HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Final Order
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY FILE: THE HARRY AND ETTA CHASE HOUSE (HDM 21-1/HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2)
____________________________________________________________________________________
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant has requested approval to demolish three houses located in the Chase Gardens Residential
Grouping ensemble. The first house proposed for demolition is the Harry & Etta Chase House located at
158 South Garden way which is a National Register historic building, and a contributing structure to the
Chase Gardens Residential Grouping ensemble. The second house proposed for demolition is the Harry
and Etta Chase Rental Unit which is located at 160 South Garden Way and is not a contributing element
to the ensemble. The third house proposed for demolition is the Frances Chase Brenaman and Jessie
Brenaman House located at 132 South Garden Way which is also non-contributing with respect to the
Chase ensemble.
The applicant has requested to demolish the homes to allow for the development of a four-story multi-
family building that will provide 123 units of low-income housing. The proposed housing will provide
affordable housing for approximately 379 residents and the population to be served would include
seniors, larger families with children, and survivors of domestic abuse.
The City’s land use code (Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code) regulates the demolition and alteration of
historic structures. These regulations provide specific approval criteria on which the City must base
decisions about whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for the demolition or
alteration of historic structures. Up until 2017, the initial decision on these types of applications would
have been made by the Planning Director and the Eugene Code still identifies demolition and alteration
of historic structures as Type II land use decisions with the Planning Director as the initial decision maker.
However, in 2017, an update to the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) added a requirement that
requests for demolition of structures listed on the National Register (such as the request to remove the
Harry and Etta Chase House) must include a public hearing. Additionally, the update to the OAR added
eight factors that a local decision-maker must consider when making a decision to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a request to demolish a National Register historic structure. The OAR now require a
public hearing on the applicant’s request to demolish the Harry and Etta Chase House. The applicant has
also requested concurrent review of applications for a Historic Demolition under the Eugene Code
criteria, a Historic Alteration, and an Adjustment Review as allowed by EC 9.7055. To satisfy the new
OAR requirement for a public hearing, and to accommodate the applicant’s request for their applications
for demolition of the historic structures and the proposed building run concurrently, all applications
were reviewed by the Historic Review Board according to the Type III review process outlined at Eugene
Code (EC) 9.7300, with the hearings conducted in accordance with the quasi-judicial procedures outlined
at EC 9.7065.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
The Eugene Historic Review Board held the public hearing on these applications on March 17, 2022 and
deliberated on April 8, 2022 and April 14, 2022. Following deliberations, the Eugene Historic Review
Board approved the applicant’s request on April 14, 2022. Following the approval, Steven Baker and the
Harlow Neighbors filed separate, timely appeals of the approval.
The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeals of the Final Order of the Historic
Review Board on May 10, 2022 and deliberated on May 17, 2022.
The Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission regarding this application is based on the record
before the board, the issues raised in the appeal statements, and arguments submitted that related to
the appeals, in accordance with applicable procedural requirements of the Eugene Code (EC) and OAR
660-023-0200(8)(a).
II. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The record before the Planning Commission consists of the record that was before the Historic Review
Board, the appeal statements, and all testimony submitted before the close of the record on May 10,
2022 that was not rejected by the Commission. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Planning Commission
meetings on this matter were held virtually. The record for this application was provided electronically
to each of the board members, and printed materials were also made available for review. Under Eugene
Code (EC) 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are “on the record,” that is, the Planning
Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Historic Review Board. Additionally,
appeals to the Planning Commission are “limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the
filed statement of issues.” The Planning Commission’s decision on the appeals is based on consideration
of all relevant evidence and argument placed before, and not rejected by the Commission.
III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Rejection of Testimony
Both appeals included arguments that were not raised before the Historic Review Board and evidence
that was not provided to the Historic Review Board. Additionally, at the public hearing on May 10, 2022,
additional testimony was provided related to issues not raised before the Historic Review Board.
At the Planning Commission meeting held on May 17, 2022, the Planning Commission rejected the
following items as new evidence not provided to the Historic Review Board:
1. Text provided by Steven Baker on pages 5 and 6 of Baker’s appeal of the Adjustment Review that
Baker describes as text from the signed agreement between the City of Eugene and Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appeals before the Planning Commission were submitted by two separate parties, Steven Baker and
the Harlow Neighbors (a neighborhood association formally recognized by the City of Eugene). The
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
appeal issues as the Planning Commission was able to identify them are identified below, followed by
summaries of the Historic Review Board’s decision and the conclusion of the Planning Commission on
each issue.
Appeal from Steven Baker
Steven Baker (Baker) submitted two separate appeals of the Historic Review Board’s decision. The first
appeal is focused on the Adjustment Review application, and the second is focused on the Historic
Demolition application. The appeals are not organized into specific appeal topics, and as the Planning
Commission could identify specific issues, those items are grouped and discussed below.
1. Allegations of an incomplete record
Appellant’s Argument
Baker asserts that a clear and unambiguous record upon which the Historic Review Board’s decision was
based has not been provided and that failure to provide a record substantially compromises the rights
of the appellant and others. Baker also states that Planning Division staff have not produced the formal
record that is required.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The Planning Commission finds that the record for the applications known as The Harry and Etta Chase
House (HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2) has been kept in accordance with State law and Eugene Code
requirements. Baker does not directly dispute any particular item within the record, or the availability
of a given item to members of the Historic Review Board or interested parties. The many ways that the
Board and interested parties have had access to the record are summarized below:
Historic Review Board:
The full record was shared with members of the Board through Dropbox and staff made offers to each
Board member to have a thumb drive with materials on it and/or printed copies delivered to them based
on their preference. Additionally, the printed record has been kept by City staff, and has been available
for inspection throughout the process.
Interested Parties:
Multiple notices have been sent which included a link to the City’s website where materials for this
application have been made available to interested parties. Additionally, notices have included the
name, phone number, and email address of City staff who are available by appointment to allow for
individuals to view the physical record which includes all materials that are part of the application. The
Planning Commission finds that on multiple occasions staff offered Dropbox links, sent PDF’s of
materials, and responded promptly to many requests from Baker to view materials.
The Planning Commission finds that the record has been made available to decision makers and the
public in several formats, and staff have been available to assist interested parties and Board and
Commission members in viewing materials. The Planning Commission finds that the record has been
handled in accordance with the requirements of the Eugene Code and State Law, this appeal issue
provides no basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
2. Incorrect review process for Adjustment Review
Appellant’s Argument
Baker argues that the Historic Review Board has only four responsibilities, all of which are related to
historic and archaeological resources, historic properties, historic preservation, and National Register
nominations. Baker asserts that review of a Major Adjustment Review is not one of the allowed roles or
responsibilities of the Historic Review Board, making it necessary for the Final Order of the Board on the
Adjustment Review (ARB 21-2) to be rescinded and denied.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The Planning Commission finds that the Historic Review Board had the authority to, and an obligation to
reach a decision on the major adjustment review application as further described below.
The Historic Review Board is a standing committee of the Eugene Planning Commission and has powers
and duties that are specifically defined by EC 2.355(5). One of the listed powers and duties is to act on
applications concerning the demolition of historic properties. For reference, the code section is provided
below:
EC 2.355(5)(c): Act upon applications concerning moving or demolition of historic properties.
Additionally, Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code specifically lists the Historic Review Board as an appeal
review authority for Historic Demolition, Moving and Alteration requests (see EC Table 9.7055). While
the Board typically acts within this role, there is nothing in the Eugene Code that precludes the Board’s
ability to hold a public hearing and make an initial decision on a land use application.
As discussed above, OAR 660-023-0200(8) requires a local government to hold a public hearing for
requests to demolish National Register structures. Because the Historic Review Board can review land
use applications, is tasked with making decisions on demolition of historic properties, and is listed as the
appeal review authority for Type II decisions on historic demolitions, the Board was an appropriate body
to hold an initial hearing to satisfy the requirements of OAR 660-023-0200(8).
In addition to meeting the requirements of OAR 660-023-0200(8), the applicant also needed approval of
a Historic Demolition, Historic Alteration, and as will be further discussed, an Adjustment Review for
their application. EC 9.7055 states: “To accommodate a request for concurrent review, the city may
instead review multiple applications according to the highest applicable type.” Because the applicant
requested that their applications be reviewed concurrently, all applications went to a hearing before the
Historic Review Board.
To the point about whether review of the Adjustment Review is within the scope of the review of the
Board, it is important to understand why the adjustment was required in the first place. The approval
criteria for a Historic Alteration include a specific criterion that requires compliance with all applicable
standards. For ease of reference, this criterion is provided below:
EC 9.8175(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.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
Because the applicant’s request for a Historic Alteration included a number of design features, the
standards for those features became items that were required for review under the approval criterion
for Historic Alteration listed above. For many standards in the Eugene Code, an applicant may either
directly meet the standard, or where specifically allowed, may apply for an adjustment to the standard
as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance. As discussed in the Final Order of the Historic
Review Board, the applicant specifically applied for several adjustments which necessitated a review for
compliance with the standards that became applicable under EC 9.8175(9).
The Planning Commission finds that because the applicant specifically requested that the adjustments
be considered as part of the Historic Alteration application and be run concurrently with the Historic
Demolition application, the Historic Review Board had the authority to consider the Adjustment Review
application as requested by the applicant.
The Planning Commission finds that based on the requirement from OAR 660-023-0200(8), the authority
for the Historic Review Board to act as a decision maker from EC 2.355(5) and EC 9.7055, and the
requirement for compliance with standards at EC 9.8175(9), the Historic Review Board had the authority
to issue a decision on the adjustment review applications. This appeal issue provides no basis for
modification, or reversal of the Historic Review Board’s decision.
3. Allegation of the need for a land use code amendment to comply with OAR 660-023-0200(8).
Appellant’s Argument
Baker asserts that to comply with OAR 660-023-0200(8), the City must amend Chapter 9 of the Eugene
Code to include the requirement for a public hearing for a demolition of a National Register property.
Baker also asserts that a historic overlay or zone change to a historic district is needed to provided
protection of National Register properties.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The key text of OAR 660-023-0200(8) is provided below for ease of reference:
OAR 660-023-0200(8) National Register Resources are significant historic resources. For these
resources, local governments are not required to follow the process described in OAR 660-023-0030
through 660-023-0050 or sections (4) through (6). Instead, a local government:
(a): Must protect National Register Resources, regardless of whether the resources are designated in
the local plan or land use regulations, by review of demolition or relocation that includes, at minimum,
a public hearing process that results in approval, approval with conditions, or denial and considers the
following factors: condition, historic integrity, age, historic significance, value to the community,
economic consequences, design or construction rarity, and consistency with and consideration of
other policy objectives in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Local jurisdictions may exclude
accessory structures and non-contributing resources within a National Register nomination…
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
…(c) Must amend its land use regulations to protect National Register Resources in conformity with
subsections (a) and (b). Until such regulations are adopted, subsections (a) and (b) shall apply directly
to National Register Resources.
