proposed mono-pine among the various submitted photo simulations provided by the <br />applicant. This makes it difficult for staff and any reasonable person to determine how suitable <br />the proposed structure for the use being proposed since there is no certainty as to exactly what <br />the structure will actually look like. <br /> <br />Additionally, as described in further detail below in EC 9.8090(2)(b), the placement of the <br />mono-pine structure in the chosen location creates the potential for adverse visual impacts to <br />neighbors and the public since there are no other similar sized varietal trees in close proximity <br />to it. Without nearby trees to soften the look of the proposed mono-pine, the proposed mass <br />and scale of the mono-pine will stand out and be more obviously artificial than if the mono-pine <br />were completely surrounded in close proximity by similar sized and varietal trees. As previously <br />discussed in the Rest Haven case, the proposed mono pine was located within a stand of tall <br />mature trees of a similar species, so that the view of the mono-pine was substantially obscured <br />from virtually every possible view point beyond the property. This is not the case in the <br />Crossfire proposal; the proposed mono-pine stands alone with the closest spruce tree 75 feet <br />away. Only four evergreen trees are within 100 of the proposed mono-pine. <br /> <br />The proposal also includes the addition of an attached enclosure to the existing church for <br />housing ancillary facilities associated with the cell tower which needs to meet the requirements <br />of this subsection. The applicant has submitted details (see Attachment 7) that show a fully <br />enclosed structure with a roof attached to the Fox Hollow Road side of the church. The <br />structure will be sided and roofed with the same materials as the existing church and painted to <br />match. The new addition will complement the church, providing a stepped down roof <br />appearance and a visual pedestrian scale element. However, staff notes that in accordance with <br />EC 9.5750(8), in order to locate ancillary facilities above ground a variance would need to be <br />approved. That variance request is addressed in the following evaluation below. <br /> <br />(b)The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site <br />improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare <br />and odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately <br />mitigated through other design techniques, such as screening and increased <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />This subsection of the code is intended to address site improvements which could cause <br />substantial off-site impacts to surrounding areas such as noise, glare and odors, taking into <br />account nearby residential uses. Staff’s evaluation has therefore focused on essentially five <br />areas of concern related to the impact of the proposed cell tower in this existing residential <br />area: setbacks from neighboring properties, visual impact of the tower, radio frequency <br />exposure, glare from lighting, and noise from ancillary facilities. <br /> <br />Setbacks – Per EC 9.5750(7)(d), the required setback from adjacent property lines in the R-1 <br />zoning district is equal to the height of the tower. The proposed tower height is 75 feet. The <br />applicant’s site plan (see Sheet A-1.0) indicates the tower is located 95 feet from the east <br />property line, 105 feet from the west property line, 135 feet from the south property line and <br />HO Agenda - Page 12 <br />