properties, and the fence (not the landscaping) would be along the perimeter. The staff report <br />noted that the fence is not clearly inconsistent with the approval criteria, so long as it does not <br />interfere with the applicant's provision of the required vegetative cover. The applicant agreed <br />to remove the perimeter fence if the hearings official concluded that the fence would not be <br />permissible. <br />The hearings official believes that the text of this criterion does not require Messrs. Williamson <br />and Snyder's proposed interpretation. This provision specifies a landscaped area between the <br />proposed PUD and surrounding properties, and along, but not "on" the perimeter. Here, where <br />the applicant is proposing a 30-foot landscaped buffer up to the fence and the fence is on the <br />perimeter, the landscaped buffer is "between the proposed development and surrounding <br />properties" and is "along the perimeter." Further, EC 9.6210(7)(a) lists, "Required Materials" <br />for the landscaped area, but does not purport to exclude all other materials. For example, EC <br />9.6210(7)(a) does not use the phrase, "Allowable Materials," which would suggest a list of only <br />those materials allowed. <br />With regard to uses allowed in the buffer, the applicant proposes to install underground <br />utilities within the buffer area and fencing along the outer edge of the buffer, on the subject <br />property boundary. Staff recommended that underground utilities would not interfere with the <br />required buffer between the development and surrounding properties; with the approval <br />condition recommended above, vegetation disturbed by underground utility installation will <br />require replanting as necessary to meet the above approval criterion. <br />In a decision on a Code Interpretation application (CI 04-4), the Hearings Official confirmed that <br />a street may not be placed within the 30-foot buffer area. For this reason, the applicant's plan <br />shows street extensions in the direction of adjacent lands and in alignment with planned streets <br />(i.e., Senger Lane and St. Clair Lane). Because these will be public streets, the applicant will <br />need to dedicate right-of-way for these streets to be extended to the edge of the site, within <br />the buffer. Dedication of right-of-way will not disrupt the required buffer area. <br />A condition of approval is appropriate to ensure the dedication: <br />The applicant shall dedicate the right-of-way necessary to connect Senger Lane and St. <br />Clair Lane to adjoining properties. The applicant shall show the dedication on the final <br />PUD plans. <br />Additional findings and recommended conditions of approval regarding street connectivity are <br />provided below at EC 9.8325(6)(a). <br />EC 9.8325(4): For areas not included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD <br />preserves existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following... <br />The site is traversed by three segments of Amazon Creek, as shown on the applicant's plans, <br />which are protected Goal 5 water resources (Site E37). Therefore, the site is subject to the /WR <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 11 <br />