2013-07-17 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Bryan Gootee, Chair
Bruce O'Neill, Vice Chair
Cary Guenther
Tom Walker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Members Absent
Lois Broadway (excused)
Rick Schaefer (excused)
Staff Present
Kernen, Lien, Senior Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2013 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR O'NEILL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER
GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
INTERVIEWS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CANDIDATES
The Board interviewed Eric Livingston and Brian Borof ca, both candidates for the vacant Architectural Design Board
position.
CONSENT AGENDA:
There were no items on the consent agenda.
uI 11►C�
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS:
There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 1 of 7
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
A request by Edgewood Baptist Church for a new freestanding sign for the church located at 20406 — 76th Avenue
West. The request includes placing the sign within three feet of the street lot line, which requires a variance
(PLN20130035). The church has also requested an increase in the maximum allowable sign area up to 36 square
feet (PLN20130034), which is allowed with the approval of the Architectural Design Board (ADB)
Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report. He explained that the proposed sign modification is a Type I process, and the
proposed variance is a Type III-B Permit. As per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.002.B, sign
modification and variance requests must be consolidated for review. That means the ADB will review the sign proposal
and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing and make the
final decision on both the design and the variance request.
Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing to install a monument sign with a reader board, both of which are
conditionally permitted for business uses in Multifamily Residential (RM) zones pursuant to ECDC 20.60.020.L.
However, monument and reader board signs must comply with the conditions outlined in ECDC 20.60.020.M as
follows:
Monument signs over six feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and
proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. Mr. Lien advised that the proposed
monument sign would be 11'4" tall and takes its design cues from the architecture of the church facility. The
shape of the sign and brick material reflects the buttresses that support the roof structure of the church. The
church has 600 lineal feet of frontage along 76th Avenue West, and is approximately 28,502 square feet in size
according to Snohomish County Assessor information. The 36 square feet of sign area requested by the
applicant does not appear to be out of proportion with the site, but staff feels the overall mass of the monument
sign should be reduced.
Mr. Lien referred to Interpretation Number 2010-3, which deals with how monument sign area is calculated. As
per this interpretation, only the area of a monument sign that contains the sign's message is included in the sign
area calculation (See Attachment 7). For the proposed sign, the reader board and the "Edgewood" portion of the
sign would count towards the allowable sign area for a total of about 31 square feet according to the plans
submitted by the applicant. He recalled that the Board reviewed the interpretation on May 5, 2010 and indicated
concern that it could allow a monument sign to have a small display area and a large base. With the proposed
monument sign, the actual sign area would only be about 25% of the total sign area of 117 square feet. He said
staff feels the brick area could be reduced in mass to better fit with the site. One suggestion is to move the
`Edgewood" portion of the sign to more closely line up with the reader board portion of the sign. This would
allow the applicant to reduce the size of the brick portion of the sign, but still retain the buttress feature
consistent with the church's design.
ii. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only. Mr. Lien explained that to meet this
criteria, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the reader board is limited to alphanumerical
messages only.
iii. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Mr. Lien advised that the
church is a place of public assembly, and, reader boards are a permitted sign type in this location.
Mr. Lien advised that the proposed sign would be located within an RM zone, and conditional nonresidential uses in
residential zones are allowed the maximum area and height limitations established for the Neighborhood Business (BN)
zone. Freestanding signs within the BN zone are allowed a maximum sign area of 24 square feet. The applicant is
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 2 of 7
requesting approval from the ADB to increase the sign area to 36 square feet. He reminded the Board that they can
approve requests for modification of the sign code if all of the criteria in ECDC 20.60.015.B can be met:
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. Mr. Lien advised that the property where the Edgewood Baptist Church is
located has approximately 600 feet of frontage along 7e Avenue West, and the site is bounded by 203rd Street
Southwest to the north and the College Place Condominiums to the south. The primary entrance to the site is
located near the center of the street frontage along 7e Avenue West. However, with the existing landscaping
and on -street parking, the entrance is difficult to see while traveling in either direction on 7e Avenue West.
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. Again, Mr. Lien noted that the church is
located in a residential area, so there is no similar signage in the immediate vicinity of the property. However,
the commercial uses to the north and south do not have on -street parking in front to obscure entrances to their
businesses. He agreed that a larger sign would help identify the entrance to the church from a greater distance.
c. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions
with development throughout the site. Mr. Lien explained that the proposed design takes cues from the
architecture of the church building. The shape of the sign and brick material reflects the buttresses that support
the roof structure of the church.
d. In no event shall the modifications result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more
than 50 percent. Mr. Lien reviewed that the applicant is requesting a total of 36 square feet of signage, which is
50% more than the 24 square feet allowed for non-residential uses in RM zones.
Mr. Lien summarized that staff generally feels the request for additional sign area is appropriate, but the overall mass of
the sign could be reduced some.
Board Member Guenther asked if the actual sign portion of the proposed monument sign would have images on both
sides. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively, but noted that only one side of the sign would count towards the total sign area
allowed.
Chair Gootee recalled a previous proposal in which an applicant was denied a reader board feature. Mr. Lien clarified
that reader boards are only allowed in residential areas for public uses or places of public assembly such as churches,
schools, etc. In addition, the reader boards are limited to alphanumeric messages only. The applicant's proposal is
consistent with both of these criteria.
At the request of Chair Gootee, Mr. Lien explained that, based on ECDC 20.10.030, only the portion of the monument
sign that contains the message would be counted as part of the total sign area allowed. That means the reader board and
the "Edgewood" portion are the only parts of the sign that would count towards the total sign area. The code allows a
total sign area of 24 square feet, and the applicant is requesting approval to increase that amount to 36 square feet.
However, based on staff s calculations, the total proposed sign area would be about 31 square feet.
Mr. Lien also explained that signs over six feet in height must be reviewed by the ADB to ensure that the materials,
color, design and proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. Again, he reminded the Board
that when they previously reviewed the interpretation related to how monument sign area is calculated, there was some
concern that it would result in small signs with large bases. Again, he expressed his belief that there are alternative
designs that would reduce the overall mass of the proposed sign but still reflect the architectural features of the church.
Chair Gootee asked about existing signs on the site. Mr. Bullock, the applicant's representative, answered that there is a
small, wall -mounted sign on the front of the church that consists of six-inch letters for a total sign area of about five
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 3 of 7
square feet. This sign would remain in place if the monument sign is added. Again, Mr. Lien reminded the Board that
the overall sign area permitted on the church site is one square foot per each foot of lineal length of the church building,
which is quite large. Mr. Bullock clarified that freestanding sign area is calculated separately from wall mounted signs.
Mr. Lien added that the area of the monument sign would be calculated as part of the total sign area allowed on the site,
but there are additional requirements associated with monument signs, as well.
Vice Chair O'Neill expressed concern about sight lines and traffic given the significant size of the proposed sign. He
said he understands the church's desire to accentuate their entrance, but the sign would be located quite far from the
actual church building. Mr. Lien reported that the Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and did not indicate
any concerns about sight distance. He noted that the entrance located near the proposed sign is an entrance only, so there
should not be any sight distance problems or conflicts with traffic.
Vice Chair O'Neill noted that in addition to the request to increase the allowable sign area, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the sign to be located within the setback area. Mr. Lien clarified that the variance request would be
heard by the Hearing Examiner. The Board's responsibility is to provide a recommendation on the sign design and size
to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the final decision.
Again, Mr. Lien expressed his belief that if the applicant were to line up the "Edgewood" portion of the sign with the
reader board portion located below, and then draw the brick angle from a lower point, the overall mass of the monument
sign would be reduced. However, he acknowledged that this would also reduce the overall sign area. He also pointed
out that the code allows monument signs to a height of 14 feet, and the applicant is proposing an 11-foot sign. It would
be possible for the applicant to raise the height of the sign in order to reduce the size of the base.
Board Member Guenther suggested there are several alternatives for reducing the overall size and mass of the proposed
sign. However, he noted that reducing the size of the "Edgewood" portion of the sign would require smaller letters
which would reduce the sip's presence from the street. He said another alternative would be to increase the size of the
reader board to match the `Edgewood" portion, but then pull the slope of the brick down. However, this option would
likely require a sign area greater than 36 square feet.
Board Member Guenther said he likes the idea of repeating the buttress element, which is a strong design feature of the
church. However, he agreed that the sign seems massive. He felt the scale could be reduced slightly to give more
pleasing proportions to the sign.
Vice Chair O'Neill agreed that the sign appears to be too massive. He also questioned the purpose of including the trellis
in the design.
Steve Bullock, Church Member, and Randy McCormick, Church Chair, were present to represent the applicant,
Edgewood Baptist Church. Mr. Bullock said that as a member of the Edgewood Baptist Church, he has worked closely
with the church's Strategic Planning Group to prepare the application currently before the Board. He thanked Mr. Lien
for his thorough presentation and the time he spent reviewing the application and providing feedback.
