Design Review Decision 11-0112.pdfOF EDM
CITY OF EDMONDS
` 121 5th Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
10e. I Q3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2011-0112 Project Proposal
Cline Jewelers has submitted an application for two projecting signs (an externally -illuminated sign on
the face of the existing canopy and a hanging sign beneath the canopy) at their 105 5`h Avenue South
location.
Property Owner
Third Avenue South Properties
229 3`d Ave South, Suite 301
Edmonds, WA 98020
Design Review Process
Tenant
Cline Jewelers
105 5'h Avenue S
Edmonds, WA 98020
Applicant
Shoreline Sign & Awning
12101 Huckleberry Lane
Arlington, WA 98223
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003.
Because the sign is located in the BD zone, the design standards in ECDC 22.43 apply in addition to
those general 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/Waterfront Activity
Center — Retail Core. The proposed sign satisfies the intent of the following goals and policies from
the Comprehensive Plan and the design standards in ECDC 22.43:
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)
f. "Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign
types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of
individual signs. " (ECDC 22.43.040.B.8)
g. "Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements
are encouraged. " (ECDC 22.43.040.B.9)
h. "Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. " (ECDC
22.43.040.B.13)
Page I of 3
File No. BLD -2011-0122
Cline Jewelers signs
2. Sin type. The two proposed signs do not fit neatly into the sign types identified in ECDC 20.60.
The blade sign proposed for underneath the canopy is most similar to a "projecting sign" in that it
extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of a building or wall, despite the fact that it will not
be mounted directly on the building or wall. Projecting signs are permitted in all districts.
The externally -illuminated panel sign proposed to be mounted on the outer edge of the canopy is most
similar to a "wall sign" since it is parallel and not projecting more than 12 inches from a wall,
although it would not actually be attached or affixed to a building wall itself but rather the canopy.
Wall signs are permitted in all districts as is external illumination that meets the requirements found
in ECDC 20.60.020.
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 signs will be the only
signage for the tenant at this time.
4. Sign size. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.2, the maximum total permanent sign area for uses in the
BD zones is one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public
entrance to the primary building. The tenant space is 20 feet wide along 5`h Avenue and so 20 square
feet of signage is available for the tenant.
According to ECDC 20.60.030.A, the maximum area for a wall sign in the BD zone is 1 square foot
per lineal foot of attached wall. The proposed sign is 18.145 square feet and so satisfies code
requirements for size.
According to ECDC 20.60.040.A, the maximum area for a projecting sign in the BD zone is 16
square feet. The proposed sign for under the canopy is 1.83 square feet and so satisfies code
requirements for size.
5. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.030.13, the maximum height for a wall sign in
the BD zone is 14 feet or the height of the face of the building on which the sign is located. In this
case, the externally -illuminated sign on the face of the canopy will be 10 feet high and the bottom of
the sign will be a minimum 8 feet over the right-of-way.
According to ECDC 20.60.040.13, the maximum height of a projecting sign in the BD zones is 14
feet. The proposed sign will hang under the canopy and the bottom of the sign will be a minimum of
8.5 feet above the right-of-way.
6. Colors. Both signs will be mahogany brown with gold anodized trim and lettering.
Decision
Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File
No. BLD -2011-0112) is APPROVED, with the following conditions:
1) No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or
adjacent property.
2) No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer
than eight inches on center.
3) 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 Developme t Code.
4111a
Mike Clugston, P1 nning Division
Page 2 of 3
File No. BLD -2011-0122
Cline Jewelers signs
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 3 of 3