09-0124 Plan Review Comments.pdfr : CITY OF EDMONDS • 1215' AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020
_ PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAx: 425.771.0221 • WEE: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • BUILDING
March 11, 2009
Bob Gregg
Gregg Production Associates, Inc.
51 W. Dayton, St., Suite 304
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PLAN CHECK # 2049-0124
SIGNS AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH
Dear Mr. Gregg:
I have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division. As proposed, I
cannot sign off on the permit for two reasons — illuminated sign height and number of signs. The
sign code specifically identifies criteria for the height of illuminated signs in the BD zone where the
site is located as well as the total number of signs that are allowed (please see Chapter 20.60 ECDC
available at: http://www.mrsc.org/me/edmonds/edmonds20/edmonds2O6O.html420.60}. After
looking at the proposed signs and knowing the building, I would suggest that this site is a good
candidate for the submission of a sign package to the Architectural Design Board.
Without going to the ADB, the number, type and location of signs available for the site is very
limited. By going to the ADB, you can propose a specific package of signs for the second floor
tenant and create guidelines for the future tenants of the lower level as well. Plus, this way you are
able to vary some of the requirements of the sign code which will allow greater flexibility while
establishing a uniform sign design theme (see below). Another benefit is that while the fee for doing
a package is $280, as long as future tenants comply with the design criteria identified in the sign
package, there is no additional charge for design review on future tenant signs. Sign package review
by the ADB does not require a public hearing but rather is considered a minor project and is noticed
accordingly.
Section 20.60.015.13 describes sign packages that are reviewed by the ADB:
Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those
signs listed below and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to
subsection (A)(1) of this section. The architectural design board shall approve,
conditionally approve or deny such sign permit applications in accordance with the
policies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.10.070, and the standards
and requirements of this chapter. The decision of the architectural design board on any
sign permit application may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure
established in ECDC 20.10.080 for appeal of architectural design board decisions.
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 following 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;
b. 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;
c. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials,
colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site;
d. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum
normally allowed by more than 50 percent.
Finally, I would like to briefly discuss some of the aspects of the site in relation to a potential sign
package. With respect to the second floor, it would make sense to have a sign over the entrance off
the parking deck to identify the tenant. While a sign with interior illumination would be possible
(assuming it met code), I would suggest that a tastefully designed and lit wall sign with exterior spot
illumination would be more appropriate for that facade (and possibly for the north facade, if signage
is desired there). The interior illuminated sign that was proposed with this current permit may be
more appropriate for the west fagade, although having a spot lit sign on that facade too could create
an attractive theme for the entire upper level. Regarding the first floor tenants, please consider the
design standards identified in ECDC 22.43.040 when developing the sign package.
If this idea sounds reasonable, please let me know and I will work with you to get a package to the
Board as quickly as is feasible. I would need some additional information including a statement
describing how the project meets the above-mentioned criteria along with additional drawings and
renderings but we can discuss that going forward if you choose to pursue the process.
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Cc: Joe Mead
Culbertson Sign Service
5209 122nd St. E
Tacoma, WA 98446