My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2215 MERRILL CREEK PKY PUGET SOUND ENERGY ANTENNA 2018-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
MERRILL CREEK PKY
>
2215
>
PUGET SOUND ENERGY ANTENNA
>
2215 MERRILL CREEK PKY PUGET SOUND ENERGY ANTENNA 2018-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2018 7:56:23 AM
Creation date
2/25/2017 10:17:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
MERRILL CREEK PKY
Street Number
2215
Tenant Name
PUGET SOUND ENERGY ANTENNA
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
( �� ' � <br /> Conclusion: Adequate pmvisions for access, utilides and public services for the proposal <br /> can be accommodated. <br /> 3. The impuct of traffic generated by the proposed use on the surrounding area, <br /> pedestrian circulation and public safety; and the ability of the proponent to mftigate <br /> such potential impacts. <br /> Finding: The proposal may generate some minimal traffic associated with the initial <br /> installation and set-up. However, once the facility is operating,no on-going traftic will be <br /> ' generated. <br /> Conclusion: There will be no adverse traffic impacts generated by the proposal. <br /> 4. The provision of adequate otf-street parking, on-site circulation,and site access. <br /> Finding: No permanent on-��'� pazking is required for the proposal. During maintenance <br /> activities, the pole-top units w�ild be accessed from within the public street. <br /> Conclusion: Not applicablc. <br /> 5. Compatibility of proposed structures and improvements with surrounding properties, <br /> including the size, height, location,setback and arrangement of all prnposed buildings <br /> and facilities, especially as they relate to light and shadow impacts on more sensidve <br /> land uses and less intensive zones. <br /> Finding: The pole-top units would be slightiy smaller than exisdng ttansformers located on <br /> power poles, and would mesisure approximately 12 inches squaze stnd 12 inches deep. These <br /> units would essentially be co-located and would not cnatc a visual impact. The control <br /> station would be located 5ehind an existing wazehouse building and screening from adjacent <br /> pmperties and the public street. <br /> Conclusion: The pmposed AMR components would be compadble with surrounding <br /> propertics, and would not create any adverse light and shadow impacts. <br /> 6. The number,size m�d location of signs, especially as they relate to more sensitive land <br /> uses. <br /> Finding: No signage is proposed. <br /> Conclusion: Not applicable. <br /> 7. The landscaping, buffering and screening of buildings,parking,loadiag and storage <br /> areas,especially as thcy relate to more sensitive land uses. <br /> � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.