11/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iwas drafted this issue was discussed fully at every point. The wording of that section, :he said, 'was carefully drawn up to make clear that voting criteria was at the dis- 'cretion of the organization but that participation ,by everyone in the neighborhood ~ ;had 'to be guaranteed. He was no~ prepared to ma~e ~ny recommendation ~ut thought ,the ~ planning staff should convene ne~ghborhood assoc~at,lon leaders for rev~ew of that particular provision. I , :Manager suggested that Council representation in any deliberations on possible amend- , ;ment of the guidelines would be helpful since in the final analysis the Council would J :be the jUdge of the validity of the neighborhood organizations. i ,Dr. Rice expressed appreciation for acceptance of theWUN charter and asked for sug- / gestions on how it might be amended to meet criteria for full neighborhood participa- J tion. Mr.Williams answered that he thought every property owner or resident should I have the opportunity for one vote. Councilman Murray suggested specific wording in ! !the Westside Quality Project charter as an example. J ; 1 it was understood planning staff would meet with leaders of neighborhood ' ! associations and representation from the Counci:l wi th regard to possible ! : amendment of neighborhood o!ganization POlicYV,!idelines. ,_" __. _ '_" ,.' ';'--,. .~..__. .- .- . -, C. i Peti tion, Sani tary sewer on 41st Avenue east to serve Tax' Lot 0600 _ Peti,tioned by iowners of 47.8% of property to be assessed. i Comm a Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve the petition. 101(30/74 -APprove Councilman McDonald asked if any of those not represented on the petition objected. 'i ^ Manager answered that the petition had not been the subject of public hearing yet.Hel added that the County owned some of the abutting property which would bring the per- I centage to over 50%. I Vote was taken on the moti~n as stated. Motion carried unanimously. ! 4 . .. ~ ,. ~ ..~. _ . "...d . __.. ~O D. Historic Preservation Committee Report and Recommendation -'Copies of the report were \ distributed by Councilman Murray, chairman of the committee. The report included at- tachments explaining the need for an historic preservation ordinance, copy of which 'was also included. Glenn Mason~ director of the Lane County Pioneer Museum and member of the committee, demonstrated with slides the tYPe of buildings and architecture existing in Eugene from the time of its incorporation to the early 1900's. He noted that many of those buildings had been lost and said he felt the proposed ordinance I would increase the prospects of saving some of the finer remaining structures from : that period. Councilman Murray explained the procedure followed by the-committee in developing the ordinance presented at this time. The major ele~ents of the ordinance, he said, would '~ be the establishment of an historic review board; the provision of a public process ,., for identific~tion and designation of historic landmarks; the creation of a new zoning district'(H-Historic District); the provision 'of procedures and criteria for exterior alteration, moving, or demolition of historic landmarks; the opportunity for increasing !the range 'of allowable uses of historic landmarks; and the provision of incentives for exterior maintenance and renovation of historic landmarks. :Mr. Murray suggested that the proposed ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission 'for consideration and recommendation. He said the Preservation Committee was firmly , committed to the policy provisions of th~ ordinance but not necessarily to the administra-, ' . I tive provisions. He hoped that staff input would provide any revisions felt necessary with regard to the administrative procedures. He cautioned the Council that in no way was the ordinance to be considered an answer to problems facing older neighborhoods in the community, and he referred to specific and precise, wording in the ordinance stating the intent that the new zoning district would be selectively used and only after extensive demonstration that a building, structur~, or other physical object merited special con- ) sideration. Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the proposed ordinance be 11/6/74 referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and staff suggestions Approve to maximize administrative workability, and after such consideration that it as amended ~ ,be returned to the Council for final consideration. See below I , :, Councilwoman Campbell, also a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, commented : on the work of the committee and hearings at which there was good response from the com- ;munity and citizen participation in preparation of the ordinance. She commended Council- : man Murray for his chairmanship and gave him credit for continuing the work of the com- :mittee in the face of many "snags." I Vote was taken on the motion as stat~d~, Motion carri_e~n~naI1lmous_~Jl,~_ ,_ ------ ---~-.-.,..---~-~-._- -~- - -----------------..---.--------.--. .- ,.f 38+ 11/12/74 - 9