The PC confirms thatthe PUD cannot rely on the cedar trees on adjacent lands to the north'as <br />screening for the development because those trees are not within the development's control. As. <br />addressed previously, under the sixth assignment of error, the PC has modified the HO decision to <br />establish conditions of approval to.ensure adequate screening along all property lines; those findings <br />and conditions are incorporated by reference to address this seventh assignment of error and EC <br />9.8320(3). <br />The PC further finds that the proposed "clustering" of dwellings includes a form of attached single- <br />family units in dispersed buildings, which minimizes the overall impact of the allowed R-1 density <br />which might occur in other multi-family designs (i.e. an apartment complex). Based on the available <br />evidence, the PC concludes that this is acceptable, as long as the proposed design otherwise meets the <br />PUD approval criteria. In this case, the.proposal for "clustering" necessarily increases the size of each . <br />individual building, but not in a way that offends the requirements for compatibility, screening,.or <br />overall character of the area. The PC concludes that added conditions of approval noted above will <br />provide enough clarity to ensure adequate screening which will be implemented during the final PUD <br />process, involving adequate opportunity for public review and comment, as well as appeal provisions. <br />Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 9-14 are hereby incorporated by reference as <br />further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />Eighth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC <br />9.8320(11)(x) "The PUD complies with EC 9.2000 through EC 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions <br />and density requirements for the subject zone." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 8.A: the Hearings Official erred in his calculation of the net <br />density area pursuant to EC 9.2751... <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 8.B: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the <br />concept of "clustering" under EC 9.8300(1)(e). <br />The PC finds thatthe HO did not err in his calculation of net density by not subtracting public easement <br />areas, as asserted by the appellant. Even if these additional areas are subtracted from the net density <br />calculation, staffs analysis shows and PC affirms that the PUD complies with the net density allowance <br />in R-1 zoning for 14 units per acre. <br />The PC finds that the HO did not err in his understanding of the concept of clustering under EC <br />9.8300(1); however, as discussed previously under the sixth assignment of error, the PC finds that <br />there appears to be sufficient open space within the development site to accommodate the changes <br />required by the PC, which will necessarily result in more clustering of the dwellings within the <br />development site. As discussed under the sixth assignment of error, the PC is modifying the HO's <br />decision to require additional setbacks and landscaping to ensure compliance. Here, as modified, <br />those requirements further.the PUD purposes with regard to.clustering of dwellings, and are therefore <br />incorporated by reference. Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 33-35 are hereby <br />incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed <br />DRAFT.Final Order Page 9 <br />11.1 <br />