11/28/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- e Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to delete the HRB's ability to change the uses permitted. The HRB may forward comments to the Hearings Official if a change in zoning is considered. Ms. Bishow said the draft ordinance was amended to establish different provisions for moving and demolition. The ordinance also was clarified to indicate that the property owner has the right to demolish or move an historic landmark if the proper procedures are followed, and that the HRB shall require Hone or moreH of a set of actions to record the landmark. Ms. Bishow said the council expressed an interest in considering various incentives that may be provided to the owners of historic properties. The draft ordinance contains a reference to the City's existing historic loan program and the ability of the board or council to modify certain code regulations at the time of landmark designation such as a lot width and coverage. In addition, the City's Historic Zoning District can be applied to historic properties by the Hearings Official, thus changing the uses allowed. Ms. Bishow said the council had discussed imposing a time limit on the amount of time the HRB could require historic artifacts to be stored. Staff did not add a time limit to the ordinance. Ms. Bishow said if the council is still interested in the time limit, staff recommends a limit of two years. Ms. Bishow said the City Attorney's office has recommended that a fine of $1,000 per day be charged for violation of the ordinance. The City e Attorney's office has also recommended that no cumulative amount be imposed. Ms. Bishow said based on conversations with staff from the State Historic Preservation Office, the draft ordinance appears to be acceptable and will allow the City to maintain its status as a Certified Local Government. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Sercombe said the Goal 5 process requires a comparison of the use of the structure as an historic structure versus some other conflicting use. He said Section 2.407.5 of the ordinance was intended to identify a particular use against which to compare the historic use. There are two scenarios possible. One is where the owner has a use planned for the historic structure and wants to demolish or make a major alteration to the use; in this case, the plan of the owner would be the identified conflicting use. Another scenario is when there are no development plans for the property; in this case, the identified conflicting use would be the highest and best use of the property according to the zoning and land-use laws in existence. Mr. Sercombe said when the owner supports the designation. the balancing process will be less rigorous than in cases where the owner opposes the designation. Mr. Holmer felt that the ordinance is applying a different Goal 5 standard to historic property than what would be applied to other types of land. Mr. Sercombe said he does not believe Goal 5 applies to the writing of an ordinance. He said there was a sentiment among those commenting on the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1988 Page 5