Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S - City Council Work Session Bloch Room, Eugene Conference Center April 14, 1986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor; Ruth Bascom, Emily Schue, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Cynthia Wooten, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Susan Brody, Larry Reed, Jim Ellison, Barb Bellamy, Christine Andersen, Dave Whitlow, Gary Chenkin, Les Tumidaj, staff; Jim Boyd, The Reqister-Guard. The work session was called to order at 6 p.m. by Mayor Brian Obie. I. SOLAR ACCESS REVISIONS A. Introduction - Ms. Brody introduced the agenda and the three-part presentation for the solar access revisions, commenting that Mr. Reed was available to answer questions on administrative implications, and that Mr. Tumidaj would give the presentation. B. Presentation Mr. Tumidaj began the presentation by distributing the background materials and explaining the physical model. The solar framework he used with the scale model defined a plane of the sun on December 21 at noon. This date and time defines the standard used in the proposed ordinance. He defined solar access as the unobstructed availability of sunlight for the purpose of reducing a building1s energy needs. Solar access protection means protec- tion from shade caused by nearby buildings and vegetation. 1. Solar Setback Standards for New Buildings and Additions in Existing Developments The ideal for solar setback standards is to place buildings in such a way that they will not shade each other. Placing buildings in certain positions on a lot will either meet or violate the solar setback standard; the ordi- nance tries to make sure that the setback standards allow the building to get the maximum sunlight available on the south-facing wall according to the December 21 at-noon definition . e Ms. Ehrman asked if the new standard is used by architects in designing a solar building. Mr. Tumidaj said that this varies and most desiqners will use several timeframes, such as nine to three or ten to two. He explained that even in high-density areas, under the proposed ordinance standard, a MINUTES--City Council Work Session April 14, 1986 Page 1 e e e building would receive better than an 85 percent savings for space heating purposes. That figure is based on the whole day and the entire heating season from September through March. Mr. Miller pointed out that once a standard is set, someone will exceed the standard by a small amount; he asked how specific the standard would be and whether there is leeway for the developer. Mr. Tumidaj said that for the purposes of the ordinance, chimneys, antennas, and other obstacles are not included in the solar setback. There is a height guarantee in the ordinance and the ordinance attempts to draw a balance between the rights of the buil- der and those of the owner of the existing building. In order to do this, a solar fence defines how much shade can be put on your neighbor1s lot or building. A building height of 24 feet is absolutely guaranteed--the equi- valent of a two-story house. Mr. Holmer asked if an owner could choose to build a house in the shade, and Mr. Tumidaj said that the ordinance makes no prohibitions in this regard. Once the solar fence is determined, Mr. Miller asked if that is an inviolate position--can a variance be allowed? Mr. Tumidaj reported that under unu- sual circumstances, a variance is possible. Mr. Miller suggested that the language of the ordinance should allow flexibility. Mr. Tumidaj said that the ordinance allows for consistent treatment of variances with a range of error allowed to within a foot. Mr. Hansen asked why December 21 was chosen as the standard date. Mr. Tumi- daj explained that the date was chosen as being the day when the least amount of sunlight (longest shadows) would be available in order to achieve a reasonable estimate of savings, which is figured over the entire space- heating period. Mr. Holmer asked if the solar access guarantee was a property right of the shaded property owner and whether the owner could sell the solar rights. Mr. Tumidaj said that the ordinance does not allow an owner to sell solar rights. Ms. Ehrman asked if this right could be sold if the neighbor agreed, and Mr. Tumidaj said no. Mr. Gleason added that the ordinance crea- ted a property right which does not exist at the present, and this right is not transferable. Mr. Tumidaj also added that under the present ordinance, citizens have no inherant right to solar access; the new ordinance would give the government permission to provide this protection for its citizens. Mr. Hansen asked, in this climate, how much heat can be generated in Decem- ber for heating a home. Mr. Tumidaj replied that the choice of December 21 is not the critical point, but that the answer to the question would be around ten percent. The