Planning Commission <br />August 15, 2011 <br />Page 4 <br />"EC 9.8320 3 The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding <br />properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and <br />height," <br />The HD Decision concluded that the top third of the monopole can be unscreened in any <br />fashion and the use can still be found to have "adequate screening," Decision at 13. This is an <br />erroneous conclusion. The entire pole needs to be screened to some degree to support a finding of <br />adequate screening, when a significant portion of an industrial structure in a residential zone is . <br />unscreened, it cannot be considered .to be "adequately screened," This may be an impossible <br />standard for someone to meet if it is a 75-foot tall monopole it wants to develop. That may be the <br />unfortunate conclusion when a person picks a site with a PUD overlay. The P~UD overlay provides <br />an extra layer of protection for surrounding properties. <br />6, PUD Standards for Screenin - EC 9, 8320 3 Re uirement for New Landsca in Plan <br />Tn connection with the standard quoted above, the H~ Decision imposed Condition 2 in the hope of ensuring adequate screening of the lower part of the tower from surrounding properties. <br />Condition 2 is an attempt to repair the Application on the fly, when the Application should simply be <br />denied. Condition 2 is sweeping in its scope, Yt essentially directs the applicant to go start from <br />scratch on landscaping for screening. Condition 2 does not say that the final plan will be subj ect to <br />review in the public process in the final PCTD proceeding, and we are unsure whether it will be. If <br />not, this shortcoming certainly dooms the validity of the approach used in the HO Decision, The <br />simple, straightforward approach to this issue would be to deny the Application based an failure to . <br />adequately screen the use from the surrounding uses. The applicant is free to take a fresh run at the <br />standards in the context of a new application. <br />7. Nei borhood A licant Meetin - EC 9.?00? 2 A licant Meetin Re wired for PUD <br />A lication <br />The HD Decision, at 4-5, dismissed Northgreen's argument that a new applicant meeting was <br />required for the PUD application, The HD Decision erred in concluding that no applicant meeting <br />need be held for the PUD application. The HO Decision failed to look at the plain language of the <br />EC that requires such a meeting, Northgreen reasserts its arguments made in its July 6, 20~ 1 letter in the record, pages 3-4. <br />8. Metro flan policies <br />The HD Decision, at 5-1 D, and 4-45 erroneously concluded that the Metrd Ptun policies are <br />not independent review standards with which to judge the Application. Specifically, the HC <br />Decision addressed the Environmental Resource element, Policy C.21, the Environmental Design <br />Element, Policy E.4, and Policy E.6. The HD Decision also discussed specific W~4P policies and <br />PC Agenda -Page 22 <br />