08/28/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the 1990 Plan. Rate of growth, he said, is not a proper consideration in attempting to control against projects of this nature. He asked the Council to deny the appeal. James Pearson, president of the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission in its approval of preliminary plans acted only on the first phase of the development and that >..- subsequent phases as they are submitted for preliminary approval will be subject to com- plete review and inquiry as to whether each in turn meets criteria set forth in the ordinance. He said it is conceivable that some of the concerns ~xpressed relate'to the overall impact of the total development. He said findings of the Planning Commission as to whether the Southri@ge project meets the permit criteria were that (a) the plan at six units per acre comes within the location~ design, size and uSe set forth in the 1990 Plan and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan and in no way will hamper or restrict the present study as it relates to the south ridgeline; (b) location and clustering of' buildings, provision for open space, maximum, retention. of tre'es, setbacks from Willamette Street meet requirements for integration with surroundings and' reduce impact of the development; (c) although the Commission did criticize terminology of the ordinance with respect to" "congestion,Tl expert testimony based on subjective evaluation advised that designated capacity for' Willamette Street would not be exceeded by the anticipated traffic load, thus in interpreting the term "congestion," it could not be found when the traffic load was deemed to be less than the street's capacity; (d) while existing school faeilities might be strained, evidence before th~ Commission indicated that sufficient land is in the ownership of the school district and assumed will be used to supply needed schools for student load flowing from the pvoject; and (e) 'the plan itself shows amenities available to residents provid1~g desired_environm~nt for 'l:idTing, shopping, and working.' With regard to the BALSM project, Mr. Pearson continued, the Commission gave preliminary . approval to Phases 1 and 2 of four phases of the development, roughly 60% of the total number of units, so that findings of the Commission did not relate to impact of the later development. The approval of the BALSMPhases 1 and 2 was based" on permit criteria: (a) The area is totally within the urban service area of the 1990 Plan with 'annexation to the City either complete or in process of being completed. Number of dwellings con- sistent with interim density limit of six per acre, and would not interfere with any proposed ridgeline ,park or ribbon trail plan; (b) In judgment of the' Commission the project as presented is well integrated with its surroundings, highest buildings will not be above the ridgeline; (c) anticipated traffic onto Donald and Fox Hollow from the project will not exceed the capacity of either street; (d)'existing and planned utilities and school facilities are identical to those for Southridge; (e) siting and clustering of buildings and provision for open space, trails, bicycle;:paths, etc., will provide the desired living environment. Mr. Pearson added that the Commission had before it facts from various departmental sta~fs of the City and believes that the two projects meet the permit criteria, of the ordinance. On that basis, he 'said, the Commission approved both projects. I Mr. Aldave reiterated his contention that there is no evidence or procedure with regard to "congestionTl on which to base a decision that there will be none. Standards should be developed, he said, through public hearing and testimony with which to compare what . is being proposed~ He maintained the developer should not put the burden of street, schools, water, sewers, etc., on the City, but that those facilities should be avail- able when the development occurs to constitute good planning. The operation of the planning process now~ ,according to Mr. 'Aldave, is based upon a series of opinions. Assistant Manager noted Council receipt of letters from Ra~mond Gilden, Jr., and John Fair, both enclosing copies of article on hillside developments from the August 21,-1972 issue of Newsweek magazine'. - At the request of Councilman McDonald, Traffic Engineer said traffic count of 8000 vehi- I cles per day passing anyone particular point could be one criterion used for measuring traffic capacity. He said July 1972 maps show traffic volume south of 46th at 1600 vehicles per day, south of, 40th 4000, north of 40th 4100, total over a 24-hour 'period. But he said these 'figures will vary, depending upon day of the week. Volumes increase going north toward 29th - immediately south of 29th, 21,300 per day. Traffic Engineer continued that he feels the proposed Southridge project will add 1600 vehicles per day, but that there is no analysis of what percentage will be added 'to the 29th and Willamette area. He added, still in answer to Mr. McDonald's questioning, that he believes exist- ing volumes plus' those anticipated to be generated by Phase '1 of the Southridge project would not exceed 8000 vehicles per day. Mr. McDonald, asked whether the Planning Com- . mission in its hearings had this same information, and Councilman Mohr replied that - it had. Councilman Williams asked about the capacity of the 29th and Willamette intersection. Traffic Engineer replied that it is.desirable that the capacity of any facility not be controlled by an intersection, and that that intersection has not been calculated in terms of absolute capacity, however at certain times of the day it does operate at "breakdown" level. He estimated a capacity of 20 to 22 'thousand per day based on the ~52 8/28/72 - 4