Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/1986 Meeting - e e MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Eugene Conference Center May 27, 1 986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Roger Rutan, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Emily Schue, councilors; Gary Chenkin, Les Tumidaj, Jim Croteau, Dave Whitlow, Susan Brody, Larry Reed, Barb Bellamy, Gerry Gaydos, staff; Jim Boyd, The Register- Gu a rd. The work session was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by the Mayor. I. REVISIONS TO SOLAR ACCESS REGULATIONS The Mayor asked the councilors for consensus on individual items regarding the solar access regulations. He also asked the councilors if there was sentiment against having a solar access code, if the Planning Commission should present reasons for having a code to the City Council, and if the discussion should continue. Mr. Hansen asked how many cities in Oregon have a history of solar access ordinances. Mr. Tumidaj replied that Ashland has a six-year-old ordinance and at least 20 cities have ordinances which are two to three years old. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Tumidaj clarified that the City of Eugene has a solar access ordinance now, and that what is before the council now are revisions and additions. Mr. Hansen asked if the existing code could be "cleaned up" without the additions. Mr. Gleason responded that the Plan- ning Commission requested a broader ordinance. Mr. Chenkin added that the existing provisions apply only to new planned unit developments and land divisions; the revisions and the additions lessen restrictions in some cases, based on the experience of cities using the code. Mr. Rutan did not believe the language of the ordinance to be unduly restrictive, and Mr. Holmer believed the ordinance was headed in the right direction. Mr. Tumidaj reviewed the solar access revisions as distributed to the coun- cilors. Under Part I, Solar Setback Standards for New Buildings and Additions in Existing Developments, he explained that in a number of ways the standards are more lenient than the existing ordinance. He also reviewed the guarantees and exemptions. Mr. Tumidaj addressed two questions referred to him by the councilors at the last work session on solar access. He suggested that in cases where there was a small infraction of the solar setback standard, that there be a categorical exemption for chimneys and television aerials and that a leeway of 15 square MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 1986 Page 1 e e e feet be allowed. This leeway is used by Portland and is a reasonable allow- ance based on experience. This 15 square feet would allow for that much shade on the south exposure of the building or property. It was the consensus of the council to include the leeway of 15 square feet beyond the solar setback standard. Ms. Bascom asked, on behalf of Mr. Miller, if a change could be made. Mr. Hansen clarified that Mr. Miller would prefer a four-foot base on the south wall instead of a two-foot base, which would be less restrictive. Mr. Tumidaj said that this lessening of protection would decrease the effec- tiveness of the code by ten percent. After discussion, it was agreed to leave the base at two feet. Mr. Obie asked for an explanation of the 26-foot solar fence in commercial and industrial districts. Mr. Tumidaj replied that the solar fence determines how much shade is allowed by neighboring buildings. The goal in industrial and commercial districts is to protect solar access to the roof tops, not the walls. Mr. Obie asked Ms. Brody to clarify this issue, referring to the City's encouragement of high density and discouragement of urban sprawl. He was concerned that this code would subvert that policy. Ms. Brody explained that the solar access standards cannot override the basic allowance for density in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Reed clarified that even though the 26-foot solar fence is lenient, there will probably be some problems with builders. Mr. Holmer asked about the new building on 11th Avenue, and Mr. Tumidaj said that that C-3 area is not subject to the solar setback standards. There was also concern expressed about the new building at 19th and Willamette and whether the code would have affected its design. Mr. Hansen felt that restrictions on existing property are a concern and asked if owners of several buildings could block their own property. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the code would not prevent the building, but may alter the design. Mr. Obie requested that the staff investigate the effect of the code on recent industrial and commercial developments and report back to the council. Part 2, Solar Design Standards for New Subdivisions and PUD's, was reviewed by Mr. Tumidaj. He explained that the new provisions are less restrictive than the existing provisions. Mr. Hansen asked for a relationship between the noon hour on December 21 and on March 21 or September 21. Mr. Tumidaj said that on March 21 and September 21 there wouldn't be a standard; that nothing would be protected. The December 21 standard protects about 85 percent on the average over the entire heating season, between mid-September and mid-March. Mr. Hansen asked what percentage of solar energy could be received in the period from December 21 to March 21 or from September 21 to December 21. Mr. Tumidaj said that it would be 10 to 15 percent. Mr. Holmer clarified that the standard protects the available amount of solar energy. Mr. Tumidaj continued the review of Part 2 and defined the prescriptive and performance paths of compliance with the standard, and explained the exemp- tions. He clarified that the ordinance does not affect mature trees. Mr. Hansen commented that trees are often planted to protect privacy and, MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 1986 Page 2 e e e after glvlng an example, asked how the ordinance would apply. It was again clarified that the ordinance does not apply to existing developments, only new developments. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the trees could be planted on all sides except the south side, and only evergreens would be prohibited on the south side of the building. Mr. Obie cited an example where both the City and the neighbor were subject to a lawsuit because of the solar access ordinance. Mr. Tumidaj explained that in new developments many of the problems cited could be avoided with good planning and design. Mr. Obie commented that any kind of ordinance will have regulatory ramifications. It was the consensus of the councilors that they preferred the more lenient performance standard in the revised code to the existing code. Part 3, Solar Access Guarantee, was defined and reviewed by Mr. Tumidaj. He explained that existing trees are grandfathered into the code, and that any tree can be planted; however, the owner of a tree may be required to trim or cut the tree if it violates the standard as defined in the Solar Access Guarantee. The code is self-enforcing and would be a civil matter. There was some debate about how the code could be enforced and whether the City would be the enforcer or would be liable. Mr. Tumidaj said that the ordinance does not allow monetary compensation. Mr. Gleason believed that the matter would need to be taken to a court of record and receive costs for exercising a remedy. Mr. Hansen asked if the procedure has been untested, and Mr. Tumidaj answered that there has not been enough time for trees to grow to a point where they violate the standard. Mr. Tumidaj said that prevention and education should resolve most of the problems. Mr. Chenkin clarified that the ordinance would address only those trees which cause solar access problems in the winter season, not leafy trees which lose their leaves in the winter. Mr. Holmer was concerned that enforcement was the responsibility of the property owner; that the City, which gives the guarantee, should be the enforcer as well. Mr. Rutan saw the code as conceptually reasonable, but did not think it would'work. Mr. Tumidaj agreed that it is an untested procedure. Mr. Gaydos added that the Planning Commission was also troubled by the Solar Access Guarantee. The City does not have the resources to enforce such a code. Ms. Bascom believed that the guarantee was worth testing, but did not believe the City should try to enforce the code. Ms. Schue questioned whether the City could enforce the guarantee only upon request. Mr. Reed clarified that enforcement upon request could prove to be a time bomb in the long run. The City would still have to go onto someone1s property and cut down a tree, which is why the code is written to be self-enforcing. Mr. Holmer and Ms. Schue were willing to explore enforcement upon request; Mr. Hansen and Mr. Rutan were uncomfortable with the Solar Access Guarantee. Mr. Obie believed that the City must be prepared to enforce the code as legislation and that there will be an expenditure of dollars to enforce. In order to do this, there has to be agreement as to the value of the ordinance. Ms. Brody suggested that the ordinance be adopted as presented in order to gain some experience; if Part 3 is not adopted, it will compromise Parts 1 and 2 by undermining solar protection. Mr. Obie suggested another option, which MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 1986 Page 3 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 e e - Mr. Croteau addressed Mr. Hansen's questions regarding blinking lights. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Micheal Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) JJ:vr/Mins18 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 1986 Page 5