LUBA Materials Volume 1 of 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

and would omit the landscaping originally proposed by the applicant. The PC agreed that the HO decision needed to be modified to address those issues. The PC indicated that a building within five feet of the future bike path along the north property seemed too.tight and that, for safety reasons, the landscaping in between should be limited in height. The PC discussed the idea of requiring a ten-foot setback with L-2 Low Screen landscaping, but without trees, abutting the future bike path. The close proximity of the cedar trees to the north and the over- head power lines further warrants omitting trees along this eastern portion of the north property line. With regard to setbacks and screening along the western portion of the north property line, abutting the future street right-of-way, the PC indicated that five feet would be an acceptable setback and that landscaping was also needed in this location, including trees. The PC observed that the applicant's original landscape plan was acceptable, but that the abutting building needed to.be setback five feet from the required right-of-way to install that landscaping. The attached draft Final Order attempts to capture the PC's direction. The PC expressed comfort with the HO's decision on the east, south, and west boundaries of the site, regarding compatibility and screening, but wanted to ensure that the concrete wall along the west boundary included the green features proposed by the applicant. The PC also concurred that the wall should be setback 5' from the property line. The attached draft Final Order suggests a condition that would ensure compliance as proposed. Since there is an appeal issue that questions the subjectivity of the HO's condition for additional screening along the east and south property lines, staff has also recommended in the attached draft Final Order that his condition be amended to more specifically reference the L-3 High Screen Landscape standard. for clarity. The PC did not express any other fundamental concerns with compatibility or traffic impacts, and as such, based on the PC's direction, staff has drafted findings for all remaining assignments of error to facilitate deliberations and a final decision on the appeal. Pending further deliberations and direction from the K, staff is prepared to make additional revisions to the draft as necessary. ATTACHMENT Draft Final Order City Attorney Memo The entire record of materials for the subject application is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices, and will be provided to the PC under separate cover. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682-5437, or e-mail at becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us Page 2 90