Sign Code Variance and Design Review Modification -- Edgewood.pdf1
M
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
M11
21
22
23
24
25
9
CITY OF'EDMONDS
1215"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425,771.0220 - Fax: 42 7 WeWi: 4144w.edniondswa.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Edgewood Baptist Church
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review Sign Area
Modification
PLN -20130034 and PLN
20130035
The applicant requests a street setback variance and design review sign area
modification to allow for a 36 square foot -free standing sign to be placed within three
feet of 76"' Ave. W. The sign is for a church and includes an electronic reader board
to advertise church services and events. The required street setback is 15 feet and the
maximum sign area without design review approval is 24 square feet. The requested
street setback variance and design review modification are approved.
Kernen Lien, planner, stated that Edgewood Baptist Church is requesting a new,
freestanding sign. The church is located at 20406 76"' Avenue West. The request
includes placing the sign within 3 feet of the street lot line which requires a. setback
variance, The church also wishes to increase the maximurn allowable sign area to up
to 36sqft which is acceptable if approved by the Architectural Design Board (CDB).
The code allows a 24sqft plan, but the ADB can approve variances for up to 50
percent greater. The permit process has been consolidated. Because the sign Is taller
than aft, it must meet the setback criteria of 50ft. However, the church has requested
a street setback variance to make the sign more visible from the street. In regard to
location of the sign, the church site is made up of four parcels, totaling approximately
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 acres. The proposed sign possibly would be located near one of the lines separating
two of the parols which would sulject it to a side setback requirement of 10f . The
city is recommending the church undergo a lot combination to remove the parcel line..
A site plan is needed in order to know if the sign will be located near the parcel lines..
The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The
staff report discusses how the application meets the appropriate criteria. In regard to
the electronic reader board, ECDC 20.60.020 allows ;signs with reader boards that
change at intervals of 20 seconds or less, but the boards cannot move.
In regard to illumination of the sign, city code dictates that a commercial sign cannot
be lit after 1 Ipm, but this is the only guidance provided. The proposed sign will be in
a residential area so the hearing examiner should consider a time limit for lighting. In
regard to removing the landscaping to make the sign more visible, the trees around
the site were required as part of the development process of the property. The trees
are the required landscaping buffer for the area.
Applicant Testimony
Steve Bullock, member of Edgewood Baptist Church, stated the applicants have
reviewed the staff report and support its findings. The church intends to comply with
all codes, including those that regulate the reader board time change intervals. In
regard to illumination of the sign, the church will comply with the commercial use
regulations detailed in the code and will not light the sign after 11 pm.
Public Testimony
Cheryl. Carlson stated that the church is a respectful and good neighbor, but she is
concerned with the new sign fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. The
proposed sign is very large and includes a reader board which makes it more
appropriate for use in a commercial area., not a residential neighborhood. Although
there are similar signs on 76"' Avenue, they are much further down the road and
located in. a more commercial area. This is an inadvertent commercialization of this
stretch of street. The digital part of the sign adds to the commercial nature of the
sign. Ms. Carlson lives behind the church on 77`x' Avenue.
The July 30, 2013 staff report along with its eight attachments was admitted into the
record as Exhibit I at the hearing. All references to "att." in this decision are
referring; to the attachments of the staff report.
1
r
1. Ap licant. The applicant is 1 ydgewood Baptist Church.
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on August 8, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the Council
Chambers.
M mw "ITIM1.
3. Site/Proposal- The applicant requests a street setback variance
and design review sign area modification to allow for a 36 square foot free standing
sign to be placed within three feet of 76,"' Ave. W. The sign is for a church and
includes, an electronic reader board to advertise church services and events. The
required street setback is 15 feet and the maximum sign area without design review
approval is 24 square feet,
The Edgewood Baptist Church site is comprised of four separate parcels totaling three
acres. All of the parcels making up the Edgewood Baptist Church site are fairly level
with little topographical change across the site.
The Edgewood Baptist Church site has significant amounts of landscaping. The
property between the church building and 76"'
Avenue West is landscaped with a
number of trees, shrubs and lawn. The parking lot south of the church has
landscaping within the parking area as well as trees along 76'1' Avenue west. A grove
of mature evergreen trees separate the church building from the residential property to
the west.
Due to the fact that the project site is composed of more than one parcel, at the time
of the hearing staff did not have sufficient information to determine whether the sign
would be in compliance with side yard setbacks. The conditions of approval require
staff verification of the location of the sign in relation to side yards and also require
approval of a lot combination if side yard setback requirements are not met.
