09/12/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e The Planning Commission also discussed the need for balance between the public interest and the rights of private property owners. Additionally, the commission found a need to balance the public benefit of designation against the future benefit of developing a piece of property. After lengthy discussion, the commission was satisfied that the language in the proposed ordinance would achieve the necessary balance to be consistent with Goal 5 and adopted plans. Consideration of the potential financial burden being placed on individual property owners by application requirements for demolition and moving led to the commission's recommendation to reduce the number of required newspaper listings and delete the requirement of listing the property with a local rea ltor. Ms. Nathanson referred to the assignment of costs in the ordinance and noted the use of the word "may" which she said would allow consideration of hardship cases. The Planning Commission considered the $500 penalty for violation of the ordinance to be inadequate to discourage violations. It was suggested that the council, with the advice of staff and the City Attorney's Office, determine a specific monetary penalty that would serve as a deterrent. Finally, regarding public notice, Ms. Nathanson said the commission considers historic preservation an issue of community-wide interest and, as such, e notice of public hearings related to historic preservation issues should receive community-wide newspaper notice. Michael Shellenbarger, 1820 Olive Street, Director of the University of Oregon Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, identified himself as a member of the ordinance revision task team and past member of the Historic Review Board. Mr. Shellenbarger expressed his strong support of the ordinance before the council and said the process that created the draft brought a diverse group of people together to produce a nearly unanimous recommendation. Mr. Shellenbarger concurred with Mr. Sutherland's statement about the small number of structures with interiors that would qualify for designation. Mr. Shellenbarger considered the 90-day temporary protection of structures that have been surveyed and identified as primary a protection of the city's investment in its surveys. He said this addition to the ordinance would help prioritize the expensive and time-consuming designation review process. Bob Moulton, 294 Sterling Drive, spoke against the proposed ordinance on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He noted that the chamber supports historic preservation and had requested review of the ordinance in 1986. He expressed concern that issues the chamber had identified have not been addressed. Mr. Moulton said historic preservation is a land use decision regulated by Goal 5, which requires the historical significance of properties to be reviewed and balanced in terms of their environmental, social, and - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 4