Item 4 - PH on River Ave.LID - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

were unlikely to change no matter what steps ODOT took. For that reason, the City had determined that it was appropriate to start improvements on River Avenue. The final series of general questions concerned the remonstrance process. Property owners asked if this was the meeting where remonstrances were expected. Ms. Cahill and the Hearings Officer responded that it was. Other property owners asked what the remonstrance process involved. The Hearings Official explained that the remonstrance process was described in the Eugene Code. Remonstrance was a formal process of a property owner expressing a written objection to the proposed local improvement district. The Code also provided guidance on the impact of the remonstrance. If property owners representing half the proposed assessment sign remonstrances, the hearing will be concluded and the matter will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration of the proposed improvement and the remonstrances that have been filed. Ms. Cahill explained that remonstrances do not require the Council to delay or deny the project, they only require special consideration by the Council. To make certain that each property owner had a chance to speak, the Hearings Official then asked each property owner to take tums speaking or asking questions. The Hearings Official asked Mr. Gordon Howard to begin. Mr. Howard began by asking that the hearing be extended to allow time for additional consideration of several matters. Mr. Howard expressed concern that property owners along River Avenue had not understood that the hearing was the appropriate time to file remonstrances, and that the hearing should therefore be extended. The Hearings Official deferred a decision on this matter until other property owners had had an opportunity to speak on this matter. Mr. Howard also asked that the hearing be extended because his estimated assessments had recently been increased. Mr. Howard had requested the installation of a storm drain system to allow storm drainage runoff to be captured from his house. He had recently been told that the amount of the proposed assessment would increase, and had only the day before learned that the proposed increase was because of a change in the preliminary design of the proposed storm drain manhole. Project engineer Joe Ramirez acknowledged that the storm drain extension had been redesigned. Mr. Ramirez explained that the storm drain had been moved to avoid conflicts with other utilities in the ground. Mr. Howard stated his objection to having to pay an additional amount because the City had chosen to shift the location of the storm drain system. Mr. Howard also explained that he would like a postponement so that he could have a final determination of whether he was actually required to put in a storm drain. Mr. Howard explained that he had been told by the City Permit and Information Division that he would have to install a storm drain to capture runoff when the property was developed according to its zoning designation as commercial. At the same time, Mr. Howard explained, he had been told by the engineers that a storm drain for his property was not necessary because of the flat topography of the area. Mr. Howard requested that he be given a straight answer about the need for a storm drain. Ms. Cahill and Mr. Ramirez responded that they could not guarantee any particular answer from the Planning Division, but that they understood that the need for stormwater system connection for Mr.