date is simply a reasonable or logical standard by which to measure the rest of the year; other dates could be used which would lead to the same conclusions. Mr. Tumidaj went on to explain that north-south-oriented lots easily comply with the ordinance; other lots are not so conducive to the solar access standard. The ordinance takes this into consideration and provides a more lenient standard for certain types of lots. This leniency acknowledges that the desired solar access may not be possible in some situations. Exemptions MINUTES--City Council Work Session April 14, 1986 Page 2 e e e are also allowed in certain cases. The intent of the ordinance is to pro- tect solar access where it is practical and reasonable to preserve it, and to allow exemptions where it is not practical. Mr. Ellison asked what percentage of the lots would be exempt. Mr. Tumidaj said that the study was made on about 5,000 vacant lots in order to see how they would be impacted by the ordinance. Seventy percent of these lots were conducive to solar access protection and about 30 percent were not. Ms. Wooten asked how row houses and multiple-unit dwellings were addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Tumidaj said that the ordinance is very lenient in high-density districts and ensures rooftop protection only. He also said that there are existing solar access provisions in place for many commercial and industrial buildings. This code has been revised and made more leni- ent. The downtown area is excluded from the ordinance. 2. Solar Design Standards for New Subdivisions and PUDs Mr. Tumidaj reviewed the reasons for revising the existing code for new sub- divisions and planned unit developments and summarized that the new code would be more quantitative and precise, more consistent in application, and more realistic for developers. The solar design standard is integrated with the solar setback standards and will optimize the number of solar lots available up to 80 percent; the other 20 percent of the lots would allow a great deal of flexibility to the developer. Mr. Hansen asked who would grant exemptions, and Mr. Tumidaj said the Plan- ning Department. Mr. Miller asked if the lot size reduction to 4,500 square feet was restrictive to design and development. Mr. Tumidaj explained that it is not as restrictive as it seems because a fairly complex structure can be built on a small space if the lots are laid out correctly in the first place. Mr. Hansen asked for examples of where similar restrictions were being implemented, and Mr. Tumidaj mentioned Ashland, Bend, Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. Mr. Ellison asked about hurdles for developers in the regula- tions, and Mr. Tumidaj referred to two paths that subdividers could choose from for demonstrating compliance with the solar design standard. He explained both the prescriptive and performance approaches, which are described in detail in the background materials. Mr. Miller asked at what point in the construction of the house the solar energy benefits take effect. Mr. Tumidaj explained that the maximum effect is through the win- dows on the south-facing wall; the ordinance allows the shadow to climb two feet up the wall before the standard begins. Ms. Ehrman asked about regula- tions for those who desire to use solar energy, and Mr. Tumidaj explained that there are rights and regulations for both parties, those who choose to maximize solar benefits and those who do not; one cannot infringe on the rights of the other. He also said, in response to Ms. Ehrman's question, that a building permit is required to install certain kinds of solar equip- ment. Mr. Hansen asked if there were any special standards for how solar panels look, and the answer was no, according to Mr. Reed. MINUTES--City Council Work Session April 14, 1986 Page 3 e e e 3. Solar Access Guarantee Mr. Tumidaj addressed the issue of trees and vegetation when a house is built to maximize sunlight and trees are planted on neighboring lots which eventually render the solar investment worthless. Trees are difficult to limit by height or profile or density and are an important resource to the community. The Solar Access Guarantee offers a compromise solution to the problem by protecting the property owner from future tree shade of newly planted trees. The owner must apply for and pay for this guarantee after meeting minimum criteria. The affected property owner would be alerted and given an oppor- tunity to respond. Ms. Ehrman asked if this right was transferable and Mr. Tumidaj replied that it was; the owner wishing the guarantee would pay a fee for processing the application, but the guarantee could be retracted later by a different owner. Ms. Ehrman asked if once the permit is granted, the neighbor plants the tree, and then moves, whether notice will be given to the new owner. The