Ordinance No. 20046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

city's policy is to assess these parcels as if they were the same parcel. This is an appropriate policy since it recognizes the actual benefit provided to the second, nonadj acent parcel, one party, the Whittles, also asked to have a portion of their second lot evaluated for possible inclusion in the drainage exemption. Having considered this request, staff reports that the property does not qualify. Although the ditch on the Whittle property meets the two criteria of providing a community wide benefit, and appearing on the City's storm drainage master plan, the Whittles have not taken the necessary steps to dedicate the ditch as a drainage way to either the City or the County. This program's stringent requirements are designed to make certain that if the drainageway is exempted, it is no longer available for development and thus will not impose a later charge on the sewer system. Because the ditch does not meet the city's requirements, the Hearings official does not recommend that this portion of the Whittle property be exempted, but does recommend that the property be assessed as originally proposed. The Whittles argued that the second lot was not really developable because of its size. ~f this is the case, then the distinction between the parcels is a matter of appearance rather than reality. The Whittles own one developed area, which on paper is divided into two parcels. Under these conditions it is appropriate to subject the Whittles to the same assessment policy as is applied to other property owners who own properties of the same size. Mr. Roderick's situation is slightly different, in that the two properties are legally and practically distinct, and both are developed. Mr. Roderick's property does illustrate the logic behind the policy of assessing "land locked" properties in common ownership, because the second property already has a sewer system in place that crosses the intervening land and attaches to a system down Wilkes Road. Providing closer sewers certainly benefits Mr. Roderick's property. Mr, Roderick also raised the question of an agreement between himself and the city, which he feels should exempt his second property from assessment. 7n response to Mr. Roderick's claim, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston supplied a memorandum of additional information setting forth the chronology of contacts between the City and Mr. Roderick. Exhibit C} Relevant contacts between the City and Mr. Roderick began in 1992. At that time the City was beginning to plan the construction of sewers in the area during the 1993 season. The City had tentative plans to construct sewers on East Anchor Street. Anchor Street ends at the western edge of the Roderick property. At that time, the Roderick property was not officially divided, so that the area now occupied by tax lots 1300 and 1302 was referred to as tax lot 1300. Mr. Roderick negotiated an understanding that, instead of the city constructing a public sewer on the eastern portion of Anchor Street, Mr, Roderick would himself install the sewers. The understanding was memorialized in a letter from Michelle Cahill, Project Manager of the 1993 sewer construction project for the City of Eugene. Ms. Cahill stated: "Cne effect of this particular alignment of sewers will be to delay assessment on the southwesterly portion of tax lot 1300 until such time as a line is extended publicly. If you build the public extension from Tempa east to your property using private engineering and construction services, there would not be an assessment from the Cit~r." SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q"AND "R" Page 6 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND REC~MMENDATIDNS