Revised Final Order of Planning Commission on Remand from LUBA

The PC finds that the applicant's proposed landscape plan (Sheet L2 of Exhibit PH-69) cannot be accomplished with the required right-of-way dedication, as there is no future guarantee that it would not be removed upon future street improvements. The HO did not specifically address this conflict in finding that the screening along the north property line would be sufficient to meet the approval criteria. Further, the right-of-way dedications along the north line result in the abutting buildings being too close to the future street, hammerhead, and access way improvements. For compatibility and safety purposes, the PC finds that adequate screening should be provided within the expanded setback areas along the north property line, therefore ensuring the continued existence of the required screening regardless of the timing for future street improvements. With the additional setbacks afforded by the added condition of approval above, PC finds that adequate landscape screening can be accomplished with some relatively minor, additional changes to the applicant's site plans. Specifically, the applicant's proposal for screening vegetation and trees along the western portion of the north property line is acceptable if moved south, outside of the dedicated right-of-way, essentially implementing a modified version of the City's standard L-2 landscaping requirements at EC 9.6210(2). The applicant's proposal for 4 trees in this area, including one on either side of the entrance, with a low screen (hedge) to mitigate the impact of traffic and headlights and create separation between the building and right-of-way, will provide adequate screening and therefore ensure compatibility if implemented on the development site within the expanded 5-foot setback along the newly dedicated right-of-way for Oakleigh Lane. In addition, the requirement for landscaping should extend along the remainder of the north property line, rather than reliance only on the existing row of trees which are not on the development site, nor under the applicant's control. To address this concern, the PC modifies the HO's approval to add the following condition of approval: The final PUD plans shall show landscaping along the north property line consistent with the applicant's proposed landscape plan (Sheet L2 of Exhibit PH-69), but moved south within the required 5-foot setback outside of the newly dedicated right-of-way for Oakleigh Lane. The applicant shall also revise the site plans to show landscaping that meets the City's L-2 standard at EC 9.6210, within the required 10-foot setback along the remainder of the north property line, but without the requirement for additional canopy trees. As part of the final PUD application, the applicant's arborist shall assess whether this landscaping would jeopardize the health of the cedar trees to the north. If so, no landscaping shall be required. The appellant also challenged the HO's condition of approval (see Condition #15 on page 64 of the HO decision) regarding additional screening requirements along the south and east property lines, and whether it needs more specificity to ensure compliance at the time of final PUD review. The PC agrees that the HO should have included more specificity, beyond his requirement for a combination of landscaping and fencing that would screen the buildings from view from adjacent properties. Here, responding to arguments about the uncertainty and adequacy of the public process, and deferring a determination of compliance to a later stage of review, the PC finds that the condition of approval should be modified to specifically require the City's High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at EC 9.6210(3), along a portion of the south boundary which abuts other single-family residential uses. This modified requirement will provide for clarity and objectivity upon review at the final PUD stage, while recognizing that the City's Type II application process for final PUD approval affords adequate Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 10