Mr. Bullock explained that the church is located on 76th Avenue West, directly across the street from College Place
Elementary School. From curb to curb, the width of 76th Avenue West in front of the church's property is the same as
the width at the intersections of 19e and 212th. However, there are four lanes at the other two locations, and only two
lanes of traffic in front of the church with on -street parking. When the church expanded its parking lot to the south of the
main building, the City required that a substantial amount of landscaping be added. As this landscaping has matured and
grown to become a significant part of the environment, it also has blocked the view of the church from the street. The
on -street parking also obstructs the view of the church from 76 h Avenue West. He pointed out that because the parking
lot is configured with one way entrance and exit locations, if a person misses the entrance while traveling down 76th
Avenue West, he/she must meander around the neighborhood to get back to the entrance.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Bullock pointed out that the front entrance to the church is located on 76`" Avenue West, but that is not the entrance
that people use to access the building from the parking area. In years past, there has been a low, freestanding sign to
identify the entrance to the building, but the Church has been approached by a number of people about the need for a
more visible sign to clearly identify the church. In order to accomplish this goal, the sign must be placed close enough to
the street to be highly visible to cars on 76'i' Avenue West so visitors know where the entrance to the parking area is
located. Moving the sign further to the north would not allow the church to clearly mark their entrance point.
Mr. Bullock said that because of the on -street parking that is allowed on 76`" Avenue West, the sign must be tall enough
to be seen above the cars parked along the street. The applicant is requesting a variance to place the sign in the setback
area so it can be closer to the street and will not be blocked by the mature trees.
Mr. Bullock explained that the church's Strategic Planning Committee considered eight different sign designs ranging
from something very similar to what was talked about by staff (a simple straight base with a reader board and
"Edgewood" sign on top), to a lower monument sign. The proposal currently before the Board is the result of numerous
discussions by the committee. The committee does not believe the proposed design is out of scale with the size of the
church. He noted that the illustration provided in the Staff Report shows the height of the buttress on the proposed sign
to be the same as the buttresses on the existing church (about 8 feet). The beam located on top of the proposed sign
would also be consistent with the church's design.
Mr. Bullock said the reader board is likely the most costly feature of the proposed sign, and its size is somewhat fixed
based on available funding. He said they attempted to reduce the size of the "Edgewood" portion of the sign, but the
name is long and it is important that it is highly visible from the street. He summarized that the proposed design is
somewhat asymmetrical, but the committee finds it is pleasing and not out of scale based on the size of the buttresses
surrounding the exterior of the church building. The letters on the "Edgewood" portion of the sign will be pressed metal,
and the applicant desires to install some type of lighting to accentuate the letters. The committee felt the trellis was an
attractive feature, and would allow lighting to be mounted and hidden from view. However, he said the applicant would
be willing to eliminate the trellis if that is the Board's desire.
Mr. Bullock specifically referred to the criteria in ECDC 20.60.020.M, which requires that "Monument signs over six
feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and proportions proposed are consistent with
those used throughout the site. " He pointed out that the sanctuary structure is very large, and the peak of the roof is
approximately 45 to 50 feet tall. The buttresses that surround the building are the same height as the buttress included on
the proposed sign. In addition, there is about 600 square feet of street frontage along 76th Avenue West. The applicant
believes that all of these factors justify the size of the proposed new sign. He recognized that the criteria is subjective,
and the church's committee has discussed several options. However, they feel comfortable with what has been put
forward in the application.
Chair Gootee reminded the Board that monument signs are allowed up to a height of 14 feet. However, the applicant is
required to obtain a variance in order to place the sign within the setback area. Freestanding signs within the setback
area are limited to three feet in height.
In order to reduce the apparent mass of the proposed sign, Mr. Bullock suggested the applicant could place a vertical
cedar panel under the reader board sign to be consistent with the cedar siding that is used on the church structure. This
would give additional material, color and texture to break up the mass of the proposed sign. Vice Chair O'Neill did not
feel it was necessary to add another material to the proposed sign. He said he does not have a problem with the
applicant's proposal to offset the "Edgewood" portion of the sign above the reader board. He expressed his belief that
the sign appears to be in scale with existing development on the site. However, he once again questioned the need for
the trellis. Mr. Bullock said the beam located on the top of the sign was intended to match the architecture of the church,
and the trellis was intended to be attractive and give an opportunity to install some directive lighting to shine on the
letters and still be hidden in the trellis.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 5 of 7
Chair Gootee said he is still struggling with the massing of the proposed sign. He supports the idea of a buttress feature,
but he questioned if it could be minimized. He is worried about the precedent that allowing a sign of this size would set
for future monument sign applications. He said he believes there are solutions without compromising the square footage
of the signage. For example, they could minimize the brick area. Mr. Bullock expressed his belief that minimizing the
brick area might make the sign appear lopsided.
Vice Chair O'Neill observed that the proposed sign design meets all of the code requirements. He said he does not
believe the mass of the proposed sign is out of proportion to the church building. He noted that the buttress proposed for
the sign is comparable in size with the buttresses found on the building.
Board Member Walker pointed out that the church is located in a residential area, and the proposed trellis would add
more of a garden residential feature to the sign. Because there are a number of trees on the subject property it is
necessary to set the sign closer to the street so it is visible from 76th Avenue West. He suggested that one option for
addressing massing concerns would be to drop the lettering and reader board down into the brick area. The shape of the
brick area would remain as proposed. Mr. Bullock reminded the Board that the purpose of the proposed height is to
ensure that the sign is visible from the street.
Mr. Bullock reminded the Board that one of staff s proposed conditions is that landscaping be required around the base
of the sign. He said the sign would be placed in an area that is currently lawn and planting beds. He suggested that if the
drawing had shown shrubs around the base of the sign, the mass of the sign would have been minimized. He said the
applicant is committed to providing quality landscaping around the facility and is more than willing to make sure there
are a number of vegetative plantings around the base to screen the lower three feet and reduce of the apparent mass of the
structure.
Board Member Guenther expressed his belief that the proposed sign design is appropriate, and simply lowering the
letters would not really address concerns about the mass of the sign. It is important for the sign to be located at a height
that is visible to people driving down the street, and it would not exceed the maximum height allowed by code for
monument signs.
Board Member Guenther expressed concern about the proposed lighting. Mr. Bullock said the actual light fixtures
would be nearly invisible behind the trellis or landscaping. Board Member Guenther agreed that landscaping would help
to reduce the apparent mass of the proposed sign. Given the need to keep the sign high and retain the buttress affect, he
does not see any alternatives that would keep the sign true to the church design. Mr. Bullock said the applicant would
support a condition that requires a certain height of vegetation around the base of the sign.
Vice Chair O'Neill said that, given the explanation of the design elements the applicant has tried to achieve, the
proposed design makes sense. The applicant has done a good job of incorporating the buttress element. Again, he said
he does not like the trellis. Chair Gootee said he does not mind the trellis, as it allows the sign to fit better into the
residential neighborhood and it allows the applicant to hide the lights. He said he would like to limit lighting to just the
"Edgewood" portion of the sign. He cautioned against landscape lighting because it tends to light everything, including
the trellis. Placing the lights in the trellis would allow them to be screened.
Chair Gootee said he was not feeling compelled to require the applicant to change the sign design because it meets the
current code requirements and lowering the sign would not address the need for a variance.
BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT, EXCEPT THE ANALYSIS OF
COMPLIANCE WITH ECDC 20.60.020.m.1, AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND
ECDC 2060 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 6 of 7
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. THE PROPOSED SIGN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A LOCATION THAT ALLOWS FOR
PROPER SIGHT DISTANCE FOR VEHICLES EXITING THE SITE. AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED
THE SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET.
3. THE READER BOARD ORTION 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.
5. LANDSCAPING NO LESS THAN TWO FEET HIGH MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND THE
PERIMETER OF THE SIGN.
BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Mr. Lien advised that the Board's August 7"' meeting agenda will include a continued public hearing on File Number
PLN20130027 (Fifth Avenue Animal Hospital). In addition, the Board will review their recommendation regarding File
Number PLN20130022 (Point Edwards Building 10) based on the City Council's request that they provide specific
findings and conclusions to support their recommendation.
Mr. Lien explained that three appeals were filed after the ADB forwarded their recommendation regarding File Number
PLN20130022 to the City Council. The City Council conducted a closed record review of the application on July 2nd
and remanded it back to the ADB to make specific findings to support their recommendation. Staff is currently drafting
findings for the ADB to consider, and these findings will be posted on the City's website. All parties of record will be
invited to redline the draft findings. At the August 7"' meeting, the ADB will review the proposed findings and modify
them as appropriate. No public input will be accepted. The purpose of the meeting is for the ADB to make findings to
support the recommendation they already made.
Vice Chair O'Neill questioned what staff would use to draft the findings. Mr. Lien answered that the draft findings
would be based on the findings in the Staff Report for File Number PLN20130022, with the exception of the one finding
where the Board and staff differed. He will add findings to support why the ADB did not follow that one staff
recommendation. He emphasized that the findings must be consistent with the ADB's recommendation. All of the
redline comments from parties of record would be consolidated into a single document for the Board's review. He said
he anticipates bringing back a final version of the Board's findings for final review by the ADB before they are
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Mr. Lien said that applications associated with the proposed new post office and changes at Edmonds Swedish Hospital
will come before the Board for review in the near future. He said he also anticipates other applications in the coming
weeks that will require ADB review.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
The Board discussed the two candidates for the vacant ADB position. Mr. Lien agreed to forward the Board's
comments to the Mayor, who would also interview the candidates and make a recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council would make the final decision.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 17, 2013
Page 7 of 7