09/26/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e a process be undertaken, that the public interest is expressed, and asking that alternatives be considered, mitigates that issue. Ms. Brody said the ordinance could be structured to require full compensation to the owner for the required sale of the property, if that was the council's choice. She explained that an ESEE analysis does not debate the return on an investment but considers whether alternative uses, given the zoning, are of greater value to the general public than the protection of the property as historic. Mr. Sercombe indicated that including reference to fair market value in the ordinance's requirement that a property owner advertise as part of the moving or demolition pre-application process would make enforcement more difficult. He said an independent appraisal would be needed and there would be a problem determining whether the owner has complied. Ms. Bascom asked for clarification of the concern expressed by the owner of the Quackenbush Building at the public hearing. Ms. Brody described that concern as focusing on interior designation and potential restrictions on interior alterations that would preclude economically viable uses of the building. There was also concern about exterior alterations. Ms. Brody noted the importance of clarifying that the ordinance would give the board discretion to require mitigation of the loss of demolished or moved properties. She also noted the proposed option to limit the board's ability to require storage for documents was limited to two years. e Mr. Holmer pointed out the care with which the task team had approached the issue of requiring documentation. He said it was assumed that the board would apply this section rationally. Mr. Rutan commented that he would prefer that assignment of the costs of documentation not be limited to the owner. Ms. Wooten felt differently, and Mr. Miller asked for consideration of the degree to which an individual owner could be expected to bear the burden of the public's interest. Ms. Brody responded that zoning requirements typically place burdens on property owners in the public interest and she said an owner of a historic property does carry an extra burden of obligation. Councilors Holmer, Miller, and Rutan expressed their desire to discuss this issue further. Mayor Obie asked for an alternate proposal for documentation cost-assignment to be presented in a revision of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Wooten asked about the disposition of material after the two years of owner-assigned storage. She suggested the addition of direction that after 18 months, the HRB will work with the property owner to determine a permanent depository. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 4