landscaping and fencing that would screen the buildings from view from adjacent properties. <br />Here, responding to arguments about the uncertainty and adequacy of the public process, and <br />deferring a determination of compliance to a later stage of review, the PC finds that the condition of <br />approval should be modified to specifically require the City's High Screen Landscape Standard (L73) at <br />EC 9.6210(3), along a portion of the south boundary which abuts other single-family residential uses. <br />This modified requirement will provide for clarity and objectivity upon review at the final PUD stage, <br />while recognizing that the City's Type II application process for final PUD approval affords adequate <br />public notice and opportunity for appeal. <br />Along the eastern boundary, however, the PC finds that the applicant's original proposal to maintain <br />open space in this area for views and connectivity toward the adjacent park property and natural areas <br />along the river is preferable, being more compatible and harmonious with the adjacent open space. As <br />such, the HO's additionally required landscaping is not necessary along the east boundary to provide <br />adequate screening or otherwise meet the PUD approval criteria. Based on these findings, the PC <br />modifies and replaces the HO's Condition #15 with the following: <br />• The final PUD plans shall show landscaping along the southern property boundary except along <br />the length of the proposed wall (see related Condition #13) and the easternmost property line <br />segment (123.48 feet) where existing trees are shown on the applicant's plans. The required <br />landscaping shall meet the High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at EC 9.6210(3). Additional <br />landscape screening is not required along the eastern property boundary. <br />The PC also finds that there needs to be a condition to ensure that the concrete wall along the west <br />boundary includes vegetation, as proposed. Specifically, the applicant's proposal to plant "espaliered" <br />trees along the outside face of the wall as a feature to help soften the appearance is acceptable, but <br />should be required as a condition of approval. In addition, while the HO allowed the applicant's <br />request for a reduced setback for the proposed wall to be located on the property line if the necessary <br />maintenance access easement is obtained from the adjoining owner (see Condition #13), the applicant <br />indicated at the appeal hearing that a five-foot setback.would be provided and the PC concludes that <br />the setback is necessary to ensure compatibility. To address these concerns, the PC modifies the HO's <br />decision to replace Condition #13, with the following: <br />• The final PUD plans shall show the applicant's proposal for "espaliered" trees along the outside <br />face of the proposed concrete wall as a requirement. The required landscaping shall be the <br />responsibility of the owner(s) and maintained as a requirement of the PUD approval. Those <br />portions of the wall adjacent to unenclosed parking areas shall also be limited to 6 feet in <br />height. Plans shall also be revised to show a minimum 5-foot setback for the wall along the <br />west and south boundaries of the site. A reduced setback may be allowed for Building 6, so <br />long as the applicant obtains the necessary maintenance access easement from the adjoining <br />owner, in compliance with EC 9.2751(7), and all other conditions of approval are met. <br />With these additional findings and conditions of approval, the PC concludes that the approval criteria <br />at EC 9.8320(13) will be met. These requirements also address compliance with EC 9.8320(3) regarding <br />adequate screening, EC 9.8320(12) regarding minimal off-site impacts, and related modifications to <br />applicable standards allowed by the HO under EC 9.8320(11)(k). <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD Page 8 <br />13 <br />