; Staff Report dated July Elsie Stuhr Center Addition
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Staff Report dated July Elsie Stuhr Center Addition

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 37

  • pg 1
									              CITY of BEAVERTON
              4755 S.W. Griffith Drive, P.O. Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076 General Information 503.526.2222 V/TDD




                                          Staff Report

HEARING DATE:                      Wednesday, July 14, 2010

TO:                                Planning Commission

FROM:                              Scott Whyte, Senior Planner

PROPOSAL:                          Elsie Stuhr Center Addition:
                                   CU2010-0002, DR2010-0026, PD2010-0001

LOCATION:                          Map 1S1-15CC, Tax Lots 03100 & 03000

SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a building addition to the existing
recreation center and meeting facility in order to provide a larger fitness area and
reconfigured lobby area. New square footage will be 2,200 square feet, thereby
increasing the facility size to approximately 23,000 square feet.

This request consists of three applications: 1) Major Modification of a Conditional Use,
2) Design Review Two, and 3) a Parking Determination (for shared parking). The
Conditional Use application is a request to modify the existing center as a conditional
use under the Urban Standard Density (R5) zone. The Design Review Two application
will review site changes and the building addition where proposed. The Parking
Determination application will review the adequacy of the existing shared parking
agreements (2) between Elsie Stuhr Center and Pilgrim Lutheran Church, and Elsie
Stuhr Center and First Church of Christ Scientist.


APPLICANT                          Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District
                                   Attn: Peter Foster, Project Manager
                                   5500 SW Arctic Drive, Suite 2
                                   Beaverton, OR 97005

APPICANT                           WH Pacific
REPRESENTATIVE:                    Attn: Jimmy Bellomy, RLA, ASLA,
                                   9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 300
                                   Portland, OR 97225




Report Date: July 7, 2010                     SR-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                                                    Contents
RECOMMENDATIONS:              APPROVAL of CU2010-0002 (Elsie Stuhr Center
                              Addition), subject to conditions identified at the end of
                              this report.

                              APPROVAL of DR2010-0026 (Elsie Stuhr Center
                              Addition), subject to conditions identified at the end of
                              this report.

                              APPROVAL of PD2010-0001 (Elsie Stuhr Center
                              Addition), subject to conditions identified at the end of
                              this report.




Report Date: July 7, 2010              SR-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                                     Contents
                                                                Exhibit 1.1

                                  Vicinity Map




                            Elsie Stuhr Center Addition:
                        CU2010-0002, DR2010-0026, PD2010-0001




Report Date: July 7, 2010             SR-3
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                       Contents
                                                                Exhibit 1.2

                                   Aerial Map




                            Elsie Stuhr Center Addition:
                        CU2010-0002, DR2010-0026, PD2010-0001




Report Date: July 7, 2010             SR-4
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                       Contents
   BACKGROUND FACTS

Key Application Dates


                                          Deemed            Final Written
Application      Submittal Date                                                   240-Day*
                                          Complete          Decision Date


CU2010-0001       March 24, 2010         May 26, 2010     September 23, 2010 January 20, 2011


DR2010-0009       March 24, 2010         May 26, 2010     September 23, 2010 January 20, 2011


PD2010-0002       March 24, 2010         May 26, 2010     September 23, 2010 January 20, 2011

   * Pursuant to Section 50.25.9 of the Development Code this is the latest date, with a
   continuance, by which a final written decision on the proposal can be made.


Existing Conditions Table

    Zoning                                  R5 Urban Standard Density

   Current             The properties associated with this application are developed with a
 Development            recreation center with a program primarily intended for seniors.

                      The site is located on the east side of SW Hall Boulevard, between SW
  Site Size &
                      9th and SW 12th Street. Washington County Assessor’s Map 1S115CC,
   Location
                     Tax Lots 01300 & 03000. The total site occupies approximately 4 acres.

      NAC                                         Central Beaverton
                                        Zoning:                                Uses:
                           North: R-2 and R-5 Residential                North: Residential
 Surrounding
     Uses                        South: R-2 Residential               South: Church/Daycare
                            East: R-2 and R-5 Residential             East: Church/Residential
                                 West: R-2 Residential                   West: Residential




   Report Date: July 7, 2010                  SR-5
   Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                                         Contents
           DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                PAGE No.
 Attachment A: Facilities Review Committee Technical Review
                                                                                FR 1 – 7
 and Recommendation Report

 Attachment B: CU2010-0002
 The Conditional Use application will review the proposal for a Major
 Modification to increase the gross floor area of an existing conditional use   CU 1 – 6
 located in a residential zone.

 Attachment C: DR2010-0026
 The Design Review application will review the proposal to add parking,         DR 1 – 6
 and a building addition of approximately 2,200 square feet.

 Attachment D: PD2010-0001
 The Parking Determination application reviews the applicant’s request          PD 1 – 5
 for shared parking to meet off-site parking requirements.

 Attachment E: Conditions of Approval                                           COA 1 – 7




Public Comment: No letters were received at the time of writing this report.


Exhibits

Exhibit 1.     Materials submitted by Staff

      Exhibit 1.1 Detail Map (page SR-3 of this report)

      Exhibit 1.2 Aerial Map (page SR-4 of this report)


Exhibit 2.     Materials submitted by the Applicant

      Exhibit 2.1     Applicant’s Combine Application Package – Revised May 26, 2010




 Report Date: July 7, 2010               SR-6
 Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                                     Contents
                                                                       ATTACHMENT A
                    FACILITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE
         Elsie Stuhr Center Addition: CU2009-0002, DR2010-0026

Section 40.03 Facilities Review Committee:
The decision-making authority will determine whether the application as presented
meets the Facilities Review approval criteria for the subject application and may
choose to adopt, not adopt, or modify the Committee’s findings, below.

The Facilities Review Committee Criteria are reviewed for all criteria that
are applicable to the submitted application as identified below:

         All twelve (12) criteria (A through L) are applicable to the submitted
          Conditional Use and Design Review 2 applications, CU2010-0002,
          DR2010-0026.

A.       All critical facilities and services related to the proposed development
         have, or can be improved to have, adequate capacity to serve the
         proposed development at the time of its completion.

Chapter 90 of the Development Code defines “critical facilities” to be services that
include public water, public sanitary sewer, storm water drainage and retention,
transportation and fire protection. The applicant states that all these facilities and
services currently exist at Elsie Stuhr Center and the proposed improvements do not
require upgrades to existing services. The applicant also states there will be
additional facilities added for storm water treatment, storage and conveyance.

Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has no comments or
issues in regard to this proposal. Any specific standard to be met will be addressed
during the Site Development review process.

The Transportation Division has also reviewed the proposal and has no comments or
issues in review of this proposal.

Site Development has also reviewed the proposal and with this document finds the
sufficient area for the existing storm system to be improved for adequate capacity to
serve the development. As a condition hereto, the applicant is to prepare a
detailed final drainage analysis of the subject site and prepare a report prepared by a
professional engineer meeting the standards set by the City Engineer, prior the City
issuing a Site Development Permit.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.

B.        Essential facilities and services related to the proposed development
          are available, or can be made available, with adequate capacity to
          serve the development prior to its occupancy. In lieu of providing
          essential facilities and services, a specific plan may be approved if it
          adequately demonstrates that essential facilities, services, or both will
Report Date: July 7, 2010              FR-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                           Technical Review & Recommendations
       be provided to serve the proposed development within five (5) years of
       occupancy.

Chapter 90 of the Development Code defines “essential facilities” to be services that
include schools, transit improvements, police protection, and on-site pedestrian and
bicycle facilities in the public right-of-way. The applicant states that all essential
facilities and services currently exist on site. This includes, but not limited to,
fire/emergency services and police.

Staff concurs with the applicant’s statement. The City Police have received a copy of
the submittal and no comments or concerns were forwarded to the Facilities Review
Committee.

Therefore, the Committee finds the proposal meets the criterion for
approval.


C.    The proposed development is consistent with all applicable provisions of
      Chapter 20 (Land Uses) unless the applicable provisions are modified by
      means of one or more applications which shall be already approved or
      which shall be considered concurrently with the subject application;
      provided, however, if the approval of the proposed development is
      contingent upon one or more additional applications, and the same is
      not approved, then the proposed development must comply with all
      applicable provisions of Chapter 20 (Land Uses).

Page 2-7 of the applicant’s narrative, in response to C above, identifies the correct
zone (R-5) and the fact that through the conditional use process the proposed
improvements are allowed. Staff concurs with this statement. Staff also notes that
the findings in the Code Conformance Analysis Chart, provided at the end of the
report, evaluating the project as it relates to applicable Code requirements of Chapter
20 for R-5, are applicable to the above mentioned criteria. In review of the plan, staff
finds the proposed project addition to meet all the minimum requirements and
standards of the R-5 zone.

Therefore, the Committee finds the proposal meets the criterion for
approval.


D.    The proposed development is consistent with all applicable provisions
      of Chapter 60 (Special Requirements) and all improvements,
      dedications, or both, as required by the applicable provisions of
      Chapter 60 (Special Requirements), are provided or can be provided in
      rough proportion to the identified impact(s) of the proposed
      development.

Staff cites the findings in the Code Conformance Analysis Chart, at the end of the
report, which evaluates the project as it relates the applicable Code requirements of
Chapter 60. Staff will address Section 60.05., Design Standards, in the findings of for
Report Date: July 7, 2010               FR-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                            Technical Review & Recommendations
the Design Review 2 application and Section 60.30, Off-Street Parking Standards, in
the findings for the Parking Determination application. Staff finds that all other
portions of Chapter 60 are not applicable to this proposal.

Therefore, the Committee finds the proposal meets the criterion for
approval.


E.    Adequate means are provided or can be provided to ensure continued
      periodic maintenance and necessary normal replacement of the
      following private common facilities and areas, as applicable:
      drainage facilities, roads and other improved rights-of-way,
      structures, recreation facilities, landscaping, fill and excavation
      areas, screening and fencing, ground cover, garbage and recycling
      storage areas, and other facilities not subject to maintenance by the
      City or other public agency.

The applicant states that the proposed development currently has mechanisms in
place for the continued maintenance of private water quality facilities, landscaped
areas, fountain, internal roadways as well as garbage and recycling facilities. The
applicant also explains how THPRD is currently responsible for all these facilities
and will remain responsible for maintenance. Staff concurs.

Therefore, the Committee finds the proposal meets the criterion for
approval.


F.    There are safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation
      patterns within the boundaries of the development.

The applicant states that the proposed development provides for safe and efficient
vehicular and pedestrian patterns within the boundaries of the site. The narrative
also refers to the existing series of sidewalks and walkways through the property to
address circulation patterns.

The Committee concurs that the applicant has designed the project to provide safe
and efficient vehicular and pedestrian patterns within the area subject to this review.
Ten additional parking spaces are proposed as part of this plan. These parking
spaces are located in close proximity to the building entrance. The plan provides
pedestrian pathways leading to the entrance. The Committee recommends that all
new pathway connections include accessible ramps for consistency with the American
Disabilities Act. Conditions hereto from the Building Division will require building
plans address ADA compliance.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.



Report Date: July 7, 2010              FR-3
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                           Technical Review & Recommendations
G.    The development’s on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems
      connect to the surrounding circulation systems in a safe, efficient, and
      direct manner.

The applicant states that the proposal provides for connections (both vehicular and
pedestrian) to the surrounding circulation system in a safe, efficient, and direct
manner. The applicant also identifies existing entrances/exits to the site and
explains how these entrance/exits are not changed.

The Committee concurs that the applicant has designed the new parking area in a
way that will continue to provide on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulations that
are safe, efficient and direct. Existing site accesses and exits are not changed by this
proposal.

Therefore, the Committee finds the proposal meets the criterion for
approval.


H.    Structures and public facilities serving the development site are
      designed in accordance with adopted City codes and standards and
      provide adequate fire protection, including, but not limited to, fire
      flow.

The applicant states that the existing facility has been designed in accordance with
adopted City codes and standards and that this includes adequate fire protection
measures and fire flow. Staff concurs. Conditions hereto from the Building Division
will require building plans (for the addition) to address fire protection, fire flow, and
other relevant building code.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.


I.    Structures and public facilities serving the development site are
      designed in accordance with adopted City codes and standards and
      provide adequate protection from crime and accident, as well as
      protection from hazardous conditions due to inadequate, substandard
      or ill-designed development.

The applicant states that the existing facility has been designed in accordance with
all applicable City codes and standards, including protection from crime and
protection from hazardous conditions. Staff concurs. Conditions of approval require
the applicant to demonstrate conformance with the technical design standards for
Code accessibility requirements on the approved construction plans for Site
Development and Building Permit approvals.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.

Report Date: July 7, 2010               FR-4
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                             Technical Review & Recommendations
J.    Grading and contouring of the development site is designed to
      accommodate the proposed use and to mitigate adverse effect(s) on
      neighboring properties, public right-of-way, surface drainage, water
      storage facilities, and the public storm drainage system.

The applicant states there is minimal grading and contouring of the site required for
the parking improvements as proposed. Staff concurs and finds all proposed grading
to be located at a significant distance from the nearest abutting property. Plans
submitted for Site Development will address grading and storm drainage in further
detail. Hereto, the Committee proposes standard conditions of approval for the final
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of these systems.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.


K.    Access and facilities for physically handicapped people are
      incorporated into the development site and building design, with
      particular attention to providing continuous, uninterrupted access
      routes.

As shown on the plans, two (2) handicapped parking space are shown as part of the
ten space parking addition. These spaces are appropriately located in close proximity
to the entrance of the center. Grade differences are minimal. Details for ADA
compliance are evaluated and approved in review of the plans submitted for Site
Development and Building Permit.

The applicant is required to meet all applicable accessibility standards of the Uniform
Building Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and other standards as required by the
American Disabilities Act (ADA). Conformance with the technical design standards
for Code accessibility requirements are to be shown on the approved construction
plans associated with Site Development and Building Permit approvals.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the Committee finds that
the criterion for approval will be met.


L.    The application includes all required submittal materials as specified
      in Section 50.25.1 of the Development Code.

The combined application package was deemed complete by the City on May 26, 2010.
In the review of the materials during the application review, the Committee finds
that all applicable application submittal requirements, identified in Section 50.25.1
are contained within this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION
The Facilities Review Committee finds that the proposal complies with all the
technical criteria. The Committee recommends that the decision-making authority,

Report Date: July 7, 2010              FR-5
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                           Technical Review & Recommendations
  in APPROVING the proposal, adopt the conditions of approval identified in
  Attachment E.

                           Code Conformance Analysis
           Chapter 20 Use and Site Development Requirements
                  Urban Standard Density Residential
                           R5 Zoning District

                                                                PROJECT                 MEETS
CODE STANDARD             CODE REQUIREMENT
                                                               PROPOSAL                 CODE?

                            Development Code Sections 20.20.50
                                                                                       Yes, with
                           Recreation Centers, and          Expand Recreation
 Conditional Uses                                                                         CU
                                    parks                        Center
                                                                                       approval
                                                           No proposed change to
Minimum Lot Area                    5,000 s. f.                                           Yes
                                                                  lot size
  Minimum Lot                                              No proposed change to
                                       none                                               Yes
   Dimensions                                                 lot dimensions

                                Max. Front: 20-feet
                                                          No proposed change to
  Yard Setbacks                   Sides: 10-feet                                           Yes
                                                          building along setbacks
                                  Rear: 20-feet

Maximum Building             35 feet (without an          Existing approx. 22-feet.
                                                                                          Yes
     Height                adjustment or variance)        Addition approx. 17-feet
                              Minimum density
Required Minimum                                           Not applicable, no new
                            requirements for new                                          N/A
     Density                                              dwelling units proposed.
                           residential development


                     Chapter 60 – Special Requirements


   CODE                                                                                  MEETS
                    CODE REQUIREMENT                     PROJECT PROPOSAL
 STANDARD                                                                                CODE?
                             Development Code Section 60.05.
                      Requirements to the
                                                                                    Yes,
   Design           Design Standards per the Proposal will be reviewed under
                                                                                  with DR
  Standards             Design Review 2        the Design Review 2 application.
                                                                                  approval
                           application.
                            Development Code Section 60.10
                                                This proposal is not located in a
                    Regulations for properties
  Floodplain                                     floodplain and does not affect     N/A
                       in floodplain/ way
                                                   any floodplain or floodway
  Report Date: July 7, 2010                       FR-6
  Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                Technical Review & Recommendations
                                 Development Code Section 60.30
                        Requirements to be
 Minimum Off-                                      Proposal will be reviewed under      Yes,
                       addressed through the
Street Vehicular                                     the Parking Determination        with PD
                       Parking Determination
Parking Spaces                                               application              approval
                            application.
 Minimum Off-
                        No additional bike         No new bike parking areas are
  Street Bicycle
                     parking is required based     proposed. Exiting on-site racks
    Parking:                                                                             N/A
                      on ratio and the size of     (six-units), plus storage within
 Long and Short
                     the addition as proposed.               the building.
      Term
                            Development Code Section 60.40
                  A sign permit required for       No parking signs may be
     Signage                                                                             N/A
                            any sign.               required per Fire Code
                            Development Code Section 60.55
                                                   Refer to Facilities Review
                                                Committee findings for access
                                                    (no change) and on-site
 Transportation          Regulations for
                                                connections. Net trip increase           Yes
    Facilities     transportation facilities
                                                (applicant’s estimate) is below
                                                 thresholds for TIA or Traffic
                                                       Management Plan
                            Development Code Section 60.60
Tree & Vegetation Preservation Standards        One small tree to be removed.
                                                                                         N/A
   Regulations        for “protected” trees        No protected trees on site
                                                  Removal of 8 caliper inches
  Mitigation for                               proposed with several new trees
                    1:1 mitigation required
 Landscape Tree                                  to be planted. A condition of           Yes
                   based on DBH removed.
    Removal                                      approval is recommended to
                                                   ensure trees are planted.
                            Development Code Section 60.65
                     All existing overhead
                     utilities and any new
                  utility service lines within The applicant proposes that all
     Utility      the project and along any      utilities to serve the site are      Yes- with
 Undergrounding    existing street frontage,   underground or are proposed to           COA
                   except high voltage lines            be underground.
                        (>57kV) must be
                        undergrounded.




   Report Date: July 7, 2010                FR-7
   Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                             Technical Review & Recommendations
                                                                          ATTACHMENT B
                   ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS FOR
       MAJOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE - APPROVAL

Section 40.15.15.2.C. Approval Criteria:
In order to approve a Major Modification of a Conditional Use application, the
decision making authority shall make findings of fact based on evidence provided by
the applicant demonstrating that all the following criteria are satisfied:


1.     The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a Major
       Modification of a Conditional Use application.

Development Code, Section 40.15.15.2.A, Threshold #1 states:
       An increase in the gross floor area of an existing conditional use more
       than 10% or more than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area for all
       properties that are located in a residential zoning district or within a
       distance of up to and including 50 feet of a residential zoning district.
Facts and Findings: The applicant’s proposal is to expand the existing conditional use
located in a residential zone by approximately 2,200 square feet meets Threshold #1.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


2.     All City application fees related to the application under consideration
       by the decision making authority have been submitted.

Facts and Findings: The applicant paid the required fees for a Conditional Use
application.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


3.     The proposal will comply with the applicable policies of the
       Comprehensive Plan.

Facts and Findings: Staff cites the following comprehensive plan policies and
associated findings as applicable to this criterion:

From Chapter 3 – Land Use, Medium Density Residential Development:

Policy “a” of 3.13.4. Apply zoning districts as shown in subsection 3.14 Comprehensive
                      Plan and Zoning District Matrix.
Policy “b” of 3.13.4 Medium Density Residential zoning is located generally in areas
                      with good access to arterial streets, good transit service,
                      commercial service, and public open space, or should be designed
                      in a coordinated manner to provide such amenities in the
                      immediate vicinity.
Report Date: July 7, 2010                CU-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                          Conditional Use Criteria
Facts and Findings: The applicant’s narrative response to certain applicable Plan
Polices can be found on pages 2-100 to 2-102 of the combined narrative package. To
Policies “a” and “b”, the applicant states that the property is zoned R-5 and that the
use is conditional within this zone. The applicant also explains how the existing and
proposed use serves the needs of the immediate neighborhood and the community.
The applicant further explains how the subject property, being situated within two
places of worship, provides open space and recreational opportunities. Staff concurs
and finds the proposal to be consistent with both policies.

From Chapter 5 – Public Facilities and Services

Policy “a” of 5.8.1.   The City shall support and encourage THPRD efforts to provide parks and
                       recreation facilities that will accommodate growth while recognizing the
                       limited supply of buildable land in the city for such facilities.

Policy “b” of 5.8.1.   The City shall encourage THPRD to provide parks and recreation facilities
                       throughout the City in locations that are easily accessible to those they are
                       intended to serve.

Facts and Findings: In response to the above policies, the applicant notes that Elise
Stuhr Center is owned and operated by THPRD with the land owned by the City.
The applicant also notes how the proposed addition to this facility will further
improve the parks and recreation facilities in the area. Staff concurs and finds the
proposal to be consistent with both policies.


From Chapter 6 – Transportation

Policy “d” of 6.2.1. Protect neighborhoods from excessive through traffic and travel
                     speeds while providing reasonable access to and from residential
                     areas. Build streets to minimize speeding.

Facts and Findings: In response to the above policy, the applicant notes that roadway
construction is not proposed as part of this project and that roadway construction is
not warranted. The applicant also states that streets abutting the subject property
are constructed to current roadway standards. Staff concurs and finds the proposal
to be consistent with the policy.


Policy “b” of 6.2.2 Develop and provide a safe, complete, attractive, efficient, and
                    accessible system of pedestrian ways and bicycle ways, including
                    bike lanes, shared roadways, multi-use paths, and sidewalks
                    according to the pedestrian and bicycle system maps and the
                    Development Code and Engineering Design Manual and Standard
                    Drawings requirements.


Report Date: July 7, 2010                   CU-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                                Conditional Use Criteria
Facts and Findings: In response to the above policy, the applicant describes the street
improvements to SW Hall Boulevard, having continuous sidewalks and bike lanes
connecting to the center and other amenities. Staff concurs and finds the proposal to
be consistent with the policy.

Policy “c” of 6.2.2   Provide connectivity to each area of the City for convenient multi-
                      modal access. Ensure pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicle
                      access to schools, parks, employment and recreational areas, and
                      destinations in station areas, regional and town centers by
                      identifying and developing improvements that address connectivity
                      needs.

Facts and Findings: In response to the above policy, the applicant again describes
street improvements to SW Hall Boulevard and also identifies Tri-Met bus routes
serving this area of the City. Staff concurs and finds the proposal to be consistent
with the policy.

Policy “e” of 6.2.3   Construct multi-use paths only where they can be developed with
                      satisfactory design components that address safety, security,
                      maintainability, and acceptable uses. Multi-use paths should
                      converge at traffic-controlled intersections to provide for safe
                      crossing, although they should be separate and distant from major
                      streets for most of their length.

Facts and Findings: In response to the above policy, the applicant notes that there
are no multi-use paths designated in the area of the Stuhr Center and none are
proposed. The applicant’s narrative also refers to the Pedestrian Plan, and notes that
the area is designated as an RTP-mixed use corridor. Staff concurs and finds the
proposal to be consistent with the policy.


SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposal to comprehensive plan policies potentially
applicable to this proposal, which have been identified above. The scope of this
proposal (addition of 2,200 square feet to an existing facility) is also taken into
consideration.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


4.     The existing use has been approved as a conditional use as governed by
       the regulations in place when the use was established and complies
       with the applicable conditions of the conditional use approval unless
       the applicant has received or is concurrently requesting one or more
       conditions be removed or modified as part of the current application.

Facts and Findings: To Criterion No. 4, the applicant refers to past land use case files
(Conditional Use) that pertain to Elise Stuhr. Staff confirms that the existing use has
been approved as a conditional use. Staff has reviewed the past conditions of
Report Date: July 7, 2010                CU-3
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Conditional Use Criteria
approval. The applicant’s proposal to add 2,200 square feet to the front portion of the
Center does not remove or modify a condition of past approval.

City case file history for Elise Stuhr (a summary) is as follows: In 1974, the City
granted Conditional Use approval for the existing Elsie Stuhr Center (CUP5-74).
Subsequently, in 1976, the City approved another Conditional Use to expand the
parking east (CUP24-76). Thereafter, in 1995, the City granted CU approval for a
5,618 sq. ft. addition (CUP95-009). And, in 2002, the City approved another addition
of 1,180 sq. ft. (CUP2002-0024). Design Review applications accompany the last two
CUs (BDR1995-0054 and BDR2002-0150).

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


5.     The location, size, and functional characteristics of the proposal are
       such that it can be made reasonably compatible with and have a
       minimal impact on livability and appropriate development of
       properties in the surrounding area of the subject site.

Facts and Findings: In response to Criterion No. 5, the applicant states the proposed
addition is designed and will be constructed in accordance with all applicable building
codes including proper handling of surface drainage so as to not adversely affect
neighboring properties. The applicant’s narrative further describes how the addition
is intended to blend with the existing building and how the expansion will not
increase the number of visitors to the center near the number of employees currently
working at the center. The applicant also identifies the hours of operation and states
that these hours will remain the same.

Staff generally concurs with the applicant’s statement. Although the number of
employees is not identified in response to Criterion No. 5, and the addition of this
area will allow some increase to capacity of the facility, the functional purpose of the
facility remains essentially the same. Also, in response to Criterion No. 5, the
amount floor area to be added (at 2,200 square feet) is relatively small to the overall
size of the existing building (at 20,830 square feet) and parcel size (at 172,933 square
feet). To this proposal, the applicant has also provided the minimum requisite
number of parking spaces necessary for the net increase in floor area as proposed
(based on the “Recreational Facility” ratio of 4.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which
is not the ratio historically applied to the Center at 2.7/1,000 for “Public Buildings” –
60.30.10.5). While the total number of parking spaces will be less than the minimum
required number (for the facility as a whole) existing parking agreements with the
two abutting church properties (discussed as part the narrative/approval criteria for
Shared Parking herein) will remain in effect.

As for vehicle trip generation, while the applicant does not anticipate this proposal to
generate additional trips, the applicant also understands that Traffic Impact Analysis
(60.55.20) is required if the land use change or development generates 200 vehicles or
more per day in average weekday trips, and how a Traffic Management Plan
(60.55.15) is required if added trips from the development will be 20 or more vehicles
Report Date: July 7, 2010               CU-4
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Conditional Use Criteria
per hour. Exhibit H of the applicant’s combined application package responds to
these trip thresholds. According to the applicant, vehicle trips associated with the
net additional area, based on ITE standards, are expected to be below both
thresholds. Specifically, six trips per hour are estimated in response to Section
60.55.15, and a maximum of 84 trips per day are estimated in response to Section
60.55.20. To these calculations, the applicant identifies the appropriate land use
category under ITE (No. 495 – Recreational Community Center) and provides average
weekday rate tables associated with this use, included with Exhibit H. Also, based on
observations and conversation with Center users and administrators, the applicant
has provided an estimate of the trip distribution associated with the three possible
site entrances (one from SW Hall Boulevard, one from SW 9th Street and one from SW
12th Street). City Transportation staff have reviewed these documents and concur
with the applicant’s statement – that vehicle trips associated with net additional
area, based on ITE standards, are expected to be below both thresholds identified in
60.55.15 and 60.55.20.

Finally, in response to Criterion No. 5, staff notes that the location of the proposed
addition (and parking improvements) are situated away from existing residential
properties which are located to the north and east of the existing Elsie Stuhr Center.
As the applicant’s plans show, all proposed improvements (and the addition) will be
located to the mid-portion of the property. Therefore, impacts to nearby residential
properties, due to proximity, are expected to be minimal.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


6.     The proposal will not modify previously established conditions of
       approval for the prior conditional use consistent with Section 50.95.6 of
       this Code.

Facts and Findings: The applicant states this project will not modify previously
established conditions of approval for prior the conditional use permits. As
previously stated, staff has reviewed the past conditions of approval from the case
files associated with Elsie Stuhr, identified herein. The applicant’s proposal to add
2,200 square feet to front portion of the existing facility does not remove or modify a
condition of past approval.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


7.     Applications and documents related to the request, which will require
       further City approval, shall be submitted to the City in the proper
       sequence.

Facts and Findings: The applicant has submitted the required application materials
for review of a Conditional Use application. The applicant has submitted Parking
Determination and Design Review applications that are to being reviewed
concurrently.
Report Date: July 7, 2010               CU-5
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Conditional Use Criteria
Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the facts and findings presented, staff recommend APPROVAL of
CU2010-0002 (Elsie Stuhr Center Addition).




Report Date: July 7, 2010          CU-6
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                 Conditional Use Criteria
                                                                       ATTACHMENT C

          ANALYSIS & FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL

Section 40.20.15.2.C Approval Criteria
In order to approve a Design Review Two application, the decision making authority
shall make findings of fact based on evidence provided by the applicant demonstrating
that all the following criteria are satisfied:

1. The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a Design Review
   Two application.

Facts and Findings: The applicant’s proposal is to add floor area to the existing
center with associated parking, landscaping and site improvements on a parcel zoned
R-5 Urban Standard Density. Surrounding properties are developed with single and
multi-family dwellings and two churches identified herein. The proposal meets
Threshold No. 4 of the Design Review Type 2 application which states:

           Building additions in residential … zones less than 30,000 gross
           square feet of floor area ...

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


2. All City application fees related to the application under consideration by
   the decision making authority have been submitted.

Facts and Findings: The applicant paid the required associated fee for a Design
Review 2 application.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


3. The proposal contains all applicable application submittal requirements
   as specified in Section 50.25.1 of the Development Code.

Facts and Findings: The applicant has submitted all the materials required by Section
50.25.1 of the Development Code.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


4.     The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of Sections
       60.05.15 through 60.05.30 (Design Standards).

Facts and Findings: Staff cites the findings of the Design Review Standards Analysis
(herein), in which staff finds that by meeting Conditions of Approval, the application
meets all applicable design standards.

Report Date: July 7, 2010               DR-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                      Design Review II Criteria
Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the staff finds that the
criterion for approval will be met.


5.     For additions to or modifications of existing development, the proposal
       is consistent with all applicable provisions of Sections 60.05.15 through
       60.05.30 (Design Standards) or can demonstrate that the additions or
       modifications are moving towards compliance of specific Design
       Standards if any of the following conditions exist:

       a. A physical obstacle such as topography or natural feature exists and
          prevents the full implementation of the applicable guideline; or
       b. The location of existing structural improvements prevent the full
          implementation of the applicable standard; or
       c. The location of the existing structure to be modified is more than 300
          feet from a public street.

Facts and Findings: This proposal is for a building addition to existing building,
together with a proposal that will modify the site by adding ten parking spaces on-
site. Requirements are shown in the Design Standards Analysis in which staff finds
that by meeting Conditions of Approval, the application meets all applicable design
standards.

Therefore, by meeting the conditions of approval, the staff finds that the
criterion for approval will be met.


6.     Applications and documents related to the request, which will require
       further City approval, shall be submitted to the City in the proper
       sequence.

Facts and Findings: The applicant has submitted the required application materials
for review of a Design Review application. The applicant has submitted Parking
Determination and Conditional Use applications that are to being reviewed
concurrently.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.




Report Date: July 7, 2010             DR-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                    Design Review II Criteria
           Design Review Standards Analysis- Chapter 60.05.15

From Section 40.20.10.4.C: Proposed redevelopment of existing and project site area is
subject to all applicable design standards or guidelines to the extent where
redevelopment of existing building or site area is proposed. Only that portion of existing
building or site area that is proposed for redevelopment is subject to design review
standards or guidelines as determined applicable.
The applicant has filed the application for Design Review 2, thereby choosing to
respond to applicable Design Standards. Although the applicant’s narrative responds
to both Standards and Guidelines, staff notes that only Design Standards are
applicable in this case. Based on the scope of this proposal, and the limitations
described under 40.20.10.4.C. (above) staff has identified the following Design
Standards.


Section 60.05.15 Building Design and Orientation
  DESIGN                                    PROJECT                              MEETS
 STANDARD                                 PROPOSAL                              STANDARD
                               Building Articulation and Variety

                   No portion of the street facing side (West Elevation) of
 60.05.15.1.B                                                                       Yes
                   this addition is blank or without articulation. Window
 60.05.15.1.C
                   area comprises approximately 60% of the building face.

                                         Roof Forms
                   Applicant states the proposed west elevation features a
                  parapet condition that is in excess of 12-inches above the
 60.05.15.2.D                                                                       Yes
                    roof deck, with a visible fascia of 18-inches. Also, the
                     existing pitch exceeds 4:12 as described under code.
                              Primary Building Entrances
                     Proposal consists of 272 square foot covered recessed
 60.05.15.3.
                                area and cantilevered canopy.                       Yes

                                 Exterior Building Materials

 60.05.15.4.B     No unfinished concrete, concrete block, plywood, or
                                                                                    Yes
 60.05.15.4.C     pressboard materials are incorporated to the exterior

                               Roof-Mounted Equipment
 60.05.15.5.A      New rooftop equipment to be screened by the raised light
 60.05.15.5.B       monitor at the lobby space as well as by a screen wall          Yes
 60.05.15.5.C        panel. Also, significant distance from street view.




 Report Date: July 7, 2010                 DR-3
 Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Design Review II Criteria
Section 60.05.20 Circulation and Parking Design
 DESIGN                         PROJECT                           MEETS
STANDARD                       PROPOSAL                          STANDARD
     Loading Areas, solid waste facilities and similar improvements
 60.05.20.2.A
                  The trash enclosures are not part of the addition and are
 60.05.20.2.C                                                                          N/A
                                  not part of the proposal.
 60.05.20.2.D
                     New loading docks are not proposed and will not be
 60.05.20.2.B                                                                          N/A
                                modified by this proposal.
 60.05.20.2.E     The project site is located on residentially zoned property.         N/A
                                 Pedestrian Circulation
                     Scope of review is limited to the area of the parking
 60.05.20.3.B      addition. A direct connection exists via the walkway to             Yes
                           SW Hall Blvd. No change is proposed.

                  Scope of review is limited to the area of the parking
 60.05.20.3.C     addition. A direct connection exists via the walkway to              Yes
                  SW Hall Blvd.

 60.05.20.3.D
                  Proposed pedestrian crossing area is shown within the
 60.05.20.3.E
                  scope of the review – to be constructed of concrete within           Yes
 60.05.20.3.F
                  asphalt parking area.
 60.05.20.3.G
                    ADA standards will be reviewed at time of site
              development permit review. ADA spaces (2) are proposed
                                                                                   Yes, with
 60.05.20.3.H and shown. The proposal includes flush concrete walkway
                                                                                     COA
                 connection from the pathways within the site. These
              walkway connections are expected to meet ADA standards.
                      Street Frontages and Parking Areas
 60.05.20.4.A   Proposed parking addition does not abut a public street                N/A
                           Parking Area Landscaping
 60.05.20.5.A
 60.05.20.5.B The applicant proposes 10 parking spaces for the site. The
                                                                                       Yes
 60.05.20.5.C      standard is one landscape island every 12 spaces.
 60.05.20.5.D
  60.05.20.6          Project site is not located in a multiple use district.          N/A
  60.05.20.7          Project site is not located in a multiple use district.          N/A




 Report Date: July 7, 2010                  DR-4
 Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                           Design Review II Criteria
Section 60.05.25 Landscape, Open Space, and Natural Areas Design Standards
  DESIGN                       PROJECT                          MEETS
 STANDARD                     PROPOSAL                         STANDARD
    Minimum Landscaping Requirements for Residential Developments in
             Multiple-Use, Commercial and Industrial Districts
                    Applicant’s narrative says landscaping of the Center is
 60.05.25.5.A       approx. 69% of the site. Therefore, the 15% minimum              Yes
                                     requirement is met.
              The landscape plans show a variety of trees and shrubs to
              be planted in the area of the parking addition and building Yes, with
 60.05.25.5.B
              entrance. Staff recommends standard conditions to ensure      COA
                   adequate size and spacing of the plant materials.
                     A pedestrian plaza is not proposed for the site and
 60.05.25.5.C                                                                        N/A
                                 therefore, is not applicable.
                    Building elevation is not located within 200 feet of the
 60.05.25.5.D                                                                        N/A
                                         public street
                                      Retaining Walls
  60.05.25.6       No retaining walls greater than 6-ft. in height proposed.         N/A

                                    Fences and Walls

  60.05.25.7                   No fences or walls are proposed                       N/A

                  Minimize Significant Changes to Existing On-site
                   Surface Contours at Residential Property Lines
                 No change to existing grade anywhere in close proximity to
  60.05.25.8                                                                         Yes
                                    existing residential.
                 Integrate water quality, quantity, or both facilities


  60.05.25.9         Non-vaulted water quality facilities are not proposed.          N/A


                                        Natural Areas
 60.05.25.10             The proposal does not include natural areas.                N/A
                          Landscape Buffering Requirements
                   Buffer standards N/A in this case where use remains the
                   same and the addition is limited in scope. No changes to
 60.05.25.11                                                                         N/A
                     existing site conditions where subject property abuts
                                      existing residential.




 Report Date: July 7, 2010                DR-5
 Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Design Review II Criteria
Section 60.05.30 Lighting Design Standards
 DESIGN                          PROJECT                          MEETS
STANDARD                        PROPOSAL                         STANDARD
   Adequate on-site lighting and minimize glare on adjoining properties

 60.05.30.1.A        The applicant refers to Site Drawings – Sheet 6.0 –
 60.05.30.1.B        Lighting Plan and Lighting Manufacture’s Product
 60.05.30.1.C       Sheets for additional information (on shoe box lighting         Yes
 60.05.30.1.D        proposal). Manufacture’s Product Sheets (shown in
 60.05.30.1.E          Exhibit L of the combined application package)

                               Pedestrian-scale on-site lighting

                       The applicant shows bollard lighting to provide
 60.05.30.2.A     illumination for new parking addition (Exhibit L provides         Yes
                               Manufacture’s Product Sheets).


                       The applicant shows bollard lighting to provide
 60.05.30.2.B
                  illumination for new parking addition (Exhibit L provides         Yes
 60.05.30.2.C
                               Manufacture’s Product Sheets).

 RECOMMENDATION
 Based on the facts and findings presented, staff recommends APPROVAL of
 DR2010-0026 (Elsie Stuhr Center Addition) subject to the applicable conditions
 identified in Attachment E.




 Report Date: July 7, 2010                 DR-6
 Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Design Review II Criteria
                                                                         ATTACHMENT D
                       ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS FOR
                 PARKING DETERMINATION: SHARED PARKING

Section 40.55.05. Parking Determination Applications; Purpose
The purpose of a Parking Determination is to establish required number of parking
spaces for uses which do not have a parking ratio requirement listed in this Code.
The Parking Determination application is established for determining the required
number of off street parking spaces in advance of, or concurrent with, applying for
approval of an application, development, permit, or other action. This Section is
carried out by the approval criteria listed herein.

40.55.15.2. C. Approval Criteria:
In order to approve a Shared Parking application, the decision making authority shall
make findings of fact based on evidence provided by the applicant demonstrating that
all the following criteria are satisfied:


1. The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a Shared Parking
    application.

Facts and Findings:
Staff finds the proposal meets Shared Parking Threshold #1 and Threshold #2:

   1.         The required off street parking for two or more uses will share required
              parking spaces.

   2.         All or a portion of the required parking will be provided at an off-site
              location.

This proposal recognizes two shared parking agreements 1) between Elsie Stuhr
Center and Pilgrim Lutheran Church, and 2) between Elsie Stuhr and First Church
of Christ Scientist. In response to Criterion No. 1, the applicant refers to the current
agreements in place and how this application simply carries these agreements
forward. Staff acknowledges these agreements to be in place. These agreements
predate creation of the Shared Parking Agreement application and have been
recognized as part of past Conditional Use consideration.

Exhibit M of the applicant’s combined application package contains the two
agreements as mentioned above. The agreement with Pilgrim Lutheran Church is
dated May 1974, and agreement with First Church of Christ Scientist is dated July
1992. Exhibit M also provided the same agreement with First Church of Christ
Scientist that is signed and dated March 11, 2010 by the church clerk to acknowledge
validity. Similarly, Pilgrim Lutheran Church has confirmed the existing agreement
to be in good standing (see THPRD letter dated March 12, 2010, signed by a Pilgrim
Lutheran representative).

Exhibit M of the applicant’s combined application package also provides a memo
prepared by THPRD summarizing the hours of operation associated with Elsie Stuhr
Report Date: July 7, 2010                PD-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                          Shared Parking Criteria
and the two churches (along with Pilgrim Lutheran daycare/school hours). The memo
also identifies the posted maximum occupancy of the main sanctuaries and the
number of employees associated with each site. Although the number of parking
spaces (per site) is not identified to the memo, this number is found on pages 2-68 and
2-69 of the applicant’s combined application narrative (responding to Section 60.30.10
of the Development Code – Off-Street Parking). According to the applicant’s
calculations, the Code requires 61 parking spaces for the Elsie Stuhr site - alone. The
applicant’s calculations also identify the use ratio that has historically applied to the
Center (at the 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area). Where the Center
currently provides a total of 39 on-site spaces and will increase that total to 49 with
this application, staff finds the total parking count to be less the required minimum
(at 61 spaces), thereby meeting the threshold for the Shared Parking above.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


2.   All City application fees related to the application under consideration
     by the decision making authority have been submitted.

Facts and Findings: The City received the appropriate fee for a Shared Parking
application.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


3.   The location of the shared off street parking is on an abutting property
     and is within 200 feet of the subject use in which the shared parking is
     intended to serve, except in Multiple Use zoning districts where the
     location may be at any distance.

Facts and Findings: The subject property (Elsie Stuhr) abuts two church properties
reference herein where there are shared parking agreements. The use is also within
200-feet of these properties.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


4.   If multiple properties are involved, the owners of each of the properties
     has agreed to the shared parking by entering into a shared parking
     agreement.

Facts and Findings: Staff has reviewed the two agreements and finds them to be
adequate in response to Criterion No. 4. Additionally, the applicant has received
signatures from representatives of the two churches for validating these agreements
to ensure they are in good standing.

No condition is proposed hereto requiring a new agreement or amendment.
However, because the applicant has provided a recent signed copy of one agreement
Report Date: July 7, 2010               PD-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Shared Parking Criteria
and letter of acknowledgment to another, staff is recommending that these two
documents be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s Office. A condition
for recording is proposed hereto. The document dated March 12, 2010 should be
signed a THPRD representative.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


5.   The time of peak parking demand for the various uses located on the
     subject properties occur at different times of the day.

Facts and Findings: In response to Criterion No. 5, the applicant refers to Exhibit M
of the appendix. As previously stated, Exhibit M contains a memo prepared by
THPRD dated March 15, 2010 which summarize the hours of operation associated
with Elsie Stuhr and the two churches (along with Pilgrim Lutheran’s daycare/school
hours). This memo also identifies the peak hours of use, which for First Church of
Christ Scientist is limited to the hours of 10-11am on Sundays. For Elsie Stuhr, the
memo identifies the hours of 9am to 1pm, Monday through Friday - as the peak. For
Pilgrim Lutheran, although the applicant’s memo identifies the daycare/school hours
of 8am and 3pm and further identifies this as the peak, staff knows the peak to be
closer to 8am, when parents are expected to drop-out their children (CUP2002-0016
Pilgrim Lutheran Childcare Addition). Because the applicant’s memo identifies the
peak hours of Elsie Stuhr to be 9am to 1pm, staff is able to find the proposal to meet
Criterion No. 5 above, where peak parking demand for various uses occurs at
different times of the day.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


6.   Adequate parking will be available at all times when the various uses are
     in operation.

Facts and Findings: As previously stated, Exhibit M of the applicant’s package
provides a memo that summarizes the hours of operation associated with Elsie Stuhr
and the two churches. To this memo, the applicant identifies the number of
employees, peak hours of use, and the posted maximum occupancy of the main
worship rooms. Also, staff has stated herein that the applicant has provided a count
of existing spaces to each site (pages 2-68 and 2-69 of the combined application
package).

Analysis and observations about overall parking demand during the day and during
special events, and how many spaces of the total available are typically occupied by
vehicles – is not included as part of the application package. However, while this
type of analysis was not submitted, the applicant has informed staff that these
observations will be provided as a supplement for Commission consideration prior to
the hearing. Also, to the Pre-App Summary of January 14, 2010 (Exhibit B), staff
requested that the applicant respond to two questions: 1) Have there been parking
conflicts to scheduled events? And, 2) Should existing parking agreements be
Report Date: July 7, 2010              PD-3
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                       Shared Parking Criteria
updated? In reply to question No. 1, the applicant has verbally informed staff that
Elise Stuhr holds one event in the summer that attracts several people and where the
grassy open area in front of the Center is used for event parking. In reply to question
No. 2, the applicant has verbally conveyed to staff the means by which the Center
and two churches communicate on a regular basis to inform each other of scheduled
events.

While the supplemental analysis is not available in time for this report, staff is able
to make supportive findings in response to Criterion No. 6, based on the following:
1) the scope of this request (a building addition limited in size to 2,200 square feet),
2) the fact that ten off-street parking spaces will be provided on the Elsie Stuhr site,
which is consistent with the requisite minimum for the net addition (based on the
higher recreation center ratio of 4.3 spaces/1,000 square feet), 3) the fact that
THPRD has provided a document signed by Pilgrim Lutheran acknowledging the
existing agreement to be in good standing and has provided a recently signed copy of
their corresponding agreement with First Church of Christ Scientist, 4) the fact that
the Center as a large open grassy area to park vehicles in the summer for special
events (as spillover parking), and finally, 5) because the three uses have operated for
several years with few if any conflicts to parking. Therefore, unless evidence is
submitted to the contrary, staff finds that adequate parking will be available at all
times when the various uses are in operation.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


7.   The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of Chapter 60
     (Special Requirements) and that all improvements, dedications, or both
     required by the applicable provisions of Chapter 60 (Special
     Requirements) are provided or can be provided in rough proportion to the
     identified impact(s) of the proposal.

Facts and Findings: The proposal complies with the applicable provisions of Chapter
60 as shown on the Code Conformance Analysis chart within the Facility Review
Committee document, which evaluates the project as it relates the applicable Code
requirements of Chapter 60. With the approval of this application (for Shared
Parking) and associated conditions of approval, the proposal will be in compliance
with Chapter 60 requirements.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


8.   There are safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation
     patterns within the boundaries of the site.

Facts and Findings: As stated in within the Facilities Review Committee document,
under Criterion F, the applicant proposes vehicular and pedestrian circulation
designed to facilitate safe, efficient, and direct travel.

Report Date: July 7, 2010               PD-4
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Shared Parking Criteria
Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.

9.   The proposal contains all applicable application submittal requirements
     as specified in Section 50.25.1 of the Development Code.

Facts and Findings: The applicant has submitted the required application materials
for review of this Shared Parking application. Other applications (Modification of
Conditional Use and Design Review) are to be heard concurrently with this
application.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.


10. Applications and documents related to the request, which will require
    further City approval, shall be submitted to the City in the proper
    sequence.

Facts and Findings: The applicant submitted the application on March 24, 2010 and
was deemed complete on May 26, 2010. In the review of the materials during the
application review, the Committee finds that all applicable application submittal
requirements, identified in Section 50.25.1, are contained within this proposal.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal meets the criterion for approval.



RECOMMENDATION
Based on the facts and findings presented, staff recommends APPROVAL of
PD2010-0001 (Elsie Stuhr Center Addition) subject to the applicable conditions
identified in Attachment E.




Report Date: July 7, 2010            PD-5
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                     Shared Parking Criteria
                                                                       ATTACHMENT E
                              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
                              PD2010-0002 and CU2010-0002

A.      Prior to issuance of the site development permit, the applicant shall:

     1. Record the document dated March 12, 2010 contained in Exhibit M of the
        applicant’s materials (with signature of the THPRD representative), and the
        Agreement for Use of the Property with First Church of Christ Scientist
        (resigned on March 11, 2010) with the Washington County Recorder’s Office
        and supply the Planning Department, proof of satisfying the above with proof
        of recordation. (Planning/SW)

     2. Conditions of prior Conditional Use approval shall remain in effect.


                              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
                                    DR2010-0026

A.      Prior to issuance of the site development permit, the applicant shall:

     1. Submit the required plans, application form, fee, and other items needed for a
        complete site development permit application per the applicable review
        checklist. (Site Development Division/JJD)
     2. Contract with a professional engineer to design and monitor the construction
        for any work governed by Beaverton Municipal Code 9.05.020, as set forth in
        Ordinance 4417 (City Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings),
        Beaverton Development Code (Ordinance 2050, 4010 +rev.), the Clean Water
        Services District Design and Construction Standards (June 2007, Resolution
        and Ordinance 2007-020), and the City Standard Agreement to Construct and
        Retain Design Professionals in Oregon. (Site Development Division/JJD)
     3. Submit a completed and executed City Standard Agreement to Construct
        Improvements and Retain Design Professional(s) Registered in Oregon. After
        the site development permit is issued, the City Engineer and the Planning
        Director must approve all revisions as set out in Ordinances 2050, 4010+rev.,
        and 4417; however, any required land use action shall be final prior to City
        staff approval of the engineering plan revision and work commencing as
        revised. (Site Development Division/JJD)
     4. Have the ownership of the subject property guarantee all public improvements,
        site grading, storm water management (quality and quantity) facility
        construction and treatment plantings by submittal of a City-approved security.
        The security approval by the City consists of a review by the City Attorney for
        form and the City Engineer for amount, equivalent to 100 percent or more of
        estimated construction costs. (Site Development Division/JJD)



Report Date: July 7, 2010               COA-1
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Conditions of Approval
   5. Have obtained the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District Fire Marshal’s
      approval of the site development plans as part of the City’s plan review
      process. (Site Development Division/JJD)
   6. Have obtained approvals needed from the Clean Water Services District for
      storm system connections as a part of the City’s plan review process. (Site
      Development Division/JJD)
   7. Provide a detailed final drainage analysis of the subject site and prepare a
      report prepared by a professional engineer meeting the standards set by the
      City Engineer. The analysis shall identify all contributing drainage areas and
      plumbing systems on and adjacent to the site with the site development permit
      application and how the affected impervious areas meet Clean Water Services
      and City requirements for stormwater management. (Site Development
      Div./JJD)
   8. Submit a final design and plan for the storm water facilities designed by a civil
      engineer for the expected hydrological conditions. City Engineering staff have
      reviewed the preliminary report concerning proposed storm water facilities and
      find that minor modifications of the proposed surface facilities as reflected
      within the land-use application submittal will be required in the final site
      development plans. This land-use approval shall provide for such minor
      surface modifications (revised disturbance areas, additional retaining methods,
      and interior grade changes less than two vertical feet variance) in the proposed
      facilities without an additional design review or other land-use applications, as
      determined by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. (Site
      Development Div./JJD)
   9. Have obtained the City Building Official’s approval of the proposed site utility
      plan for any private plumbing needed to serve the development. This
      specifically includes an approved storm water plan for any driveway, plaza,
      walkway, and building roof run-off which shall be approved by the City
      Engineer and City Building Official for impervious area construction that can
      not drain by gravity flow to the public street or public storm system. Submittal
      of a final geotechnical and hydrologic report with the site development permit
      application is required for review and approval by the City Engineer. (Site
      Development Div./JJD)
   10. Submit to the City a certified impervious surface determination of the proposed
       project by the applicant’s engineer, architect, or surveyor. The certification
       shall include an analysis and calculations of all impervious surfaces as a total
       on the site. Specific types of impervious area totals, in square feet, shall be
       given for parking lots/driveways, sidewalk/pedestrian areas, storage areas, and
       any gravel surfaces. Calculations shall also indicate the square footage of pre-
       existing impervious surface, the new impervious surface area created, and total
       final impervious surface area. (Site Development Div./JJD)
   11. Pay a storm water system development charge (overall system conveyance) for
       the net new impervious proposed on-site. (Site Development Div./JJD) (Site
       Development Div./JJD)

Report Date: July 7, 2010              COA-2
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Conditions of Approval
   12. Provide plans for the placement of underground utility lines within the site,
       and for services to the proposed new development. If existing overhead power
       and communication lines are providing service to facilities within the site,
       these lines shall be relocated underground as a part of this project. (Site
       Development Div./JJD)
   13. Ensure that Design Review approval has not expired. In accordance with
       Section 50.90.1 of the Development Code, Design Review approval shall expire
       after two (2) years from the date of approval unless prior to that time a
       construction permit has been issued and substantial construction pursuant
       thereto has taken place, or an application for extension is filed pursuant to
       Section 50.93, or that authorized development has otherwise commenced in
       accordance with Section 50.90.3.B. (Planning/SW)


B. Prior to building permit issuance for the building addition, private
   plumbing, and any electrical service, the applicant shall, the applicant
   shall:

   14. Submit a complete site development permit application and obtain the
       issuance of site development permit from the Site Development Division. (Site
       Development Division/JJD)
   15. The proposed project shall comply with the State of Oregon Building Code in
       effect as of date of application for the building permit. This currently includes
       the following: The 2006 edition of the International Building Code as
       published by the International Code Conference and amended by the State of
       Oregon (OSSC); The 2006 edition of the International Residential Code as
       published by the International Code Conference and amended by the State of
       Oregon (ORSC); 2006 International Mechanical Code as published by the
       International Code Council and amended by the State of Oregon (OMSC); the
       2006 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code as published by the International
       Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and amended by the State of
       Oregon (OPSC); the 2008 edition of the National Electrical Code as published
       by the National Fire Protection Association and amended by the State of
       Oregon; and the 2006 International Fire Code as published by the
       International Code Council and amended by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
       (IFC). (Building Division/BR)

   16. Applications for plan review must include the information outlined in the Tri-
       County Commercial Application Checklist. This form is available at the
       Building Division counter or may be printed from the Forms/Fee Center at
       www.beavertonoregon.gov. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. (City
       policy) (Building Division/BR)

   17. The City offers phased permits, for foundation/slabs, structural frame, shell
       and interior build-out (TI). An applicant desiring to phase any portion of the
       project must complete the Tri-County Commercial Phased Project Matrix or
       each phased portion. This form is available at the Building Division counter or
Report Date: July 7, 2010              COA-3
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Conditions of Approval
       may be printed from the Forms/Fee Center at www.beavertonoregon.gov Note:
       Except private site utilities (potable water, sanitary and storm sewer lines),
       Excavation and Shoring, Site Utilities and Grading are not permits issued by
       the Building Division and therefore area not part of part of the City’s phased
       permit process. (Building Division/BR)

   18. Plan submittals may be deferred as outlined in the Tri-County Deferred
       Submittals list. Each deferred submittal shall be identified on the building
       plans. This list is available at the Building Division counter or may be printed
       from the Forms/Fee Center at www.beavertonoregon.gov. Permit applicants
       are responsible for ensuring that deferred plan review items listed on the plans
       are submitted for approval well in advance of the need to begin work on that
       portion of the project (anticipate a minimum of three weeks plan review
       turnaround time for tenant improvement and six weeks plan review
       turnaround for new construction projects). No work on any of the deferred
       items shall begin prior to the plans being submitted, reviewed and
       approved. (Building Division/BR)

   19. Unless they are identified as a deferred submittal on the plans, building
       permits will not be issued until all related plans and permits have been
       reviewed, approved, and issued (i.e., mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire
       sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, etc. (City policy) (Building Division/BR)

   20. Projects involving new buildings and additions are subject to System
       Development fees. A list of the applicable fees is available at the Building
       Division counter or may be printed from the Forms/Fee Center at
       www.beavertonoregon.gov . (Building Division/BR)

   21. The building code plans review can run concurrent with the Design Review
       (DR) and site development review. (Building Division/BR)

   22. The proposed addition shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. An
       accessible route shall be provided to the addition from the exterior or through
       the existing building. (Section 1112, OSSC) (Building Division/BR)

   23. The proposed alterations to the building shall be accessible to persons with
       disabilities. (Section 1113, OSSC)


C. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the applicant shall:

   24. Have substantially completed the site development improvements as
       determined by the City Engineer. (Site Development Division/JJD)
   25. Have the landscaping completely installed or provide for erosion control
       measures around any disturbed or exposed areas per Clean Water Services
       standards. (Site Development Division/JJD)

Report Date: July 7, 2010              COA-4
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                         Conditions of Approval
   26. Have placed underground all existing overhead utilities and any new utility
       service lines within the project as determined at permit issuance. No overhead
       power and communication services shall remain or new overhead services
       placed on the site. (Site Development Div./JJD)
   27. Install or replace, to City specifications, all sidewalks which are missing,
       damaged, deteriorated, or removed by construction. (Site Development
       Div./JJD)
   28. Have obtained an Industrial Sewage Permit from the Clean Water Services
       District (CWS, formerly USA) and submitted a copy to the City Building
       Official if an Industrial Sewage permit is required, as determined by CWS.
       (Site Development Div./JJD)

   29. Install both deciduous and evergreen trees as shown on the proposed landscape
       plan. Deciduous trees shall have straight trunks, be fully branched, have a
       minimum caliper of 2 inches, and a minimum height of 8 feet at the time of
       planting. Deciduous trees may be supplied bare root provided the roots are
       protected against damage. Evergreen trees shall have straight trunks, be fully
       branched and a minimum height of 6 feet at the time of planting. Ensure
       coniferous trees have been balled and burlapped or grown within suitable
       containers and are adequately staked at the time of planting. (Planning/SW)
   30. Ensure ground cover plantings are installed at a maximum of 30 inches on
       center and 30 inches between rows. Rows of plants are to be staggered for a
       more effective covering. Ground cover shall be supplied in a minimum 4 inch
       size container, or a 2-1/4 inch container if planted 18 inches on-center.
       (Planning/SW)
   31. Ensure all site improvements, including grading and landscaping are
       completed in accordance with landscape plans marked "Exhibit A", except as
       modified by the decision making authority in conditions of approval. (On file at
       City Hall). No occupancy permit (including temporary occupancy) will be
       issued until all improvements are complete. (Planning/SW)
   32. Ensure all construction is completed in accordance with the Materials and
       Finishes form and Materials Board, both marked "Exhibit B", except as
       modified by the decision making authority in conditions of approval. (On file at
       City Hall). No occupancy permit (including temporary occupancy) will be
       issued until all improvements are complete. (Planning/SW)
   33. Ensure construction of all buildings, retaining walls, fences and other
       structures are completed in accordance with the elevations and plans marked
       "Exhibit C", except as modified by the decision making authority in conditions
       of approval. (On file at City Hall). No occupancy permit (including temporary
       occupancy) will be issued until all improvements are complete. (Planning/SW)
   34. Ensure deciduous or evergreen shrubs are installed at a minimum, using one-
       gallon containers or 8 inch burlap balls with a minimum spread of 12 inches to
       15 inches. (Planning/SW)


Report Date: July 7, 2010               COA-5
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                           Conditions of Approval
   35. Ensure landscaped areas approved to be planted in lawn have seed installed
       between September 1 and November 1 or between March 1 and May 1. Sod
       may be placed at any time of year. This condition is not applicable to special
       seed mixes approved for use in natural resource areas, steep slopes, or in areas
       for the primary purpose of erosion control. (Planning/SW)
   36. Ensure landscaping within off-street parking lots is installed by the standard
       of one landscaped planter island or area, per every 12 parking spaces provided.
       The island shall have a minimum area of 70 square feet, and a minimum width
       of 6 feet, and shall be curbed to protect landscaping. The landscaped island
       shall be planted with a tree having a minimum mature height of 20 feet. The
       area of landscaped screening on the perimeter of parking lots shall not be used
       toward meeting the area requirement of parking lot islands. (Planning/SW)
   37. Ensure all landscape areas are served by an underground landscape irrigation
       system. For approved xeriscape (drought-tolerant) landscape designs and for
       the installation of native or riparian plantings, underground irrigation is not
       required provided that temporary above-ground irrigation is provided for the
       establishment period. (Planning/SW)
   38. Ensure all exterior lighting fixtures are installed and operational.
       Illumination from light fixtures, except for street lights, shall be limited to no
       greater than 0.5 foot-candle at the property line as measured in the vertical
       and horizontal plane. Public view of exterior light sources such as lamps and
       bulbs, is not permitted from streets and abutting properties at the property
       line. (Planning/SW)
   39. Ensure all exterior lighting fixtures for the interior of the property are
       installed and operational. Illumination of internal light fixtures shall
       meet the minimum 1.0 foot-candle standard within the site boundaries.
       (Planning/SW)
   40. Ensure that all walkways and pathway connections into the parking lot
       are constructed with scored concrete or modular paving patterns,
       including ramps as necessary. ADA standards shall apply.
       (Planning/SW)

D. Prior to release of performance security, the applicant shall:

   41. Have completed the site development improvements as determined by the City
       Engineer and met all outstanding conditions of approval as determined by the
       City Engineer and Planning Director. Additionally, the applicant and
       professional(s) of record shall have met all obligations under the City Standard
       Agreement to Construct Improvements and Retain Design Professional
       Registered in Oregon, as determined by the City Engineer. (Site Development
       Division/JJD)
   42. Submit any required on-site easements, executed and ready for recording, to
       the City after approval by the City Engineer for area encumbered and City
       Attorney as to form. The applicant’s engineer or surveyor shall verify all pre-

Report Date: July 7, 2010               COA-6
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                           Conditions of Approval
       existing and proposed easements are of sufficient width to meet City
       standards. (Site Development Division/JJD)
   43. Provide an additional performance security for 100 percent of the cost of
       plants, planting materials, and any maintenance labor (including irrigation)
       necessary to achieve establishment of the vegetation within the rain
       garden/storm water treatment areas, as determined by the City Engineer. If
       the plants are not well established (as determined by the City Engineer and
       City Public Works Director) within a period of two years from the date of
       substantial completion, a plan shall be submitted by the engineer of record or
       landscape architect that documents any needed remediation. The remediation
       plan shall be completely implemented and deemed satisfactory by the City
       Public Works Director prior to release of the security. (Site Development
       Division/JJD)




Report Date: July 7, 2010              COA-7
Elsie Stuhr Center Addition                                        Conditions of Approval

								
To top