Design Review Decision 09-0846.pdfC.
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mae], 0 ""', 0 4: 13 di 11-93 M-.
121 5 1h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
ff Flody"WMI, M�MUMMDJ, , JIJ
Street file for 23830 Highway 99 (Edmonds Central Plaza)
Mike Clugston, AICP
December 14, 2009
Administrative Design Review STAFF DECISION for BLD -2009-0846
BLD -2009-0846 Project Proposal
The owner is proposing awnings at entrances of Edmonds Central Plaza.
Property Owner:
Edmonds Central Plaza, LLC (Scott Park) — 15526 301h Ave. SE, Mill Creek, WA 98012
Applicant.
Same as above.
Design Review Process
As part of the City's review of the building permit referenced above, staff design review was required per
ECDC 20.10. Because the building is located in the General Commercial "CG" zone, the design
standards in ECDC 20.11.030 apply in addition to those in ECDC 16.60.030 and the general design
criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Design review for a remodel is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC
20.01.003.
Findings & Conclusions
1. Scope. The existing awnings (see inset)
will be removed and new matching fabric
awnings will be installed over storefronts.
2. Environment. The project was
determined to be exempt from the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under
WAC 197-11-800(3). The project is also
exempt from critical areas studies
pursuant to the critical areas waiver,
CRA -1998-0076.
3. Design. The awnings are to be a dark
brown fabric mounted on I" square steel
framing. The framing is to be painted to
match existing. The browns and beiges of
the awnings, trim and fagade will form an
Is
io
/ I Ile.
Page 1 of 2
attractive, unified theme. ECDC 20.11.030 contains general design criteria for proposals going
through the "general" design review process. Elements of building design include encouraging
colors that avoid excess brilliance (20.11.030.A.2) and the use of multiple materials
(20.11.030.A.4.a.v).
4. Zoning. ECDC 16.60.030 requires the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to review projects
exceeding 60 feet in height. The existing building is approximately 49' tall. There is no change to
the height or bulk of the building by adding the awnings; the site development standards are
satisfied.
The CG zone contains design standards that support this proposal, specifically encouraging variation
in types of building materials and/or elements (16.60.030.C. Lf). The proposal is helping bring the
existing building more in line with the design standards set forth in the zoning code.
5. Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated "Highway 99 Corridor" and is within the Commercial
Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement focus area. The proposed remodel shows an effort towards the
following Comprehensive Plan goals:
B.4. New development should be high-quality and varied —not generic —and include amenities
for pedestrians and patrons.
B.6. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent
possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall
character and quality of the corridor.
8.9. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish
uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for
business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public.
This project will result in a more attractive building through the use of more consistent building
materials while integrating pedestrian amenities like weather protection.
Decision
Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with design criteria in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the
zoning ordinance, specifically ECDC 20.11.030, 16.60.020, and 16.60.030. Therefore, staff finds that the
design of the building remodel in permit BLD -2009-0846 is APPROVED.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
f
Mike Clugston, AICD
Appeals
December 14, 2009
Date
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