public notice and opportunity for appeal. <br />Along the eastern boundary, however, the PC initially determined in its decision on appeal that the <br />applicant's original proposal to maintain open space in this area for views and connectivity toward the <br />adjacent park property and natural areas along the river is preferable, being more compatible and <br />harmonious with the adjacent open space. As such, the PC determined that the HO's additionally <br />required landscaping was not necessary along the east boundary to provide adequate screening or <br />otherwise meet the PUD approval criteria. Based on these findings, the PC modified and replaced the <br />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 />On appeal to LUBA, the PC's determination not to require landscape screening along the eastern <br />boundary was the only substantive basis for its remand of the PC's decision. As part of the local <br />remand proceedings, the PC has therefore determined that Condition of Approval #15 must now be <br />modified to strike the last sentence, and to add a condition of approval that will ensure "adequate <br />screening" in compliance with the PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8320(3). The added condition will <br />further ensure that the proposed development will be reasonably compatible and harmonious with <br />adjacent and nearby land uses to the east, as required by EC 9.8320(13). The added condition of <br />approval is as follows: <br />• The final PUD plans shall show landscape screening along the eastern property boundary, <br />compliant with the landscape standards at EC 9.6200. More specifically, the landscaping <br />shall: <br />o Be located on the subject property outside (along the west boundary of) of the existing <br />public utility easement. <br />o Be a minimum of 7 feet in width and comply with the Low-Screen Landscape Standard <br />(L-2) at EC 9.6210(2), for the portion to the south of Building 4 (beginning at its <br />southeast corner). <br />o Comply with either the High-Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at EC 9.6210(3), or the <br />Partial Screen Fence Landscape Standard (L-5) at EC 9.6210(5), for the portion directly <br />adjacent to and north of Building 4 (beginning at its southeast corner). <br />A 10-foot wide opening is allowed (but not required) for a pathway connection to the east <br />as shown on the applicant's tentative plans near the southeast corner of the subject <br />property. At the northeast corner of the subject property, the landscape screening shall <br />terminate at the edge of the required right-of-way dedication for Oakleigh Lane. <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 />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 11 <br />