Historic Review Board

AGENDA EUGENE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD Sloat Conference Room, First Floor, N.E. Corner, Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, Phone: (541)682‐5481 Web site: http://www.eugene‐or.gov/hrb 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 682‐5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682‐5119. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (8:00 a.m.‐10:00 a.m.) 1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 2. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: HISTORIC CITY LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE BRUNNER‐SCHMITZ HOUSE (HD 10‐1) 3. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 2010‐2011 WORK PLAN 4. ITEMS FROM THE BOARD OR STAFF For more information about this agenda, please contact Gabe Flock, Senior Planner (541‐682‐5697) at the Eugene Planning Division. Please also note that the initial public comment period at this meeting is reserved for testimony that is not related to any public hearing items on the agenda. An opportunity for testimony on the public hearing item(s) will be provided according to quasi‐judicial procedures, with the order of speakers as noted below: PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT 1. Staff introduction. 2. Presentation from applicant’s representative and testimony from others in support. 3. Comments or questions from those who neither are proponents nor opponents. 4. Public testimony from those in opposition. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from the HRB members. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Close of public hearing and record 9. Deliberation and action. BOARD MEMBERS Andrew Fisher (Interim Chair), Sara Palmer, Patricia Atkins, Liz Carter, Jeff Mills, Marti Gerdes  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 9, 2010 TO: Historic Review Board FROM: Steve Ochs, Eugene Planning Division SUBJECT: The Brunner‐Schmitz House (HD 10‐1) City of Eugene Historic Landmark application ACTION REQUESTED The Historic Review Board will hold a public hearing, followed by deliberation and action on the City of Eugene Historic Landmark designation request for the Brunner‐Schmitz House (HD 10‐1). BRIEFING STATEMENT Application for City of Eugene Historic Landmark designation for the Brunner Schmitz House was submitted on September 13, 2010 and deemed complete on October 20, 2010. Information concerning the application was sent to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, and the affected neighborhood group (River Road Community Organization) on October 25, 2010. City staff mailed and posted the public hearing notice on November 9, 2010. No written testimony has been received. Written testimony received after the date of this report but prior to the public hearing will be forwarded to the Historic Review Board for consideration in making a decision. Public testimony, written or otherwise, may also be presented at the public hearing and submitted into the record for this application. The applicant for this proposal is Sylvia J. Sherry. Liz Carter, the applicant’s representative, completed the research, writing and documentation of the Brunner‐ Schmitz House City of Eugene Historic Landmark application. The application materials are attached for your review. Also attached is a memorandum prepared by Ken Guzowski as the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant which evaluates the application materials submitted in relation to the approval criteria and provides a recommendation for approval. This Agenda Item Summary together with Mr. Guzowski’s memorandum constitutes the “staff report” for this item. The Historic Review Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this application on December 9, 2010. The Eugene Code (EC) requires City staff to prepare a written report concerning any request for designation of a property as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark. In accordance with the Type III land use application procedures (see EC 9.7320); the staff report is printed and available 7 days prior to the public hearing on the request, to allow citizens an opportunity to learn more about the request and to review the staff analysis of the application. The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations and the Historic Review Board will also consider HRB Agenda - Page 1 additional public testimony and materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Historic Review Board will take action in accordance with code requirements to approve, approve with conditions, or deny this Historic City Landmark Designation request. For reference, the quasi‐judicial hearing procedures applicable to this City Historic Landmark Designation request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. To assist the Historic Review Board in rendering a decision on this application, the attached memorandum from Mr. Guzowski addresses the City Historic Landmark Designation approval criteria with findings related to each, based on the evidence available as of the date of this agenda summary. In addition, staff incorporates the applicant’s findings and materials herein by reference, as additional evidence that the City Historic Landmark Designation approval criteria have been met. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Brunner‐Schmitz House built between 1920 and 1922 is located at 1410 River Road. The property is zoned R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential. The R‐2 property includes 0.44 acres of land located on the west side of River Road, north of Lindner Lane and south of Maynard Avenue identified as Tax Lot 4602, Assessor’s Map 17‐04‐13‐33. The property is surrounded on three sides by open fields comprising approximately nine acres that were once part of the agricultural operations of the Brunner Commercial Dryer. The surrounding land is not included in this application and is in separate ownership. The proposed historic name is considered appropriate as it reflects the ownership and management of the property as associated with the Brunner and Schmitz families, owners for the past 80 years. If the Brunner‐Schmitz House is successfully listed as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark, the property will be subject to review according to Eugene Code (EC) provisions for Historic Property Applications including alterations, moving or demolition according to EC 9.8150 through EC 9.8185. For additional details of the requested City Historic Landmark Designation, site characteristics and history of the structure, please refer to the applicant’s written statement and other supporting application materials, as well as the supporting evaluation and attachments. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and materials in the record, and findings provided, the application complies with the applicable criteria at EC 9.8165. Staff recommends approval of the Historic City Landmark Application for the Brunner‐Schmitz House (HD 10‐1). Following close of the public hearing, the Historic Review Board should deliberate and take action to incorporate the staff report as the final decision approving the request. Staff will provide draft motions to the board for this action. HRB Agenda - Page 2 ATTACHMENTS The entire application file is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices, and will be made available at the public hearing before the Historic Review Board. The following items from the public record are attached for reference: 1. Memorandum from Ken Guzowski, City of Eugene Historical Consultant, dated November 14, 2010. 2. Applicant’s written statement and other application materials FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Steve Ochs, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682‐5453, or by e‐mail at steve.p.ochs@ci.eugene.or.us HRB Agenda - Page 3 Memorandum Date: November 14, 2010 To: City of Eugene Planning Staff From: Ken Guzowski, Historic Consultant Subject: Brunner-Schmitz House Historic Designation (HD 10-1) To assist the City of Eugene Staff in providing a recommendation to the Historic Review Board, the following findings are presented regarding City Historic Landmark Designation approval criteria (shown below in bold typeface). EC 9.8165(1): Designation is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. Applicable provisions of the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), and applicable refinement plan, the River Road – Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC) are addressed below. Metro Plan – Historic Preservation Element Adopt and implement historic preservation policies, regulations, and incentive programs that encourage the inventory, preservation, and restoration of structures, landmarks, sites, and areas of cultural, historic, or archeological significance, consistent with overall policies.” (Policy 1, page III‐I‐2) Recognition of the historic significance of the Brunner‐Schmitz House as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark aids in implementation of this policy because it was identified and documented in the River Road Cultural Resource Survey of 2005. Historic landmark designation will encourage the preservation and restoration of the Brunner‐Schmitz House and its significant, historic landscape for the future through compliance with historic alteration, moving and demolition requirements of Eugene’s land use code. Institute and support projects and programs that increase citizen and visitor awareness of the area’s history and encourage citizen participation in and support of programs designed to recognize and memorialize the area’s history.” (Policy 2, page III‐I‐2) Listing of the Brunner‐Schmitz House as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark is consistent with this policy as the research found in the application contributes to the body of knowledge that the City of Eugene maintains on the history of development of the River Road area of Eugene. Historic landmark designation helps to ensure the preservation of the Brunner‐Schmitz House and will help to increase citizen awareness of historic preservation and local history. HRB Agenda - Page 4 River Road‐ Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan – Environmental Design Element 4. 6 Historic Structures Inventory structures, landmarks, sites, and areas of cultural, historic, or archaeological significance. (Policy 1, Page 4‐6) Consistent with this policy, on April 14, 2005, the Brunner‐Schmitz House was identified as a potential significant historic resource and recorded as part of the River Road Cultural Resource Inventory. This was included on a Historic Resource Survey Form in the Oregon Inventory of Historic Properties for the River Road area which was funded by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office in collaboration with the City of Eugene. Encourage the preservation and restoration of structures, landmarks, sites, and areas of cultural, historic, or archaeological significance. (Policy 2, page 4‐6 Listing the Brunner‐Schmitz House as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark is consistent with this policy as it ensures that the historic resource will be preserved into the future through the historic review process, and the support and enthusiasm of the property owner. The owner recognizes the significance of the Brunner‐Schmitz House and intends to take actions to continue the preservation and restoration of the building and grounds with oversight by the City of Eugene. City of Eugene Historic Landmark Criteria EC 9.8165(2): Designation is based on a determination of historic significance according to one or more of the following: (a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. The land associated with the Brunner‐Schmitz House was once part of the Benjamin and Catharine Davis Donation Land Claim (DLC) of 1851. The 1857 DLC Survey Map indicates that the primary landowners in the River Road area were members of the Davis family, with Joseph and Benjamin Davis each holding slightly over 640 acres and L.E. Davis holding another claim of slightly over 300 acres. Subsequent parceling of the Benjamin and Catharine Davis DLC land deeded the northeast quadrant of their claim to their son, Lycurgus Davis, which is where the Brunner‐Schmitz house and acreage is located. In the early 1900s, small‐scale farming was promoted by boosters like the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Eugene Commercial Club. Their promotions glorified the virtues of the small family farm ranging in size from four to twenty acres along with instructions for maximizing profits from nut, fruit and row crops. The annual value of fruit production in the Northwest HRB Agenda - Page 5 nearly doubled between 1880 and 1900, fueled by the improved transportation networks and processing facilities like prune and nut dryers. Within this period of development the small family‐owned farm flourished in the River Road area, as is indicated in the Agriculture Section of the context statement titled Eugene’s Historic River Road, June 2006. In 1920 Frank and Bertha Brunner purchased 24 acres on the west side of River Road from Fred and Mary Chambers. Records indicate that the Brunner’s maintained prune and cherry orchards and developed a prune drying facility as early as 1921, concurrent with construction of the Brunner‐Schmitz House. Over time the success of the “Brunner Commercial Dryer” was assured due to the perseverance of the Brunner and Schmitz families until changes in agricultural production, particularly the demise of fruit and nut production in the local area resulted in the closure of the Brunner Commercial Dryer in 2003, when the dryer buildings were demolished. Research indicates that the dryer business grew substantially between 1940 and 1960 and became lucrative and well respected in the region. In 1944 only six Dehydrators & Dryers of Fruits and Nuts1 existed in the local area, indicating that this was a significant niche business that served local orchardists and fruit growers of the community. During World War II the Schmitz family had a government contract to provide dried fruit for the war effort. The Brunner Commercial Dryer became an agent for the wholesale distributor of Hudson House in Portland, Oregon, further ensuring their success. The Brunner‐Schmitz House remains as a testament to the long tenure of agricultural practices in the River Road area by the Brunner and Schmitz families. Based on the information above, it appears that the Brunner‐Schmitz House is associated with agricultural events, particularly the drying of nuts and fruit that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of agricultural history in the River Road area and Eugene. (b) Is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past. Frank Brunner was born in Germany in 1869 and immigrated to the United States in 1890, having reached the age of 21. Bertha Thoni was born in Switzerland in 1872 and immigrated to the United States in 1894. Frank and Bertha were married in 1903 and for the next sixteen years resided in Poweshiek County, Iowa. The couple moved to Lane County Oregon in 1919 and Frank worked at the Eugene Fruit Growers Association. Frank and Bertha Brunner purchased their twenty‐four acres of land on the west side of River Road on August 18, 1920. The couple was obviously busy during these early years with the construction of their new house, the prune dryer, and managing their agricultural enterprise. In 1904, Ernest Brunner was born to the couple. 