Attachment A <br />The applicant should also consider the possibility that a variance may not be granted to allow <br />above ground ancillary facilities, and provide for alternative designs (e.g. underground or fully <br />enclosed with additional sound buffering) as a contingency or means to better address the <br />approval criteria. <br />(b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site <br />improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare <br />and odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately <br />mitigated through other design techniques, such as screening and increased <br />setbacks. <br />The screening shown on Sheet L2.0 is not reflected in the photo simulations. The mono-pine <br />design shown on Sheet A-3.0 is also not reflected in the photo simulations. We believe you will <br />need better evidence to show what the actual visual impacts will be. <br />In addition to screening around the base of the facilities, consider additional screening. There <br />appears to be an opportunity to provide additional landscape screening on Tax Lot 701- the <br />portion of the site abutting Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road. It looks like a visual from the <br />intersection of Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road is needed. <br />The supplemental noise report (dated October 22, 2014) contains edits on page 3 that makes the <br />findings difficult to interpret. The statement refers to the City's noise ordinance relative to the <br />generator; remember that this is CUP in which all impacts are evaluated against subjective <br />approval criteria, above and beyond basic code standards. <br />Did the acoustical engineer take into account any grade differences between the subject property <br />and adjacent properties? (This was an issue in the Rest Haven case, in which abutting neighbors <br />successfully argued that the noise travel path was different because their homes were located at a <br />higher elevation.) <br />The acoustical report still needs to be verified by our consultant (the related review fees must be <br />paid for by the applicant.) <br />EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a <br />convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as <br />attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. <br />The "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" requirement is not <br />addressed. Staff is concerned that this particular stealth design may not respond appropriately to <br />the setting and recommends that the applicant evaluate alternatives or additional comparative <br />analysis to better show that the proposed design fits the setting. <br />Application Deficiencies: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) Page 2 of <br />