Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusion: Adequate provisions for access, utilities, and public services for the proposal can be <br />accommodated. <br />3. The impact of traffic generated by the proposed use on the surrounding area, pedestrian <br />circulation and public safety; and the ability of the proponent to mitigate such potential impacts. <br />Findin : The facility is unmanned with the only proposed traffic generation coming from routine <br />maintenance, which will serve the site via existing infrastr��cture. <br />Conclusion: There will be no adverse traffic impacts generated by the proposal. <br />4. The provision of adequate off-street parking, on-site circulation, and site access. <br />Findinq: The facility is unmanned and therefore does n�t require any parmanent on-site parking. <br />Conclusion: Not spplicable. <br />5. Compatibility of proposed structures and improvements with surrounding properties, including <br />the size, height, location, setback and arrangement of all proposed buildings and facilities, <br />especially as they relate to light and shadow impacts on more sensitive land uses and less <br />in:ensive zones. <br />Findinq: The proposed antennas will be erected on an existing 120-foot monopole. The top height of <br />±l�e antennas once installe:.1 will be approximately 83 feet. The height of the proposed ground <br />equipment within the fenced area will be lower in height than the existing equiprcient, which will remain <br />on site. <br />Conclusion: Due to placement on an existing monopole, the proposal should have no negative <br />impacts to surrounding land uses. <br />6. The number, size and location of signs, especially as they relate to more sensitive land uses. <br />Findin : No signage is proposed at this time, however any new signage will require a sign permit <br />compliant with the City of Everett Zoning Code. <br />Conclusion: Not applicable. <br />7. The landscaping, buffering and screening of buiidings, parking, loading and storege areas, <br />especially as they relate to more sensitive land uses. <br />Findinq: The existing monopole was reviewed through the Special Property Use application process, <br />and was approved by the City's Hearing Examiner after a public hearing was heard on the application <br />(SPU#�5-005). A condition of the SPU approvai was that a landscape plan be submitted to the City for <br />reviea�o and approval. The intent of the landscape plan was to address the screening concerns with <br />regards to the pole and ground equipment from neighboring properties. <br />A landscape plan was submitted and approved at time of building permit application for the monopole, <br />however a major portion of the fandscaping has yet to be installed. The landscape plan dated and <br />approved March 2, 1999 on file with the City provided for the installation of several shrubs and <br />groundcover on site. <br />Conclusion: Landscaping shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved landscape plan <br />on file with the City dated March 2, 1999. <br />�� <br />