Ordinance No. 20053 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use this right-of-way in the future for a further widening of Highway 99, and may therefore declare all this property to be surplus property. Mr. Spotten elaborated on the conditions relevant to his property. The area immediately behind the sidewalk on the right-of-way is a steep grade from the level of the highway down to the level of the Spotten property. From the end of this grade back to the property line is partially paved and partially graveled undeveloped land. Mr. Spotten explained that his concern with access points arose because there is a portion of his property that he is unable to reach in a vehicle because of a structure on his property that comes very close to the property line on both sides. Mr. Spotten stated that, because the state will not allow use of the right-of-way, he is unable to access a portion of his property and therefore is unable to realize the fullest value of his property. A discussion ensued among Mr. Mills, Mr. Spotten, Mr. Clayton and the Hearings Official concerning the reasons for the excess right -of-way, the nature of ownership of the excess right-of-way, and the prospective use of the property. The state's process of acquisition of the right-of way was discussed; the understanding of those present who had an opinion was that the state usually acquires the- property through deeded acquisitions. Mr. Mills explained that on collector streets, where there is a significant volume of traffic, it is common to have the physical area of the sidewalk located some distance from the street or from the abutting property, to allow a buffer between the collector street and the abutting property. In response, it was pointed out that the present situation was somewhat different, at least in the eyes of Mr. Clayton and Mr. Spotten, because of the distance between the improvement and the abutting property and because of the potential that the intervening property might be sold or transferred to a different owner after the assessment was levied. Mr. Mills stated that he believed that the Eugene Code allowed the assessment process proposed in the circumstances such as were raised during the hearing. The Hearings Official suggested that Mr. Mills consider requesting an opinion from the City Attorney concerning the City's authority to make assessments such as the proposed assessments in circumstances such as Mr. Clayton and Mr. Spotten described. There being no further testimony, the hearing closed at 7:15. Minutes, May 21, 1996 Public Hearing, Highway 99 Improvements Page 3