PUD approval. <br />With these additional findings and conditions of approval, the PC concludes that the approval criteria <br />at EC 9.8320(13) will be met. These requirements also address compliance with EC 9.8320(3) regarding <br />adequate screening, EC 9.8320(12) regarding minimal off-site impacts, and related modifications to <br />applicable standards allowed by the HO under EC 9.8320(11)(k). <br />Seventh Assignment of Error. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(3) <br />"The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not <br />limited to anticipated locations, bulk, and height. <br />The PC confirms that the 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" increases the size of each individual <br />building, but not in a way that offends the requirements for compatibility, screening, or overall <br />character of the area. The PC concludes that added conditions of approval noted above will provide <br />enough clarity to ensure adequate screening which will be implemented during the final PUD process, <br />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 />9.83200 1)(a) "The PUD complies with EC 9.2000 through EC 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions <br />and density requirements for the subiect 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 />8. Sub-assignment of Error 8.8: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the <br />concept of "clustering" under EC 9.8300(1)(e). <br />The PC finds that the 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 />(00109077;1) DRAFT Final Order Page 9 <br />