04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e G. Interim Lane County Sewer and Water Service Policy - Copies of resolution being considered by Lane County for adoption of policy with regard to ex- tension of water and sewer services were previously distributed to Council members together with memo from city planninq department noting some hazards that might be encountered in terms of consistency with the General Plan because of 'the broad language of the policy statement. Mayor Anderson felt the exception to prohib,iting in certain instances ex- tension of water lines (Item 3)d) of the resolution) would be the "first foot in the door" for extension of water lines outside existing urban serv- ice areas. Councilwoman Beal thought "cities" as used in defining where responsibility would lie for provision of sewer services in urban areas containing incorporated cities should be more specific. Councilman Keller mtmtioned a subdivision already approved in the River Road area (Breeden Bros.) which appeared contrary to the policy stated in the resolution. Assistant Manager said that the County Commissioners interpreted the use of a sewer lagoon to serve that subdivision as "use of a public sewer service" when giving approval for the development. The issue is now before the Boundary Commission, he said, with strong recommendation for denial. And that development is one reason for bringing the policy resolution for consideration at this time. Councilwoman Beal repeated her concern about wording, that the cities to be responsible for providing services were not specified. Assistant Manage~ felt language of the resolution could be worked out in that regard. e Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to generally support the policy as set out in the resolution with the understanding that the language should be modified to meet the concerns expressed. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/2/75 Approve H. Traffic Diverter Policy - Copies of proposed policy on installation of traf- fic diverters were previously distributed to Council members together with illustrations of various types of diverters and background material from various neighborhoods. The policy would recognize the positive value of diverters in improving living environment, especially in older neighborhoods. It also would re~ognize that the city has the final authority regarding location and timing on installation, but would require that the process in- clude working with chartered neighborhood groups so far as possible in those areas where installatiqn of diverters was anticipated. Staff recom- mended that procedure for installation of diverters, once the pOlicy is adopted, include Council approval for staff research when diverters are re- quested, close liaison and meetings with neighborhood groups during testing periods, and public hearings prior to actual construction. Staf~ recommended referral to the Planning Commission and neighborhood groups for review and comment before Council action. e Councilman Williams was not sure what the policy would be. He didn't see where it clearly stated when adiverter would or would not be installed. Assistant Manager answered that there were no established "warrants" for installation of diverters. For that reason the policy simply stated that diverters would be used as a technique of solving through traffic problems in residential areas after the Council had given permission to begin re- search to determine whether a diverter would solve a problem. Neighborhood groups would participate in the study, but the Council would reserve to it- self the fjnal decision on whether it would be installed. \13, 4/14/75 - 21