Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers–City Hall–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, Central Services Department. 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 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 Gertrude 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 Property 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. 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 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chambers–City Hall–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, Central Services Department. 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 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 Gertrude 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 Property 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. 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-Jefferson 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. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 1 Public Hearing 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 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 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 2 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 criteria for approval: Establishment of a S Special Area Zone 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 en- sure appropriate development, preservation, or rehabilitation. In order to be considered distinctive, it must be demonstrated that: i. The area is characterized by buildings that merit preservation in order to protect their special features; or ii. 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 pres- ervation or rehabilitation of distinctive buildings or natural features of benefit to the community. 3. Except for areas zoned S-H Historic Special Area zone, the area to be classified S Special Area includes at least ½ acre in area. 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 re- quired for approval of a zone change, according to EC 9.8865 Zone change Approval Criteria. Zone change approval 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 refinement 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. 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 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 3 Public Hearing  for a minimum of 50 years. Code Amendment approval criteria from EC 9.8065: 1. Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). 2. Is consistent with applicable provisions of the metro Plan and applicable adopted refinements plans. 3. In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for es- tablishment of an S Special Area Zone. 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, Facilities 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-Jefferson neighborhood since the early 1970’s, when Trude Kaufman, a local business woman, donated the property and an 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 the structures 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 had resulted in a lack of any city funding for programs in either of the buildings, and RSVP had moved its operation to United Way. At present, the Emerald Empire Council on Aging (EECA) was using the property, and hoped to identify a new ongoing funding source in order to continue to provide senior services at the Kaufman Senior Center. The city was providing free rent and major maintenance funding for up to two years, according to City Council directive. 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 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 4 Public Hearing 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 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 revert to 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 Area Zone, noting that do to so would compromise the mission of the project by subjecting EECA and MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 5 Public Hearing potential future buyers to a costly, time-consuming, uncertain land use process, that also posed interesting 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 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 O’dell, 750 West Broadway, Eugene, spoke as the representative of the JWN. Ms. O’dell 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. O’dell 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 under- stood 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 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 6 Public Hearing 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 conversa- tions with Ms. O’dell in stressing listing certain uses as conditional would make the building difficult to sell in the future, while 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 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 was no value added to applying conditional use permit criteria. 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 the conditional use criteria assumed there would be additional site development that could be quite intensive in the R-2/R-3 zone. She said in the JWN, with R-2/R-3, and 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 said any changes to the exterior of the dwelling or to the grounds would trigger Historic Alteration Review and potentially Adjustment Review, both requiring public notice and an opportunity for public review prior to a decision, and that both were appealable 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 Educational Research Centers are permitted with the exception of uses that generate radioactive emissions, noxious chemicals,…..” She said that language would be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 7 Public Hearing 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 public hearing, a predevelopment conference that had a fee, submittal of an application, and a completeness review that could take up to 30 days. She added that the completed information was submitted to the Hearings Official who conducted a public hearing and rendered a decision to the city. Mr. Flock added that the process would take three to six months, and 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 participants, 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 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 would 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. Ms. Harding added that Adjustment Review would be applicable for any office use tenant, including those renting from EECA, if they could not meet parking requirements in the code. Ms. McMillan stated that she understood that a zone change to historic provided for exceptions to the 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 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 8 Public Hearing 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, the limitation on changing the site would preclude that parking requirement. 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 circumstance, adding that the intent was to allow uses that could be done at a very low intensity. She said uses that required 18 parking spaces would be seen as too intense. 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 said 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 replied that the code required that 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. Mr. Belcher asked if the city, as the current owner of the property, could pay for the cost of the condi- tional use application. Ms. Jenson replied that it was not allowable. 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. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 9 Public Hearing 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 conditions had been placed on the property that would preclude the property from being changed outright to uses that may not be compatible with the neighborhood. He said he was not too concerned about professional office use being conditional as permitted. 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. 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 not 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 Kaufman 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 requirement would be if the Adjustment Review was not included in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Adams replied that if the use was changed, a building permit showing parking standards compliance, that would be very difficult, would be required. Mr. Flock added that if the parking standard could not be met, an Adjustment Review would be available. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 10 Public Hearing 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. 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:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc041026ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 11 Public Hearing