one neighborhood feature it is designed to address, communication service. The applicant’s <br />attempts to help disguise the cell tower as a stealth mono-pine, along with additional <br />landscaping including nine 15-20 foot tall evergreen trees (at the time of planting) to provide <br />more screening around the site over time, would also generally help to mitigate the visual <br />impacts on nearby areas. However, the proposed facility at the subject site does not have the <br />same benefit of expansive setbacks from nearby residences and public rights-of-way as <br />compared to the Oakway Golf Course property, nor the benefit of a grove of fully mature 100- <br />foot tall conifer trees in close proximity to help screen the proposed tower as did the Rest <br />Haven case (see SR 13-5). Various deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence also appear to <br />undermine the applicant’s case that Policy E.4 is met, such as failing to show the full extent of <br />visual impact from antennas and other appurtenances in the required photo simulations. <br /> <br />Based on the available information, staff generally agrees with the neighbors’ description and <br />characterization of the “desirable features” of the neighborhood, particularly including views <br />and the natural/forested character of the area. And, while the proposed facility might provide <br />better telecommunications coverage, on balance, staff concludes that the proposed facility in <br />this case is not designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhancesthose desirable <br />features of the neighborhood or promote their sense of identity as required by Policy E.4. <br /> <br />To the extent that the application also fails to meet the applicable telecommunications <br />standards and CUP approval criteria related to these concerns, as discussed in the following <br />evaluation, it also fails to meet the intent of Policy E.4 (at least in part) and does not appear to <br />comply with EC 9.8090(1). <br /> <br />EC 9.8090(2): The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal <br />are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or <br />appropriate development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following <br />factors: <br /> <br />(a)The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and <br />density of use being proposed. <br />This subsection of the code is intended to address the compatibility and livability issues of <br />proposed developments with surrounding areas by assessing the mass, size and density of <br />buildings. In this case, upon closer review of the definition of “building” versus “structure” staff <br />notes that the proposed mono-pine cell tower does not appear to meet the definition of a <br />building as defined in EC 9.0500. <br />Although the cell tower is therefore not required to meet the criteria of EC 9.8090(2)(a) as a <br />building, the proposal does include a stealth mono-pine design instead of a lattice type <br />structure in order to help the facility blend in visually with similar varietal pine trees in the <br />immediate area. However, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how the proposed structure’s mass <br />and scale will suitably fit into the context since the applicant’s photo simulationsare <br />inconsistent, showing several types and shapes of possible mono-pine towers. As described in <br />further detail below in EC 9.8090(2)(b), there are marked differences in the appearance of the <br />HO Agenda - Page 11 <br />