Laserfiche WebLink
Review Process of the Citv: <br /> 16. EMC 19.41.150.D.1(c) (2) requires a Review Process II if antennas are <br /> located within 300 feet of Residential zones. The Topper Motel, the <br /> struc:ture on which the antennas are located, is within 300 feet of a � <br /> Residential Zone. The facility is also within 300 feet of an arterial street � <br /> and Gateway Corridor, Broadway Avenue. Based on this Ordinance, the <br /> facility is reviewed pursuant to a Review Process II. <br /> 17. The facility is classified by the City of Everett as an Above-Ground Utility, �I <br /> Major, and subject to a Review Process II. (see preceding Finding) <br /> However, EMC 19.41.150.D.1(c) (2) provides that in a situation when an <br /> Above-Ground Utility, Major is proposed to be instailed on an existing <br /> structure in a non-residential zone, a Review Process I can be used. The <br /> City applied the Review Process required by EMC 19.41.150.D.1(c) (2). <br /> (Tyler testimony) The proposal required a Review Process II (Use Table <br /> -page 5-19, Everett Zoning Code). (Tyler testimony) <br /> 18. The only Review Process III for cellular facilities in Everett is when ic is <br /> located on a free-standing tower structure. Such a design was not <br /> proposed. (Exhibit C-9, Tyler testimony) <br /> Screenina: <br /> 19. The Appellant contended that there is insdequate screening of the <br /> facility, and the antennas and the mounting brackets that support them <br /> are visible. (Poulin testimony) <br /> 20. The City encouraged the Applicant to place the antennas in a manner <br /> that would not impact other properties. The Applicant considered <br /> altematives: (a) the mounting the antennas on existing chimney <br /> structures near the south end of the building; or(b)the installation of <br /> unicell directional antennas; or(c) the installation of an altemative <br /> method of architectural screening on the roof of the building that would <br /> either camouflage or screen the antennas. However, because of <br /> technical limitations, it was determined that these rjpes of design would <br /> not be effective. (Chapman !estimony) The Applicant finally proposed a <br /> design identified as a "lower profiie mounting structure" design, that <br /> included a single pole, rather than the skid mount. This design created <br /> the impression of a single pole rather than a light lattice type of design. <br /> (Chapman testimonyJ <br /> 9 <br />