Laserfiche WebLink
The Applicant provided a graphic sketch showing the north elevation of the building as <br /> v;ewed from one and two blocks from the project site. The skelch shows ine building as <br /> it would appear with the antennas mounted on the rooRop and mechanical ;.creen as <br /> proposed. <br /> Conclusion: The visual impacts of the antennas would be mitigated by placirg them on <br /> the mechanicai screen wall, the setback from ihe perimeter of the building, and the <br /> height of the building relative to the su�roundir.g properties and streets. Conditions <br /> should be applied regarding the location of the antennas and requiring painting of the <br /> antennas to match the color of the existing building. <br /> 6. The number, size and Ixation of signs, especially as they relate to more sensitive <br /> land uses. , <br /> Finding: No signage is proposed. <br /> Conclusion: Criterion No. 6 is not applicable. <br /> 7. The landscaping, buffering and screening of buildtngs, parking, load(ng and �, <br /> storage areas,especially as they relate to more sensitive land uses. � <br /> Finding:The components associated with the proposal will be erected on the roof of an <br /> existing, 14-story building. All existing landscaping, buildings, parking, loading and <br /> storage areas will remain unchanged. <br /> Conelusion: This criterion is not applicable. <br /> 8. The generetion of nuisance irriWnts such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, <br />' visual bHght or othe�undesirable impacts. <br /> Find(ngs: The proposed facility is unmsnned and would not emit any known health <br /> hazards, toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion or hazardous materials. <br /> � SNOPAC is the agency responsible for handling public safety communicalions within <br /> Snohomish County and the City of Everett. SNOPAC Vansmits from the Snohomish <br /> County courthouse building and Rucker Hill, which are in proximity of the Everett Mutual <br /> tower. SNOPAC raised concerns about potential radiofrequency inte�ference occurring <br /> as a result of operation of the proposed antennas (see letter dated March 14, 1997). It <br /> commented that potential conflicts can be addressed by imposing ceAain condiUons that <br /> Iwould place responsibility of resolving interference problems on the Applicant, and by <br /> performing an analysis of baselfne radio 'noise". <br /> Conclusion: No noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, visual blight or other undesirable <br /> .J�r impacts are anticipated as a resuit of the proposal. <br /> �r; Conditions should be imposed on the project which wilf both minimize the potential for <br /> radiofrequency interference, and which will resolve interference problems should they <br />�,.,� anse. As a new user of radio spectrum frequencies, these responsibilities should be <br /> born by the Applicant or service providers. <br /> p 2930 Netmurc,Suitc 400,E�•crett,\VA 98201-10�4 Si (42�257-8731, Fax(425)257-87a: <br /> 3 <br />