Attachment B <br />The Hearings Official is also persuaded that the proposed co-house will be compatible and <br />harmonious for the following reasons: 1) the development will be at the end of the street <br />where comparatively fewer property owners along Oakleigh Lane will be affected visually, 2) <br />the scale of the buildings, as the applicant points out, are within the range of typical single <br />family homes. The applicant states that the common house is similar in size to a large home <br />and the other buildings are similar to smaller single family homes, 3) the proposed density is <br />less than the maximum and the proposed height is less than the maximum height allowed, and <br />4) the proposed use is residential (as opposed to some conditional use allowed in the zone). <br />As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearing Official adopts the findings for EC <br />9.8320(12) here by this reference. Evidence of a modest increase in total vehicle trips, where <br />there is no evidence of associated traffic problems, is sufficient to demonstrate that the <br />proposed PUD will be compatible with adjacent and nearby uses. <br />EC 9.8320(14): If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in the <br />approval of the tentative application exempts future land divisions from compliance with <br />state or local surveying requirements. <br />This criterion does not apply because the development does not include a future land division. <br />EC 9.8320(15): If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the applicant shall <br />demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the special area zone. <br />The subject property is not located within a special area zone. As such, this criterion is not <br />applicable. <br />Willamette Greenwav Evaluation <br />As required by the Type III land use application procedures beginning at EC 9.7300, the Hearings <br />Official must review any WG permit application and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as <br />to whether the proposal is consistent with the criteria required for approval at EC 9.8815 (shown <br />below in bold typeface). In this case, the proposal is being reviewed concurrently with the <br />tentative PUD in accordance with EC 9.8005(2). <br />EC 9.8815(1): To the greatest degree possible, the intensification, change of use, or <br />development will provide the maximum possible landscaped area, open space, or <br />vegetation between the activity and the river. <br />Staff Findings <br />As previously noted, the Willamette River is located more than 200 to the east of the subject <br />property. The land between the river and the subject property is owned by the City, as an <br />undeveloped natural resource area that contains /WR Water Resource (Goal 5) conservation <br />areas. In this area, there is no specific, pre-determined or adopted setback from the river <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 55 <br />