07/23/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ordinance, was that any new development of that land north of 2nd Avenue e would have to undergo the design review process as outlined in the ordinance. Please bear the HRB's intent in the language of the adopted landmark area ordinance in mind while deliberating on this issue before you. Thank you for your continued support and leadership in retaining and preserving Eugene's rich heritage." Phil Gall, 2765 Emerald Street, an architect in Eugene, said he shared Mr. Hammons' concerns. The fact that a permit application requires a complete set of plans and specifications is an expensive process. It requires hiring and paying consultants to review plans, paying employees and firms to prepare those plans, and other costs. To require someone to change those plans after a permit has been applied for could be a process that would go on forever. This to him was a totally unacceptable procedure. Thomas Martin, 3620 Emerald, addressed the Council and described himself as a builder and one who deals with blueprints, specifications, and costs. He deals with the Building Department a great deal and complimented this department on the good job that they do. He said that if the Council added another layer of enforcement so that builders have to keep going back and forth because of new ordinances, it would seriously affect the building industry. He supported the ordinances proposed. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Long stated that there was no question in his mind that the City's policy had been for a long, long time to not apply law changes to in- - progress permits. The reason why that policy has existed is simply because if you do otherwise, you end up with a pyramiding situation that never ends. According to Mr. Long, the policy of the Building Code, which in some ways is more important than some of the historic preservation issues, in terms of affect on the administration, is written and is part of the state manual which the City is given to follow in interpreting the State Building Code. What the City administration has done is follow that, not only with respect to the State-mandated specialty codes, but also according to its own ordinances. In his view, this is a perfectly sensible way to administer both sets of laws. The Building Department checks planning considerations as well as building consideration when it deals with an application. That has been the policy and there should be no question about that. The question posed by the lawsuit is what did the historic ordinance apply to. Because' of the long-standing policy, the Council did not expressly decide whether it applied to in-progress permits. Up to this point, the administration of this city has taken the position that it did not apply because of the practice he described. Arguments that the law somehow precludes the Councilor requires it to do one thing or another are, in his judgment, just plain wrong. Arguments about cases with vested rights apply to the converse of the situation up e 3~7 7/23/79--7