Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ------- <br />e designation of non-contiguous thematic groups and landscape features, and <br /> adding a section on major new landscaping. <br /> Ms. Brody explained that interior features was an issue debated extensively <br /> by the task team and Planning Commission. Retaining interior features would <br /> affect five percent or fewer designated properties with interior features <br /> that may be extremely significant in terms of the historic character and <br /> public interest of the property. It would require owners of properties with <br /> interior designation to go through an alteration process in order to develop <br /> the structure. <br /> There was no council support for excluding interiors from the proposed <br /> ordinance. <br /> Ms. Brody explained that thematic groups could include covered bridges, <br /> fraternities,or sororities, certain kinds of schools, churches, or <br /> neighborhood grocery stores, as well as a group of buildings designed by one <br /> architect. <br /> There was no council support for excluding thematic groups from the proposed <br /> ordinance. <br /> Ms. Brody noted that landscape features could include several parks designed <br /> by the same person or a number of historic trees. Under the existing <br /> ordinance, individual landscape features can be designated and the proposed <br /> ordinance would allow the designation of several non-contiguous features with <br />e a common theme. <br /> Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Brody said landscape features on <br /> private property that are not maintained would be similar to designated <br /> buildings that are not maintained: the City can only offer incentives to <br /> encourage maintenance. <br /> Mayor Obie and Mr. Rutan opposed the inclusion of landscape features, while <br /> Ms. Bascom and Ms. Wooten indicated their support of what they called a <br /> useful designation that would expedite the use of staff time. <br /> There was consensus to retain landscape features at this time and to resolve <br /> the issue at the public hearing on the ordinance. <br /> Ms. Bishow described the intent of including a provision for major new <br /> landscaping as preventing new landscaping that may obscure or damage the <br /> integrity of historic property. She said landscape changes are difficult to <br /> track so it would be difficult to enforce this provision. More definition <br /> would be needed for effective administration. <br /> Mr. Holmer added that the purpose of this provision was to provide a way to <br /> allow change without losing the historic designation. <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 7 <br />