Item 4 - PH/Ord. on Kaufman Hse - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would still be t:equired tbr a community or neighborhood center use and would be stlbject to standards pet' EC 9.263 I(3) and EC 9,2640 et seq. PL - ?ubfic Land The next designation researched by satve was the PL (Public Lands) zone. Siting r'equirements for the PL zone require that parcels be owned solely by a public agency and be established primarily to provide fbr public uses: Uses may be operated by either the public agency itself0r by an outside agency when the prope~ has been declared surplus.. Providing that it were not operated by the city, Kaufinan Senior Center would be an outright perm ined use in the PL zone. Examples of other outrigl~t permi=ed t!ses in the PL zone potentially appropriate for the subject site include: day care setwices, meal services (non,profit), schools, government offices, libraries, park andrecreation facilities, neighborhood and community centers, specialized housing, and accessoD' uses where not prohibited by EC 9.2683 (refer to EC 9.2682 for a detailed description of permiaed uses in. PL). The PL zone also permits a number of conditional uses, of which the fOllowing examples would be potentially appropriaie for the subject site: offices, a~xist galleries/studios, assisted living, information technology semices, and other uses meeting the regulation and procedures for conditional use perm~B and all relevant standards in the Eugene code. When prope~ies in the PL zone are sold to nOn-public entities, they must be rezoned according to the procedures in EC 9~8850. The primm7 benefit of rezoning the subject prope~ to PL would be the allowances for pertained uses. The ciw would have a greater degree offlexibiliu, in terms of the ~pes of uses it could operate outright on the prope~. The primm7 disadvantage of the PL zone, is that it creates Mded process (rezone) should the ciu, wish to sell the prope~ to a private party in the furore. Fu~her, we would not recommend rezoning of the prope~W to PL if the Ci~ ~vere considering any of the uses that would be conditionally pertained under EC 9.2682(2) or subject to the Special Use Limitations in EC 9.2683. given that many of the uses listed are conditionally pertained under the existing RL2 and R-3 zoning already. S-D W-DoYvnto¥~,n g~eslside Special A~'ea Zone The third potential zoning designation reviewed was the S-DW, Downtown Westside Special Area Zone. With regard to allowed uses in the S-DW district, a number of residential. commercial, recreational and office options exist. HOwever, given fl~at the'purPose of the S-DW zone is to maintain the residential use and character of the area and provide for limited addition of commercial and se:ondao' uses, it is important to not~-that virtually all of the allowed and conditionally perm ined non-residential uses in the S-OW zone require that 65% of the total building area be dedicated to residential uses. Fu~lWmore, the residential standards in the S-DW zone require that residential development meet the standards for R-4, including density. Siting requirements in the Eugen~ code t~r the S-DW zone require that the subject site be located within an area identified tbra special mix of uses in the Westside Neighborhood Plan. Based on a review of the map. a large pomon Tax Lot 9200 is clearly within the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area as shown on the Westside Plan: Tax Lot 9300 appears to f~ll outside the Eastern Residenfial/M ixed Use area. Regard less of the location of the Eastern Residential/M ixed Use area boundm7, hoxvever, policy 2 of the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area explicitly prohibits the rezon}ng of R-3 zoned prope~W to mixed uses. Fu:rthermore. the criteria tbr establishment of a special area zone prohibit the application of the S designation to areas less than 0.5 acres in size. Because the R-2 pop, ion of the site. is less than 0.5 acres in size. it seems highly unlikely that the City would approve such a rezone, oven tbr the R-2 portion ol:the site.