Laserfiche WebLink
(11) Utility or communication facilities which require towers for which safety <br />lights are required by the FAA shall not be permitted unless the applicant <br />demonstrates that such a faality in the proposed location and at such a <br />height is necessary to adequately serve the needs of the public for the <br />proposed utility or communications service. <br />(12) The Planning Director may require review by an expert third party. <br />17. The Applicant would provide the landscape plan to th� Planning Department for <br />review. Upon this review, it would be determined if additional screening is <br />required. (Fauver testimony) <br />18. Collucation is occurring, and the antennas would be flush mounted with the <br />existing facility. With this design, there is no need for an additional cell tower to <br />be developed in the area. (exhibit 1) <br />19. The proposed structure is permitted in the B-2 zone subject to a Special Property <br />Use Permit. Although the tower is located within 300 feet of residentially zoned <br />property, and 200 feet from a gateway corridor, Mukilteo Boulevard, it is an <br />existing use that has served the public for a number of years. Notice was given <br />to the propertv owners within the area, and no opposition was submitted. The <br />continuance uf this use is reasonable. (exhibif 1) <br />20. The visual and noise impacts would be reduced. Reference if made to finding <br />#12 relating to noise from the site. <br />21. The facility would have a clear line of sight for signal transmission. The antennas <br />would be collocated at a height of 60 feet. (exhibit 1) <br />22. The proposal would meet all setback requirements. (exhibit 1) <br />23. The Applicant has indicated that it would remove all equipment should the <br />tower's use no longer be required. (exhibit 1) <br />24. The existing tower is not required to have FAA safety lighting. (exhibit 1) <br />25. The project does not require an independent technical analysis from an expert <br />third party. This determination was made by the Planning Director of the City of <br />Everett. (exhibit 1) <br />26. The Special Property Use Permit for the cell tower was reviewed pursuant to the <br />State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The coilocation of the three panel <br />antennas is SEPA exempt because the review had been previously completed in <br />the previous hearing. (exh�bit 12, Fauvertestimony) <br />