The PC further finds that the HO's condition for additional screening along the east and south property <br />lines is appropriate to address EC 9.8320(12) and EC 9.8320(13), but that more specificity is necessary <br />regarding the screening requirement to ensure compliance. The HO did not adequately specify the <br />type of landscaping required (see Condition #15 on page 64 of the HO decision) other than to require a <br />combination of landscaping and fencing that would screen the buildings from view from adjacent <br />properties. Here, responding to arguments about the uncertainty and adequacy of the public process, <br />and deferring a determination of compliance to a later stage of review, the PC-finds that the condition <br />of approval should be modified. To add more specificity, for clarity and objectivity upon review at the <br />final PUD stage, and recognizing that the City's Type II application process for final PUD approval <br />affords adequate public notice and opportunity for appeal, the PC modifies the HO's decision to <br />replace approval Condition #15, with the following: <br />• The final PUD plans shall show landscaping along the eastern and southern property lines <br />meeting the High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3) at EC 9.6210(3), except for the portion of the.. <br />south property line which includes a proposed wall for screening of the parking and access area <br />(see related Condition #13). Also note that the landscaping cannot be placed within the public <br />wastewater easement along the east property line, per the restriction at EC 9.6500(3). <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 setbackfor 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 />PUD approval. <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 findingthe application met EC 9.83, 3) <br />"The PUD will provide adequate screening from §urrounding properties including, but not <br />limited to anticipated locations, bulk and height. <br />DRAFT Final Order <br />Page 8 <br />110 <br />