Laserfiche WebLink
(iENERAL BACKGROUND <br /> On January 6, 1998, the Ci!y recefved an applicatfon for a Special Property Use and Variance <br /> from the WSP. The facility is dassified as an above ground utility, and is subject to the <br /> evaluatfon criteria in EMC Chapter 19.41.150, and the variance criteria in Chapter 19.41.130.C. <br /> The hefght of the proposed monopole, 150 feet, exceeds the 28 foot maximum height limitation <br /> in lhe R-2 zone and will not meet lhe 150 foot setback from the property Iines. The Final <br /> Mitigated Detertninallon of Non-significance (MDNS) was issued by the City for this proposal on <br /> March 10, 1998. <br /> SPU GENERAL EVALUATION CRITERIA <br /> Findinys and Conclusions: <br /> The followinr� findings and conclusions are based on the criteria established in Section <br /> 41.150.C. of the Zoning Code -Specfal Property Use Permits: <br /> 1. The need of the nelghborhood, dlat�ict, or City for a proposed Special Property <br /> Uae. <br /> Findina: The Applicant, WSP, states that the proposed monopole Is needed to continue <br /> the communications Ioop between towers from Bellingham to Olympia. <br /> Conclusion: The proposed monopole will serve the needs of WSP and OOT, govemment <br /> agencies who serve lhe public including citizens of Everet:. <br /> 2. The adequacy ot streeta, utilitles, and public services required to serve a proposed <br /> use. <br /> Findina: The installation and operation of the proposed monopole and antennas will <br /> require minimal telephone and electric service. <br /> Conclusion: Existing streets, utilities, and public services are suf(icfent to serve the <br /> proposal. <br /> 3. The impact ot traHic generated by the proposed use on the surcounding area, <br /> pedestrian circulation and public satety; and the abllity oi the proponent to <br /> mitigate such potential Impacts. <br /> Findina: There would be an average of one or hvo service visits per month. <br /> Conclusion: The proposed monopole would not create a significant impact on traffic. <br /> 4. The provision of adequate oH-street parking, on•site circulation, and site access. <br /> Findina: The site is half a city block surrounded by streets on three sides and an alley on <br /> one side. Off-street parking is loca:ed on the north and south sides of the buildings. <br /> Employe�s park within the city right-cf-way or on site. <br /> Conclus�on: 7���ere is inadequate parking on site but the proposed monopole will not <br /> increase parking requirements. <br /> EXHIBIT i► � <br /> PAGE�F� <br />