2016-06-22 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 22, 2016, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: June 8, 2016
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Director Report June 17, 2016
B. Update on Highway 99 Subarea Plan project
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Recommendation on Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Sign Code regarding temporary
(e.g. A -frame) signs and other amendments to address a number of other minor clarifications and
code language updates/issues.
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Administrative Discussion: Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 22, 2016
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2016
Approval of Draft Minutes: June 8, 2016
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB160608d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 8, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5tb Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Samuel Kleven, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Lovell added a discussion about the Development Services Director's Report to Planning Board under "New
Business." The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 21805 — 98TH AVENUE WEST
Chair Lovell explained that the purpose of the open record hearing is for the Planning Board to address the rezone application
to rezone the property located at 21805 — 98th Avenue West from Open Space (OS) to Single Family Residential (RS-8). He
opened the public hearing and read a script that outlined the rules and procedures for the hearing. He emphasized that
members of the public who would like to speak at any future appeal on the matter would need to testify during the hearing to
preserve their ability to participate in the future. He reminded the Board of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if
any member of the Planning Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the subject of the
hearing outside of the hearing process. All of the Board Member answered no. Next, Chair Lovell asked if any of the Board
Members had a conflict of interest or believes that he/she cannot hear and consider the application in a fair and objective
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
manner, and all of the Board Members answered no. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience had an objection to any of the
Board Members participating as a decision maker in the hearing, and no objections were made.
Chair Lovell explained that because the Planning Board is making an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in the future,
it is important that they ask any and all questions of speakers during the hearing. One of the most important purposes of the
hearing is to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light through the process. Upon Chair Lovell's direction, everyone
who planned to testify at the hearing affirmed that the testimony he/she would provide would be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the Staff Report, which included the following attachments:
• Attachment 1 — Zoning Map
• Attachment 2 — Aerial Photograph
• Attachment 3 — State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist and Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)
• Attachment 4 — Public Notice Documentation c
N
06
Mr. Clugston explained that the purpose of the City -sponsored application is to rezone the parcel from Open Space (OS) to
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to bring the zoning for the site into agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and the
existing uses on the site. He advised that while reviewing a building permit for a nearby site, staff noticed that the subject
parcel was zoned OS rather than RS-8 like the parcels surrounding it on the east side of 98th Avenue West north of 220th N
Street SW. The parcel used to be the site of an old City -owned water storage facility and was zoned OS. When the facility
was removed in the late 1960s, the parcel should have been rezoned from OS to RS-8, but it was not. Despite that, in 1971, _
the City approved a building permit for the existing single-family residence on the lot. A permit for a pool was later
approved in 1976.
Mr. Clugston referred to the Staff Report, and reviewed the criteria that the Board must consider when reviewing rezone
applications:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston pointed
out that the entire area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Single Family Urban, and either RS-8 or RS-10
zoning would be compatible with this land -use designation.
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether
the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Clugston said staff believes the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the proposed zone district. The existing uses
on the parcel have been going on for many years and the rezone would simply change the zoning of the parcel to
reflect what is happening on the site.
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land use and zoning of
surrounding or nearby property. Mr. Clugston advised that the current uses on the parcel are actually non-
conforming because the parcel was never rezoned in the 1970's from OS to RS-8. Changing the zoning, as
proposed, would bring the existing uses into conformance.
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in
the city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Clugston explained that, in this case, the site has been home to a single-
family residence for 45 years and there have not been any changes in the surrounding area during that time. The
area is still overwhelming developed as single-family residential uses. The proposed rezone would bring the site
into consistency with the remainder of the area.
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing
zone and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained
undeveloped compared to the surrounding area and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Clugston said
staff believes that RS-8 zoning is appropriate for the site, which has been the home of a residential use for 45 years.
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease
in value to the property owners. Mr. Clugston said that rezoning the subject parcel would bring it into agreement
with the Comprehensive Plan and make the existing development on the site conforming.
Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the
Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request as presented.
Chair Lovell invited members of the audience to participate in the public hearing, but none came forward. As there were no
further questions from the Board, Chair Lovell closed the testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin its
deliberations.
