Ordinance No. 19920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~.lz.s Janes testimoney ~.~ssessment Hearing June 2, 199 N'y naJme is Ellis Jones-~Z:~ha~~a owned proporty at ~aac?pa ~ture Is~.s.nd ra a~d f.or thirty years, ~~rhich is zoned R~. ~~:in~Ie ~'arnily r~es~.dertial~ . Z att,er~ded an infor~ratianal meetir~~ on Nov, 199:x, regarding a proposed r ., .~ ~ ~ # The City not~.ce of Nov. ~, 1991, st<<.~ed ~~~at ac~~~ttir~~ property ow~~eris would be assessed far casts an~~artior~ec?~ c}n a front fc~atag e basis, ~ Les Lyle subseruer~tl~ cor~f irr~ed this in writing befc~rc ar~bitrdrily deviating f~~~ t~i~ ~1,ty ~ade. 1'he Parks Dept. of. the City of E`~~~~ene, whic~~ is the ~;wner~ of over 5J~ of the f rc~ntag:e in~ralved was not riot if ied of the proposed ympravement and no Parks reps°sent~ative attended t~~.is ar any st~bsec;uent meeting. .; d Cn Nor, ~J, 1991, at an information meeting, I talked with city en~s~ineer E Rud reSantis~ asked him how assessments were ~r~ade, and specifically horv ~ r I x~fould be affected, I was told that I wo~~~.d be c~~arged for 10° depth of road fr~~nta e paving pli s curbs, curb cats, arld sid~wdlks, g .. ' F • } I asked some further questions re ~.arding some other 1~peCi~:'il'J properties, g nr~t~e of v~~xich have s in~;le f are ily residential zoning, -as I do-, and was told that the City would pick up extra widening center costs dependent upon their zoning. 3 I Later I called De"antis and he told me the applicable City bode was '7,175 s } '7.1'75 states, regarding street assessments, ~~} ~b~ 1, ~f ~1~ ~a~~ '* 3 ~ • . . . e I "' ~ . t! ~~ ~. ~a~ ~Farcels user for existing single-family dwellings and existing duplexes may be assessed for a maximum width as follows : ~ a~ Farc~els a~utting arterials, or collector ~~ streets identif°ied as such vn the Eugene Planned Street and High~~ray Right- ~~ V 3 of wa lan as an~roved b Council rnAav be assessed for a r~axi~um of ~ ~~ ~ J ? ~J feet of w~ idth. I • t' ekes to base its loci Les Lyle, In h~.s tes.,lmony upon which the City Council r sicns, has consistentlyT ?nisr~epresent the ~tirording of the coc'e. E~dmnle~: Can awe ~ & 3 of the Januar. 14th memo Les L le totes that the ~ pg y y criteria is riot whet~~er the tax parcel meets the ~ and the underscoring is his } v~~ord ing of the City Code 7.175 as cited, but whether the and ividual tax parcels are developed or undevelo ed. The new wordir~~;s of r~~.~w.+r.rw~~rr ~.. 3 de~rela ed anc' undevelaoed are his and not in the Code, as cited, nor does the ward vacanct, and ~~vacant land~~ ~~ applicably appear although Les Lyle uses these wordings frequent~.y, 1 I do de~r~and that m share of the road casts be allocated on the bas~.s of y the City Code as it is now written and not on some ones dream of ne~'~~ criteria, Z ask that i be char ,ed far a 1J' depth of the nay°in~r costs based ~~pon the 'S width of. the front footage of my tax parcel. ~.~ ~~ ~ /~