Design Review Decision 10-0829.pdfCDM
CITY OF EDMONDS
`1P121 5ch Avenue North - Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
18go DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2010-0829 Project Proposal
Vatika has submitted an application for two identical internally -illuminated wall signs at the 102 Main
Street location. The site is zoned Commercial Business (BC).
Property Owner
George Sharawy
PO Box 84325
Seattle, WA 98124
Design Review Process
Applicant/Contractor
Peter Lai (Mike's Neon Sign)
2216 100`' Street SE
Everett, WA 98208
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003.
The project will be reviewed against the 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 Downtown Master Plan within the
Downtown Activity Center. The proposed signage satisfy the intent of the following goals and
policies from the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Downtown Design Objectives are found on pages 53-58 and are intended to encourage high
quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area that reflect the
values of the citizens of Edmonds.
b. "Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and to improve orientation
and way -finding downtown. " (page 56)
c. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. " (page 56)
d. "Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or
graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. " (page 56)
e. "Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist citizens and visitors in
finding businesses and services. " (page 56)
2. Sin type. An internally -illuminated wall sign is a conditionally -permitted sign type in the
Downtown area per ECDC 20.60.020.L. Conditions 2 through 5 in ECDC 20.60.020.M must be
satisfied in order to approve such a sign. The proposed signs, which consist of channel letters above a
small cabinet, will satisfy the following referenced requirements: only the sign letters will be lit; the
signs will be mounted on the wall of the building; no exposed neon will be used; the signs will not be
higher than 14 feet from the top of the sign to the finished grade.
3. Number of signs. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.4, a maximum of three commercial signs may be
installed at the subject location, excluding window signs. The two proposed wall signs will be the
only signage for the tenant at this time.
Page I of 2
File No. BLD -2010-0829
Vatika signs
4. 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. The south fagade contains the main public entrance and is
approximately 60 lineal feet long.
According to ECDC 20.60.030.A, the maximum area for a wall sign in the BC zone is 1 square foot
per lineal foot of attached wall. The two proposed signs are 20 square feet each for a total of 40
square feet. As a result, the signs satisfy the maximum area and specific wall sign area requirements
of the code.
5. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.030.B, the maximum height for a wall sign in
the BC zone is 14 feet or the height of the face of the building on which the sign is located. As
described in Section (2) above, internally -illuminated wall signs in the Downtown area must be less
than 14 feet high. As proposed, the two signs will meet the 14 -foot requirement.
6. Colors. The wall signs will consist of red channel letters over an opaque brown cabinet with white
letters on a raceway painted to match the existing fagade.
Decision
Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File
No. BLD -2010-0829) is APPROVED.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
441-11'e, (4�
Mike Clugston,
ing Division
Date
�0
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