Attachment B <br />boundary. PT 18.z Although the proposed wall is not the type of screening that the neighbors <br />would prefer, it will have the quality of completely obscuring the adjacent parking area, and to <br />some extent the buildings beyond. The example site plan shows that the development as <br />proposed can accommodate a 5 foot setback for the wall even if the adjacent property owners <br />do not grant an easement. <br />Northern Boundary - The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for the <br />screening along the northern boundary and adopts those findings by this reference. Based on <br />the neighbors' arguments, it does not appear that they were aware of the applicant's <br />landscape plan and intention to preserve the cedar trees along the northern boundary. Even <br />with the reduced setbacks, those plans certainly meet the standard of screening adjacent <br />properties to a reasonable extent. <br />Eastern Boundary- Both the Staff findings and the'applicant rely on trees and <br />intervening vegetation that already exists between the subject property and the Willamette <br />River bike path to meet the requirements of EC 9.8320(3) for the eastern boundary. The <br />Hearings Official agrees with the neighbors, that the applicant's approach is insufficient. The <br />record is clear that the open space immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary is owned by <br />the City and open for public access and use. Although the proposed development will be very <br />unlikely to be visible from users of the bike path, the development will be completely <br />unscreened from view from the perspective of users of the immediately adjacent public open <br />space. Thus, the application does not comply with EC 9.8320(3) for the eastern boundary. <br />However, based on the submitted site plans, there appears to be sufficient space to <br />accommodate landscaping or other screening elements near the eastern boundary of the <br />proposal without causing the PUD to fall out of compliance with other applicable provisions. <br />Therefore, the application can be approved with a condition requiring sufficient screening, or <br />landscaping consistent with city standards for the eastern boundary. The Hearings Official has <br />added a condition with such a requirement below. <br />Southern Boundary - Part of the southern boundary is screened by the adjacent filbert <br />orchard, and the balance of the boundary is proposed to be screened by a 30 inch fence. <br />Although the Hearings Officer generally agrees with the Staff findings for the southern <br />boundary, in this instance a 30 inch high fence is unlikely to screen the development from <br />property owners to the south to a reasonable extent. As part of the condition noted above, the <br />Hearings Official will require the applicant to revise the landscape plan or provide a taller fence <br />along the southern boundary. <br />2 The Hearings Official considers the example site plan in PT-18 to directly respond to comments made in PT-1 and <br />PT-2 (submitted on October 9, 2013) and, therefore, it does not.constitute new evidence being entered into the <br />record. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 14 <br />