319 76TH PL SW 2016-01-01 MF Import

i of the proposed tower). HoweVU, the same ordinance provides the Planning Director of the City of Everett with discretion for modification of the setbacks. The City, in its review, determined that no visual impacts to the surrounding properties will exist, that adequate screening exists to the north, and that the tower will serve the needs of the public. With the removal of the cluttered existing wireless communication tower with a more orderly tower, the reduction of the 180 foot setback is reasonable. (Tyler testimony) 16. No signage is proposed for the proposed facility. (exhibit 1) i 17. It is not feasible to screen the proposed tower with landscaping because it will not hide the top of the tower. However, the proposed equipment building and ground level improvements can be screened with la,idscaping. The Applicant intends to install an eight foot wide landscape buffer around the north, south, and west sides of the site which will consist of a mixture of evergreen trees, shrubs, and groundcover and a six foot tall chain fence with slats. (exhibit 4, Sladky testimony) 18. While irritants will exist during construction, after construction there will be no nuisance irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, or visual blight. (exhibit 1) 19. The subject property is designated in the Everett General Plan as 1.2, Single-Family Detached Residential. The plan includes policies for the co-location of utilities in order to minimize environmental disturbances and visual impacts. The proposed use is consistei with the plan and its policies. (T�ler testimony) 20. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City of Everett was designated as the lead agency for the review of environmental impacts. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS` on August 7, 2001 . No appeals were filed of this determination. (exhibit 8) 21. The proposed facility is consistent with the City of Everett Zoning Code. as well as other State and Federal laws and regulations. (ex iibit 1) 22. Because the proposed facility is unmanned, there is c,) requirement for accessibility to public transit. (exhibit 1) 6/ /v