Loading...
Design Review Decision 13-0556.pdfED CITY OFEDMONDS 12151h Avenue North ® Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov 1s9° DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW - STAFF DECISION - BLD20130556 Project Proposal Denny's has submitted an application for an internally -illuminated wall sign and internally - illuminated replacement cabinets on top of two existing sign poles at their location at 8413 244th Avenue SW. Prooerty Owner/Applicant Denny's Camnel Properties 24325 Highway 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 Design Review Process Contractor 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 subject site is located in the General Commercial (CG) zone, the general criteria found in the sign code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) and the 2012 Comprehensive Plan apply. Analysis Design Standards. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Mixed Corridor Development within the Highway 99 Corridor. The proposed signage 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 type. Wall signs, pole signs, and internal illumination are permitted sign types and features in the SR -99 district (Highway 99 Corridor) according to ECDC 20.60.0201. 3. Number of signs. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.4, a maximum of three commercial signs may be installed at the site, excluding window signs. Further, according to ECDC 20.60.045.F, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, Page 1 of 3 File No. BLD20130556 Denny's signs except in the business and commercial zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage. The subject site has street frontage on both Highway 99 and 244th Street SW, which are arterials, and can therefore have two freestanding signs as proposed. The two pole signs and the wall sign are the three permitted signs for the site. 4. Sign size. According to ECDC 20.60.025.A.2, the maximum total permanent sign area for uses in the CG zone is one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area is computed separately. for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented along that frontage. The subject building has 68' of frontage to the east on Highway 99 and 96' of frontage to the south where the primary public entrance to the building is located. According to ECDC 20.60.030.A, the maximum area for a wall sign in the CG zone is 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall. The eastern wall where the sign is to be mounted is approximately 68' long while the proposed wall sign is to be 57.3 square feet. This size satisfies the maximum area and specific wall sign area requirements of the code. At the same time, freestanding signs in the CG zone (such as pole signs) have additional area allowed pursuant to ECDC 20.60.045.C. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on general commercial sites is 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area. The subject site has approximately 148' of frontage to the east on Highway 99 and 20' of frontage on 244th Avenue to the south. This would result in a maximum freestanding sign size of 74 square on the east and 56 square feet on the south. The proposed pole sign on the east will be 73.1 square feet while the southern pole sign will be 21.1, both of which comply with the sign size criteria. 5. Number of freestanding signs. As mentioned previously, a site is usually allowed to have only one freestanding sign, unless it has frontage on two arterial streets. In this case, the subject site does have frontage on two arterial streets (Highway 99 and 244th Street SW) and can therefore have one freestanding sign on each of those frontages. 6. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.030.13, the maximum height for a wall sign in the CG zone is 14 feet or the height of the face of the building on which the sign is located, consistent with ECDC 20.60.020.A. As proposed, the top of the wall sign on the eastern fagade will be at approximately 9 feet. According to ECDC 20.60.045.D, the maximum height of freestanding signs in the CG zone is 25 feet. The eastern pole sign will be 24.5 feet tall while the pole sign on the south will be 9.5 feet high. 7. Colors. The proposed signs will use typical "Denny's" corporate colors including red letters on a yellow background. Page 2 of 3 File No. BLD20130556 Denny's signs Decision Based on the facts and analysis in this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File No. BLD20130556) 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 Development Code. z r, /I Mike Clugston, Planning 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 3 of 3