PDF Page 22 <br />App-8 <br />Mr. Jared Margolis testified primarily on the failure of the PUD application to address the <br />adequacy of school services to serve the proposed development. He also addressed the zone <br />change criteria by arguing that it is unnecessary to expand or magnifying the Metro Plan <br />Diagram in order to determine that the subject property is designated, at least in part, as Parks <br />and Open Space. <br />Mr. Paul Crum discussed proposed conservation easements associated with the PUD and how <br />those agreements might be enforced. <br />Mr. Robert Melnick argued that the proposed PUD would have adverse visual effects and would <br />negatively impact road safety and traffic. <br />Mr. Larry Weinerman challenged whether the multifamily units proposed as part of the PUD <br />would actually be affordable at all income levels. <br />Ms. Kyra Carrol argued that the PUD would be visible from many locations at lower elevations <br />in the Laurel Hill area because the South Hills ridge line can be seen from many of those <br />locations. She also raised concerns about storm water impacts. <br />Mr. George Neally testified about potential wildlife impacts and impacts on the unique <br />microclimate in the Laurel Hill area. <br />Mr. Pat Holleran raised specific concerns about having a single road serve as ingress and egress <br />for the entire PUD. He also suggested'that Spring Blvd. will be unable to accommodate the new <br />traffic related to the proposed development. <br />Mr. Patrick Stevens argued that the zone change application is inconsistent with the Laurel Hill <br />Plan and agreed that substantial traffic impacts are likely if the -PUD were approved. <br />Mr. Kloos provided rebuttal testimony clarifying how the City's adopted Goal S inventory and <br />decision allowed developments such as the proposed PUD in the-South Hills. He argued that' <br />the applicant's geotechnical analysis only needed to be adequate to demonstrate that the PUD <br />could conceptually meet the tentative PUD standards. <br />Mr. Satre provided rebuttal testimony explaining how the layout of the proposed PUD would <br />avoid interference with riparian areas, and adequately preserve trees and sensitive landscapes. <br />Near the end of the August 28, 2013 hearing Patrick Stevens.made a request to leave the record <br />open, but later rescinded that request in writing. No other party requested that the 'record <br />remain open. The applicant then requested that the record remain open until September 4, <br />2013 for the applicant to submit argument but not evidence. The request was not a request to <br />submit a final comment under ORS 197.763(6)(e). The effect of the request was to toll the 120 <br />day deadline on the application by seven days, providing the Hearings Official with additional <br />time to draft an issue a decision. That accommodation is appreciated. <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5' <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) 11 Page 826 <br />