Staff Report: Planning Commission Deliberations 7-27-2015

Attachment C Neighborhood Association (SHiNA, formerly Crest Drive Citizens). As such, a referral for the application was sent to SEN. In checking with the SEN president regarding if they had any questions on the application, she said that SEN & SHiNA were coordinating on this transition and SEN had already forwarded the application information to SHiNA. I contacted the SHiNA president to see if they had any questions and did not receive any. This occurred prior to issuance of the July 14th Planning Commission public hearing materials staff report. 4. Traffic The Planning Commission asked for clarification regarding the following traffic related issues: Will a "significant" amount of traffic be generated from this Redesignation? The Planning Commission questioned how the amount of traffic projected by the proposal could not be significant as it is characterized in the findings. The term "significant" is a term of Oregon land use law regarding the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). To summarize, the TPR asks whether the future traffic anticipated as a result of the proposed map amendment or zone change will have a "significant impact" on nearby transportation facilities, and if so, how will those impacts be mitigated. A "significant" impact means that the traffic anticipated as a result of the proposed change will cause a transportation facility (e.g. intersection) to exceed the vehicle capacity for which it is designed. In this case, as found in the Goal 12 findings (pgs. 5-8), the traffic analysis indicates that the traffic anticipated at full buildout of the site with the proposed change and surrounding area, will not "significantly impact" any nearby traffic facilities. Given the size of the property, a notable amount of traffic is projected from a subdivision; up to 220 new vehicle trips during the peak hour is estimated. So the traffic would clearly be noticeable, but the streets in the area will not exceed the vehicle capacity for which they are designed. Additionally, at the time a specific development application is submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis per EC 9.8650 may be required. For instance, a development generating 100 or more vehicle trips during the peak hour would require a TIA. A TIA is a more fine-grained level of traffic analysis than the TPR analysis, and can consider improvements such as for intersections, safety, and pedestrians and bicycles. Location of housing where transit is limited. Staff is aware that the site is regularly served by transit along Willamette Street. Staff would expect that additional housing in the area would further contribute to strong transit service in the area. How are traffic impacts from other land use reviews underway in the area reconciled? As is sometimes the case, land use applications for the same area may be being considered around the same time. TPR analysis is specific in that existing or planned facilities are to be analyzed for impacts; "planned" meaning facilities already adopted in the City's transportation system plan. The analysis also includes looking at existing vehicle trips and vehicle trips from sites planned for but not built out yet to their current land use designation. So, changes that may occur due to other land use applications under review but not yet approved cannot be considered in a quasi-judicial land use application such as this one. 5. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Triggers The Planning Commission asked what type of development would require a PUD land use approval. If the property is re-designated and rezoned to Low Density Residential, future uses in the R-1 zone that would require a PUD approval include but are not limited to multi-family (e.g. market rate apartments) and neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, the PUD procedures include additional triggers for a PUD: PC Agenda - Page 22