Laserfiche WebLink
16. No significant nuisance irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, visual <br />blight, or other undesirable impacts will be present on -site. The City submitted <br />that the utility pole will generate some "visual blight" but that its impact will be <br />minimal. (exhibit 1, Ingalsbe testimony) <br />17. The subject property is designated as a 1.3 Single -Family Detached, 10-12 units <br />per acre in the City of Everett's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan <br />includes utility policies. These policies have been a part of the review of the <br />Specific Criteria for Special Property Use Permits. Reference is made to the staff <br />report of the City. (exhibit 1) <br />18. The proposed facility requires permits from the local jurisdiction (the City of <br />Everett). In addition, operation of the proposed facility requires compliance with <br />licensing standards of the State and Federal agencies. (exhibit 1, Ingalr De <br />testimony) <br />19. Because the site will be unmanr:ed, no transit services are needed for this site. <br />(exhibit 1) <br />20. Because two antennas will be placed on the replacement SnoPUD pole, there is <br />no need for a cellular communications tower or a monopole. (exhibit 1) <br />21. No tower is proposed. The Applicant provided an analysis of other sites in the <br />area that could provide adequate coverage along Interstate 5. These sites were <br />not selected because: <br />Snohomish County Public Utility District prohibits placement <br />of antennas on a SNOPUD pole at a location west of the <br />site. (exhibit 8) <br />Alternate locations in nearby residential zones would require <br />placing the antennas on a taller structure. <br />(exhibit 5) <br />22. Although the pole is within 300 feet of a residential zone, the available <br />alternatives would not provide the needed services. (Spencer testimony) <br />23. Testimony was received from members of the public objecting to the placement <br />of the proposed facility. According to witness Hoverter, who lives approximately <br />one block from the site, the facility is not a positive addition to this residential <br />area of the City of Everett. She contended that it will impact the residences in <br />the area, and it is a "blight" for the region. She is also concerned about property <br />values. <br />NJ <br />