Mr. Ralph Nauman introduced the applicant's team including Rick Satre and attorney Bill Kloos. <br />Mr. Kloos provided testimony related to the application's consistency with the Metro Plan. He <br />argued that staff made a fundamental mistake by expanding or magnifying the Metro Plan <br />Diagram beyond its official size -11 x 17 inches in order to reach the conclusion that the <br />subject property was partially burdened with the Parks and Open Space designation. He argued <br />that the Oregon Court of Appeals' decision in Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 200 Or App <br />292 (2005) found that approach to violate the Metro Plan. He also argued under the same <br />ruling, the Metro Plan Diagram is inherently unclear, requiring reference to the applicable <br />refinement plan, in this case the Laurel Hill Plan. That refinement plan, he explained, shows the <br />entire subject property in the Low Density Residential designation. He explained that reference <br />to the refinement plan did not represent an inconsistency with the Metro Plan Diagram, but <br />that the court in Knutson held that such refinements are consistent with the Metro Plan <br />because they clarify land use designations within the refinement plan areas. <br />Mr. Satre presented testimony primarily related to the PUD criteria. He submitted two large- <br />format spreadsheets into the record; one set addressing the zone change criteria, the other set <br />addressing the PUD criteria. As to the zone change application, he explained how to use the <br />spread sheets which identified related documents in the record, and he reiterated the <br />conclusions reached by Mr. Kloos. <br />Mr. Ed McMahon submitted a letter from the Lane County Homebuilders Association in support <br />of the application. <br />Mr. Bill Blix submitted a narrative in opposition to the application with 10 exhibits supporting <br />that narrative. His testimony was directed primarily toward noncompliance with the PUD <br />criteria on the issue of integration of the development with natural resource areas and storm <br />water concerns. <br />Mr. Jan Wostman submitted testimony related to the PUD. He argued that Glenwood Road <br />could not be connected through to 30th Avenue because the Laurel Hill Plan specifically forbids <br />that connection. <br />Ms. Stephanie Midkiff testified on the incompatibility of the proposed PUD with the nature of <br />the subject property. She suggested that the development was located too close to the ridge <br />line, that the density and size was incompatible with the slope and terrain of the subject <br />property, and that the multifamily units were in the most heavily treed areas of the property. <br />She noted that negative visual impacts could result for residents in the Laurel Hill area. <br />Dr. Gunnar Schlieder provided an extensive comment on the application's failure to comply <br />with the requirements for a geologic and geotechnicai analysis under EC 9.6710. His comments <br />were related to the PUD criteria, and he identified alleged errors in the conclusions reached in <br />the applicant's geotechnical analysis. <br />Hearings Official Decision Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 2 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1022 <br />