Laserfiche WebLink
8. "fhe Applicant, who provides cellular telephone service to the residents of <br />the Cit�� of Everett and Snohomish County, has obtained permits for <br />c++.her wireless technology far,ilities in the area and has applications for <br />other faci�ities under review by the City of Everett. One of the permits <br />that has been granted to the Applic:ant was a pole structure at the <br />Masonic Temple that had an agreE;d-to lower height than is usual for this <br />technolog� . The Masonic Temple po{e received approval from the City <br />after neigh�borhood opposition vvas resolved. However, as a result of the <br />reduced height of the pole, additional poles must be provided within the <br />Applicant's system in order to provide complete cell coverage. The <br />proposed structure is part of this system and will provide improved <br />wireless coverage. (exhibit 1, Tyler testimony) <br />9. The proposed pole is within the City of Everett's right-of-way (Mukilteo <br />Boulevard). Immediate access to the facility is provided, and there will <br />be no other utilities or public services required z: the pole. (exh•,ti;l 1) <br />10. With the exception of the construction phase, the proposed pole will <br />ger�rate minimal traffic and no traffic noise. Other than an occasional <br />maintenance :rip, no emplo� ees will be at the site. (exhibit 1, Tyler <br />testimony) <br />11. There is no permanent on-site parking required for the proposal. <br />(exhibit 1) <br />12. The antenna array will be attached flush to the new pole near the top. <br />While the pole will be an increase in height of 68 feet from the existing 40 <br />feet, it wili not block views. It will, however, be a taller structure that will <br />�e more easily seen within the landscape of the area. (exhibit 1, Tyler <br />testimony) <br />13. In the City of Everett, utility services for cellular phones are to be located <br />within Commercial zones. As noted, the subject property is zoned B-1, <br />Neighborhood Business, as are the properties adjacent to the east and <br />soutti. The structure is being propose�' in a zone censistent with the <br />Zoning Code. (exhibit 1, Tylertestimo�.y) <br />14. Property otvners in the area submitted comments and objectiors to the <br />proposal. Included in the commerns were that the pole will aesthetically <br />be displeasing. (Stuart testimony) A Nroperty owner immediately <br />adjacent to the property (Garret) submitted that there are other sites in <br />the area that would be more appropriate for the facility. He suggested <br />�r <br />