Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - PH/Ord. on Kaufman HseEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance Establishing the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone; Amending Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending the Eugene Zoning Map Meeting Date: November 22, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Shawna Adams www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-2653 ISSUE STATEMENT On November 22, 2004, the Eugene City Council will hold a public hearing on an ordinance for three land use actions affecting the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House (a.k.a Kaufman Senior Center or Kaufman House), a City of Eugene Historic Landmark. These land use actions include: · The establishment of an S-H Historic Special Area Zone specific to the Kaufman House. · A zone change applying this S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone to the Kaufman House site (City file Z 04-12). · A code amendment establishing a zone change criterion that references siting requirements for uncodified, site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones (City file CA 04-2). BACKGROUND At the recommendation of City Facility Management Division staff, the Eugene City Council initiated the process for establishment of an S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone and code amendment at its May 24, 2004, public meeting. This recommendation was based on the April 2001 City Council direction to the City Manager to explore the possibility of selling the Kaufman Annex while also allowing for the continued use of the Kaufman House as a stand-alone senior center. Currently, both the Kaufman House and Kaufman Annex are bound by a conditional use permit for senior center use. The proposed land use actions are specific to the Kaufman House site. Approval will enable continued senior center use at the Kaufman House independent of the annex without need for a new conditional use permit. The proposed S-HK zone also establishes a limited range of uses to preserve the financial viability of the Kaufman House property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and deliberated on these requests on October 25, 2004. In a unanimous 6:0 vote, the Planning Commission supported a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed ordinance and related land use actions. Commissioner Levis was absent. In their deliberation, the Planning Commissioners generally agreed that the uses and standards in the proposed S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area Zone were well-suited to the site and neighborhood. During the hearing and deliberation, the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors and commissioners questioned whether the ordinance adequately ensured that certain permitted uses (most notably "Scientific and L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041122\S0411224.doc Educational Research Center" uses) will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. With consideration of the protections afforded through the Historic Alteration Review process, and the limited potential for additional site development, including parking, the Planning Commissioners concluded that the uses in question should remain listed as permitted outright, without the need for conditional use permit approval. However, the Planning Commission also recommended more restrictive language that clarifies Scientific and Educational Research Center uses, including laboratory use, are permitted provided there shall be no radioactive materials, toxic, or noxious matter associated with the use or process. The ordinance provided in Attachment A has been revised to reflect the Planning Commission recommendation. Additional changes have been incorporated in the ordinance to distinguish adjustment review options for the existing use and other allowed uses, with reference to the purpose of the S-HK zone. The draft minutes in Attachment B address the issues raised in the public hearing and Planning Commission deliberation in more detail. Further discussion is also included in the staff Agenda Item Summary for the Planning Commission in Attachment E. RELATED CITY POLICIES As previously noted, the proposed land use actions are the outgrowth of City Council direction to investigate opportunities for selling the Kaufman Annex while also allowing continued use of the Kaufman House as a senior center. The proposed land use actions generally advance the following Council Goal: · SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT A community that retains a high quafity of life anda healthy economy, effectively fink; landuse and transportation planning, and succes,fully manages growth and change in the urban environment Additionally, the proposed land use actions further the policy direction in the Historic Preservation Element of the Metro Plan, with the goal of preserving significant reminders of the city's origin as links between past, present, and future generations. COUNCIL OPTIONS None, as this is a public hearing only. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Given the site-specific nature of the proposed zone, the minimum requirements for quasi-judicial action must be met for the public hearing. The City Council is scheduled to take final action on December 6, 2004. The final action to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed applications will be based on applicable approval criteria. The applicable approval criteria are identified and addressed in the staff Agenda Item Summary for the Planning Commission in Attachment E, with findings provided in Attachment D. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041122\S0411224.doc SUGGESTED MOTION No action is proposed at this City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. Revised Draft Ordinance B. Draft minutes from the October 26, 2004, Planning Commission public hearing, deliberation, and action C. Testimony submitted at the October 25, 2004, Planning Commission work session D. Draft Ordinance and findings (Exhibit B) distributed at the October 26, 2004, public hearing E. Agenda, Staff Agenda Item Summary, and attachments for the October 26, 2004, Planning Commission public hearing **** PLEASE RETAINATTACHMENTS FOR DECEMBER 6, 2004, ACTION. **** FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Shawna Adams Telephone: (541) 682-2653 Staff E-Mail: Shawna. 1. adams~ci, eugene, or. us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041122\S0411224.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE S-HK HISTORIC KAUFMAN HOUSE SPECIAL AREA ZONE; AMENDING SECTION 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The Kaufman House was donated to the City of Eugene in 1972 and has been used as a senior center under a conditional use permit (CUP) for over 30 years, along with the adjacent Kaufman Annex (Beardsley House at 673 West 10th Avenue). B. Recognition of historic landmarks enhances the beautification of the city, promotes the city's economic health, and preserves the value of these properties. The regulation of designated historic landmarks provides a means to review changes to a landmark and ensure that historic and architectural values are preserved. The Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House was designated as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark on December 8, 2003. C. A Historic Special Area Zone is desirable for the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House to foster the continued preservation of the property by allowing appropriate uses beyond the senior services authorized by the CUP and establishing appropriate development standards. Existing zones contain uses that are inappropriate while omitting uses that are appropriate to this specific historic building and site. D. Site-specific historic zones are generally established by ordinance without codification. Copies of such ordinances are to be maintained at the City's Planning & Development Department (Sections 9.3020 and 9.3450 of the Eugene Code, 1971 ("EC")). The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is such a site-specific historic zone. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is hereby established and shall be subject to the following: (a) Purpose of S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone. The S-HK Special Area Zone is intended to afford the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House Historic Landmark ("Kaufman House") special treatment and protection so that the uses permitted and restrictions imposed will preserve and allow rehabilitation of the landmark's character-defining features (an example of a prominent local architect's, John Hunzicker's, work), and the distinctive landscape design features of Lloyd Bond. Those character-defining features are described in Exhibit A, Final Decision Eugene Historic Review Board, December 4, 2003. Ordinance- 1 C:~Documents and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DLKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589)4.DOC (b) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone applies only to the parcel of land located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200, as described on the attached Exhibit B. (c) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. The following Table S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements, identifies uses in the S-HK zone that are: (P) Permitted, subject to zone verification. (C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit. (S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000. S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements ~ .... ~ S-HK Accessory Uses. Examples related to residential use include a garage, storage shed, P and services primarily for use by residents on the site, such as a recreation room and laundry facility. Parking areas and garages constructed and used for a principle use on the development site, such as an apartment, are allowed as an accessory use. Accessory Uses. Examples related to non-residential use include accessory services P that are related to community service or professional office use, such as storage, classes, and recreational programs. Artist Gallery/Studio P Club or Lodge of State or National Organization P Community and Neighborhood Center P Church, Synagogue, and Temple, including associated residential structures for C religious personnel, but excluding elementary through high school Museum C School, Business or S~ecialized Educational Training, (excluding driving instruction) C Administrative, General, and Professional Office P Scientific and Educational Research Center, includes laboratory, provided there shall P be no radioactive materials, toxic, or noxious matter associated with the use or process. Dwellings One-Family Dwelling (1 Per Lot) P Duplex (Two-Family Attached on Same Lot) P Multiple Family (3 or More Dwellings on Same Lot) (See EC 9.5500) S Assisted Care & Day Care (Residences Providing Special Services, Treatment or Supervision) Assisted Care (5 or fewer people living in facility P Assisted Care (6 or more people living in facility) C Day Care (3 to 12 people served) (See EC 9.5200) S Day Care 13 or more people served C ~0 ~ m erc is e ~ ¢ e s :, Ordinance - 2 C:~Documents and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DLKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589)4.DOC S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements S-HK Bed and Breakfast Facility (See EC 9.5100) S Catering Service p Home Occupation (See EC 9.5350) S Temporary Activity (See EC 9.5800) S (d) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Development Standards. In addition to applicable provisions in the Eugene Code, 1971, the development standards listed in subsections (3) to (5) of this section shall apply to all development in the S-HK zone. In cases of conflict, the standards specifically set out in this ordinance shall apply. (1) Adjustment. An adjustment may be made to any of the standards referenced in subsections (3), (4) or (5)(b) of this section in accordance with EC 9.8030 (15) (2) Historic Proper,ty Alteration Approval. Any landscape alterations, building alterations or additions, and all new construction shall comply with EC 9.8175 Historic Property Alteration Approval Criteria. (3) Residential Development Standards. All residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2) shall be governed by General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the R-2 zone in EC 9.2750 and 9.2751, except that there shall be no minimum density requirement. (4) Non-Residential Development Standards. All non-residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2) shall be governed by General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the C-1 zone in EC 9.2170 and 9.2171, with the exception that all new buildings shall conform with the height limitations of the R-2 zone. (5) Parking. (a) Community and Neighborhood Center uses, including the existing senior center use, may continue to operate at the site using the amount of existing on-site parking in the driveway off 10th Avenue (three spaces). (b) Any other use on the site must comply with the parking requirements of EC 9.6410. (e) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Lot Standards. Partitions, subdivisions, and lot line adjustments are prohibited for the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone, except that the western property line as described on Exhibit B may be adjusted no more than a total of 10 feet. Ordinance - 3 C:~Documents and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DhKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589)4.DOC Section 2. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new subparagraph "(p)" thereto, to provide: 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (p) An uncodified ordinance establishing a site specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's planning and development department. Section 3. The Eugene Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200 from its existing R-2/R-3 zone to S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone, as described on the attached Exhibit B. Section 4. The findings attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference are adopted in support of this action. Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ~ day of ,2004 ~ day of ., 2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 4 C:~Documents and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DLKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589)4.DOC ATTACHMENT B D , FT SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers-City Ha11-777 Pearl Street October 26, 2004 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Charles Rusch, members; Shawna Adams, Gabe Flock, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Emmy Jenson, Glen Svendsen, Facility Man- agement Division ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CODE AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE Kaufman Senior Center.(File Numbers CA 04-2, Z 04-12). The following proposed actions are being initiated by the City of Eugene/City Council. The proposed land use actions below, affect the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House, a City of Eugene Historic Landmark, and are the subject of the public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission. · The establishment of a S-H Historic Special Area Zone ordinance specific to the Kaufman House. · A zone change applying this S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone to the Kaufman House site (City file Z 04-12). · A code amendment establishing a zone change criterion that references siting requirements in uncodified site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones (City file CA 04-2). The Subiect Property The property affected by these proposed actions is located at 996 Jefferson Street. The subject property SUMMARY MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 1 Public Hearing consists of the Kaufman Senior Center and grounds, but does not include the Kaufman Annex located at 673 West l0th Avenue. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Mr. Rusch, to (1) forward a rec- ommendation to the City Council in support of the proposed land use ac- tions to establish an S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area zone, to apply the zone to the Kaufman House, and to amend Eugene Code, Section 9.8865; (2) that the ordinance shall permit scientific and educational re- search center use providing there shall be no radioactive materials, toxic or noxious matter associated with the use process with those uses; (3) to direct staff to revise the draft ordinance adopting these land use actions. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0. SUMMARY MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 2 Public Hearing 'DRAFT Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers-City Ha11-777 Pearl Street October 26, 2004 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath, Vice President; Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Charles Rusch, members; Shawna Adams, Gabe Flock, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Emmy Jenson, Glen Svendsen, Facility Man- agement Division ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CODE AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE Kaufman Senior Center (File Numbers CA 04-2, Z 04-12). The following proposed actions are being initiated by the City of Eugene/City Council. The three proposed land use actions below affect the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House (a.k.a Kaufman Senior Center or Kaufman House), a City of Eugene Historic Landmark, and are the subject of the public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission: · The establishment of a S-H Historic Special Area Zone ordinance specific to the Kaufman House. · A zone change applying this S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone to the Kaufman House site (City file Z 04-12). · A code amendment establishing a zone change criterion that references siting requirements in uncodified site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones (City file CA 04-2). The Subject Property The property affected by these proposed actions is located at 996 Jefferson Street. The subject pr, )perty MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 'age 1 Public Hearing consists of the Kaufman Senior Center and grounds, but does not include the Kaufman Annex located at 673 West l0th Avenue. Mr. Lawless called meeting to order and opened the public hearing. At Mr. Lawless' request, commis- sioners and staff introduced themselves. Mr. Lawless explained the purpose of the hearing and asked commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, and biases or challenges to impartiality. Mr. Belcher stated he had been a member of the Board of the Westside Neighborhood, but had not been a member during the period of time when this issue was before the group. Ms. McMillan said she was a member of the Eugene Historic Review Board (HRB) and did participate in the board's action regarding the proposed action before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawless noted consensus that all Planning Commission members could remain impartial. Mr. Lawless explained the role and function of the commission and the format for the public hearing, which was a quasi-judicial proceeding. He called for testimony from the applicant and proponents. Associate Planner Shawna Adams provided a brief overview of the applications that were the subject of the public hearing. She referred to the written staff report provided to the commission. She said the purpose of the public hearing was to hear public testimony regarding three land use applications affecting the Kaufman House located at 996 Jefferson Street and is a designated City Historic Landmark property. Ms. Adams said the three land use actions included: · Establishment of a Historic Special Area Zone specific to the Kaufman House. · A zone change applying this new zone to the Kaufman House. · A related housekeeping code amendment. Ms. Adams said the Planning Commission's task was to conduct the public hearing according to quasi- judicial procedures and to forward a recommendation to the City Council based on the applicable MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 2 Public Hearing approval criteria, which were outlined in the Agenda Item Summary and Exhibit C of the draft ordinance distributed at the beginning of the hearing. Ms. Adams noted that the draft ordinance distributed at the hearing differed slightly from the ordinance included in Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary. She said that in the revised ordinance, the Purpose section now included a reference to the HRB's Designation of the Kaufman House. She added that both the ordinance before the Planning Commission and the ordinance in the Agenda Item Summary differ from the application materials that were provided for creation of the historic zone, noting that the Use Table and Purpose section in particular had some changes. She said that the changes were the result of discussions with the City Attorney's office, Historic Preservation and Land Use Management staff, and questions that arose from public testimony. Ms. Adams said that the City Council hearing for the proposed land use actions was tentatively scheduled for November 22, 2004, and final action was scheduled for December 6, 2004. She said that meant the Planning Commission was being asked to deliberate and forward a recommendation following today's public hearing. Ms. Adams stated that three letters had been received since the Agenda Item Summary had been prepared. Those three letters were distributed at the October 25, 2004 Planning Commission work session and to Mr. Duncan today. The testimony included a letter from the Jefferson Westside Neighbors that expressed support for the proposed land use actions, with objections to certain proposed uses without further City review. The remaining two letters were submitted on behalf of the property owner, the City of Eugene, and the tenant, the Emerald Empire Council of the Aging (EECA), in response to the testimony from the neighborhood association, and in support of the proposed land use actions. Ms. Adams expected that the majority of the testimony at the public hearing would be related to the proposed use question and she was prepared to respond to questions as needed. She added that Historic Special Area zones were intended to provide a range of uses and standards which were more appropriate for historic properties than would otherwise be provided in existing zoning districts. She said many of the permitted uses would otherwise be provided in existing zoning districts, adding that many of the uses that would be permitted in existing R-2 and R-3 zoning were not compatible with the historic features of the Historic Kaufman House and grounds, and would leave property owners wishing to preserve historic properties few options. Furthermore, Ms. Adams stated, many uses that may not be appropriate as MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 3 Public Hearing permitted outright at high intensity in an R-2/R-3 and mixed use zoned area would be compatible as adaptive uses in historic structures on a constrained site such as the Kaufman House. She said in consideration of the existing site improvements, zoning and surrounding neighborhood, as well as Historic Alteration Review requirements applicable to this property, staff supported the uses in the proposed ordinances. She emphasized that any changes to the exterior of the Kaufman House or grounds would trigger Historic Alteration Review and possibly Adjustment Review, both of which were Type II land use applications that required public notice and opportunity for public review. She read into the record the applicable approval criteria from EC 9.3020 for the proposed stablishment of S Special Area Zone; from EC 9.8865 for the proposed zone change; and from approval criteria from: EC 9.8065 for the proposed code amendment. Mr. Lawless explained the role and function of the commission and the format for the public hearing, which was a quasi-judicial proceeding. He called for testimony from the applicant and proponents. Mr. Lawless explained the process for testifying at the public hearing. Mr. Lawless asked Planning Commissioners to report any site visits. Mr. Belcher, Ms. McMillan, and Ms. Colbath reported that they had been inside the building for various events. Mr. Duncan said he drove by the building daily. Mr. Lawless said he had visited the building in the past, and drove by the building regularly. Terri Harding, Satre Associates, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, spoke on behalf of applicant, the City of Eugene, Central Services Department, Facility Management Division. She noted that city staff, Glen Svendsen and Emmy Jenson, were present. Ms. Harding referred to a site plan displayed in the Council Chamber. She noted this was the first Historic Special Area Zone under Land Use Code Update (LUCU). Ms. Harding referred to the Satre Associates report, located on page 18 of the Agenda Item Summary. She said the Kaufman Senior Center had been a part of the community in the Westside neighborhood since the early 1970's, when Trude Kaufman, a local business woman, donated the property and an MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 4 Public Hearing adjacent home to the City of Eugene. The properties were located at 996 Jefferson Street (Kaufman Senior Center) and 673 West 10th Avenue (Kaufman Annex). The City of Eugene provided senior programs in both structures under the terms of a conditional use permit (CU72-45) until 1998, when city budget cuts necessitated leasing the buildings to non-profit organizations. Until recently the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), a Lane Community College (LCC) program, provided senior activities on the property. However, further budget cuts resulted in a lack of any city or LCC funding for programs in either of the buildings, and RSVP moved its operation to United Way. At present, the Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA) is using the property, and hopes to identify new ongoing funding sources in order to continue to provide senior services at the Kaufman Senior Center. The city is providing free rent and major maintenance funding for up to two years, according to City Council Resolution 4773 from August 2003. She added that EECA must begin paying market rate rent in July 2005. Ms. Harding said in April 2001, the City Council asked the City Manager to have Facility Management (Facilities) staff explore the possibility of selling the Kaufman Annex separately from the Kaufman Senior Center as part of a strategy for providing funds to the Facility Replacement Reserve Fund. Lack of accessibility, the need for major facility repairs to make the building suitable for the public, relocation of the former tenant (RSVP) to a new office, and ongoing budget limitations for the city make the Kaufman Annex eligible for designation as surplus property. Initial research by Facilities identified barriers to the sale of the Annex property related to the existing conditional use permit. Facilities staff joined with Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) staff to hire Satre Associates to research the various factors related to the sale of the Annex property and to identify a process through which sale of the Annex property could be facilitated in accordance with the directive from City Council and the City Manager. Satre Associates February 2003 report identified four procedural options, one of which was to pursue a City Historic Landmark designation for both properties, and a subsequent rezone to Historic for Kaufman Senior Center, allowing for the creation of a Special Area Zone detailing uses and development standards appropriate for the senior center site. This option was selected by Facilities staff as the best way to preserve the historic structures and gardens while allowing for a range of uses that would be MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 5 Public Hearing compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, regardless of who owned the properties In December 2003, both properties were designated as Historic City Landmarks by the HRB. The Kaufman Senior Center is now officially known as the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House, and the Kaufman Annex is now the Grant and Maude Beardsley House, both named after their long time owners. Referring to her October 25, 2004 letter to the Eugene Planning Commission, Ms. Harding explained that the proposed dual purpose mission promoted by the City Council was to allow the Annex property to be sold separately from the main house, and to allow EECA to operate senior services, and eventually become self-sufficient enough to lease the building at market rent. She said that the Historic designation of both properties was the first step in fulfilling that mission. She said the Annex would retain R-2 zoning and could be sold separately upon adoption of a Special Area Zone for the main house, which as proposed, would remove the need for EECA to obtain a conditional use permit. Ms. Harding explained the second part of the mission. She said in order for EECA to take over the building and become self-sufficient, Special Area Zone language that would facilitate its use was required. She noted that contrary to testimony submitted by the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors (JWN), the category "Community and Neighborhood Center" did not encompass all potential uses needed by EECA to become self-sufficient. She added that in order for EECA to operate senior services and possibly purchase the building, they would need financial assistance to pay the market rent beginning in July 2005, as mandated by Council Resolution 4773. She said the most likely potential partners included office uses such as attorneys, doctors, and counselors, that did not fall under the Community and Neighborhood Services land use category, rather than Administrative, General, and Professional Offices. Similarly she noted, potential Scientific and Educational Research Center uses included organizations such as Oregon Research Institute (ORI) and Oregon Center for Clinical Investigations (OCCI). Ms. Harding stated that the recommendation in the ordinance before the Planning Commission placed a limitation on the Scientific and Educational Research Center uses that prohibited use of toxic substances. Ms. Harding stated that it was not acceptable to the city to deem Administrative, General, and Profes- sional Office and Scientific and Educational Research Center uses conditional in the Kaufman Special MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 6 Public Hearing Area Zone, noting that do to so would compromise the mission of the project by subjecting EECA and potential future buyers to a costly, time-consuming, uncertain land use process, that also posed interest- ing logistical challenges due to the likelihood that different uses would share portions of the building. She stated that risk would cause the city to abandon the Special Zone process and could lead to an empty building and reversion of the site to R-2/R-3 zoning with the potential for high density residential infill in the garden area. Ms. Harding said the applicant believed that because of the review processes that applied to every new use or occupancy, even outright permitted uses received a significant review and consideration. She said that