Chair Lovell asked if the property owner is aware of and understands the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered
affirmatively. Chair Lovell noted that there is an easement on the subject parcel that serves as access to the single-family
residential home located behind it. He asked if the owner of the subject parcel has jurisdiction over the access driveway. Mr. c
Clugston said the owner of the subject parcel must have granted an easement to the owner of the rear parcel, but the easement N
would not have any bearing on the proposed rezone. 0
d
c
Board Member Crank asked if there is documentation that affirms the fact that the property owner has been appraised of the
rezone application and agrees with it. Mr. Clugston said a letter was sent to the property owner and was included as an N
attachment in the Staff Report. He also spoke to the property owner by phone. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of;
property behind the subject parcel was also notified of the change. Mr. Clugston answered that all property owners within =
300 feet of the subject parcel were notified by mail, and a sign was posted on the site, as well. In addition, the rezone was g
advertised on the City's website and in THE EVERETT HERALD. The rezone would not have any impact to the access
easement. The intent is to simply make what is already developed on the site conform to the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map. A
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that, typically, jurisdictions handle rezones on a once -a -year basis. She asked if this is
the City's general policy, as well. Mr. Clugston answered that area -wide rezones and those that require a Comprehensive
Plan amendment are usually scheduled once a year, but site -specific rezones that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
are moved forward when the application is received.
Board Member Stewart asked about the size of the subject parcel, and Chair Lovell answered that it is 10,016 square feet.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that lots in the RS-8 zone must be a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and the portion of the
property that is identified as access easement would not be counted as part of the lot area. Mr. Clugston affirmed that the
subject parcel has sufficient lot area to meet the requirements of the RS-8 zone.
Board Member Stewart asked if the owner of the subject parcel has been paying property taxes based on the OS zoning. If
so, will the tax amount change when the property is rezoned? Mr. Clugston answered that he is fairly certain the property has
been taxed as a single-family residence for the past 45 years and only the zoning map is incorrect.
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS,
CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE
PROPERTY AT 21805 — 98TH AVENUE WEST FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-8). BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DELIBERATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE REGARDING THREE
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO
ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the staff report, and recalled that the following three options were presented at the public
hearing on May 25"':
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Option I would no longer permit portable or temporary signs in the downtown.
Option 2 would be essentially the existing code. Portable signs would be permitted as temporary signs, but a permit
would be required.
Option 3 would permit portable signs (pedestrian signs) as permanent signage and the 60-day limit would no longer
apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the
building or curb and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front).
Mr. Lien said a few changes have since been made to Option 3. First, ADA compliance was changed from four feet to five
feet based on direction from the Engineering Department. Second, a Street Use Permit would no longer be required, but the
signs would still have to comply with the Street Use Section of the code. Third, as opposed to allowing one pedestrian sign
per store front, the language was changed to allow one pedestrian sign per street level entry.
Mr. Lien reviewed that a number of suggestions were made during the hearing, which the Board could consider incorporating
into their final recommendation:
T
0
• Allow changeable projecting signs. This option could be accommodated on a hanging bracket within the size N
limitations allowed in the current code. O0
d
• Allow blade signs for second story businesses. The current code allows second -story businesses to have pedestrian
or blade signs.
• Allowing permanent directional signage. A number of business owners spoke about the need for off -premise signs
m
to direct people to their places of business. The current code does not allow off -premise signs, and having
directional signs in strategic locations that point to the businesses was suggested as a way to address this need.
__
While this option is doable, there may be some restrictions. The directional signs could become a City project, with
the Arts Commission coming up with the overall design, but the City Attorney has cautioned that using City signage
to advertise specific businesses could be problematic. The City Attorney suggested that perhaps it would be
C
appropriate for the directional signs to be more general, simply pointing out the location of additional restaurants,
p
retail stores, etc., without naming specific businesses. Another option would be to auction off the sign space to local
businesses. Depending on where the Board decides to go with directional signage, the City Attorney has requested
p
an opportunity to research the legalities and report back.
2-
In addition to the proposed changes relative to temporary signs in the downtown, Mr. Lien said staff is proposing other
changes to the sign code to address a number of minor clarifications and code language updates/issues.
Chair Lovell referred to an email he sent to the Board Members earlier in the day summarizing their most recent written
comments regarding the three options currently being considered for temporary signs in downtown Edmonds. He
summarized the comments as follows:
• Temporary/moveable/pedestrian signs are important to the City for businesses, for logistical purposes and for
atmosphere.
• Controls are needed as to the quantity of such signs, locations of such signs, and enforcement of the code and
guidelines.
• Uniformity is desirable.
• Fairness could become an issue if pedestrian signs are allowed in the downtown, but not in other commercial areas
or if the sign code is strictly enforced in the downtown but not in other commercial areas of the City.
• There are costs associated with implementation, achieving uniformity, enforcement, permitting, etc.
• The Green Dot concept has valid points, but the cost and logistics of setting up and maintaining it are highly
questionable, particularly given the previous "universals" sited above.
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Chair Lovell provided a satellite view of the City of Carmel, California, which was previously put forth as an example for the
City to follow. He pointed out that Carmel is significantly different than Edmonds. Although their current sign code
prohibits "temporary" or "pedestrian" signs, he provided several pictures to illustrate that they are being used extensively by
businesses anyway. He cautioned the Board that when making a recommendation to the City Council, they should consider
guidelines and regulations that are realistic and achievable.
Board Member Crank said she also provided photographs along with her written comments. She shared her experience while
visiting South Center earlier in the day for lunch. She said she almost didn't notice that the businesses were using the same
type of temporary signs, and the signs were placed in the same location in front of each business. She spoke with the owner
of one of the businesses and learned that businesses on the block got together to come up with a common design for signs.
The signs were so uniform that they blended in with the scenery, and this made her like the idea of having a uniform sign
design more. The fact that the businesses sought out each other says that they care enough to make signage look nice. Even
if the City does not promote uniformity, the concept is out there and businesses may choose to do it anyway.
G
Board Member Stewart agreed that uniformity would help solve the issue of clutter, and the Arts Commission could c
participate and come up with something that is artistically pleasing. Placing the signs on the sidewalk close to the buildings N
they are serving is also important to provide sufficient pedestrian access. That means that some signs will have to be placed
00
closer to the buildings than others given that sidewalk widths vary.
c
Chair Lovell said he recently met with Randy Hutchins, owner of Sno-King Signs, to obtain more of his thoughts on signage.
N
Mr. Hutchins indicated that he has made a number of the A -frame signs that are used by businesses in the downtown. He;
commented that changeable signs can be problematic because they the information can be difficult for people to read. He
=
expressed that some uniformity would be helpful and easy to achieve. Most merchants are concerned about cost, and he felt
g
that a sign design that is artistic and durable could be produced for a reasonable cost.
L
Chair Lovell said he also spoke with Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Director, to learn her thoughts about the concept of
o
directional signs. She agreed that something amenable to the businesses and the City could be worked out, but she cautioned
that maintenance and administrative costs could be an issue. She noted that signs would have to be updated each time a
o
business changes, and the space on each of the signs would be limited and not all businesses would have an opportunity to
Q.
participate.
Q-
Q
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the plumb line she used to review the sign code options for pedestrian signage is
c
answering, "how much signage is too much?" She noted that there has been no request to reduce the amount of signage
available to each business in Edmonds, and there has been no protest to the revisions to the definitions in the sign code.
.,
Generally, what exists appears to be somewhat acceptable to the public and the downtown commercial community. Where
c
there is discord is the presence of pedestrian signage on the sidewalks in the downtown business core. The arguments have
c
centered on elimination of temporary/pedestrian signage, the fairness of appropriating part of the sidewalk for cafe seating
r
yet restricting the sidewalks' use for a six-foot square pedestrian sign, and concern for the random appearance of the
a
pedestrian signs.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the City has a comprehensive sign package for businesses. Wall -mounted signs, wall
E
graphics, and blade signage is available. But wall graphics that meet certain criteria, blade signs that are less than 4 square
feet, and window signs do not count against the sign package quota. Currently, it appears that temporary or pedestrian
signage can be utilized, as well, and would not go against the sign package total. Given the concern of the commercial Q
businesses to market appropriately, the provision of temporary/pedestrian signage could be proposed as being part of the
overall sign package quota for each building. However, there is a tipping point of too much signage and too much clutter.
