6427 BEVERLY LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

City of Everett Planninq Commission The Planning �ntenae rlarch 2 , 1: 71 Commission Sub-committee on Amateur Radio ��, _� ��„��: �t�� ,...._��..:��.: PLANNINC COMMISSION SUD-COP9MITTEE ON HAM RADIO ANTENAE On Thursday, Februar.y 25; a meeting was held concerning the Zoning Code and the height res:�•ictions which it imposes on Amateur Radio Antenae. In attendance at this m:�ctin.3 were Nrs. Beata Seibold, Chairman of the planning commission sub-�ommittee investigating this matter, h9r. Ken Carpenter, spokesma•� for the Cascade Amateur Radio Club, various representatives of that club, hir. Johii Boor, Assistant Station Manag�r of Radio Station I:CTS at the University of Washington, and Reid Shockey of City Planning Dep.:irtment staff. Pollowing are the rnajor conc.Lusions which were drawn at thi.s meeting: 1. Because of utility .lines and cther features common to the urban environment, '�he opti.mum heights for amateur radio antenae are 35 feet(below the planz of obstr.uction) or 75 feet (above the plane of obstruction). 2. The amateur radio operator has a areater transmitting capability at tt.e greater heiqht than at the lesser height. 3. The amateur radio operators in Everett will be restricted to this lesser capability if the height limitation of 35 feet is imposed. 4. "Capability" as defined in this sit�i:;tion means the ability to transmit and receive at will. '1'h<it is, at 35 feet the operator can achieve the same range in transmission and reception as he could at 75 feet, but less often. 5. There is no apparent safety hazard involved. 6. Television interference falls under the jurisdiction of the P'CC and must be corrected immediately by th� amateur. Thus, this is not an item of debate. 7. An informal epinion was render�d by an official of the PHA which stated that in tiie appraisal of P'HA financed housing, the existance of an antenna this size on the subject lot or an abutting lot would have to be considered. The negativc impact caused by such an antenna would increase in dollar amount as the property values increase, 8. The height limitations for a b�u�i�lding in an R-2 zone i> ;; feet. Although "building" and s�' tr;icture" tend to be erroneously used interchanqibly in the zoning ordinance, in this case a structure could be considerec9 as a building. Well just tlie opposite was concluded at the meeting, further investigation finds that the definition of building i.s, in / /� ,;t �, .. . 1 i.,.