any change in use would require new analysis of parking requirements and an adjustment if code standards could not be met. She added that any change to the exterior of the building or garden would require Historic Alteration review. Ms. Harding said all new uses would have to comply with applicable building code standards, effectively limiting the available space within the building and the types of uses likely to locate there. Sandra Bishop, 591 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, said she lived across the street from the Kaufman Senior Center. She said the Kaufman Senior Center had always been an integral part of the neighborhood, and was a legacy from the Kaufman family. She expressed hope that the Planning Commission would allow Kaufman Senior Center to continue to operate at the site and to maintain the historic status of the building and the grounds. Ms Bishop said she had attended the neighborhood meeting when this topic was discussed, felt all of the neighbors were in support of the proposal. Elaine Barrett, 87344 Prince Lane, Eugene, spoke as the Director of the RSVP program sponsored by LCC in 1998, when RSVP stepped into the Kaufman Center to continue operating it as a senior center and as the RSVP office. She said when EECA assumed operating the center, as an EECA board member she assumed the role of running the EECA. She expressed concern about the requirement for EECA to begin paying fair market rent in 2005. She said she did not want to see the building turned into an office building, but acknowledged the necessity of income to enable EECA to maintain the building. She said she also supported the building being designated as Historic. Rebecca Bassett 1409 West 8th Avenue, Eugene, said she operated the Money Management Program that MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 7 Public Hearing was co-sponsored by the American Association for Retired People (AARP). She said the program took at $22,000 budget cut about 1 ½ years ago when LCC discontinued sponsoring the program. She added that EECA took over as the sponsoring body so that the program could continue operating. She said services were offered only to seniors at the present time, but she hoped to expand the program to include younger people with disabilities. She said she had participated in operation of the Kaufman Senior Center, and appreciated the potential the building had to offer, although it had limitations due to the age of the building. She said she supported renting space to a small scale user to bring in income, and she supported continued use of the Kaufman Center as a neighborhood center. Marilyn Odell, 750 West Broadway, Eugene, spoke as the representative of the JWN. Ms. Odell said she was asking the Planning Commission to modify the permitted uses under the proposal. She said she had spent time with city staff to address neighborhood concerns, and there did not appear to be any compromise. Ms. Odell said the Kaufman Center had always been an important part of the neighbor- hood, and the JWN wanted to do what was reasonable for the neighborhood to continue the operation of the Kaufman Center as a neighborhood center operated by a private organization. She said she understood that all of the operations of the EECA fell within the umbrella of a neighborhood center. She said she heard for the first time tonight there was a proposal to allow rental of office space by the EECA to other entities. She said the neighborhood concern was that the building would become rental property if the building was sold. She said the JWN proposed Administrative, General, and Professional Office and Scientific and Educational Research Center that included laboratories not be permitted uses but conditional uses, referring to the staff report that described the uses. Mr. Lawless called for staff response to testimony. Ms. Harding provided the city staff response to the public testimony. She said she had erred in conversations with Ms. Odell in stressing listing certain uses as conditional would make the building difficult to sell in the future, by omitting the burden that would be placed on EECA and its survival. Additionally, Ms. Harding said building upgrades such as electrical improvements would place a financial burden on both EECA and the Money Management program. Ms. Adams said Historic Alteration Review of the building applied only to the exterior changes, adding MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 8 Public Hearing that many changes that occurred on the interior could be related to the occupancy of the building. She said those types of upgrades could have an effect on the exterior to the building, depending upon project requirements. She added that building uses were further constrained by parking, noting that there were only three spaces on site. She said the staff position was that there would not be significant value added to applying conditional use permit requirements to additional uses. Ms. Adams said the Historic Alteration Review provided greater protection from the perspective of compatibility, adding that the criteria directly addressed existing site and circumstances and alterations that could occur on the site. She added that many of the conditional use criteria assumed there would be additional site development that could be quite intensive in the R-2/R-3 zone. She opined that with R-2/R-3, or mixed use zoning, the site could be intensively developed while meeting the conditional use test, while Historic Alteration Review criteria would not allow as intensive use. Ms. Adams added that any changes to the exterior of the dwelling or to the grounds would trigger Historic Alteration Review and potentially Adjustment Review, both of which require public notice and an opportunity for public review and input prior to a decision, as well as an opportunity for appeal to the Hearings Official. Mr. Lawless asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Duncan asked how large the building was. Ms. Jenson replied the building was approximately 8,000 square feet on three floors, adding there was a basement, first and second floors. She said the second floor housed EECA and Money Management offices, a quilting room, a library, a kitchen and a bathroom. Mr. Duncan asked how much rent EECA was currently paying. Ms. Jenson replied that City Council committed to $1 annual rent, and the city paying for major maintenance for two years, to allow EECA to get their feet on the ground, since there was presently not a public entity that could financially support the programs. Mr. Belcher asked Ms. Harding for an explanation on the safeguards in place to prevent research with toxic materials. Ms. Harding replied that there was a restriction on public land zoning that placed a limitation on the scientific and educational research center use. She said Section 2 P said, "Scientific and MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 9 Public Hearing Educational Research Centers are permitted with the exception of uses that generate radioactive emissions, noxious chemicals ......"She said that similar language could be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lawless asked for an explanation of the conditional use process, time, and costs, to enable the Planning Commission to weigh how onerous the process would be for the EECA. Ms. Adams said the conditional use process was a Type 3 application process that required a predevel- opment conference that had a fee, submittal of an application, a completeness review, and ultimately a public hearing and decision by the Hearings Official. Mr. Flock added that the process would take three to six months, and speculated would cost the applicant upwards of $3,000. He added that there was a requirement for a predevelopment conference prior submittal of the application. Mr. Lawless asked if an entity requested a conditional use permit, could the permit be transferred to another user. Mr. Nystrom replied that the use would be transferable as long the new use was in the same category. Mr. Rusch asked what types of services were offered at the senior center. Ms. Barrett explained there was a variety of services at the center, based upon the interests of partici- pants, including group activities and discussions on topics of interest to participants; meal service and entertainment on Fridays for about 40 people; direction to needed social services; EECA/Money Management offered trained volunteers to visit people in their homes to help them balance their checkbooks; field trips; exercise programs; board and card games; political candidate speakers; and, limited medical services, such as foot care. She said a goal of the program was to keep activities low in cost. She added that she needed to begin grant writing that would be enhanced by a long term lease or purchase of the property. Ms. Colbath asked if there would be a public process if exterior changes were requested in the future to MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 10 Public Hearing the building such as additional parking, and if there was a request for new ownership. Ms. Adams said Historic Alteration Review with public notice and public comment to the Planning Director prior to a decision would be required. She said any such decision would be appealable to the Hearings Official. Ms. Colbath asked how much Commercial use is allowed by the current three parking spaces at the site allow. Ms. Adams explained the ordinance said the existing senior center would be allowed to operate with the three spaces, but that a new use would be required to meet the parking requirements in the code, with an opportunity for an Adjustment Review. She indicated that any commercial use would need to be of a very low intensity to comply. Ms. Harding added that Adjustment Review would be applicable for any office use tenant, including EECA, if they could not meet parking requirements in the code. Ms. McMillan stated that she understood that a zone change to historic typically provides for an exemption to parking requirement, noting that an additional use did not necessarily mean additional parking was required. Mr. Nystrom explained that new uses would require compliance with current parking requirements. He added that it would be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to determine exceptions and allowed uses. He said the protection accorded to both the building and the grounds by their historic designation provided greater protection for the neighborhood than a conditional use permit would provide. Mr. Duncan expressed concern for parking for future uses, noting that although it appeared that as many as 18 parking spaces could be required for professional office use in a building of that size, the historyic, building, and site constraints would preclude the ability of future uses to meet that parking requirement. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 11 Public Hearing Mr. Nystrom said such a use would raise serious questions about how parking could be accommodated, which was the protective net. He added that each proposal would be evaluated individually. Ms. Adams added that the use list did not include uses that would not be feasible'under any circum- stance, adding that the intent was to allow a range of uses that could operate at a very low intensity. She said uses that required 18 parking spaces on the site would be regarded as too intensive. Mr. Duncan said that part of the goal was to maintain the Kaufman building into perpetuity, and that by limiting uses to the extent that a non-profit could not operate there, the building could be vacant for an extended period of time, which he did not think, was the intent of the Planning Commission. He added that he wanted to see the building used for decades. Ms. Adams indicated that the impetus for the historic designation was to allow EECA to continue to operate at the site. Mr. Duncan expressed concern for the city's track record for dealing with surplus property, and the requirement of market rate rent would have on non-profit groups such as the EECA. Mr. Nystrom said the question was a challenging one, seeking a viable use that was able to pay the required rent, coupled with the concern that the use fit into the neighborhood. He said he believed this was a good match and that there were sufficient protective measures in place to address neighborhood issues while at the same time did not undercut the ability of other uses in the future. Mr. Belcher asked for clarification on prohibition of certain types of research, particularly if the site was sold and was no longer public land. Ms. Adams noted that the code permitted scientific and research uses were allowed in both public land and commercial zones. Mr. Nystrom added that the more stringent requirement would be included in the ordinance that would prohibit use of toxic and noxious materials regardless of whether the land was in public or private ownership. MINUTES -Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 12 Public Hearing Mr. Belcher asked if the city, as the current owner of the property, could pay for the cost of the conditional use application. Ms. Jenson replied that there is no funding designated to subsidize such fees. Mr. Belcher asked if an Adjustment Review occurred reducing the parking requirement, and the property was subsequently sold to a private entity, if the Adjustment Review would transfer to the new owner. Mr. Nystrom replied that the ownership issue was not a critical factor in the future. He said as long as future owners adhered to conditions established previously, the owners would be entitled to the benefits. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and the public record. Mr. Belcher said the record would be reopened when the issue went to the City Council. Mr. Lawless asked for comments and discussion from the Planning Commission. Mr. Belcher said he did not have a position, but felt the concern for the Planning Commission was whether or not the use should be conditional. Mr. Duncan said he believed adequate restrictions are in place for permitted uses that would preclude changes that may not be compatible with the neighborhood. He said he was not too concerned about professional office use. Mr. Duncan expressed concern with scientific and research center use, adding that he could live with the use with the rider proposed by staff. He added that he leaned away from conditional use permits due to cost and time. Ms. McMillan said that the building was currently being used as administrative and general offices, adding that there was not a lot of room in the building to put many offices. She expressed hope that the building would continue as a senior center, adding that she liked the idea that a small space could be sublet to help EECA pay the rent. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 13 Public Hearing Mr. Rusch agreed with Ms. McMillan, noting both the short and long range implications. He said it was important to give as much support as possible to the good work currently taking place at the center. He wanted to write the ordinance to allow as much flexibility as possible for continuation of the senior center. He said he had no problem with the proposal as written. Mr. Lawless said he was less concerned with the future based on restrictions on parking. He said the safeguards as proposed were more than adequate and he was very supportive of the ordinance as proposed. Ms. Colbath said she wanted to support the current activities at the Kaufrnan Senior Center and wanted to make sure there were sufficient protections in place for potential future uses. Ms. Adams replied that the ordinance as written would require Adjustment Review for an adjustment to the parking requirements with a public process and Planning Director decision. Mr. Belcher asked what the normal review process would be if the Adjustment Review was not requested.. Ms. Adams replied that if the use was changed, a building permit showing compliance with parking standards would be required, and that could be very challenging for many uses, particularly if there was a need to accommodate more parking on site.. Mr. Flock added that if the parking standard could not be met, an Adjustment Review would be available. Mr. Nystrom said that they were trying to spell out the ground rules for parking, since it had been orchestrated very carefully, noting even the senior center use included a certain level of protection. He added that the requirement for three parking spaces was specific to a senior center, and that other uses would be subject to a greater parking requirement that would be difficult to meet. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Adams replied that street parking was not currently included in the senior center parking requirement, and it would not be counted for a future need. M1NUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 14 Public Hearing Mr. Belcher said the neighborhood had a concern he wished to address, but that a conditional use permit was not the appropriate tool. He said he would move to include the provision recommended by staff that addressed the use of scientific and educational research materials into the ordinance and that the application be approved as submitted. Ms. McMillan, moved, seconded by Mr. Rusch, to (1) forward a rec- ommendation to the City Council in support of the proposed land use ac- tions to establish an S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area zone, to apply the zone to the Kaufman House, and to amend Eugene Code, Section 9.8865; (2) that the ordinance shall permit scientific and educational re- search center use providing there shall be no radioactive materials, toxic or noxious matter associated with the use process with those uses; (3) to direct staff to revise the draft ordinance adopting these land use actions. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Lawless adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:12OO4[planning and development departmentlplanning divisionlplanning commission~pcO41026ph, doc MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 15 Public Hearing JEFFERSON WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT C October 21, 2004 Planning Commission City of Eugene 99 W. l0th Ave. Cit~ Of Eugene Eugene, OR 97401 Plannin~ Division RE: Code Amendment Application, File No. CA 04-2 Kaufman Senior Center Dear Planning Commission: The Jefferson Westside Neighborhood reviewed the proposed zone change and special historic zone designation at its September 14th meeting. This proposal not only to allows the Kaufman Center to continue as a senior center by allowing the sale of the Annex, but lays the foundation for the sale of the Kaufman Center itself. It asks the JWN to permit a host of office uses without any further review. JWN offers for your consideration the following testimony: 1. The JWN supports all efforts by the City to retain the Kaufrnan Senior Center as a senior center. In support of those efforts, the JWN supports the proposal to create a special historic zone for the "Kaufman Center." 2. The JWN supports the efforts by the City to allow the sale of the "Annex." It is our understanding that the special historic zone designation for the Kaufman Center will override and eliminate the existing CUP that covers both the Kaufman Center and the Annex, and that the zoning for the Annex property will revert to its underlying R-2. 3. The JWN supports special area zone uses, identified in Table 9.3610, that support the continued use of the Kaufman Center as a senior center or those uses permitted in the underlying R-2 zone. The only use necessary for the continued operation of the Kaufman Center as a senior center is the designation of "Community and Neighborhood Center" as a permitted use. 4. The JWN objects to the following office uses as "permitted" uses: "Administrative, General, and Professional Office" and "Scientific and Educational Research Center." JWN proposes that these uses be subject to a conditional use permit. a. These additional uses are not necessary for the operation of a senior center, but have been added as permitted uses to facilitate sale of the Kaufinan Center in the future. Letter to Eugene Planning Commission RE: Code Amendment Application, Kaufman Senior Center · October 21, 2004 b. Staff asserts that the Kaufinan Center property will not sell if these office uses are not "permitted" uses. City staff believe that designation of these uses as conditional will "make the property impossible to sell." c. Designation of these uses as conditional is the only way to allow JWN to have an effective voice in the future use of this dominate neighborhood property. The cost, delay and uncertainty to a potential purchaser presented by the City's conditional use permit process is within the control of the City. d. Absent designation of office uses as condition, the only City review over the use of this property would pursuant to an occupancy permit for compliance with parking requirements. Only if a new' user proposed to make exterior, modifications or proposed new construction in the historic garden, requiring application for a historic alteration, woUld there be neighborhood input as Type II application. The historic alternation process presents a potential purchaser with the same uncertainty as the CLIP process the City argues would make the property impossible to sell. JWN submits that if the City wants to allow office uses of the Kaufman Center property in the future, that those only be subject to a conditional use permit. JWN has discussed its objections extensively with City staff including Shawna Adams, Planning Department, Emmy Jenson, Facility Management, and the City's consultant, Terri Harding of Satre Associates. However, despite extensive discussions, the City has not offered any compromise. The JWN remains committed to working with the City to resolve neighborhood concerns with this special historic zone proposal. Respectfully submitted, for JWN Executive Board ' :i. October 25, 2004 Eugene Planning Commission c/o Shawna Adams City of Eugene Planning Division SATRI~ 99 West l 0th Avenue , :: :~ ,, ~::! · Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Kaufman Senior Center - Special Area Zone Comments Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter serves as testimony from the Applicant (Facility Management Division) related to comments received from the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors about the Kaufrnan Senior Center Special Area Zone. The Jefferson-Westside Neighbors' (JWN) letter concentrates on the proposed allowance for "Administrative, General, and Professional Office" uses and "Scientific and Educational Research Center" as' permitted outright uses. The letter states that the JWN prefers the above-mentioned uses to be conditionally permitted, and that the category "Community and Neighborhood Center" encompasses all uses related to the operation of the building by the Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA). The city explored land use alternatives for the site to fulfill a dual purpose mission promoted by the Eugene City Council - to allow the Annex property to be sold separately from the main house, and to allow EECA to operate senior services, and eventually become self sufficient enough to buy the building from the city. The Historic designation of both properties was the first step in fulfilling the mission. The Annex will revert to R-2 zoning and can be sold separately upon adoption of a Special Area Zone for the main house, which, as written, will obviate the need for EECA to obtain a conditional use permit. The second part of the mission, enabling EECA to take over the building and become Satre Associates, P.C. self sufficient, requires Special Area Zone language that will facilitate their use of the 132 East Broadway building. Contrary to the JWN letter, the category "Community and Neighborhood Suite 536 Center" does not encompass all uses potentially needed by EECA to become self Eugene, Oregon 97401 sufficient. To enable EECA to operate senior services and to possibly buy the Phone 541.465.4721 building, they will need financial assistance to pay the market rent beginning in July Fax 541.465.4722 1.800.662.7094 2005, as mandated by Council Resolution 4773. The most likely potential partners www. satrepc.com include office uses such as attorneys, doctors, and counselors. These uses do not fall under the "Community and Neighborhood Services" land use category; rather they are "Administrative, General, and Professional Offices." Similarly, potential "Scientific and Educational Research Center" uses include organizations such as Oregon Research Institute and Oregon Center for Clinical Investigations (OCCI). Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists Kaufman Senior Center Page 2 Special Area Zone Response to Public Testimony It is not acceptable to the city to deem "Administrative, General, and Professional Office" and "Scientific and Educational Research Center" uses conditional in the Kaufman Special Area Zone. To do so would compromise the mission of the project by subjecting EECA and potential future buyers to a costly, time consuming and uncertain land use process. This risk would cause the city to abandon the Special Area Zone process, likely leading to an empty building and split R-2/R-3 zoning on the site with the potential for high density residential infill in the garden area. The Applicant still believes that because of the review processes that apply to every new use or occupancy, even outright permitted uses receive a significant amount of review and consideration. Any change in use will require new analysis of parking requirements and an adjustment if code standards can't be met. Any change to the exterior of the building or garden will require Historic Alteration review. And, importantly, all new uses will have to comply with applicable building code standards, effectively limiting the available space within the building and the types of uses likely to locate there. The following text briefly responds to comments contained in the JWN letter. JWN comments are in italics and responses are in plain text. The Applicant wishes to provide clarifying information with regard to items 3 and 4. 3. The d-WN supports special area zone uses, identified in Table 9.3610, that support the continued use of the Kaufrnan Center as a senior center or those uses permitted in the underlying R-2 zone. The only use necessary for the continued operation of the Kaufman Center as a senior center is the designation of "Community and Neighborhood Center" as a permitted use. As explained above, it is not tree that the "Community and Neighborhood Center" use would cover all likely EECA partners needed to assure their financial survival. 4. The dWN objects to the following office uses as "permitted" uses: "Administrative, General, and Professional Office" and "Scientific and Educational Research Center. "JWNproposes that these uses be subject to a conditional Use permit. a. These additional uses are not necessary for the operation of a senior center, but have been added as permitted uses to facilitate sale of the Kaufman Center in the future. As explained above, the additional office uses are necessary to allow EECA sufficient flexibility to meet their financial obligations. In addition, a reasonable list of permitted uses is necessary for any future lessee or owner to make financially feasible use of the building. b. Staff asserts that the Kaufman Center property will not sell if&ese office uses are not "permitted" uses. City staff believe &at designation of&ese uses as conditional will "make the property impossible to sell" The immediate reason to allow a flexible use list is to facilitate use of the building by EECA and their potential partners. In addition, a conditional use designation for office Kaufman Senior Center Page 3 Special Area Zone Response to Public Testimony uses would make the property more difficult to sell if the city must consider sale in the future. c. Designation of these uses as conditional is the only way to allow JWN to have an effective voice in the future use of this dominate (sic) neighborhood property. The cost, delay and uncertainty to a potential purchaser presented by the City's conditional use permit process is within the control of the City. The last sentence is incorrect. The city must charge permit fees according to its adopted fee schedule, and must follow land use procedures as outline din the code. The CUP process is a discretionary, Type III process that does not guarantee a particular outcome. d. Absent designation of office uses as condition, the only City review over the use of this property would pursuant to an occupancy permit for compliance with parking requirements. Only ifa new user proposed to make exterior modifications or proposed new construction in the historic garden, requiring application for a historic alteration, would there be neighborhood input as Type II application. The historic alternation (sic) process presents a potential purchaser with the same uncertainty as the CUP process the City argues would make the property impossible to sell. This paragraph does not accurately reflect the review processes proposed for this Special Area Zone. Any change of use or occupancy would be required to be reviewed under the land use code and the building code. In addition, requiring a CUP for small offices proposed in conjunction with EECA would pose logistical problems due to shared use of portions of the facility. Thank you for your time. We look forward to presenting testimony at your October 26th heating. Emmy Jenson (682-5190) and I are both available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Terd L. ' P cc: Emmy Jenson Emerald Empire Council On Aging Money Management Program 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 342-1881 Fax (541) 342-1882 October 22, 2004 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Gl'IV, 0F PDk~'~.