OAR 660-023-0200(8)(c) does not include any particular deadline by which local codes must be amended
to require a public hearing on a demolition application for a National Register resource. Instead, the OAR
provides that until a local government amends its land use code to comply with the requirements of OAR
660-023-0200(8)(a), the public hearing requirement and the requirement to consider the eight factors
listed in OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) apply directly to local government decisions on National Register
resources. Consequently, the Planning Commission finds that the OAR requires a public hearing and
consideration of the relevant factors as described (i.e. the process that was followed in this case). The
OAR does not require amendment of the City’s land use code or any zone changes are required prior to
consideration of an application for demolition of a National Register resource.
The Planning Commission finds that the Historic Review Board appropriately held a public hearing in
compliance with OAR 660-023-0200(8). The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue provides
no basis for modification, or reversal of the Historic Review Board’s decision.
4. Incorrect application of factors from OAR 660-023-0200(8)
Appellant’s Argument
Baker asserts that a clear evaluation of each factor in OAR 660-023-0200(8) must be made and goes on
to argue that the Historic Review Board did not include a clear decision on each of the factors and the
weight assigned to each. Baker provides text that appears to be a copy of text from the Final Order
and/or earlier staff reports and includes his additional analysis.
A summary of Baker’s analysis, followed by a summary of the Final Order findings, and the Planning
Commission’s determination, is provided below.
Factor 1: Condition
Baker asserts that due to the age of the Harry and Etta Chase house, it needs repairs. However, based
on the conditions that existed in the 1990s when the building was listed as a National Register listing it
should be preserved.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant about the repairs needed for the
Harry and Etta Chase House were sufficient to demonstrate that demolition could be allowed when
balancing this factor with others. The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
Baker’s statements about the age of the house do not provide an explanation of how the Board made
an error in their findings, nor does Baker point out what should have been done differently, aside from
reaching the conclusion that the building needs to be preserved.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
Factor 2: Historic integrity
Baker reiterates that fact that the Chase Gardens Residential Grouping is intended to be taken as a whole
and that individual buildings may not in and of themselves be exceptional or outstanding. Baker
references testimony from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that explained the
process for amending or updating a nomination. Following this, Baker asserts that the process outlined
by SHPO is necessary, and without it the historic significance of the property is supported, and the
property should be preserved.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
demolition when balancing this factor with others. The Board’s conclusion relied upon information
provided by Heritage Consulting which asserted that the house had lost integrity with respect to setting,
feeling, association, design, materials, and workmanship. The full findings of the Board are included in
Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
As discussed further under Factor 4: Historic Significance, the Board understood the argument made by
Baker related to the comments from SHPO about the process for reevaluation of a National Register
structure. To the point about the ensemble being taken as a whole, the Final Order of the Board
references testimony from Carter that made this point. While Baker disagrees with the conclusion
reached by the Board, consideration was given under this factor and Baker’s appeal statement does not
identify a clear reason as to how the Board erred.
Factor 3: Age
Baker notes that the property is 108 years in age and is not the oldest or newest of the Chase properties.
Baker also notes that National Register properties must typically be 50 years in age to be considered
significant. Following this, Baker goes on to discuss landscape features asserting that the Board did not
provide appropriate consideration to the landscape and that taken with its age, the property should be
preserved.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the age of the house did not warrant preservation when balancing other
factors. The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
Baker’s discussion of age offers no reason as to why the Board’s consideration of this factor was
unreasonable or in error. Additionally, the points about landscaping appear to be better related to
factors other than age.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
Factor 4: Historic significance
Baker highlights comments that were made by SHPO about the process that should be used to contest
a National Register nomination. Following this, Baker asserts that the Chase Gardens Residential
Grouping is truly unique and there is not another similar property on the National Register in Oregon,
and likely the Pacific Northwest.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
demolition when balancing this factor with others. The Board’s conclusion relied upon information
provided by Heritage Consulting for the application which provided a number of arguments related to
this factor. An item of note under this factor was the lack of clarity in the nomination over whether the
landscape was intended to be a contributing resource. The full findings of the Board are included in
Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The testimony from SHPO referenced by Baker explains the process for reevaluating whether a property
should be on the National Register. The applicant’s request does not contest the status of the Harry and
Etta Chase House as being a National Register resource, but rather, is a request to demolish the building.
This point is discussed by the Final Order of the Board, making it clear that the Board understood this
argument and made a decision that this factor did not require preservation of the building. Additionally,
Baker’s argument about rarity does not add additional analysis or points that make it clear how the
Board’s decision was in error.
Factor 5: Value to the community
Baker argues that the Final Order omits consideration of the video tour submitted in testimony on March
23, 2022. Baker states that the video tour contradicts the premise that the properties are screened from
the street and not visually significant. In discussing the video, Baker notes that the narrator is Whitey
Lueck who is a professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon and is a landscape expert
and often takes students to the property for tours due to the landscape and large trees.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
demolition when balancing this factor with others. One noted argument relates to the location of the
house in a high-density residential neighborhood, which the applicant asserted further diminishes the
value of the house to the community as a bungalow residence. The full findings of the Board are included
in Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
To the extent that the Final Order does not specifically call out the video, it does not mean that the Board
failed to meet their obligation to consider the information provided. The Planning Commission finds that
the Board was provided the full record of the application, which included the video mentioned by Baker.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
Some testimony was clearly intended to be considered under specific factors or approval criteria, while
other testimony was provided generally and the Board was left to decipher which, if any of the factors
or criteria it may fit under. The Board discussed the video under Factor 4: Historic Significance, which
demonstrates that the Board met its obligation to consider the evidence. Based on the Board’s
consideration of the video under another factor, it is unclear how the Board’s decision on this factor was
in error.
Factor 6: Economic consequences
Baker states that no mention of State property tax benefits is discussed and asserts that the Harry and
Etta Chase House is eligible for the Oregon special assessment program. Baker also asserts that the
Harlow Neighbors want to swap the vacant empty land north of the Q street slough for a future park
with the tax lots proposed by Cornerstone Community Housing for development. The point of this being
that if it were to occur, Cornerstone could have a vacant site and the Harlow Neighbors could have a
park with mature landscaping and existing houses.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
demolition when balancing this factor with others. Primary points from the argument were that it is not
financially feasible to preserve the house given the employment opportunities offered by the
construction, and the future benefits of an affordable housing development providing for about 379
residents earning less than 60% of the Area Median Income. The full findings of the Board are included
in Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The mention of a land swap and tax credits are not clearly relevant to the application at hand. While
both items could perhaps offer a scenario in which the buildings proposed for demolition could be
preserved, the Historic Review Board did not have the authority to require the applicant to apply for tax
credits or pursue a land swap. Additionally, this argument was not clearly articulated for the Historic
Review Board to consider. For these reasons, it is unclear how these items could have altered the Board’s
decision on this factor.
Factor 7: Design or construction rarity
Baker argues that the Board did not consider testimony and a map that was submitted which shows that
there are only three National Register properties north of the Willamette River in Eugene. Additionally,
the Chase Gardens Residential Grouping is one of only a few National Register properties associated with
the agricultural heritage of Eugene and the southern Willamette Valley. Finally, the statement that the
Chase Gardens Residential Grouping is truly unique and that there is not another similar property on the
National Register in all of Oregon and likely the Pacific Northwest is made again.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
demolition when balancing this factor with others. The main argument under this factor was that the
house, when constructed, was the abundant style of construction across the county. The full findings of
the Board are included in Attachment A.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The Planning Commission finds that Baker’s assertion that the Chase Gardens Ensemble is essentially
one of a kind in the Pacific Northwest is not supported by materials in the record. Additionally, the
arguments that the Board ignored testimony do not explain how inclusion of testimony about the
number of properties designated as National Register resources should have changed the decision of the
Board. The Planning Commission finds that the testimony provided by Baker, of which a map was
included, was provided to the Board for consideration. Based on the information, the Planning
Commission finds that the Board’s determination on this factor was reasonable and it is unclear how the
issues Baker raises are supported by the record or should have altered the Board’s decision.
Factor 8: Consistency with and consideration of other policy objectives in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan
Appellant’s Argument
Baker argues that the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan references the Historic Ensemble and the
Masonic lodge as property that could accommodate infill housing at the property owners’ discretion.
Here, the point made is that the policies should be understood to allow some form of infill development,
but not full redevelopment. Baker also asserts that this point was missed by the Historic Review Board.
Final Order Findings
The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested
parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents,
the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow
demolition when balancing this factor with others. This determination was focused on policies in the
Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan that clearly allow development of the subject property as high
density residential despite the historic nature of the subject property and the ensemble. The adopted
policies relied upon are provided below:
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Policy
I.1 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 archaeological significance, consistent with overall policies.
Willakenzie Area Plan Policy: Chase Gardens Subarea
1. The City shall not require development of historic properties, but shall allow for eventual
development of these sites as high density residential, with limited commercial opportunities, at
the owners’ discretion. Rezoning to Historic District is encouraged as an alternative to the
standard high density residential/mixed use zone.
The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
Planning Commission’s Determination
While the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan provides valuable context for the understanding of
the Chase Gardens Subarea policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan, the Chase Gardens Nodal Development
Plan was a precursor to the adoption of the Chase Gardens Subarea policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan
and, unlike the Willakenzie Area Plan, is not an adopted refinement of the City’s acknowledged
comprehensive plan.. Had Policy 1 of the Chase Gardens Subarea been intended to only allow infill
development around the existing historic structures, such text could have been added prior to its
adoption. As the policy contains no such text, the Board did not err in its interpretation of the policy.
The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue provides no basis to conclude that the Historic
Review Board erred in its consideration, interpretation, or application of the criteria in OAR 660-023-
0200(8) and therefore no basis for modification or reversal of the Historic Review Board’s decision.
5. Standard of Review
Appellant’s Argument
Baker provides a statement in the appeal that reads as follows:
Notwithstanding EC 9.7655(3), which conflicts with state law, the Historic Demolition application for a
permit as defined in ORS Chapter 227 and this appeal of the Historic Review Board is not limited to the
issues raised in the following appeal statement.
Planning Commission’s Determination
ORS 227.175 (10) provides that if an initial decision on a permit application is made without a hearing,
on appeal “the presentation of testimony, arguments, and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised
in a notice of appeal.” However, that statute only applies to land use applications where the initial
decision is made without a hearing. In this case, a public hearing was held by the Historic Review Board
on all three applications, so ORS 227.175(10) does not apply. The Eugene Code specifically identifies the
process for appeals of a decision of the Board at EC 9.7655(3). EC 9.7655(3) is provided below:
EC 9.7655(3): The appeal shall include a statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record,
and be limited to the issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues.
The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the hearings official or historic review board
failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with applicable criteria.
The basis of the appeal is limited to the issues raised during the review of the original application.
Based on this section from the Eugene Code, the Planning Commission must follow the specified review
process which limits the appeal to evidence in the record before the Historic Review Board and issues
raised during review of the application by the Historic Review Board and included in the appeal
statements. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue is not a basis for reversal or
modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision.
Appeal from Harlow Neighbors
The appeal submitted by the Harlow Neighbors groups their appeal issues into three different areas
which are discussed below.
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
1. Historical District/Property Alteration
Appellants Argument
The Harlow Neighbors assert that EC 9.8175 Historic Property – Alteration Approval Criteria 1 through 8
have not been met. The Harlow Neighbors argue that the applicant’s conclusion that after demolition
the site will be “bare ground” is incorrect. The appeal goes on to argue that an inventory of all items on
the site that may have value needs to be provided, that toxic items may exist, and that commemorative
place making type items need to be provided.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The applicant’s materials make clear their request to demolish existing structures to build a new four-
story multi-family building that will provide 123 units of low-income housing. The approval granted by
the Historic Review Board allows for the demolition of the existing structures. Additionally, as discussed
in the Board’s Final Order under the evaluation of Factor 4: Historic significance, vegetation associated
with the Harry and Etta Chase house was not specifically listed as being historically significant as part of
the National Register nomination. To the appellant’s other arguments about toxic items or
commemorative items, it is unclear how the Board would have been required to consider the items in
the manner proposed by the appellant, and how consideration would have had an impact on whether
the applicant complied with the approval criteria.
The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has proposed to construct an interpretive panel that
will be installed within six months of the project’s completion. The applicant included information about
this proposal in their supplemental materials submitted on February 15, 2022 on a page 68. The Planning
Commission finds that this appeal issue is not a basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review
Board’s decision.
2. No Native Peoples History or Archaeological Conditions
Appellant’s Argument
The Harlow Neighbors argue that the applicant should have made an effort to include Native/ Indigenous
Review of the site.
Planning Commission’s Determination
The Planning Commission finds that the applicant offered, and the Historic Review Board imposed
conditions of approval, related to archeological resources under EC 9.8175(8) that require the applicant
to comply with a plan to address any artifacts found on the site. The first condition requires a note on
the plans that states “Any Inadvertent Discovery will be immediately reported as detailed by the
Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources attached to this plan set.” The second condition
requires the Inadvertent Discovery plan be attached to the applicant’s plan set. It is unclear what else
the appellant believes the applicant should have done, or what authority the Historic Review Board had
to require the applicant to undertake other inventories or processes prior to submittal of their
application. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal is not a basis for reversal or modification of
the Historic Review Board’s decision.
l
3.Partnering with Eugene City Parks
Appellants Argument
The Harlow Neighbors state that in the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan, Chase Commons City
Park is connected by a Foot/Bike Bridge to the applicant's site over the Q Street Floodway. The Harlow
Neighbors request that the Historic Review Board and City Public Works/Parks address this with a
condition of approval.
Planning Commission's Determination
The Historic Review Board was required to review the applicant's request as submitted and under
specific approval criteria and factors from the Eugene Code and the relevant OAR. While the idea of
partnership and additional design process are certainly understandable aspirations, the Board did not
have the authority to require the applicant to enter into partnerships or undertake additional process.
The Board was obligated to act in accordance with the timeline for a decision provided by EC 9.7330,
and within the authority of the applicable approval criteria. In addition, as noted previously with respect
to the Baker appeal under Factor 6, the idea of a land swap or some other partnership was not raised
before the Historic Review Board making it a new issue that cannot be relied upon in finding error with
the Board's decision on appeal. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue does not provided
a basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review Board's decision.
V.CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission has reviewed the record and has voted affirm the decision of the Historic
Review Board, the Final Order of which is incorporated by reference and included as Attachment A.
The foregoing findings and conclusions are adopted as the Final Order of the Eugene Planning
Commission, for The Harry and Etta Chase House (HOM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2}, this 17 th day of May
2022.
Ken Beeson, Chair
Eugene Planning Commission
Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House I HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2
FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
CITY FILE: THE HARRY AND ETTA CHASE HOUSE (HDM 21-1/HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2)
____________________________________________________________________________________
I.BACKGROUND
The applicant has requested approval to demolish three houses located in the Chase Gardens Residential
Grouping ensemble. The first house proposed for demolition is the Harry & Etta Chase House located at
158 South Garden way which is a National Register historic building, and a contributing structure to the
Chase Gardens Residential Grouping ensemble. The second house proposed for removal is the Harry and
Etta Chase Rental Unit which is located at 160 South Garden Way and is not a contributing element to
the ensemble. The third house proposed for removal is the Frances Chase Brenaman and Jessie
Brenaman House located at 132 South Garden Way which is also non-contributing with respect to the
Chase ensemble.
The applicant has requested to remove the homes to allow for the development of a four-story multi-
family building that will provide 123 units of low-income housing. The proposed housing will provide
affordable housing for approximately 379 residents and the population to be served would include
seniors, larger families with children, and survivors of domestic abuse.
The Eugene Historic Review Board held a public hearing on this application on March 17, 2022. At the
hearing a request was made to hold the record open. The Board held the record open allowing the
following timelines for the submittal of additional materials:
First Open Record Deadline – 5pm March 24, 2022
Anyone could submit new testimony ahead of this deadline.
Second Open Record Deadline – 5pm March 31, 2022
Only testimony that responded to items in the record was allowed during this
timeframe.
Applicant’s Deadline for Rebuttal – 5pm April 7, 2022
This timeframe was reserved for the applicant’s final written argument
responding to any testimony received during other record periods.
Following the close of the record on April 7, 2022 the Board deliberated on April 8, 2022 and April 14,
2022.
The Final Order of the Eugene Historic Review Board regarding this application is based on the testimony
and evidence placed before the board and compliance with the applicable approval criteria, in
Attachment A
accordance with applicable procedural requirements of the Eugene Code (EC) and OAR 660-023-
0200(8)(a).
II. RECORD BEFORE THE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
The record before the Historic Review Board consists of the application materials, and all testimony and
evidence submitted before the record closed on April 7, 2022. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Historic
Review Board meetings on this matter were held virtually. The record materials for this application were
provided electronically to each of the board members, and printed copies of the record materials were
also made available for review.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The applications before the Historic Review Board consist of an historic demolition application, an
historic alteration application, and an adjustment review application.
Historic Demolition Application (OAR Consideration): OAR 660-023-0200(8) is provided below for
reference, followed by a discussion of each of the factors and evidence relating to it in the record.
OAR 660-023-0200(8) National Register Resources are significant historic resources. For these
resources, local governments are not required to follow the process described in OAR 660-
023-0030 through 660-023-0050 or sections (4) through (6). Instead, a local government:
(a): Must protect National Register Resources, regardless of whether the
resources are designated in the local plan or land use regulations, by review of
demolition or relocation that includes, at minimum, a public hearing process
that results in approval, approval with conditions, or denial and considers the
following factors: condition, historic integrity, age, historic significance, value
to the community, economic consequences, design or construction rarity, and
consistency with and consideration of other policy objectives in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan. Local jurisdictions may exclude accessory
structures and non-contributing resources within a National Register
nomination….
The Board finds that OAR 660-023-0200(8) requires consideration and weighing of the eight factors
listed in the rule in order to determine whether the historic demolition application should be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Based on the plain text of the rule, the Board does
not believe that any individual factor is dispositive; rather, the Board understands the rule to require
the Board to determine, based on consideration of the testimony and evidence related to the eight
factors, whether, on balance, the historic demolition should be approved, approved with conditions,
or denied. A discussion of the each of the eight factors follows.
Attachment A
Factor 1: Condition
The applicant provided a detailed Existing Conditions Report prepared by Rowell Brokaw Architects as
Exhibit E to their application. The applicant summarizes the condition issues noted in the report as
follows:
• Deteriorated non-original siding
• Windows that require substantial repair or replacement
• Gutters and downspouts in need of replacement
• Structural deficiencies in the basement
• Gas-fired wood stove exhaust system that is a fire hazard
• Main floor bathroom in poor condition
• Hazardous stairs to the non-code-compliant converted attic
• Aged building systems
The applicant goes on to note that while extensive improvements to fully rehabilitate the house would
be needed, it is in fair condition for its age.
Testimony from Liz Carter (Carter) received March 17, 2022 takes issue with the materials provided in
the Staff Report and the Heritage report provided by the applicant. Carter notes that the issues related
to condition summarized by the Heritage report are generally repairable items.
Testimony from Jonathan M. Pincus (Pincus) received March 17, 2022 states that the buildings are
restorable, and many restoration and rehabilitation projects have faced challenges far greater.
Based on the testimony and evidence provided, the Board finds that the condition of the Harry and Etta
Chase House is such that demolition can be allowed when balancing this factor with others.
Factor 2: Historic integrity
The applicant provided an evaluation of the historic integrity of the Chase House prepared by Heritage
Consulting as Exhibit G to their application. The applicant notes that Heritage Consulting is a nationally
recognized historic consulting firm that has prepared over 400 National Register nominations across the
nation and has prepared more nomination in Oregon than anyone else. The applicant goes on to define
historic integrity as the ability of a resource to physically convey its historic significance through
retention of its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and notes that
to retain historic integrity most of these aspects must be maintained. In summarizing the report from
Heritage Consulting, a list of thirteen changes is provided the majority of which are structural changes
to the Chase House, and some of which note changes to landscaping and general use of the site. The
report from Heritage Consulting concludes that the Chase House has lost integrity with respect to setting,
feeling, association, design, materials, and workmanship.
In support of the conclusion reached above, the applicant quotes the following from the Heritage
Consulting report:
“The direct setting of the Harry & Etta Chase House has evolved over time from a
mainly agricultural site to a site more densely populated with trees. This is
Attachment A
evident in the attached aerial photographs that date from 1936 to 2021. In 1936,
the parcel was largely open, featuring agricultural crops on the south and west
sides, with orchards toward the north. At the close of the period of significance,
the 1944 aerial shows that the landscape was largely the same as it was in 1936,
though the trees were larger. This house, like the others in the grouping, was not
screened from the street with trees as it is today. The present-day trees on the
south and west sides were not there during the period of significance, nor were
the hedges or blackberry bushes. As mentioned above, the setting has also been
disrupted by the conversion of the former tractor garage into a residential unit
with a carport. Finally, the larger setting of the grouping has substantially
changed over time. Structures that were important to the agricultural
significance of the site including the greenhouses, smokestack, Chase business
office, and barn have all been demolished. Photos of these resources are
attached. Surrounding the ensemble, the neighborhood is now a densely
populated commercial and residential area that includes large scale housing
developments and commercial enterprises. The building does not retain integrity
of setting.”
Testimony from Carter points out that the grouping as a whole appears to be largely intact and expresses
a concern that demolition of buildings and landscaping will impact the integrity and character of the
entire group. Carter also points out that the Harry and Etta Chase House was evaluated not for its
individual significance, but for its contribution to the overall architectural character and historical
narrative describing the Chase Gardens Residential Grouping. Carter also notes that the changes
mentioned by the Heritage report occurred before the listing to the National Register in 1999 and
concludes that the alterations were not significant enough to prohibit its “contributing” status
nomination.
Testimony from Steven Baker (Baker) received March 17, 2022 argues that demolition of the structures
in the middle of the grouping and construction of the proposed building would diminish the primary
character of the National Register nomination and could lead to future demolitions. Baker also points
out that building codes have changed over the years, and while the Heritage report calls out issues with
the structure, he asserts that many could be repaired.
Testimony from Joy Sears received March 21, 2022 argues that demolition of the non-contributing
resources and the Harry and Etta Chase house will gut the Chase Family Residential Grouping, losing
what is left of the Chase Gardens legacy in Eugene.
Based on the testimony and evidence provided, the Board finds that on balance, the historic integrity of
the Harry and Etta Chase House does not warrant preservation.
Factor 3: Age
The National Register nomination lists the date of construction for each of the contributing houses. In
order from oldest to newest they are the Frank Chase House, built 1889; the Jack (John) and Ida Chase
House, built 1909; the Harry and Etta Chase House, built 1914; and the Gladys Chase House, built 1936.
While the Harry and Etta Chase House was not the most recent addition to the ensemble, it is noted that
Attachment A
it is not the oldest. Additionally, the Gladys Chase House, while more recently constructed has a garden
associated with it making it more notable in the context of the ensemble.
Based on the available evidence, the Board finds that the age of the Harry and Etta Chase House does
not cause the need to preserve it when balancing other factors.
Factor 4: Historic significance
The applicant cites the Heritage report (Exhibit G to their materials) summarizing that the Chase House
was originally listed as being significant under Criterion B and Criterion C when nominated for listing as
a National Register resource. Criterion B relates to a property being associated with a significant person.
The Heritage report details Harry Chase’s life beginning with his birth in Kansas and eventual move to
Oregon and attendance of Oregon State College. This was followed by his work in the Springfield
Cannery, the Eugene Fruit Growers Association, and later in the food distribution industry and work for
a County Clerk. The Heritage report concludes that while associated with the Chase family, nothing in
the nomination under Criterion B established Harry Chase’s significance related to the Chase family’s
contributions to the horticulture or floricultural industry, or development of Chase Gardens.
The Heritage report goes on to address Criterion C of the National Register nomination. Criterion C is
concerned with whether properties are notable for their design or construction. The Heritage report
notes features of the Chase House that are not consistent with the bungalow style like the L-shaped
porch and the double cross-gable roof. Additionally, alterations over time have further diminished the
integrity of the Chase House and the Heritage report concludes that the house fails to make a noteworthy
contribution due to its limited stylistic expression and alterations.
Testimony from Carter states that the National Register nomination appropriately applied Criterion B
and C when considering the ensemble as a whole, rather than each individual feature within the
grouping. Carter references the National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation in making the point that unlike nominations for individual listings, ensembles do not need
to individually meet the criteria but may contribute to the overall integrity, creating a significant part of
a cohesive group. Carter also states that if new information has come to light, the appropriate process
for reevaluation is to submit a request for change to the State Historic Preservation Office.
Testimony from Baker received March 17, 2022 also argues that the Heritage report cannot undo the
process for nomination that already occurred. Baker also states that the Heritage report misinterprets
landscape as it relates to the nomination. In testimony received on March 24, 2022 and March 31, 2022
Baker provides extensive comments and other evidence on the importance of the landscape related to
the Chase Ensemble.
Baker includes a quote from Section 3, Page 3 of the comments in the original nomination materials,
which is as follows:
“The garden was designed by Gladys Chase and an unidentified University of
Oregon landscape student. The garden was laid out to create the illusion of
space, while providing privacy. Mature trees dating from 1936 and include
hawthorn, pin oaks, evergreen privet, dogwoods, azaleas, vinca major, and oxalis
Attachment A
oregonensis. Brick paths are carefully laid out around the perimeter and create
an axis from the living room of the house to the western edge of the property.
There is a concrete lily pond in the southwest comer of the yard. Gladys Chase
played a major role in the development of Chase Flowers and Gifts, a longtime
retail outlet which still operates in Eugene. The garden typifies the changing
tastes in landscape design of the 1930s and illustrates the strong association
between the Chase family and their land…”
The nomination includes sketches of the contributing buildings of the ensemble and landscaping
associated with each property (see pages following page 26 of the nomination). The reference made by
Baker is related to the Gladys Chase house which is not included in the request for demolition and sits
to the south of the Harry and Etta Chase house, for which demolition is proposed.
Baker also included videos of the Chase Garden’s ensemble where Whitey Lueck provides discussion of
the trees and landscaping associated with the Chase Gardens ensemble. As the video relates to the Harry
and Etta Chase House, Lueck references trees associated with the house stating that they are significant.
Testimony from Henry C. Kunowski (Kunowski) received March 31, 2022 takes issue with the approach
of the Heritage report. Kunowski argues that for the applicant to take issue with Criterion B and C for
the nomination, the necessary path would be to go through a process with the State Historic
Preservation Office to provide clarity about the integrity of the grouping.
In the rebuttal received on April 6, 2022 the applicant discusses the landscape. The applicant begins by
referencing the Heritage report which pointed out discrepancies in the nomination related to the
number and designation of contributing sites and landscapes in the ensemble. The applicant asserts that
the clearly designated features were the following: Frank Chase House, Frank Chase Garden, Gladys
Chase House, Gladys Chase Garden, Harry and Etta Chase House, and Jack & Ida Chase House. This leaves
a third contributing site that the applicant acknowledges could have been associated with the Harry and
Etta Chase House, as some discussion of the landscape related to the house is provided in the
nomination. However, the applicant also points out that where the nomination provides the “statement
of significance” the discussion is as follows:
“The landscape at the Harry Chase house is distinctly domestic in design, replete with
fruit and nut trees, and an old metal pipe merry-go-round from Pruneville School in
the side yard” (Section 8, page 21).
The applicant explains that as discussed in the Heritage report, the nomination makes no specific
assertions that the landscape associated with the Harry and Etta Chase House is significant nor does it
explain how the landscape is significant. Rather, only a description of the landscape that notes some
elements is provided.
The applicant provided historic photographs in Exhibit H, and aerial images in Exhibit I of their
application. The Heritage report provides a discussion on pages 5 and 6 which compared the historic
photos, aerials, and the National Register site to reveal noteworthy changes in landscape integrity since
the historic period. The applicant summarizes this discussion into the following elements:
Attachment A
• The loss of the concrete walkway to the front porch.
• The trees planted as a visual barrier in the front of the house.
• Blackberries and holly that are densely overgrown on the west and south sides of
the property where there were historically agricultural fields.
• The loss of additional trees from the former orchard and the planting of new trees/
large shrubs west of the house.
• The loss of greenhouse, business office, smokestack, and barn associated with the
Chase agricultural enterprise west of the house.
• The construction of a tractor garage that was later converted to a non-compatible
rental unit adjacent to the house.
The applicant follows this with some discussion of opponent’s testimony that argues that the landscape
is a vernacular landscape type. The applicant states that they do not dispute that there is a vernacular
landscape, but rather, that there is not enough information to conclude that it is significant based on the
lack of clarity in the nomination, additional research, and evaluation of present-day conditions.
Based on consideration of the applicant’s evidence about the significance of the Harry and Etta Chase
House, coupled with the lack of specificity provided by the nomination about whether the landscape
associated with the house was intended to be a historically significant site, the Board finds that this
factor does not require preservation of the building or features on the site.
Factor 5: Value to the community
The applicant states that the value of the Chase House is not well established. It is a private, owner-
occupied residence and is screened from the street by landscaping, often going unnoticed by passersby.
Additionally, the applicant notes that it is located in a high-density residential neighborhood which
further diminishes its value in the community as a bungalow associated with the Chase family.
Carter argues that the Chase property has value to the community because the property owners, Eugene
Historic Review Board, State Historic Preservation Office, State Advisory Committee on Historic
Preservation, and the Keeper of the National Register all reviewed the nomination and deemed the
ensemble of enough value to list. Carter also points out that many National Register properties are in
private ownership, occupied by owners, and screened from view.
In considering this factor, the Board finds that the value of the property as a historic resource does not
warrant its preservation when considering other factors.
Factor 6: Economic consequences
The applicant makes the case for economic consequences based on three documents: rehabilitation
feasibility assessment prepared by Meritus (Exhibit J to their materials); the construction economic
impact statement from Meili Construction (Exhibit K to their materials); and the community benefit
statement from Cornerstone Housing (Exhibit L to their materials).
Attachment A
Rehabilitation Feasibility: The applicant provides a report from Meritus Consulting which is a historic
redevelopment firm based in Portland with over 25 years of company experience. The report provides
detailed analysis reaching the conclusion that it is not financially feasible to rehabilitate the Chase House.
Additionally, it is noted that Cornerstone Housing is willing to sell the building to anyone for $1 to anyone
who can move it offsite prior to groundbreaking on new development.
Construction Economic Impact: The report from Meili Construction estimates that construction costs for
the affordable housing project will be about $25 Million and occur over a 16-month timeframe during
which about 450 workers will be employed. The applicant goes on to note that costs included in the
budget will include contracts with locally based design professionals and consultants.
Community Benefit Statement: The Cornerstone letter explains that the new construction would provide
housing for approximately 379 residents which will include seniors, children, and survivors of domestic
violence. The letter also notes that the property will remain affordable to households earning less than
60% of the Area Median Income for at least 60 years.
The Board finds that the information provided by the applicant demonstrates the economic benefit of
allowing the demolition of the Harry and Etta Chase House.
Factor 7: Design or construction rarity
The applicant states that the Chase House does not possess design or construction rarity. In support of
their statement they quote the Heritage Consulting report as follows, “the house may be ‘of the style’
but only marginally representative. During his era, fostered in part by mail-order kits from Sears,
Roebuck, and Montgomery Ward, the bungalow was the dominant style across the county. That said,
the Harry and Etta Chase House is not a rarity in Eugene as the construction typology is prevalent in the
area with other examples being of a less vernacular design.”
Carter states that while the Chase house may not be a rarity, its significance is not derived from its
individual design or history, but rather from its contribution to the overall grouping.
The Board finds that the evidence provided by the applicant demonstrates that the Harry and Etta Chase
House does not have design or construction rarity which would require its preservation when
considering other factors.
Factor 8: Consistency with and consideration of other policy objectives in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan
The Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan is the adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan for the
City of Eugene. The plan specifically notes that policies in the Metro Plan and/or refinement plans may
be applicable as approval criteria for land use applications (page I-3 of the Envision Eugene
Comprehensive Plan). In the context of the above factor, the Metro Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan
are the adopted plans with policy objectives to which consistency must be ensured.
The applicant begins by providing a list of seven policies from the Residential Element of the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) (which is a component of the City’s
Attachment A
acknowledged comprehensive plan). The policies generally speak to increases in density, the preference
for higher density development to be located near transit, and the transition of land from agricultural to
residential. The policies can be found on page 41 of the applicant’s supplemental materials. The applicant
provides analysis following the policies that highlight how their site is well served by the Lane Transit
District, and their plan to consolidate two parcels into a 3.4 acre development site will allow for the
development of high density residential development consistent with the objectives for increased
density.
The applicant also notes the following policy:
I.1 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 archaeological
significance, consistent with overall policies.
In response to this policy, the applicant discusses the importance of balancing the need for historic
preservation, with other policies related to redevelopment. The applicant also reiterates the conclusions
of the Heritage report that noted issues with the nomination of the Chase House related to Criterion B
and C and discussed its loss of significance over time. In exchange for the proposed demolition, it is noted
that the project proposes mitigation (see the applicant’s Exhibit B) in the form of ongoing historic
interpretation on the site. The interpretive features are proposed to include a high-quality exterior
interpretative panel, new fruit trees, and the preservation of one walnut tree. The applicant states that
they will also explore Chase-related naming opportunities and provide photo documentation of the
house to the Lane County Historical Museum.
In addition to policies from the Metro Plan, the applicant notes policies from the Willakenzie Area Plan
(WAP) which is the adopted refinement plan for the area the subject property is located in. While four
policies are listed, the most relevant to the applicant’s request is as follows:
1. The City shall not require development of historic properties, but shall allow
for eventual development of these sites as high density residential, with
limited commercial opportunities, at the owners’ direction. Rezoning to
Historic District is encouraged as an alternative to the standard high density
residential/mixed use zone.
The applicant states that the above policy explicitly allows and identifies that some, if not all, of the
properties included in the historic Chase Gardens Residential Grouping would eventually be
redeveloped.
Testimony from Phil Farrington (Farrington) submitted March 21, 2022 illustrates several points under
this factor. Farrington references the designation of the site for High Density Residential Use in both the
Metro Plan, the Willakenzie Area Plan, and the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan. The Chase
Gardens Nodal Development Plan was used to guide changes to the Willakenzie Area Plan which resulted
in a special area zone for the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Area (where the subject property is
Attachment A
located). Farrington goes on to note that the Metro Plan calls for the balancing of policy objectives and
references Historic Preservation Element Policy I.1 (already provided above).
In Farrington’s analysis, preservation is encouraged, but must done in a way that is consistent with other
plan policies which, in this case, support the applicant’s proposal at the density proposed. Farrington
further supports this conclusion by again referencing Chase Gardens Subarea Policy 1 of the Willakenzie
Area Plan (already provided above).
In his discussion of the application of the Chase Gardens Subarea Policy to the subject property,
Farrington references page 18 of the Chase Gardens Plan. The full text of the section referenced by
Farrington is provided below:
High Density Residential: This designation is intended to provide dense
residential use as envisioned in the Metro Plan and in the nodal development
areas identified in TransPlan. A minimum of 30 units per acre is recommended to
ensure land is used efficiently. Buildings will likely need to be three- and four-
story apartments to meet the density threshold. Limited neighborhood
commercial use is allowed in accordance with code standards. This designation
includes the Historic Ensemble and the Masonic lodge, properties which, over
time, could accommodate infill housing at the property owners’ discretion.
Farrington therefore concludes that the direction for a decision approving the applications has been
made clear by previously adopted policy directives.
The policy direction outlined by Farrington is generally correct, however it is also important to clarify
that the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan included a High Density Residential/ Mixed Use
designation for the subject property, which is slightly different from High Density Residential. This
designation is shown on the figure titled “Proposed Land Use Designation” and is discussed in text on
page 18 of the plan. The full text is provided below:
High Density Residential/ Mixed Use: The purpose of the high density residential
mixed-use designation is to simultaneously promote compact housing and the
flexibility to provide a limited amount of commercial services within residential
buildings. Examples of building types include live/work units, ground floor retail
with residential flats above, horizontal mixed use, and wholly residential
buildings. Minimum density is recommended to be 25 units per acre.
It appears that both designations are intended to be applicable to the site given the reference from the
text describing the High Density Residential area as including the Historic Ensemble, and the shading
shown on the figure titled “Proposed Land Use Designation.” Regardless, both designations appear to
show a policy intent to allow for high density residential development on the subject site.
Testimony from Steven Baker submitted March 31, 2022 also provides a discussion of the Willakenzie
Area Plan and the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan. Baker references images, recommended
policies, development standards, and other text from the plans. Baker’s comments appear to indicate
Attachment A
that he believes that policy makers intended the area to be developed with some other form of infill
housing rather than the proposed demolition and replacement of historic resources with high density
housing. Baker also provides a number of comments that highlight the consideration given to the Q
Street channel (located north of the subject site), existing trees, and the need for new development
facing historic properties to be compatible with existing resources.
Based on the testimony and evidence provided related to this factor, the Board finds that policies in the
Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan clearly allow development of the subject property as high density
residential despite the historic nature of the subject property and the ensemble. The Board finds that
this factor to be especially persuasive, given the policy direction to allow development of the subject
property embedded in the plan policies adopted by the Eugene City Council.
Historic Review Board Determination
As noted above, the Board finds that the factors to be considered under OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) require
a balancing of each factor and the evidence provided in the context of the factors. As such, the Board
has considered all of the available testimony and evidence, as well as the relative weight of the testimony
and evidence related to each factor. Based on the available evidence that points to the deterioration of
the integrity of the Chase House, and the policy direction in the Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan,
that despite the presence of the ensemble on the subject property, the property is eligible for
redevelopment as high density residential, the Board finds that on balance, the factors listed in OAR
660-023-0200(8)(a) require approval of the historic demolition application.
Historic Demolition Application: The approval criteria from Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code are provided
by EC 9.8180 and are evaluated below.
EC 9.8180(1): The state of repair of the historic property and the financial and
physical feasibility of historic rehabilitation, historic property moving, or leaving the
property in its current state or location.
The eight factors for consideration under OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) provide consideration of the factors
listed by this criterion and add additional factors to be considered. As discussed above, the application
has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that their request to demolish the building can be
allowed under OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a), and the findings from that analysis are hereby incorporated by
reference.
It is noted that the review under OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) is focused on the Harry and Etta Chase House,
which is the house proposed for demolition that is contributing with respect to the National Register
nomination for the subject property. The other two structures, the Harry and Etta Chase Rental Unit and
the Frances Chase Brenaman and Jessie Brenaman House, do not have the same significance as the Harry
and Etta Chase House and while included as part of the ensemble do not and in of themselves have
historic significance which must be preserved in the context of the above criterion.
Based on the findings and available information, this criterion is met.
Attachment A
EC 9.8180(2): The effects of the moving upon the use and development of the historic
property.
The applicant splits their evaluation under this criterion into two categories: Moving On-Site and Moving
Off-Site.
Moving On-Site: The applicant explains that while moving the house to the southwest corner of the site
would allow the proposed affordable housing project to be constructed as designed, it would reduce the
amount of outdoor community play space available for residents. Additionally, with a cost of more than
$360/sf the applicant states that it is not financially rational to save the 1161 square foot structure which
has poor historic integrity and minimal significance.
Moving Off-Site: Cornerstone is willing to sell the building for $1 to anyone who can move it offsite (at
the buyer’s expense) prior to groundbreaking for new development. Additionally, the applicant has
offered $20,000 in assistance to anyone who is interested in obtaining the home for $1 and moving it.
The applicant notes that the move would be a higher cost than an on-site move and would still result in
the house being removed from its context as a contributing resource to the Chase Gardens ensemble.
However, the applicant also notes that if the house were moved to a lot with open space it would
improve its integrity related to its setting and feeling. If it were moved to land that was more available
to the public, it could allow for viewing and interpretation of the house.
The above criterion is most concerned with a proposal to move a building and what impact a move would
have on the historic integrity of the property. In this case, the applicant is not proposing to move the
building but does provide a reasonable opportunity for another party to purchase the building for the
purpose of relocating it off-site. As for an on-site move, the applicant has not proposed this and relies
on cost concerns, as well as detailed analysis from Heritage consulting that takes issue with portions of
the nomination and points to deterioration of the building’s integrity. Again, it noted that the Chase
House was not found to be a rare building type, or a particularly excellent example of its type.
Based on the available information, the request to demolish the building is reasonable and the above
criterion which requires consideration of a move does not prohibit the request to demolish the building.
EC 9.8180(3): The marketability of the property and the willingness of the property
owner to sell the property.
The applicant states that the current property owners, who are members of the Chase family, listed the
property for sale in 2020. As discussed in the applicant’s Exhibit J, the value of the land made the group
of homes less marketable as single-family residences. Based on the value of the land, the Chase family
marketed the sale of the property for high-density residential development. The applicant states that
the Chase family is aware that the existing homes on the property will be demolished for the affordable
housing to move forward and sites their letters of support which are attached as Exhibit Q to the
application. The applicant notes that Cornerstone is willing to sell the house to anyone who can move it
prior to construction breaking ground, for $1.
Attachment A
The above criterion is concerned with an effort to allow for the purchase and preservation of a resource.
Based on the zoning of the site, and Willakenzie Area Plan policy acknowledging that future
redevelopment of the Chase properties would be allowed to provide for high density residential
development, the applicant has demonstrated an effort consistent with the above criterion by listing the
property for sale and offering the Chase House for $1. Additionally, the applicant has offered $20,000 in
assistance to anyone who is interested in obtaining the home for $1 and moving it.
Based on the available information and findings above, the applicant’s request for demolition is
approved under EC 9.8180.
Historic Property Alteration and Adjustment Review: The approval criteria for the Historic Alteration
are established by Eugene Code 9.8175, and the Adjustment Review approval criteria begin at EC 9.8030.
An evaluation of both requests is provided below.
EC 9.8175(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.
The applicant prefaces their response under this criterion by explaining that the request for a historic
alteration assumes the demolition of the Chase House (contributing with respect to the National
Register), as well as the converted tractor garage rental unit and the Chase Breneman House (non-
contributing with respect to the National Register). Assuming demolition of the structures, the site will
be bare dirt.
The applicant explains that with respect to materials and features, and spaces, the site will be bare dirt
making further consideration of these items not applicable. With respect to spatial relationships, the
applicant goes on to discuss the relationship of their proposed building to the surrounding historic and
non-historic properties.
The applicant states that the nearby properties are characterized by the following:
• The buildings have a main façade that faces the street.
• The buildings have setbacks on all sides.
• The buildings are surrounded by landscaping.
The applicant explains that the proposed building has been designed to minimize alteration of spatial
relationships, while also proposing a building allowed under the zoning, as follows:
1. The building has a primary façade that faces Garden Way.
2. The new building is centrally located on the parcel, with parking and landscaping
surrounding the building. The setback ranges from 70-90 feet on the north and is 86 feet
on the south. Resulting in more than 200 feet between the new building and the Jack
Chase House to the north and more than 100 feet between the new building and the
Gladys Chase House to the south.
Attachment A
3. The proposed new landscaping on the north and south sides further provides a visual
buffer between the proposed development and neighboring historic properties.
4. The drainage channel to the north and the neighbor’s property to the south both
feature significant existing landscaping that maintains a dense landscape screen
between the historic properties and the new construction.
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(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.
