Laserfiche WebLink
TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br />FROM RE,ID H. SHOCKEY <br />DATE JANUARY 3, 1975 <br />SUBJECT STAFF REVIEW --VARIANCE REQUEST: <br />KENNETH BRETHAUER, 3511 RUCKER <br />(Page 2) <br />V. POSSIBLE FINDING <br />CITY OF EVERETT• EVERETT. WASHINGTON <br />A. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions <br />applying to the subject property that do not apply to <br />other properties in the same vicinity or zone, namely: <br />1. This is a legal non -conforming use, wishing to <br />improve its appearance by replacing an older sign. <br />B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation <br />and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the <br />appellant possessed by the owners of other properties <br />in the same vicinty or zone, namely: <br />1. As a non -conforming use, the applicant, while <br />wishing to continue his operation as is his right, <br />desires to enhance his firm's identification by <br />installing a more visible sign. <br />C. That the authorization of such variance will not be <br />materially detrimental to the public welfare or in- <br />jurious to property in the vicinty, namely: <br />1. The majority of uses adjacent to this property are <br />non-residential and the street is a heavily trav- <br />elled, well -lighted arterial. The addition of <br />this sign will not have a significant effect on <br />this situation. <br />D. The granting of the Variance will not adversely affect <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />VI. POSSIBLE STIPULATIONS <br />A. That the base of the pole sign be located on private <br />property. <br />B. That the sign be illuminated only during business hours. <br />VII. STAFF COMMENTS: <br />The Staff has mixed emotions about this request although <br />granting the variance would probably not have serious con- <br />sequences. while a new sign would be more attractive <br />then the existing one, from the standpoint of variance <br />criteria,an actual hardship demanding that the proposed <br />sign be erected may be difficult to substantiate. The <br />real question is whether a sign of sixteen square feet, <br />unlighted and placed against the building would afford <br />the owner the same identification for his store that he <br />_ would gain with the proposed sign. The answer is probably <br />