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 HO <br />decision) regarding additional screening requirements along the south and east property lines, and <br />whether it needs more specificity to ensure compliance at the time of final PUD review. The PC agrees <br />that the HO should have included more specificity, beyond his requirement for a combination of <br />landscaping and fencing that would screen the buildings from view from adjacent properties. <br />Here, responding to arguments about the uncertainty and adequacy of the public process, and <br />deferring a determination of compliance to a later stage of review, the PC finds that the condition of <br />approval should be modified to specifically require the City's High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at <br />EC 9.6210(3), along the south boundary which abuts other single-family residential uses. This modified <br />requirement will provide for clarity and objectivity upon review at the final PUD stage, while <br />recognizing that the City's Type II application process for final PUD approval affords adequate public <br />notice and opportunity for appeal. <br />Along the eastern boundary, however, the PC finds that the applicant's original proposal to maintain <br />open space in this area 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 required landscaping is not necessary along the east boundary to provide <br />adequate screening or otherwise meet the PUD approval criteria. Based on these findings, the PC <br />modifies and replaces the HO's Condition #15 with the following: <br />The final PUD plans shall show landscaping along the southern property line meeting the High <br />Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at EC 9.6210(3), except for the portion of the south property <br />line which includes a proposed wall for screening of the parking and access area (see related <br />Condition #13). Additional landscape screening is not required 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 PUD 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;11 DRAFT Final Order Page 8 <br />