Design Review Decision 13-0174.pdfof EDMa�o CITY OF EDMONDS
`N 12151h Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
- STAFF DECISION -
BLD20130145 Project Proposal
Meyer Sign has submitted an application to install two replacement wall signs and to reface an
existing pole sign at Wells Fargo Bank at 9727 Edmonds Way. Two other small directional signs
are being updated as well. The site is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN).
Property Owner
Wells Fargo Bank
PO Box 2609
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Design Review Process
Contractor
Meyer Sign (Bill Lynch)
2608 Highway 99 South
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Design review for signs is considered a Type I decision subject to the requirements of ECDC
20.01.003.
Analysis
1. Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Community 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 92 - 100 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 96)
c. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements." (page 96)
d. "Provide clear signage for each distinct property." (page 96)
e. "Signs should be related to the circulation element serving the establishment." (page 96)
2. Sign types. Internally illuminated individual letter signs area permitted sign type in
Westgate/SR-104 area. Pole signs are not currently allowed within the area but the existing
pole sign approved in 1997 is considered legal nonconforming and therefore may be
maintained per ECDC 17.40.040.
The proposed signs consist of yellow lettering on a red background typical of the Wells
Fargo corporate style. Only the lettering will be lit on the wall signs.
Page 1 of 2
File No. BLD20130145
Wells Fargo signs
3. Bulk requirements. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.1, the maximum total permanent sign
area for permitted uses in the BN zone is 1 square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of
wall containing the main public entrance to the building. In this case, the building frontage
on Edmonds Way has the main entrance and is 75 feet wide; as a result, 75 square feet of
total signage is allowed for the building.
According to ECDC 20.60.045 (freestanding signs), 24 square feet is the maximum size for a
freestanding sign in the BN zone and the maximum height is 14 feet. The existing pole sign
is nonconforming at 27.45 square feet but the sign face itself can be replaced per ECDC
17.40.040. The sign remains 11.6 feet tall and set back 10 feet from the street property line
along Edmonds Way.
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 two wall signs (one on
the south and one on the west) will be mounted below the top of the building and are 21.1
square feet each on facades that are in excess of 65' feet long.
The total sign area used for the three signs is 69.65 square feet, below the maximum of 75
square feet.
Decision
Based on the facts and analysis in this report, staff finds that the design review for this project
(File No. BLD20130145) 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.
Mike Clugston,601anning Division
to
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