All of the testimony provided to date has been forwarded to the Hearings Official under separate <br />cover. Any additional testimony received following this staff report, prior to the public hearing, <br />will be presented to the Hearings Official at the hearing. <br />Referrals-The Planning Division provided information concerning the applications.to other <br />appropriate City and County departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected <br />neighborhood group. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application.are <br />included in the application file for reference, and addressed in the context of applicable approval <br />criteria and standards in the following evaluation. <br />As required by the Type III land use application procedures beginning at EC 9.7300, the Hearings <br />Official must review any PUD application and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as to <br />whether- the proposed use is consistent with the criteria required for approval at EC 9.8320 (shown <br />below in bold typeface). According to EC 9.7330 and EC 9.8320, the Hearings Official shall approve, <br />approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD application with findings and conclusions provided. <br />is case; based on the available evidence and findings provided below, staff recommends <br />itional approval of the applicant's request. <br />EC 9.8320(1): The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan. <br />Metro Rlan policies primarily guide local governments in legislative decision-making matters and <br />other Tong-range planning efforts, and are not intended to be used as mandatory approval criteria <br />for specific development proposals as a part of individual land use applications. In some cases, <br />policies may apply'as approval criteria, or at least must be considered as relevant. Text and' other <br />provisions of the Metro Plan may also be used in some circumstances to provide context to the <br />meaning or application of the policies. In this case, while.staff finds that there are several relevant <br />policies an&text that help to inform the decision-making process for this PUD application, none of <br />the policies serve as mandatory approval criteria for the application. <br />The applicant has addressed several Metro Plan policies (pages 12 through 22 of the applicant's <br />June 14, 2013 written statement), and to the extent that those additional findings and policies of <br />the Metro Plan dnalso relevant here, staff generally concurs with the applicant's <br />statements. Staff\\al~so notes that the proposal for clustered dwellings, which will be divided into <br />condominiums, is consistent~with Metro Plan Residential Policies A.17 and A.20, which encourage <br />a range of housing types and home ownership. With regard to Environmental Policies, the subject <br />property is within th1e floodplain and Willamette Greenway. Policy C.31 calls for development <br />regulations within the\floodway~ tinge to minimize damage to life and property; accordingly, the <br />City has adopted speci;l~flood hazard development standards, beginning at EC 9.6706, which will <br />apply at the time of development and are further discussed at approval criterion EC 9.8030(10)(c). <br />With regard to the Willamette Gre~enway, Policies D.2 and D.3'require land use regulations and <br />limit new development to, uses that~are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental <br />qualities. The applicant has applied for concurrent WG permit approval, which is evaluated below, <br />following the PUD evaluation\ <br />\1, ~ ~ Page S <br />Stdifi Repp ~ak\e1gI1 Meadows Cohousing September b13 <br />Ho Agenda Page 12 <br />