4497553e4f1946cd862c20fe480118eb.pdf°F LD °tia CITY OF EDMONDS
vN 121 5`h Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
i gqo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD-2010-0326 Project Proposal
Edmonds Espresso has submitted an application for signs at their 9629 Firdale Avenue location, an
existing drive -through espresso stand. Two new awnings will be added above the existing drive -through
windows and each of the awnings will have an applied logo and lettering. One other wall sign is
proposed. The awnings and sign will use earth tones and consist of a brown background with white
lettering and two-tone green highlights.
Property Owner
Adam Householder
9629 Firdale Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Design Review Process
Applicant
Rainier Industries
18375 Olympic Avenue S
Tukwila, WA 98188
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003.
Because the site is located in the Firdale Village Mixed Use zone, the design standards in ECDC 22.43
apply in addition to those general criteria found in the sign code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis
1. Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Neighborhood Commercial —
Firdale Village. The proposed sign satisfies the intent of the following goals and policies from the
Comprehensive Plan and the design standards in ECDC 22.43:
a. Urban Design — General Objectives are found on pages 90-98 and are intended to encourage high
quality, well -designed projects be developed that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds.
b. "Provide clear signage for each distinct property. " (page 93)
c. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. " (page 93)
"Use graphics/symbols to reduce the need to have large letters. " (page 93)
e. "Signs should be related to the circulation element serving the establishment. " (page 94)
f. `Awnings, arcades, pergolas, and/or overhangs shall be provided to protect pedestrians from
inclement weather whenever possible. " (ECDC 22.100.030.C.5)
g. "Signage shall make a positive contribution to the overall visual character of the streetscape.
Signs shall be appropriately sized with the scale of the building. Materials and colors used in the
construction of signs shall be compatible with the overall design of the site. " (ECDC
22.100.060.B.3)
2. Sign type and number. Wall signs are permitted sign types in all zones according to ECDC
20.60.020.L. Per ECDC 20.60.025.A.4, only three signs are allowed per site. The drive -through is
Page 1 of 2
File No. BLD-2010-0326
Edmonds Espresso awning/sign
considered its own separate site and the applicant has proposed three signs for the building (two
awning, one wall).
Sign size and height. According to ECDC 20.60.030, wall signs may be no larger than 1 square foot
per lineal foot of attached wall and may be a maximum of 14 feet high or the height of the face of the
building on which the sign is located. The three signs will be located less than the height of the face
of the building since two are located on the proposed awnings and the other likely mounted on a
fagade opposite the awnings. Per ECDC 20.60.025.A.1, the maximum total permanent sign area in
business and commercial zones (except the CG zones) is one square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of wall containing the main public entrance. In this case, the drive -through windows are
considered the public entrances and the length of the north and sides total approximately 19.67 feet
(9.90' and 9.77', respectively). The three proposed signs will total 18.5 square feet and each will be
less than the 1 square foot per lineal foot requirement for wall signs.
Decision
Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File
No. BLD-2010-0326) is APPROVED.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Mike Clugston, Planning Division 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