Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> Criterion No. 1: <br /> That the variance is necessary because of excepiional or extraordinary <br /> circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or location of the <br /> subject property; or the lucation of a pre-existing improvement on the <br /> subject property that conformed to tiie zoning code in effect when the <br /> improvement was constructed. <br /> a. Findinqs: The subject property has an existing commercial <br /> structure constructed up to the western property line. In 1978 <br /> the City of Everett vacated a portion of Highway Place, <br /> however the portion of right-of way located in front of the <br /> subject site was not vacated; therefore there is approximately <br /> twenty to sixty feet of unimproved right of way between the <br /> back edge of sidewalk and the western property line of the <br /> subject site. In February 2004 the property o��ner was <br /> issued a permit to construct a parking lot on the eastern side <br /> of the site. The installation of the parking lot required that tiie <br /> northern side of the bu?Iding become a drive lane, in which no <br /> structures could be placed. Frior to the installation of the <br /> parking lot lhe site failed to comnly with the required off street <br /> parking; with the construction of the parking lot the site has <br /> moved towards conformance with regards lo parking. <br /> In order to comply with current code requirements the pole <br /> sign would need to be located a minimum of nine feet from <br /> the western property lir.e, as well as ten feet from the northern <br /> and southern propeny lines. At one time the site did have an <br /> identification sign, however the sign was I�kely focated in City <br /> right-of-way and could not be reconstructf,d in the same <br /> location. In April 2004 the City issued bui, iing permits ior the <br /> installation of both an awning sign and a p�le sign. Howe�.rer, <br /> the applicant has stated that due to utility locations on site the <br /> pole sign could not be piaced as previously proposed. <br /> b. Conclusions:. The building is constructed up to bclh �ne <br /> western and southern property lines. 7he northern side of the <br /> site is developed wfth a drive lane, which provides access to a <br /> new City approved parking lot. There is no existing pole sign <br /> on site. The applicanPs proposal for the setback variance and <br /> sign height at tfie proposed setback is necessitated by the <br /> unique features of the site, iii particular the location of the <br /> existing building on site. All othe; aspects of the new sign will <br /> be in compliance with current zoning code requirements. <br /> _ , <br />