Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />after glvlng an example, asked how the ordinance would apply. It was again <br />clarified that the ordinance does not apply to existing developments, only new <br />developments. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the trees could be planted on all <br />sides except the south side, and only evergreens would be prohibited on the <br />south side of the building. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie cited an example where both the City and the neighbor were subject to <br />a lawsuit because of the solar access ordinance. Mr. Tumidaj explained that <br />in new developments many of the problems cited could be avoided with good <br />planning and design. Mr. Obie commented that any kind of ordinance will have <br />regulatory ramifications. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the councilors that they preferred the more lenient <br />performance standard in the revised code to the existing code. <br /> <br />Part 3, Solar Access Guarantee, was defined and reviewed by Mr. Tumidaj. He <br />explained that existing trees are grandfathered into the code, and that any <br />tree can be planted; however, the owner of a tree may be required to trim or <br />cut the tree if it violates the standard as defined in the Solar Access <br />Guarantee. The code is self-enforcing and would be a civil matter. <br /> <br />There was some debate about how the code could be enforced and whether the <br />City would be the enforcer or would be liable. Mr. Tumidaj said that the <br />ordinance does not allow monetary compensation. Mr. Gleason believed that the <br />matter would need to be taken to a court of record and receive costs for <br />exercising a remedy. Mr. Hansen asked if the procedure has been untested, and <br />Mr. Tumidaj answered that there has not been enough time for trees to grow to <br />a point where they violate the standard. Mr. Tumidaj said that prevention and <br />education should resolve most of the problems. Mr. Chenkin clarified that the <br />ordinance would address only those trees which cause solar access problems in <br />the winter season, not leafy trees which lose their leaves in the winter. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer was concerned that enforcement was the responsibility of the <br />property owner; that the City, which gives the guarantee, should be the <br />enforcer as well. Mr. Rutan saw the code as conceptually reasonable, but did <br />not think it would'work. Mr. Tumidaj agreed that it is an untested procedure. <br />Mr. Gaydos added that the Planning Commission was also troubled by the Solar <br />Access Guarantee. The City does not have the resources to enforce such a <br />code. Ms. Bascom believed that the guarantee was worth testing, but did not <br />believe the City should try to enforce the code. Ms. Schue questioned whether <br />the City could enforce the guarantee only upon request. Mr. Reed clarified <br />that enforcement upon request could prove to be a time bomb in the long run. <br />The City would still have to go onto someone1s property and cut down a tree, <br />which is why the code is written to be self-enforcing. Mr. Holmer and <br />Ms. Schue were willing to explore enforcement upon request; Mr. Hansen and <br />Mr. Rutan were uncomfortable with the Solar Access Guarantee. Mr. Obie <br />believed that the City must be prepared to enforce the code as legislation and <br />that there will be an expenditure of dollars to enforce. In order to do this, <br />there has to be agreement as to the value of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Brody suggested that the ordinance be adopted as presented in order to <br />gain some experience; if Part 3 is not adopted, it will compromise Parts 1 and <br />2 by undermining solar protection. Mr. Obie suggested another option, which <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 27, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />