would face the neighbors to the north.' There are two two story buildings proposed in the <br />application. The two story buildings would be along the northern portion of the property on the <br />other side of the proposed seven foot fence from the neighboring residences. The neighboring <br />residences also tend to be slightly higher in elevation than the subject property. The two story <br />buildings both have two windows each on the second floor that could look out towards the <br />opponents to the north. The applicant has also agreed to a proposed condition of approval to plant <br />a tree (if requested) on each of the adjoining neighbors' property to provide additional screening. <br />EC 9.8320(3) refers to adequate screening including but not limited to building locations, <br />bulk, and height. The location of the buildings is largely determined by the existing infrastructure <br />that was installed years earlier when the assisted living facility to the south was developed. <br />Originally, the subject property was anticipated to be part of that development, but it was not <br />developed at the time and the approval expired. I do not think the applicant should be required to <br />change the existing infrastructure. The bulk of the proposed buildings is very reasonable. The <br />proposed buildings are designed to mimic the appearance of typical two story homes. The height <br />of the proposed buildings is also very reasonable. Although heights of up to 35 feet are allowed in <br />the R-2 zone, the proposed buildings are less than that. Even though the proposal would eliminate <br />existing trees that currently provide significant screening, EC 9.8320(3) does not require that there <br />be complete screening or absolute privacy. There is a grand proposed total of four second story <br />windows that would look north towards over a half dozen residences. I do not see that less than <br />one second story window per neighboring residence results in inadequate screening. Furthennore, <br />the second stories of the proposed buildings are designed for administrative and meeting spaces <br />rather than bedrooms and living spaces, so there would be even less lack of privacy. The <br />application complies with EC 9.8320(3). <br />EC 9.8320(8) provides: "Residents of the PUD will have sufficient useable recreation area <br />and open space that is convenient and safely accessible.'" Opponents argue that the application <br />does not have enough open space. As the staff report explains, the State of Oregon requires that <br />each of the five residential facilities have a minimum of 600 square feet of recreation space. The <br />application contains more than 3000 square feet of open space. EC 9.8320(8) is satisfied. <br />I The primary impact would be to the neighbors to the north where there are at least seven residences abutting the <br />subject property. Although the land to the east is also zoned R-1, there do not appear to be any residences particularly <br />close to the proposed buildings. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 16-1) Page 3223