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 />Seventh Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(3) <br />"The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not <br />limited to anticipated locations, bulk, and height. <br />The PC confirms that the PUD cannot rely on the cedar trees on adjacent lands to the north as <br />screening for the development because those trees are not within the development's control. As <br />addressed previously, under the sixth assignment of error, the PC has modified the HO decision to <br />establish conditions of approval to ensure adequate screening along all property lines; those findings <br />and conditions are incorporated by reference to address this seventh assignment of error and EC <br />9.8320(3). <br />The PC further finds that the proposed "clustering" of dwellings includes a form of attached single- <br />family units in dispersed buildings, which minimizes the overall impact of the allowed R-1 density <br />which might occur in other multi-family designs (i.e. an apartment complex). Based on the available <br />evidence, the PC concludes that this is acceptable, as long as the proposed design otherwise meets the <br />PUD approval criteria. In this case, the proposal for "clustering" increases the size of each individual <br />building, but not in a way that offends the requirements for compatibility, screening, or overall <br />character of the area. The PC concludes that added conditions of approval noted above will provide <br />enough clarity to ensure adequate screening which will be implemented during the final PUD process, <br />involving adequate opportunity for public review and comment, as well as appeal provisions. <br />Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 9-14 are hereby incorporated by reference as <br />further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />Eighth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 12 <br />