~iN G You are currently reviewing a proposal to re-zone the Kaufman House property. A challenge has been issued by the Jefferson Westside Neighbors against two specific potential uses of the Kaufman Senior Center under the new Special Area Zone. These uses are 'Administrative, General and Professional Office' and 'Scientific and Educational Research Center'. The challenge states that these potential uses are not necessary for the continued operation of the building as a Senior Center, but I disagree. It is vitally important that EECA has the maximum flexibility under the new regulations in order to form partnerships with both individuals and organizations. These partnerships will contribute to the financial well being of the center and make it possible for us to continue to operate. We have not had this flexibility in the past and were unable to form partnerships with some very worthwhile organizations, such as the Literacy Council. This partnership would have benefited the organization, the community, and us, but was impossible to implement with our prior regulations under the existing conditional use permit, which only allowed uses directly related to senior services. We have also been unable to write for grants that fall beyond the bounds of our very narrow scope. In order to make the center thrive we need to widen the possibilities as much as possible, while imposing as few restrictions as is prudent. EECA and the City of Eugene have worked closely together over the past two years on a plan to keep the Center operating. This plan includes the zone change and additional community uses. I live and work in the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood and I am asking the planning commission to accept the Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone as written and give the Kaufman Center a fighting chance to succeed. Thank you, Program Coordinator EECA Money Management Program ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. ~?, /'~2:'~? ~ AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE S-HK HISTORIC KAUFMAN HOUSE SPECIAL AREA ZONE; AMENDING SECTION 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The Kaufman House was donated to the City of Eugene in 1972 and has been used as a senior center under a conditional use permit (CUP) for over 30 years, along with the adjacent Kaufman Annex (Beardsley House at 673 West 10th Avenue). B. Recognition of historic landmarks enhances the beautification of the city, promotes the city's economic health, and preserves the value of these properties. The regulation of designated historic landmarks provides a means to review changes to a landmark and ensure that historic and architectural values are preserved. The Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House was designated as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark on December 8, 2003. C. A Historic Special Area Zone is desirable for the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House to foster the continued preservation of the property by allowing appropriate uses beyond the senior services authorized by the CUP and establishing appropriate development standards. Existing zones contain uses that are inappropriate while omitting uses that are appropriate to this specific historic building and site. D. Site-specific historic zones are generally established by ordinance without codification. Copies of such ordinances are to be maintained at the City's Planning & Development Department (Sections 9.3020 and 9.3450 of the Eugene Code, 1971 ("EC")). The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is such a site-specific historic zone. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is hereby established and shall be subject to the following: (a) Purpose of S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone. The S-HK Special Area Zone is intended to afford the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House Historic Landmark ("Kaufman House") special treatment and protection so that the uses permitted and restrictions imposed will preserve and allow rehabilitation of the landmark's character-defining features (an example of a prominent local architect's, John Hunzicker's, work), and the distinctive landscape design features of Lloyd Bond. Those character-defining features are described in Exhibit A, Final Decision Eugene Historic Review Board, December 4, 2003. Ordinance- 1 C:~2)ocuments and Settings\ceplsla\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DXaKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589) 1.DOC (b) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, thc S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone applies only to thc parcel of land located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200, as described on thc attached Exhibit B. (c) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. The following Table S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements, identifies uses in the S-HK zone that are: (P) Permitted, subject to zone verification. (C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit. (S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000. S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements , S-HK Accessory Uses. Examples related to residential use include a garage, storage shed, P and services primarily for use by residents on the site, such as a recreation room and laundry facility. Parking areas and garages constructed and used for a principle use on the development site, such as an apartment, are allowed as an accessory use. Accessory Uses. Examples related to non-residential use include accessory services P that are related to community service or professional office use, such as storage, classes, and recreational programs. Educatlon~,,Cul~ural~ Religious~ So~ial and Fraternal: ~ ~' ~ ' Artist Gallery/Studio P Club or Lodge of State or National Organization P Community and Neighborhood Center P Church, Synagogue, and Temple, including associated residential structures for C religious personnel, but excluding elementary through high school Museum C School, Business or Specialized Educational Training, (excluding driving instruction) C Administrative, General, and Professional Office P Scientific and Educational Research Oenter, includes laboratory P Dwellings One-Family Dwelling (1 Per Lot) P Duplex (Two-Family Attached on Same Lot) P Multiple Family (3 or More Dwellings on Same Lot) (See EC 9.5500) S Assisted Care & Day Care (Residences Providing Special Services, Treatment or Supervision) Assisted Care i5 or fewer people living in facility P Assisted Care (6 or more people living in facility) C Day Care (3 to 12 people served) (See EC 9.5200) S Day Care 13 or more people served C Bed and Breakfast Facility (See EC 9.5100) S Catering Service p Ordinance - 2 CSDocuments and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DLKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589) 1.DOC S-HK Historic Kaufman Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements S-HK Home Occupation (See EC 9.5350) S Temporary Activity (See EC 9.5800) S (d) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Development Standards. In addition to applicable provisions in the Eugene Code, 1971, the development standards listed in subsections (3) to (5) of this section shall apply to all development in the S-HK zone. In cases of conflict, the standards specifically set out in this ordinance shall apply. (1) Adjustment. An adjustment may be made to any of the standards referenced in subsections (3) or (4) of this section in accordance with EC 9.8030 (15) (2) Historic Proper.ty Alteration Approval. Any landscape alterations, building alterations or additions, and all new construction shall comply with EC 9.8175 Historic Property Alteration Approval Criteria. (3) Residential Development Standards. All residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2) shall be governed by General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the R-2 zone in EC 9.2750 and 9.2751, except that there shall be no minimum density requirement. (4) Non-Residential Development Standards. All non-residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2) shall be governed by General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the C-1 zone in EC 9.2170 and 9.2171, with the exception that all new buildings shall conform with the height limitations of the R-2 zone. (5) Parking. Community and Neighborhood Center uses, including the existing senior center use, may continue to operate at the site using the amount of existing on-site parking in the driveway off 10th Avenue (three spaces). Any other use on the site must comply with the parking requirements of EC 9.6410. (e) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Lot Standards. Partitions, subdivisions, and lot line adjustments are prohibited for the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone, except that the western property line as described on Exhibit B may be adjusted no more than a total of 10 feet. Section 2. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new subparagraph "(p)" thereto, to provide: 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including Ordinance - 3 CSDocuments and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DLKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589) 1.DOC the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zonein: (p) An uncodified ordinance establishing a site specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's planning and development department. Section 3. The Eugene Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200 from its existing R-2/R-3 zone to S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone, as described on the attached Exhibit B. Section 4. The findings attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference are adopted in support of this action. Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this __ day of ,2004 __ day of ., 2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 4 CSDocuments and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23DXKaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589)1 .DOC Exhibit C Findings for CA 04-02 and Z-04-12 Establishment of the Special Area Zone Eugene Code Section 9.3020 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to the adoption of a new Special Area Zone. 9. 3020 Criteria_for Establishment o_f an S Special Area Zone. Before adopting an ordinance establishing a S Special Area Zone, the city council shall find that the proposal is in compliance with following criteria: (1) The area to which the S Special Area Zone is being applied meets at least one of the following criteria: (a) Is identified in the Metro Plan or a refinement plan as appropriate for nodal development or for a special range of uses or development that can best be achieved with the use of a special area zone; or (3) Possesses distinctive buildings or natural features that require special consideration to ensure appropriate development, preservation, or rehabilitation. In order to be considered distinctive, it must be demonstrated that: 1. The area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in order to protect their special features; or 2. The area contains natural features that have been identified by the city as worthy of special treatment or preservation. The Kaufman House meets criterion (1)(b)(1) above: the area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in order to protect their special features. The findings of the Historic Review Board in HD 03-02 demonstrate the significance of the structure and the value of its preservation. The Kaufman House was designed by John Hunzicker, a prominent local architect; the garden remodel was designed by Lloyd Bond, a prominent local landscape architect, and the owner and grantor of the property to the city, Trude Kaufman, was a prominent local business woman. (2) An analysis of the area demonstrates how the uses and development standards of the S Special Area zone ordinance will facilitate implementation of the planned use of the property or the preservation or rehabilitation of distinctive buildings or natural features of benefit to the community. The proposed uses and development standards for the Kaufman House set forth in the ordinance preserve the structure and gardens while facilitating appropriate use of the property. The Exhibit C - 1 characteristics of the structure, location, and use history influenced the proposed list of permitted uses and development standards. While the use list proposes to broaden the array of allowable uses over what is currently allowed outright in residential zones, the minimum density requirement has been eliminated to avoid infill that would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Development standards have been borrowed from the R-2 and C-1 zones for residential and nonresidential development, respectively. (3) Except for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Area zone, the area to be classified S Special Area includes at least ~ acre in area. The subject property is proposed to be zoned S-H Historic Special Area Zones, and is thus exempt from the ½ acre requirement described by this criterion. (4) The application of the zone to the properties proposed for inclusion in the S Special Area zone and the required provisions of a special area zone ordinance are consistent with the criteria required for approval of a zone change, according to EC 9.886.5 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Compliance with the zone change criteria is outlined below. Application of the Special Area Zone to the Site 9. 8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval o fa zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. Metro Plan Diagram The Metro Plan diagram designates the property for Medium Density Residential/Mixed Uses. However, the Metro Plan recognizes that up to 32% of residentially designated areas typically accommodate nonresidential uses such as parks, schools, roads, churches, and neighborhood commercial services. The Kaufman Senior Center is an example of a nonresidential use appropriate within a residential area. The proposed Special Area Zone proposes residential and limited non-residential uses, including office, educational and cultural uses, and certain small scale commercial uses, in compliance with the Metro Plan diagram and Metro Plan policies as detailed below. Exhibit C - 2 Applicable Metro Plan Policies Policy A22: Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. The proposed SAZ language expands opportunities to utilize historic properties in ways not possible through conventional zoning. Policy A25: Conserve the metropolitan area's supply of existing affordable housing and increase the stability and quality o folder residential neighborhoods through measures such as revitalization; code enforcement; appropriate zoning; rehabilitation programs; relocation of existing structures; traffic calming; parking requirements; or public safety considerations. These actions should support planned densities in these areas. The proposal stabilizes the neighborhood by assuring the preservation of an existing historic structure. The proposed SAZ language provides certainty to the neighborhood in terms of the future allowable uses on the Kaufman Senior Center property. The Special Area Zone provides incentives for revitalization and rehabilitation; historic properties are eligible for low interest loans from the city and tax credits from the state and federal governments, and these programs are more likely to be utilized if nonresidential uses are allowed. The proposed language incorporates sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood into the development standards and approval criteria for adjustment review. Policy I1: 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. This SAZ application is a result of Eugene's Historic Preservation program. Properties listed on the city's Historic Landmark Inventory are eligible for Special Area Zones that protect their historic values while providing flexibility not available through a conventional zoning district. The Kaufman House is a unique property not well suited to residential zoning. If R-2 or R-3 zoning were retained on the property, future owners would be required to meet minimum densities if any change of use were to be proposed. This type of residential infill would compromise the gardens which have been associated with the house as a community asset for over 30 years. (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. Westside Neighborhood Plan Diagram Exhibit C - 3 The Westside Neighborhood Plan further refines the Metro Plan diagram by designating the Kaufman House for residential and mixed use. The description of the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area includes the following text: "The portion of this area west of Washington Street is characterized by a mix of older single-family and duplex structures and newer large apartment buildings. There are also two social institutions and the Kaufman Senior Center" (page 3-7). The text goes on to describe the zoning history in the area. In general, the Planning Department, Hearings Official, and Planning Commission have approved rezone requests to mixed use only east of Washington Street. However, the text supports a rezone to Historic Special Area Zone for the Kaufman House, given its recognition in the Westside Neighborhood Plan as an existing non-residential use, its location within the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area, and the presence of the mixed uses symbol on the Metro Plan diagram. Applicable Westside Neighborhood Plan Policies Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area Policy 1: This area shall continue to be recognized as appropriate for medium density residential development. Although there is currently a mixture of land uses in the area, any further rezonings that would promote the conversion of residential uses to nonresidential uses shall be discouraged The Kaufman House is not currently and has not been for the past 30 years, in residential use. Therefore, adoption of the SAZ will not cause the conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use. On the contrary, the SAZ will enable adaptive reuse of the Kaufman House structure, should senior services be discontinued, without meeting minimum density requirements contained in the R-2 and R-3 zones. The intent of the proposed SAZ is not to expand nonresidential uses where they currently do not exist, but rather to allow a limited range of nonresidential uses consistent with the intensity of use currently occurring at the Kaufman House. Neighborhood Character and Design Policy 1: Identify and encourage preservation of the significant cultural resources and unique features of the neighborhood including buildings, sites, structures, objects, street trees, and landscape features. The Kaufman House is a significant cultural resource and unique feature of the neighborhood. The proposed code language protects the building, site, and landscape features in direct support of this neighborhood character and design policy. (3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Exhibit C - 4 The Kaufman House exists and is currently served by all required urban facilities and services, including streets, water, sewer, stormwater facilities, electric and phone service, waste disposal service, land use controls, schools and parks. Future reuse of the property would be served by these existing services, in compliance with the above criterion. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. (b) EC 9.2430 Industrial Zone Siting Requirements. (c) EC 9.2510 Natural Resource Zone Siting Requirements. (d) EC 9. 2610 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Siting Requirements. (e) EC 9.2681 Public Land Zone Siting Requirements. EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. (g) EC 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Siting Requirements; (h) EC 9. 3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (i) EC 9. 3305 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (j) EC 9. 3 705 S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (k) EC 9.3805 S-RN Royal Node Special Area Zone Siting Requirements; (1) EC 9. 3905 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (m) EC 9. 4715/WP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. (n) EC 9. 4815/WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. EC 9.8865(4) does not include reference to siting requirements for the S-HK Special Area Zone because that zone is being created as part of this action. See below for discussion of amendment to EC 9.8865(4) to add a reference to the siting requirements for site specific historic special area zones. As the Applicant notes, the application of the S-HK Special Area Zone to the proposed site is consistent with the siting standards proposed to be adopted for the Special Area Zone. Code Amendment The only code amendment proposed is to add a subsection to EC 9.8865(4). That subsection will require that any future proposal to apply an uncodified S-H Historic Special Area Zone to a property will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed zone change is consistent with the siting requirements set out in the ordinance that adopted that special area zone. The application anticipated that the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone would be codified and therefore included substantial findings under EC 9.8065 that pertained to the adoption of the zone. Though unnecessary, those findings are accurate and are specifically incorporated herein by reference. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: Exhibit C - 5 (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. By complying with the submittal requirements contained in the Eugene Code, and given that public hearings will be held, the proposed amendment will comply with Goal 1. In addition to the basic requirements contained in the code, the applicant solicited input from the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors and the current user at the Kaufman House (EECA). Feedback received has been incorporated into the proposal. Given the voluntary citizen involvement conducted by the applicant and the formal requirements for submittal of materials, notification, and public hearings, the proposed amendment process clearly meets the intent and the letter of Statewide Planning Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2- Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The City of Eugene implements Goal 2 by providing a land use policy framework in the Metro Plan and associated refinement plans; the policies contained therein are implemented through the Eugene Land Use Code which contains specific planning standards and criteria to govern the land use planning process. This code amendment follows the procedures specified in the Eugene Code. Therefore, the process complies with Goal 2. Further the requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements is consistent with Goal 2. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands - To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The subject amendment does not directly impact any lands zoned for Agricultural use. Exhibit C - 6 Goal 4: Forest Lands - To conserve forest lands... The subject amendment does not directly impact any lands zoned for Forest use. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Natural Resources and Scenic Areas - To protect natural resource and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements is consistent with Goal 5. The amendment facilitates the preservation and reuse of historic resources in compliance with Goal 5. Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality - To maintain, and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 6. Goal 7: Natural Hazards - To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 7. Goal 8: Recreational Needs - To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 8. Goal 9: Economy - To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing: To Provide for the housing needs of the state. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 10. Exhibit C - 7 Goal 11- Public Facilities: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 11. Goal 12- Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 12. Goal 13: Energy Conservation -To conserve energy. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 13. Goal 14: Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 14. Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goal 15. Goal 16: Estuarine Resources, Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19: Ocean Resources: Goals 16 through 19 apply to Coastal Resources. The requirement that a site- specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements does not implicate Goals 16-19. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. Exhibit C - 8 The requirement that a site-specific historic zone be applied only to an area that is consistent with that zone's siting requirements is consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9. 3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. The proposed code amendment does not establish a special area zone. The criteria at EC 9.3020 are addressed above. Exhibit C - 9 ATTACHMENT E EUGENE PLANNING coMMIssION ..................................... .......... Eugene City Hall, Council Chamber, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541)682-5481 Web site: www. c£eugene, or.u:~ The Eugene Planning Commission 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 wi'th 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682-5119. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26~ 2004 - PUBLIC H EARING (6:00 p,m.) PUBLIC.HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CODE AMF.~~/ZO~ CHANGE Kaufman Senior Center (File Numbers CA 04-2, Z 04-12). The following proposed actions are being initiated by the City of Eugene/Eugene City COuncil: The proposed actions below are the subject of the public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission: CA 04-2 Amend the Eugene Land Use Code to create a S-H Historic Special Area Zone for the Ge'rtmde and Ludwig Kaufman House (Kaufman Senior Center). Z 04-12 Amend the Eugene Zoning Map by rezoning the subject property from R-2, Medium-Density Residential and R-3, Limited High Density Residential to S-H, Historic Zone. The Subject Proper ,ty The property affected by these proposed actions is located at 996 Jefferson Street. The subject property consists of the Kaufman Senior Center and grounds, but does not include the Kaufman Annex located at 673 West 10th Avenue. Lead City Staff.' Shawna Adams, Associate Planner (541) 682-2653 E-mail: shawna, l.adams~ci.eugene.or..Us Commissioners: Jon Belcher Anne Made Levis Mitzi Colbath, Vice President Adell McMillan Rick Duncan Charles Rusch John Lawless, President Ex officio member: Tom Coyle, Executive Director, Planning and Development Public Hearing Format: 1. Commence public hearing by announcing purpose and summarizing procedures. 2. Call for'statements of conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, and biases, or challenges to impartiality. 3. Receive City staffpresentafion: Shawna Adams 4. Report any site visits. 5. Call for testimony: a. The applicant and proponents. b. Neutral parties. c. Opponents d. City staffresponSe to testimony or questions from the Planning Commission and recommendations. 6. Announce whether: a. The record is closed~ b. The record will be held open or; c. The public hearing will be continued. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 26, 2004 ~ TO: Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Shawna Adams, Planning Division SUBJECT: public hearing regarding a City-initiated proposal to establish a site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone and to apply it to the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House. ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the Eugene City Council. BRIEFING STATEMENT: On October 26, 2004, the Planning Commission wilI hold a Public hearing for three land use actions affecting the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House (a.k.a Kaufman Senior Center or Kaufman House), a City of Eugene Historic Landmark. These land use actions include: · The establishment of a S-H Historic 'Special Area Zone ordinance specific to the Kaufman House. · A zone change applying this S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area'Zone to the Kaufman House site (City file Z 04-12). · A code amendment establishing a zone change criterion'that references siting requirements in uncodified site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones (City file CA 04-2). BACKGROUND: The Kaufman House and'the Kaufman Annex were donated to the City of 'Eugene by Trude Kaufman in 1972. The two properties were used together by the City as a senior center under a conditional use permit (City file CU 72-45) for the next twenty-six years. The city's operation of programs at the site ceased in 1998 due to budget cuts. Lane Community College cOntinued to support senior programs at the site until June of 2003 when LCC budget cuts necessitated that operation of the Kaufman House as a senior center would be taken over by a private non-profit, Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA). Use of the Annex property had ceased prior to 2003, when the organizations using the building moved out. The Annex has remained vacant due to the extensive repairs needed to make the building suitable for public use. In April of 2001; the City Council directed the City Manager to explore the possibility of selling the Kaufman Annex. Facilities staff concluded that selling the Annex into separate ownership would void the conditional use permit for the Kaufman House and Kaufman Annex, which allows for the continued use of the Kaufman House by EECA for senior activities. Satre Associates was hired by the City to help identify options that would allow continued use of the Kaufman House as a senior center as well as allowing the possible sale of the Kaufman Annex as a single family residence. Satre Associates and Facilities staff consulted with senior center representatives, the Jefferson- Westside Neighbors, and staff from other City departments to determine how to best carry out the City Council's directive. Satre Associates' February 2003 report identified four procedural 1 1 options that would allow for the sale of the Annex with continuation of the senior center activities at the KaUfinan House. One of the options was to pursue a City Historic Landmark designation for both properties, and a subsequent establishment of a S-H Historic Special Area Zone for the Kaufman House, with uses and development standards appropriate for the site. This option was selected by Facilities staff as the best way to preserve the historic structures and gardens while'allowing for a range of uses that would be compatible within the surrounding neighborhood context, regardless of ownershiP. In this scenario, the conditional me permit binding the two properties will be revoked, the Annex will convert to a use consistent with the existing R-2 Medium Density Residential zoning, and the existing senior center may continue to operate at the Kaufman Home as an outfight permitted me. In .December 2003, both properties were designated as Historic Landmarks by the Eugene Historic Review Board. The Kaufman Senior Center is now officially known as the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House, and the Kaufman Annex is now the Grant and Maude Beardsley Home, both named after their long time owners. In the case of the Kaufman House, both the historic structures and landscape are identified as significant historic-features meriting protection. The three land me actions under consideration by the Planning Commission are specific to the Kaufman Home. . . PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS & PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ROLE: The Eugene Code (EC) requires that the establishment of a Special Area Zone and the concurrent code amendment and zone change applications be processed according to the Type V provisions designed for legislative actions. Given the sit'e-speCific nature of the proposed zone, the minimum requirements for quasi-jddicial action at ORS 197.763 must also be met. As such, the proposed actions will be processed in accordance with both the TyPe V Application Procedures designed for quasi-judicial actions beginning at EC 9.7500 and the Type IV procedures beginning at EC 9.7400. The Eugene City Council initiated the process for establishment of a S-HK zone and code amendment at their May 24t~ meeting, in aeeoxdance with Type V application procedures at the request of Facilities staff. Planning staff provided public hearing notice and has otherwise processed the proposed landuse actions consistent with Type IV and Type V requirements. To . date, Planning staff has responded to inquires in response to the public notice, but has not- received written comments. In accordance with applicable requirements, the Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a 'public hearing according to the quasi-judicial procedures of State law and those set out in EC 9.7065 to 9.7095. Within 30 days of the close of the public record, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the applications based on applicable approval criteria. The Planning Commission is asked to deliberate and forward their recommendation immediately following the public hearing on October 26, 2004 to enable City Council consideration prior to their December break. The City Council public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 22nd, with final action to take place on December 6 , the last City Council meeting prior to the break. ' SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USE ACTIONS: S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Establishment: The proposed Special Area Zone is tailored to the unique circumstances of the Kaufman House and surrounding neighborhood 2 2 (the draft ordinance establishing the zone is provided in Attachment A-l). As required, the proposed Kaufman House Special Area Zone details the purpose of the zone, siting requirements, land use and permit requirements, development standards, lot standards, and adjustment review criteria. The S-HK Zone describes the historic status of the landmark property and acknowledges that both the Kaufman House structures and landscape, are significant historic features subject to historic property alteration requirements (refer to Attachment A-2 for Historic Property Alteration approval criteria). Future use of the Kaufman House Will be subject to land use code and building code requirements in addition to the provisions set out in the s.HK Zone. The practical effect of such requirements, and in particular historic property alteration and parking 'requirements, is that future use of the Kaufman House site Will be adaptive and, as a result,.limited in intensity. The uses listed in the S-HK Zone have been selected With consideration to compatibility With the surrounding neighborhood, significant historic features of the site, the policy direction found in the Metro Plan and Westside Neighborhood Plan.. and the feasibility of the use Within the existing structures given land use code and building code requirements' The existing senior center falls ~within the "Community and Neighborhood Center" category identified in the use table, and is permitted outright as a legally conforming use. In addition to Community and Neighborhood Center uses, the proposed s-HK Zone allows select residential, educational and cultural, office, neighborhood commercial and accessory uses. Most of the uses listed are permitted outright, With recognition that historic property alteration review requirements significantly constrain the ability to alt. er the structures or landscape for additional development or uses With greater, parking reqmrements. Conditional use permit approval is proposed in those cases where the conditional use permit approval criteria may afford a greater assUrance of compatibility With the surrourt, ding neighborhood than afforded by the historic property alteration review criteria.' TheEugene Code provides that before adopting an ordinance establiShing a S Special Area Zone, the City Council shall find that the proposal is in compliance with following criteria from EC 9.3020: (1) The area to which the S Special Area Zone is being applied meets at least one of the folloWing criteria: (a) Is identified in the Metro Plan or a refinement plan as appropriate for nodal development, or for a special range of uses or development that can best be achieved with the use of a special area zone; or (b) Possesses distinctive buildings or natural features that require special consideration to ensure appropriate development, preservation, or rehabilitation. In order to be considered distinctive, it must be demonstrated that: 1. The area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in order to protect their special features; or 2. The area contains natural features that have been identified by the city as worthy of special treatment or preservation. (2) An analysis of the area demonstrates how the uses and development standards of the S Special Area zone ordinance will facilitate implementation of the planned use of the property or the preservation or rehabilitation of distinctive buildings or natural features of benefit to the community. (3) Except for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Areazone, the area to be classified S Special Area includes at least ~ acre in area. 3 3 (4) The application of the zone to the properties proposed for inclusion in the S Special Area · zone and the required provisions of a special area zone ordinance are consistent with the criteria required for approval of a'zone change, according to EC 9.8865 Zone Change .4pproval Criteria. " The app!ieant's submittal addresses compliance with each of the above criteria. Planning staff concurs with the applicant's findings and conclusions and will incorporate those findings in Exhibit B of the draft ordinance. Planning staff would note that the City's application proposes to codify the provisions of'the proposed S-HK zone and, accordingly, includes and evaluation of the zone for compliance with the code amendment criteria at EC 9.8065. Although Planning staff concurs with-.the applicant's analysis, the criteria are not applicable to establishment of the zone. The City's practice pertaining to the. adoption of site-specific regulations for historic properties has been to keep such regulations out of the City's code. The updated land use code provides that site-specific S-H'Historic Special Area Zones may be established by ordinance and need not be codified as is proposed in the City's application materials. The draft ordinance prOvided in Attachment A-1 establishes the Proposed zone without codification, and is consistent with past practice. The provisions of the proposed S-HK Zone have been further refined and clarified in the draft ordinance based on questions and suggestions from Land Use Management, Historic Preservation, and Facilities staff, the City Attorney's Office, and conversations with Jefferson-Westside · Neighbors representatives. Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council in support of the draft ordinance in its current form, allowing for any further refinements that may be necessary to be considered by the City Council. Code Amendment: The proposed code amendment will establish a zone change criterion that references the siting requirements in uncodified site-specific S-H HiStoric Special Area Zones. It will ensure that site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones are applied only to the designated site. This means that only the Kaufinan House would qualify for the site-specific S-H Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone. The zone change approval criteria at EC 9.8865 provide that a proposed zone change shall be consistent with applicable siting requirements, with reference to the' code sections corresponding with the siting requirements in each zone set forth in the land use code. However, the zone change approval criteria make no reference to the siting requirements for uncodified Site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zones. The proposed code amendment will amend Eugene. Code section · 9.8865 to include this reference. Specifically, the following addition to EC 9.8865(4) is proposed in the draft ordinance within Attachment A- 1: (p) An uncodOqed ordinance establishing a site-specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's planning and development department. The Eugene Code provides that if the City Council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that complies with the following criteria from EC 9.8065: 4 4 (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishm, ent ora special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria _for establishment of an S Special 21rea Zone, Planning staff concludes that the proposed code amendment complies with the applicable approval criteria, finding that neither the Statewide Planning Goals nor applicable adopted plans include provisions that are directly applicable to the proposed code amendment. Moreover EC 9.8065(3) is not applicable. However, the applicant's written statement includes an evaluation of the proposed S-HK Zone for consistency with the code amendment approval criteria. Because the provisions of the proposed S-HK Zone will not be codified, these findings of Compliance with the code amendment criteria are not required. Staff findings and 'conclusions for the proposed code amendment will be incorporated in Exhibit B of the draft ordinance. Zone Change: The proposed zone change would apply the proposed S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area zone to the Kaufinan House property. Approval of a zone change application shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria from EC 9.8865: (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinernent plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro'Plan controls. (3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in:. (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. (b) EC 9.2430 Industrial Zone Siting Requirements. (c) EC 9. 2510 Natural Resource Zone Siting Requirements. (d) EC 9.2610 Park~ Recreation, and Open Space SitingRequirements. (e) EC 9. 2681 Public Land Zone Siting Requirements~ EC 9.2 735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. (g) EC 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special.drea Zone Siting Requirements; (h) EC 9.3205 S-DW Downtown Westside Special ~lrea Zone Siting .Requirements. (i) EC 9. 3305 S-E Elmira Road Special ~lrea Zone Siting Requirements. 0') EC 9. 3 705 S-RP Riverfront Park Special ~trea Zone Siting Requirements. EC 9.3805 S-RN Royal Node Special ~lrea Zone Siting Requirements. 5 5 (l) EC 9.4205/EC East Campus Overl~_ Zone Siting Requirements. (m) . EC 9.3905 8-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. (n) EC 9.4715/WP Waterside Protection Overl~ Zone Siting Requirements. (o) EC 9. 4815/~VB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. (p) An uneodified ordinance establishing a site-specific $-H Historic $pecial Area Zone, a copy of which is maintained at the city's planning and development department. (5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of SO years. The applicant's submittal addresses compliance with each of the above criteria. Planning staff concurs with the applicant's findings and conclusions and will incorporate those findings in Exhibit B of the draft ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council in support of the proposed land use actions. ITEMS UNDER SEPARATE COVER: A. City Planning Staff Materials . A-1. Draft'ordinance implementing the proposed land use actions entitiled, "AN oRDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE S-HK HISTORIC KAUFMAN HOUSE SPECIAL AREA ZONE;' AMENDING SECTION 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP?' (Exhibits not included) A-2.HiStoric Alteration Review Criteria B Applicant's Materials B-1. Kaufman Senior Center, City of Eugene, Special Area Zone & Zone · Change Application Materials FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY Shawna Adams, Associate Planner · Eugene Planning Division RE: S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone (CA 04-2 and Z 04-12) 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 682-2653 FAX: (541) 682-5572 E-Mail: shawna.l.adams~ci.eugene.or.ttq 6 6 ATTACHMENT A CITY PLANNING STAFF MATERIALS 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE S-HK HISTORIC KAUFMAN HOUSE SPECIAL AREA ZONE; AMENDING SECTION 9.8865 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND AMENDING THE EUGENE ZONING MAP. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The Kaufinan House was donated .to the City of Eugene in 1972 and has been used as a senior center under a conditional use permit (CUP) for over 30 years, along with the adjacent Kaufman Annex (Beardsley House at 673 West 10th Avenue). B. Recognition of historic landmarks enhances the beautification of the city, promotes the city's economic health, and preserves the value of these properties. The regulation of designated .historic landmarks provides a means to review changes to a landmark and ensure that historic and architectural values are preserved. The Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House was designated as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark On December 8, 2003. C. A Historic Special Area Zone is desirable for the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House to foster the continued preservation of the property by allowing appropriate uses beyond · the senior services authorized by the CUP and establishing appropriate development standards. Existing zones contain uses that are inappropriate while omitting uses that are apprOpriate to this specific historic building and site. D. Site-specific historic zones are generally established by ordinance without codification. Copies of such ordinances are to be maintained at the City's Planning & Development Department (Sections 9.3020 and 9.3450 of the Eugene Code, 1971 ("EC")). The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is such a site-specific historic zone. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone is hereby established and shall be subject to the following: (a) Purpose of S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone. The S-HK Special Area Zone is intended to afford the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House Historic Landmark ("Kaufman House") special treatment and protection so that the uses permitted and restrictions imposed will preserve and allow rehabilitation of the landmark's character-defining features (an example of a prominent local architect's, John Hunzicker's, work), and the distinctive landscape design features of Lloyd Bond. Ordinance- 1 C:~)ocuments and Settings\eeplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23D~Kaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589).DOC 8 (b) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Siting Requiremen~,~, In addition to the approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Aporoval Criteria, the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone applies 0nly to the parcel of land located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200, as Shown on the attached Exhibit A. (c) S-HK Historic Kaufm~n House SPecial Area Zone Land Use and Permil Requirements. The following Table S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements, identifies uses in the S-I-~ zone that are: (P) Permitted, subject to zone verification. (C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit. (S) Permitted subject to zone verification and the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000. S-HK Historic Ka~,;,,,an Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements · S-HK Accessory Uses. Examples related t° residential use include a garage, storage shed, P. and services primarily for use by residents on the site, such as a recreation room and laundry facility. Parking areas and garages constructed and used for a principle use on the development site, such as an apartment, are allowed as an accessory use. Accessory USes. Examples related to non-residential use include accessory services P that are related to community service or professional office use, such as storage, classes and recreational ro rams. · Artist Gallery/Studio p Club or Lodge of State or National Organization p Community and Neighborhood Center p Church, Synagogue, and Temple, including associated residential structures for C religious personnel, but excluding elementary through high school Museum · · C' 1 Administrative, General, and Professional Office p Scientific and Educational Research Center includes laborato p - Dwellings ~ One-Family Dwelling (1 Per Lot) p Duplex (Two-Family Attached on Same Lot) p Multiple Family (3 or More Dwellings on Same Lot) (See EC 9.5500) · S Assisted Care & Day Care (Residences Providing Special Services, Treatment or Sup rvislon) Assisted Care (5 or fewer people living in facility p ' Assisted Care (6 or more people living in facility) C Day Care (3 to 12 people served) (See EC 9.5200) S C Bed and Breakfast Facility (See EC 9.5100) ~ S Catering Service p Home Occupation (See EC 9.5350) S Ordinance - 2 C:~Docuraents and Settings\ceplsla~Local SettingS\Teraporary Internet Files\OLK23D~aufman Ordinance - Final (00095589).DOC 9 S-HK Historic Kau;i~mn Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements S-HK Temporary'Activity (See EC 9.5800) S (d) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Development Standar~ In addition to applicable provisions in the Eugene Code, 1971, the development ~tandards listed in subsections (3) to (5) of this section shall apply to all development in the S-HK zone. In cases Of conflict, the standards specifically set out in this ordinance shall apply. (1) Adjustment. An adjustment may be made to any of the standards referenced in subsections (3) or (4) of this section in accordance with EC 9.8030 (15) (2) Historic Proper.ty Alteration Approval. Any landscape alterations, building alterations or additions, 'and all new construction shall comply with EC 9.8175 Historic Property_ Alteration Approval. Criteria. (3) Residential Development Standards. All residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2) shall be governed by General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the R-2 zone in EC 9.2750 and 9.2751, except that there shall be no minimum density requirement. (4) Non-Residential . Development Standard~.' All non-residential development allowed pursuant to subsection (d)(2)'shall be governed by General' - Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885 and the development standards applied to the C-1 zone in EC 9.2170 and 9.2171, with the exception that all new buildings shall conform with the height limitations of the R-2 Zone. (5) ,Parking. Community and Neighborhood Center uses, including the existing senior center use, may continue to operate at the site using the amount of existing on-site parking in the. driveway off 10th Avenue (three spaces). Any other use on the site must comply with the parking requirements of EC 9.6410. (e) S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Lot Standardq, Partitions, subdivisions, and lot line adjustments are prohibited for the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special 'Area Zone, except that the western property line as depicted on Exhibit A may be adjusted no more than a total of 10 feet. Section 2. Subsection (4) of Section. 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new subparagraph "(p)" thereto, to provide: 9.8865 ' Zone Change Aoorovai Criteria. Approval of a zone change applicatiOn, including the designation of an overlay Zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the Ordinance - 3 C:~Documents and Settings\¢eplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23D~aufman Ordinance - Final (00095589).DOC 10 following criteria: (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (p) An uncodified ordinance establishing'a site specific S-H Historic Special Area Zone, a copY of which is maintained at the city's planning and development department. Section 3. The Eugene Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property located at 996 Jefferson Street, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, 'Tax Lot 9200 from its existing R-2/R-3 zone.to S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 4. The findings attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference are adopted in support of this action. Section 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this .Approved by the Mayor this ~ day of ,2004 day of ,2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance" 4 C:~Documents and Settings\ceplsla~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK23D~Kaufman Ordinance - Final (00095589).DOC 11 Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West 10~ Avenue HISTORIC ALTERATION APPROVAL 'Eugene, OregOn 97401 cRITERIA (541) 682-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.ci.eugene.or, us 9.8175 Historic Property Alteration Approval Criteria, The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for historic property alteration. Approval or conditional approval shall be granted if all of the following criteria for historic rehabilitation or historic restoration work are met: (1) The historic'significance of the property is retained and preserved by minimizing the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic property. (2) The historic property remains recognizable ~as a physical record of its time, place' and use. The alteration will not create a false sense of historical development by adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties or time periods. (3) Changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right are retained and preserVed to the extent possible. (4) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the property are retained to the extent possible. (5) Deteriorated historic features are repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature matches the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Whenever possible replacement of missing features, including identified historic landscape features, is substantiated by historic, pictOrial, or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs. (6) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction do not unnecessarily destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and maSsing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. If a historic property alteration is removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired to the extent possible. (7) If applicable, the proposed alteration is consistent with development standards or design guidelines adopted by the histOric review board. (8) Every reasonable effort is made to protect known archeological resources affected by and adjacent to any'alteration project. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. (9) The proposed alteration complies with all applicable standards or adjustments thereto made pursuant to provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code. (Section 9.8175, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.) 12 Page I of 1 ATTACHMENT B APPLICANT'S MATERIALS 13 · ~.... · ;....~...?. ,. Shawna Adams City of Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue SATR~E Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Kaufman Senior Center - Special Area Zone ApplicatiOn Dear Shawna: On behalf of the City of Eugene Facility Management Division, I am pleased to submit this application to create a Historic Special Area Zone for the Kaufman Senior Center. The'enclosedmaterials include: Item: # of Pages Zone Change Application Form 2 Written Explanation 18 I. Background II. Land Use Request 'III. Existing Conditions tV. Property Information V. Supportive Facts'and Findings VI. Conclusion Attachments A. Proposed Special Area Zone Language 4 B. Tax Lot Map 1 C. Legal Description 1 D: Westside Refinement Plan Diagram 1 E. Site Plan 1 F. .HD 03-02 Findings- Kaufrnan House 7 G. February 2003 Land Use Alternatives Report 28 We look forward to'hearing from you. Emmy Jenson (682-5190) .and I are both Satre Assoeiates, P.C. available to answer any questions you may have. 132 East Broadway Suite 536 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Sincerely, Phone 541.465.4721 Fax 541,465,4722 ~ ~ 1.800.662.7094 www.satrepe.com Terri L. Harding, AICP cc: Emmy Jenson 15 'Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists ~ Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5377 ZONE CHA GE APPLICATIO (541) 682-5572 FAX Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required upon further review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541) 682-5377, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene. List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request. Please indicate if only a portion of a lot is included in the request and include any additional map and tax lot numbers for subject property. Also, include existing and proposed overlay zoning. ·Ass. essor's MaP Tax Lot Existing Zoning Proposed Zonin~o 1 7-03-3 1-.24 9200 R-2/R-3 HHistoric Street Address (if available): 996 Jefferson Existing Use(s) of the Property: Senior Services Proposed Use(s)oftheProperty: Senior Services/Other uses per proposed Special Area Zone Acres: .73 Is this zone chan~e being reviewed concurrently with another land use application? [~] Yes, application file number: CA 04- r']No Filing Fee · [] A filing fee must accompany all applications.. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the required fee or check website www. ci. eugene, or. us/PDD/Plan n i n g/PERMITS, btm Written Statement Provide 3 copies upon initial submittal. Following completeness review, submit 7 copies. A written statement demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the criteria in the Eugene Code, Section 9.8865. A list of the criteria is available at the Eugene permit and Information Center, 99 West l0th Avenue. Please note: it is the applicant's responsibility to provide adequate information demonstrating how the proposal satisfies the applicable criteria. Failure to provide such information may result in a denial of your application. IZone Change Application Form Last Revised: December 31,2003 Page I of 2 16 Map Information Provide 3 copies upon initial submittal. Following completeness review, submit 7 copies.. ~! A mapindicating the property involved in the request and showing adjacent streets, alleys, etc. A vicinity map showing the general area of the request and indicating the specific property involved in the request. Legal Description ~] A legal description for each existing lot involved in the requested change. This description must be . typed and suitable for recording. By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands the submittal requirements outlined herein, and that he/she understands that omissiOn of any listed item may causedelay in processing this application. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied'in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. PROPERTY OWNER Name (print): City of Eugene Phone: 682-5008 Address: 210 Cheshire Avenue City/state/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Name (print): Terri Harding, AICP. Company/Organization: Satre Associates, P.C. Address: 132 East Broadway, Suite 536 City/State/Zip: Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 4654721 Fax: 465-4722 E-mail (if applicable): tharding@satrepc.com '.Signature: c,,.~ . ~~0~~j iNOTE: a complete list of requirements. Addit~a 'nformation may This is not be required after further review, in order to adequately address the required criteria of approval. IlZone Change ApplicatiOn Form Last Revised: December 31, 2003 Page 2 of 2 [ 17 SATRE ASSOCIATES,. P.C. .planners, Landscape ArChitects & Environmental Specialists 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 465-4721 .- Fax(541)465-4722 · 1-800-662-7094 'SATI ASSOCIATES August 5, 2004 CITY OF EUGENE GERTRUDE AND LUDWIG KAUFMAN HOUSE (KAUFMAN SENIOR CENTER) CODE AMENDMENT (CREATION OF SPECIAL AREA ZONE) ZONE CHANGE TO H - HISTORIC Owner/Applicant: City of Eugene Administrative Services Facility Management 210 Cheshire Street Eugene, Oregon 97401' Contact:' Emmy Jenson, Real Property and Lease.Manager (541) 682-5190 · Fax (541) 682-6222 · E-mail:' emmy.r.jenson~ci.eugene.or.us ApPlicant's Representative: Satre Associates, P.C. 132 East Broadway, Suite 536 Eugene~ Oregon 97401 Contact: Terri Harding~ AICP, Planning Manager (541) 465-4721 · Fax (541) 465-4722 · E-mail:' tharding~satrepc.com I. Background The Kaufman Senior Center has been a community fixture in the Westside neighborhood since the early 1970's, when Trude Kaufman, a local business w~)man, donated the property and an adjacem home to the City of Eugene. The properties are located at'996 Jefferson Street (Kaufman Senior Center) and 673 West 10th Avenue (Kaufman Annex), and can also be identified as Tax Lots 9200 and 9300, Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24 (see Attachment B). 'The. City of Eugene provided senior programs in the structures for many years under a Conditional Use Permit (CU 72-45). In 1998, city budget cuts necessitated leasing the buildings to non-profit 18 City Of Eugene- Kaufman House Page 2 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 organiTations. Until recently, the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), a Lane Community College program, provided senior activities on the property. However, fia'ther budget cuts have resulted ina lack of any city funding for programs in either ofthe buildings,'and RSVP has moved their operation to the United Way. At present, the Emerald Empire COuncil on Aging (EECA) is using the property; they hope to identify a new ongoing funding source in' order tO continue operating senior services at the Kaufman Senior Center.. In April of 2001, the City Council asked the City Manager to have Facility Management staff (hereafter referred to as Facilities) explore the possibility of selling the Kaufman Annex (tax lot 9300) separately from the Kaufman Center (tax lot 9200) as part ora discussion regarding how to supply funds to the Facility Replacement Reserve Fund. Lack of accessibility, the need for major facility repairs to make the building suitable for the public, relocation of the former tenant (RSVP) to a new office, and ongoing budget limitations for the city make the Kaufinan Annex eligible for designation as surplus property. Initial research by Facilities identified barriers to the sale of the Annex property related to the existing conditional use permit. Facilities staff (Emmy Jenson) together with staff from the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) Department (Renee Grube) hired Satre Associates to research the various factors related to the sale of the Annex property and to identify a process through which sale of the Annex property can be facilitated in accordance with the- directive from City Council and the .City Manager. Satre Associates' February 2003 report identified four procedural options, one of which was to pursue a City Historic Landmark designation'for both properties, and a subsequent rezone to Historic for Kaufman Senior Center, allowing for the creation of a Special Area Zone detailing uses and development standards appropriate for the senior center site. This option was selected by Facilities staff as the best way to preserve the historic structures and gardens while allowing for a range of uses that would be compatible within the surrounding neighborhood context, no matter who oWned or operated the buildings. In December 2003, both properties were designated as Historic City Landmarks by the Eugene Historic Review Board. The Kaufman Senior Center is now officially known as the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House, and the Kaufman Annex is now the Grant and Maude Beardsley House, both named after their long time oWners. This application seeks approval of a Special Area Zone for the Kaufman House only. The Beardsley House is proposed to retain its R-2 zoning, due to its location on a local street and the strong residential character of the building. Upon approval of the proposed Historic Special Area Zone for the Kaufixtan House, the two properties may be separated, and it would be possible for the Annex to be declared surplus property and sold. II. Land Use Request The Land Use Code allows creation of Special Area Zones (SAZ's) to protect historic structures, stating "Application of the S Special zone to a lot containing a specific building, structure, object, 19 City of Eugene - Kaufman House page 3 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 site, or archeological resource that qualifies as an historic landmark will ensure that permitted uses encourage preservation of historic qualities" (9.3000, page 9-121). The Special Area Zone proposed recognizes the particular circumstances of the Kaufman House. Draft code language is attached to this application as Attachment A. Historic Kaufman HoUSe Special Area Zone (S-HK) The proposed Kaufman House Special Area Zone contains the following sections: pUrPose, siting requirements, land use and permit requirements, development standards, and adjustment reView criteria. It describes the historic 'status of the property and the process required for alteration review. Allowed uses include residential, educational and cultural, office, certain' low impact "commercial, and accessory uses (see Attachment A). The proposed.language does. not allow the maximum density that would have been allowed by the site's previouS R-2/R-3 zoning. Uses listed are intended to reflect those that would be considered compatible with the · surroUnding neighborhood, and that would comply with policy direction foUnd in the Metro Plan and Westside Neighborhood Plan. In addition to the limits set on.the use of the property by the code language, practical'limitations of the structure and site,, including limited area for parking, will influence the type of uses that will eventually occur in the Kaufman House.. For the time being,.the City has given a permit for the Emerald'Empire CoUncil on Aging to operate their programs in the Kaufman House; and nothing in the proposed language would prevent EECA from continuing -to operate at the site. III. Site Conditions A~ Tax Lots The tax lot involved is Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200. A tax lot map is enclosed as Attachment B. A legal description for tax lot 9200 is included as Attachment C. B. Site Context The Kaufman House sits on the northwest comer of 10th Avenue and Jefferson Streets, roughly one half. mile west of downtown Eugene. The property is part of the Westside neighborhood, which is characterized by a mix of historic arts and crafts bungalows, apartment buildings and duplexes, churches and other civic institutions, and neighborhood commercial uses. Jefferson Street is'a major arterial street cOnnecting freeway traffic from I-105 to east-West' streets 'such as West 7th, West 11th and West 13th Avenues near the site. The neighborhood is known for its canopy of large street trees including Big Leaf Maple and Horse Chestnut. The Kaufman Center sits on a double lot and enjoys a large garden to the north of the home. The large size of the garden is unusual in the Westside neighborhood and as a result, constitutes a neighborhood asset which is sometimes rented along with the building for community meetings, receptions and other events. 