answer was yes, because the restriction would be recorded with the property. Another way would be when the tree starts to violate the solar access and a complaint is issued. All trees planted before the application was submitted would be grandfathered under the ordi- nance. The regulated trees are mostly evergreens and some deciduous trees, which drop their leaves irregularly. The provisions also apply to street trees. Ms. Schue ask if there would be a list of trees available to pro- perty owners, and Mr. Tumidaj said that there would be a list of appropriate and inappropriate trees to plant. Ms. Schue also asked if the guarantee of sun was provided only in the winter, not the summer, and the answer was yes, but because the arc of the sun is so high in the summer, it is still pos- sible to receive enough sun for water heaters when the trees are in leaf. Mr. Obie asked how conflicting setbacks were dealt with in the ordinance. Mr. Tumidaj replied that the existing setbacks still apply; the ordinance does not force or allow an owner or developer to violate existing setbacks. Mr. Obie asked if Mr. Tumidaj could give a prediction of solar use 50 years in the future in regards to technology and utilization. Mr. Tumidaj replied that in terms of space heating, solar energy is cost- effective right now. The ordinance would allow energy efficiency to be built into the community. He explained that auxiliary uses such as hot water heating would not justify the ordinance; that space heating is the primary energy savings through solar access. The cost curve for new tech- nologies is declining and most solar energies should be cost-effective by 1990. Solar energy will be an important component in the total energy source in the future. Ms. Bascom shared a personal comment regarding energy savings through solar energy use. In regards to EWEB, Mr. Tumidaj replied to Mr. Miller that the deqree that the community uses alternate energy resources at appropriate levels will affect the total use of EWEB's energy supplies in the future. Mr. Miller expressed concern that a variance for buildings which had difficulty com- plying to the b/o-foot shadow height be available. Mr. Tumidaj said that the solar setback standards protect the fixed area whether the building is there or not and that the ordinance does provide for trade-offs. MINUTES--City Council Work Session April 14, 1986 Page 4 e e e Mr. Hansen commented that if there is a savings of a $1.5 million per year in Eugene through windows of homes as they now exist, then if we do nothing in existing areas, the savings will continue. He asked if we add regula- tions to existing areas, what the increase of savings will be. Mr. Tumidaj found this very difficult to estimate, but guessed about ten percent in existing developed areas. Ms. Bascom commented that she believed the new solar access regulations were an attempt to add some important amenities to the community and that the regulation of trees had some merit. Mr. Rutan asked for a summary of the major changes in the existing ordi- nance. Mr. Tumidaj replied that the major changes were in the solar setback standards. In the existing code, the standard is 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and the new regulation has a noon standard, which is more direct. The two other sections of the ordinance, regarding the Solar Design Standards and Solar Access Guarantee, are new. The additions to the code provide more protec- tions; the revisions simplify existing regulations. Mr. Obie asked about accessory buildings such as storage sheds, fences, and signs. Mr. Tumidaj replied that accessory buildings are included in the code, but signs are not addressed in the code. Mr. Reed added that signs are not regulated now, but that there could be isolated problems with signs. Mr. Obie asked what percentage of lots have reasonable solar access available right now. Mr. Tumidaj replied that, in the metropolitan area, 44 percent have solar benefit to south-facing walls and 65 percent have benefit to south rooftops. Mr. Obie then asked what the percentage would be under the ordinance, and Mr Tumidaj replied that the percentage would rise to 80 percent community-wide. This percentage is based on considerable research. Mr. Hansen asked if the ordinance would preclude curved streets and Mr. Tumidaj said no, that subdivisions would still have cul-de-sacs and curved streets because of the 20 percent exemption which allows flexibility in the site design. Mr. Gleason clarified that a $1.5 million savings would be two percent of the base-level cost of the electrical system. The increase in energy sav- Angs projected by the ordinance thus would represent three to five percent of the base cost of the electrical system. ~. (Recorded by J journed at 7:15 p.m. JJ:vr/1413S MINUTES--City Council Work Session April 14, 1986 Page 5