Design Review Decision 10-0764.pdf� Ok CDS
D 0 CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5"' Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
/q1g90 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2010-0764 Project Proposal
Royal Bakery has submitted an application for a non -illuminated wall sign at Unit #110 at 22618
Highway 99 (Boo Han Plaza).
Property Owner
Royal Bakery
7416 100th Ave. SW
Tacoma, WA 98498
Design Review Process
Contractor
Young's Neon Sign Co.
30318 13th Ave. S
Federal Way, WA 98003
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). The Boo Han Plaza was also the subject of a sign
package in 2000 (ADB -2000-07) where specific requirements were identified for future signage
at the site.
Analysis
1. Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Highway 99 Corridor
within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The proposed sign satisfies the intent of the
following goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor objectives are found on
pages 59 - 65 and are intended to encourage high quality, well-designed projects to be
developed throughout Edmonds that reflect the values of its citizens.
b. "Establish uniform signage regulation for all properties within the corridor area which
provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to
the public.. " (page 64)
2. Sign type. A non -illuminated wall sign is a permitted sign type in the SR -99 (Highway 99
Corridor) area per ECDC 20.60.020.L. Individual raised letters are also called for in the
applicable sign package and the proposed sign meets that criterion.
3. 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 wall sign will be the only
non -window sign for the subtenant space.
4. Sign size. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.2, the maximum total permanent sign area for
uses in the CG zone is one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage
along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public
entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The subject site has approximately 150 lineal feet
Page 1 of 2
File No. BLD -2010-0764
Royal Bakery wall sign
of frontage on Highway 99 and approximately another 300 lineal feet along the south and
west sides of the building where the primary entrances are located. As a result, the 200
square foot maximum applies to the site.
According to ECDC 20.60.030.A, the maximum area for a wall sign on a single -tenant site in
the CG zone is 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall. The width of the storefront is
26 feet. The proposed sign is 26 square feet. As a result, the proposed wall sign satisfies
code requirements for size.
5. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.030.B, the maximum height for a wall
sign in the CG zone is 14 feet or the height of the face of the building on which the sign is
located. The proposed wail sign is less than the height of the face of the building and so
complies with code. The sign package indicates the sign should be centered above the tenant
space and the proposed sign will meet this requirement.
6. Colors. The wall sign will consist of red lettering on a background to match the facade. This
color combination meets the intent of the approved sign package for the site.
Decision
Based on the facts and analysis in this report, staff finds that the design review for this project
(File No. BLD -2010-0764) is APPROVED.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
11 7
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