to appoint a council subcommittee to review the assessment policies relative to double-frontage lots. Roll call vote. There was a tie vote, with Councilors Smith, Lindberg, Obie, and Wooten voting aye, and Councilors Hamel, Miller, Haws, and Schue voting no. Mayor Keller broke the tie by casting a no vote. Motion was defeated. Mr. Lindberg felt that one factor involved was that the area in question is a low-density population area. He did not feel that people who live in low- density areas should be rewarded by having the cost of their low-density ownership spread among all the other people including those who live in high- density areas. e Mr. Haws felt that the street needs to be improved. He said that there is a high school in the area, with students traveling both ways on Goodpasture Island Road. He therefore felt that the council should approve the project. Ms. Schue agreed with Mr. Haws. She felt that delay would only make the project more costly when it is done. She thought that examining the policy on double- frontage lots would be opening a "huge can of worms. II She indicated that every corner lot in the City has paid assessments for two frontages. She would not like to have to tell the property owners on South Willamette that they had to pay double-frontage assessments in the past, but that Goodpasture Island prop- erty owners would not have to do so. She was in favor of going ahead with the project. Ms. Smith suggested that even though it would probably not affect this partic- ular project, the council in the future should review the double-frontage assessment policy. Ms. Miller pointed out that corner lots have traditionally been assessed for two frontages, even though in the majority of those cases the lot takes access from only one of the two streets, and residents of the corner lot probably seldom use the second street. Ms. Miller said that she would not oppose allowing council- ors who were interested in the issue to set up a subcommittee to review assess- ment policy. She felt that there are difficult questions involved, with no easy answers. Mayor Keller agreed that the council has never made any good friends in post- poning projects that eventually end up costing more when they are finally done. He thought that the project is reasonable and necessary and that the council should therefore support the long-standing policy it has on these issues. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1981 Page 9