Attachment B <br />Instead, harmonizing EC 9.8320(12) with EC 9.8320(6) is helpful in understanding when a <br />project might have more than "minimal off-site impacts." While it is not prudent to theorize <br />too much about whether a project that requires a TIA necessarily has more than minimal off- <br />site impacts, it is certainly reasonable to assume that if any of the three conditions identified in <br />EC 9.8670 are evident in the record, EC 9.8320(12) might be implicated. However, when none <br />of the conditions exist that would trigger a TIA under EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to question <br />whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic. <br />That is the case for this application and this record. There are no conditions identified in the <br />record which come anywhere close to triggering a TIA. The peak vehicle trip estimates are less <br />than a third of that required to trigger a TIA, and no "problems" or LOS deficiencies are <br />identified. The neighbors' fear that there will be more cars on Oakleigh Lane than before is not <br />enough to view those new cars as more than a minimal impact, let alone a negative off-site <br />impact. As such, the Hearings Official concludes that the increase in peak vehicle trips from the <br />proposed PUD will result in minimal off-site impacts. <br />EC 9.8320(13): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious <br />with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br />Staff Findings <br />The proposed development is a low-density residential land use, within a low-density <br />residential area. Given the similar residential uses, there do not appear to be any inherent <br />conflicts that would keep the developments from being at least reasonably compatible and <br />harmonious. The development complies with the low-density (R-1) residential development <br />standards, with regard to density and building height. Although the development proposes <br />attached single-family dwellings, rather than the detached nature of the surrounding <br />neighborhood, the density is dispersed across the development site, with groupings of three to <br />four dwelling units per building. <br />Further the east boundary of the development site abuts a swath of undeveloped City <br />parkland, which contains Goal 5 riparian area associated with the Willamette River. The <br />applicant's plans show the development clustered away from the resource area with open <br />space adjacent to the east property line. As such, the development is reasonably compatible <br />and harmonious with the adjacent parkland and nearby Willamette River. <br />The compatibility and harmony of the development is challenged most along the west property <br />line, where the applicant proposes vehicle use areas and garages. The applicant proposes a <br />concrete wall along the west property line to mitigate these impacts and to provide screening <br />to adjacent lands. As discussed previously, staff recommends the applicant obtain an easement <br />from the affected property owners, which will ultimately test whether the wall is acceptable <br />mitigation. If the applicant is unable to obtain the easements, staff recommends the final PUD <br />plans show the wall setback five feet from the property line. The applicant's plans show the <br />wall with espaliered vegetation. These findings and conditions are detailed at EC 9.8320(11)(k), <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 53 <br />