2530 MADISON ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

SEP 17 '98 13��iS �'R NLI FIELD CWS/RE 2(i6 633 2888 TO FRALEY/STRICKER P.SO/13 28. ThP nature of cellular activity necessitates that height be acnieved in order Eo provide the intended service. The subject property was seleded in arder to make the maximum use of the existing dense buffer of evergreen trees in the area, while being a location that would be an effective area for a cellular cell for the transmission of signals. (Exhibit i, Huni testimony) 25. The requested variance will not be detrimental to the properties in !he an�a or to tF�e City as a whole. It will be compatible with other uses and will not sic�n�ficantly imoact any of the adjoining properties. (Exhibit 1, Siddiq testir,�ony,'� 30. Berause of the I��cation �f the mature trees, the locatiun of Interstate 5 and the n�;ed fcr the cellular cells, the variance is ne�essary. (Exhibit 1, Siddiy testimony? 81. !n additir�n to a h�ight variance, the Applicant must also s�cure a varianr.e fror;� th� minimurn sefbacks. The same variance criferia as set foRh in finding 27 apply. 32. A C:�ty sanitary sewer easemeni is immediately west of the site, and the proposed facility is projected to be sandwiched between Interstate 5 and the E!asement .As a result, a reduction of the setbacks is necessitated. The setback of six feet from the east property line and 16 feet from the Gosest residential structure allovv the development to occur. The r•ircumstances of limited space, as well as the topography of the site and the location of the freeway, necessitate the variance. (Sidd;q test;mony) 33. The variance is needed in order for the site to be developed in a manner that will provide the proposed service. (Huni testimony) 34. An adjoining property owner submitted testimony in �pposition to the proposal. The witness testified that he was concemed about the microwave fields from the facility and that it was not an attractive development. He submitted that he was uncomfortabla with the proposed development. He was also concerned abou4 any ex.tensive screening and what it rnay do to limit his view. (Urdah! testimony) Jurisdiction: The Nearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdicfional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above findin�s, the Hearing Examiner enters fhe folfowing c�nc!usicns: