i significant threat to it was presented by the proposal. Record <br />2 at 15-16. Petitioner presents no argument why more is required <br />it under:' 513.040(2) <br />4 Finally, we cannot accept petitioner's argument that the <br />5 park sites which lay on either side of Permawood's property <br />6 constitute "special features" of the site within the scope of <br />7 513.040(2). The park sites may well be of relevance under- <br />A other :ode criteria, but there is no requirement that the city <br />9 consider such off-site features in connection with §13.040(2). <br />10 3. Reasonable Compatibility with Sur:roundin tiles <br />_ <br />11 Sect-ion 13.040(3) of the code provides: <br />12 ''The size, site and building design, and operating <br />characteristics of the proposed development are <br />1:3 reasonably compatible with surrounding development and <br />land uses, and any negative impacts have been <br />14 sufficiently minimized.'' <br />15 Petitioner describes the surrounding uses as parks, open space <br />16 and residential uses, with the exception of two nonconforming <br />r i bu.sinesse s in the R--2 district. Petitioner- asserts Permawood's <br />N plant will be incompatible with the surrounding uses because it <br />19 wi:l.l generate noise on a 24 hour-a-day basin. <br />20 The city made extensive findings on the compatibility <br />0 question. Record at 19.24. Petitioner does not claim the <br />22 findings are inadequate under S13.040(3). Nor does petitioner <br />23 raise any other specific objection. Having failed to present a <br />24 specific objection to the city's decision under §13.040(3), <br />25 petitioner has presented no basis for remand or reversal. <br />26 Dotson vi. Cites of_ Bend, 8 Or LUBA 33 (1983). <br />Kwe 22 <br />