3411 COLBY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� ,.�, .... I Criterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findincr: Other clinics along Colby and Hoyt which are governed by the same sign regulations as the Applicant's site have signs larger than the code allows. This rias , occurred because in the past sign permit� were issued without being reviewed for compliance with the zoning code. This probably occurred because the sign code is administered by the Buildina Permit Department and is the only regulation for signs in most commercial and � business zones in the City. Only the B-1 zone and the , residential zones have specific requirements in the � zoning code ana this was overlooked when permits were issued. The Planning Department is now reviewing sign permit applications and when the Applicant's sign permit application was reviewed it was discovered that the sign he was proposing exceeded zoning code requirements. Some examples of signs that liave been installed in the last few years that exceed the zoning code requirement of sixteen square feet on the face of the building are ' the Everett Clinic at 39th and Colby which has a 72 square foot monument sign and Everett Family Practice Clinic on 43rd and Hoyt which has a 48 square foot pole sign on Colby and one also on 43rd Street. In addition, m�st of the other clinics on Colby hace pedestal signs near the side walk that are approximately 20 square feet in area. � b. S�D&lusion: Granting a variance to allow a 48 square foot pole sign would allow a property right possessed by � oth�rs in this vicinity and zone. Criteri�n No. 3• � That the authorization of such variance will not be materially ' detrimental to the public we],fare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Findina: Since most of Colby from 32nd Street south to 44th Street is zoned multiple family it could be materially detrimental to the public welfare to allow overly largE signs in a residential zone such as are allowed in cummercial strip zones such as Everqreen Way. Nowever, the clinics with larger �ig�s than the code i.11ows currently in existence along Colby and Hoyt are nnt aesthetically offensive and so it would seem reasonable to allow a similar variation from the code requirements. �. Conclusion: Authorization of a variance to allow a 48 square foot pole sign Would not be detrimental to tfle public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and zone. _2_ I