05/23/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e demolition and had stated that any alternative to demolition must involve a public and private funding package to be financially feasible. Ms. Decker stated that the council has received recommendations in favor of the funding package as an alternative to demolition from various boards and commissions that are advisory to the City Council. She stated that the council action will need to address three points: 1. Act on a recommendation of the Downtown Commission to support restora- tion of the former ATO house by making an exception to the 'policy' of focusing the Commercial Redevelopment Loan Program on the Central Eugene Project renewal area and approve use of those funds on the ATO Restora- tion if a package can be put together and is found acceptable to the owners within the 60-day time frame set up by the Historic Review Board. 2. Act on a recommendation of the Historic Review Board to support restoration of the ATO house by making an exception to the Historic Restoration Loan Program guidelines on interest rates for commercial structures, allowing a three percent loan rate rather than the usual nine percent rate for commercial structures. 3. Consider a report from the Historic Review Board, including its recommendation for preservation of the structure, using the existing loan programs or for demolition of the structure if the funding package cannot be put together by the end of the 60-day period (June 6, 1983). - Ms. Decker summarized that the council is being asked to rule on the demolition permit and on the use of various programs which are key to an alternative to demolition. She added that the staff had recieved a letter from the individual who had been in the process of documenting the ATO house, stating that he could not complete the documentation due to accepting a position ~sewhere. In the event that the council did approve the application for demolition, Ms. Decker asked that an effective date for the permit be set two weeks later than the original June 6 deadline. Carmi Weingrod, Chairperson of the Historic Review Board, reviewed the main points considered by the board in its recommendation to council. She stated that the board and the council had approved landmark status for the ATO house in 1980. She stated that the board had worked to find alternatives to demolition as required by code when the owners made the request for demolition in February 1983. She explained that the board had considered the following criteria for demolition in making its recommendation: 1) the safety hazard of the structure; 2) an improve- ment project for the property which cannot be located elsewhere; 3) the possible financial hardship of the owners; and 4) the retention of the structure being in the best interests of the public. She stated that the structure had been nominated on May 12 by the State Advisory Committee for historic recognition on the Nation~ Register and the nomination had been forwarded to the Federal government. Ms. Weingrod stated that the board had voted unanimously to support the use of three loan programs to support the alternative to demolition put forth by Mr. Bennett. Public hearing was opened. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 1983 Page 2