2O City of Eugene - Kaufrnan House Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone · Page 4' Satre Associates, P.C. August 5; 2004 C. Site History'and Planning Context The Kanfman House was used asa single family home until the early 1970's. At that time, it was donated to the city of Eugene and altered for public use. The Eugene Planning Commission on October 10, 1972, granted a Conditional 'Use Permit for the operation of senior activities on the property. · Zoning ·for the Kaufman House is split R-2/R-3 (Medium Density/Limited High Density Residential). The Westside Neighborhood Plan designates most of the Senior Center'as Eastern Residential/Mixed Use, and the western portion of the Senior Center as Central Residential Area (see diagram in AttaChment D). IV~ ProperS, Information City Limits: Inside Eugene City ·Limits. Urban Growth Boundary: Inside UGB Local Government: City of Eugene Utilities: Storm Sewer: City of Eugene · Sanitary Sewer: Metro Wastewater Management Commission Water: Eugene Water and Electric Board Electricity: Eugene Water and Electric Board · Natural Gas: Northwest Natural SchoOls: Eugene School DistriCt 4J Parks and Recreation: Eugene Parks and Recreation Department Metro Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential/Mixed Uses Refinement Plan Designation: Eastern Residential/Mixed Use, Central Residential Zoning: R-2/R-3 Zoning of Properties within 100 feet of the site: Direction Use ZOne North Multi-family residential R,2, R-3 East Multi-family residential R'3 South· Multi-family residential R-2, R-3 West Multi-family residential R-2 Map and Tax Lot:. - 17-03-31-24, Tax Lot 9200 Area of Request: - Site: -32,000 sf. Building: -6,000 sf. Street Address: - 996 Jefferson Street Existing Use: . Senior Services (Emerald Empire Council on Aging) Site Plan: Attachment E. 21 City of EUgene - Kaufrnan House · Code,4rnendrnent/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone page Satre ~4ssociates, P.C. August 5, 2004 V. Approval Criteria/Supportino_ Facts and Findin~,~ Applicable approval criteria are outlined in italics below, followed by proposed findings of fact in normal text. Type V Application Procedures 9. 7510 CiO/Initiation of Applications. The city council may initiate a Type V application on its own behalf, or in response to a person 's written requestfiled with the planning director that the city council initiate a land use code or refinement plan amendment. The Eugene City Council initiated the present code amendment application at their May 24t~ meeting, in compliance with this code standard. ~ Special Area Zone Criteria 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S SpeCial Area Zone, B~fOre adopting an ordinance establishing an S Special Area Zone, the city. council shall find that the proposal is in compliance with following criteria: (1) 7~e area to which the S Special Area Zone is being applied meets at least one of the 'following criteria: (a) Is identified in the Metro Plan or a refinement p'lan as apPropriate for nodal development or for a special range of uses or development that can best be achieved with the use of a special area zone; or (b) Possesses distinctive buildings or ·natural features that require special consideration 'to ensure appropriate development, preservation, or rehabilitation. In order to be considered distinctive, it must be demonstrated that: L The area is, characterized by buildings that meritpreservation in order to protect their special features; or ·. 2. The area contains natural features that have been identified by the city as worthy of special treatment or preservation. The Kaufman HoUse meets criterion (1)(b)(1) above: the area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in. order to protect their special features. The findings of the Historic Review Board in HD 03-02 demonstrate the significance of the structure and the yalue of its Preservation. The Kaufman House was designed by John Hunzicker, a prominent local architect; the garden remodel was designed by Lloyd Bond, a prominent local landscaPe architect, and the owner and grantor of the property to the city, Trude Kaufman, was a prominent local business womanl The findings of the Historic Review Board are attached to this application as Attachment F. (2) An analysis of the area demonstrates how the uses and development standards of the $ Special Area zone ordinance will facilitate implementation of the planned use of the 22 City of Eugene - Kaufman House Page 6 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Histdric Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 property or the preservation or rehabilitation of distinctive buildings or natural features of benefit to the community. The proposed uses and development standards for the Kaufman House are set forth in Attachment A. The purpose of the Special Area Zone is to preserve the structure and gardens while facilitating appropriate use'of the property. The characteristics of the structure, location, and use history influenced the proposed list of permitted uses and development standards. In addition, language was created with ordinances adopted for other' historic properties in mind. While the use list proposes to broaden the array of allowable uses over what is currently allowed outfight in residential zones, the minimum density requirement has been eliminated to avoid infill that would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Development standards 'have been borrowed from the R-2 and C-1 zones for residential and nonresidential development, respectively2 It is the Applicant's intent to preserve the property becaUse of the benefits such preservation affords to the community, while furthering the direction of the City CounCil regarding management of city property. One key element of the preservation appr°ach relates to parking. We have proposed that the existing senior services and associated uses be allowed to continue with the use of the on-site parking spaces in the driveway on l0th Avenue (3 spaces). TheAnnex proPerty, including the six space parking lot accessed by the alley, is eligible for declaration .as surplus property and will be sold to a private party. We believe this apprOach is both appropriate and necessary in order to maintain the historic character of the Kaufman · House and grounds. The following findings support this approach~ 1. Historic and 'existing parking use patterns by EECA show that the three on-site parking spaces are sufficient to meet the center's existing parking need. In addition; EECA'notes that the six existing on-street parking spaces are also available for use by center patrons. Parking for al 6-passenger bus will continue to be accommodated in the driveway. There is an existing bus shelter on site for RideSource patrons. The LTD. station is five blocks to the'east and there is a bus stop within a half-block on 10th Avenue. Most people carpool, walk, or take the bus to the center. Use numbers gathered by EECA show an average of 15 to 40 people at the center at any one time, depending on the day. Hours of use are generally from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Visual parking surveys completed by Facilities staff at various times and on various days over the Past year indicate the availability of on- street parking even during the heaviest period of use .(Friday lunch). 2. The Land Use Code allows shared USe agreements if additional parking is necessary. There is a 14-space church lot on the northeast comer of Broadway and Madison, 'approximately 1,000 feet (.2 mile) away walking on the sidewalks. It may be possible for EECA to negotiate daytime use of some of those spaces for regular staff'if planning staff determines that to be necessary. 23 City of Eugene - Kaufrnan House Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone . . Page 7 Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 " 3, Any change in use will require .new analysis of parking requirements' and an adjustment if code standards can't be met. 4. The Original Conditional'Use Permit for Kaufman Center and Kaufman Annex (CU72-45) required 15 parking spaces, but they were never provided. From October 1972 until perhaps as late as 1990, almost 18 years, the Kaufrnan Center and Kaufman Annex operated with a total of only four on-site parking spaces - three in the Center driveway and one in the Annex driveway. 5. The parking issue was re-visited in 1980 with a conditional use modification request. The 1980 CUP modification deleted the original 15 space parking requirement (findings from James Spickerman for the August 26, 1980 hearing). In addition, the decision included suggestions for Public Works and Parks to investigate alternatives for staff parking, to improve the efficiency of the driveway parking, to sign the on- street spaces, and to re-visit the topic in six months if needed. · Apparently, some investigation occu/'red and drawings were done to change the · driveway parking and to propose the six spaces at the back of the Annex, but neither of thoSe projects were constructed at that time. No alternatives were implemented for . staff'parking. The two-hour signing was done on the north side of l0th Avenue. In a March 5, 1981 letter, Heatings Official Spickerman acknowledged that he concurred _;vith the ,F?din.gs of A.u.g~_s. t 1980 anda ~taffmemo dated February 25, 1981 (staffhas . een uname to locate this) and suggested that staff still try to fred alternate parking. Apparently there were no complaints to trigger another hearing, and the issue became dormant. Eight or nine years later, in the late 80's, the parking area was constructed behind the Annex and was primarily.used for staff parking in the early 90%. Note: There was never a condition of approval that either required the Annex parking to be built or required that particular number - six spaces, just happened to fit across the back of the lot. 6. A 1996 plan and land use permit application to add additional parking to serve the center was opposed by the neighborhood, and ultimately denied by the Hearings Official. 7. Since the 1980 CUP modification, the north side of i0th Avenue has been signed two- hour parking, resulting in 6 additional short term spaces in from of Kaufman Center and 2 spaces in front of the Annex. After approval of the SAZ, if the Annex is declared.surplus and sold as a residence, it will retain the siX-space off street parking area, a garage, and a driveway that would allow that address to have as many as eight vehicles parked on site. On that basis, we recommend retaining the two spaces in from Of the Annex as two-hour signed parking. 24 City of Eugene - Kaufinan House ' Page 8 Code Amendment/Zone Change; Creation of HiStoric Special.4rea Zone Satre Associates, P.'C. August 5, 2004 8. We have'requested the center's Jefferson Street frontage be signed for 2-hour parking, resulting in additional 3 short term spaces. There are currently three existing street spaces along this frontage that will be signed to'allow more parking availability for Kaufman Center during the day. The City, as owner of the adjacent property, has reqUested signed parking, and the project is in the queue. 9. The property is a City Historic Landmark, and the proposed code language allows adaptive reuse of a historic structure that doesn't lend itself to current code calculation methodology. A new senior center would be required to provide parking based on the Size of the main assembly area. The'Kaufrnan House does not have a main assembly area. In addition, the pr°perty!s historic status includes the garden area north of the center. Allowing EECA to operate using existing parking spaces :will avoid the need to disrUPt the garden area and obtain historic alteration 'approval. In conclusion, utilization of a conventional parking calculation (based on assembly area) · is not appropriate in this case for three primary reasons: (1) the user group depends largely on alternative transportation modes to get to the center, (2) the historic character of the Kaufman property does not allow for conventional parking calculation or .provision, and (3) the neighborhood has historically opposed parking area expansion. The center, has operated for over a quarter century with limited parking. In that time the only neighborhood complaints or opposition relative to parking have been related to' parking area expansion. Therefore, the proposed Code language seeks to validate the existing parking situation for the existing use.. (3) ExcePt for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Area zone, the area to be classified S Special Area includes at least ~ acre in area. .The subject property is proposed to be zoned S-H Historic Special Area Zones, and is thus exempt from the ½ aCre requirement described by this criterion. (4) The application of the zone to the properties proposed for inclusion in the S Special Area zone and the required provisions of a special area zone ordinance are consistent with the criteria required for approval of a zone change, according to EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval. Criteria. Compliance with the zone change criteria is outlined below. 9.3030 Required Provisions ora Special Area Zone Ordinance~ Each S Special Area zone is establiShed by an ordinance that contains the following sections: (1) Purpose describing the intent of the S Special Area zone. City.of Eugene, Kauftnan House Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone page Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 (2) .Land Use and Permit Requirements settingforth the uses to be permitted outright, permitted based on approval of a land use application, br permitted subject to special standards. (3) Development Standards containing development standards'governing factors that are necessary to achieve the purpose of the S Special Area zone such as required off-street parking, landscaping, setbacks, and building height limitations. (4) Lot Standards containing lot area and dimension standards applicable in the Particular S Special Area zone. (5). Siting Requirements in addition to those at EC 9.8865 Zone Chany~e APproval.Criteria Each of the required ordinance sections is included in the attached proposed Special Area Zone language (Attachment A). Zone Change Criteria . 9.8865 Zone Chant~e At~t~roval Criterb,, Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (1) The proposed change is consisteni with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence ·over the MetrO Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. Metro Plan Diagram The Metro Plan diagram designates the property for Medium Density Residential/Mixed Uses. However, .the Metro Plan recognizes that up to 32% of residentially designated areas typically accommodate nonresidential uses such as parks, schools; roads, churches, and neighborhood commercial services. The Kaufman Senior Center is an example of a nonresidential use appropriate within a residential area. The proposed Special Area Zone proposes residential and limited non-residential uses, including office, educational and cultural uses, and certain small scale commercial uses, in cOmpliance with the Metro Plan diagram and Metro Plan policies as detailed below. Applicable Metro Plan Policies Policy A22: Expand opportunitiesfOr.a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. The proposed SAZ langUage expands opportunities to utilize historic properties in ways not possible through conventional zoning. Policy A25: Conserve the metropolitan area's supply of existing affordable housing and increase the stability and quality .of older residential neighborhoods thrOugh measures such as revitalization,, code enforcement; appropriate zoning; rehabilitation programs; 26 City of EUgene - Kaufman House Page 10 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 relocation of existing structures; traffic calming; parking requirements; or public safety considerations. These actions should support planned densities in these areas, The proposal stabilizes the neighborhood by assuring the preservation of an existing historic structure.' The proposed SAZ language provides certainty to the neighborhood in terms of the future allowable uses on the Kaufman Senior Center property. The Special Area Zone provides incentives for revitalization and rehabilitation; historic properties are eligible for low interest loans from the city and tax credits from the state and federal governments, and these programs are more likely to be utilized if nonresidential uses are allowed. The proposed language incorporates' sensitivity to the Surrounding 'neighborhood into the development standards and approval criteria for adjustment review. · Policy H: Adopt and implement historicpreservationpolicies, regulations, and inCentive programs that encourage the inventory, preservation, and restoration of structures; landmarks; sites; and areas of cultural, historic, or archeologibal significance, consistent with overall policies. 'This SAZ application is a resuR of Eugene's Historic Preservation program. Properties listed on the city's Historic Landmark Inventory are eligible for Special Area Zones that · protect their historic values while providing flexibility not available through a conventional zoning district. The Kaufman House is a unique property not'well suited to residential zoning. If R-2 or R-3 zoning were retained on the property, future owners would be required to meet minimum densities if any change of use were to be proposed. This type of residential infill would compromise the gardens which have been associated with the house .as a community asset for over.30 years. (2) The proposedzone change is'consistent With applicable adopted refinement plans: In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan 'controls. · Westside Neighborhood Plan Diagram The Westside Neighborhood Plan further refines the Metro Plan diagram by designating the Kaufinan House for residential and'mixed use (Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area - see Attachment D). The description of the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area includes the following text: "The portion of this area west of Washington Street is characterized by a mix of older single-family and duplex structures and newer large apartment buildings. There are also two social institutions and the Kaufinan Senior Center" (page 3- 7). 27 City of Eugene - Kaufman House · · Page 11 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 The text goes'on to describe the zoning histgry in the area. In general, the Planning Department, Hearings Official, and Planning Commission have approved rezone requests to mixed use only east of Washington Street. However, the text apPears to support a rezone to Historic Special Area Zone for the Kaufman House, given its recognition in the Westside Neighborhood Plan'as an existing non-reSidential use, its location within the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area, and the presence of the mixed uses symbol on the Metro Plan diagram. Applicable Westside Neighborhood Plan Policies Eastern Residential/Mixed Use Area Policy 1: This area Shall continue to be recognized as appropriate for medium density residential development. Although there is currently a .mixture of land uses in the area, any further rezonings that -wouldpromote the conversion · of residential uses to nonresidential uses shall be discouraged . The Kaufman House is not currently and'has not been for the past 30 years, in residential · use.' Therefore, ·adoption of the SAZ will not cause the conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use. On the contrary, the SAZ will enable adaptive reuse of the Kaufman House structure, Should senior services be discontinued, without meeting minimum density requirements contained in the R-2 and R-3 zones. The intent of the proposed SAZ is not to expand nonresidential uses where they currently do not exist, but rather to allow a limited range of nonresidential uses consistent with the intensity of use currently · occurring at the Kaufman House. Neighborhood Character and Design Policy 1: Identify and encourage preservation of the significant cultural resources and unique features of the neighborhood including buildings, sites, structures, objects, street trees, and landscape features. The Kaufman House is a'significant cultural resource and unique feature of the neighborhood. The proposed code language protects the building, site, and landscape features in direct support of this neighborhood character and design policy. (3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the lobation of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. The Kaufman House exists find is currently served by all required urban facilities and services, including streets, water, sewer, stormWater facilities, electric and phone service, waste disposal service, land use controls, schoOls and parks. Future reuse of the property would be served by these existing services, in Compliance with the above criterion. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific'zone in: The Applicant notes that this application complies with the siting standards proposed to be adopted for the Special Area Zone (see Attachment A). 28 City of Eugene - Kaufrnan House Page 12 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of H~storic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 ($) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9. 2510(3), the property owner shall · ~enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of SO years. The NR zone does not apply and is not proposed to apply to the subject properties; · therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Code Amendment Criteria '. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria, If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (I) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. By complying with the Submittal. requirements contained in the Eugene Code, and given that public hearings will be. held, the proposed amendment will comply with Goal 1. In addition to the basic requirements contained in the code, the applicant has solicited input from the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors and the current user at the Kaufxnan House (EECA). Feedback received has been incorporated into the proposal. 'Given the voluntary citizen involvement conducted by'the applicant and the formal requirements for submittal of materials, notification, and public hearings, the proposed amendment process clearly meets the intent and the letter of Statewide Planning Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with G0al 1. Goal 2- Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to the USe of land and to assure an adequate factua! base for such decisions and actions. The City of Eugene implements Goal 2 by providing a land use policy framework in the Metro Plan and associated refinement plans; the policies contained therein are implemented through the Eugene Land Use Code which contains specific planning standards and criteria to govern the land use'planning process. This proposed creation of a Historic Special Area Zone follows the procedures specified in the Eugene Code. Therefore, the process complies with Goal 2. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands - To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 29 City of Eugene -~ Kaufman House Page 13 . Code ~tmendment/Zon~ Change: Creation of Historic 'Special 3rea Zone. Satre /Jssociates, P.C. August 5, 2004 The subject amendment does not directly impact any lands zoned for Agricultural use. Nevertheless, the proposed amendment complies with Statewide Planning Goal 3 by providing for efficient use of land inside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary thereby reducing the need to expand the UGB and potentially impact agricultural lands. Goal 4: Forest Lands - To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting ° f forest tree species as the · leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, andfish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. The subject amendment does not directly impact any lands zoned for Forest use. Nevertheless, the proposed amendment complies with Statewide Planning Goal 4 by providing for the efficient use of land inside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary thereby reducing the need to expand the UGB and potentially impact forest lands. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Natural Resources and Sc. enic Areas - To protect natural resource and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. There are no known natural resources, open spaces, or scenic areas requiting protection within the area proposed for inclusion in the SAZ. With.regard to historic resources, the ' property is on the City Of Eugene Historic Landmark Inventory and this application takes advantage of the eligibility to be governed by a special zoning district in recognition of the site's historic status. The'present application facilitates the preservation and reuse of historic resources in compliance with Goal 5. With regard to c ,arrying capacity of land, air, and water resources, the proposed amendment will' provide for efficient use of land inside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary, and will utilize existing facilities and services. The amendment thereby reduces pressure for development on the urban fringe and reduces the potential need to expand the UGB and impact surrounding land, air, and water resources. The proposed amendment will not impact the ability of the city to meet the carrying capacity of the land, air, and water resources within its jurisdiction. Based on these findings, the proposed amendment is consistent with the guidelines contained in Goal 5. Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resource QUality - To maintain, and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. The proposed amendment relates to the provision of special zoning regulations for a historic resource and will not alter existing policy related to air, water, Or land resource quality. Nevertheless, the proposed amendment complies with Statewide Planning Goal 6 by providing for efficient use of resources inside the Eugene city limits. These findings demonstrate that the proposed amendment will comply with Statewide Planning Goal 6. 30 City of Eugene- Kaufrnan House Page 14 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic.Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 Goal 7: Natural Hazards - To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. As above, the proposed code amendment does not alter plan policies currently in effect regarding Natural Hazards. Mechanisms currently in place to protect life and property will not be impacted by the proposed amendment. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 · does not apply. Goal 8: Recreational Needs - To satisfy the recreational needs of the Citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary'recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8' primarily relates to the provision of recreational facilities in non-urban areas of the state. At present, there are no policies related to the provision of recreational facilities within .the boundaries of the proposed SAZ. Furthermore, nothing inherent in the proposed amendment will impact the provision of recreation facilities within the City 'or State. To the extent this criterion relates to former city recreational services offered on the site, nothing in Goal 8 requires the continuance of these services, and furthermore, the proposed SAZ responds to the City Council's direction to enable separate sale of the Katrfinan Senior Center and the Kaufman Annex if necessary in the future. The property is not identified as necessary in any adopted recreation plan. 1 Therefore, the proposed 'amendments comply with Goal 8. Goal 9: Economy- To provide adequate opportUnities thrOughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. The proposed amendment will not directly impact the need for or supply of commercial or industrial' lands within the City of Eugene. That said, allowing for' the reuse of the structure will encourage continued investmem in the Westside neighborhood without sacrificing the grounds to residential infill. Based on these findings, the proposed amendment complies with Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing: To Provide for the housing needs of the state. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The Metropolitan Area General Plan- Residential Land and Housing Element implements Goal 10 by providing background data and analysis, findings, and policies related to the provision of residential lands inside the Eugene/Springfield urban growth boundaries. In 1999, the Residential Land Use and I The 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan does'contain the following high priority proposed action: "Campbell and Kaufman Senior Centers: Expand to accommodate multiple demands" (p. 35). However, this proposed action does not constitute a policy or approval criterion. Budget considerations affect the city's ability to implement proposed actions. 31 City of Eugene ~ Kaufman House Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone. Page 15 Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 ~ Homing Element of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan was UPdated in accordance with the periOdic review requirements contained in ORS 197.296. The 1999 update concluded that there is an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the future housing needs of the projected population.2 The present amendment does not propose redesignation of lands'currently designated residential on the Metro Plan diagram. Because the land included within the proposed SAZ is Currently developed with a residential structure that has been converted to institutional use, it is not Considered "buildable land" currently available for residential development. The applicantnotes that the parcel was not identified as buildable in the 1999 Residential Lands Site Inventory. Furthermore, the Metro plan excludes lands owned by a public agency from meeting the definition of"Buildable Residential Land".3 At present; the property is owned by the City of Eugene. These findings demonstrate that the amendment will not impact the existing supply of buildable residentially designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the requirements of Goal 10. Goal 11- Public Facilities: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Goal 11 is implemented through the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities Plan, a functional component of the Metro Plan. Kaufman Senior Center is currently served by public services, facilities and utilities. The proposed amendment will not impact the delivery of services to the land within the amendment boundary or lands surrounding the same. Based on these findings, the proposed amendment complies with Goal 11. Goal 12- TransPortation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The project site is served by Jefferson Street, a Minor Arterial, West 10t~ Avenue, a Local Street, and Broadway Alley. Access to the hoUSe is provided by a driveway on 10t~ Avenue; in addition, Broadway Alley provides access alon~g the rear property line. The " site is adequately served by transportation infrastructure. Future development that 2 Metro Plan RLUHE Finding 4, Page III-A-2. 3 Buildable Residential'Land: Land in urban and urbanizable areas that is suitable, available, and necessary fOr residential uses. Buildable land includes both vacant land and developed land likely to be redeveloped. Lands defined as unbuildable within the metro UGB are those within the floodway, land within easement of 230 KV power lines, land within 75 feet of Class A stream or pond, land within 50 feet of Class B stream or pond, protected wetlands and wetland mitigation sites in Eugene, and wetlands larger than 0.25 acres in Springfield. Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Buildable land includes property not currently sewered but scheduled to be sewered within the 20-year planning period. (Metro Plan Chapter III-A, Part II) 32 City of EUgene - Kaufman House Page 16 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Speci~l Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 generates 100 triPs .or more per peak hour will reqUire a Traffic Impact.Analysis in compliance with EC 9.8650. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR 660-012-0060 states that land use changes that significantly affect a transportation facility shall require mitigation measures to address the anticipated impact. Specifically, 'the OAR states: (I) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regUlations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the iidentified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. This sh'all be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be COnsistent with the planned function' capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility; (b) Amending the T~P to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or (d) Amending the TSP to modify the P ~anned function, capacity and performance standat;ds, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly · development where multimodal travel choices are provided. (2) A plan or land use regUlation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification ora transportation facility; or. (d) }Yould reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSp. The proposed code amendment does not change the functional. classification of any transportation facility or standards implementing a functional clasSification system; thus subsections 2(a) and (b) do not apply. With regard to subsection 2(c), the proposed amendment will not allow the'types of travel or access to area streets that are inconsistent with their'functional classification. Table 1 below shows a comparison of trips generated by currently, existing, allowed, and proposed uses on the property. The trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. The information shown in Table 1 demonstrates that the highest potential trip generating use on the site is day care. If the building were dedicated fully to day care, the number of total trips' generated on the site (312) is well within the capacity of a medium volume' residential street (750 to 1,500 ADT), considering other land uses located on the same block of 10th Avenue. In addition, current zoning allows day care through a Conditional Use Permit. Other likely scenarios include partial office use and partial residential use, resulting in fewer than 100 daily trips, which does.not represent an increase in daily trips over the number estimated for the existing recreational community center use. Therefore, 33. City of EUgene - Kaufrnan House . Page 17 Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic Special Area Zone Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 the proposed amendment does not allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification' of affected transportation facilities. The application therefore does' not significantly affect a transportation facility under subsection 2(c). Table 1: Trips Generated by Existing, Allowed, and Proposed Uses ITE Trip Generation Manual Use Average Trips per Kaufinan Center Trips generated Day/I,000 square square feet ~ feet Recreational community Comer 22.88 Approx. 8,530 195.17 (existing/allowed/proposed) Multi-Family Residence (allowed'6.63/unit Approx. 6 units 39.78 and proposed) GonOral Office (proposed) 11.01 Approx. 8,530 93.92 Day' Care (existing conditional,31.19/empl0yee . AssUme 10 311.90 proposed allowed) I Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6t~ Edition, floor plans for Kaufman House, and proposed code language. With regard to subSection 2(d) of the TPR, the proposal will have the effect of changing the zoning for .73 acres of land which is already used for non-residential purposes under an approved Conditional Use Permit. The impacts of the proposed change on the performance standards are expected to be minimal based on existing trips generated by the existing uses, estimated future trips generated by uses allowed under the proposed zoning districts, and 'standards contained in the Lodal Street Plan. Therefore, subsection (1) of the TPR above, outlining potential mitigation measures, need not be addressed. Goal 13: Energy Conservation -To conserve energy. The proposed code amendment furthers the principles of energy efficiency by allowing for efficient reuse of land currently served by a full range of public facilities. Based on these findings, the proposed amendment complies with Goal 13. Goal 14: Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. Goal 14 requires planned growth and coordination with affected agencies and service providers. In and of itself, the proposed amendment does not impact the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. 'Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the. Willamette River Greenway. 34 City. of Eugene - Kaufinan House Code Amendment/Zone Change: Creation of Historic SPecial Area ZOne Page 18 Satre Associates, P.C. August 5, 2004 The site does not fall within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this Goal does not apply. Goal 16: Estuarine Resources, Goal 1'7.. Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19: Ocean Resources. Goals 16 through 19 apply to Coastal Resources. The City of Eugene is nOt impacted by nor does it impact coastal resources. Therefore;these goals do not apply. The above findings demonstrate consistency with Statewide planning goals in compliance' with the above criterion. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. Compliance with the Metro Plan and Westside Neighborhood Plan are discussed under. criterion 9.8865(1) and (2).above. (3) In the case of ~stablishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for establishment of an S Special Area Zone. The proposed code amendment creates a Special Area Zone for a historic property. Compliance.with the criteria in EC 9.3020 is outlined above. VI. Conclusion Based'on the above analysis 'and findings of compliance with adopted plans and policies, the requested land use code amendment meets the requirements of state and local land use law and is consistent with applicable approval criteria. We look forward to' presenting this application to the Planning Commission and City Council to complete the land use process for the Kaufman House, thus making the Kaufman Annex eligible for declaration as surplus property and subsequent sale. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Terri Harding at Satre Associates (465-4721), or Emmy Jenson at Facility Management (682-5190). 35 ~ : Attachment S-IlK Historic Kaufman House special Area Zone 9.3600 ,.Purpose of S-HI{ I-listoric Kaufman House Special Area Zon,:. The Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House, located at 996 Jefferson Street, is classified as a City of. Eugene Historic Landmark according to the approval issued by the Historic Review Board. on December 4, 2003. This special area zone is intended to provide for the following purposes: (1) To afford the historic resource special treatment and protection so that the uses permitted and restrictions imposed upon it will preserve and allow rehabilitation of the building's character defining architectural features as an example of a prominent local architect's (John Hunzicker's) work, and association with PeOple important to Eugene's past (Trude and Ludwig Kaufman). Recognition of historic landmarks enhances the beautification of the city, promotes the city's economic health, and preserves the value of these properties. The regulation of designated historic landmarks provides a means to review changes to a landmark and ensure that histOric and architectural values are preserved. (2) The purpose of Historic Special Area Zones is to permit, after appropriate review, the use of historically significant buildings and sites for a range of uses not otherwise allowed together in one of the standing zoning districts, which often contain uses that are inappropriate while omitting uses that are appropriate to specific historic buildings and sites. The purpose of the Historic SAZ is to preserve these historic resources where their maintenance and productive "use would not otherwise be ecOnomically practical, and where a standard zoning classification would not be appropriate. {3) The Kaufrnan House was donated to the City of Eugene in 1972 and was used as a senior center under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for over 30 years, along with the adjacent Kaufman Annex (Beardsley House at 673 West 10t~). The Historic Special Area Zone allows separation of the two properties, and will foster the continued preservation of the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House by allowing uses beyond the senior services authorized by the CUP and establishing appropriate development standards. 9.3605 S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area' Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the follOwing criteria apply: (1) The S-HK Special Area Zone is intended to apply only to the Historic Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman house located at 996 Jefferson Street. 9.3610 S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements.'The following Table, 9.3610 S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements, identifies uses in the S-HK zone that are: (P) Permitted, subject to zone verification. (SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site reviewplan. 36 · S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone August 5, 2004 Page 2 (C) 'Subject to an approved conditiOnal use permit. (S) Permitted' subject to zone verification and the Spe6ial Development Standards for Certain Uses beginningat EC 9.5000. Potential useS are listed in Table 9.3610. Uses similar to those listed below may be considered at the discretion of the Planning Director in accordance with the Land Use Code and Decision Imerpretation procedures contained in EC 9.0040. Table'9.3610 S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements Accessory Uses Accessory Uses. Examples related to residential use include ~ garage, storage shed, and services primarily for use by residents on the site, SUch as a recreation room and laundry facility. Parking areas and garages constructed and used for a principle use on the development site, such as an apartment, are allowed as an accessory use. ' Accessory Uses. Examples related to non-residential use include accessory' services that are related to community service or professional office use, such as storage, classes, and recreational programs. EduCation, Cultural, Religious, Social and Fraternal Artist Gallery/Studio Club or Lodge of State or National .Organization Community and Neighborhood center.· ' Church, Synagogue, and Temple, including associated residential structures for religious personnel) · Museum School, Business or Specialized Educational Training (excluding driving instruction) Office Uses Administrative, General, and Professional Office Scientific and Educational Research Center Residential Dwellings 37 S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone August 5, 2004 Page 3 Duplex (Two-Family Attached on 8amc Lot) p Multiple FamilY (3 or More Dwellings on Same Lot) p Assisted Care & Day Care (Residences Providing Special Services, Treatment'or Snpervision) Assisted Care (5 or fewer people living in facility) ]l P Assisted Care (6 or more people living in facility) C DayCare(3t° 12peoPleserved)(SeeEC 9.5200)IIs Day Care (13 or m0re people served) [i C Commercial Services ... Bed and Breakfast Faeitity I1' P Catering Service .' IIP 9.3615 S-HK Historic Kaufman HoUse Special Area Zone Development Standard~. In addition to applicable provisions contained elsewhere in this land use code, the development standards listed in subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall apply to all development in the S-HK zone. In cases of conflict, the standards specifically applicable in the S-HK zone shall apPly. (1) Adjustment, An adjustment may be made to any of the standards referenced in this section in accordance with EC 9.8030(22). (2) Residential Development Standards. All residential development shall be governed by the general standards applied to the R-2 zone, except that there shall be no minimum density requirement. Any building alterations or additions and all new construction will require compliance with the Historic Property Applications procedures beginning at EC' 9.8150. (3) Non-residential Development Standards. All non-residential development shall be governed by the.general standards applied to the C-1 zone, with the exception that all new buildings shall conform With the height limitations of the R-2 zone. Any building alterations or additions and all new'construction will require compliance with the Historic Property Applications procedures beginning at EC 9.8150. 38 SdHK Historic Kaufman HOuse Special Area Zone · . August 5, 2004 Page 4 (4) Signage. 'Signs for historic properties are.exempt from' the regulations beginning at EC 9.6600 per EC 9.6610(1) and shall instead be governed by the Historic Property Applications procedures beginning at EC 9.8.150. ~ (5) Parking. Off street parking for proposed uses shall be calculated per EC 9:6410' with the following exception: senior services and associated uses may continue to operate at the site using the mount of existing on-site parking in the 'driveway off 10th Avenue (three spaces). As allowed by code, required off-street parking may be located within 1,320 feet of the development site with a city-approved parking agreement~ Per section (1) above, parking requirements may also be adjusted per the Adjustment Review criteria at EC 9.8030(22). 9.3620 S-I-IK I-Iistorie Kaufman House Special Area' Zone Lot Standards. The s-HK Historic Kaufrnan House Special Area Zone shall allow only the lot configuration existing at the time this Ordinance takes effect, except that the western property line may be adjusted no more than 10 feet to allow.separate sale of the adjacent lot. EC 9.8030(22) S-IIK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone Standard.~· · Ad.iustment. A standard applicable within the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special . Area Zone may be adjusted upon a finding that the proposed adjustment: a) Is consistent with the purposes of the S,HK zone as set forth in EC 9.3600. 39 ATTACHMENT. B 4O Attachment C Legal Description Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-31- 24, Tax Lot 9200 Kaufiuan Senior Center Beginning at a point on the North line of 10th Ave.. West in Eugene, Lane County Oregon, which is 66 fk North of the NE comer of Block 3 in the Amended Plat of/Iames Huddleston Add. to Eugene, Oregon; run thence: West along the North line of said 10t~ Ave. West 198.9 f~ thence North 161.2 fL to the South Line of alley if extended, thence East along the South line of alley, if extended to the West line ofJeffers°n St., thence South along the West line of~Iefferson St. '161.2 f~ to the point of beginning in Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. 41 Attachment D SAZ Application · .August 5, 2004 Kaufman Senior Center W E S T S I D E P L A. N' Land Use Diagram t Central. Resident:iai,Area ~ Wear 7th Avet~ue Cb~ereial.At~ ~ ~t'ern Resid~tiat~'txed Use Area ~; Cl~gnb~m Street Conm~er~al A~ea ~. Nortl~ern R~si.denria. I ~.rea F°llowlng the Land Usc Diagram is rex t: pertaining tO each of the five. subareas describing general land use characteris£ic.s and zoning historyand ~¢rting forth policies tog0ide future devalopment. Not to Scale · Westside Plan Diagram Source: Westside Plan & Satre Associates, P.C.  NOF~T~4 42 Satre Associates, P.C. · 132 E. Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, OR 97401 · (541) 465-4721 .' www.satrepc.com 7 . " I L Admlr~tratlve Serdcee t~~ s..~ .Plannm'~ f. and~cap~ Arch ATTACHMENT F FINAL DECISION EUGENE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 4, 2003 Public Hearing Approval for City Historic Landmark Designation Application Name: Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House (Historic Name)' Kaufinan Senior Center (Common Name) Application NUmber: (HD 03-02) · Submittal Date: October 29, 2003 l%bHc Hearing Date: December 4, 2003 Property: Tax Lot #9200 Assessor's.Map # 17-03-31-24 Zoning: R-3 Limited High Density Residential Location: The Kaufman Senior Center faces east on Jefferson Street at the nord~west comer of West 10'h Avenue, in the Westside Neighborhood. · Request: City of Eugene Historic Landmark Applicant: Mr. Glen Svendsen, City of Eugene Representative: Terri Harding; AICP, Satre Associates Staff Contact: Ken Guzo.wski, Planning Division, 682-5562 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This. application for City of Eugene Historic Landmark was submitted on October 29, 2003. Section 9.7305 of the Eugene Code, Type III applications, requires the Historic Review Board to conduct a public hearing within sixty days of submittal of a complete application. Staff held a predevelopment conference with Emmy Jensen, Facility staff, and Terri Harding, applicant's representative, in September of 2003 to discuss the application form and details of the application process. Staff toured the property and summarized a predevelopment meeting on January 6, 2003, recommending that the Kaufman Senior'Center might be eligible for listing' as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark. The Kaufman Senior Center remains in active use. The applicant's representative has completed the requisite research, summarizing the applicable criteria in the'submittal. The Kaufrnan Senior Center was designed by the local architect John Hunzicker. NOTICE Owners and occupants within 500 fe~t of the subject Property were mailed notice of the application and landmark designation heating on November 4, 2003. Referrals were forwarded to relevant City staff and the Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood Group on November 5, 2003. Elaine Barrett with the Kaufman Senior Center called to get more information about attending the HRB meeting and voicing their positive thoughts on the proPosed designation. Steve McQuire, Land Use Referral, submitted his response by stating that because there is no proposed construction his office has no issue with the referral: Marilyn Odell, with the Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood Group, requested copy of the application so that She could review and forward the Kaufman Senior Center December 4, 2003 Page I 44. neighborhood groups evaluation.' Staff spoke with Cary ThOmpson about the proposed designation and future change of Zoning, with him representing the jefferson-WeStside Neighborhood Association and sitting on the board (>f the Kaufrnan Senior Center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The submitted application is complete and the Historic Review Board may proceed with evaluating this application for eligibility as a City of Eug~e Historic Landmark. Staff recommends approval of this applicationbecause it. appears to meet criteria 9.8165(1) and 9.8165(2)Co): Association with the lives of persons significant to our past. The landscape design existing at thc Kaufman Senior Center was implemented by Lloyd Bond in 1963. Although the landscape does not meet the traditional 50 year age criteria it appears to be a significant example of Lloyd Bond's residential work. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This application for City of Eugene Historic Landmark designation was reviewed under the Eugene Code, Seca'on 9.8155- Historic Landmark-Designation Approval Criteria. The evaluation includes criteria from Section 9.8165(1)(2)(a,b,c,d): 9~8165(1): Designation is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. The designation of the Kaufman Senior Center is supported by the Metropolitan Area General P.1..an, which states: ~ "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 archeologic'al significance, consistent with overall Policies. re(Policy 1, page 111-1-2.) If designated, the Kaufman Senior Center will add to our knowledge of the residential work of John Hunzicker in Eugene,. Oregon. Recognition as a historic landmark will encourage, and probably assure, the continued preservation of this prominent historic structure. If approved as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark the recognition might encourage other property owners to pursue historic designation, or additional research on.the history of the Westside Neighborhood. Historic Landmark Designation of the Kaufman Senior Center is consistent with Policy #1 found in the Neighborhood Character and Design Element.Section of the Westside Neighborhood Plan - January 1987. Identify and encourage preservation of the significant cultural resources and unique features of the neighborhood including buildings, sites, structures, objects, street trees, and landscape features. (Page 6-1) Kaufman Senior Center December 4, 2003 Pa~e 2. 45 By designating the Kaufman Senior Center as a City of Eugene Historic Landmark the histOric property will be well documented through research and the photographic record. Designation .. will help to ensure the preservation of the Kaufman Senior Center. (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 £atterns of history. The Kaufrnan Senior Center is associated with the Progressive Era.(1884-1913) in Eugene, as described in the Eugene Area Historic Context Statement. This period saw a phenomenal boom in residential construction between 1909 and 1912. Around this time houses were being moved away from Willamette Street to make way for businesses as they expanded along Olive, Oak, Pearl and Charnelton. Cra~man and Bungalow style residential, construction was very popular in Eugene at this time (from about 1900 to 1930). The Kaufman Senior Center is a representative example of the residential building boom of the Progressive Era. In 1900 Eugene's population was 3,236 and by 1910 the population rose to 9;009, which is indicative of the need for homing, in Eugene during this period. Population ·leveled out in the next decade with 10,593 people residing in' the City by 1920. (b) Is associated with the lives of £ersons significant to. our past. · The Kaufrnan Senior Center Was built in 1908 for E.K. Wheeler who was a businessman associated with the U.S. National Bank and a secretary of the Odd Fellows Lodge. 'Mr. Wheeler owned the property until his death in 1937. The lot is' part of the Amended Plat of James Huddleston's Addition to the City of Eugene. Gertrude (Trude) and Ludwig Kaufman purchased the Wheeler House in 1941. The Kaufinans had fled fi:om Nazi Germany in 1936, and arrived in Eugene in 1937. Trude had her own dress shop in COlOgne, and Ludwig operated "Gebruder Kaulinan" (Kaufmarm Brothers) in Mainz, Germany for 33 years. The Kaufmans opened the'~first clothing store in Eugene in 1937 on Willamette Street. They · eventually oWned four stores, employing 125 people by 1968. Ludwig oversaw the financial end I of the businesses, while Trude served as manager and buyer. In 1962 Ludwig died So Trude ~ assumed responsibility for all aspects of the businesses. Trude Kaufman was an adVocate for women's fights, having campaigned in Germany to allow women the right to vote. Mrs. Kaufman maintained an extensive involvement with local charities, which she did quietly. She worked with the Pearl Buck Center and helped to fund and establish the REAL Program (Retarded Earn and Learn). In addition she was involved in the good work of the Salvation Army, YMCA, YWCA, and the Jewish Haddassah organization. HADASSAH, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, is a volunteer women's organization, whose members are motivated and inspired to strengthen their partnership with Kaufman Senior Center December 4, 2003 Page 3 . 46 Israel, ensure Jewish continuity, and realize their potential as'a dynamic force in American society. Founded in 1912, Hadassah retains the passion and timeless values of its founder, Henrietta Szold, Jewish scholar and activist, who was dedicated t° Judaism, Zionism, and the American ideal. Committed to the centrality of Israel based on the renaissance of the Jewish people in its historic homeland, Hadassah promotes the unity of the Jewish people. In Israel, Hadassah initiates and supports pace-setting health care, education and youth institutions, and land development to meet the country's changing needs. In the United States, Hadassah enhances the.quality of American and Jewish life through its education and Zionist youth programs, promotes health awareness, and provides personal enrichment and growth for its members. Trude Kaulinan was named "Woman of Achievement" by Quota club, and international service association of professional women. Trude sold the four Eugene stores in 1971 sO that she could retire. Concurrently, Mrs. Kaufman negotiated the donation of her home and the adjacent. property (Kaufman Senior Center & Annex), to the City of Eugene. The motivation of her gift follows: "I had been in the process of selling the property, but I decided then it would be much · better if people could enjoy that lovely piece of land, rather than having it tom up for apartments. It's the only piece of greenery in that area." (Eugene Register Guard, 11 October, 1972, p. !E). Edwin Smith, Eugene Parks Director, stated that the main house was ideally suited for senior acfivities,.which group it has served for the past thirty two years. Mrs. Kaufmau died in 1977 and the Register Guard outlined her many accomplishments and contributions to the City she loved. Mayor Gus Keller commented: "One of Eugene's very. great first ladies has passed away. There's a void in the city today." Jane Philhps, _fashion coordinator for Kaufman's, said Trude was "...a iiving legend in her own time. She had an incredible insight for business and an incredible sense of timing...when she learned of the plans for Valley River Center she immediately knew this was the direction to pursue, even though there was just nothing out there then." Mrs. Kaufman's accomplishments as a prominent business woman in Eugene are well documented fi:om the founding of the first clothing store in 1937. Her philanthropy and volunteer work were little known until her retirement and demise. Gertrude Kaulinan remains a significant woman for the City of Eugene. The record needs to reflect that the historic name of the Kaufinan Senior Center should be the Gertrude and Ludwig Kaufman House. (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics ora type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work ora master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant .and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Work of a Master According to research completed by Kimberly Lakin for her Master's thesis titled 'The Life and ~Vork of John ttunzicker, Architect (1867-1945)", the Kaufrnan Senior Center was designed by Kaufman Senior Center December 4, 2003 Page 4 John Hunzicker. Hunzicker had a very sUCcessful 30-year architectural practice in Eugene '(Oregon Architect License No. 0049). He was born in Wisconsin in 1867, the son of Jacob Hunzicker, a carpenter and farmer. John and his brother Emil worked as carpenter/contractors in Wisconsin for many years. Hunzicker moved to Eugene in 1903 and began his practice as a self-taught architect; when licenses were required in 1919 he became the first registered architect in Eugene. t His first architectural commission was a building for the Woodmen of the World in Springfield, constructed in 1904'. An inventory of his work lists nearly 150 buildings. The inventory includes 64 single-family houses, and of note, the Eugene Hotel, the Miner BUilding, a hospital, six armories, six lodge buildings, nine fraternity and sorority houses; thirteen schools, five churches, numerous commercial buildings, and the Douglas County Court House. During his lifetime, Hunzicker partnered with Theodore Gerow, architect, Lawrence Hunter and Archie Tirrell, builders, and Graham Smith, architect. Truman Phillips joined Smith and Hunzicker in 1929. Lakin explains that Hunzicker "eventually became not only the busiest ' architect in Eugene, but he outlasted many of the architects who began working in 'Eugene around the same time? She attributes much of his success to his willingness to cater to his clients' wishes? Hunzicker als° attracted attention outside of Eugene; he was written up in the journal Pacific Coast Architect in 1912. Mr. Hunzicker died in 1945'at the age of 78. The Kaufiuan Senior Center merits distinction because of the association with John Hunzicker, architect. DistinCtive characteristics of a _type, period~ or method of construction Bungalows were popularized at the beginning of the twentieth century through ~ublicafions such as~The Craftsman, a magazine published bY Gustav Sticldey fi:om 1901 to 1916. According to Kimberly Keir Lakin's 1982 thesis titled 'Who Life and ~ork of John Hunzicker, Architect (1867- 1945), "Bungalows were a particul_ar, l~ popular style for residences in Eugene and were built fi:om around 1905 until World War I. Lakin.goes on to describe the Hunter House, saying both it and another example by Hunzicker "hug the ground and have the massive quality typical of the Bungalow style.''6 Other defining characteristics include: the prominent porch supported by squared columns; a low-pitched gable (and intersecting hipped) roof; and the wide overhanging eaves with decorative cave brackets. The influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement.and the iLakin, 24. 