The most troubling feature of the sign from an aesthetic standpoint is the electronic
reader board. Electronic signs are certainly "commercial" in nature and detract to
some degree from surrounding residential character. If that degree is significant, the
sign could be approved on condition that the electronic reader board is removed from
the proposal. However, in assessing the: degree of impact, it must be acknowledged
that the applicant is authorized to have a 24 square foot reader board within 15 feet of
76"' Ave. W. The impact under consideration is an additional 12 square feet of reader
board located within three feet of 76"' Ave. W, Given the large amount of
landscaping, the high quality and compatible sign design and the school across the
street, the requested increase in the size of the reader board is not significant.
4. Characteristics of the Area. This property is located in a multi -family
residential zone (R.M-3) as are the properties to the north and south of the site
(Attachment 4). West of the subject property is a single family neighborhood zoned
RS -8. To the east of 76 th Avenue is the City of Lynnwood. College Place
Sign Code: Variance and
Design Review p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Elementary School is located directly across the street from the project site and a
single family neighborhood is located just north of College Place Elementary.
According to the City of Edmonds' Transportation Plan, 76 Ih Avenue North is
considered a "Minor Arterial." There are no other signs within the immediate
vicinity.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the
proposal. No critical areas are located at the proposed sign location. The most
significant impact is neighborhood compatibility. As noted by Cheryl Carlson in her
testimony against the proposal, the sign is located in. a residentially zoned area and
surrounded by residential uses on three sides. Great care should be taken that sign
variances not be used to allow for the commercialization of residential
neighborhoods. That is a very valid concern, but the unique circumstances of the
application and its high quality design do not make it a problem in this application.
As to immediate compatibility, as shown in the first page of att. 2, the architectural
features of the sign rnimic to an exacting degree the features of the church itself and
thereby ensure compatibility in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions
with the church. The scale of the sign will be obscured to a large degree by the
surrounding landscaping and is dwarfed by the size of the building site and the
building itself. For all these reasons, the scale and location of the sign will not create
any significant visual encroachment, or commercialization, of the surrounding
residential neighborhood. On this issue it is also noteworthy that the closest land use,
across the street, is a school. It is also important to note that the Edmonds
Architectural Design Board, with expertise on building design, has reviewed the
proposal for compatibility under the criteria of the design review modification criteria
of ECDC 20.60.01.5(B)(1) and also found it to be compatible.
As to setting any type of precedent, the unique circumstances of the project site, as
outlined in FOF No. 6 below, make it unlikely that this situation would occur with
any regularity. Even if it did, the cumulative aesthetic impacts of such a precedent
would arguably not be significant, i.e. a 36 square foot sign of high quality design
obscured by an extensive amount of vegetation every 600 feet would be far removed
from the aesthetic blight caused by the dilapidated billboards lining SR 99 in Seattle.
6. Unique Circumstances. Unique circumstances justify both the street
setback variance and the increase in sign area as follows:
A. Street Setback: As shown in the site plan in Att. 3 and the photographs of Att.
2, a sign located more than three feet away from 76"' W. Ave. would be very
difficult to see from any travelling motorist along that road due to the
significant amount of landscaping and on street parking at this location. As
explained in the excellent application narrative, att. 2, the applicants are
authorized in the RM -3 zone to construct a 280 square foot wall mounted sign.
However, this option is not reasonably available to them because the
landscaping and the low building height/mansard roof overhang combination
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p,. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would obscure such a sign from the travelling public. Due to these unique
circumstances, the requested setback variance is the only reasonable means
available to adequately designate the entry to the church as well as to
advertise the existence of the church's location and presence in the
community.
K Sign Are . As noted previously, there is a significant amount of landscaping
at the project site and even with approval of the street setback variance the
sign will still be difficult to see. Also as noted previously, a free standing sign
is the only signage option available to the applicant such that they cannot take
advantage of the 280 square foot allowance available to them (and all other
conditional nonresidential uses in the RM -3 zone) for wall mounted signs.
Finally, the sole free standing sign the applicants propose will be the only sign
advertising a premises with 600 lineal feet of street frontage along 76I" Ave.
W. For all of these reasons, the requested increase in minimum sign area ftorn
24 to 3,6 square feet is amply justified by the unique conditions of the site.
XIIQ
1, Authority of HearLng Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type I'll -
decisions in accordance with ECDC 20.06. The request design review
modification to sign area is reviewed on its own as a Type I decision by the
Architectural Design Board. However, in this case the design review has been
consolidated with the setback variance to be heard by the examiner in accordance
with ECDC 20.01.002(B).
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the site is "Multifamily — Medium Density" and is zoned RM -3.
3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
15 foot street setback required by ECDC 16.30.030 for signs in the RM -3 zone.
