Ordinance No. 20022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fib} All other parcels soused may be assessed for a maximum of 2S feet of width. Mr. Piculell suggested that the ordinance had been amended and had inadvertently created a discrepancy between developed and undeveloped residential parcels. Mr. Piculell was concerned because the ordinance provides that parcels which, at the time of the assessment, are developed with single-family dwellings are assessed for a maximum of 20 feet of width along arterial or collector streets, and for a maximum of ZS feet along other types of streets, while undeveloped parcels are assessed for a maximum of 3d feet of width no matter what the type of street they abut. ~Vhi1e Mr. Piculell felt that a mistake had been made in the distinction between undeveloped parcels and parcels developed with a single family or duplex residence, it is not obvious that this was a mistake. The language of the ordinance is clear, and does not suggest an inadvertent omission unless one begins with the assumption that the Council intended to treat developed and undeveloped parcels the same. There is no reason why the Council could nat have chosen to recognize that developed and undeveloped parcels are affected differently by the installation of an arterial or collector street. Developed parcels faced with a new street and higher levels of traffic are less able to respond by reconfiguring the location of the dwelling unit than are undeveloped parcels. It is also possible that the use of an undeveloped parcel may change in response to a change in they type of street available, but this is less likely if the parcel has already been developed. Thus, it is possible that undeveloped parcels may benefit more from a heavier volume street than will already developed parcels, and even if they derive the same. benefit, the undeveloped parcel may be less impacted. Mr. Piculell also argued that the distinction between develaped and undeveloped parcels was unfair because there was no logical reason that would show a rough proportionality between the differing assessments. Mr. Piculell made it clear that he regarded the assessment as a taking which required a constitutional justification under the recent decision, ' ~, 114 S. Ct. 2309 X1994}. In this Mr. Piculell has confused his constitutional law. The proposed assessments in this matter are not at all related to the "taking" that was the focus of the ~ case, ~ concerned requirements imposed as a part of the planning and development process, while this matter concerns assessments for local improvements. Both developed and undeveloped properties in the local improvement district benefit from the street improvement and it is constitutional to assess the properties for these benefits. There axe valid distinctions between developed and undeveloped parcels that support the differing assessments the Council provided in section 7.175 of the Eugene Code. Finally, Mr. Piculell suggested that the local improvement district should assess based on a projection of average daily trips from a property, or some similar method more closet related . Y to use,lnstead of the front footage method provided in the Eugene Code. Mr. Piculell did not explain how a projection based on average use by residents of a parcel would be applied to an FINAL ASSESSMENT FQR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS QN TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE PAGE 3