1 Liz Carter completed research in the Eugene City Directories to determine the number and location of Dehydrators & Dryers in the area. HRB Agenda - Page 6 Ernest Brunner worked the family farm and dryer operations and married Marie Darrington at the age of thirty‐three, she was twenty‐eight. Marie was born in Nye Hill, Montana and attended nursing school in Portland between 1927 and 1930. She ultimately worked as a nurse and anesthesia specialist in Eugene. In 1938 Ernest and Marie became parents with the birth of their son Joe. In March of 1939, Ernest died in a tragic tractor accident on the family farm, leaving Marie a young widow and mother. On July 9, 1940, Marie married Peter Schmitz, Jr., who had been best man at her marriage to Ernest Brunner. Peter Schmitz, Jr. was born in Minnesota in 1909 and his family arrived in the Cheshire area of Oregon between 1910 and 1913. Following their marriage the couple purchased the house at 1410 River Road from the elder Brunner’s, along with ten acres of land. Peter Schmitz oversaw all aspects of the Brunner Commercial Dryer and was instrumental in developing the peak growth and prosperity of this business. Peter Schmitz died in 1989, when Joe Brunner took over management of the operations. Information garnered from the application, personal interviews with the Schmitz relatives, and an understanding of the development of the River Road areas suggests that the Brunner and Schmitz families associated with the Brunner Commercial Dryer operation were persons significant to Eugene’s past because of their long tenure as operators of the dryer business. Nut and fruit dryers were not common in the community and Ms. Carter’s research reveals that only six existed in 1944 and only four were existant in 1955. The Brunner Commercial Dryer continued in operation until 2003, making it one of the longest lived commercial dryers in Eugene. (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The American Foursquare form of architecture is a building type that was popularized between 1900 and 1920 in the Pacific Northwest and is considered an outgrowth of the Prairie Style that was made popular by Frank Lloyd Wright in the Midwest. Key elements of the style include a square or rectangular floor plan; wide overhanging eaves; two stories in height with one story porches or wings; massive square porch posts and hipped roof dormers; paired and triple casement windows sometimes with leaded glass; and horizontal board siding. A low‐pitched hipped roof helps to create a sense of horizontality in this building form. Eugene’s Historic River Road, page 12.8, collaborates that the American Foursquare is less a style than a form and was popular for some farmhouses in the River Road area. The Brunner‐Schmitz House is a distinctive example of the American Foursquare form of residential architecture for Eugene. The house is in excellent condition and includes all of the key elements referenced above. The house exhibits a porte cochere2 on the north elevation 2 Porte Cochere: 1. A carriage porch. 2. A doorway large enough to let a vehicle pass from street to parking area. HRB Agenda - Page 7 that is designed as an extension of the expansive porch that covers two‐thirds of the east (front) elevation. A bay window with a hipped roof announces the living room at the front elevation just south of the front porch. This bay window contains five casement windows with decorative leaded glass in the upper casements. A one‐story sunroom extends the horizontal orientation of the front façade and contains multiple six over one casement windows that flood this room with natural light from three directional points. The house has at least an 80‐foot setback from River Road and is surrounded by an expanse of lawn with foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the house. A large lilac and holly are located to the southeast of the house near the curving concrete walk that accesses the front entrance. An oversized walnut tree defines and shades the southwest quadrant of the backyard, where grape vines also exist. An asphalt parking area covers half of the backyard north of the walnut tree in proximity to the small garage that is not part of tax lot 4602. Originally, the garage was used by the Brunner and Schmitz families for the storage of their personal vehicles. A concrete drive accesses the porte cochere from River Road and a second driveway to the north served as access for vehicles which traveled to and from the Brunner Commercial Dryer that was once located west of the house. The application informs us that the Brunner‐Schmitz House was designed and built by Frank Brunner between 1920 and 1922. During the August 24, 2010 interview with Lenore Barrett, Liz Carter learned that the house design was chosen after touring the residential neighborhoods around the University of Oregon, where a wide variety of period residential styles still exist. It is assumed that Frank and Bertha Brunner customized the design of this house to suit their needs. The Brunner‐Schmitz House embodies the distinctive characteristics of a residential building type designed in the American Foursquare form of architecture that was popularized in the first quarter of the twentieth century. The building possesses methods of construction typical of this era and is built entirely of wood with a concrete foundation. High quality construction techniques and materials were identified from on‐site evaluation of the property. The design of the house is not the work of a master, but possesses high artistic values as conceived and constructed by Frank and Bertha Brunner. (d) Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. It is unknown if any archaeological resources exist at this site, making this criterion not applicable to this application. (3) In addition to EC 9.9165(1) and (2) above, criteria for designation of a historic resource that was moved, is primarily commemorative in intent, or less than fifty years of age shall include the following considerations: HRB Agenda - Page 8  (a) A historic resource moved from its original location or a place that has historic significance can be eligible if it has historic architectural significance or is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event. This criterion is not applicable because the Brunner‐Schmitz house has not been moved from its original location. (b) A historic resource that is primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historic significance. This criterion is not applicable because the Brunner‐Schmitz House is not a commemorative historic resource (like a monument or plaque). (c) A historic resource achieving significance within the last fifty years can be eligible if it is of exceptional importance. This criterion is not applicable because the Brunner‐Schmitz House is over fifty years of age with a construction date of 1922. Recommendation: Based on the information and materials in the record, and the findings contained in this report, approval of the Historic Landmark Application for the Brunner‐Schmitz House (HD 10‐1) is recommended as the proposal complies with EC 9.8165(1), and 9.8165(2)(a) events, (b) persons and (c) architecture. HRB Agenda - Page 9 HRB Agenda - Page 10 HRB Agenda - Page 11 HRB Agenda - Page 12 HRB Agenda - Page 13 HRB Agenda - Page 14 HRB Agenda - Page 15 HRB Agenda - Page 16 HRB Agenda - Page 17 HRB Agenda - Page 18 HRB Agenda - Page 19 HRB Agenda - Page 20 HRB Agenda - Page 21 HRB Agenda - Page 22 HRB Agenda - Page 23 HRB Agenda - Page 24 HRB Agenda - Page 25 HRB Agenda - Page 26 HRB Agenda - Page 27 HRB Agenda - Page 28 HRB Agenda - Page 29 HRB Agenda - Page 30 HRB Agenda - Page 31 HRB Agenda - Page 32 HRB Agenda - Page 33 HRB Agenda - Page 34 HRB Agenda - Page 35 HRB Agenda - Page 36 HRB Agenda - Page 37 HRB Agenda - Page 38 HRB Agenda - Page 39  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 9, 2010 TO: Historic Review Board FROM: Steve Nystrom, Eugene Planning Division SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Program Work Plan ACTION REQUESTED The Historic Review Board (HRB) will be asked to review and comment on the draft work plan for the Historic Preservation Program (Attachment A). BRIEFING STATEMENT At the October 18, 2010 meeting, the HRB and staff held an informal workshop to discuss the historic preservation program with the goal of determining what services to prioritize, particularly in light of limited city resources. The group discussed various services, ranging from those mandated tasks to more discretionary services. These tasks were divided into 3 categories: • “Required” tasks • “Should Do” tasks • “Other” tasks It was agreed that those items listed under the required tasks were mandatory in nature and therefore, needed to be included in the future work plan. Those items listed under the “should do” category represented various tasks which are not required, but were considered important services to consider in this work plan. The final category, “Other tasks” represented potential services or tasks which could be considered in future work plans, but were ranked by the group as lower priorities. It was understood that the list of potential tasks under the “Should Do” category far exceeded the capacity of city resources to implement. Therefore, the HRB agreed to individually prioritize the various tasks listed under the “Should Do” category (Attachment C) to assist staff in the development of a draft work plan. Staff has also provided a summary of the HRB’s rankings in Attachment B. While there were differing opinions on some tasks, the following items appeared to have the strongest preference: • Pursue grants that enhance the historic program while recognizing limited grant administration resources • Keep HRB informed of major actions (e.g. transfer, sale) of historic properties • Look at the potential for HRB role as advisory to Planning Director decisions Following these tasks were three additional items which were ranked somewhat lower: • Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks • Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. Page 1 HRB Agenda - Page 40  • Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic Preservation Program faculty and students; Explore opportunities for mutual beneficial work. With this input, staff has prepared a draft work plan which is broken down into 3 categories: 1. Mandatory Tasks 2. Discretionary tasks which will be included in the current work plan 3. Those remaining tasks which will not be included in the work plan, but may be considered in the future In response to the HRB’s comments, staff has prepared a draft work plan that includes most of the higher ranked tasks described above, plus a couple of other items as follows: • Historic Loan Program: Although rated low by the HRB, this is an established program that provides assistance to individuals without a substantial burden on staff resources. It was determined that maintenance of this program was important and feasible. • Keep a log of activity: Some of the HRB ranked this low but still felt it had value. Given the low impact to staff resources, it was felt this task could be useful in informing future program decisions. Staff would also note that in preparing the draft work plan, it was necessary to wordsmith the language on many of the task descriptions in order to formalize them within this work plan. Comments or suggested edits of these statements are welcome in order to ensure the intent of each statement is clear. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HRB provide comments or suggestions on the draft work plan. Following this meeting, staff will make the necessary revisions and distribute the final work plan to the HRB. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Work Plan B. Summary of HRB priority rankings (“Should Do” list) C. Individual HRB member priority rankings (includes email comments from Sara Palmer) D. Synopsis of October 18, 2010 brainstorming (potential work tasks) FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Steve Nystrom at 541‐682‐8385, Eugene Planning Division, or via email at steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us Page 2 HRB Agenda - Page 41  Attachment A Historic Preservation Program 2010‐2011 Work Plan Mandated Tasks Work Plan Task Description 1 Pursue grants that maintain Grants would focus on delivering services necessary to maintain Certified Local Government (CLG) the city’s CLG status. status requirements. 2 Historic Property Alterations Planning staff process historic property alteration applications as required by the city’s land use code. The Historic Review Board (HRB) serves as the appeals body. 3 Historic Property Demolition Planning staff process historic structure demolition applications as applications required by the city’s land use code. HRB serve as the appeals body. 4 Historic Property Moving Planning staff process historic property moving applications as applications required by the city’s land use code. HRB serve as the appeals body. 5 Nominations for Listing in the The HRB reviews and make recommendations to the State National Register of Historic regarding requests for listing on the National Register, pursuant to Places the city’s CLG status. 6 Oregon State Law Ensure compliance with other applicable state laws related to historic preservation. 7 City of Eugene Historic Landmark The HRB processes requests for listing of properties as city historic Applications landmarks, as required by code. 8 Historic Zoning Staff process requests to create special historic zones which require planning commission and city council action. Such requests begin with the HRB via applications to designate properties as a city and/or national register landmark. 9 Response to public inquiries Staff provides information and guidance to the public regarding historic preservation issues. HRB Agenda - Page 42 Attachment A Historic Preservation Program 2010‐2011 Work Plan Additional Tasks Included in the Work Plan Work Plan Task Description 1 Pursue grants that enhance Grants which create or enhance accessibility of historic the historic program while preservation documents while offsetting long term resource recognizing limited grant demands will be given priority consideration (e.g. digitizing administration resources. historic resource documents). (Item 1/Ranked 2) 1a • Develop an online list and To the extent grant funding and/or intern assistance is available, “clickable” map of all the staff will continue to develop enhancements to the webpage National Register of such as a clickable map. Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks. (Item 4/Ranked 5) 1b • Enhance availability of Place past historic research documents and context statements historic documents on the created by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane city’s webpage, including County Historic Society, and other organizations online. It may those created by other be possible to address a portion of this task through grant or organizations. intern assistance described above. (Item 5/ Ranked 6) 2 Keep HRB informed of major Staff will keep the HRB informed of potential actions regarding actions (e.g. transfer, sale) of historic properties (e.g. post office, civic stadium). Where historic properties. appropriate, the HRB may decide to provide a response to the (Item 2/Ranked 1) Planning Director on such matters. 