11/16/1987 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Holmer explained he voted against the amendment because he thought the council was advised 6 percent was the preferred degree. He asked permission e to change his vote, and Ms. Ehrman agreed. Mayor Obie announced the motion carried with a unanimous vote. The council next voted on Section 6. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to repeal the ordinance adopted by the City Council in October that postponed indefinitely the current revisions. Roll ca 11 vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The council next voted on when to enact the ordinance. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to make the one adopted amendment effective December 1, 1987. Ms. Ehrman asked if implementing the one amendment would make the entire ordinance effective December 1, 1987. Mr. Croteau said that would make effective the existing solar setback requirements that were postponed earlier with the exception of the slope change. Mr. Miller asked if the infill provision will be considered after the other amendments. Mayor Obie responded that it will. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Miller to make a motion regarding the infill issue. Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to instruct staff e to draft wording that would protect a person1s right to build a house of comparable and compatible design in infill and existing structures so those existing structures would not be adversly affected. Ms. Schue asked for clarification from Mr. Miller about what the staff is being instructed to draft. Mr. Miller said the intent of the motion is to protect a person1s right to build a house similar to the houses in a given area. Ms. Schue stated the issue is a complex one and asked if staff understands what Mr. Miller is asking. Mr. Croteau said the current ordinance already has provisions that allow homes in character with existing subdivisions to be sited. Qualitative language such as IIcomparable and compatiblell is not specifi c enough. He said subdivisions around the city are diverse enough in character that a broad exemption is not necessary. Mr. Bennett said he thought the issue was addressing subdivisions where houses faced either east or west, and where it was difficult to orientate an infill lot any other way. Mr. Croteau responded that the dimension of the lot, in addition to the orientation, is factored into the total solar access of a structure. In cases where the north-south dimension is under 75 feet, the fence restriction is automatically increased to 16 feet. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 9