North teen Pro ert A eal Issue 5 <br />PUD Standards for Screening EC 9.8320~3~ -Naked Top Third of Monopole is not "Adequate <br />Screening" <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue extensively on pages 12-15 of the decision pages 52- <br />55 of the recordy. The appellant asserts that the entire monopole needs to be screened to some <br />degree to support a finding of "adequate screening". Ultimately, after closely evaluating the <br />available evidence and meaning of relevant terms, the HearingsOfficial found that a condition <br />of approvalwas neededto ensurethe requirementforadequatescreeninghas been met see <br />Condition 2 of the decisiony. This condition requires the applicant to engage a landscape <br />architect to develop a comprehensive screening plan and work directly with adjoining property <br />owners to design screening that meets their needs. The Hearings Official notes that the pole <br />will be visible against and contrastwith the sky, butthat a landscape architectcould assist with <br />how to try to achieve screening or masking of the upper portion of the tower. <br />As the condition of approval is based on evidence in the record and feasible to comply with as <br />part of meetingthe discretionary PUD approval criteria regarding adequate screening, staff <br />recommend that the Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official's decision with regard to <br />Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 5. <br />North teen Pro ert A eat Issue fi <br />PUD Standards for Screening-- EC 9.8320~3~-Requirement for New landscape Plan <br />Again, the Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 12-15 of the decision pages 52-55 of <br />the record. The appellant asserts the application should be denied instead of the Hearings <br />Official "repairing" the application through a condition, and because the condition does not <br />state thefinaf planwill besubjecttofuture review in the Final PUD process. <br />As noted above, Condition 2 requires the applicant to engage a landscape architect to develop a <br />comprehensive screening plan and work directly with adjoining property owners to design <br />screening that meets their needs, It also requires the final site plans to include the changes. <br />The Hearings Official's condition for a landscape plan does not change the essence of the <br />application and the requirement is feasibleto meet in response. Final planswhichwould be <br />required to show the screening plan are approved as part of the Type II, Final PUD process in <br />this case, A public process with notice, opportunity for comment and appeal is therefore <br />properly required to ensure review of the screening plan for compliance with the condition. <br />- As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official's decision <br />with regard to Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 6. <br />Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 7 <br />Neighborhood Applicant Meeting- EC 9.7007~2~ Applicant Meeting Required for PUD <br />Application <br />6 <br />PC Agenda -Page 6 <br />