1871 ROSS AVE VERIZON ANTENNA 2016-01-01 MF Import

28. The proposal is a major above ground utilily siructure and is nol exempt from the Special Property Use Permit review process. Review Process III is required due to the site being within the jurisdiction of the Everatt Shorefine Master Program. (exhibit 1, Tyler testimony) 29. FAA warning lights are only required when the facility height exceeds 200 feet. Thal is not the case wilh the instant application. (exhibit 1) 30. The request of the Applicant is reasonable given the limilations of the service area, ihe terrain of the land, the coverage prediciion maps, and the coverage objectives. It reduces the need for an additional lower in the area. (exliibit 1) CONCLUSIONS SPECIAL PROPERTY USE PERMIT The Applicant requested approval oF a Special Property Use Permit to install a 150-foot tall flagpole with an attached wireless antenna and to conslruct a 12- fool by 26-foot equipment building on property located at 1871 Ross Avenue, Everett, Washington. Because the subjecl property is localed wilhir� the jurisdictional limifs of the Everptl Shoreline Master Program (City Ordinance No. 2600-02), the Applicant must also secure a Shoreline Permit. (finding 1) 2. The Planning Department of the City of Everett determined that "...although lhe City had initial concerns about the potential aesthetic impacts of lhe proposed wireless communicalion facility, including views from the adjacent Inlerstate freeway, those concerns have been addressed by ihe application maferials and the independent third parly revie4v commissioned by the City". The Hearing Examiner reviewed the same documents and has determined that lhe City has adequately reviewed this matter and their conclusions are consistent with the presented dala. 3. In order for a Special Property Use Permit to be granted wifhin the City of Everett, the General Evalualion criteria of E�erelt Municipal Code (EMC) 19.41.150.0 must be satisfied. Those criteria are listed in finding #9. The manner in which each of criteria is satisfied has been set forth in findings #10 through #21. 4. The Specific Evaluation r,riteria for above ground utility and communicalion facilities w�re addressed in finding #22. A review has been made, and many of the criteria are duplicative of the General Evaluation criteria. However, tfie criteria that are not covered in the General Evaluation criteria have been addressed in the findings herein and the manner in which tl�ese criteria are satisfied is set forth in findings #23 through #30.