305 feet from thenorth property line. The proposed tower location therefore exceeds the <br />minimum setback distance for the R-1 zoning district and meets the minimum requirements. <br /> <br />Visual Impacts – The applicant has proposed a 75-foot tall mono-pine cell tower, intended to <br />visually blend in with existing pine trees in the vicinity. The applicant initially provided photo <br />simulations showing the appearance of the proposed tower from several different views. Staff <br />notified the applicant that the provided photo simulations did not meet the Eugene Code <br />requirements and additional views and better simulations were needed. Staff acknowledges the <br />applicant has provided some screening at the base of the tower by a six foot solid fence and <br />additional landscaping installed around the fence. Also, the ancillary equipment is proposed to <br />be housed in a fully enclosed storage room attached to the south wall of the church. The walls, <br />siding and roof will match the existing church in both materials and color and will visually <br />appear to be a part of the church building. <br /> <br />The applicant submitted revised photo simulations dated October 27, 2014, see Attachment 8 <br />to staff. Staff reviewed the new material and responded back to the applicant in Attachment 9 <br />advising , “the initial visual study provided is insufficient. The photo simulations provided cast <br />doubt about compatibility with the surroundings”. <br /> <br />The applicant, in their resubmittal of materials (March 27, 2015), provided additional photo <br />simulations from eight different viewpoints. The applicant also provided two photographs from <br />the tower manufacturer showing an actual example of an existing similar mono-pine structure. <br />That example shows the antenna array at the top of the structure buried within the branches <br />and not readily visible. In comparing the example to the previously submitted photo <br />simulations and site plan elevations, there are marked differences in the appearance of the <br />proposed mono-pine. In Attachment 10, Sheet A-3, the array is shown to stand off the main <br />support approximately the same distance as the ends of the branches. However, the photo <br />simulations from October 2014 and March 2015 show different types of mono-pines with no <br />array visible through the branches. Even among the submitted photo simulations, there appear <br />to be different types of mono-pines shown, for example in Attachment 8, the mono-pine shown <br />in view 10 (looking north from 43rd & Fox Hollow Rd.) is a different type of simulated tree when <br />compared to view 12 (looking south from 4020 West Amazon Dr.). <br /> <br />In the public testimony received, concerned neighbor William Collinge points out similar <br />inconsistencies in the applicant’s submitted materials as shown in Attachment 11, regarding the <br />appearance and screening of the antenna array and also discrepancies in the actual site <br />location of the structure. <br /> <br />In addition to the discrepancies of the photo simulations, the placement of the mono-pine tree <br />in the chosen location with no other similar sized varietal trees in close proximity to it creates <br />the potential for adverse visual impacts to neighbors and the public. The proposed mono-pine <br />location is 125 feet to the north of a 100-foot tall pine tree; about 75 feet to the north of two <br />49-foot tall pine trees; and about 75 feet to the south of a 63-foot tall pine tree. Even in the <br />revised landscape plan, with the addition of nine evergreen trees, the closest proposed tree <br />would be 72 feet from the mono-pine and the remaining trees would be from 115 feet to 240 <br />HO Agenda - Page 13 <br />