PDF Page 71 <br />proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law), <br />c. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and rock outcrops. <br />d. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and riparian <br />areas. <br />e. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as <br />"Natural Resource' and areas identified in any city-adopted natural <br />resource inventory. <br />2. For areas included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory: <br />a. The proposed development's general design and character, including <br />but not limited to anticipated building locations, bulls and height, <br />location and distribution of recreation space, parking, roads, access and <br />other uses, will: <br />(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural <br />features and vegetation, and <br />(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas designated in the <br />Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban uses When alternative <br />locations on the property are suitable for development as otherwise <br />permitted. <br />b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and sited to <br />assure preservation of significant on-site vegetation, topographic <br />features, and other unique and worthwhile natural features, and to <br />prevent soil erosion or flood hazard. <br />EC 9.8320(4)(a)2 applies, due to the presence of Goal S water resources and scenic areas. For <br />the latter, see the inventory shown on Metro Plan Working Papers, Scenic Areas (1978), Figure <br />H-2). Also see Ordinance 20531, for more information on the inventories water resources. <br />Compliance with the very subjective standards in Subsection (4)(a)2 is demonstrated by the site <br />plan, the applicant's narrative, and the findings in the balance of this decision. A few highlights: <br />Building locations have been clustered together as is practical; the bulk and height of the <br />buildings are closely aligned with the maximum allowed in the base zone with some flexibility <br />provided by the PUD itself; the streets have been located and-aligned with existing logging <br />roads and existing topography as much as design and other competing standards allow; and <br />open space areas have been overlaid where connections to parks are desired, where Goal 5 <br />resources can be preserved and where buffers between abutting properties can be best utilized. <br />In this manner over 63% of the site has been conserved (will be untouched) minimizing <br />disruption or removal of attractive features. This policy is met. <br />The design also seeks to avoid conversion of natural resource areas to urban uses. The greatest <br />extent practical, this plan has avoided the conversion of the waterways, wetlands, and <br />vegetation to urban uses, keeping in mind the intended use and underlying zoning of the site. <br />Significant onsite resources have been preserved as far as practical. <br />See also Applicant's Written Testimony at the public hearing on August 28, 2013, Exhibit 6. <br />Laurel Ridge Applicant Final Argument- Page 37 <br />120 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 875 <br />