PDF Page 95 <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br />The Staff Report, at page 54, says this standard is not met, based on the inclusion of multi- <br />family uses, the proposed development of land the staff views as planned designated Parks and <br />Open Space, too great an impact on trees, buildings that are too high, unresolved traffic issues, <br />lack of emergency access, and lack of adequate screening. <br />The legal issue in the staff's position relates to the plan designation. The Applicant is correct <br />about the plan designation, as explained above. - <br />Traffic impacts should come out of the staff's list of shortcomings, based on the discussion of <br />the TIA above, <br />The remaining issues reflect a disagreement with the Applicant about final design choices that <br />reflect the applicant's best judgment about what trade-offs to make among values that can't all <br />be maximized. <br />The Hearing official should find that this standard is met. <br />9.8320114) : If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in the <br />approval of the tentative application exempts future land divisions from compliance <br />with state or local surveying requirements. <br />Future land division applications are not exempt from compliance with state and local surveying <br />requirements. As required by tentative subdivision criteria at EC 9.8515(12), subsequent land <br />division applications shall be consistent with any approved PUD. <br />9.8320(15): If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the applicant <br />shall demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the special <br />area zone. <br />The subject property is not located within any of the special area zones as listed in the Eugene <br />Code, EC 9.3000 through EC 93915. As such, this criterion is not applicable. <br />9.8320(15: For property with the /SR Site Review Overlay Zone, the PUD complies <br />with any additional site-specific criteria that were specified at the time the /SR <br />designation was applied to the property. <br />The subject property does not have a /SR overlay. As such this criterion is not applicable, <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 61 <br />144 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 899 <br />