10/11/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,...- I 711 e 10/11/71 , Ii I II I I Adoption of Sidewalk :Policy by Lane County - A public hearing will be held October 6, I C. !I Ii 9/29/71 1971 regarding adoption of a sidewalk policy for unincorporated areas of Lane County. :1 I, The Planning Commission has endorsed the policy, with reservations about some portions. !! i i' The primary concern is that residents maybe assessed twice because of necessity for I " i : I replacement of temporary walk systems. I I: I' Mr. Williams was concerned with the item concerning remodeling, and did not think ;i i residents should be required to install sidewalks, just because property was improved. , He asked whether the Council was endorsing specific parts of the proposed ordinance, , or just the policy . Manager suggested questions could be raised at the public hearing on details of the proposal. Planning Director said it was his understanding a variance procedure had been built " I into the sidewalk program. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 that the Council endorse in principle the proposed sidewalk construction policy of the County. Motion carried. Approve e D. Placement of Collection Boxes in Public Right of Way - A memo was previously dis- 9/29/71 'tribut~a-to Councilmen outlining the necessity for a policy regarding placement of-collection boxes by charitable organizations. Many of the boxes have been placed on public property or public rights of way, and it is necessary to determine whether this is an acceptable practice. Staff has experienced no Rrob1em or complaints regarding placement of these boxes, and suggests that a revocable permit procedure I i could be allowed. The organizations perform a public service, which certainly fits with the current concern for the environment. There is some concern about placement adjacent to residential properites. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to authorize staff to issue revocable permits for use of collection boxes by charitable institutions. It was the consensus of the Council that a worthwhile service was performed by I charitable organizations in placing these boxes for use of the public. ,. =t :J :: c. .I Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. Approve E. Bicycle-Pedestrian Underpass, Southern Pacific Track - In a meeting with representa- 9/29/71 tives of city, county, university, state highway division and EWEB, a proposal for 'I a new underp?ss south of the new footbridge at Southern Pacific tracks was discussed. '1 Cost will be approximately $50,000 for a tunnel 12 feet wide by 8 feet high. State 'I I will assume 60% of the cost, with the remaining 40% to be paid locally. City, County 1 and University will share this cost, with an estimated maximum of $7,000 to be assessed to each. It has been suggested that the County coordinate the program. The City will fund its share with a portion of the gasoline tax earmarked for promotion of bi cycle use. It was the consensus of the Council that this was an exce1~ent suggestion. Councilman Teague asked whether there would be policing problems and was told that the underpass i I had been designed larger than originally anticipated and would be well-lighted, to , discourage any illegal practices. I I " I Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov that the city proceed with the program, as outlined. Motion carried. Approve F. Improvement Petitions 9/29/71 1. Storm Sewer, 123' north from Tax Lot 3900 north of Hawthorne between Fairfield and Baxter - 100% e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to approve the petition. Motion carried. 2. Paving Brewer from Gilham to East Boundary of Norland Way Addition - 77% If Boise-Cascade is to proceed with development of a PUD on Brewer Lane, paving is necessary, since this was one of the conditions imposed by the Planning j! I, commissi on. The City does not have sufficient right of way, with 23% of the pro- I, perty objecting to the paving because of opposition to the PUD. Manager outlined manner in which cost of rights of way may be recovered. , Mr. Williams was concerned about use of condemnation power on local residential I, streets. Staff agreed that it was generally used only for arterials. Mr. Mohr was concerned that condemnation might not be in the public interest. I I: Manager explained that it is the assumption that any improvement of facilities " is to the public benefi t. i: Ii i' Mrs. Campbell asked how the assessment could be charged to the PUD. Could it I' ,I be tied to issuance of the building permit? I' I: Manager said that, until the contract has been let, the building permi t will not I' 1 be issued. \, " :i e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council advise Boise Cascade' ~ 10/11/71 - 4