Design Review Decision 11-0089.pdf't OF ED0 CITY OF EDMONDS
y
121 5`h Avenue North - Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
xqo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2011-0089 Project Proposal
Ron Arnett has submitted an application for an illuminated boxed cabinet sign for Edward Jones
Investments at 1300 Olympic View Drive,
Property Owner
Lakeshore Investment Corp.
6800 E. Greenlake Way N, Suite 255
Seattle, WA 98115
Contractor
Pacific Sign Erectors (Ron Arnett)
9792 Edmonds Way #172
Edmonds, WA 98020
Design Review Process
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC
20.01.003,
Analysis
Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Neighborhood
Commercial. The proposed sign satisfies the intent of the following goals and policies from
the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Urban Design — General Objectives are found on pages 90 - 98 and are intended to
encourage high quality, well-designed projects to be developed throughout Edmonds that
reflect the values of its citizens.
b. "Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered. " (page 93)
c. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. " (page 93)
d. "Provide clear signage for each distinct property. " (page 93)
2. Sign type. Internally illuminated boxed cabinet signs are a conditionally permitted sign type
in neighborhood commercial areas area per ECDC 20.60.020.L. According to ECDC
20.60.020.M, the following condition must be satisfied in order to permit a sign of this type:
a. M(2). Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial
areas may only light the letters. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated.
b. M(3). Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood
commercial areas must be mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted
on or under an attached awning.
c. M(8). The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and
compliment the colors used on the building.
Page I of 2
File No. BLD -2010-0089
Edward Jones illuminated sign
d. M(9). The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow
any internal illumination to shine through.
The proposed sign has a dark green background with white lettering typical of the Edward
Jones corporate style. The green is opaque and therefore only the white lettering will be
visibly illuminated. The sign fits well with the colors of the building.
The sign will be mounted on the face of the edge of the overhanging roof. This portion of
roof is a structural extension of the larger roof covering the building and is not an attached
awning.
Bulk requirements. According to ECDC 20.60.030, wall signs in the BN zone may have a
maximum area of 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 subject
subtenant space is about 21 feet wide and the proposed sign is 10.76 square feet. The sign
will be mounted on the face of the canopy that covers the sidewalk in front of the tenant
spaces. The top of the sign will be approximately 10.6 feet high. Thus, the proposed sign
satisfies the referenced criteria.
Decision
Based on the facts and analysis in this report, staff finds that the design review for this project
(File No. BLD -2011-0089) is APPROVED with the following condition:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.60.020.1-1, no commercial sign shall be illuminated after 11:00
p.m. unless the commercial enterprise is open for business and then may remain on
only as long as the enterprise is open.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
111alt,
Mike Clugston, Pldnning 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