Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition, <br /> and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the plan by adding the <br /> following sentence before the last sentence of last paragraph on page 14: <br /> "Development or redevelopment proposals that provide adaptive reuse of the <br /> primary historic structures will be encouraged by the City; demolition of the <br /> primary historic structures would be discouraged." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged that a historic preservation plan would be premature at this time, and that <br />the City did not control most of the potentially historic properties in question. At this time, the <br />plan included no text related to use of the historic structures in the vicinity of the courthouse <br />development site. He thought the inclusion of the sentence would allow staff to begin examination <br />of how historic preservation might occur in the area. Mr. Kelly suggested that failure to adopt his <br />amendment was a statement that Eugene had a past but did not care about it. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the amendment strong enough to accomplish anything, although it might <br />be better than nothing. She reiterated that more discussion by the general public about this and <br />other topics was needed before anything more happened. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the amendment gave the City an opportunity to preserve unique structures by <br />allowing for an examination of historic preservation approaches in the area. She said that much of <br />the public testimony related to historic preservation. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the plan was not silent on the topic of historic properties. There were no <br />specific mandates in the plan because the potentially historic structures in question were privately <br />owned. She asked what it meant to encourage preservation; did it mean the City would expend <br />staff to proactively pursue historic preservation to the possible detriment of other important <br />planning and development activities? <br /> <br />Mr. Farr agreed with the intent of the amendment to preserve as much of historic Eugene as <br />possible. He asked if the historic structures had been designated. Mr. Carlson said none were <br />designated. Mr. Farr asked if there was a process in place to do so. Ms. Laurence said that the <br />structures had not been determined to be of such merit that they could be designated. Only one <br />structure was eligible for listing on the National Register, and that was the Agripac general office, <br />which was owned by the City. Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the amendment added value to the plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked how the amendment would impact the demolition Request for Proposals. Mr. <br />Carlson said it would not. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />