Loading...
102 3RD AVE S (2).pdf6. AGENDA FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED: ADB-97-116" REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TWO NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL MOUNTED SIGNS Corry's Fine Dry Cleaning 102 - 3rd Avenue So. Lai _ Russell Svardal, Northwest Sign & Design, 815 - 8th Street, Kirkland, the applicant's representative, was !— present. Meg Gruwell presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is proposing to replace all existing signs with two new metal -framed, plastic -faced signs, illuminated with exposed neon, for the existing building. The sign colors will be red letters on a green background. z F z She stated that one sign is proposed for the east side of the building, facing 3rd Avenue South, on the hO sloped parapet wall and the other sin is proposed for the wall on the north side of the building which P p P g P P g uZi uMi faces Main Street. Total sign area will be 60.5 square feet where 62.8 square feet is allowed, and sign = o- height will be at 12.6 feet where a maximum height of 14 feet is allowed. 0 — Ms. Gruweli explained that staff is concerned that while the proposal appears to be in compliance with w Lu the zoning ordinance, it may not be in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code and has, therefore, made no recommendation to the Board. ©� z uw �', - Russell Svardal stated that staff was concerned with single -faced cabinets however, these signs will be g , , g t? _. exposed neon with no face. The signs were designed to be consistent with the logo and colors used by Zthe owner at other locations. Boardmember Goodrick asked if the applicant was aware of the design codes which the Architectural Design Board is charged with considering. Mr. Svardal stated that he and the applicant are aware of the code requirements. Boardmember Rubenkonig expressed concern about the brightness of the proposed signs. Russell Svardal explained that the proposed signs would be equal in brightness with the sign at the Sea- 0 .1 First Bank located across the street. Boardmember Sullivan asked Mr. Svardal to describe the sign in more detail Mr. Svardal described the signs and explained that the green background will be flush against the wall with the red letters protruding two or three inches out from the background.He stated that the signs will be single -faced with exposed neon and that only the red letters, not the green background, will be illuminated. Boardmember Rubenkonig asked for clarification regarding the location of the two signs and whether the signs would be illuminated constantly. Page 2 September 1,1997 Russell Svardal stated that one sign will be located on the 3rd Avenue So. side of the building above the glass on the parapet and that the other sign will be on the brick wall area which faces Main Street. He explained that the signs would be illuminated only at night. ' z There were no audience comments regarding this proposal. t-- rr Boardmember Sullivan commented that the signs did not appear too bright or garish. 7,101 N 01 Boardmember Rubenkonig stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that signs should be small, low- W s;, level and oriented to pedestrians. She expressed concern that these signs do not follow those guidelines. a wU. Mr. Svardal explained that one sign will be at pedestrian height and the other at a height of 12.6 feet. Boardmember Goodrick stated that while the green canopy is attractive, at more than 21 feet long, the signs are too large, particularly since they will be viewed from 20 to 30 feet away at most. She also s expressed concern that the signs are too garish for Main Street and not in keeping with the feeling of the 1' xr z �: downtown Edmonds area, and are too dominant for that street corner. Ms. Goodrick commented that all t- O' other signs in the area are of a size and location appropriate for cars and pedestrians, and the amount of z 1-- light generated by these signs will be inappropriate at that location. w w; NBoard Chairman Young asked if it is necessary for a dry cleaning establishment at that location to have Qu - signs this large, particularly since signs of this size are rarely ever►. used in the more commercial w W locations such as Highway 99. He asked if they were designed at such a size to be in accordance with a � — particular theme. LL Z LU N, Russell Svardal pointed out that the signs appear long because of the additional words "Fine Dry v F" Cleaning" and that if the letters were made smaller they would be hard to read. He also stated that these signs are replacement signs for the dry cleaners establishment which was previously located at this site z and are the same size. Boardmember Goodrick commented that the sign for the previous dry cleaning establishment was painted and constructed of wood. Mr. Svardal stated that it is not likely that the applicant would be willing to reduce the size of these signs, since they are the same signs he is using on his dry cleaning establishments at other locations. Board Chairman Young pointed out that these may be the kind of signs the Board has been concerned about in the past, and that other businesses