The applicant met with staff on September 10, 2015 to discuss the proposal, in compliance with <br />EC 9.7005 Pre-application Conference. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on <br />December 3, 2015 in compliance with EC 9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings. <br />The following evaluation provides additional details of the proposal in the context of the <br />applicable approval criteria and related standards. <br />Public Notice/Referrals <br />Public notice of the subject applications was mailed and posted on May 6, 2016, consistent with <br />the requirements of EC 9.7315 Public Hearing Notice. The Planning Division has received no <br />public testimony at the time of publication of this staff report. Any testimony received following <br />the completion of this staff report, and prior to the public hearing, will be presented to the <br />Hearings Official at the hearing. <br />The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to other appropriate <br />City and County departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood <br />group. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in <br />the application file for reference, and addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and <br />standards in the following evaluation. <br />Tentative PUD 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 (shown below in <br />bold typeface). Based on the evidence available as of the date of this staff report, the following <br />findings and recommendations are presented. <br />With regard to EC 9.8310 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Application <br />Requirements, the applicant indicates that the proposed PUD includes all property under <br />contiguous ownership. The application was prepared by a professional design team which <br />included a project coordinator, Oregon licensed civil engineer, Oregon licensed architect, and <br />an Oregon licensed landscape architect. The applicant requested that the Planning Director <br />waive the requirement for the design team to include an arborist and land surveyor. The <br />applicant stated that there are only nine (9) trees on the subject property of significant size, the <br />majority of which will need to be removed to accommodate development. Regarding the land <br />surveyor, the applicant stated that no land division is occurring and all existing features <br />topography, utilities, and driveway) are in place and able to be derived from LIDAR or as-built <br />data. <br />As mentioned above at Description of the Planned Unit Development Request, staff visited the <br />subject site to gain a better understanding of why the applicant has requested that the arborist <br />be waived from the design team. Staff found that the trees on the subject site did not provide a <br />significant screening or buffering function for properties to the north or east. <br />Staff finds that the applicants request to waive the requirement of an arborist and land <br />McKenzie Living Staff Report May 2016 <br />HO Agenda - Page 36 <br />186