Design Review Decision 11-0492.pdfOp ED/yO4, CITY OF EDMONDS
1P121 5th Avenue North - Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
inl1g90 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD -2011-0492 Project Proposal
RBC Wealth Management has submitted an application for a sign on the north fagade of their 303 5th
Avenue South location.
Property Owner
Lorena Strickland -Williford
PO Box 1004
Everett, WA 98206
Design Review Process
Tenant
RBC Wealth Management
303 5th Ave. S
Edmonds, WA 98020
Applicant
The Sign Factory
815 81h Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
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 -2 zone, only those design standards found in the sign code (Chapter
20.60 ECDC) and the Comprehensive Plan apply.
Analysis
1. Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Downtown/Waterfront Activity
Center — Downtown Mixed Commercial. The proposed sign satisfies 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 idents each distinct property or business and to improve orientation
and way -finding downtown. " (page 56)
"Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. " (page 56)
d. "Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist citizens and visitors in
finding businesses and services. " (page 56)
2. Sin e. The proposed externally illuminated wall sign is an allowed sign type in the Downtown
area according to ECDC 20.60.020.L.
3. Number of signs. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.4, a maximum of three commercial signs may be
installed by each subtenant at the multi -tenant location, excluding window signs. The proposed wall
sign will bring the total for RBC Wealth Management to two signs.
4. Sian 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 main entrance to the building is off of 5th Avenue. The
building is approximately 94 feet in length along 5th Avenue, therefore, the subtenants of the building
have 94 square feet of signage to use. There are three existing signs at the site totaling 27.9 square
Page 1 of 2
File No. BLD -2011-0492
RBC Wealth Management sign
feet. The proposed sign is 9.95 square feet which leaves 56.15 square feet of signage for other
building tenants.
According to ECDC 20.60.030.A, the maximum area for a wall sign in the BD zones is 1 square foot
per lineal foot of attached wall. The length of the north wall is 45 feet; the proposed sign is 9.95
square feet and so 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 BD zones is 14 feet or the height of the face of the building on which the sign is located. In this
case, the sign will be located less than half the way up on the face of the building (approximately
eight feet).
6. Colors. The lettering and logo of the sign will be blue with gold and white accents on the logo.
Decision
Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File
No. BLD -2011-0492) is APPROVED, with the following condition:
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 Developmgnt Code.
Mike Clugston, Pianning Division I 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