05/11/1987 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Ms. Decker said the district also included reporting requirements to ensure that annual monitoring would be done. She said the University also would conduct annual monitoring, and if it appeared the interim use section was being misused or abused, the University could refuse to lease subsequent phases. Ms. Wooten asked how the dates for solar access requirements differed from those in the City I S current ordi nance. She also asked what affect the requirements would have on a 45-foot-high building and what ratio would provide the greatest amount of solar access given higher construction. Mr. Croteau said the solar access ordinances had been changed last August. He said current ordinances used a December 21 standard and stated that shadows cast must not be taller than an eight-foot fence at the property line. Mr. Croteau said the district ordinance did not refer to a fence height. He said standards in the special district provided protection about equal to that provided in high-density residential districts and in commercial and industrial districts and probably were slightly less strict than standards for low-density residential districts. Mr. Croteau also said ratios for a 45-foot building probably were comparable to those mentioned previously, so that the setback for February 21 would be about 72 feet and for December 21 would be about 120 feet. e Mr. Rutan asked whether representatives of the Carley Group had commented on the proposed language. Ms. Decker said the language had been shared with the Carley Group as discussions proceeded, and the group had felt that they could make the development work under the criteria in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Obie asked whether any comments had addressed the restrictiveness of the criteria. Ms. Decker said some comments had pointed out that the district was more restrictive than many other districts in the city, but they also had recognized the community concern about the environmental qualities of the site and had felt that the balance was reasonable. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the building official referred to in the interpretation section on Page 11 was a hearings official. Mr. Croteau said other zoning districts sometimes required administrative interpretation of uses. He said the Building Official was a head of the Building Division in the Public Works Department and worked in the processing of building permits. He said the ordinance called for the Planning Director and the Building Official to make a joi nt i nterpretat ion. Ms. Ehrman asked about an appeal process, adding that she was uncomfortable with that section. Mr. Croteau said the ordi nance contained no speci fi c appeal process. He said that in other decisions of the Building Official, an appeal could be made to a hearings officer. Ms. Decker noted that Jim Saul had assisted as planning consultant in the drafting of the ordinance, and she asked him to respond. Mr. Saul said Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code designated the Building Official as the City official responsible for interpreting all of the zoning ordinance provisions. He said the special district was one of two sections of the code to allow exceptions by including consultation with both the Building Official and the Planning Director, who had been included in order to provide an understanding of the legislative history of the ordinance. Mr. Saul said the code provisions dealing with variances stated that disputes concerning interpretations of the Building Official could be appealed to the Hearings e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 10