3Lakin, 3. 4Ro.salind Clark, Ore. gon Style: Architecture 1840 to 1950s (Portland, Oregon: Professional Book Center, Inc., 1983), 145. SKimberly Keir Lakin, "The Life and Work of John Hnnzicker, Architect (1867-1945" (M.A. thesis, University of Oregon, 1982), 18. 6Lakin, 19. Kaufimn Senior Center & Annex December 4, 2003 Pa~e 5 48 related Craftsman style can be seen at the interior of the house; the Bungaloxv style was an outgrowth of this movement. · The Kaufman Senior Center was constructed in 1908 and illUStrates the mass, proportions and detailing characteristic of the Craftsman style houses designed bY John Hunzicker. The house contains a basement, first and second floor, along with a usable attic. The side.gable roof is penetrated by two prominent.gabled donners, Connected by a shed donner, on the east elevation. Vertical siding exists on the first floor, a product of the remodel accomplished in 1963. The second story displays the wood shingles of the original building with original fenestration including paired and single one over one double hung windows. The attic story display six over one double hung windows. An elongated brick chinmey is obvious on the south elevation as it extends the full height of the exterior. A single car garage is west of the main house and a small garden structure is located in the northwest comer of the garden, .south of the alley. The house has sustained a number of'alterations which diminish the architectural significance of the property. It appears that Mrs. Kaufman made Changes to the house in 1963 to outfit it for modem residential living, one year after the demise of her hUSband. Alterations include the enclosure of the l~ont porch for living space, while moving and diminishing the once prominent entrance door. sliding doors'and an enclosed porch were added on the north elevation of the house, undoubtedly intended to be utilized in conjunction with the landscape improvements completed 'by Lloyd'Bond. An exterior spiral staircase and wheel chair lift are located on the north elevation of the building, greatly hidden from public hew.- A double garage was'added to ' the weSt side of the house, along with restrooms, bedrooms and meeting rooms for the public. Kaufxnan Senior Center Landscape · The Kaufman Senior Center has a large garden to the north encompassing the proportions of one full tax lot. The area is well landscaped as part of a 1963 landscape scheme designed by Lloyd. Bond. Lloyd Bond is registered as Oregon Licensed Landscape Architect #2. He opened his practice as Lloyd Bond and Associates in 1954, many years prior to the professional licensure requirement being enacted for the profession of landscape architecture. Mr. Bond designed many Civic and residential landscapes throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Notable projects include the redesign of the Eugene Park Blocks, Lane County Courthouse, Eugene City Hall, and Edgewood Townh0uses. Lloyd Bond was elected as a Fellow of the American. Society of Landscape Architects in 1974. The unique and modem landscape installed at the Trade Kaufman Senior Center falls into the late.modem period identified in the historic conteXt statement titled: Eugene Modernism - 1935- 1965. plant materials include horse chestnut, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, apple and plum trees, rhododendrons, English laurel, ferns, grapes, and wisteria. Hedges, shrubs and brick walks are used to separate spaces in the garden. A great expanse of lawn contrasts with the more formal .plantings. Foundation plantings provide an amenable transition between house and garden. This is the first City of Eugene Historic Landmark Designation application that includes the work of Lloyd Bond, and is considered of exceptional importance for that reason. Kaufman Senior Center &.Annex December 4, 2003 Pa[~e 6, , Kaufman Senior Center Outbuildings ' A single car garage, dating to the 1920s, exists on the property and exhibits the traditional form and massing ora garage of this vintage. It contains the common addition to the north end that extended the space of the garage to accommodate the larger automobiles that were introduced in · the 1930s and 1940s. It is covered in T-l-11 siding which was.part of the 1963 modernization accomplished by Mrs. Kaufman. In the northwest comer of the property exists a small garden shed, not one full story in height. It has multi gabled roofs with exposed rafter tails. The shed is clad in horizontal board siding and period windows with a six panel solid door. The date of the structure is unknown, but it blends appropriately into the' landscape. (d) Yields, or may be likely to yield, information imp°rtant'to prehistory or history. staff has not identified physical evidence that allows the board to evaluate more completely the applicability of this criterion. (3) In addition to EC 9.9165(1) and (2) above,' criteria for designation ora historic resource that was moved, is primarily commemorative in intent, or less than fifty years. of age shall include the following considerations( (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 survivingproperty most importantly associated with a historicgerson or event. (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.. (c) A historic resource achieving significance within the last fiftY years can be eligible if it is of exceptional importance. These criteria are not applicable to this application. //~ar Schlieder, Vice Chair Date: fZ -o0-69~ Kaufman Senior Center & Annex December 4, 2003 Page.7 50 .FILE KAUFMAN SEN OR' CENTER · Land Use Alternatives Report February, 2003 ~ SATi~E ASSOCIATES, P.C. Planners, Landscape .~rchitects and Environmental Specialists 132 East Broadway, Suite 536 Eugene, 01~ 97401 SATI~ (541).465-4721 . Fax (541) 465.4722 ASSOCIATES (800) 662-7094 TABLE'OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......... · Background ' , 1 Methods ........... ~ ................................. : ................................................................ :::-:.,,,.:.~.,:i., .......................... I !1. Existing Conditions Analysis Land Use History. ........................... ' .................................... : ...................................................................... Zoning District Analysis ........................................................................................................................... !!i. Options, Opportunities and Issues ................................................. 7 A. Modi~ existing CUP ...................................................................................................................... 9 B. Apply for a new CUP ......................... : ..................................... i ........ : .................................... ' ....... 10 C. Request a ohange in zone .................... :..i ....................................................................................... 11 D. Upgrade the site for an outright permi?ted use. ' 12 Conclusion 12 Appendix A - Limited COnsulation Q & A .................................... - -'Appendix B-Historic Status ........ : ............ . ................... : ................................ 52 · LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A .............................. . ......................................................................... r~× ~ot ~p Attachment C ........................ :..:..i ................................. Kaufman Center Ground-Floor Plan 53 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background · lnApril of 2001, the Cid' Council asked the Ci~: Manager to direct Facili~ Management staffto explore the poSsibili ,n, of scl.ling tile Kaufinan Annex separately from the Kaufman Senior Center. Initial research by Facilities identified barriers to tl~e sale of the Annex property related to the existing conditional use permit. Facilities staff (Emmy Jenson) together with staff' from the Library, Recreation, and Cultt, ral Services staff (Renee Gru be) hired Satre Associat'es to research the various factors related to' tlie sale of the Annex property and to identify a process through which sale of the Annex property can be facilitated i!n accordance with the directive from City Council and the City, Manager. Secondarily. Facilities has requested that Satre research the various factors related to the potential'sale of both parcels. Primary Planni.ng Issue Any significant change in the current use of either the Senior Center or Annex, including sale of' the Annex itself., would constitute a change in use of the "development site" thereby impacting the validity, of the existing CUP. As such. before the Annex parcel can be sold, some form of planning or development action must take place in order to ensure that the proposed uses for both sites are outright or conditionally permitted uses under the land-use code. Potential Planning Options Satre Associates assessed the available information and identified the followin~ possible approaches for action by the ci~, prior to implementing sale of'one or both properties. These statements summarize tile resulting r.eco,nmendations. Documentation regarding the exploration of the opportunities and constraints of each approach follows in Section III of this report. · The first option available to the city is to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow fo,' sale of the Annex separate from the Senior Center. However,. while this option is possible, it is not recommended due to potential difficulties' in meeting the various .criteria of approval. · Tile second option would be to process a new ~onditional use permit to allow the Senior Center use to continue independent of tile Annex. While this Option is. definitely ti~asible,. given the potential issues related to meeting thi:'development standards (such as resolution of site parking) and the need fbr thelfumre use to be known, Satre recommends caret~l consideration of this option based on the operating characteristics of any future proposed use. : · A third option would be to designate and rezon'e the Senior Center parcel (or both parcels) to Historic. This option certainly offers the most 'tlexibi'litv and opportunity for tile Kaufinan Senior Center parcel given that/'brute use and oxvnership is uncertain at this time. This option also provides the best opportunity I'br tile Kaufinan House and' surrounding ground~; to remain in their present state. 5/~ Pauc v l"chruarv. 20()3 K.uih~an 5cllJ()r ~'clller · Finally, tile city could allow the.con~litional use permit tO lapse completely without any land use action: 'This option would require that the senior center site be adapted or upgraded to an outright permitted use such as some ~'om~ o¢' Housing, Assisted Living, or · Government use (as described in EC Table 9.2740). Given the density req.uirements'in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts, this option would likely.' involve significant impacts to the character of the site and could prove quite costly. Without specific information as to the parameters of a proposed use. the extent of those impacts would be speculative and premature at this point in time. , Unresolved Issues : The uncertain future of the Kaufinan Senior Center' property is the largest unresolved issue facing the city.. Because sale of{he Annex will require some form of planning action for the Senior Center itself, knowing what use will take place on that properb.' is important. That said, inthe uncertainty also lies an oppo'rtuni .ty. Because of the historical significance of the Kaufman House, the City. has the.option of rezoning the site.to Historic (H). Utilizing this option would allow the ci.ty to determine a range of potential uses for the site as well as specific development regulations for the site. Regardless of whether or not the cit.,,' maintains ownership of file Kaufman Senior Center property, re-designation and rezoning of the property, to Historic would serve to facilitate any of the.three potential operational scenarios envisioned by the ci.ty with the least amount of Cost and impact to the site as a whole. 55 I(:aillmall !icl1 )l'!.'cl]I(Yl' I:chr~Lu'v. 2()().3 i);.t,._,e vi i. INTRODUCTION Background Since file early 1970's. tile C JIB" of' Eugene has owned tile properties located at 996 Jefferson Street (Kaufi~an Senior Cente0 and 673 West 10'h Avenue (Kaufinan Annex), also identified as Tax Lots 9200 (old. 5300) and 9300 (old 4700). Assessbr!s Map 1.7-03-31-24. Until recently, the Ret/red and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP.), a Lane CommunitB.' College program, leased the properties and tall ,senior activities under the existing Conditional Use Permit (CU 77-45). Because City funding ilo longer covers programs in either of the buildings, RSVP has moved their operation to the United Wa):'. At present, Lane Communit?.' College' (LCC) has a six-month lease on the property during which time they hope to identify, a new ongoing funding source in order to continue operating tile Kauf~nan Senior Center. , In April of 2001, the City. Council asked the City Manager to l!ave Facility Management staff (hereafter referred to as Facilities) explore the possibili .fy of selling the Kaufman Annex (tax lot 9300) separately from the Kat, fiaaan Center (tax lot 9200) as part 'ofa discuss/on regarding how to isupply funds to tile Facility Replacement Reserve Fund. Lack of accessibility, to seniors and budget limitations for the former tenant, RSVP, and ongoing budget limitations fbr the ci.ty make the Kaufman Annex eligible for designation as surplus propel%:. Initial research by Facilities identified barriers to the sale of the Annex property related to the existing conditional use permit. Facilities staff~Emmy Jenson) together with staff'from the · Libra .fy, Recreation; and Cultural Services (LARCS) Department (Renee Grube) have hired-Satre Associates to research the various factors related to the sale of the Annex property, and to identify. a process through which sale of the Annex property can be Facilitated in accordance with the directive from Ci~' Council and the C/tv Manager.. Secondarily. Facilities has requested that Satre research the various factors related to the sale of both parcels. The properties are designated Medium Density. Residential (M DR) ill the Metro Plan and Eaktem Residential/Mixed Use area in the Wests/de'Refinement Plan. Zoning on the properties is R-2 roi' the Annex and split R-2/R-3 for the Senior Center, A senior cel~ter is a conditional use in both R- 2 and R-3. (See Attachments Al B and C for a Tax Map. Aerial Photo and Kaufinan Center floor plan.) Methods Tile primary goal of this study and report is to exp.lorethe 'feasibility of'selling tile Kaufman Annex as surplus property as requested by City Council. Secondarily. this study and report assesses the feasibility of selling both the Kaufi~an Senior Center and Kaufinan Annex together. or tile Kaufinan Sellior Center and the Kaufinan Annex separately: To provide tile background and establish the alternatives in this report. Satre Associates completed the Following research: · Visited the site. Noted all existing imprt~\;etnents, sulroundJl~g co~ditJons. ,)n street parking crmliguratirms, a~d l'o(')k photographs r~t"lhe site. 56 · Reviewed historical land use approvals. includin-rhicrofiche and property files, to gain i~isight into property, permit, and lancl-use history. Specifically. researched CU 68-3, CCi 72-45. a 1980 modification to CU 72-45, a 1984 lot line adjustment, CU 96-5. and a 200'1 interpreta[ion of' tire 1984 lot Ii:ne adjust~:nent. · Researched Land U~e Code requirements related to Conditional Use Pem~its, Conditional Use Permit Modifications. and: other perin itting processes. · Researched density requirements and deten~ined tire effect on sites ah-eadv developed with nomresidential uses. ' · Researched historic stattlS and tl~e potential ~for future Historic designation or zoning. · EvalUated the list of Permitted ~ses in one districts, · Discussed all of the above research with plmining and land use staff during a Limited Consultation meeting, 57 I,L;.I LiInlan !~]Ul'~ J( )r ( 'Ulll. Ur J"uJ'r)rllar',.'..~[H)?, Pa ~" l,alU:J I i:~c ,\llcrn;tlivc:; I.~cp()rl II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Land Use History Parcel 9200 was annexed in 1889 and was improved prior to 1936 (per lfistoric aerial photos)i A parcel was originally created and recbrded in 1941 (tax lot 5300), measuring 198.4 feet by 100 fket. In 1961, the parcel was rerdeeded with an additional I 1,622 square feet of area noah ofthe -. previously deeded parcel. Given that the lot was ricorded in its current configuration prior to August 14, 1962, and asthe lot conta;ins more than ~6,000 square feet and has greater than 60 feet of tkontage, Trax Lot 9200 qualifies as a legal lot. Parcel 9300 was also annexed in 1889 with Construction of the existing structure occmzing in 1920. The existing parcel was originally recorded i~ its cun-ent configuration in 1950. measuring 66.3 by 161 feet (tax lot 4700). Given that the parcel was created prior to August 14, 1962, and as the lot contains, more than 6,000 square feet and has greater than 60 feet of frontage, Tax Lot 9300 qualifies as a legal lot. In 1968 a Conditional Use Permit (CU 68-3) for a group care.hcili¢' run by the U.S. Veterans Affairs was applied for on tax lot 9300 (then 4700) {see a~achment D). Two other permits for similar Uses in the surrounding area (CU 68-1 and CU 68-2) were also applied for at the same time. Wkh regard to CU 68~3, tl~e request was g?anted subject to the following conditions: · .In 1972, a Conditional Use Permit (CU 72-45) for the ex/sting Kaufman Senior Center and Annex (trax lots 9200 and 9300) was applied for (see A~achment E). The conditional use was approved subject to the following conditions: I. Provision for 15 off-street parking Spaces; 2. Submission of an improvement petition for the alley if alley access is utilized, or lira itation of access to 10th Avenue with preservation of the planters along the alley; 3. Provision ora landscaped buffer with a minimum width of five feet and an average planting height of four to five feet alonz the West marzin"bfthe parki'ne area; 4. 'Preservation of the large che~' tree located along tlie east edge of the parking arem 5. Provision ora durable, dust-free surface for the parking area: 6. Planning Commission review 0fthe.off-stree~ parking provision ill October, 1973; Maintenance of the buildings ~nd ,,rounds in a state 0fgood repair: and 8. Adherence to Building Code requirements. Upon approval of the CUP, tl~e applicant began to operate the prope~y as a senior center. June 19, 1974. a memorandum fi-om Edwin R. Smith 0f the Kaufi~an Senior Center was sent to the Planning Director indicating that conditions I. 3.5: and 6 had not been completed: dmt condition 2 had been partially completed: that condition 4 had been co~pleted~ but the u'ee had died and hacl to be removed: and that conditions 7 and '8 had been completed. In response to the memo. tl~e planning department responded in a second memo (,undated) that to eiim inare the need Ibr parking and thereby remedy rl~e lack or'compliance with rl~e conditions related modificat'io, or' the original Conditional Use Permi[ would be required. In .lune or' 1980. a 58 modification request was brought.to.the City of Eugene Hearings official tbr review;i,, and consideration (note: no city. permit number appears to have been assigned to the modification request). On ALIgUst 26, 1980, tile City of Eugene Hearings Official concludecl that a modification of the conditional use permit was=-ranted eliminating tile requirement fora I ~4 space parkin,,= lot,. subject to the following conditions (see Attachment F): I. That the center work'with tile Public Works and Planning Deparmmnts in a attempt to improve tile efficiency and design of the. existing on-site parking spaces in the driveway areas. 2. That the staffpark on the church parking lot and that a copy of the agreement for the lease 9f these Spaces be provided to the Ci.ty of Eugene. ~. That the appl[cmlt request the Public Works Department to remove'the yellow stripe near .the Kaufman Center drivewayi if this can be done safely, pm~icular[y in conjunction with condition #1. ~ 4. That the applicant request the Public Works Department to sign on-street parking on the perimeter of tile Kaufman lot to a two hour maximum. 5~ That a date be set approximate six months from this time for a further public hearing on the modification of this permit. The hearing shall be held if any one of the following · should occur more that thirty, (30) days prior to the date set for tile hearing: 6. That tile applicant, based upon empirical data gathered since the August 26. 1980 hearing, request relief from any of the conditions of modification imposed. 7. That any of the persons previously aggrieved by tile pa"king situation wishes to.have further consideration of the parking question. 8. That any new complaints are received by the Planning Department by residents of the area concerning the parking situation. 9. That tile Planning Department bequest further consideration of the parkin~ situation at the Trude Kaufman Center. The decision of tile hearing official als0 stated that, "If tile situation five months fi-om now is an acceptable one to all concerned, no public hearing will be held." There is nothing ill the record between August 28. 1980 and February28. 1981 to indicate that any of the conditions of approval were ever complied with or that a second hearing was ever held. However. a memo from the Zoning Section to tile Planning Department dated May 4, 1982 does suggest that few, if ally of tile conditions, were met and that a second hearing was notheld within tile six month time period applied by tile Hearings Official. In 1984. a request to remove the lot line between Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 was received and approved by the plannin$ division. At some point during this same period, plans for a six space parking area behind tile existing Annex were submitted to Public Works for review. While it is unclear fi'om tile file when this parking area was approved and constructed, the parking area was in existence in 1096 when a second conditional use permit was submitted related to tile. Kaufinan SeniOr Center (note: no city land use pemlit nt"n hers or files appear to have been created tbr eitller the 10t line adiusmient or tile parking area request). In May o'1"1906, a conclitional use permit recluest (CU 06-5) was submitted to the city requesting approval to construct two parking areas on the north and south sides or'the east-west alley directly 59 north of the center (see Attachment G). Tile proposal included prov~saon fora six space parking area (including two handicapped spaces.) on Tax Lot 9200 and a 12 space parking area across the · alley on Tax Lot 9600. Tile decision of the Hearings Official indicated that a modification of the ori,,inal conditional use permit was re'anted to i~llow construct/on of tine six parkin~ spaces on Tax Lot 9200. but that tile Request for Conditional Use approval for tile 1.2" parking spaces on/ax Lot 9600 was dertied. The rationale for tile denial was that tile lots were not contiguous and.c0uld not 'be considered under the same perlnit. Furthermore. the decision noted that parking areas were not permitted ill tile residential zon/n,, districts unless accessory to another use. Tile modification approval was subject to the following conditions:. .1. hnprovements to the public facilities must be processed through tlie privately engineered public improvement procesS, to include an5' alley improvements and storm sewer extension." 2. Ali lights must be shielded SO that the light element is not directly visible to ally adjacent prOperts; lines. Tile lighting plan must be reviewed by the Permit and i'nformation Center prior to installation.' 3. Revised landscaping and lighting plans shall be submitted prior to conditional use permit agreement to reflect relevant conditions imposed in this application. Tile landscape plan should reflect which species ofosmanthus will be used. A modification agreement was never signed with the Cits.-' to complete the construction allowed by file modification and. as such, the approval lapsed. Tile most recent land use action on tlie subject parcel was an interpretation bythe planning division dated October 3, 2001 that tile 1994 lot line removal was null and void because the approval had never been recorded with the county (see Attachment H). Analysis of the land use history, on the subject parcels indicates tliat while conditional use pem~its have been.approved tbr tile site, tile conditions of approval attached to those permits have not a/ways been met. Zoning District Analysis In order to determ ine whether or not a rezone could potentially facilitate sale of the annex, Satre completed an analysis ora number of zoning districts. Each disti'ict was reviewed for its applicabili .ty to tile present site as well as its ability to thcilitate the needs of the city.. PRO - Park. Reo'ealion and Olde, ,~pace Given that tile subject parcels are owned by tile ci~, of Eugene and controlled by tile Recreation DiVision of'LARCS. Satre looked into the possibility of' rezonJng the parcel(s) to PRO (Park. Recreation and Open Space). Based on the siting requirements./fth.e rezone were to implement park. recreation. Open space. or natural resource preservation objectives ('by classif.ving tile s.ite as a neighborhood parl.:, community park. metropolitan park. or non-publicly owned open space..) then the PRO zone could be appropriate I-bt the site. The determination of park classification is based on tile Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan or by tile C/tv. Mana,',er= . Given the cleveloped nature ol"th'e Senior Center site. however, it is unclear how appropriate tile PRO >zoning ' des/gnat/on wotlld be. Fm'thermoi'e. even it' PRO zoning were cleemecl appropriate, a ~ew CUP 60 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. R ~ Residential , Fi'nally. Satre reviewed d~¢ residential zonin~ districts ~%r potential p~rmitted and'conditionally permitted uses. Table I shows the'a/lowed de~sity ranges in units for' each of the main residential districts. The reader' is advised that because the Annex parcel is a developed site less than 13.500 square feet; the minimum resident/ail density requirenaents listed below cio not apply (see EC 9.2751(1)(a)); the density standardsido apply' to the Senior Center Parcel. Table 1 - Residential Density . R-1 · R-2 R-3 R-4 Square Lot Feet Min Max Min Max Min, Max Min Max 92,00 32,670 N/A 1 ~ 7 21 15 42 15 84 9300 10,455 N/A 4 2 7. 4 14 With regard to use, any residential development which exceeds three attached units is subject to tile Multi Famil? Design standards. AS any future use of the Senior Center site for housing will require meeting the minimum densiLY requirements, this is an important factor to consider prior to any conversion of the site to a residential use. Besides housing, there are very few other outright permitted uses in the residential zoning cl. esignations that would be appropriate for tile' site, the primau, exceptions being 'Assisted LMng & Daycare' and 'Government Services, not specifically listed in this or any other uses m~d permit requirements table.' There are also a number of conditionally permitted uses in the 'Education, Cultural, Religious, Social and Fraternal', 'Lodging', 'Medical. Health and Correctional Services"., and :Ass/smd Living and Daycare' categories that could be appropriate for redevelopment of either o£ the two subject sites. 62 Pa.¢c 7 Fuhrtmry..2003 Kau I'man ,';un lot Comer '!11. OPTIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES As we understand it. there are three general scenarios tile city is considering for tile Kaufinan Senior Center and Annex at this point in time. In order of priority the scenarios are to: (I) sell tile Annex propem,, alone and retain ownership of tile Senior Center, (2) sell botll properties together, and (3) sell rile properties separately. Based on.our resear~:h and conversations w/th cit'5,,' staff, any significant change in tile current use of either the Senior Center or Annex would constitute a change in use of the "development site" .thereby impacting the validity of the-existing CUP: Upon cessation of the existihg CUP (CU 72- 45), the Kaufman Annex site. because it is less than 3,500 square feet and is currently developed. , .could be utilized as a single-hmily dwelling without modification (per EC 9.2751(1)(a)). Additionally, the Annex could be remodeled/redeveloped subject to tile outright or conditionally permitted use requirements'in the R-2 zoning d/strict. Conversely, because it.does not meet the exemption criteria in EC 9.2751 (1)(a), the Kaufman Senior Center site could not be maintained as a single family dwelling. Instead, the Senior Center site will need to establish a new outright or condkionally permit-ted use per.the use lists in the R-2/R-3 zoning districts; when the ex/sting use is altered, planning or redevelopment action Mil be required in order to establish a new use and bring the Sen/or Center into compliance With current land-use regulations. Regardless of which of the three scenarios is ultimately carried out by the ci~', there are generally four plannin~development alternatives that could be pursued to faci}itate establishing new uses on the Annex and Senior Center sites. They are: (1) modi~ tile existing CUP, (2) apply for a new CUP, (_3) request a change in zone. or (4) upgrade the site ro ineet the outright permitted use/development standards. Each alternative is discussed below with the pros and coils of each. A. Modify existing CUP Ill order to allow for sale of the Annex and continued use of'tile Senior Cezlter parcel in that capacity,, the applicant.must ensure that the change ill use is allowed.. One way to accomplish this would be to modiO' the ex/sting conditional use permit as provided for ill EC 9.8110. Procedurally, the modification process could be initiated: however ci,ty staffhave indicated it is unlikely that a modification would receive a positive, recommendation due to tile difficulty of meeting tile criteria of approval. Specifically, staff indicated that it would very, likely be difficult to demonstrate consistency with the original conditions of approval. Pros: This opt/on could be initiated under the Type II application procedures and as such would not require a public hearing, Tile application processwould be relatively straightforward and inexpensive. Furthermore, because tile request would be to modi~' all existing use. tile res/dent/al. densitY requirements of the code would not app(v. Cons: Tile requirement that tile modif'ication not be mater/ally inconsistent with tile original cdnclitions of approval causes d if¥~c u I~, in demonsrrating corn p liance with th is criterion. SpeciFmally. prior conclitions related to parking w(.)uld likely be di Fficult to arldress without tile improvement of'parking on the site. Furthermore. moclific;~tion oF the existing CUP. if approved. would unly allow Ibr continued use ()f'the senior center under its current operating characteristics. 