Design Review Decision 10-0602.pdf;y> E1)41°va CITY OF EDMONDS
" N 121 5"' Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
i„� i 8qo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2010-0602 Project Proposal
Steele Home Service has submitted an application for a monument sign at their 23631 Edmonds Way
location.
Property Owner
Gladys and Mike Hai -wick
19810 53`d Avenue West
Lynnwood, WA 98026
Design Review Process
Applicant
Steele Home Service, Inc.
23631 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003.
Applicable design standards include those general criteria found in the sign code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC)
and the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned Commercial Business (BC).
Analysis
1. Design Standards. The site is designated Edmonds Way Corridor. Goals for the Corridor are found
on page 75 while General Design Objectives are located on pages 90 — 98 and are intended to
encourage the development of high quality, well-designed projects that reflect the values of the
citizens of Edmonds. The proposed sign satisfies the intent of the following goals and policies from
the Comprehensive Plan:
a. "Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered.” (page 93)
b. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements." (page 93)
c. "Provide clear signage for each distinct property." (page 93)
d. "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)
2. Sign type. Monument signs are permitted sign types in the Westgate/SR-104 district according to
ECDC 20.60.020.L. The proposed signage meets code requirements.
Sign size. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.1, the maximum total permanent sign area for uses in the
BC zone is one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public
entrance to the primary building on the lot, excluding window signs. Further, according to ECDC
20.60.045.13, the maximum area for a monument sign on a single -tenant site in the BC zone is 32
square feet. The length of wall containing the main public entrance facing Edmonds Way is
approximately 60 feet from north to south. As a result, the site has a maximum of 60 square feet of
signage available. The proposed monument sign is the only sign on the site according to the applicant
and is to be 15 square feet. The proposed sign satisfies code requirements for size.
Page I of 2
File No. BLD -2010-0602
Steele monument sign
4. Number of signs. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.4, a maximum of three signs may located on the
subject site, excluding window signs. The proposed monument sign will be the only one on the site at
this time after two temporary signs are removed.
5. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.045.13, the maximum height for a freestanding
sign in the BC zone is 14 feet. Freestanding signs must also be landscaped according to ECDC
20.60.045.G. The sign is proposed to be located in an existing landscaping bed well in excess of 30
square feet in size near the site entrance onto Edmonds Way. There is no minimum street setback
requirement for the BC zone and the proposed sign, including base, is to be 5.5 feet tall. The
proposed sign satisfies the height and landscaping requirements.
6. Colors. The sign base will be gray with black trim and the sign itself will be black, gray, blue and
white.
Decision
Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File
No. BLD -2010-0602) is APPROVED, with the following condition:
1. The two temporary signs currently on the building shall be removed. Any future temporary signage
at the site must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.60.080.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
a .4 61t � � /14 () -
Mike Clugston, Tanning Division
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