In response to the above criterion, the applicant assumes that the demolitions of the structures and
landscaping on the property will be approved. Following that, the site would be bare land leaving no
features that convey a physical record of its time, place, or use. The applicant goes on to note that the
new building, surrounding parking lot, and landscaping will not create a false sense of historical
development as the building will clearly be modern construction.
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(3): Changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in
their own right are retained and preserved to the extent possible.
Again, the applicant assumes the approval demolition of the houses and landscaping resulting in bare
land. This leads the applicant to conclude that there will be no changes to the property that have historic
significance which needs to be retained or preserved.
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(4): Distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, or
examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the property are retained to
the extent possible.
In response to this criterion, the assumption is again made that the site is bare land. As bare land, there
are not any distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, or examples of skilled
craftmanship to be retained.
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(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
Attachment A
landscape features, is substantiated by historic, pictorial, or physical evidence rather
than on conjectural designs.
Assuming the demolition of the existing structures and landscaping, the applicant explains that there will
be no historic features on the property to repair or replace in-kind, and no replacement of missing
features is proposed. The applicant also notes that new landscaping on the site will continue the existing
spatial relationships in the neighborhood, by providing landscaping on all sides of buildings. It is also
stated that the landscape will help to integrate the new building into the neighborhood and is not
proposed to mimic historic agricultural landscape.
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(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.
With the assumption of a bare earth site, the focus of the applicant’s response to this criterion is on
spatial relationships, and compatibility with nearby historic resources.
Spatial Relationships – The applicant acknowledges that properties the north and south of the site have
other historic resources that contribute to the Chase Garden Residential Grouping. The properties still
have single family homes on large lots surrounded by landscaping. In responding to the above criterion,
the applicant emphasizes the restriction on unnecessary destruction of spatial relationships. The
applicant points again to the Willakenzie Area Plan policy that allows for the redevelopment of historic
properties as high density residential use at the discretion of the property owner.
The high-density residential zoning would allow up to 112 units per acre, however, the applicant has
proposed a density of only 36 units per acre which is well below the maximum. Given the possibility for
a much high level of density, the applicant’s proposal is reasonable given the policy context and
assumption of eventual redevelopment of this site.
Compatibility – In evaluating compatibility, the applicant argues that the above criterion is primarily
focused on ensuring that new features are compatible with existing features on the site. Nonetheless,
the applicant goes on to evaluate the ensemble as a whole. The applicant states the grouping comprises
about 6.11 acres and includes five houses that are each slightly different, were built at different times in
different styles, and do not have a clear relationship to one another or otherwise create a cohesive
landscape except for their relation to the Chase family. The applicant goes on to look at nearby newer
construction which is comprised of buildings ranging from 3 to 5 stories with gable roofs and have varied
façade details that break of the building massing. The applicant states that their proposed building will
have distinctive façade features and a gable roof that makes the building feel more residential.
Attachment A
Based on the findings above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(7): If applicable, the proposed alteration is consistent with development
standards or design guidelines adopted by the historic review board.
There are no specific development standards or design guidelines adopted by the Historic Review Board
that apply to the subject property. As such, this criterion does not apply.
EC 9.8175(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.
There are no known archeological resources in the area, and the applicant states that an Inadvertent
Discovery Plan will be maintained in the event an archaeological resource is discovered. The applicant
has provided Exhibit P to their application to demonstrate their intent to ensure that any discovery is
handled appropriately. While conceptually acceptable, the following conditions are provided to ensure
that the applicant upholds their Inadvertent Discovery Plan.
• The following note shall be added to the applicant’s final plan set: “Any Inadvertent
Discovery will be immediately reported as detailed by the Inadvertent Discovery Plan for
Cultural Resources attached to this plan set.”
• The applicant shall include a copy of the Inadvertent Discovery plan with their final site
plans.
Based on the findings and conditions above, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8175(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.
The applicant indicates that their site is zoned S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone and has proposed
their new building based on the standards of the S-CN zone. While the applicant currently has an
application in for a Zone Change, their site is still zoned AG Agricultural Land with a /ND Nodal
Development overlay (see City file: Z 22-1).
In the context of the above criterion, establishing the zoning is necessary to determine which standards
are applicable to the applicant’s request. The applicant’s site is located in the Chase Node for which
zoning is prescribed by EC Map 9.3105 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone and Subareas. The applicant’s
site is identified on the Map as being within the High Density Residential and Mixed Use Subarea which
can be used to determine that the proposed zoning of S-CN/HDR/MU (high density residential mixed
use) is appropriate for the site. That said, the Zone Change has yet to be approved making the following
condition necessary to establish standards applicable to the applicant’s request:
Attachment A
• Prior to the approval of any building permit for the development approved under HA 21-
3, the zoning for the subject property shall be changed to S-CN/HDR/MU.
With the condition above requiring that the zoning be changed, there are a variety of development
standards that will applicable to the applicant’s request. They have requested adjustments to some
specific standards, and others will need to be met at the time of a building permit. In the context of a
historic alteration, the applicant needs to show enough information to demonstrate consistency with
the above approval criterion. However, a detailed review of all standards that might become applicable
to their request as more detailed plans are drafted to submit for a building permit is unnecessary at this
time. Standards have been sorted into two groups, those the applicant has requested adjustments to,
and those that have been met at this time. Additionally, it is noted that while the applicant has requested
adjustments, nothing prohibits them from making plan alterations that would propose a design that
meets a standard outright.
Standards for Adjustment
Adjustment Request 1 – EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site
EC 9.6730(2)(a): In any zone, except I-2 and I-3, on-site pedestrian paths shall be
constructed in the following cases for institutional, office, commercial and employment
and industrial development:
1. Between all new building entrances and all streets adjacent to the development
site. On-site pedestrian paths shall be designed and constructed to provide a direct
connection to existing public right-of-way and public accessways.
2. To connect any new building entrances on a development site to all other new
and existing building entrances on the same development site, except entrances
used primarily for loading and unloading freight.
3. Along the exterior walls of new buildings greater than 100 feet in length when the
wall of the building is located next to a street, parking lot or when a public entrance
or entrances are located on the edge of the building, except in the following cases:
a. When the edge of a building is within 20 feet of a public sidewalk and the
building entrance is connected to the public sidewalk by an on-site pedestrian
facility, no on-site pedestrian facility on the edge of the building adjacent to the
sidewalk is required.
The applicant’s proposal complies with this standard with the exception for a portion of the site along
Garden Way. On this side of the building, the existing sidewalk in the public way is between 16 and 34
feet from the building which exceeds the 20 foot distance at which a sidewalk on-site needs to be
provided, as required by EC 9.6730(2)(a)(3)(a). The applicant has requested an adjustment to not provide
an on-site path along this portion of their building, pointing out that it would be redundant in this
location with the public sidewalk being 34 feet at the most from the building.
EC 9.6730(2)(c): In all zones, on-site pedestrian paths shall be constructed within new
multiple-family residential developments with 3 or more units to insure that access is
provided:
Attachment A
1. From every unit to all other units within the residential development.
2. From every unit to all laundry, recreational and other community facilities in the
residential development.
3. From every building located within 40 feet of a public or private street to the
street right-of-way line.
The applicant proposes ground floor units with private outdoor patios, some of which will have a
connection to the on-site path and others which will not. The above standard requires that access be
provided from every unit to all other units, laundry, recreational, and other community facilities. The
applicant has requested an adjustment to allow some of the patio areas to be private and not have a
connecting path to other areas of their site.
Both of the standards for which the applicant is requesting adjustments are adjustable upon
demonstrating compliance with the following approval criteria.
EC 9.8030(22): Pedestrian Circulation On-site Adjustment. Where this land use code
provides that on-site pedestrian circulation may be adjusted, the standards may be
adjusted upon finding that, considering site constraints or practical difficulties, the
proposed design provides adequate pedestrian connections:
(a) Between building entrances and streets or accessways;
(b) Between new and existing buildings on the development site, including
recreation and community facilities;
(c) From proposed employment and industrial, commercial and institutional uses to
adjacent parcels having similar existing or planned uses;
(d) To nearby transit stops, parks and other recreation facilities; and
(e) Between parking lots and main buildings.
The applicant describes how their proposed building is a large multi-story elevator building with internal
corridors connecting all dwelling units to each other, laundry, recreational and other common facilities.
The building will have six main entrances, all of which connect to a network of on-site walkways that
connect to parking, exterior amenities, and the public way. Based on the internal corridors, and the on-
site pathways connecting from the main entrances the applicant’s request for an adjustment to EC
9.6730 is approved.
Adjustment Request 2 – EC 9.6735 Public Access Required
EC 9.6735(2): Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in
accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections – Location. If a development will increase
the development site’s peak hour trip generation by less than 50% and will generate less
than 20 additional peak hour trips, the development site’s existing access connections are
exempt from this standard.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to the standards at EC 7.420(2)(b) and (e). EC 7.420(2)(b)
sets a spacing requirement of 100 feet for access connections on streets classified as major collectors.
The applicant has proposed two access connections with less than the 100-foot spacing onto South
Attachment A
Garden Way, which is classified as a major collector. EC 7.420(2)(e) requires that when unrestricted
access connections are proposed, they shall be aligned with connections across the street or have a
minimum 50-foot offset. Both access connections proposed onto South Garden Way do not meet the
minimum 50-foot offset as there are driveways across from the applicant’s site.
EC 9.8030 (28): Public Access Required. The public access requirement of 9.6735(2) may
be adjusted if the site developer demonstrates any of the following:
(b) The proposed adjustments to the standards will provide safe ingress and egress to
the development site, will not negatively impact the efficiency of the public right-of-
way, and will not result in a hazard to the bicycle, pedestrian or vehicular traffic using
the right-of-way.
In response to the above approval criterion for adjustment, the applicant starts by addressing the access
spacing. The applicant notes that while the access on the southern portion of their site is less than 100
feet from an access to the south of their site, the access to the south serves a single-family home. The
home has a looped driveway, making multiple options available for a driver to safely enter and exit South
Garden Way. With respect to alignment across the street, the northern access is a non-issue as an
existing vegetated island exists in South Garden Way which will not allow vehicles from the two opposing
driveways to turn into the same travel lane at the same time.
For the southern access, it is offset 15 feet from the driveway to the assisted care facility located on the
eastern side of South Garden Way. The applicant states that with two driveway locations, and a looped
drop off and pickup area, the assisted care facility provides multiple options on their site for vehicles to
exit safely. Using similar logic, the applicant states that with two driveways, their site will disperse traffic
between the two driveways, resulting on only some vehicles leaving from the southern driveway on their
site. In support of their conclusion that the driveway will provide safe ingress and egress the applicant
provided a memorandum from Todd Mobley, PE dated March 22, 2022. The memorandum provides
technical analysis which further demonstrates that the applicant’s proposal meets the approval criteria
for adjustment.
Based on the available information, and findings above, the applicant’s request for an adjustment to EC
9.6735 is approved.
