Historic Review Board

AGENDA EUGENE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD Sloat Conference Room, Third Floor, N.E. Corner, Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, Phone: (541)682-5481 Web site: www.eugene-or.gov Eugene’s Historic Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5563. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682-5119. Historic Review Board meetings are usually scheduled between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the 4th Thursday of the month. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (8:00 a.m.) 8:05 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 8:10 a.m. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 27, 2010 HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 8:15 a.m. UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE 8:25 a.m. DISCUSSION: FUTURE OPTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 9:30 a.m. ITEMS FROM THE BOARD OR STAFF Board Members: Patricia Atkins, Liz Carter, Richard Dannemiller (Chair), Andrew Fisher, Jeff Mills, Sara Palmer (awaiting appointment) For more information about this agenda, please contact Carolyn Weiss, Principal Planner (682-8816) at the Eugene Planning Division. Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 1 Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 2  MINUTES Historic Review Board Sloat Room – Atrium Building – 99 West 10th Avenue May 27, 2010 8 a.m. PRESENT: Patricia Atkins, Liz Carter, Andrew Fisher, Richard Dannemiller, Heidi Beierle, Sara Palmer, members; Ken Guzowski, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department staff, Melina Bezirdjian, Carissa Surace, Regan Middleton-Moreland, guests. Mr. Dannemiller convened the May 27, 2010 meeting of the Historic Review Board (HRB). I. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There was no public comment. II. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 MINUTES The minutes of the September 24, 2009 meeting were approved as written. III. UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Ms. Beierle, Planning Commission Chair, provided an update of numerous Planning Commission meetings including: recent discussions on Envision Eugene and the two public workshops; evaluation of the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis, discussion on expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, approval of the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center, and hearing an appeal on the Planned Unit Development on Goodpasture Island Road. Ms. Beierle commented that the Planning Commission is seeing an increase in meetings as numerous projects are completed. IV. DISCUSSION: THE BIG O NOMINATION FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Mr. Guzowski provided an overview of The Big O National Register nomination including images to illustrate this historic object. Melina Bezirdjian introduced herself as the preparer of the nomination and explained that she was available to answer questions. Regan Middleton-Moreland and Carissa Surace, both with the University of Oregon Alumni Association provided verbal and written support for the nomination. They informed the board that they are active participants in the painting of The Big O, on an as-needed basis. Mr. Dannemiller proceeded to lead the discussion on answering the concerns located on the National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet. The board agreed that the topics of Integrity, Description, Significance and Context, Facts and Sources, and Supporting Materials all merited an OK by unanimous approval. Following discussion the board agreed by a unanimous vote that they recommend that the property appears to meet National Register Criterion A (Events) and should be MINUTES—Historic Review Board May 27, 2010 Page 1 Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 3 listed in the National Register. Mr. Guzowski will complete the final paperwork and letter for Ian Johnson, National Register Coordinator at the Oregon SHPO, so that Mr. Dannemiller can approve and affix his signature as Chair of the Historic Review Board. Mr. Dannemiller complimented Ms. Bezirdjian on her research and skillful preparation of this nomination. V. UPDATES ON PRESERVATION TOPICS OF INTEREST TO THE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD Mr. Guzowski discussed the sale of the downtown post office which was listed in the National Register in 1985. He noted that the United States Postal Service is working on a Memorandum of Agreement with the Oregon SHPO that will ensure retention of the building and its character defining historic features with a future owner. Mr. Guzowski referred to the Eugene Weekly article of May 13, 2010 titled: Potential Home Run for Futbol Fans. The Save Civic Stadium coalition is supportive of a conceptual plan that will convert the stadium into soccer fields in collaboration with the YMCA. They are considering advocating for a bond measure to purchase the complex that will also fund the construction work. Nan Laurence, Senior Planner with the Community Development Division provided an update on the rehabilitation of the Centre Court Building at Broadway and Willamette. Demolition of non compatible interior features has begun and the building will be rehabilitated to LEED Gold Standards. About two thirds of the building has been leased and the owner is working to establish lively walk-in retail uses at the ground floor. Mr. Guzowski provided a hand-out to board members that asks them to complete an online survey regarding making changes to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation that could include guidelines for incorporating sustainable features in historic buildings. VI. DISCUSSION: ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE AND DEBRIEF OF THE HRB LISTENING SESSION Ms. Weiss provided an overview of the Envision Eugene project that outlined the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis; complete an analysis of how Eugene can manage its physical expansion by using land more efficiently; evaluation of potential expansion areas within Eugene’s existing urban growth boundary; and the need to identify a preferred growth option and integrate it into a Comprehensive Plan for Eugene. Ms. Weiss encouraged HRB members to stay involved in the public process as four public workshops are scheduled in the weeks ahead. Mr. Fisher commented that the HRB Listening Session with Bob Chadwick and Diane Seehawer on April 15, 2010 was a positive experience. He offered that it is a methodology that he hopes to use with his volunteer work with the Friendly Area Neighbors. Ms. Carter asked if the HRB will be holding future meetings and promoting National Register nominations, as she believes it is important for this board to discuss historic preservation issues on MINUTES—Historic Review Board May 27, 2010 Page 2 Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 4 an ongoing basis. Ms. Weiss pointed out that the City is in a holding pattern right now until the FY 10-11 budget is approved. She will coordinate a meeting with the board in July, 2010 to talk further about this topic. VII. ITEMS FROM BOARD OR STAFF Ms. Palmer invited the