Planning Commission - <br />August 15, 2011 <br />Page 6 <br />13. Livability EC 9.8090~~} ~ . <br />The HO Decision, at 45, dismisses the arguments and evidence made `regarding the <br />proposal's negative impacts on livability because the HO Decision concluded that the proposal did <br />not include a provision fora "building" as defined the EC 9.0500 and used in subsection ~a}. The <br />H4 Decision is in error. Even though the cell tower may not be considered a building, the auxiliary <br />facilities may be since they store and shelter the equipment relating to the cell tower. The cell tower <br />is certainly a structure, and the entire proposal must be analyzed. Furthermore, the HO Decision did <br />. not impose any increased setbacl~s that could potentially mitigate the impacts to the residential uses <br />surrounding the proposal. Rather than locating the cell tower and auxiliary facilities as close to <br />residences as possible, the proposal could have been located in the center of the golf course and <br />screened by vegetation, <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />r <br />Micheal M. Reeder <br />Attorney for Norkhgreen Property, LLC <br />MMR:Jgh <br />Attachments:. Appeal ~"orm <br />Appeal fee <br />,September 2.I, . ZD~ 0 public Records Response to Bill Kloos <br />cc: Client ~wlattachments} <br />Bill Kloos, Attorney ~wlattachments} <br />PC Agenda -Page 24 <br />