have been willing to reduce the size of their signs when located in the downtown area. He asked whether a dry cleaning business requires this kind and size of sign. Russell Svardal commented that the proposed signs are consistent with other dry cleaning business signs located on the east side of Lake Washington and to reduce the size would also reduce visibility. . Boardmember Goodrick stated that the signs appear too large since they will be viewed from a fairly close distance, and that the size should be reduced due to the position of the building. She also commented that the adjacent buildings at the intersection have signs which are at pedestrian level and that the sign area proposed seems out of scale with the one-story.building they will be aIttachedto. Mr. Svardal pointed out that the letters will be approximately 15 to 16 inches high and were designed for good visibility. He also explained that the 3rd Avenue So. side of the building is 60 feet long and the Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 September 1, 1997 total sign makes up only one third of that length. The actual letters of the sign on this side are only about 15 or lb feet long, which take up even less than one third of the building length. On the Main Street side of the building, the 8 foot sign will take up a greater percentage of the 14 foot wall. Board Chairman Young indicated that the signs seem too large for the downtown area and that other businesses in this vicinity appear to be doing well, even though their signs are smaller. He explained that the downtown area is unique and the Board is charged with maintaining that character. When a business proposes this type of sign, the ADB has to look at options. Boardmember Goodrick read the applicable section from the Comprehensive Plan which states that signs in the downtown area should be small and low-level and oriented to pedestrians. She stated that the sign on the Main Street side of the building meets this criteria, however the sign on the 3rd Avenue So. side of the building does not. Board Chairman Young asked if there is any other building in the downtown area of similar style with a neon sign located on the roof, and if one exists, were neighboring businesses notified before it was installed. Russell Svardal suggested that the sign on the back side of the Wells Fargo Bank building, which is primarily red in color, would fit that description. He also explained that the business owner does not want to change the color scheme since it is part of his logo. Meg Gruwell explained that notification is not required for minor actions such assign additions Board Chairman Young pointed out that there are instances when business owners may have to make concessions in order to be in compliance with the codes of a city. The business owners are able to apply for what they wish, however, the Community Development Code is written by the citizens and the Board must decide whether this proposal is appropriate at this location. Mr. Svardal commented that the signs were designed to enhance visibility at that location. If the sign on the 3rd Avenue So. side were placed at eye level there could be more vandalism and lighting outages on the sign. Boardmember Sullivan stated that even large corporations are usually willing to work with communities and identify options which are acceptable. He asked if the sign would be flush with the roof or be braced out. Russell Svardal answered that the sign would stand out away from the roof. Boardmember Sullivan explained that since Section 20.60.020 E. of the Community Development Code prohibits exposed braces and angle -irons, the sign would have to be pitched back. He recommended that the background of the sign be painted to match the roof, and also commented that although the total area of the sign is within the allowable size, he is now concerned about the appropriateness of the amount of brightness the sign will generate. Boardmember Rubenkonig commented that there is a significant difference and inconsistency between the proposed signs and the approach used by other businesses for signs in the downtown area. Board Chairman Young pointed out that customers going to a dry cleaning business have a specific destination in mind rather than stopping based on an impulse decision. He stated, that although the Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 September1, 1997 �w Z_I I— t ZI w, �i i''� U. W Y r O Z applicant has certain technical limitations on the placement of signs, the Board must also consider the .impact this proposal will have on other businesses in the downtown area. Mr. Svardal commented that the public would not know what type of business is located in the building if the name alone appeared on the sign. He also expressed concern that the applicant will not understand why the signs are not permitted when they are within the size which is allowable. Board Chairman Young explained that in addition to the size of the signs, there are two other code issues, one contained in the Community Development Code and the other in the Comprehensive Plan, which must considered by the Board. BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK, TO DENY ADB-97-116 BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA IN THE ZONING CODE, IT FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION B.5.b. OR EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.60.020.A.2.e. REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND 20.10.070.A.2. REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE COLOR, BRILLIANCE AND BRIGHTNESS OF SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED. Russell Svardal asked for suggestions from the Board. Board Chairman Young suggested that the applicant return with a sign design which is consistent with all the guidelines which the Board must consider. 7. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL None. 8. BOARD DISCUSSION Board Chairman Young asked staff to provide an update on the Port of Edmonds Shoreline permit application for their proposed boat storage facility. Meg Gruwell stated that she will provide an update to the Board on this matter. Boardmember Goodrick requested an updated list of current Boardmembers. Boardmember Sullivan complimented the Board on their consideration and decision on the agenda item earlier in this meeting. 9. ADJOURN BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 5 September 1, 1997 e�esei��ar�ii�e n fhC.18ga CITY OF EDMONDS BARBAR4 i=AHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS,. WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning/Building 4, Parks and Recreation ° Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant !12 IyC t lei 5 tF '� t y 1}, t#xti a : t1 ti4i IC 1 y \ : fj S� Y:Y-'"' ha t 0.j ni.g, �f ` l` t,t ri y$_ l� }f }�S l LI�YY.�:'' i 1 ZL 1� , 4 .II�11 ,�.T i,'1•' t"S 1.', + i{ , 7 „, r f.! N -0SSH�y�ty i, `(t L r 4 N K^'� t i Y 15- Y f t •41 C f: F 1 t' dq P } L T it. i `I`5 � (t� 7 < S<, ,� �, f✓3"rS 1 � - w u.�..., ..__._.._..._,..�....�,..«.,�..xvaze,.r',:a+`s.......: ""=J'' m�rmvan."K..n.;.''..a.L.y...u. __ .,.L�.A:2:i...c:.',.r....:,:::E._ .v.�_ -- ...•...a.,.... CITY OF EDMONDS t . - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING y. SYNOPSIS j ' OC'TOBER 1,1997 U,o1 C W The October 1, 1997, meeting of the Architectural Design Board was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman r t—° James Young at the Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street, Edmonds; W 1. ROLL CALL U. Present Staff u} d Hi=w Linda Goodrick Meg Gruwell, Planner ? 1-1 CarreenRubenkonig Lynne Hann, Deputy City Clerk 01 Steve Sullivan u�i wi James Young LU a 5 a' ;; U O Absent a 0 James Chalupnik (Excused/Out of town) Jeff Oaklief_ Craig Pierce v- Z 2. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMENTS FROM STAFF None. 3. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD COMMENTS 1 None. ' ® 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO �" a APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17,1997 AS SUBMITTED.: MOTION CARRIED. u 5. CONSENT AGENDA r . rk� S�t4i-h 31( None. sky f 71 A�rq�ti' `��d�, tSdki`x'y-+"k*s.' ILA LL. ... 0 I Z fir, 0- 6. AGENDA FINALAPPROVAL REQUESTED: ADB-97-116 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TWO NEW INTERNALLY :ILLUMINATED WALL MOUNTED SIGNS Corry's Fine Dry Cleaning 102 - 3rd Avenue SO. Russell Svardal, Northwest Sign & Design, 815 - 8th Street, Kirkland, the applicant's representative, was present. BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK, TO DENY ADR-97-116 BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA IN THE ZONING CODE, IT FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION B.5.6. OR EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.60.020.A.2.e. REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND 20.10.070.A.2. REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE COLOR, BRILLIANCE AND BRIGHTNESS OF SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED. 7. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL None. S. BOARD DISCUSSION 9. ADJOURN BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. z UJ LLS 0 Lu LL 0 z LU .(.,) C.', 8C)13 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 1 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 - t426) 771-,0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning/Building e Parks and Recreationo Engineering * Wastewater Treatment Plant MEMORANDUM DATE: September 24, 1997 TO: Architectural Design Board Applicants FROM: John Bissell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Architectural Design Board Agenda and Staff Report Your application been scheduled for the October 1, 1997 Architectural Design Board (ADB) Meeting. Enclosed are an agenda and staff report for the ADB meeting. Please find your item on the agenda. A representative must be present for each item, including the Consent agenda. The Board often moves items off the Consent agenda and onto the regular agenda. If a representative is not present, the Board will not act on the item. Please note the statement at the top .of the agenda. You must obtain sign permits, building permits and anv other required nermit from the Building Division in addition to obtaining approval from the ADB. The review by the ADB is not a substitute for review of building oermits, and an aDnroval by the AQB does not grant construction approval. Please carefully read the staff report pertaining to your item. If you find any errors, missing information or if you have any questions, please call me at 771- 0220 before the meeting. It is important that items going to the Board be as complete and clear as possible in order to avoid confusion during the meeting. If the Board does not understand your project, they may not approve it. None 6 AGENiDA' AI�B 97116 iBEQiTST F7 �: C:�IN�TSIC Corry's Fh- D y ■ a �°= � g NA. �}Y� d i `� �. �ri'i�•�>`�R �t �ti�d'��.f�F �P�^�'� > ,. tfik"����,��'� 'j �t ��„3.ao-.r" ��:i� �� w$ ��'s� 1° G y t f { t x r {t Y F L ' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT z j September 26, 1997 A M' ADB-97-116 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF TWO NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL MOUNTED SIGNS U)o LU 0 A. Applicant/Property Owner Applicant's Representative _+ Corry's Fine Dry -Cleaning Gina Graham 4640 Union Bay PI NE Northwest Sign & Design i d Seattle, WA 98105 815 8th St z hl; Kirkland, WA 98033 g Lul B. Site Location: 102 3rd Avenue South v C. Introduction: The applicant has removed all existing signs from the tenant space, and is proposing to install two new internally illuminated signs for the ut ui existing building. x v: LL o, D. Staff Analysis: z! LU WD 1. Material: Metal -framed, plastic -faced cabinet signs with exposed neon P r lighting are proposed. a z 2. Lighting: The signs will be illuminated with exposed neon. 3. Colors: The applicant is proposing red letters on a green background. 4. Sign Location: One sign is proposed to be located on the east side of the building on the sloped parapet wall. The other sign is proposed for the wall on the north side of the building. 5. Sign Arreawand,Sign height: <Totar Proposed Allowed ® jSi n Area 60.5 square feet 62.8 square feet Sign Height 12.6 feet 14 feet F. Compliance with the required findings: 1. That the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies. Page 51, section B.S.b. states "Signs should be small and low-level and oriented to pedestrians, signs perpendicular or flat to building" p A UFE,`F 6 J ADB 97-116 Page. 52 section B.8.b., states that "signs should, be kept as simple as possible relying on symbols to avoid needless clutter and complexity. 2. That the, staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance. Staff has found that the proposal is, consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria, ECDC section 20.12 , landscaping, and ECDC section 20.60, sign code. ECDC Section 20.10.070.A.5 states that "All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development." G. Summary In order to approve this application, the ADB must find that the proposal is consistent with the above findings. Staff is concerned that the proposal may not be in compliance with the listed code sections. However, the Board is charged with interpretation of those code sections. If the Board determines that the , proposal cannot meet the required findings, the application must be denied. If the Board determines that the proposal is in compliance with the required findings, the application must be approved. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan. 0, 0 A NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THkq S LESS CLEAR THAN OF THE DOCUMENT. E v3 w� 0 .:7777 � a t t `t f 1 In .E-m L O E,o m FINEDRYC EANING MWAMES. 7 7 T 7,77,�77777MI, 77,777777 0 13 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE #_PM q1- ki(O ZONE DATE - 11ilk I_ _ REC'D BY QA tg�, FEE RECEIPT# HEARING DATE a,1 HE O STAFF ❑ PB ADB ❑ GC .. TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant Corry's Fine Drycleaning Phone (206) 527-3540 Address 4640 Union Bay Place NE Seattle, WA 98105 Property Address or Location 102 3rd Ave South Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Owner Connel South Phone Address._4902 So. Thistle Freeland, WA 98249 Agent Northwest Sign & Design, Inc. Phone (425) 822-1200 , Address 815 8th Street kirkland, WA 98033 / 4z< i 827 - / U -7q/ Tax Acc # 4548001-009-0109 Sec. 23 Two. 27N Rng. 3E Legal Description Lot 9 Block 1. Less the South 42' also Lot 10 Block 1 less the West 27', of the North 78' and less the South 42'. Plat of Gepharts 1st addition of Edmonds, Volume 5, Page 3. Details of Projector Proposed Use Two single face wall signs per design /NNW-97-0905. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. a`i SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT 34,0n 211-P . Wj' NQ �an tq Ci � z_ 2 01-i, 0 N �W LLo � ,2 Uy O. z ffi M°LAGS IN PLUGS c� EONTUBE OOPHOUSING IEETMETALCHANNEL LETTER )HOUSING NO ANSfORMER WSSSIANO # AFPZ HIE .:. /95BIt•It00 �B�.�t����, PArH Br•6lB hwmt. 5ld� A B f f I t B (BNPoSFR t i siZ z w j F x t- z� ro w U MAIN 5T. C� Z k _ ® CURRY'S FINE DRYCIEANING - - -- - - - - 1023rdAVEUUEL � BfP MARaHdWNSWORN eu /258Fb11W Mens` - f1RA b@ltltlWi w =� �r p� �oa 4y LL y H 2F rO uZi o 9g tl _ MAIN St. U 41� O~ 2 - - _ - - — - - 3rd: J 0"t 60' 6 mar— y+e 5, AVE- "-`-- — - - - - - --- J ` _ _— GORRY'SFINEDRYCLEANING � _'��� — — 102 WAVENUH. s ..W MARKMWMORH' SU /2SpL120D p,����q.,_� - g11orthwest Sgn t , -