Ordinance 3769-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Lark stated that future development of that site would be located on a high capacity road and that the developer would mitigate any traffic concerns. She encouraged future developers to engage early with the neighborhood to make sure that the development compliments and adds value to the area. Commissioner Beck was concerned about area traffic and had some reservations about future development of the site. Mr. Stalheim responded that there was a traffic generation analysis done by Gibson Traffic Consultants included in the staff report. Commissioner Finch stated that he was concerned about Findings 5 and 7 on page 2 of the resolution. He would like the language in the resolution amended since there was no project specific request. Commissioner Zelinski asked if the rezone was approved,would Planning Commission or the neighborhood be able to provide input on the site-specific proposal. Staff Comments Ms. Stewart stated that the parcel boundaries drawn included the sloped area where the Maple trees were located;however, not all of that area was developable and would require a setback buffer. She added that the review process for a multiple family development would also require a public notice with a public comment period. The City would encourage the developer to meet with the neighborhood on the specific project proposal, and the traffic impacts would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineers. Commission Discussion Commissioner Holland would like the traffic consultants to also measure the a.m. peak hour trips. Commissioner Holland agreed with Commissioner Finch that it was hard to determine traffic impacts without a specific development proposal. Commissioner Beck was also concerned about significant amounts of traffic in the area. Chair Yanasak asked about the height regulations. Ms.Stewart responded that the City does have height regulations that provide for lower heights from the adjacent residential area. Mr. Staiheim referred to the Hope Covenant church massing diagram to explain what the current code would allow in terms of heights and stepback provisions from the adjacent neighborhood. Chair Yanasak asked if staff were aware of any project being denied because the traffic study didn't adequately address the traffic impacts. Mr.Staiheim responded if a study doesn't meet the engineering or concurrency requirements through mitigation,developers will decrease the number of units so the traffic generated will change, or make improvements to intersections,turning movements, lights,or whatever else to meet the City's requirements. Commissioner Finch asked about Findings 5, 6,and 7 in the Resolution. Ms. Stewart responded that the findings are standard language for non-project actions, Commissioner Finch asked if the rezone could Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 June 16, 2020