board to the cremation garden dedication at Mulkey Cemetery on Monday, May 31, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. (Recorded by Ken Guzowski) MINUTES—Historic Review Board May 27, 2010 Page 3 Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 5 Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 6  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 29, 2010 TO: Historic Review Board FROM: Lisa Gardner, Planning & Development Department RE: Future Options for the Historic Preservation Program ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is required. Planning Staff are seeking comments and suggestions from the Historic Review Board regarding future options for administering the historic preservation program. BRIEFING STATEMENT The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss possible options for how best to administer the historic preservation program, in light of the planning division’s reduced service levels. Staff has provided a matrix that represents a spectrum of options illustrating potential ways in which the various historic preservation services might be provided in the future. BACKGROUND Last month, the City Council adopted its budget which resulted in a substantial reduction of Planning Division resources. While the planning division is committed to maintaining its services to the greatest degree possible, these budget reductions will require us to think differently about how future services are delivered. This includes the historic preservation program. Within the Historic Preservation program, there are services which the city is required to provide. As the Board is aware, the City of Eugene is a Certified Local Government (CLG) which obligates us to provide certain services, such as recommendations on National Register nominations. In addition, the Eugene code requires review of certain land use applications related to historic properties (alterations, demolition and moving of historic structures). Unless these requirements are modified, these services will continue to be provided. In addition to the required services, the city has, in the past, taken on discretionary tasks related to historic preservation. This includes the preparation of various historic property inventories that have been prepared over the years, most with the assistance of grant funds. Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 7 During the past few years, the Planning Division has prepared work programs which the city council reviews and approves. These work programs attempt to better align our resources to those services which the council prioritizes. Over the last couple of years, our work program has been limited to a few high priority tasks, such as Envision Eugene, Mixed Use Centers, Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting. As a result, the ability to take on historic preservation projects (as well as other planning efforts) has been severely limited. NEXT STEPS Given the circumstances identified above, the Planning Division is evaluating different ways to provide its services, including the historic preservation program. To begin the discussion, we have provided four potential options describing different ways in which we could proceed. These options are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible tasks and issues related to historic preservation. Rather, they are staff’s first attempt to identify the key elements or services that need to be addressed, including the role of the Historic Review Board. As we discuss these options, we look to the Board to help identify other key issues which may not be accounted for in the proposed options. In addition, we encourage the Board to share other possible strategies which could be considered within our resource capabilities. Following the Board’s input, we will further evaluate and/or refine our options. Given that a couple of the options are dependent upon consultant assistance, staff will also continue to explore funding opportunities to support these strategies. ATTACHMENTS A. Matrix: Options for Historic Preservation Program FOR MORE INFORMATION Lisa Gardner, Planning Director at 541.682.5208 or Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner at 541.682‐ 8385. Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 8  Attachment A Options for Historic Preservation Program Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 CLG status maintained CLG status maintained CLG status maintained CLG status maintained HRB discontinued. Duties HRB membership consists of the 7 HRB maintained. Vacant positions HRB maintained. Vacant positions transferred to Planning Planning Commission members filled. filled. Commission plus 2 additional members with historic preservation expertise. No grants pursued Limited, if any grants pursued. Limited, if any grants pursued. Pursue selective grants, dependent upon available resources. Recommendations of National Recommendations of National Recommendations of National Recommendations of National Register nominations transferred Register nominations transferred Register nominations remain with Register nominations remain with to Planning Commission to HRB (PC + 2) HRB HRB City Landmark program is City Landmark program is City Landmark program is City Landmark program is maintained. Planning Commission maintained. HRB (PC +2) reviews maintained. HRB continues to maintained. HRB continues to reviews nominations nominations review nominations review nominations Existing city landmark sites remain Existing city landmark sites remain Existing city landmark sites remain Existing city landmark sites remain unaffected unaffected unaffected unaffected City code regarding alterations, City code regarding alterations, City code regarding alterations, City code regarding alterations, demolitions and moving of historic demolitions and moving of historic demolitions and moving of historic demolitions and moving of historic structures maintained structures maintained structures maintained structures maintained Planning Commission serves as HRB (PC +2) serves as appeal body HRB continues to serve as the HRB continues to serve as the appeal body for Planning Director for Planning Director decisions appeal body for Planning Director appeal body for Planning Director decisions decisions decisions Planning Commission would HRB (PC +2) would convene on an HRB meets on an infrequent basis HRB meets on an infrequent basis convene as HRB on an as‐needed as‐needed basis only (e.g. Quarterly or as needed), (e.g. Quarterly or as needed), basis only including nominations/appeals including nominations/appeals Issues/Considerations: Issues/Considerations: Issues/Considerations: Issues/Considerations:  Resource impact manageable  Resource impact manageable  Would require limited number  Would require limited number  Could require amendments to  Could require amendments to of regular meetings of regular meetings Chapter 2 Chapter 2  Would likely require consulting  Would likely require consulting  2 HRB members could assistance for administration of assistance for grants and participate with an informal HRB administration of HRB advocacy group without quorum issues. Historic Review Board AIS 7-29-2010, p. 9