Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/1988 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall September 26, 1988 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Robert Bennett, Debra Ehrman. The work session of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. 1. WORK SESSION: REVISIONS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ,Susan Brody, Planning Director, reported that since the September 12, 1988, public hearing on the draft revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, staff had reviewed each of the issues raised by the Chamber of Commerce and e by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). With the assistance of Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, options were developed for council consideration. Ms. Brody emphasized that the proposed changes address the various concerns without damaging the ordinance and they appeared to meet with the approval of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the DLCD, the Chamber of Commerce, the chair of the Historic Review Board, and Carole Daly and Mike Shellenbarger of the task team. Ms. Brody distributed a summary of her presentation titled "Historic Preservation Ordinance: Key Issues and Options." She explained that revision of the ordinance was intended to improve and clarify the existing ordinance, while making it possible for Eugene to receive designation as a Certified Local Government in order to be eligible for grant money to help carry out the City's historic preservation program. A. Designation Criteria and Goal 5 Process Ms. Brody assured the council that the proposed criteria for designation are consistent with national standards and with other local jurisdictions in the state. A section could be added to require a Goal 5 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis in cases where the property owner does not consent to designation or where conflicts exist with local plans and policies. Ms. Brody said this would satisfy the concern that the interests be balanced. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 1 . Ms. Brody explained that the designation criteria would be used to determine whether a property was historically significant. If the Historic Review Board determines, on the basis of the criteria and staff analysis, that the property is significant, the test of plan consistency would be applied. If designation is then determined to be inconsistent with the Metro Plan or a neighborhood plan, and/or if the owner does not consent to designation, the additional conflicting use analysis would be used to balance protection of the resource with the other uses to which the property might be put. Ms. Brody said staff had anticipated doing conflicting use analysis in conjunction with survey work throughout the city but had not initially built it into the designation process initially. Teresa Bishow, Planning Department staff, used a flip chart to illustrate the process described by Ms. Brody. Ms. Brody noted that all decisions of the Historic Review Board in the process could be appealed to the City Council. She added that in the proposed ordinance, the owner has a right to demolish or move a historically designated structure if the process outlined in the ordinance has been followed. Mr. Holmer inquired about whether an ESEE analysis could be initiated by an interested party other than the property owner. Ms. Brody pOinted out that if the owner is willing to protect the structure and protection is consistent with plans, there would be no need to conduct a conflicting use analysis. e She did not anticipate an interested group would seek an ESEE for reasons pertinent to historic resources. Other resources on the property (such as a wetland) would receive separate Goal 5 analysis. Mr. Holmer indicated he still had reservations about limiting initiation of an ESEE to cases involving a non-consenting owner and/or plan consistency, but said he would discuss his concern with staff. Mr. Rutan shared Mr. Holmer's concern, citing as an example a situation in which a third party might oppose a demolition that staff has approved. At Mayor Obie1s direction, Ms. Brody said an option would be presented that would allow a third party to initiate an ESEE analysis. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Brody said the Historic Review Board (HRB) had not met to endorse the options being presented, but the changes were discussed with HRB chair Joy Norwood, HRB member Carole Daly, and task team member Mike Shellenbarger, who all thought the changes were reasonable. Ms. Brody said the changes had been presented at the Planning Commission1s noon meeting and while no official action was taken, there appeared to be no serious objections. The council appeared to conceptually support the addition of the ESEE analysis with the additional option that had been discussed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 2 e B. Moving and Demolition Mr. Miller asked whether the Shelton-McMurphey House could be demolished or would have to be moved if the owner decided to build an apartment complex on its site. Ms. Brody replied that the process required by the ordinance would have to occur. If there was strong interest in moving the house and there was a viable plan to do so, the HRB would have the right to protect the house by requiring that the moving strategy be put in place. Mr. Gleason added that the moving process would probably be negotiated, with the owner participating but not being required to provide all the resources. Ms. Daly said the owner would be required to advertise the property as being for sale at a fair value. She maintained that if a buyer came forward offering to pay the fair value, the owner would be required to sell. Ms. Brody disagreed with Ms. Daly's interpretation and said the ordinance made no reference to fair market value and she did not believe the owner would be required to sell the structure at whatever price was