9.8090(2): The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are <br />reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate <br />development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following factors: <br />(a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type <br />and density of use being processed. <br />Friends agrees with staff that this subsection of code is intended to address compatibility <br />and livability issues of proposed developments with surrounding areas by assessing the mass, <br />size, and density of buildings. Here, the proposal must be both reasonably compatible and have <br />minimal impact on the livability of the surrounding property. Because the subject property is <br />located adjacent to parklands, running trails, significant city waterways, and residences, the <br />baseline of livability in the neighborhood is quite high, and there are no other structures <br />identified by the applicant of similar height as the proposed tower that currently degrade the <br />aesthetics and views in the neighborhood. The location, size, and design of the proposed <br />monopine is not reasonably compatible with surrounding properties and will have significant <br />impact on the livability of surrounding properties because it will intrude on the aesthetics and <br />views of residences, runners, and users of the parks and Amazon creek. At this point, it is <br />impossible to determine what the monopine will look like given the differing and inconsistent <br />simulations submitted. The property is not compatible with surrounding property because there <br />is simply no other structures of similar height in the vicinity, and, therefore, the monopine would <br />draw attention to itself, the design of which has yet to be determined. Furthermore, there are no <br />31 <br />other trees of similar height or variety in close proximity to screen the proposed monopine. <br />Sufficient screening would take decades, if not longer, to grow. Without such screening, the <br />proposed monopine will appear as a monolith, towering over the existing landscape. <br />Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that other alternatives with different <br />masses and scale could be more compatible with surrounding properties and have less impact on <br />the livability of the area. Instead, it appears as though the applicant focused on a single proposal <br />that would have the maximum detrimental impact on the livability and compatibility with the <br />surrounding properties. There is nothing to demonstrate that the aplegitimate goals <br />cannot be satisfied with less intrusive means. The minimal or nominal improvement in <br />connectivity is outweighed by significant impact on livability and incompatibility of the proposal <br />with surrounding properties. In other words, livability and quality of life for residents in the <br />local area and community are reduced for the minimal (or perhaps just nominal) increase in <br />connectivity. Clearly, this balancing does not weigh in favor of a finding that the proposal is <br />compatible with surrounding property, nor does it weigh in favor of a finding that livability will <br />only be minimally impacted. <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />types, shapes, species of trees, and so forth. Given the variety of representations, there is simply <br />no way to tell what the tower will look like until it is constructed. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />