Ordinance No. 19910 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC FEARING 1. Two Tiers vs. Three Tiers. As noted in the minutes, several property owners painted out that they had understood previously that three tiers of houses would be identified far assessment. Because two tiers of houses are actually scheduled far assessment, they felt that their respective assessments were inappropriately high. The City Engineer provided the Hearings Df~icial with two letters dated December 21,199 Exhibit 4}, which includes the mailing list, and July 24,199o with the mailing list. Exhibit 5} Both of these letters make clear that only two tiers of houses will be assessed. The Hearings Qfhcial finds that adequate notice was provided to interested parties concerning the two-tier approach to assessment. 2. Assessment of the Collins' Property. Both at the hearing for the formation of the LID and the hearing regarding assessments, Mr. Bob Collins objected to his placement within Tier I. The Hearings Dfbcial conducted a visual inspection of Mr. Collins' property following the hearing for the formation of the LID. The recommendation submitted to the City Council was for inclusion of the Collins property in Tier I. The City Council adopted that recommendation. The Hearings Dfhcial remains of the view that the Collins property is more similar in location to the other houses designated in Tier I than those which are in Tier II. Mr. Collins also testified at the assessment public hearing that he agreed to the idea of the project because he thought it would reduce the sound level at his home and felt lured into the project. The City Engineer provided the Hearings Dfl"icial a copy of the Petition far Improvement received on July 19,1958. The approval of neither Mr. Collins nor his wife appears on the document. Therefore, the Hearings aff"icial beds that Mr. Collins was not "lured" into the project, because he never joined in the petition for the construction of the wall. S Y AND RECCMMENDATIaN The follow up sound study indicates that a noticeable reduction of sound has been achieved. while the effected property owners might have wished for a greater reduction than they perceive, that needs to be balanced against the apparent increase in trafl~c along Beltline Road over the last three years. The nature of the decibel scale suggests that the reduction is greater than might have been perceived. It further appears to the Hearings Official that because of the intergovernmental agreement and the resolution of the City Council which approved this project, there is little or no _2~