Laserfiche WebLink
would not be detrimental to the properties in ihe area or the City as a whole. <br /> (exhibit 1, staff report; testimony of Mr. /ngalsbe) <br /> 10. The subject property is a level lot that has approximately 75 feet of sVeet <br /> frontage along Wetmore Avenue snd approximately 120 feet of street frontage <br /> along 26th Street. Both of these sheets are considered "low volume" traffir, <br /> streets. Both streets connect to residential streets and neighborhoods within a <br /> half a block of the site. (exhibit 1, staRreport) <br /> 11. The City detertnined that the site is not unusual or exceptional with regard to <br /> size, shape, topography or location. (exhibit 1, stalf repoR) These kems that the <br /> City reviewed are included in the criteria for review of the variance for the sign. <br /> However, the City did not address another criterion, the location of the existing <br /> freestanding sign on the subject property, and whether it conformed to the <br /> Everett Zoning Code in effect when it was constructed. <br /> 12. The intersection of the two streets contains four lots, including the subject <br /> property. While there ara no freestanding signs on two of the lots, the property at <br /> 2605 Wetmore Avenue has a freestanding sign and a new wall sign has been <br /> installed on the building. The wall sign at 2605 Wetmore Avenue was instailed <br /> without the required sign permit'. (testimony of Mr. inga/sbe) <br /> 13. The City submitted that another property in the area, a newly constructed Banner <br /> Bank building which is less than one block away, dces not have freestanding <br /> signs. The Banner Bank has not sought any variances for additional signs. In <br /> addition, there is a newly remodeled Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant on the <br /> southwest comer of Everett Avenue and Broadway Avenue that has been <br /> required to remove their freestanding sign because their installed new wall signs <br /> were in violation of the sign code. (exhibit 1, staf�report; festimony of Mr. <br /> ingalsbe) The City staff argued that to allow the Applicant to install the wall signs <br /> and retain the existing nonc�nforming freestanding sign would grant the <br /> Applicant rights not necessarily enjoyed by other properties in the area. <br /> (tesfimony of Mr Ing�lsbe) <br /> 14. The City in addressing variance criteria #4,which requires a variance to be the <br /> minimum necessary to allow the subject property the general rights of <br /> development as cther properties in the area, contended that if the existing <br /> freestanding sign was allowed to remain along with the new wali signs, the <br /> ApplicanYs business on a low volume ha�c street would have an advantage over <br /> a fast food restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken)which is on a high volume traffic <br /> arterial street (Broadway Avenue). According to the City, this equates to the <br /> requested variance as being not the minimum necessary to allow the subject <br /> 'The issue of a variance from the sign code for the subject propeRy dces not appiy to lhe property at <br /> '.605 Wetmore Avenue. All variances within the�iry of Evereri are reviewed on the facts ot each case. <br /> fhe 3rant of any variance for signs at 2605 Wetrnore Avenue,or any other property withi�the City of <br /> Everett, would have to be determined on a review of the individual hads of each property. <br /> 4 <br />