Supplemental Materials (Info utilized by city 3rd party reviewer)

Attachment A statement also concludes that the ancillary equipment shed will look like an extension of the chapel. This needs to be illustrated and better explained as to how it fits within the area in terms of mass and scale and impact on the surroundings. The applicant should also consider the possibility that a variance may not be granted to allow above ground ancillary facilities, and provide for alternative designs (e.g. underground or fully enclosed with additional sound buffering) as a contingency or means to better address the approval criteria. RESPONSE: The Photo Simulations at Attachment 10 have been revised to show the evergreen trees in close proximity to the proposed monopine and the proposed equipment shelter. The Site Plan at Attachment 04 has been revised to include more details about the mass and scale of nearby structures and trees, and the design of the proposed equipment shelter. The mass and scale of the proposed project, both the monopole and the ancillary equipment shelter, are consistent with the mass and scale of structures and trees in the immediate area: The proposed 75 foot tall monopine would be adjacent to four similar-looking pine trees, 1100- foot tall pine tree about 125 feet to the south; 2 49 foot tall pine trees about 75 feet to the southeast, and 1 63 foot tall pine tree about 75 feet to the north. The proposed monopine would also be against a backdrop of other tall evergreen trees that are about 300 feet to the west and range in height from 20 to 100 feet. See Att. 10 (Photo Sims, View #8). The fencing around the base of the monopine would be a 6 -foot tall cedar fence, and would be surrounded by landscaping that would typically be found on either a residential property or a property (such as a church) located in a residential neighborhood. See Att. 04 (Site Plan, Sheets A-3.0, 3.1; L1.1, 2) and Att. 10 (Photo Sims, View #s 2, 10, 14). (The Applicant will change the design of the fence if City staff and officials believe a different fence design would fit into the neighborhood better and still provide appropriate screening and safety functions.) The proposed ancillary equipment shelter is designed to look like an extension of the existing church, and would, in fact, function, in part, as an additional storage area for the church. The shelter would be fully enclosed, including a roof, and be built flush against the side of the church. It would be sided and painted to match the church building. The stepped down scale of the addition of the equipment shed to the south side of the building would help to soften the large, nearly blank wall, of the church that faces Fox Hollow. The wall as it exists is architecturally plain. The new addition would complement the existing church and provide a more pedestrian-scale element on this facility in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. The WTF ground equipment would be fully enclosed within the equipment shelter, and noise produced by the equipment would be further mitigated by sound baffling to levels below the maximum level allowed. See Att. 04 (Site Plan); Att. 10 (Photo Sims); Att. 07 (Sound Study). The proposed monopine and equipment shelter is compatible with the existing trees and structures on the Property. As described and demonstrated in the referenced Attachments, the mass, scale, and design of the proposed structures is consistent with the existing church building and surrounding evergreen trees, making the proposed monopole and equipment shelter suitable for the surrounding low-density residential neighborhood. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Church (CU 14-3)