05/27/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e would make solar access subdivisions voluntary. Mr. Holmer suggested leaving enforcement out of the ordinance and addressing it later. Mr. Gleason suggested that a right to solar access be created, but that if violated, a mediation procedure be established which could order a remedy with the option of an injunction or hearing in court if necessary. Ms. Brody found the suggestion by Mr. Gleason worth exploring and agreed to talk to the attorney. She requested that the staff prepare the ordinance for adoption, research the issues, offer options, and leave room for additions or changes. Mr. Hansen asked if the ordinance could be cleaned up without dealing with existing development. Ms. Brody said that this would be done by adopting only Part 2, not 1 and 3. Mr. Hansen said that he would prefer this approach until some experience is gained. Mr. Rutan agreed. There was no majority for this sentiment. Ms. Brody said that the option was available by simply revising the existing ordinance. Ms. Bascom asked if the ordinance could be evaluated at regular intervals, and Mr. Chenkin replied that this provision could be made in the adopting motion. II. SIGN CODE UPDATE Mr. Croteau defined the prOV1Slon of portable signs as the unresolved issue before the council. The three options were outlined in the memorandum. Mr. Obie asked for a vote of the council and said that he would, in case of a tie, vote against the use of portable signs entirely. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Obie, opposing portable signs. Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan opposed them; Ms. Schue wanted to negotiate their use downtown and in the University dis- trict. Mr. Hansen reported Mr. Miller's comment that they should be used everywhere or not at all. Mr. Gleason clarified that the Downtown Commission supported portable signs. He agreed that the ordinance would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hansen raised two issues: 1) whether the City Council should be the final authority on sign variances, and 2) allowance of blinking signs. Mr. Miller also expressed concern for lack of council authority, through Mr. Hansen. Mr. Croteau replied that the council majority agreed that sign code variances would go before the Sign Code Board of Appeals, which could initiate changes in the code through the City Council. Mr. Rutan explained his rationale for support of the ordinance as revised. Mr. Hansen believed that elected officials should have some say and the community should have access through the councilors in the process. Mr. Gleason clarified that the Sign Code Board of Appeals cannot set law, but the City Council can legislate. Staff would prefer that the City Council set policy. Mr. Obie believed that the City Council had given up too much and should give the public access to a decision by the council. Mr. Rutan disagreed with Mr. Gleason. Mr. Holmer, Mr. Obie, and Mr. Rutan opposed the deletion of the City Council from the appeal process; Ms. Schue supported the deletion. Mr. Obie ruled that the ordinance would be proposed as originally agreed, but that the councilors would have the discretion to change it when the vote was taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 1986 Page 4