• Watering and general maintenance of replacement trees, new vegetation, <br />and other screening on the subject property shall be conducted. by the owner <br />or lessee of the subject property in a manner that ensures establishment and <br />long-term survival. Maintenance of any screening located on the adjoining <br />properties shall be the responsibility of the owners of those properties. <br />• The cost of the landscape architect and initial implementation, of the <br />screening plan shall be the responsibility of the applicant. <br />The Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's findings on several points, including the <br />determination that it is reasonable to impose a condition of approval. to ensure adequate screening, <br />and that a landscape architect is the appropriate design professional to determine how best to provide <br />the screening, but finds that the Hearings Official erred in providing this specific condition for three <br />reasons. First, as drafted by the Hearings Official, it may be an unreasonable condition for the <br />applicant to achieve. The condition does not address what screening will be provided if a landowner <br />refuses to meet with the applicant or if there is no agreement reached as to the best screening option <br />for the homeowner. Second, reference to adjoining properties "in the vicinity of the tower" is not <br />sufficiently specific to determine what locations must be evaluated for adequate screening. Third, the <br />process for ensuring that the screening is implemented is not specified. To ensure that the condition is <br />one the applicant can implement, a "fall back" screening requirement will be added, to ensure that if <br />no agreement is made with the landowner, adequate screening is still provided. Additionally, specific <br />properties are identified for screening. Finally, the final PUD process is an appropriate time to ensure <br />the condition is met. Final plans which would be required to show the screening plan are approved as <br />part of the Type II, final PUD process in this case. A public process with notice, opportunity for <br />comment and appeal is therefore properly required to ensure review of the screening plan for <br />compliance with a condition. <br />As modified, Condition of Approval #2 shall read as follows: <br />The applicant shall engage a local (mid-Willamette Valley) landscape architect (no other <br />professional will be acceptable) to develop a comprehensive screening plan for the <br />proposed tower to be incorporated into the final tree preservation/landscape plan (Sheet L- <br />1). The screening'plan must include a narrative demonstrating that the landscape architect <br />considered views of the tower from the homes and yards of properties shown and listed on <br />Attachment A. The landscape architect shall work directly with the land owners of these <br />properties and shall design screening that addresses the concerns expressed by the <br />landowners. The screening may be located on the application site, or on another property <br />(with the consent of the land owner), or both. <br />To demonstrate compliance with this condition, the applicant shall mail a certified letter <br />describing this requirement and requesting an opportunity to work with the identified land <br />owners to provide adequate screening from the proposed telecommunications tower, and <br />noting that the land owner has 30 days from receipt of the letter to respond': If a land <br />owner does not respond to the applicant in writing within 30 days, the applicant will not be <br />required to provide any additional trees to address 9.8320(3) as it pertains to that property. <br />The letter shall also note that, in the event of documented failure to reach agreement on <br />the provision of adequate screening (including the number, species and location of new <br />Final Order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 9 <br />