3 Look at potential for HRB role Staff will explore ways to utilize the expertise of HRB while as advisory to Planning maintaining legal/procedural responsibilities (e.g. role as Director decisions. impartial appeals body). (Item 13/ Ranked 3) 4 Historic Loan Program (HRB Staff will continue to assist Community Development staff in can facilitate through administration of historic loan requests. designations) (Item 6/ Ranked 12) 5 Keep a log of inquiries to Staff will monitor the activity level and nature of inquires via the better assess types of issues Permit and Information Center, phone and email. the city is facing. (Item 3/ Ranked 10) 6 Invite the Lane County These efforts could be outside the formal role of the HRB. For Historical Society to meet with example, an annual meeting could be held (perhaps sponsored the HRB and discuss ways we by the Shelton‐McMurphey‐Johnson house), to explore can promote historical education/outreach opportunities through community member awareness together. efforts. (Item 7/ Ranked 4) HRB Agenda - Page 43 Attachment A Historic Preservation Program 2010‐2011 Work Plan Other Potential Tasks ‐ Not Included in Current Work Plan Work Plan Task Description 1 Develop working relationships Dependent upon program priorities and available staff resources with the University of Oregon to manage such efforts, there may be opportunities to consider Historic Preservation Program greater use of interns within the UO Historic Preservation faculty and students; Explore program. The UO may also serve as a valuable partner in opportunities for mutual enhancing the availability and access to historic preservation beneficial work. records. (Item 12/ Ranked 5) 2 Develop a publicly‐accessible, This effort could be most useful in augmenting our pre‐existing highly visual, user‐friendly, neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as lacking online inventory of all historic any historical research. There may be opportunities for the properties within the city limits. creation and collection of materials to be initiated without the Could include professional commitment of city resources. research documents describing the history and development of specific areas of our community, as prepared by community historians and experts. (Item 8/ Ranked 11) 3 Participate in a joint meeting As an alternative to a formal planning commission meeting, with the Eugene Planning planning commissioners could be invited to more informal Commission to discuss work gatherings such as the annual meeting described above. program items that may be of mutual interest. (Item 9/ Ranked 7) 4 Use neighborhoods to develop Possible avenues for addressing this effort could be through the guidelines which define Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans (SNAP’s) and/or the important elements for that neighborhood matching grants program. neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Item 10/ Ranked 9) 5 Develop (with the cooperation Possible avenues for addressing this effort could be through the of neighborhood associations Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans (SNAP’s) and/or the and interested/motivated neighborhood matching grants program. residents) statements of neighborhood character and history with long range planning. (Item 11/ Ranked 8) HRB Agenda - Page 44 Attachment A Historic Preservation Program 2010‐2011 Work Plan Other Potential Tasks ‐ Not Included in Current Work Plan Work Plan Task Description 6 Encourage neighborhood Coordinate with neighborhood services about encouraging newsletter editors to regularly heritage information. Neighborhood services would include/reproduce available facilitate/partner in provision of historic information. historic information in their publications. 7 Explore the feasibility of Consider the benefit of a separate or new entity which would developing a metropolitan, help augment the city’s historic preservation efforts in light of non‐profit preservation society resource limitations. or similar entity. 8 Develop visual “Top 10 Lists” Prepare materials to help promote good examples of historical that include the best, local buildings in Eugene. examples of various types of architectural styles. 9 Seek training for HRB members Work with the State to conduct training opportunities for HRB on the Certified Local members and staff. Government Grant Program. 10 Develop connection with Identify areas where the two groups can help support and Sustainability Committee. implement common goals. 11 Inform HRB regarding Provide on‐going updates/materials concerning planning alterations and other Planning director decisions. Director Decisions. HRB Agenda - Page 45  Attachment B Historic Preservation Program – HRB Rankings of “Should Do” Items Summary of Individual HRB member rankings Average Task/Service LC JM AF PA MG Score 1 Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our work 1 4 10 1 1 3.4 program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. (Monetary match). 2 Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. HRB 3 2 5 3 3 3.2 may draft letter to P.D. 3 Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. 13 1 4 13 13 8.8 4 Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of 4 5 7 4 8 5.6 Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) 5 Place past historic research documents and context statements created by 5 6 11 5 6 6.6 the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in simple, html‐ text documents. 6 Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). 12 13 12 12 12 12.2 7 Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and discuss 6 7 2 6 5 5.2 ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). 8 Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐accessible, 11 8 8 11 11 9.8 highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious inventory would be to then have community historians and experts create professional research documents describing the history and development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). HRB Agenda - Page 46  9 Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to 10 10 1 10 9 8.0 discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). 10 Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important elements 9 11 3 9 10 8.4 for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). 11 Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and 8 12 6 8 7 8.2 interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character and history with long range planning. 12 Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic 7 3 9 7 2 5.6 Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to Historic Preservation. 13 Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions 2 9 ‐‐‐‐ 2 4 4.25 Note: Rankings listed under each HRB member’s initials represent their suggested priorities from 1‐13 (1 being the highest priority; 13 being the lowest). Those tasks with the lower average scores represent the higher priority recommendations. HRB Agenda - Page 47  Attachment C Historic Preservation Program – Potential “Should Do” Items Prepared by: Liz Carter Please rank each of the following tasks in priority from “1” to “13”, with “1” being your highest priority. After each item, also explain your reasoning for ranking the item as you did. Task/Service Priority Reason for Ranking # Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our 1 We will need some $$ to implement some of these items; grant work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. dollars are available ‐ why not take advantage? (Monetary match). Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. 3 Would allow greater HRB involvement and knowledge about HRB may draft letter to P.D. current HP/heritage issues. Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. 13 Easy to do? It’s last place finish doesn’t reflect its importance... Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of 4 As the first “phase” of getting information online and available to all ‐ this Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, item seems a bit redundant with others that involve putting info online ‐ and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) could they all be packaged as one long‐term project, completed in phases? Place past historic research documents and context statements created 5 As short‐term subsequent phase to getting NR properties online ‐ by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County an initial grant could cover getting NR, City Landmark and existing Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in historic context docs online. Next phase/grant could deal with simple, html‐text documents. inventoried properties & other historical documentation...? Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). 12 Currently in force? Continuing doesn’t change anything, does it? Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and 6 Networking is good! This is an inexpensive thing to do that could discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be be very effective in raising awareness about heritage issues. an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐ 11 See item 5 ‐ this could be a longer‐term subsequent phase to accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic getting NR properties online, with focus on inventoried properties properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious first, then other documents. inventory would be to then have community historians and experts create professional research documents describing the history and HRB Agenda - Page 48 development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐ existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as  lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to 10 Probably a good idea once we’ve figured out what we’d like to do, discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to and then have an informed discussion with Planning Commission. SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important 9 * elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and 8 * interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character and history with long range planning. Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic 7 * I see items 7‐9 as being potentially linked ‐ students and Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise neighborhoods working together on neighborhood character & and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern guidelines projects. Grant proposals with such collaboration would program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to be attractive to the grantors, I suspect. Also, possibly more work Historic Preservation. could be accomplished with less money. Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions 2 Would allow greater HRB involvement and knowledge about current HP/heritage issues. HRB Agenda - Page 49  Historic Preservation Program – Potential “Should Do” Items Prepared by: Jeff Mills Please rank each of the following tasks in priority from “1” to “13”, with “1” being your highest priority. After each item, also explain your reasoning for ranking the item as you did. Task/Service Priority Reason for Ranking # Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our Where possible we should pursue. How will these pursuits be work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. resourced? (Monetary match). 4 Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. HRB should weigh‐in on major actions, and ‘inactions’. Also HRB may draft letter to P.D. 2 remember the mayor’s request that the HRB communicate directly with the City Council on important (or major) issues. Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. I think we are already doing this. This will hopefully provide 1 information to the HRB and staff to improve resource allocation. Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of Resource alternatives? Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) 5 Place past historic research documents and context statements created Resource alternatives? by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in 6 simple, html‐text documents. Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). Unsure what this goal really entails. 13 Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and Such meetings could be another source of ideas to help HRB and discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be staff set goals and allocate resources. an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). 7 Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐ This should be parsed into multiple goals or projects. (Eating the accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic elephant one bite at a time.) Work on this goal will require properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious additional resources. Could these projects be undertaken as a inventory would be to then have community historians and experts potential UofO Projects? HRB Agenda - Page 50 create professional research documents describing the history and 8 development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐ existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as  lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to Such meeting should be driven by a specific HRB need to get on a discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to 10 P.C. meeting agenda. SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important Neighborhoods already have input into land use reform via the elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a 11 planning commission. Also, neighborhood organizations vary resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). widely in their interests and capacities. I assume staff would have to provide resources for this effort. Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and This seems very similar to the previous ‘neighborhood suggestion. interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character 12 Can these goals be combined or merged? and history with long range planning. Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic This is a very important goal, comprehending Liz’s concerns. It has Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise the potential for significant benefit to the city and to the university and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern 3 program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to Historic Preservation. Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions This is already a role for HRB. It is case‐driven. HRB is also being 9 encouraged by the mayor to bring issues directly to the City Council. HRB Agenda - Page 51  Historic Preservation Program – Potential “Should Do” Items Prepared by: Andrew Fisher Please rank each of the following tasks in priority from “1” to “13”, with “1” being your highest priority. After each item, also explain your reasoning for ranking the item as you did. Task/Service Priority Reason for Ranking # Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our 10 work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. (Monetary match). Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. 5 HRB need to be briefed/informed of major actions to consider each HRB may draft letter to P.D. issue in an intelligent, responsible manner"; identify challenges and suggest solutions to attain long‐term preservation plans for resources deemed valuable to the community. Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. 4 Valuable data. Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of 7 It's been noted that some of this stuff is already online but in Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, multiple locations. On a very basic level this information should be and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) reasonably accessible. Place past historic research documents and context statements created 11 This information should be reasonably accessible but I suspect it is by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County already making its way online, albeit in a "piece‐meal" manner. Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in simple, html‐text documents. Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). 12 Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and 2 This would also not require a lot of work to accomplish but could be discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be a valuable step towards assessing the challenges facing long‐term an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). historic preservation planning. Explore cooperation. Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐ This could provide an in‐depth level of access for the public, HRB Agenda - Page 52 8 accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic however I'm not sure what real preservation‐oriented results could  properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious be achieved. inventory would be to then have community historians and experts create professional research documents describing the history and development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐ existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to 1 This would not require a great deal of time or effort but could yield discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to invaluable insight on the perceived role and potential workload for SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the the HRB. calendar). Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important 3 Feedback from the neighborhood level that can raise awareness elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a amongst developers to the important issues is good; real results in resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). preservation if more houses are preserved! Checklists for remodels such as: is new construction architectural style reflected in nearby, existing neighborhood structures, etc. checklists for demolitions: was attempt made to move the property instead of demolition? (relocate to nearby vacant lot to support mission of compatible infill and neighborhood character? was the resource (house) documented photographically before demolition? etc. Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and 6 Neighbors, residents, and property owners are probably the most interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character invested in preserving their neighborhood's character. That and history with long range planning. motivation could be useful in identifying what is uniquely important to each neighborhood. Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic 9 I recognize a potential here but I'm not sure how to develop it at Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise this point. and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to Historic Preservation. Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions ‐‐‐‐ HRB Agenda - Page 53  Historic Preservation Program – Potential “Should Do” Items Prepared by: Patricia Atkins Please rank each of the following tasks in priority from “1” to “13”, with “1” being your highest priority. After each item, also explain your reasoning for ranking the item as you did. Task/Service Priority Reason for Ranking # Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our 1 We will need some $$ to implement some of these items; grant work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. dollars are available ‐ why not take advantage? (Monetary match). Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. 3 Would allow greater HRB involvement and knowledge about HRB may draft letter to P.D. current HP/heritage issues. Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. 13 Easy to do? It’s last place finish doesn’t reflect its importance... Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of 4 As the first “phase” of getting information online and available to all ‐ this Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, item seems a bit redundant with others that involve putting info online ‐ and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) could they all be packaged as one long‐term project, completed in phases? Place past historic research documents and context statements created 5 As short‐term subsequent phase to getting NR properties online ‐ by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County an initial grant could cover getting NR, City Landmark and existing Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in historic context docs online. Next phase/grant could deal with simple, html‐text documents. inventoried properties & other historical documentation...? Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). 12 Currently in force? Continuing doesn’t change anything, does it? Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and 6 Networking is good! This is an inexpensive thing to do that could discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be be very effective in raising awareness about heritage issues. an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐ 11 See item 5 ‐ this could be a longer‐term subsequent phase to accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic getting NR properties online, with focus on inventoried properties properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious first, then other documents. inventory would be to then have community historians and experts create professional research documents describing the history and development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐ existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as HRB Agenda - Page 54 lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS  data field). Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to 10 Probably a good idea once we’ve figured out what we’d like to do, discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to and then have an informed discussion with Planning Commission. SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important 9 * elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and 8 * interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character and history with long range planning. Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic 7 * I see items 7‐9 as being potentially linked ‐ students and Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise neighborhoods working together on neighborhood character & and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern guidelines projects. Grant proposals with such collaboration would program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to be attractive to the grantors, I suspect. Also, possibly more work Historic Preservation. could be accomplished with less money. Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions 2 Would allow greater HRB involvement and knowledge about current HP/heritage issues. HRB Agenda - Page 55  Historic Preservation Program – Potential “Should Do” Items Prepared by: Marti Gerdes Please rank each of the following tasks in priority from “1” to “13”, with “1” being your highest priority. After each item, also explain your reasoning for ranking the item as you did. Task/Service Priority Reason for Ranking # Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our 1 Funding can make or break a project, so it’s crucial to mine every work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. source available asap. (Monetary match). Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. 3 Seems wise to pool our knowledge. HRB may draft letter to P.D. Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. 13 Other tasks seem more critical. Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of 8 This would help citizens and officials quickly see how many NR Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, properties are in Eugene and hopefully help them grasp why HP is a and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) viable cause worthy of their attention and funding. Place past historic research documents and context statements created 6 This should be fairly easy and inexpensive to make happen, and it by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County would be helpful for researchers; this could be an intern task. Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in simple, html‐text documents. Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). 12 I’m unclear what this means – it’s missing an action verb – but presume it means advocate/publicize the loan program? Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and 5 This should happen soon and concurrently with many other tasks; I discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be rank it 5 not because I think it’s unimportant or should be put off an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). but because it can be ongoing with other tasks we need to get under way soon because of their longer timelines. It could easily be more than an annual meeting. Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐ 11 This could dovetail with or segue into the “develop and online map accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic of NR resources” task. properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious inventory would be to then have community historians and experts HRB Agenda - Page 56 create professional research documents describing the history and  development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐ existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to 9 It seems logical to get the P.C. on board with the HRB’s task list, the discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to sooner the better. SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines that define important 10 Just doesn’t seem that critical. elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and 7 This is a great way to get buy‐in from groups that might not interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character otherwise consider HP as important. But I don’t see it as high‐ and history with long range planning. priority given the other choices. Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic 2 The students need real‐world experience/course credit that HRB Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise projects could provide, and we need passionate (and low‐cost) and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern involvement by people such as graduate students. Should be a program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to permanent intern program. (Perhaps the HRB should also Historic Preservation. investigate adding a rotating 1‐year seat on the HRB by an HP student.) Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions 3 Good opportunity and vehicle for sharing knowledge. HRB Agenda - Page 57  Comments received via email from Sara Palmer regarding priority rankings: “I don't think it makes a tremendous amount of sense to /rank/ these things. In my mind, the City should be meeting its legal requirements (because that is pretty much the bare minimum if we don't want to lose CLG status, which would be embarrassing beyond belief for all concerned) and then doing everything that possibly can be done as far as creating vibrant, livable urban and suburban spaces within our UGB. Part of that formula, which central to operating a functional municipality, is going to have to be preserving and promoting the physical fabric of our city. I don't think we need to rank tasks as much as we need to be vigorously engaging with this reality and integrating a preservation‐ oriented mindset into the ongoing work of the City ‐‐ which I have seen less of than I would like to. I want us to do all these things. And then some.” HRB Agenda - Page 58 Attachment D HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD Work Plan Special Meeting October 18, 2010 REQUIRED: • Pursue grants that fill CLG status requirements. • Historic Property Alterations (specific to appeals only). • Historic Property Demolition (done by Planning Director) • Historic Property Moving (done by Planning Director) • Eugene Nominations for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places. • Historic Property Signs—if on a listed property or as designated as city landmark. • Oregon State Law • City of Eugene Historic Landmark Applications • Historic Zoning SHOULD DO: • Pursue grants if they make sense and assist our work (and is in our work program) i.e., digitizing our cultural resource documents. (Monetary match). • Major actions (transfer) of historic properties—at least information. HRB may draft letter to P.D. • Keep a log of inquiries to better assess types of issues the city is facing. • Develop an online list and “clickable” map of all the National Register of Historic Places resources in Eugene and city landmarks, (+ wiki links, and Federal links). “HIGH PRIORITY” (intern project?) • Place past historic research documents and context statements created by the Planning Division, the Historic Review Board, Lane County Historic Society, and other organizations online (with permission) in simple, html‐text documents. • Historic Loan Program (HRB can facilitate through designations). • Invite the Lane County Historical Society to meet with the HRB and discuss ways we can promote historical awareness together. (Could be an annual meeting—SMJ could sponsor). • Perhaps the most ambitious suggestion is to develop a publicly‐accessible, highly visual, user‐friendly, online inventory of all historic properties within the city limits. A second part to this ambitious inventory would be to then have community historians and experts create professional research documents describing the history and development of specific areas of our community; perhaps our pre‐existing neighborhoods or areas of the City that are recognized as lacking any historical research (fill in the gaps). (Could use RLID or GIS data field). HRB Agenda - Page 59  • Participate in a joint meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission to discuss work program items that may be of mutual interest. (Invite to SMJ “shin‐dig”—Jeff suggests coming to P.C. meeting. Get on the calendar). • Use neighborhoods to develop guidelines which define important elements for that neighborhood. The guidelines would serve as a resource for developers. (Think about pulling out of SAPS). • Develop (with the cooperation of neighborhood associations and interested/motivated residents) statements of neighborhood character and history with long range planning. • Develop working relationships with the University of Oregon Historic Preservation Program faculty and students; capitalize on their expertise and interest. Harness U of O labor—gain experience (like intern program). May be a permanent part of intern program, specific to Historic Preservation. • Look at potential for HRB role as advisory to P.D. decisions OTHER: • Encourage neighborhood newsletter editors to regularly include/reproduce available historic information in their publications. Talk to neighborhood services about encouraging heritage information. City to facilitate by working with neighborhood services to partner to provide historic information. (Initially, HRB may have “should” role in setting up with Neighborhood Services). • Explore the feasibility of developing a metropolitan, non‐profit preservation society or similar entity. • Develop visual “Top 10 Lists” that include the best, local examples of various types of architectural styles. • Seek training for HRB members on the Certified Local Government Grant Program. (Have as future agenda item). • Connection with Sustainability Committee. • Inform HRB Re: alterations/P.D. Decisions HRB Agenda - Page 60