f <br />t <br />Attachment 5 <br />• 1 <br />However, the city approved a temporary emergency hammerhead turnaround <br />2 <br />that is located entirely on the western portion of the subject property until the <br />3 <br />property to the north of the subject property is developed and the hammerhead <br />4 <br />turnaround can be built. <br />5 <br />The hearings officer held a hearing on the application and approved it <br />6 <br />with conditions. Petitioners and others appealed the hearings officer's decision <br />7 <br />to the planning commission, and the planning commission affirmed the <br />8 <br />hearings officer's decision. This appeal followed. <br />9 <br />NEIGHBORS' FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />10 <br />EC 9.8320(11)(a)(2009) requires the PUD to comply with density <br />11 <br />requirements for the R-1 zone that are set out in EC Table 9.2750.4 Table <br />12 <br />9.2750 specifies a maximum net density of 14 units per acre. EC 9.2751(1)(b) <br />13 <br />defines "net density" to mean "the number of dwelling units per acre of land in <br />• 14 <br />actual residential use and reserved for the exclusive use of the residents in the <br />15 <br />development, such as common open space or recreation facilities." EC <br />16 <br />9.2751(1)(c)(1) further provides that "[t]he acreage of land considered part of <br />17 <br />the residential use shall exclude public and private streets and alleys, public <br />18 <br />parks, and other public. facilities." <br />19 <br />In their first assignment of error, we understand Neighbors to argue that <br />20 <br />the city's finding that the density requirement in EC Table 9.2750 is met. is not <br />4 Ordinance 20521, which took effect on March 1; 2014, renumbered EC <br />9.8320 sections (10) through (16) to sections (9) through (15). Therefore, the <br />numbering scheme in the on-line version of EC 9.8320 is not the numbering <br />scheme that applied at the time the decision was rendered. For example, EC <br />9.8320(11)(a)(2009) is now numbered EC, 9.8230(10)(a)(2014). The two <br />provisions are identical aside from the numbering. <br />• <br />Page 9 <br />PC Agenda - Page 115 <br />599 <br />