offered. She asked Mr. Sercombe to comment. Mr. Sercombe said there are criteria for whether the HRB issues a moving permit when it is applied for by the owner. If the owner has attempted to sell the structure and has applied for a moving permit, in considering whether to issue the permit, the ordinance requires the board to consider plan consistency, the state of repair, the physical feasibility of moving, e rehabilitation, or restoration, the effects of the demolition or moving on the use of the property, and the extent of financial hardship for the owner. Because the moving and demolition criteria are not separated in the proposed ordinance as it was written, Mr. Sercombe said there is some confusion. Staff has proposed separating moving requirements from demolition. He said the owner would not be forced to sell a building in order to achieve either type of permit. Ms. Wooten called attention to the apparent differing perceptions of the ordinance1s requirements. Mr. Gleason remarked that if the public.s interest is sufficient, the council could direct to undertake condemnation in the public's interest. That would be a separate procedure and would involve the court's determination of market value, based on the highest and best use. Mr. Rutan noted the seriousness of using a condemnation procedure. Ms. Brody stated that neither the present nor the proposed ordinance were worded to allow the HRB to prevent demolition. She said an owner could refuse an offer, even if it is considered a fair offer based on market value. Mr. Gleason stressed that an ordinance could not dictate final outcome unless the governing body was willing to deal with the taking issue. Requiring that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 3 e a process be undertaken, that the public interest is expressed, and asking that alternatives be considered, mitigates that issue. Ms. Brody said the ordinance could be structured to require full compensation to the owner for the required sale of the property, if that was the council's choice. She explained that an ESEE analysis does not debate the return on an investment but considers whether alternative uses, given the zoning, are of greater value to the general public than the protection of the property as historic. Mr. Sercombe indicated that including reference to fair market value in the ordinance's requirement that a property owner advertise as part of the moving or demolition pre-application process would make enforcement more difficult. He said an independent appraisal would be needed and there would be a problem determining whether the owner has complied. Ms. Bascom asked for clarification of the concern expressed by the owner of the Quackenbush Building at the public hearing. Ms. Brody described that concern as focusing on interior designation and potential restrictions on interior alterations that would preclude economically viable uses of the building. There was also concern about exterior alterations. Ms. Brody noted the importance of clarifying that the ordinance would give the board discretion to require mitigation of the loss of demolished or moved properties. She also noted the proposed option to limit the board's ability to require storage for documents was limited to two years. e Mr. Holmer pointed out the care with which the task team had approached the issue of requiring documentation. He said it was assumed that the board would apply this section rationally. Mr. Rutan commented that he would prefer that assignment of the costs of documentation not be limited to the owner. Ms. Wooten felt differently, and Mr. Miller asked for consideration of the degree to which an individual owner could be expected to bear the burden of the public's interest. Ms. Brody responded that zoning requirements typically place burdens on property owners in the public interest and she said an owner of a historic property does carry an extra burden of obligation. Councilors Holmer, Miller, and Rutan expressed their desire to discuss this issue further. Mayor Obie asked for an alternate proposal for documentation cost-assignment to be presented in a revision of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Wooten asked about the disposition of material after the two years of owner-assigned storage. She suggested the addition of direction that after 18 months, the HRB will work with the property owner to determine a permanent depository. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 4 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 e process and the 33 percent requirement would not obligate those unsure owners to make a decision at the outset. Ms. Wooten suggested a compromise that would allow initiation of the process with 33 percent of the property owners' support but would require 50 percent of the owners to support designation by a specified deadline in order to proceed. Ms. Brody described the proposal she had presented as a compromise that would be more likely to result in district designations than would Ms. Wooten1s suggestion. Mr. Holmer preferred requiring 50 percent support for initiation of district designations. Councilors agreed to consider Ms. Brody's proposal with the option of changing the requirement for initiation during later discussions. D. Composition and Role of Historic Review Board Ms. Brody reported that the Chamber of Commerce was concerned about the potential bias of the board in favor of historic preservation. The chamber's concern with balance was addressed by the addition of the conflicting use analysis discussed earlier, but Ms. Brody also suggested changing the composition of the board to achieve greater balance while providing a link 'with the Planning Commission by reducing to one the number of lay members and adding a member of the Planning Commission. An alternative would be to reduce to two the number of professionals and add a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Holmer anticipated achieving greater balance