EC 9.83 20(10) provides the lot dimension and density requirements for PUDs. Opponents <br />argue that there are too many dwellings proposed for the facility than are allowed under R-2 <br />standards. According to opponents, the proposed 58 beds exceeds the allowed maximum number <br />of dwelling units. Under R-2 zoning there is a maximum density of 28 dwelling units per acre. <br />With the amount of land available for the facility, the maximum number of dwelling units would <br />be 40 units. As the staff report explains, however, beds in a specialty care facility are not the <br />equivalent of dwelling units under the ordinance. In assisted care facilities such as the proposed <br />use, for purposes of density calculations 1.5 beds is counted as one dwelling unit. Therefore, the <br />58 proposed beds is the equivalent of 38.67 dwelling units, which is under the allowed maximum <br />density. EC 9.8320(10) is satisfied.'- <br />Opponents also argue that the appearance of the proposed buildings are unattractive and <br />that construction will be disturbing. Opponents do not reference any approval criteria that are <br />implicated by these arguments. The proposed buildings appear to be well designed and attractive <br />and I do not see that the design violates any approval criteria. Any new construction entails some <br />disturbances, but such disturbances are temporary and there are City regulations regarding how <br />and when such construction may occur. Opponents' arguments do not provide a basis to deny the <br />application. <br />The application satisfies all the applicable approval criteria. <br />DECISION <br />Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES <br />the applicant's request for tentative approval of a planned unit development for a specialty care <br />facility, with the following conditions of approval. <br />CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL <br />1. Prior to final PUD submittal, the applicant will mail a letter to each of the property owners <br />abutting the north and east boundaries of the subject site, offering to plant a tree of their <br />choice (two inches in caliper or less and less than $150), for a screening function, on the <br />portion of their property abutting the subject site. The letter will contain the contact <br />z Opponents also argue that the application should be required to comply with the setback requirements of flag lots. <br />As far as I can tell, the application does comply with all of the flag lot setback requu-ements except perhaps the <br />proposed storage building. In any event, the lot, while unusually shaped, is not a flab lot. Instead of having a flag pole <br />portion that extends away from the access road to reach the main "flag" portion of the lot, the subject property has a <br />large portion of the lot abutting Lone Oak Way. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 16-1) Page 4224