Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />qualifications seemed to him and to at least one member of the board to be <br />a recipe for an advocacy group, rather than for a policy-making body. He <br />said he thought review also was needed because the criteria for historic <br />landmark designation included specifics that could be applied to any <br />building in the city. He said he hoped others shared his concern about <br />the recent actions of the Historic Review Board and the City Councills <br />exclusion from the process. He said he hoped to redefine the role of the <br />board and the council's relationship to it. He also said strong advocacy <br />of truly historic preservation was needed, but should be tempered by an <br />adequate consideration of other aspects of specific needs of the City. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Obie's question, Mr. Holmer said he thought at least a <br />mechanism was needed to allow appeals of HRB decisions to the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan said he had served on the subcommittee that had drafted and <br />approved the HRB process. He said if process were goi ng to be re- <br />examined, he thought other issues like land use would have greater impact <br />in the community. Mr. Holmer said he was concerned more explicitly with <br />process, but he said he also was concerned with an advocacy group having <br />the power to block projects. Mr. Rutan said he thought the issue <br />warranted discussion, adding that he favored discussing more than just the <br />Historic Review Board. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Schue's question, Mr. Rutan said appeals of HRB <br />decisions now could be made to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />City Manager Mike Gleason said some difficulty had been experienced in <br />trying to coordinate the workplan of the HRB with adopted policies of the <br />Planning Commission and City Council. He said he thought re-examination <br />was warranted and also had been discussed as part of the Planning <br />Commission workplan. Mr. Gleason also said he thought the council should <br />look at ways to include general, comprehensive policies in appeal <br />processes, rather than dealing with each problem as a precedent-setting <br />event. He added that results generally were acceptable at present. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer said he also was concerned about the proliferation of appeals, <br />addi ng that he favored the "Supreme Court approach" that had been <br />suggested to allow a council decision on whether to hear appeals. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen said the subcommittee on boards and commissions had recommended <br />bringing to the council the issue of the Historic Review Board's <br />authority. He said he favored a discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Mi 11 er said ordi nances mi ght need refi nement, and he noted that <br />interpretation of ordinances also might be a problem. He said boards that <br />dealt with issues based on ordinances did not, and should not have, the <br />latitude that could be taken within reason by the City Council. He said <br />he thought things seemed to work well for the most part, but exceptions <br />might require changes to ordinances or some other action. <br /> <br />Councilors agreed to hold a further discussion of the councills role in <br />general appeal process, including that of the Historic Review Board. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 28, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />