The properties on Stark Street to the east and north of the proposed mono-pine location are <br />a closer question. The views the applicant provided from Stark Street and in particular the <br />photographs submitted by neighbors who live on Stark Street demonstrate that from their view the <br />proposed mono-pine would be much more prominent and would not be as well screened by <br />existing buildings or trees. During discussions with staff, the applicant apparently agreed to work <br />with the neighbors to provide landscaping along the western boundary and part of the northern <br />boundary of the property. The applicant apparently did not extend the offer to the northeastern and <br />eastern boundary because the church parking lot abuts those properties. The proposed conditions <br />of approval that the applicant has now agreed to would require the applicant to also work with the <br />northeastern and eastern neighbors to provide additional screening. <br />If all of the proposed conditions of approval were fulfilled, the situation would result in the <br />proposed mono-pine surrounded by 20-foot tall evergreens trees and additional landscaping <br />installed near the property lines. The views from the north and northeast are partially screened by <br />the existing outbuilding so that the neighbors would not see the base of the mono-pine. There are <br />also utility poles and wires strung through the back of the church property that are visible to the <br />neighbors to the northeast and east. Those neighbors also have a view of the existing parking lot. <br />Furthermore, the view from the northeast and east is not a view of any particular scenic or natural <br />feature. The proposed mono-pine would just block a view of part of the sky. With the proposed <br />landscaping mitigation, I believe the situation would be similar to that in Northgreen. As in <br />Northgreen, the lower part of the facility would be screened while the top part would be visible. <br />Even with the additional landscaping along the property lines, more of the upper portion of the <br />proposed mono-pine would be visible than in Northgreen. In Northgreen, however, the tower was <br />a traditional metal lattice structure instead of a mono-pine stealth design. While there was <br />considerable testimony that the mono-pine is not attractive, the pictures of the mono-pine do not <br />look that much different than actual trees. The applicant bought samples of mono-pine branches <br />to the hearing that were extremely similar to actual branches. Even if the proposed mono-pine is <br />significantly different than an actual tree, it would certainly have much less visual impact than the <br />traditional tower at issue in Northgreen. While it is a close call and reasonable minds could <br />certainly differ, I do not think the visual impacts of the proposed mono-pine, with the required <br />mitigation, would be reasonably incompatible with surrounding properties. EC 9.8090(2)(b) is <br />satisfied. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 14 <br />259