Adjustment Request 3 – EC 9.5500(4)(b)
EC 9.5500(4)(b): Street Frontage. On development sites that will result in 100 feet or
more of public or private street frontage, at least 60 percent of the site frontage abutting
the street (including required yards) shall be occupied by a building(s) or enhanced
pedestrian space with no more than 20 percent of the 60 percent in enhanced pedestrian
space, placed within 10 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. (See Figure
9.5500(4)(b) Multiple-Family Minimum Building Setback Along Streets.) On development
sites with less than 100 feet of public or private street frontage, at least 40 % of the site
width shall be occupied by a building(s) placed within 10 feet of the minimum front yard
setback line. Building projections and offsets with an offset interval of 10 feet or less
meet this standard (excluding required yards). “Site width,” as used in this standard, shall
Attachment A
not include areas of street frontage that have significant natural resources as mapped by
the city, delineated wetlands, slopes greater than 15%, recorded easements, required fire
lanes or other similar non-buildable areas, as determined by the planning director.
The above standard requires that most of the proposed building would need to be located in the front
yard setback. The applicant has proposed to set the majority of their building outside of the front yard
setback and has requested an adjustment to do so. In addition to not meeting the above standard, the
S-CN/HDR/MU zoning that the applicant will eventually have, provides a similar standard at EC Table
9.3125(3)(g) S-CN Chase Garden Node. The standard from EC 9.3125(3)(g) requires that on sites with
over 100 feet of frontage, 60% of the building width must be placed within 10 feet of the minimum
front yard setback. As with EC 9.5500(4)(b), an option for adjustment is provided. Review of the
approval criteria for adjustment to both standards is provided below.
EC 9.8030(2): Setback Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that the
setback standards applicable to specific zones may be adjusted, the standards may be
adjusted upon finding that the proposed setback is consistent with the following
applicable criteria:
(a) Minimum and Maximum Front Yard Setback Adjustment. The minimum or
maximum required front yard setback may be adjusted if the proposal achieves all of
the following:
1. Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street.
2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets
3. Is compatible with adjacent development.
Maximum front yard setbacks may be adjusted without any requirement for pedestrian
amenities if the location of the front yard is unsafe or intrinsically unsuitable for
pedestrians or to protect disruption to significant natural resources.
The applicant explains that their proposed building provides a segmented façade, and lawn and
landscaped areas which will separate first floor dwelling units form the public sidewalk. The applicant
also points to buildings along the east side of South Garden way which are setback further from the
street. As proposed, the applicant’s building will have a similar relationship to the street as the
buildings on the eastern side of South Garden Way.
Based on the available information, the applicant’s proposal will result in a building that is generally
compatible with setbacks for other buildings in the area and will provide landscaping to create an
attractive pedestrian environment consistent with the above criteria. Therefore, the applicant’s
request for an adjustment to EC 9.5500(4)(b) is approved.
EC 9.8030(18): S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Standards Adjustment. A standard
applicable within the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Subarea C, HDR/MU or HDR
may be adjusted upon a finding that the proposed adjustment:
(a) Is consistent with the purposes of the S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone as set
forth at EC 9.3100; and
(b) Meets the applicable adjustment criteria in another subsection of EC 9.8030, if
any.
Attachment A
If there is no EC 9.8030 subsection that pertains to the type of standard being considered,
adjustment may be permitted based solely on compliance with EC 9.8030(18)(a).
The purpose statements from the S-CN zone at EC 9.3100 that relate to the standard in question focus
on the visibility of entrances from the public way. The applicant’s proposal for a segmented façade and
lawn will provide visual cues and visibility of the building when viewed from the street. Their site plans
also show a wide section of sidewalk on the northern portion of their lot near a main building entrance
which will provide an unobstructed view of the entrance from the public way. The second part of the
above approval criteria reference other applicable adjustment criteria. The other applicable criteria for
adjustment are provided by EC 9.8030(2) and as discussed above, have been found to be met.
Based on the available information, an adjustment to the standard provided by EC Table 9.3125(3)(g) S-
CN Chase Garden Node with relation to buildings fronting a street is met.
Adjustment Request 4 – EC 9.5500(6)(a)
EC 9.5500(6): Building Mass and Facade.
(a) Maximum Building Dimension. Neither the maximum length nor width of any building
within 40 feet of a front lot line can exceed 100 feet in the R-1 and R-2 zones and 150 feet
in all other zones.
The applicant’s proposed building is approximately 197 feet in length along Garden Way, which exceeds
the 150-foot building length maximum provided above.
EC 9.8030(8) Multiple-Family Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides
that the multiple-family standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon
finding that the design achieves all of the following:
(a) Maximum Building Dimension. The requirements set forth in EC 9.5500(6)(a) may
be adjusted if the proposal creates building massing and/or facades that:
1. Create a vibrant street facade with visual detail.
2. Provide multiple entrances to building or yards.
The applicant states that the proposed building incorporates articulation using bays, balconies, changes
in materials, canopies, and varied window fenestration. Additionally, the mass of the building will be
broken into two major subcomponents that will be 115 feet and 57 feet in length using a recess in the
façade, a change in roof type and orientation, and building mass orientation. The applicant has also
proposed landscaping, and patio entries and units to further break up the mass of the building.
Based on the available information, the applicant’s request for adjustment to EC 9.5500(6) is approved.
Adjustment Request 5 – EC 9.5500(8)
EC 9.5500(8) Site Landscaping.
(c) Landscape Requirements. Site landscaping shall conform to the following:
1. Required Landscaping in Yards Abutting Streets. Landscaping shall be installed
and maintained in yards abutting streets that complies, at a minimum, with the
Attachment A
standards in EC 9.6210(1) Basic Landscape Standard (L-1). The required landscaping
shall be placed within the required front yard setback area and may be pierced by
pedestrian and vehicular access ways.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to this standard as they are proposing fewer trees than
would be required by the standard.
EC 9.8030(3): Landscape Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that
the landscape standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding
that the proposed landscape is consistent with the following applicable criteria:
(b) Basic Landscape Standard (L-1). The standards of EC 9.6210(1) may be adjusted if
the proposal enhances a development site by providing attractive, open landscaped
areas where distance is the primary means of separating different uses or
developments.
In response to these criteria, the applicant notes dimensional features of the existing site and notes
concerns about the potential survival of trees if required to plant the number of trees required by the
Basic Landscape Standard (L-1). The dimensional concerns expressed by the applicant appear to be about
trees being planted between the curb for South Garden Way, and the sidewalk where it is setback.
Instead, the applicant has proposed trees west of the sidewalk on their site where they state larger trees
can be planted. Additionally, the applicant wishes to place shrubs that would be required by the L-1
standard adjacent to their building, rather than closer to the sidewalk and South Garden Way, and place
lawn adjacent to the public sidewalk. In support of this, they state that the lawn will provide a better
sight lines, and by moving landscaping close to the building it will soften the appearance of the building.
Based on the available information, the applicant’s proposal will provide an attractive landscaped area
which differentiates the sidewalk and South Garden Way from their development. The proposed lawn
will also create a pedestrian experience that feels open and allows for better sight lines. Therefore, the
applicant’s request for an adjustment to EC 9.5500(8) is approved.
Adjustment Request 6 – EC 9.5500(11)
EC 9.5500(11): Site Access and Internal Circulation.
(a) Streets. Street standards and connectivity requirements for local residential streets
shall be applied to public and private streets within multiple-family developments. (Refer
to EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets.). (See Figure 9.5500(12) Multiple-Family Parking.)
(b) Driveways. Driveways and parking drives are private roadways for projects or portions
of projects not served by streets. Driveways and parking drives shall be designed in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Driveways. Driveways provide vehicular access to parking and dwelling units but
do not provide primary pedestrian access to units. Driveways are intended to be
used primarily for vehicular circulation and dwelling access and should be visually
distinct from streets. (See Figure 9.5500(11)(b) Multiple-Family Driveways). The
following standards apply:
Attachment A
a. Two-way driveways shall be a minimum width of 20 feet, one-way driveways
shall be a minimum width of 12 feet.
b. The maximum driveway width is 28 feet.
2. Parking Drives. Parking drives are driveways lined with head-in parking spaces,
diagonal parking spaces, garages, or any combination thereof along a significant
portion of their length. Parking drives for multiple-family developments with more
than 20 units shall be designed so as to permit no through-motor vehicle
movements. (See Figure 9.5500(12) Multiple-Family Parking.)
The applicant has proposed a driveway through which one could enter their site on the south side and
exit on the north side. The above standard requires that no through-motor vehicle movements be
allowed, which the previously described action could be interpreted to be. For this reason, the applicant
has requested an adjustment which is subject to the approval criteria below.
EC 9.8030(8): Multiple-Family Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides
that the multiple-family standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon
finding that the design achieves all of the following:
(e) Site Access and Internal Circulation. The requirements set forth in EC 9.5500(11)
may be adjusted in accordance with the criteria in this subsection. In the case of an
adjustment, all of the following standards apply:
1. Sidewalks may be designed as curbside walks only along those portions of the
private streets providing parallel on-street parking.
2. Street trees may be placed in tree wells or adjacent to the sidewalk.
The applicant explains that their proposal does not allow for “cut through” traffic as their site, while
having two access points on South Garden Way, does not otherwise allow for a vehicle to travel to
another location through their site. It is argued that a literal interpretation of the code, dividing the
parking area into two separate courts with some form of barrier would result in confusion for users,
forcing them to turn around when they realize that they cannot exit the site without doing so.
Part of the purpose of the multiple-family standards is to encourage design that is sensible and
compatible with development that is less-intensive. The prohibition of through-motor vehicle can be
interpreted as the applicant has, to avoid a scenario where someone can use a parking area drive aisle
to gain access to another site or street. As the applicant has noted, their proposed parking area does no
such thing, with access only being provided to and from South Garden Way.
Another understanding of the prohibition on through-motor vehicle movement can be understood to be
related to sensible design and a physical environment that contributes to, and enhances, the quality of
life for residents. In this context, the standard can be understood to discourage a scenario where a
parking drive aisle essentially becomes a street, where drivers feel comfortable traveling at a higher
speed to make it through a large parking area. The applicant’s site plan does not show any striping, raised
crossings, or other features within the parking drive aisle that could help create a safer space for
pedestrians crossing the drive aisle to access their vehicles. To ensure the applicant’s request for
adjustment will not result in a scenario where the drive aisle becomes unsafe for pedestrians, the
following condition is provided:
Attachment A
• The applicant shall add at least three visually distinct or raised pedestrian crossing areas
to their site plan that allow for pedestrians to cross from the furthest parking spaces to
the sidewalk system that surrounds the building.
Based on the available information and condition above, the applicant’s request for adjustment to EC
9.5500(11) is approved.
Adjustment Request 7 – EC 9.5500(12)
EC 9.5500(12): Vehicle Parking.
(b) Parking Courts.
1. Maximum Size of Parking Courts. Individual parking courts shall be no more than
9,000 square feet in size and shall be physically and visually separated by a landscape
area a minimum of 20 feet in width. No more than 3 individual parking courts may be
connected by an aisle or driveway. (See Figure 9.5500(12) Multiple-Family Parking
and Multiple-Family Parking Continued.)
