3411 COLBY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

, ! , b. Conclusion: The unusual circumstances applyinq to the site is the fact that the clinic building and its current sign are on the rear of the lot and so not easily seen fraa Colby. Criterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appeJlant pos sessed by the owntrs of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: Other clinics along Colby and tioyt wriich are governed by the same sign regulations as the Applicant's site have siyns larger than the code allows. This has occurred because in trie past sign permits were issued without being reviewed for compliance with the zoning ! code. This probably occurred because the sign c�de is I administered by the Duildinq Permit Department and is i 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 and this was overlooked when permits were issued. The Planning Departmet�t is now reviewing sign permit applications and when the Applzcant's sign permit application was reviewed it was discovered that the sign he was proposing exceeded zoning code requirements. Sooe examples of signs that have been installed in the last few years that exceed the zoning code requirement of sixt2en square feet c,n the face of the building are the Everett Ciinic at :t9th and Colby which has a 72 squ�re foot monument s:.gr. and Lverett Family Practice Clinic on 43rd and Hoyt which has a 48 square foot pole sign on Colby and one a:.so on 43rd 5treet. in addition, most of the ottter clinics on Colby riave pedestal signs near the side walk triat are approximately 20 square feet in area. b. Conclusion: Granting a variance to allow either a 72 square foot monument sign or a 48 square foot pole sign would allow a property right possessed by others in this , vicinity and zone. ri r'on�No_3• That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to tqe public welfare or injurious to property in trie vicinity or zone in which ti;2 property is located. a. 1•'indina: Since most oY Colby from �2nd Street sauth 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 commercial strip zo�es such as Lvergreen Way. 1lowever, the clinics with larger signs than the code �ai.,ws a:u�iei�a.iy in ex�stence aiony Colby and ltoyt are not aesthetically offensive and so it would seem reasonable to allow a similar variation from the code requirements. No comments have been received from notices sent to property owners within 10U feet and there does not appear that there would be any view blockage.