My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
910 SE EVERETT MALL WAY BASE FILE 2018-01-02 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
>
910
>
BASE FILE
>
910 SE EVERETT MALL WAY BASE FILE 2018-01-02 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2022 9:08:50 AM
Creation date
2/13/2017 9:04:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
Street Number
910
Tenant Name
BASE FILE
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
a. Findings: See Criteria #3. <br />b. Conclusions: See Criteria #3 <br />Criterion No. 5: <br />The granting of the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of <br />the Everett General Plan. <br />Findings: The Everett General Plan designates this property <br />as 4.4 Mixed Use Commercial. <br />b. Conclusions: The proposed signage for the commercial use <br />of the subject property is consistent with the Everett General <br />Plan. <br />Criterion No. 6: <br />The need for the requested variance is not the result of a self-created <br />hardship. <br />a. Findings: The applicant has stated that the conditions which <br />necessitate this variance request are all pre-existing and not <br />the result of a self-created hardship. The existing drivelane, <br />and access points to the site are located such that it is difficult <br />to locate a new sign on site which complies with all code <br />requirements. The pole sign that currently exists on site does <br />not meet the street setback for height, and therefore is <br />considered nonconforming. The applicant would have <br />difficulties refacing the existing sign due to a provision in the <br />zoning code which requires that all nonconforming signs be <br />brought into conformance when a new sign is proposed on <br />site, and also prohibits the structural alteration of a <br />nonconforming sign. The applicant is proposing to remove <br />this nonconforming sign. <br />b. Conclusions: There are unique circumstances regarding the <br />location of existing improvements on the property including, <br />drivelanes, landscaping, and on site circulation patterns that <br />all lend to the need for the requested variance, and therefore <br />the requested variance is not the result of a self-created <br />hardship. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.