ECDC 20.60 provides that the variance criteria of EC.DC 20.95.010 shall. apply to
sign code -variances. The applicant also seeks a modification to applicable sign area
requirements. ECDC 20.60.045(B) provides that conditional nonresidential uses in
residential zones are allowed the maximum sign area authorized in the BN zone. Free
standing signs in the BN zone are permitted a maximum area of 24 square feet. Up to
a 50% increase in maximum area, as proposed by the applicant, is authorized if the
criteria of ECDC 20.60.015 are met. The criteria of ECDC 20.8,5.010 (setback
variance) and ECDC 20.60.015(B)(1) (sign area modification) are quoted below in
italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law,
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FC 20.85.010. ATo variance may be approved unless all elf' the findings in this
section can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010(A) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enji)rcement (?f'the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges° permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings (
af the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as
set forth in EC DC 1 7� 00, 030 and environmental factors such as vegetation,
streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any. factor personal to the
owner such cis age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply
with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make
more prqfitable use qf'the property, nor any factor resulting from the action (?J'Ihe
owner or any past owner of the same property;
5. For the reasons identified in FF No, 6, there are special circumstances as
required by the criterion quoted above. The extensive landscaping (required by City
code) and extensive street frontage of the property necessitate the placement of the
proposed sign within three -feet of the 76 Ave. W. in order to give the applicant a
reasonable opportunity to advertise its location and its services.
ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
6. The applicant simply seeks a reasonable opportunity to use signage to
advertise its location, a privilege granted to any other nonresidential commercial use
in a residential zone, including the RM -3 zone in which the applicant's church is
located. As discussed in FOF No. 6, the design of the church, its extensive street
frontage and extensive landscaping do not make it reasonably possible for the
applicant to use wall mounted signs as authorized for other nonresidential uses in
residential zones.
EC DC 20.85.101(0) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan, -
7. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Section VIII of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full.
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which
the property is located, -
8. The relevant purpose of the RM -3 zone as identified in ECDC 16.30.00(B)
is to provide '!fbr those additional uses which complement and are compatible with
multiple residential use". For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, the proposal is
compatible and complimentary with multi -family use.
ECIC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
same zone;
91. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as
determined in FOF No. 5. Consequently the criterion. is met.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the .same zoning,
10. The proposed sign is very modest in size given the size and visual
constraints of the premises. It is the most the applicant could request for a single sign
under the ECDC and arguably isn't enough to provide for what would be considered
minimum reasonable signage for the property. The criterion is met.
EC20.60.015(13)(1): Any sign permit application that requests a modification to
any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve
modification requests that meet all of the fallowing criteria:
a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as
frontage on more than two streets or has an unusual geometric shape;
11. The project site has a unique configuration in that the applicant is only
able to use a 36 square foot sign for a relatively large project area that has 600 feet of
street frontage, for the reasons identified in FOF No. 6(B). This lengthy street
frontage in addition to the extensive (required) landscaping of the site makes it
difficult for passing motorists to find the entrance to the property or the other
information the applicants would like to post on the sign.
EC DC 20.60.015( )(1)(b)9 The subject property, building, or business has site
conditions that do not afford it the opportunity to provide signage consistent with or
similar to other properties in the vicinity;
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12. As discussed in FO,F No. 6(B), there are conditions unique to the site that
necessitate the requested modification in order to provide an opportunity for a
reasonable amount of signage as is available to other similarly sized properties in the
RM -3 zone.
ECD C 20.60,015( )(1)(c): The design oaf the proposed signage must be compatible in
its use (?f materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the
site;
U. As determined in FOF No. 5, the proposed signage is compatible in its use of
materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site.
ECDC 20.60.01.5( )(1)(e In no event shall the modification result in signage which
exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent.
14. The applicant's request is limited to an increase of 50%.
As conditioned below, the proposed street setback variance and design review
modification meet all the criteria of ECDC 20.85,010 and ECDC 20.60.015(B)(1) and
are therefore approved as conditioned:
1. Approval of this design application and variance shall not be interpreted to mean
approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans.
2. Tile proposed sign shall be constructed in a location that allows for proper sight
distance for vehicles exiting the site. As currently configured the sign distance
requirements appear to be met.
3. The reader board portion of the sign shall be limited to alphanumeric messages only.
4. A landscaping plan consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.60.045.G shall be
submitted at the time of building permit application for the Sign.
Sign Code Variance and
Design Review p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Landscaping no less than two feet high must be installed .around the perimeter of the
sign.
6. prior to the approval of any building permit for the sign, the applicant shall
demor►strate to the satisfaction of staff that the sign is in. conformance with all
applicable side yard requirements. if the sign fails to meet side yard requirements,
the applicant shall acquire lot combination approval or otherwise move the location
of the sign to meet side yard requirements,
Dated this 26th day of August, 2013..
m
Phil. A. Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
�. 1�11 1111111„
This land use decision is final and. subject to closed record appeal to the City Council as
authorized by ECDC 20.01,003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance
of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(13). reconsideration may bre requested
within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.06.01.0.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding; any program of revaluation.
Sign Code Variance and.
Design review
P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision