Loading...
Design Review Decision 12-0119.pdfE OV D D 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020 - Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us 4 1%911 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW - STAFF DECISION - BLD20120119 Project Proposal The Foundation for International Services (FIS) has submitted an application for a sign on the face of the existing balcony above the entrance to Suite 101 at 505 5th Avenue South. The sign will not be internally illuminated. Property Owner Jack Hoover Gregg Production Assoc, Inc. 51 W Dayton St., Suite 204 Edmonds, WA 98020 Design Review Process Tenant Foundation for International Services Applicant Russell Sign Co. 21104 70th Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 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, the general criteria 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 signage satisfies the intent of the following goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan: a. Downtown Design Objectives are found on pages 56 — 60 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 identify each distinct property or business and to improve orientation and way -finding downtown. " (page 58) c. "Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. " (page 58) d. "Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services. " (page 58) 2. Sin e. The proposed sign does not fit neatly into the sign types identified in ECDC 20.60. Because of where it is proposed to be mounted (on the face of the balcony above the commercial tenant's entrance), it is somewhat of a cross between a "projecting sign" and a "wall sign". However, because the sign is to be mounted parallel and nearly flush with the face of the balcony above, it is considered to be most like a wall sign. Wall signs (and projecting signs) are permitted in all districts 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 at the subject location, excluding window signs. This one sign will be the only signage for the tenant at this time. Page 1 of 2 File No. BLD20120119 FIS sign 4. Sign i 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 tenant space is 22 feet wide along 51h Avenue, so 22 square feet of signage is available for the tenant. 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 proposed sign is 21.88 square feet and so satisfies code requirements for size. 5. Sign height and location. According to ECDC 20.60.030.13, 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 on the face of the balcony will be approximately 12.5 feet high. 6. Colors. The aluminum panel sign will use green and red lettering with a logo on a white background. Decision Based on the facts and conclusions of this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File No. BLD20120119) is APPROVED. I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. WM Mike Clugston, Pla ning Division 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