09/26/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Holmer pointed out that two years is a reasonable limit on the property owner's obligation and implies that the public, in whose interest storage has been provided, is obligated to make additional arrangements. At Ms. Bascom's request, Mr. Shellenbarger explained that storage could refer to machinery, building ornamentation, or to measured architectural drawings. He distinguished those drawings from the more expensive HABS drawings that could have been required. Ms. Brody commented that the ordinance was structured for the HRB and the property owner to have dialogue. She agreed to develop proposals relating to documentation outside the scope of the ordinance. C. Citizen Initiation of Historic Designations Ms. Brody clarified that initiating designation was a separate issue than that raised by Mr. Holmer earlier in reference to initiating a conflicting use analysis. She went on to say the option to allow citizen-initiated designations if a permit for development has not been issued was a response to a concern raised by DLCD and was not the preferred option of the other groups involved nor of staff. The ordinance, as proposed, sought to avoid 'frivolous initiations of designations. Ms. Wooten favored pursuing the option to allow citizens to independently address the issue of historic designation. She said councils and boards have reached incorrect conclusions in the past. e Ms. Brody explained that a citizen would have the right to propose designation to the HRB but would need to convince the board that the evidence was sufficient to proceed with the initiation process. Mr. Holmer asked about an appeal to the City Council if the HRB refused to initiate designation. Ms. Bishow pointed out that a citizen could bring an initiation request to the council as a public forum item. Ms. Wooten asked for consideration of criteria for citizen-initiated designation and Mayor Obie directed staff to prepare an alternate option for citizen initiation. Regarding designations of districts, Ms. Brody recommended retaining the proposed ordinance language that requires 33 percent of owners in the district to support initiation of the designation process. At the national and State levels, a provision is included which states that if evidence is presented at the hearing that over 50 percent of the property owners oppose designating the district, designation is not possible. Mr. Holmer questioned the advisability of initiating the designation process without the support of at least 50 percent of the owners. Ms. Bishow responded that experience in other jurisdictions indicates that a large number of property owners are unsure of their support at the beginning of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 5