10-0673 Administrative Design Review - Revision 1.pdf4 °F EDM
°aa CITY OF EDMONDS
` 121 5`h Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Y Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
4 i g90 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW — REVISION #1
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD20100673 Project Proposal for Revision #1
Douglas Russell with Russell Sign Company has submitted for a revision to the building permit
issued under BLD20100673 on behalf of "The Northwest Center for Homeopathic Medicine" to
revise the approved monument sign to include the names of the two doctors, which increases the area
of the sign face. The addition of the names is within the space that had served as the base of the
approved monument sign, reducing the size of the sign base, but keeping the height of the sign
consistent with the original approval.
Property Owner
Ann Davis -Turner
P.O. Box 458
Edmonds, WA 98020
Design Review Process
Applicant
Douglas Russell
Russell Sign Company
21104 — 701h Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC
20.01.003 and ECDC 20.60 (Sign Code).
Analysis:
1. Location. The subject site is located at 123 — 4th Avenue North, within the Downtown Business
(BD5) zone. The site is designated as Arts Center Corridor and Downtown/Waterfront Activity
Center in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is subject to the general criteria found
in the sign code (ECDC 20.60) and the design guidelines within the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Sign type. The proposed monument sign is a permitted sign type in the Downtown area. The site
is permitted to have three signs per tenant. The proposed monument sign will be the only sign
for the entire site, as there are no existing signs. The sign is proposed to be located near the
northeastern corner of the site.
3. Size. The maximum allowed area of freestanding signs within the BD zones is 32 square feet.
Additionally, the maximum total sign area for the site is 1 square foot per lineal foot of wall with
the main public entrance. The site plan on file for the existing building indicates that the wall
containing the main public entrance is 40 feet long. Thus, the maximum allowed total sign area
for the site is 40 square feet, and the maximum allowed sign area for the proposed monument
sign is 32 square feet. With the proposed revision to add the names of the two doctors to the text
of the sign, the sign will be 15.2 square feet. This will be the only sign for the site, so the total
sign area for the site will also be 15.2 square feet. Thus, the proposed sign complies with the
square footage requirement for freestanding signs in the BD5 zone.
4. Color. The proposed sign face is blue, white, and black. It has been determined that these are
acceptable colors for this site.
Page 1 of 2
File No. BLD20100673
The Northwest Center for Homeopathic Medicine
Sign Permit Application
123 — 4°i Avenue North
5. Height. Freestanding signs may be a maximum of 14' high within the BD zones. In this case,
the top of the sign will be 52 inches high. Therefore, the proposed sign will comply with the
height requirements.
6. Illumination. The proposal does not include any plans for illuminating the sign.
7. Landscaping. ECDC 20.60.045.G requires freestanding signs to have a landscaped area twice the
size of the sign area at the base of the sign. With the proposed revision to increase the sign area
to 15.2 square feet, a landscaped area of 30.4 square feet must be established at the base of the
sign.
Decision: Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for
Revision #1 to this project (File No. BLD20100673) is APPROVED.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Jen achuga, Plaian nl Division
June 7, 2011
Date
Appeals: Design review decisions by staff are only appealable to the extent that the applicable
building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the
ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision.
Page 2 of 2