permitted. <br />The Metro Plan does not designate any of the subject property as a natural resource area. <br />Accordingly, this criterion requires that the applicant minimize impacts by avoiding <br />`unnecessary' disruption or removal of attractive natural features and vegetation. <br />As previously described in the findings of compliance with the applicable South Hills Study <br />policies, the proposed development minimizes impacts to the site by clustering residential lots <br />and other development impacts in areas of previous impact, less steep terrain, and less dense or <br />otherwise less significant vegetation. The proposal includes significant preservation areas on the <br />steepest slopes of the site. As further discussed below regarding the required tree preservation, <br />the applicant's tree preservation plan and the corresponding tree preservation list represented on <br />the applicant's site plans (sheets L3.0 through L3.4 and L4), depict that the areas included in the <br />Tract A common open space and within individual lot preservation areas comprise the majority <br />of significant trees, vegetation, and other natural features that are suitable for preservation; while <br />also accommodating street extensions, utilities, and other infrastructure in a compact manner to <br />serve a reasonable level of low-density residential development. <br />As depicted on the site plans, the proposed common open space (Tracts A, B, C, and D) along <br />with the individual preservation areas of lot 5 and lots 8 through 19, results in preservation of <br />approximately 33% of the site, primarily along the eastern border, where natural vegetation is <br />the heaviest. Also, the proposed placement of Cupola Drive along a formerly cleared and graded <br />vehicle accessway will limit the necessary grading and associated cut and fill, which helps to <br />minimize soil erosion and flood hazard. Locating Cupola Drive in this area also requires fewer <br />tree removals since trees have already been removed along the vehicle accessway. The applicant <br />has proposed to include notes on the plan set regarding tree preservation conditions. These notes, <br />which are made conditions of approval, provide additional clarity and assurance regarding the <br />tree preservation requirements and allowed development. <br />As also discussed with regard to the South Hills Study policies, the Response Committee and <br />several neighbors object that the proposed PUD does not minimize impacts and causes <br />substantial disruption and removal of attractive natural features and vegetation. In addition to <br />arguments raised above, they argue that the loss of this forest will increase erosion, flooding and <br />pollution; and that the removal of a substantial portion of trees for construction, and the probable <br />windthrow destruction of the existing remaining trees, will cause, substantial and unnecessary <br />disruption, as well as reduce necessary screening. <br />The Response Committee retained a professional forester to specifically evaluate the applicant's <br />proposed tree removal. In a detailed report, and based his observation and published studies, in <br />addition to concerns over slope stability (address below under findings of compliance with EC <br />9.8320(6)), he opined that the tree removal would "significantly increase the risk of wind <br />damage as remaining trees would be more vulnerable to being blown down or having their tops <br />broken. (James Mehrwein Report, February 27, 2018.) <br />In response to concerns regarding potential windthrow, the applicant retained an arborist to <br />review the applicant's proposed tree removal plans. Based on his site review and analysis, he <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 34 <br />