Lot 5 as depicted on the applicant's site plan, with approximately 64 feet of combined <br />preservation area abutting Hendricks Park to the north, starting at the northeast corner of Lot <br />5. Staff found that this is generally consistent with the intent of the South Hills Study policy <br />language to provide continuous open space not only within the development but also by <br />abutting the public open space of Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail property. <br />The Planning Commission accepts and adopts the Hearings Official's findings related to this <br />appeal issue with one modification to clarify reference by the Hearings Official to the <br />"northeast boundary" of the subject property as it relates to a proposed preservation area <br />shown on the applicant's site plans abutting Hendricks Park. For clarity, the Planning <br />Commission accepts finding on page 22 of the Hearings Official's decision with the following <br />modification: "The proposed development also includes a preservation area <br />m^r¢h°;°+ b^ ®R~ near the northeast corner of the subject property, which abuts the <br />established public open space of Hendricks Park, consistent with the policy language above." <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, except as modified above. <br />Appeal Issue #7: EC 9.8320(2) - The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the <br />requirement that developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to <br />determine the Application is compliant. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that the individual lot preservation areas and Tract A, provide a <br />visual screening that will limit the scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential <br />development as viewed from lower elevations to the east (Hearings Official Decision, page 22). <br />She found that the South Hills Study development standards do not require a review of <br />individual buildings, and that there is nothing in the PUD criteria or the South Hills Study <br />development standards that require the applicant to provide specific details about the buildings <br />that may be developed by others in the future. The Hearings Official found that based on the <br />topography, proposed tree preservation and proposed site plan, the scale, bulk and height of <br />the PUD will have an impact consistent with the view-scape created by the adjacent established <br />residential neighborhood. It is anticipated that 8 of the 34 proposed lots have the potential to <br />be readily visible from off-site and will be consistent with the view-scape created by the <br />adjacent established residential neighborhood. In the Hearings Official's opinion, since the <br />applicant has not requested a modification from the building heights allowed in the R-1 zone, <br />the height of future homes will be similar to the surrounding neighborhood, ensuring general <br />compatibility with the surrounding residential area. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts the proposed PUD should be evaluated in terms of scale, bulk and height <br />per the Specific Recommendations in the South Hills Study. The appellant cites LUBA decision <br />No. 2012-039 which states, "City cannot rely on non-binding expressions of intent from an <br />application to ensure that approval standards are met", and therefore the applicant is not <br />allowed to postpone the evaluation of the bulk and height of construction to a later time. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 11 <br />