64 I;:l~C () J?(:J')rtl;Iry. 2{)(~.'~ J{LILllillall ?;Clli(')r ( ',.zll Ifa user wished to significantly change tile operating characteristics, a modification to the CUP · would not be all appropriate planning option. Finally, any future change itl use Would require a new CUP or modification of tile site to meet the d. evelopment standards in the code. Conclusion Based on the.fbedback receivecl fi'om ,¥tcff.~ Same ,4s,¥ociates wo'uk[ not recommend that the c. itv pursue a modificcttion to the existing conditional use permit. B. Apply for a new CUP In order to avoid Jssties related to demonstrating compliance with tile original conditions of approval described above, the cib' (or future owner df the property) could choose to apply for a new CUP in accordance with the criteria of approval!in EC 9.8090. A new CUP would forrnalize a new conditional use on the senior center site indepelndent'ofthe annex~. The CUP could ' effectively allow the existing Senior Center use to co. ntinue as it exists today (separate from the Annex), or could establish a new conditional use (a school use, for example) with different operating characteristics. . A new CUP would provide a clean slate for the property., eliminating the confusing land use history for the site.. That said, it will be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of approval and standards contained in the existing land-use code. For example, the applicant will need to establish Vehicular and bicycle parking calculations based on the operating characteristics of the proposed use and request, a formal interpretation from the city." regarding its acceptability (given the requirement for one vehicular parking space for eveo' 28 feet of assembly area, it is likely that some amount of additional parking would be required irrespective of required parking associated with any residential use). Furthenuore, under a new CUP, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the density requirements for R-2/Ro3 as required per EC Table 9.2740. For the record, communiW and neighborhood centers are not required to meet the density requirements when permitted as a conditio, nal use in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. This is also true for other uses including, but not limited to, school uses, bed and breakfast facilities, residential treatment centers, and day care facilities. In other, cases such as churches, clubs and lodges, and hospitals, said uses are required to meet the minirnum and maximum d. ensiLy requirements unless granted a modification to the density, requirement through the CUP as allowed under EC 9.8090(8)(d). Satre notes that neither the Senior Center nor the Annex were considered avai;lable for residential development in the most recent residential land inventory'. Given the nature of the existing use, some of the developzT~e'nt standards (particularly with regard to pa~king) do not necessarily fit with the specific Operating characteristics of the Senior Center.i As such, complying with the criteria and standards may prove difficult without significant impa"c~s to the site. Pros: Establislfing a new CUP woulcl allow tile city tO establish a new use with similar or different operating characteristics than currently exist under the Senior Center. Si nilarly, a new CUP would alloxv the city or other user to argue tbr ne{¢ parking standards based 0n the operating characteristics of the proposed clSe. FinallY. a nexv CUP would eliminate reliance on past decisions and conditions and would alloxv ~br a "fi'esh start" in continuing tile senior center use. ~ Satre staff note that under'a new CI.IP. Ihe senio' center could continue to ~perate under public or private ownership ;.ts ti "Neighborhood Center" tinder the definition in' the code. 65 , I~al. lllllglll ;;elliOt ~ 'clltrgl' I"~.:bFIl~Jl'V. -(J )_. ]);l~c 1() Cons: A new CUP requires that tile t'uture use of the site be known.' Depending oil the proposed use, a ~ew CUP could potentially require the improvement of housing on the site as necessary to meet the current density requirements in the land-use code. In addition, while staff has indicated that there will be flexibility in interpreting the .~arking requirements under the new code. there is ~till tmcei~ainty as to the how much parking will be required (and as such, how mu~h 0fthe site will be impacted). Fmzher. because parking will be tied to the operating characteristics of the use. fl~ere will continue to be uncertainty [~r future users of the site until such time that the operating charaCteristics of the site are established and a staff interpretation can be made regarding a given parking propoml.' Finally, the CUP would require a p. ublic hearing prior to ' approval'. Co~zchtsion ~ased o~ feedback fi'o~ stc~md t/~ gorenticd d~czd~ meeth~g the deve[o~me~,t standarda'. &ttre Aa',ocic~tes wozdd recommend ?hat the ciO: ~urszte a ne,.~: conditioi~cd ua'e permit on(v c~er carefid considercttion, ff this option~ is Pzms'zter~ the ci~' ,~411 need lo work with a~): fitture ua'er to e~sure thrtt the ~ro~osed o~erating ,hctrctcteristics ora gh,en ztse cctn be accommodclted withi~ ' the' existi~g s~zzcture and site constrainls. [~ addition, the cfn, shouM consider the long-term viabili~.of rmy zta'e; a'~e~, C¢~ mm', ~o~ be advisable mffes~ the user ~[ans to remai~ in the building for c~ nzm~ber of yea~x. -C. Request, a change in zone., Tile third option available to the ci~' would be to change the underlying zoning designation of the senior center site to a zone that allows the use proposed outright. Based on our review of the Potential zoning designations for the subject parcel, including review of the Metro and refinement · plan maps and policies for the subject site, the Historic.zone provides the most flexibility, in terms of potential use allowances and design standards. Essentially, the city could craft use and. development standards specific to tile site. According to Ken Guzowski, Senior Planner for the City. of Eugene, appropriate uses wouM include those filet are deemed compatible .with the building and site. Specifically, uses could include.some form of residential use, communi .fy/ neighborhood centers, offices, bed and breakfasts, or Iow impact retail. At the time of designation, specific uses and standal;ds as determined by the applicant could be proposed for consideration that allow for as much 0r -as little housing, parking, site alteration, etc. as desired. . Again according to Senior Planner Guzowski: Any property- listed as a City :of Eugene Historic Landmark or in the National Register of Historic Places is eligible to Utilize the Special Area Zoning, following approval of the application by the Ci~, Council. Application ors Special zone to a lot containing a specific building, structure, object, site or archeological resource that qualifies as an h istor/c landmark will ens ute ithat perm itted uses en courage preservation of historic qualities. *** Tile use of Special Area Zoning might be a desirable designation that will help assure retention of tile h/storic architecture and gardens while allowing uses that wi. Il serve tile Ci~, and/ts citizens wisely into the furore. Pros: Rezoning the senior center site to Historic provides an avenue for tile c/tv to maintain tile character of the Kaufinan house by acknowledging the historic value of the site: allows tile ci~' 'to establish a range of use. density, and development standards tbr tile site: and provides an avenue to sell tile Annex and market the Senior Center site t'br lease or sale. This alternative provides certainty I'br the city. potentially reduces I:uture planning process (in tile I'brm of CUP's. CUP M0di/:ications. etc.), and maintains the existing character ol:the neighborhood. In addition, there 66 may be certain financial incentives (in tile form of grant money or tax breaks) that could be used by future owners of the site. Cons: Rezoning tile sen ior center to Historic could lira it the marketability of die site by restricting uses on the site. In addition~ historic properties are subject to alteration review for rna jot changes to'the exterior of' landscapes of historic properties and require city approval Prior to demolition. ?inaily. application for ~:reation of tile historic zone is a two step process. First. the applicant would need to apply to designate one or both of the buildings as Historic Landmarks (a Type III application requiring public hem'inS before the Historic Review Board). If Landmark status is granted, the applicant may then apply for application ora Special Area Zone under the Type V approval process (requiring approval by both tile Planning Commission and the City Council). Co~?chision.' ' Based on feedback from staff and ow' review of the issues, requesting ct rezone to IL, I-tistoric provides the gT'eatest amount offlexibiliTfor the ci7 to be able to define the parameters for use and design. ,4s sztch, Satre Associates recommends that the ci~, laursue designatb~g either the Kaz~nan house alone, or both properties together as historic followed by a re-zone from R-2/R-3 to Historic. This ot~tion provides the best alternative for continued ci~,' ownershiio of the Kaz~,an Senior Center orfor fittztre salo of both ~vroperties alone or together by cdlo,,,#,g the ci~ to establish .the use and development l~arameters. D. Upgrade the site for an outright permitted use. The fourth option available to the city. would be to upgrade the Senior. Center such that it complies with the development standards for an outright permitted use. For example, the city could redevelop tile site with housing or sell to another developer wishing to redevelop the site. While this option would allow the city to proceed with the sale of the annex~ it would eliminate the ability of the Kaufinan House to be utilized as a senior center. 'Further, such redevelopment would likely have significant impacts on the character of the neighborhood depending on the type of use and development pursued. Pros: This option would facilitate sale 0fthe annex by establishing a new use allowed by code, Cons: This option would likely require a significant outlay of money by the city, or private developer in order to redevelop the site. Furthermore, this option would significantly alter the character of the site'and could potentially impact the site's relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. Conclusion: Based on./kedback fi~om stetff cmd our re¥ie~.~, of the issues, &ttre Associates wozdd recommend this c~[ternath, e as a last resort only. Conclusion The uncertain future of the Kaufman Senior Center property is the largest unresolved issue facing the c/ry. Because sale of tile Annex will require some form o£planning action oil the Senior Center. knowing what use will take place on that property is important. That said. in the uncertainty also lies an oppo~'runity. Because ofithe historical significance of the Kaufinan 14ouse. tile City has the option ofrezoning tile site to Historic. Utilizing this option would allow tile city to detem~ine a range of potential uses fbr tile site as well as specific development regulations fbr tile site. Regardless of whether or not the city maintains ownership of the . I{Latl fiTlall Setlior Center property, re-designation a~ld rezoning (.)f' tile property to Historic would 67 · act to facilitate any of the three potential scenarios e~]visioned by the city' with the least amount of cost and impact to the site as a whole. 68 APpendix A- Limited Consultation Q & A The fbllowing issues were identified by Satre o.r Facilities as barriers to the sale of~he Annex. Th~se issues were addressed in a Limited Consultation meeting with city staff (Jean Hahn, Land Use Analyst and Gabe Flock. Associate Planner)on January 6. ~.00~. Each issue category is described below ;with.th~ questions we asked (in bold) and answers given by staff(in italics) following each. '1. New Conditional Use Permit vs. Modification of existing CUI ? In prior correspondence with Land 'Use and ?lanning Staff. Facilities has been told that a new 'conditional use permit, rather'than a modification, would be required for the Senior Centei' in the event that the city wished to sell the Annex parcel based on the argument that selling the Annex would constitute a significant change to the original CUP. The rationale for this interpretation is not reflected in EC 9.8080 (Applicability), which says "Conditional use permits apply to the initiation or expco~sion of a use listed as being subject to the conditional use permit review process in this land use code" (emphasis added). Sale of the Annex would not result in the initiation or expansion of the community center. Further. EC 9.8110 (Modifications· to Approved Conditional Use Pi~rmit) allows for the approval of CUP Modifications subject to findings that: (1) The proposed modification is not materially inconsistent w/th the conditions of original approval, and that (2) the-proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the development,, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties. Amending the existing CUP to remove the Annex ~vould not., 'in and of itself, result in significant c'hanges to the physical appearance of the development (flue structures already exist), use of the site (the senior center could continue to operate as such), nor impact on the surrounding properties (there would be little change to the overall operation of the center). Given the above analysis, and assuming the applicant could show that the modification was materially consistent with the c~onditions of original approval, please respond to the following questions. The issue of parking is discussed in more detail in the next section. Would the city, accept an application for a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit to reduce the overall use and area of the site? Ans,~,em P/'ocedurally., tt~e ciO~ coul. d /nove fom.~,c//'d with a modification. Pzrowever, staff ¥i,ouM not/'ecommend'it because qf potential clifficuln.~ meeting the criteria of approval. 1.2 If not, please provide a ratiOnale, particularly given that such a change w.ould not meet the applicability standards set out' in EC 9.8080 for initiation or expansion of the conditional use. .~n.s'we/.: The issue i.s' no!/'elated to applicabitio.'. .4~' noted above. 72rocedu/'aIly a modification i~. l)os,~'ible. That said, there ca'e i,s'sz/e,~' /'elated t'o comp/ia/we with criteria, [2a/'ticular].v material con.s'i, rtcnc3: ~l,ilh [he o/'tlgina/ criteria o.~'approval. 1.3 [n the event that the Ci~ were to accept a CUP Modification, please confirm th.at no addJtiomfl parking would' be required at this time given the 1980 modification approval by the FIearings Official that eliminated the requirement for a 15 space parkin~ lot and given that a second hearing was never requested per Condition 5 of the 1980 approval. 70 Answer: Stc/ff'#Tdicated that they would honor the 1980 #todification. t-Zoweve~; xtc~f h~dicated that there mt? be issues related to the criteria of aPProval that couM prechtde c~Provol of the apfl[ication. 1.4 Are there other hctors related to parking that Facilities should consider at this point in time given their mission to sell the Annex prope~? .4ns,~,er: There 'is creativi~ through'the Cb~ process to address parking. Spec~caHy, applicant shoz~M ~gc~ the uses w~d occupancies of the building and request an interpretation regarding the (equired number of spaces. : Non-profits do not meet the definition ora communiq center; t~y woztM meet'the definition of a neighborhood center. . 2. Parking Parking has been a primary, issue.for the KaUfman Center over the years. Given existing site constraints, providing significant on-site parking is an undesirable option. Specifically, additional parking would eliminate all or part of the existing gardens that make'up the center's grounds; it would result in a significant financial burden on the city. for construction; and it would have a significant impact on the residential feelof file neighborhood. Given these factors and considering the City's desire to sell. the Annex, the extent to which the parking' requirement for the Kaufinan Center can be reduced or eliminated in this case'is critical to the sale of the Kaufman Annex. The following questions are posed'to establish how Land Use and Planning staff would determine the need for Parking during review ora new CUP or modification to an existing CUP as needed to allow for sale of the Annex property. 2.1 Given that the Land Use Code does not define assembly area, on what basis will the city calculate the parking requirement for the Senior Center? ,~nswer: Staff ~,ill calculate parking based on the operath,g characteristics, OCCupancy,. and areas usedJbr assembly, b, other words, the uxe will determine the parMng needs in this case. Staff recommended phexenting a parking proposalJbr review and requesting a formal :. b~terpretation ~om staff 2.2 Would the ciW suppo~ an argument that tho center meets any oFthe following use definitions for the purpose of calCulating paring: Government? Day Care? Meal Se~ice? Office? .~nsw,er: The -use dq/inition ~.~,ouM need to he based on the allowable uses in the code. Given/he existing use, the aboYe use d{/initions i. vouM not.fit. 2.2 If the senior center installed a limited number of fixed seats, would the ciW calculate the parffing requirement based on the total number of seats only or would they also include "assembly area" without tixed seats? ..-ln.¥Wer: The city could m'e /he /~oremia/../br '.Jixed.¥eats " ~ts /)art q/'/he rational ~.~,hen c& velopin,~ the l;~l~'ki~,~ ]9ro[9o,¥~1) 2.4 Would the ciW consider the thc/that the center has operated tbr over ~enW years with limited off-street parkin~ as .justification to reduce or eliminate the parkin'~ requirement th rough the CUP process? 71 Answer: Like~,Ls'e. thLs'.fiwt cozdd be ttsed to a.s:s'LYt h7 the'crq/?hTg.'developme,! of t/Te i;arkh~g · proposal. The record Shows in par//ha! there Lr re/ctti¥'ely little opl)osilion or complaint related lo the operation of the ce,let o¥'er the past 20 to 2$ yec,:r. 2.5 If the Center installed t3vo new parking spaces on the Tax Lot 9200 through a CUP or CUP modification process, thus ensuring that the existing number of parking spaces serving the Center (3 spaces on TL 9200 and 2 out of the 5 spaces on TL 9300) would remain the same, would the ciD' support this argument in the application approval Process." Ans~ver: This is not a good al/erect'/!ye 'becam'e it does not actdress the use of the s. ite. 2.6 HOW would designation of the structure or zoning of the property as historic impact a decision regarding parking? ' ' Answe. r: "The hristoric designation loP..ovides opportzmities to crc~ developme, t standards specific to the needs of the site. These include standards related to parking. 2.7 A~-e there Other factors'.r~lfited to parking that Facilities should consider at this point in time given their mandate to sell the Annex property?'' A,sYver: If less than 3 a~aces are added to the site, ,o law'king area landscaping ,vould be requ#'ed. Restritving of existi, g paved area does not t~-igger lcmdscapi, g. Neither does developing ct.new wwonnected parking area of zmcter 3 spaces. 3. Zoning In order to determine ifa zone change could potentially facilitate the sale of the Annex by providing for the Senior Center as an outright permitted use (as opposed to a conditional use), Sa/re has reviewed a number of alternative zoning designations for the Senior Center site (see Appendix I for Satre's analysis of potential zoning designations). The following questions have been posed to determine whether or not a zone change could help facilitate sale of the Annex. Relponses to'these questions are also hseful if it is determined that both the Annex and the Kaufman Center are declared as surplus propmW to be sold. At this time, funding for the tenant, RSVP, comes from Lane CommuniW .College and there is some question whether the program will continue to be funded. The Ciw li~ previously determined that there is no funding available to support the Center internally. 3,1 Please confirm that rezoning all or part of the subject site to PRO is not pOssible given the siting requirements contained in EC 9,2610. Answer: Potentially OK p/'ovided EC ~.261~(]) could be .vt/cces4fid~v met (not &e "or'" separati/~g r'~) crud (2)). Slqff'u,otdd ,Oi recomme/M it. 3.2 Would the ci~, support a rezone/?om R-2 m' R-3 to PL for the Senior Center parcel? ...ln.vwer: Potentially. hut .vtq[f ~'ould not recomme,d it hecam'e rezo.fl~g (/'sold ~/,s' well m' zm,vz/ppo/'tive t;ol&v direc~io, h~ the ~'Ve,5't, ffde pkm. 3.3 Would the ciU' support a zone change tbr the R-2 portion of the site.to S-DW? .-t//.v~.'er; There ~/ppea/',v Io he tittle ,¥z/ppo/'t. fhr .vz//;l;Ort.a /'ezo.e ;o ,%DI't( At, vt/ex/'e/a/ed/o e/'o,vio, ot'/'e, vide.fia/ c'ha/'ac/er, //.'xed.~/,¥e, etc, 72 Page ..X-; t"ebrt~arv. 2003 Kat~lh~an 51cnJ()r (.'cruet 3.4 If the applicant were to downzone the R-3 portion of the site to R-2, would the city entertain a subsequent rezone to S-DW? '. See above. 3.5 If the site were to be rezoned to S-DW, would the residential devdopment standards, particularly the density, requirement, apply given its development with existing structures? Note that neither property., was identified as being available for residential development in the 1995 Residential Lands Inventory.. See above. 3.6 Does the ci~ have any insight into the intent of the City Council for retaining the existing residential character of the site While meeting the minimum density requirement in the S-DW zone?. Ans'wer: Based on comments at the meleting, appears that infill mco~ be more important than character. 3.7 Please confirm the allowed density for each residential zone (see table on page 7 of. this report). Ans~.ver: Staff?nd?cared that the densi,ty calculations in the above mentioned ?able were correctly calculated Staff noted that because the Annex ia' zmder 3,500 square feet and is currently developed, the densi~., standards to not apply, b¢ short, the Annex could be utilized in its current state as a single-family dwelling. 3.8 In the event that the Existing Conditional Use permit for the site was discontinued, how would the existing residential structures be classified with regard to use provided the zoning of the properties did not change? (e.g. would they be considered single family and therefore existing non-conforming in the Zone?') Please identify the applicable code sections. Answer: Staff relied on EC 9.2751(1);d) to interpret this item. Indicated that the senior center would not revert back to SFR if the CUP 3.i, ere discontinued Need to have a formal interpretation made regarding this isx'ue. 3.9 Based on what you know of this site, would Planning or Land 'Use staff recommend a zone change of any type in this case in order facilitate the sale of the Annex property.? .'4nswer: Staff indicated generaI sUp]raft for a rezone to historic because of the flexibiliLy it would qfford the site. 3.10 Are there other factors related to zoning that Facilities should consider at this point in time given their request to sell the Annex:property? 4. Historic status/Designati°n Given that the age of the structures on both properties exceeds 50 years. Satre is interested in whether or not it would be advantageous to pursue historic designation at' the structure or the parcel in order to facilitate sale of the Annex. Please address the tbltowing questions regarding the historic status of both Sites and the potential fbr historic designation/zoning: 73 .. . _0 L) Paae A-4 I(at~limm .5uJl/()r ~'cnter ["c{'H'uarv. '~ ( ~ !,and IJ~c All. crnativcs I),cp(~rt 4.1 Given the age of the exiSting improvements on both parcels, what are the. possibilities in terms of Historic Designation? 4..2 What use options would be available to the applicant if the sites were identified as haying historic value? 4.3 What process(es) would be required to designate the sites as historic? 4.4 Would the city. support a rezone to S-H, Historic for either site? 4.5 If so, what standards related to both use and development would apply? 4.6 Ho~, might Historic Designation of one or both parcels facilitate the sate of the - .' -. Annex? ' ..... 4~7 Are 'there Other factors related to historic status or designation that Facilities should. consider at this point in time given their request to sell the Annex property? -' For answers related to the Historic Status and Desi ,marion of the site, fllease see the ~4)ritten material prepared by Ken Guzo~vski located in Appendix B. 74 I):.1 ,'e ,'\-5 I"ul)rtlal",,'. _(,)0.~ I<.;..ILI 1i11.0.11 ):;ell i()r (. Clltt~r J, ;)ll(.J I J:q(2 ,.\llerl/ativ(~'-: I? ........ ,' 7,5 Appendix B - HistOric status The following was prepared by Ken GUzowski, Senior Pl'anner and historic specialist for the City of Eugene in response to questions related to the Historic Status/Designation posed, as part of the January 6 Limited consultation meeting. They are included here roi' background and · informational purposes. The original questions are Shown in b01d with staff response following each, 4.1 Given the age of the existing improvements on both Parcels, what are the possibilities in terms of ltlistoric Designation? The Kaufmm~ Senior Center at 99'6 Jefferson Street was built around 1918 in the Craftsman style. Historic landmarks must be over 50 years in age to be eligible for listing. The center has been modified to accommodate residential trends of the post WWI1 era, and subsequently to make it usab'le as a senior center. In 1996 1 stated in CU 96-5 that the building would not be eligible for lis.ting because of these alterations. Historic landmarks must meet one of four criteria in section 9.8165 of the Eugene Code. Section 2-b £s associated with the lives q'~e~:v~ns Siomdficant to our pctst, might be an avenue to prove significance for Trude Kaufman. [vIsL Kaufman Operated four clothing stores in Eugene roi' decades, and might be one ora few prominent female entrepeneurs in the City. If significance can be proven for persons, supporting documentation will be needed for the house and garden, as they appear to ha~ie significance, although modified. Additional research would need to be completed t.o understand the alterations to the Kaufman Sen/or Center since the City, of Eugene took ownm~hip in 1972. The Beardsley House at 673 West l0th Avenue was rm~ked Primary, in the Westside Cultural Resource survey. It is a "virtually intact" example' ora 1915 b'ungalow, with extant interior features.' It might be eligible for inclusion as a ciL'y landmark on architectural merit (2-c), and possible merit for persons (2-b) Grant and Maude Beardsley who appear to have had the house built. 4.2 What use options would be available to the applicant if the sites Were identified as having historic value'? i ' Historic preservation advocates for uses that are compatible to the type of building, l.n this case both of the buildings were built as residences, whichwere easily converted to their current uses. Corn patible uses are those that wil'l readily retain tile historic character of the properS, like residences, community centers, offices, bed & breakfasts, or low impact retail. Attached are examples of uses that have been allowed tbr residenriall conversions through the use of historic zoning. Reference Ball House Ensemble zone chanae Z 9 4.3 What process(es) would be required to designate the sites as historic? Tile City could submit one application to designate ~:l~e tWO buildings as CiL'y of Eugene Historic La~dmarks. Which is a Type III application. ~)nce tile application is deemed COnlplete staff has sixty days ro schedule a public hearing bet'bre the Historic Review Board. who renclers a final dec/sion ,m landmark .:.;tams. ~'bllowing the lapsg o1" the appeal period. 76 Once historic landmark status is obtained the applicant can submit all application for creation cfa Special Area Zone: specifically for Historic. This is a Type V application and requires approval by tile Planning Commission and subsequently by tile Eugene City Council. 4.4 Would the eiL-y support a rezone to S-H, Itistorie for either site? Any property, listed as a.City, of Et, gene Historic Landmark or in the National Register of Historic Places is eligible to utilize the Special Area Zoning, following approval of the application by the · Ci,ty Council. Application ors Special zone to a lot containing a specific building, structure, · object, site or archeological resource that qualifies as an historic )andmark will ensure that permitted uses encourage preservation of historic qualities. : These properties are currently located in tile R-2 and R-3 zoning idistricts, which support a higher densi .ry, suggesting that both of these properties could be removed to accomplish the maximum' density desired in these zoning districts.' The use of Special Area Zoning migllt be a desirable designation float will help assure retention of the historic architecture and gardens while allowing 'uses that will serve the City and .its citizens wisely into the future~ 4.5 If so, what standards related to both use and' development would apply? At the time of designation the applicant could submit suggested uses and development standards that the Historic Review Board could consider, Following support of staff. The uses and development standards would be submitted as part of the SD Historic application. Some examples are in the Ball House Zoning ordinance, included here as' an attachment. 4.6 How might Historic Designation of one or both parcels facilitate the sale of the Annex? Tile specific uses that would, be crafted for the Annex Or Senior Center could facilitate office and commercial uses in the properties, which would not be allowed in ;the'R2 or R3 zoning districts. For example, commercial and office uses are not allowed in the above referenced zoning districts. Reference the resident/al uses lists in Table 9.2740 of the Residential Zone Land Uses and Pe. rmit Requirements. 4.7 Are' there other factors related to historic status or designation that FaCilities should consider at this point in time given their request to sell :the Annex property? Historic properties are subject to alteration review tbr major changes to the exterior or landscapes ora historic property.. If an owner w/shes to move o,' demolish a historic property, they are 'subject to applications fbi' apprOval according to the Eugene code. 'Historic propert/es are eligible to utilize the historic .loan program which can lend Lip tO $20,000 tbr exterior projects, at 6% interest. FIistoric properr/es can apply tbr variances to waive setback, building height and parking require'lllents that will ensure preservation of a structure, as examples. If the properties were listed in the National Register of Historic Places they would be eligible to freeze the property taxes tbr .fifteen years, which is only a benetit xvhen ~or in public ownership. 77 Kal.li}~m~ !;enb',r ~ 'ctll. c~' b'~:t)r~larv_ 200'i ATTACHMENT 78