09/26/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ms. Brody explained that the designation criteria would be used to determine whether a property was historically significant. If the Historic Review Board determines, on the basis of the criteria and staff analysis, that the property is significant, the test of plan consistency would be applied. If designation is then determined to be inconsistent with the Metro Plan or a neighborhood plan, and/or if the owner does not consent to designation, the additional conflicting use analysis would be used to balance protection of the resource with the other uses to which the property might be put. Ms. Brody said staff had anticipated doing conflicting use analysis in conjunction with survey work throughout the city but had not initially built it into the designation process initially. Teresa Bishow, Planning Department staff, used a flip chart to illustrate the process described by Ms. Brody. Ms. Brody noted that all decisions of the Historic Review Board in the process could be appealed to the City Council. She added that in the proposed ordinance, the owner has a right to demolish or move a historically designated structure if the process outlined in the ordinance has been followed. Mr. Holmer inquired about whether an ESEE analysis could be initiated by an interested party other than the property owner. Ms. Brody pOinted out that if the owner is willing to protect the structure and protection is consistent with plans, there would be no need to conduct a conflicting use analysis. e She did not anticipate an interested group would seek an ESEE for reasons pertinent to historic resources. Other resources on the property (such as a wetland) would receive separate Goal 5 analysis. Mr. Holmer indicated he still had reservations about limiting initiation of an ESEE to cases involving a non-consenting owner and/or plan consistency, but said he would discuss his concern with staff. Mr. Rutan shared Mr. Holmer's concern, citing as an example a situation in which a third party might oppose a demolition that staff has approved. At Mayor Obie1s direction, Ms. Brody said an option would be presented that would allow a third party to initiate an ESEE analysis. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Brody said the Historic Review Board (HRB) had not met to endorse the options being presented, but the changes were discussed with HRB chair Joy Norwood, HRB member Carole Daly, and task team member Mike Shellenbarger, who all thought the changes were reasonable. Ms. Brody said the changes had been presented at the Planning Commission1s noon meeting and while no official action was taken, there appeared to be no serious objections. The council appeared to conceptually support the addition of the ESEE analysis with the additional option that had been discussed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 2