Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 3. Change the solar fence from 8 feet to either 10 or 12 feet. Mr. <br /> Croteau said the solar fence height is used to calculate how far a house <br /> e must be set back from the north property line. For every 2-feet <br /> increase in the fence height, 2 feet of the structure1s south wall is <br /> shaded. <br /> 4. Change the slope adjustments in the solar regulations from every 3 <br /> degrees to 5 degrees. Current slope-measuring tables are in increments <br /> of 3 degrees. Mr. Croteau said the change to increments of 5 degrees <br /> would allow for easier calculation by both home builders and the City <br /> Building Division. <br /> 5) Include an exemption for the solar access regulations allowing <br /> construction of two-story structures in areas surrounded by two-story <br /> buildings. <br /> Mr. Mill er sa i d the slope amendment decided upon by the subcommittee of <br /> interested parties recommended 6 percent and not 5 percent. Six percent was <br /> chosen as a logical increase from 3 percent, he said. Ms. Ehrman said she <br /> thought the 5-percent figure was chosen because staff felt it would be easier <br /> to work with than three. Mr. Miller reiterated his feeling the 6-percent <br /> figure was a logical increase from 3 percent. He added the motion made was for <br /> a 6-percent slope amendment. <br /> Ms. Bascom noted in Mr. Croteau1s presentation he listed the percentage <br /> changes in solar access for only the first amendment. She asked if he <br /> intended to list the percentages for the other four. Mr. Croteau sa i d he <br /> neglected to do that. Referring to a chart in the councilors' packet, he said <br /> the date change combined with a 10-foot fence regulation would result in a 52- <br /> percent loss. The date change combined with a 12-foot fence regulation would <br /> e mean a 68-percent loss of solar access. He said there has not been a detailed <br /> energy analysis for the other amendments. The slope tables, however, would <br /> result in a minimal amount of percentage change, and the guaranteed height is <br /> not an across-the-board change but would only be an energy loss in certain <br /> cases, Mr. Croteau said. <br /> Mr. Miller asked if the wording change he has been working on for the fifth <br /> amendment should be distributed for inclusion as part of the public hearing. <br /> Mayor Obie and Ms. Ehrman wondered if discussion of the item was appropriate <br /> since the public has not had a chance to review it. Mr. Croteau said the <br /> council could still have a first and second reading of the amendments tonight. <br /> Regarding citizen involvement, he said the council could read the wording <br /> change tonight so the public would have opportunity to respond. City Attorney <br /> John Arnold advised the action would be legal. <br /> Mr. Miller read the wording change, which would come under Section 9.535. The <br /> underlined word was added. "When a lot existing in December 1,1987, is a part <br /> of a subdivision having predominantly multiple-story dwellings, then the <br /> permitted height and setback of a lot shall be the maximum permitted in the <br /> zoning district." Mr. Miller said it is his understanding the wording change <br /> would help maintain a compatibility of housing structures that already exist <br /> in a subdivision. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 2 <br />