PDF Page 48 <br />111. EVALUATION OF TENTATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST <br />Big Picture Issues in South Hills Development <br />This application has several qualities that make for a perfect land use storm. It is a large site - <br />about 121 acres. It is in a part of the City-the South Hills -that has the most rigorous <br />regulations to protect natural resources and values. It has several neighborhood organizations <br />committed to preservation. And, yet, it is planned and zoned to allow residential development <br />at up to 5 dwelling units per acre. <br />The Staff Report is fairly direct in its criticisms of the project and its recommendation for denial. <br />What is most unusual about the Staff Report is that it does not include a list of recommended <br />conditions to apply in the event of an approval. The Applicant is suggesting conditions of <br />approval. A comparison of the recommended conditions with other recent South Hills PUD <br />decisions and staff reports the applicant has added to the record, in connection with the <br />Prehearing Exhibits, shows that the level of conditioning and wording suggested here is typical <br />for Tentative PUDs, in many cases identical. <br />This section, as in introduction to the discussion of PUD standards, addresses several big picture <br />issues, in an effort to create a framework for the findings related to specific standards. The <br />issues are: The residential density cap in the SHS; the trade-offs among conflicting values; and <br />the flexibility in standards associated with PUDs. <br />1. The residential density cap in the SHS <br />The SHS caps the residential density for this site, and all other SHS areas east of Friendly Street, <br />at 5 dwelling units per acres. (du/ac). To the west of Friendly Street the cap is 8 du/ac. This is <br />down from 14 du/ac allowed in the base zone. <br />The Applicant's site plan proposes 5 du/ac. The applicant submitted to the city, and discussed <br />with city staff for more than a year, six different site plans. However, each site plan proposed <br />to develop at or near the residential density cap. The Staff Report says this is too dense. That is <br />an oft-repeated point and a dominant theme in the Staff Report. <br />As further discussed below, the Applicant should be presumed to be entitled to 5 du/ac. This <br />right needs to be treated as something of an independent variable or baseline consideration in <br />the city's review of any site plan. There are several reasons for this. <br />(a) Allowing 5 du/ac is part of the city's Goal 5 program. The City has already formally <br />decided that 5 du/ac is acceptable in this area. It made this policy choice in adopting <br />its Goal 5 program, which was initially acknowledged in 1982. <br />(b) If the dwelling density were to be treated like any other variable in a PUD review, such <br />as preserving trees or protecting views, then it would be hard to justify any dwellings <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 14 <br />97 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 852 <br />