09/12/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e categorization as needed when balanced against conflicting uses that could be on the property instead of the protected resource. He said there are questions with respect to this ordinance, as to whether GoalS applies or whether Goal 5 is restricted to the comprehensive planning process. If Goal 5 does apply, Mr. Sercombe said there are questions regarding the definition of conflicting uses in the context of historic preservation. Finally, Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance criteria with respect to designation, alteration, and demolition, require that each of those decisions be reached after consideration of a number of factors. In each case, one of those factors must be in conformity with the comprehensive plan and applicable neighborhood plans. The comprehensive plan has certain policies addressing each one of the energy, social, economic, and environmental (ESEE) consequences of the decision. By testing the specific historic preservation decision of designation, demolition, or alteration against the plan, an ESEE process is being accomplished. It must be determined whether, if Goal 5 applies, that criteria is sufficient for compliance with the Goal 5 rule. Ms. Brody added that GoalS is difficult to interpret. Responding to Ms. Schue's question about the role of the Chamber of Commerce in the ordinance revision process, Ms. Brody said that many of the issues raised by the chamber were discussed by the task team, but the task team did not include members of the public. She regretted that the chamber did not testify at the Planning Commission's public hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Holmer noted that the chamber was present at the joint hearing held by e the Planning Commission and the Historic Review Board in May. Mr. Jacobson observed that no written testimony was submitted by the chamber at the public hearing referred to by Mr. Holmer, and he said many of the issues in the letter submitted this evening were not addressed at that earlier hearing. Ms. Brody pointed out that there is a difference between discussing issues and responding to them positively. If an issue has been debated, it has been addressed regardless of whether it has been incorporated into the draft ordinance. Ms. Bascom applauded the inclusion of interiors in the proposed ordinance. She asked that the questions raised by Mr. Giustina be addressed during future work sessions. Ms. Ehrman likened the historic preservation ordinance to the solar access issue and was optimistic about working out problems after its adoption. Mr. Rutan respectfully disagreed with Ms. Ehrman. He viewed the proposed ordinance as substantially flawed and said the first item on the work session agenda should be to determine the process for resolving the issues that are brought up. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 6