Ordinance No. 20046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 19,1996 To; Milo Mecham, Hearings Cff vial FROM: Jeff Lankston, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: Additional Information following public hearing for final assessments Santa Clara Basins 95N, 95P, 95C~ & 95R; Service ID 2924, 2925, 2926 and 292?~ A. At the public hearing, held on April 17, 1995,1Nilliam G. And K.A. vlJhittle; owners of two tax lots X11-04-3-0413308 & 10991 } in common development asked for a reduced sanitary sewer assessment based on the existence of a drainage way on tax lot 10901. As mentioned in the Engineers Report under "Drainage Channels and other Natural Features" three criteria must be met to qualify a drainage for exception. City staff has reviewed this issue, with the following f ndings. 1. The drainage way appears to provide community wide benefit. 2. The drainage way is recognized in the City's storm drainage master plan. 3. Additional deed research of Lane County records failed too undercover any dedicated easement given to the City or County forthe drainage way. In addition to the above research, anon site inspection was made, with the following findings. 1. The existing drainage way appears to lie within the east one-third of tax lot 10901 and runs the full width of the property. The drainage ditch is approximately 4' wide at the bottom, 11' wide at the top and 2.8' deep. 2. The remaining area of t.1.10901 west of the ditch is accessed by a foot bridge. This area is being used as a garden. A small shed has been cons#ructed north of the garden area. The program initiated in 1993 by the City to acquire easements from property owners with undedicated drainage ways has resulted in not one .property owner interested in encumbering their property with the restrictions an easement would require. Based on the above information and the absence of a recorded easement or dedication, staff is still recommending the assessed in full as proposed. B. Chronology of staff contacts with Chad Roderick see attachments}: March 26,1991- Per the Planning and Development Dept., Mr. Roderick's property was recognized as two legal building lots when he applied for annexation, File AZ 91- 045. Two taxlots had been approved in 1981, but there is no evidence that they were ever recorded with Lane County.