issues as they relate to the approval criteria, and found that EC 9.8320(11) was met. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official determined that the PUD was reasonably compatible and harmonious <br />with adjacent and nearby land uses. The proposed PUD is located in an area that is zoned and <br />developed primarily for low-density residential use. While the proposed gross density of 2.6 to <br />2.9 units per acre is on the low side of the maximum allowable density and may be lower than <br />the surrounding neighborhood, the residential use is consistent with the developed <br />surrounding area. Clustering of home sites in the mid- to higher elevations limits the ground <br />disturbance and allows for the preservation of approximately 4.41 acres of the site along the <br />east boundary, providing a significant buffer with the existing forested area on the Ribbon Trail <br />property. The surrounding single-family residential neighborhood is a mix of architectural <br />styles, materials, and number of stories. The PUD criteria do not require that the PUD include <br />the specifications of future existing homes. However, within the context of the PUD criteria, the <br />applicant proposes to continue the developing this existing this neighborhood to include <br />additional similar low density residential development. As each of the lots are developed by <br />private owners, they will comply with applicable residential development standards that <br />include height, setbacks, and lot coverage, as established in the Eugene Code, as well as the <br />approved conditions of approval for the PUD (Hearings Official Decision, page 78). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the proposed development is not compatible and harmonious with <br />adjacent and nearby land uses. The appellant argues that the proposed PUD does not provide <br />sufficient screening to provide minimal off-site impacts from the Ribbon Trail, and would <br />permanently change and deplete the environmental quality and natural urban resource of the <br />forested landscape within the development and off-site. The appellant believes there is no <br />guarantee that the designated preservation and conservation areas would be not be <br />compromised as the individual lots are built out. The appellant also claims that serious and <br />irreversible impacts would result from clearing the site and increasing the potential for slope <br />instability and landslide hazard. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The Hearings Official did not err in determining the PUD was reasonably compatible and <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. As discussed in the staff report, the proposed <br />PUD is located adjacent to single-family low-density residential development. It is a low-density <br />residential land use, and staff finds no inherent conflicts that would keep the developments <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 37 <br />