This approach allows each business their proportionate amount of signage to use as they prioritize. However, the businesses
would not get additional signage as they currently do with the use of temporary/pedestrian signage.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt that Option 3 would be a step in the right direction. The Board heard at the public hearing that
there are known businesses who abuse the sign ordinance and that out of town businesses in town for the weekend litter the
downtown streets with their signs. A biannual enforcement effort and/or enforcement campaign could be a joint
City/business event, but it does not need to be included in the ordinance. Wayfinding signage for businesses off Main, 5th
and Dayton appears to be acceptable in the current sign code and no revision was proposed. Again, this effort is beyond the
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
Planning Board's purview. She expressed her belief that the issue of how much signage is allowed needs to be easy to
understand and easy for the viewers (pedestrian) to perceive. The current formula for signage can remain and now include
the option of incorporating a temporary/pedestrian sign less than six square feet. The limitation of three signs per business —
present in the current code and not proposed for revision —would remain.
Chair Lovell asked staff to clarify Vice Chair Rubenkonig's comments relative to window signs, blade signs, and wall
graphics not counting against the overall sign area allowed for each business. Mr. Lien responded that, generally speaking,
each business is appropriated one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage. The overall sign area can be
divided up amongst a maximum of three signs per business. However, wall graphics, window signs and blade signs that meet
specific criteria do not count against the overall sign area. With Option 3, pedestrian signs would count as one of the three
signs that a business is allowed to have.
Board Member Robles said he did not expect that his "Green Dot" concept would receive immediate rejection by the Board
Chair. He was hoping it could be discussed further. He said there are a lot of things the Board cannot solve. They do not
understand what sign density is unless they know how many signs there are. The City is allocating a public good to private
r
0
enterprise, and then they are externalizing the cost of interpreting those rules on the public. It would take some work to put
N
together a map, but it would only need to be done once. The work would all be done up front and the map would hold the
City to task over its responsibilities related to signs (ADA access, safety, health and welfare of citizens, etc.). He felt this
c
approach would be extremely easy to enforce and would be a single point of compromise. The concept would push the sign
code in one spot, but expand it someplace else. This would allow the City to have a discussion about a single sign in a single
N
location, taking into account the specific needs of the business.;
Board Member Robles commented that if the City is not going to enforce the law, there ought not be one. Or they could look
g
at how people are already behaving and try to accommodate that. To him, that seems to be the more productive way of
regulating signs. If there is an update to a map, the notification only has to go to the individuals affected by the update.
Whereas, if the code is updated, it has to go through everyone, making it tremendously inefficient. It is possible to imbed all
o
the excellent research that has been put into the sign code discussion into the City's graphic interface. This would be a form
that business owners could immediately see prior to making a decision about moving into or investing in property in the
o
downtown. They would be able to immediately see where they stand in relation to the law or to the allocation of a public
Q.
good.
Q-
Q
Board Member Robles suggested that the City could constrain a corner to one dot, and ask the people to collaborate around
c
the dot and share the space with each other. This would give them the opportunity to innovate around a constraint, which is a
very typical way of introducing innovation. This approach would meet and exceed the spirit and intent of the existing sign
v
code. While there are some persistent members who complain about the existence of signs, there should be a way to
0
compromise on the number of signs that are allowed. The City cannot know how many signs there should be if it doesn't
c
know how many signs there are. He said he does not believe the sign code is ready to move forward. It is too complicated,
r
and it is hard to interpret. He recommended Option 3 with a graphic interface that people can understand using a computer,
a
internet and modern technology. This approach would require the City to do work up front, but they would only have to do it
IL
once and it would be easy to change and modify and imbed the public innovation into the code rather than just inducing it on
everyone. He said he would like hear the opinions of other Board Members and City staff before shooting the idea down
E
entirely.
c�
Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for updating the map each time redevelopment occurs or a business is changed.