with the replacement of one e of the professional members. Mr. Rutan concurred with Mr. Holmer's suggestion and indicated that the lay members would be more likely to have a broader approach while being less intense advocates. Ms. Brody pointed out that all boards are shaped by the values of their appointing bodies. There was consensus to accept the change suggested by Mr. Holmer. Ms. Brody concurred with the chamber's concern with the HRB1s ability to restrict use of a structure at the time of designation. This authority to make a land use decision exists in the current ordinance. Ms. Brody recommended that the ability to restrict uses be done through application of the H Historic District zone. This would allow expansion of uses allowed in the zone and would provide added incentive to the property owners by allowing more economically viable uses while protecting the property. Mr. Rutan supported the proposed change and considered it a positive step toward preserving certain landmarks. E. Scope of Ordinance Ms. Brody asked for council direction on whether to include provisions that increase the scope of the ordinance by adding interior features, allowing - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 6 ------- e designation of non-contiguous thematic groups and landscape features, and adding a section on major new landscaping. Ms. Brody explained that interior features was an issue debated extensively by the task team and Planning Commission. Retaining interior features would affect five percent or fewer designated properties with interior features that may be extremely significant in terms of the historic character and public interest of the property. It would require owners of properties with interior designation to go through an alteration process in order to develop the structure. There was no council support for excluding interiors from the proposed ordinance. Ms. Brody explained that thematic groups could include covered bridges, fraternities,or sororities, certain kinds of schools, churches, or neighborhood grocery stores, as well as a group of buildings designed by one architect. There was no council support for excluding thematic groups from the proposed ordinance. Ms. Brody noted that landscape features could include several parks designed by the same person or a number of historic trees. Under the existing ordinance, individual landscape features can be designated and the proposed ordinance would allow the designation of several non-contiguous features with e a common theme. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Brody said landscape features on private property that are not maintained would be similar to designated buildings that are not maintained: the City can only offer incentives to encourage maintenance. Mayor Obie and Mr. Rutan opposed the inclusion of landscape features, while Ms. Bascom and Ms. Wooten indicated their support of what they called a useful designation that would expedite the use of staff time. There was consensus to retain landscape features at this time and to resolve the issue at the public hearing on the ordinance. Ms. Bishow described the intent of including a provision for major new landscaping as preventing new landscaping that may obscure or damage the integrity of historic property. She said landscape changes are difficult to track so it would be difficult to enforce this provision. More definition would be needed for effective administration. Mr. Holmer added that the purpose of this provision was to provide a way to allow change without losing the historic designation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 7 -- It was agreed to retain the provision in the proposed ordinance, with additional definition for determining what constitutes major new landscaping. Mr. Holmer stated he had additional concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. The first was that the statement of criteria for historic designation should be more specific and should not use language solely for the purpose of satisfying the State Historic Preservation Office requirements for Certified Local Government designation. He indicated his willingness to work with staff to develop legally acceptable language that would better serve the City's interests. Ms. Schue said she would consider the $10,000 grant contingent on CLG designation useful and she questioned whether a preference in language use was sufficient cause to jeopardize the City's eligibility. Mr. Holmer referred to the West University Neighborhood Cultural Resources Survey and said the cost of the kind of detail in that survey would be justified by the State Historic Preservation Office. He supported a more conservative approach to historic preservation. Ms. Wooten expressed doubt about the value of additional revisions to the 'language of the ordinance. She said rewriting language is an appropriate staff responsibility. Mr. Miller asked if there was council interest in providing tax incentives for historic preservation in the public interest. He remarked that he was e referring to something in addition to the current loan programs. Mr. Gleason referred to a Federal tax credit and mentioned the equalization issue. Mr. Sercombe said State statutes determine the City.s legal capability in the area of tax credits. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Sercombe to provide more information. Noting that language revisions would be a major undertaking, Ms. Brody asked if the council's direction could be for staff to work with the State Historic Preservation Office to look at alternative language possibilities that would also meet with their approval of Certified Local Government status. The council indicated that would be acceptable. The meeting recessed to the Council Chamber at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~,fM.~rt .... . ~ --..- Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 092688-530 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 8