line, but without the requirement for additional canopy trees. • <br />The appellant ,also challenges the;HO's condition~of approval (see Condition #15 on page 64 of the HQ <br />"east-property.lines, and <br />decision) regarding additiona 'screening requirements along tFie"south and <br />whether it needs.more speeifiicity to ensure compliance at the time offinal PUD review. The,PC agrees <br />that the`HO should have, included more.' pecificity, beyond his requirement fora combination of <br />landscaping an dfencing that would "screen the buildings from vie w_from"adjacent.pr.operties <br />Here; responding to;arguments'about the uncertainty and ;adequacy of-the public process-,and <br />deferring a.determination of compliance to,a later'st`age of;'review,,the PC,finds thatthe condition of <br />approval'should be rriodified to.specifically_requ'ire the City's High :"Screen Landscape,Standard (L=3) at <br />EC 9.6210(3), along the south boundary which abuts othersingleJamily residential,.uses -;This modified <br />re'guirerrient will provide for clarity and objectivity upon review at the final PUD stage, while <br />recognizing that the City's Type Il,application:process for; final PUD approval affor.ds'adequate public <br />notice. and opportunity"for"app_.ea1s <br />g the east e rn. bou ndary, however, the PC finds that the applicant's original,proposal,to maintain <br />Alo n <br />open space.in.thisarea 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: egliired landscaping is not neeessary,along the e"ast boundaryto,pro.vide. <br />d on these findings .the PC • <br />adequate.screening o;r.otherwise,meet the PUD approval criteria;; Base <br />modifies"and replaces thes Condition415 with-the following; <br />• The final_PUD plans.shallshow:aa'ndscaping along the~southern;property line meeting the-High' <br />Scree' h Landscape Standard,(L-3) at-EC:9.6210(3);:exceptfor the portion of the south properfy <br />line'which includes a_prop`osed wall for. screening of the.parking and-access.area (see related <br />Condition #13•1. Additional-landscape screening is not re 'pired.;along the eastern. property <br />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 PUDr plans shall show the applicant's proposal for "espaliered" trees along the outside <br />face of the proposed wall as a requirement. Plans shall also be revised to show a minimum 5- <br />foot setback for the wall along the west and south boundaries of the site. The required <br />landscaping shall be the responsibility of the owner(s) and maintained as a requirement of the <br />{00109077;1 } <br />DRAFT Final Order <br />Page 8 <br />18 <br />