11625 AIRPORT RD BASE FILE 2020-05-29

4. The subject property, as well as other properties in the area, are zoned E-1 MUO. The properties to the south, east and west also have an E-1 MUO zoning designation. The property to the north is zoned E-1, E-1 MUO zoned properties have additional design and development standards that encourage and support pedestrian-friendly and transit oriented development on properties that are within close proximity of the Swift Bus Rapid Transit stations (BRT). (exhibit 1, page 2, staff report; testimony of Ms. Weldon) 5. The sign that is proposed by the Applicant is designed to be setback 8.5 feet from the sidewalk and separated from the Airport Road Business Park sign by 142 feet. The City, in its review, determined that the 142-foot separation would maintain "adequate separation so that both signs will be visible for approaching vehicles, and they will not have a clustering or crowding type effect on the street frontage". (exhibit 1, page 2, staff report) 6. Public notice, as required by the City of Everett and the State of Washington, was given. Notice included an affidavit of publication and a mailing list to properties within 500 feet of the proposed sign. (exhibit 10, affidavit; exhibit 11, mailing list) Notice was given to the Airport Road Business Park. Although no comments were received during the public notice period, the manager of the Airport Road Business Park submitted that he is aware of and supports the proposed sign. (exhibit 1, page 2, staff report; exhibit 8, letter from Mr. John O'Neil) 7. Both the Applicant's and the Airport Road Business Park buildings were developed prior to annexation into the City of Everett in 1999 when the properties were subject to the jurisdiction of Snohomish County. The development history includes a boundary line adjustment which moved the property line in a manner that separated parcel 1 from parcel 2 and resulted in the Applicant's property no longer having street frontage. (exhibit 1, page 3, staff report; testimony of Ms. Weldon) At the time of annexation, the Applicant had a permitted sign issued by the County in 1987. (exhibit 9, sign permit; testimony of Ms. Weldon) 8. Other properties in the general area have been allowed free-standing signs to be used to identify a business. The proposed variance would grant the Applicant the same general rights for the identification of its property. (exhibit 1, page 3, staff report; testimony of Ms. Weldon) 9. The City determined that the 200-foot separation would impact the Applicant because the only allowable location for the sign would be directly on the access road to the site. This would create identification problems and could result in impacts to the general public. The reduction of the sign distance to a 142-foot separation is the minimum necessary for the subject property to be properly identified in a manner that does not create a threat to safety for the motoring and 3 �.