2. Parking Court Width. A parking court of any length shall consist of no more than
one 1 double-loaded parking aisle.
3. Parking Court Separation. Planting islands shall be placed between parking courts
to visually interrupt rows of parked vehicles and to separate individual parking
courts. Planting islands between parking courts shall have a minimum width of 20
feet and a minimum area of 360 square feet. Each of these islands shall provide at
least 1 canopy shade tree having a clear trunk height of at least 9 feet. Architectural
elements such as trellises, porches, and stairways may extend into planting islands
between parking courts. Other parking area landscape standards in EC 9.6420
Parking Area Standards also apply. (See Figure 9.5500(12)(b) Multiple-Family Parking
Courts)
The applicant has proposed a parking court that circles their building, resulting in a parking court design
that does not meet the above standards and thus requires an adjustment subject to the approval criteria
below.
EC 9.8030(8): Multiple-Family Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides
that the multiple-family standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon
finding that the design achieves all of the following:
(f) Vehicle Parking. The requirements set forth in EC 9.5500(12) may be adjusted if
the proposal achieves to the same degree as would strict compliance with the
standards all of the following:
1. Limitations on the use of continuous parking drives in large-scale multiple-
family developments.
2. Limitations on the size of individual parking lots in multiple-family development.
The applicant states that their proposed design creates four separate parking drives and does not
connect to other development sites. They also argue that the parking area is broken into zones that allow
Attachment A
ease of access to entrances to the building. As discussed above, the intent of the parking standards is, in
part, to mitigate a scenario where drivers feel like they are on a street. With the condition provided
above that requires that visually distinct or raised pedestrian crossings be provided, a limitation is
imposed on the continuous nature the parking drive and the parking areas will feel more distinct,
therefore making the applicant’s proposal consistent with these criteria.
3. Minimal negative aspects of parking uses in multiple-family developments.
The applicant notes that the proposed design allows for access to the building to be similar for residents
on all sides of the building. Additionally, the parking does not connect to any adjacent sites eliminating
the potential for “cut through” traffic. Again, a minimal negative aspect of parking is the scenario that is
created where people going to or from their vehicles feel like they must cross a street to do so. With the
proposed condition, and the applicant’s point that access to the building is easier based on their design,
the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
Based on the available information and as conditioned, the applicant’s request for adjustments to EC
9.5500(12) is approved.
Other Standards Applicable to the Applicant’s Request
EC Table 9.3115 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Land Use and Permit Requirements:
The applicant’s proposed use is multi-family housing as established by their request for adjustments to
specific multi-family standards provided by EC 9.5500 Multiple-Family Standards. EC Table 9.3115 shows
Multiple Family housing as permitted in the HDR/MU zone, so long as the standards at EC 9.5500 are
met. The applicant has provided an analysis of the standards at EC 9.5500 concluding that standards
have been met, or a request for adjustment has been made.
In addition to the standards provided by EC 9.5500, some specific standards from the S-CN zone need to
be reviewed at this time to ensure the applicant’s project can comply with applicable standards in the
future. Those standards are addressed below.
EC 9.3125 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Development Standards:
EC Table 9.3125(3)(g) S-CN Chase Garden Node provides a specific density range for the HDR/MU area
of 20 to 112 units per acre. The applicant’s site is approximately 3.4 acres and they are proposing 123
units which results in a density of about 36 units per acre in compliance with the allowed density range.
EC Table 9.3125(3)(g) S-CN Chase Garden Node allows for a building height of up to 120 feet in the
HDR/MU area. This allowance is refined by EC 9.3126(3) Special Development Standards for Table
9.3125(3)(g) which requires buildings facing historic properties on the National Registry of Historic Places
that are within 50 feet of the Garden Way right-of-way be limited to 50 feet in height. In response to this
standard, the applicant asserts that this standard does not apply to their building as it directly faces
South Garden Way, across which, there are no historic properties.
Attachment A
With the proposed adjustments to standards, conditions, and findings above the applicant’s proposal
complies with EC 9.8175(9). It is noted that additional standards may apply at the time of a development
permit as specific details of the applicant’s proposal become more refined in anticipation of a building
permit submittal. At the time of building permit, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with
additional, applicable development standards.
Based on the available information, conditions, and findings above, the applicant’s request for a Historic
Alteration and Adjustment Review is approved.
IV. OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY TESTIMONY
Some of the testimony received was not clearly directed towards the approval criteria or factors on
which the Board’s decision must be based. However, as the testimony was received into the record, it
has been summarized and discussed below.
In addition to statements that related to approval criteria and factors, testimony from Baker received
March 17, 2022 raises questions about how the record was provided to Board members, states that
there have not been demolitions of National Register resources in Eugene, and provides discussion
around Statewide Planning Goal 5. City staff placed additional information in response to these items
below into the record. Baker also references ORS 197.772, states that Section 106 review has not
occurred, and references OAR 358.653. These sections are also noted by other pieces of testimony and
while not relevant to the approval criteria or factors at hand are discussed.
To the questions about how the record has been made available to Board members, digital copies of the
record materials were provided to each board member, and staff made thumb drives and printed
materials available for pick-up and/or delivery to Board members upon request. These efforts have
resulted in the entire record being placed in front of the Board as required by the Eugene Code and State
law.
To the assertion that historic demolitions have not occurred in Eugene, staff placed the Planning
Director’s decision which approved the demolition of a National Register building in Eugene. While not
directly relevant to the approval criteria or the current application, it is noted to correct a fact.
Baker states that the Eugene Land Use code lacks a specific Historic Preservation element under Goal 5,
concluding that the controlling document is the Lane County Metropolitan Plan. It is assumed that the
plan Baker is calling the “Lane County Metropolitan Plan” is the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan), of which some policies are applicable to the applicant’s request and have
been discussed in the context of factors for approval. To the assertion that the Eugene Land Use code
lacks a Historic Preservation element, the Eugene Code does include both process and land use
application types that are directly applicable to historic properties. The code sections related to historic
resources begin at EC 9.8150 and include application types for Historic Landmark Designation, Historic
Landmark – Removal of Designation, Historic Property Demolition, Historic Property Alterations, and
Historic Property Moving.
Attachment A
Additionally, it is worth noting that the City of Eugene adopted its Goal 5 inventory through Ordinance
No. 20351, which became effective on January 1, 2006. The ordinance included a list of historic
landmarks in Eugene, making them Goal 5 resources within the City. Because the Chase Ensemble was
not included on the list of resources adopted as part of the City’s Goal 5 inventory it is subject to OAR
660-023-0200(8) which, as discussed above, requires a local government to hold a public hearing and
make a decision based on eight factors (in addition to the local code requirements and approval criteria
for demolition).
ORS 197.772
ORS 197.772 is referenced by Baker in relation to a recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling. It is assumed
that Baker is referencing a case related to the Carman House, a locally designated historic resource,
located in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The issue at play in that case was related to an owner’s request to de-
list their property (that is, to remove the property from the from a local historic resource list). In this
case, the request before the Board is to demolish a historic building that is included as part of an
ensemble on the National Register, not to de-list the Chase Gardens Historic Ensemble. ORS 197.772 is
specifically related to the ability of a property owner to refuse to have their property listed (or to
subsequently have it de-listed) as a historic resource by a local government. If the historic demolition is
approved in this case, the decision will not affect the National Register listing of the Chase Gardens
Historic Ensemble. Furthermore, potential future implications of demolition of the Chase House related
to the integrity of the ensemble and the ensemble’s National Register listing are not part of the factors
or local code approval criteria that can be considered by the Board in its decision to approve or deny the
proposed demolition.
Section 106
Baker asserts that Cornerstone and Heritage Consulting Group did not comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In response to this claim, the applicant stated in their
testimony received on March 24, 2022 that federal funding is not being used for their project, making
Section 106 inapplicable.
Comments from Kunowski received March 31, 2022 also take issue with whether the applicant has
complied with Section 106. Kunowski argues that while the applicant has asserted that Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits are not subject to a Section 106 review, there are two ways this is not the case. First,
Kunowski references the 2016 Oregon Housing and Community Services Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Program Compliance manual, concluding that as the Internal Revenue Service issues these tax
credits, the applicant is subject to Section 106. Second, Kunowski points out that public housing
authorities are subject to Section 106 requirements.
In the applicant’s rebuttal they state that they have checked with the Oregon State Historic Preservation
Office and confirmed that Section 106 does not apply to LIHCT. They also note that Section 106 does not
have any bearing over the decision of the Board and is a separate item, which they would fully comply
with if it became applicable.
OAR 358.653
Testimony from Baker and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) both reference OAR 358.653. The testimony from SHPO references OAR 358.653 in
Attachment A
materials submitted on March 23, 2022, however, on March 31, 2022 the SHPO staff submitted a new
letter which removed the reference to ORS 358.653. OAR 358.653 requires that a local government
consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer when property owned by the local government is
being transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered or allowed to deteriorate. ORS 358.653 is not
relevant to the current applications, as the subject property is not owned by the City of Eugene.
Alternative Designs
Some of the testimony in the record poses questions to the Board and offers alternative ways to
approach the design of the project. These comments are primarily made by Baker, Carter, Pincus and
Kunowski. The comments generally call for the applicant to start their design process over, or to at least
find a way to retain the historic buildings and landscape instead of removing them from the site to
provide the proposed building.
While the desire to have the applicant provide additional design options as an alternative that could
result in the preservation of the historic structures and landscape is understandable, it is not within the
Board’s authority to require this under the applicable approval criteria. The applicant has submitted a
land use application which is subject to the required decision-making timelines in the Eugene Code and
State law. This means that the Board is obligated to reach a decision on the application submitted by the
applicant by April 22, 2022. The Board cannot simply pause the process to require the applicant to
propose different designs or undertake other processes that might be recommended or desired by some,
such as re-evaluation of the original historic nomination by State and Federal agencies.
Scope of Review
In testimony submitted on March 31, 2022 Baker suggests that the adjustment request from the
applicant is better suited for review by the Eugene Planning Commission. Baker requests that the Board
deny the adjustment request and leave the question of its approval to the Eugene Planning Commission
on an assumed appeal.
Adjustment Reviews are typically Planning Director decisions which are reviewed by staff. Because the
applicant has requested that their applications be reviewed concurrently, the Board is required to make
a decision about the Adjustment Review based on the approval criteria.
Supportive Testimony
The Board received a number of letters that expressed general support of the application and spoke to
the positive outcome that the proposed housing would have on the community. While supportive, the
comments did not provide evidence that was directly applicable to approval criteria or factors.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the findings included in this Order, the Historic Review Board approves the applicant’s Historic
Demolition application based on the applicant’s demonstration of compliance with the applicable
approval criteria in the Eugene Code and the factors provided by OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a). The Historic
Review Board conditionally approves the applicant’s Historic Property Alteration and Adjustment Review
applications based on compliance with the following conditions of approval:
Attachment A
Attachment A