04/13/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Sam Sadler, 1991 Columbia, said that the applications of solar are well-known and in response to the Homebuilders' testimony said that the fact that this is a mandatory ordinance does not mandate solar. It only asks the applicant to consider solar orientation. It should provide a cost savings, not cost more. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Councilor Haws did not return after break. Ms. Wooten asked if the solar access checklist could be included in the ordinance itself. Mr. Chenkin replied that it was originally included. The Planning Commission, in listening to testimony, decided that inclusion of the checklist made the ordinance appear to be inflexible and too prescriptive. The ordinance states the goal of providing access on the shortest day of the year, and it was thought that would accomplish the same purpose. Ms. Wooten was supportive of including the checklist in the ordinance itself and hoped it would be part of the motion. Councilors Miller and Smith expressed their support of the ordinance as it is now written and suggested it would be premature to consider including the solar access checklist at this time. Changing the proposed ordinance to include the checklist would require further public hearings and it would need to be considered by the Planning Commission again. Ms. Wooten was agreeable to their suggestions as long as consideration could be given to this suggestion in the later phases. e Ms. Schue wished for an ordinance designed for understanding by the ordinary homeowner, not one in the legal terminology as the one presently before the council. Mr. Chenkin said that the checklist and the manual will be in a format and language that anyone could pick up and use. Mr. Chenkin said that draft #2 in the staff notes presented to the council shows the last draft with the criteria included in the ordinance. The criteria were removed in the future drafts. Mr. Obie asked if the criteria were presently administrative rules. Mr. Chenkin agreed and explained in the earlier drafts of this amendment, they were part of the code revisions. Mr. Obie asked the rationale for administrative rules. Mr. Chenkin recalled that the testimony supported removing the criteria from the code and was based on the contention that inclusion of the criteria in the code would lend an aura of rigidity and prescriptiveness that they felt would hamper their ability to adjust to new developments. The Planning Commission agreed that removal would enable the City to be more flexible. Ms. Wooten did not want to preclude adding the criteria to the ordinance at a later date. Mr. Chenkin responded that inclusion or not seemed to be more a matter of preference. Ms. Miller asked if the administrative rule would be enforced less uniformly or flexibly than the code. Mr. Chenkin did not think they could afford to be arbitrary and anticipated uniform treatment would occur whether they were in the ordinance or not. The flexibility would allow for differences in physical setting, not in the application process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1981 Page 9