Ordinance No. 20254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cases. In many cases the reduction was at least one decibel more than predicted for the ODOT 1999 prelimi?ry design. Several property owners have complained that the wall was built in a different location and a different height than they were told. The Wall is built on the north side of the EWEB easement on the east end of the project and the top of the wall, while varying from lot to tot, is constructed very close to the h~igl~ts above grou~d that are sl4oWn on th~ 1599 ODOT preliminary plans~ The top of the wall elevation was set relative to the edge of the highway pavement. Since the !: : entire }oadway slopes down to the west, the top of the Wall also slopes. Costs are distributed as outlined in the Council adopted Hearings Official minutes, findings and recommendations and resolution forming the LiD. The agreements in place at the time or-the LID stipulated the 12.5% assessable shar~ of the project ~ be $150,00b. City practice is to proportion the asseSsments into two tiers using a ~/1 i:8/11 ratio of benefit. ~(~sts listed below are the ~stimated assessment costs calculated at the time of formation of LID: Tier One (47 lots) $2,732.95 Tier Two (21 lots) $1 ~026 26 Below ~s the final assessable cost to property owners: Tier One (47 lots) $2~732.95 Tier Two (21 lots) $L026.26 RECOMMENDATIONS The City Engineer has provided the Hearings Official with an assessment report that outlined the above i~fOr~ation and ~,'hich recommended approval of the assessment as c~lcnlated. Certification that notice of the proposed assessment was given as required by Section 7.185 of the Eugene Code. A public hed'rin~ regarding the proposed assessmd~nt was ~eld on April 2002. T~e ,m, inutes o~~ this hearing ~re ~ttach~d to ~he~e Findings and RecommendatiOns as Exhibit A. ' Eighteen members of the public, seventeen of wl~om live within the assessment d~stricL testifie~ at the hearing. Testimony was t[nanimous that either the noise reduction benefit was limited to a small portion of the individual s property, that their Was no noise reduction~ or that noise had actually ~ncreased after the con}traction of the sound wall. A frequent comment was that there was little or no noise reduction ~n the back yard but an increase la noise in the front yard. The effectiveness of the wall wa,s also difficult to ascertain because of the lack Of sound benchmarks established prior to the wall s construction and because the record did not contai n post- construction noise measurements, just conclusionary hearsay testimony that the wall performed Findings and Recommendations.Iht Fitful Assessment - Job 2002-528 ?age 2