Treetops Feasibility Study PART 1: OVERVIEW/CONTEXT Historical Summary Current Context PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Plan Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Third Floor Plan PART 3: INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS Accessibility Egress On-Site Parking Off-Site Parking PART 4: ZONING/LAND USE PART 6: ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIES R-1 Zoning & Permitted Uses UO Watzek House R-1 Zoning Limitations & Strategy UO Cottrell House Rezoning to S-H Historic Historic Rezoning Case Study PART 7: SUMMARY Rezoning to PL-Public Land PART 5: POTENTIAL USES/CASE STUDIES APPENDICES: Historic House Museum A1 ORS 358.653 Protection of Publicly University Administrative Office Owned Historic Properties Fact Sheet Meeting/Small Event Space A2 Historic Floor Plans of Treetops Art Gallery A3 City of Eugene Historic Landmark Ap- Faculty Club plication/Decision for the Ball House Alumni Club A4 “University-affiliated Historic House Faculty Housing Museums” - 2014 Report Public Park Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 1 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 2 Treetops Feasibility Study Updated November 8, 2018 C E A V M P T I F I R A R E C O L L AB O Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC 341 Main Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 www.campfirelab.com Jenna L. Fribley, AIA, LEED AP Architect / Co-Founder UO M.Arch 2007 Kelsey Buzzell Designer / Co-Founder UO B.Arch 2008, M. Iarc 2013 Abraham Kelso UO M. Arch 2018 David Lieberman UO M. Arch 2017 Matthew Nicholson UO M. Arch 2017 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 3 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 4 Part 1: Overview / Context Historical Summary Current Context Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 5 PART 1: OVERVIEW/CONTEXT Historical Summary Known variously as the Hampton House, the Campbell Church House, and the Chancellor’s House, Treetops was built in 1910 for Alton Hampton, a local businessman. This grand craftsman house was built in what is now known as the Fairmount Neighborhood back when the estate would have been along the electric Above: Treetops under construction, ca. 1910 streetcar Fairmount Loop. Below: View from NW corner of property, ca. 1920 Portland architects Bennes and Hendricks designed the house, and George Otten, a UO graduate in lanscape architecture, designed the gardens for his thesis in 1911. At 17 rooms and 11,820 square feet, the house was the talk of the town during construction. In 1921 the house was sold to mining baron Campbell Church, Sr., who in 1938 gifted the house to the State Board of Higher Education in memory of his wife as the acting Chancellor’s residence. It has been inhabited by 13 such Chancellors in the intervening decades. Rooms/amenities: Ground floor Third Floor • Living room • 3 bedrooms • Dining room • Bathroom • Entry Parlor with fireplace • Finished attic room (could be additional • Kitchen with pantry and breakfast area bedroom) • Organ landing • Unfinished attic room • Powder room Basement Second Floor • Half bathroom (toilet & sink) • Balcony atop grand stair • Boiler/furnace/utility spaces • Main bedroom suite with fireplace, exterior balcony, dressing room/porch, bathroom Exterior amenities • Study/guest room with fireplace • Wrap-around porch • 2 additional bedrooms & 1 bathroom • 1.5 acre grounds • Former maid’s quarters at intermediate level • Garage/carriage house • Pool Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 6 PART 1: OVERVIEW/CONTEXT Current Context In July 2015, the position of Chancellor was retired in conjunction with the dissolution of the Oregon University System governance structure. This leaves the current/future role of the Treetops property in question. The historic character, architectural features, and social significance of Treetops makes it a both a unique asset and a challenge. As a University- owned property, any alterations must comply with certain preservation guidelines. However the history of the building is also what makes it an interesting setting for many uses and irreplaceable EC Section 9.9570 outlines policies specific to the if sold. Fairmount/U of O Special Area. The Treetops site is not actually within the boundaries of this special The building is in overall good condition, but area, however the policies reflect the Fairmount it is costly to upkeep/maintain and there are Neighborhood’s sensitivity to campus sprawl and upgrades that need to be implemented to keep increased traffic. the building habitable (for example, replacement of the plumbing supply lines). Additionally, if This section specifically mandates the City repurposed for a non-residential use, additional to “encourage the University to consolidate upgrades would likely be required for fire/life nonresidential uses that currently are scattered safety and/or accessibility. throughout the area into the portions of the plan area reserved for institutional use, returning One of the primary challenges of this property is structures thus vacated to residential use.” vehicle accessibility and parking. The site is ~1.1 miles from the center of campus, and nestled To meet the intent of the code and minimize within a hilly residential neighborhood. On-site neighborhood resistance, any submittal for parking is very limited, and the neighbors are very a proposed use should clearly articulate/ sensitive to traffic. demonstrate: (1) compatibility with the adjacent low- Zoning restrictions are the other main challenge density residential environment, for this site. The R-1 Low Density Residential (2) that the use will not generate more zoning limits allowable uses at this location, automobile trips than other low-density as it is intended primarily for single-family residential uses allowed in the zone homes. Additionally, the property is within the and that adequate off-street parking is city-recognized boundaries of the Fairmount provided, and Neighbors Association, which imposes additional (3) that the proposed use will contribute to regulations on allowable uses, on-site parking, and the neighborhood in a positive way and/or development standards. serve as a neighborhood amenity. Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 7 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 8 Part 2: Existing Conditions Site Plan Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Third Floor Plan Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 9 PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Plan not to scale FAIRMOUNT BLVD. TREETOPS HOUSE GARAGE SPRING BLVD. Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 10 PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Ground Floor Plan not to scale DINING 104 LIVING RM. 103 PARLOR KITCHEN 101 106 LANDING 102 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 11 PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Second Floor Plan not to scale BEDRM 204 BEDRM 206 BEDRM/ STUDY BALCONY 203 202 209 BEDRM 210 BEDRM/ STUDY 201 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 12 PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Third Floor Plan not to scale ATTIC BEDRM 304 BEDRM 305 303 BEDRM 302 BEDRM 301 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 13 Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 14 Part 3: Infrastructure Limitations Accessibility Egress On-Site Parking Off-Site Parking Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 15 PART 3: INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS Accessibility Existing Lift An existing wheelchair access lift is located on the northeast corner of the porch, providing access from the level of the driveway to the porch. Accessibility will also have to extend into the parking area, with clear accommodations for at least one handicap-accessible van. Above: Existing exterior lift at northeast corner of New Lift/Elevator: the porch. Depending on the proposed use and number of occupants, it is likely that an elevator/lift may not be required by the building code in many scenarios. However, as a University property, it would be best practice to find a way to retrofit an elevator/lift to allow universal access to the upper two floors of the building. Identifying a lift location is challenging as it needs Potential to be integrated into the floor plan in such a way interior lift that does not interfere with existing structure, location room layout, and character of the building. At the same time, the lift must access the open areas of the second and third floor, leaving only a handful of viable options available. GREAT ROOM One viable option for locating a lift in the building LIFT is shown to the right. Refer to diagrams on page LIFT 28 to see this lift location translated to the upper floors. Toilet Rooms: ENTRANCE MEZZANINE Though not required by code unless altering the building, it would be best practice to upgrade at least the ground floor bathroom to comply with ADA guidelines. LIFT Campfire Collaborative: Architecture & Design, PC TREETOPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 16 PART 3: INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS Fire / Life Safety BEDRM 204 BEDRM 206 Residential Use BEDRM/ STUDY BALCONY 203 202 No fire/life safety upgrades are required if the 209 entire house is used as a single-family dwelling (which allows up to 5 unrelated persons to live BEDRM 210 BEDRM/ there). STUDY 201 Non-Residential Use If the building is used for a non-residential