Q
Board Member Robles answered that this could be the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board or the City staff.
There is already an individual who is responsible for implementing and managing the sign code. Mr. Lien explained that the
intent is to tackle the issue of temporary signs in the downtown as a hot -button item and Mr. Chave has taken the lead. With
the larger sign code update, the City's consultant has proposed various amendments that have not been included in the code
amendments currently before the Board for consideration. Apart from that, there is no other group looking at the sign code
besides the Planning Board, and the Planning Division staff implements the sign code through review and enforcement.
Chair Lovell advised that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to review and share their thoughts and
recommendations relative to temporary signs in the downtown. If the Board chooses to coalesce around the concept of
creating a signage map for the City, he would not veto the option, but he might not support it, either. He asked if Board
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Member Robles is suggesting that all of the signs in the City should be counted and identified on a map. Board Member
Robles said that is his intent. They know how many businesses there are in the downtown and how many signs there should
be. Mr. Lien cautioned that it would take serious work to survey all of the signs in the City. This approach would limit the
total signage in the City rather than just per building. Before implementing the concept, he felt it would be appropriate to
solicit considerable input from the business community. Board Member Robles voiced concern that all of the work the City
does not want to do forces other people to interpret the sign code and limit their business accordingly.
Board Member Robles suggested that his concept could be developed over time. There are big questions with the existing
sign code that have not been answered. They are making assumptions that have no objective value assigned to them. If the
City does not want to go look for those values, they are stuck with the existing sign code. He has listened to the public and
their different needs and it would be hard to accommodate everyone unless you let them have some control over signage.
Part of this plan should be about allowing the artistic community to standardize signs and allowing people to allocate signs as
they see fit. The City should only be talking about certain components of signs, such as American's with Disabilities Act
(ADA) access and the health, safety and welfare of citizens. He sees instances where the sign code is applied, but it is not
practical given the specifics of the location. He summarized that the City should decide where signs can and cannot go and c
place the information in a graphic interface that is easy to understand. N
Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized the Board Member Robles' concept would allow perspective businesses to look up the c
location of the building they are considering on a website and see how much signage would be allowed. This would help
them determine whether or not the site would suit how they tend to market their company. Board Member Robles would like N
this information to be embedded in the sign code and available visually rather than just verbally.
.r
Board Member Crank asked if Board Member Robles concept would be a determining factor in the Board's recommendation
relative to Options 1, 2 or 3 or if it should be considered as a second level of discussion after the Board selects its preferred
option. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept is actually consistent with Option 3, but presented differently.
Board Member Stewart said there is some merit to Board Member Robles' concept, as it would reduce the language in the
code and the visual information could cater to the need for businesses to figure out what is and is not allowed relative to
signage. She asked if the concept has been implemented anywhere else in the United States. Board Member Robles said he
is not certain. The concept would more or less result in a shared database, which today's technology allows. There are
databases available, but that's not where the City is at now. He is looking at it in terms of LEED principles, which provide a
lot of visuals, pre -thinking, and simplification, and you gain the efficiencies later in the process from doing the work in the
beginning. There are precedents for this type of work. Board Member Stewart summarized that, conceptually this type of
work is being done in green building.
Board Member Stewart asked if Board Member Robles is referring to "green dots" for pedestrian signs only. Board Member
Robles answered that is his intent. Board Member Stewart suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for a block in the
City to serve as a pilot program for the concept. While it is too much to take on for the entire City at one time, she is
intrigued by the idea.
Chair Lovell suggested that the Board consider a type of Option 3 for temporary signs, but create some mechanisms and
guidelines that enable staff to work with business owners to establish workable plan for their signs within the parameters of
the code. Board Member Robles agreed that this approach would go a long way towards accommodating individual needs.
Chair Lovell expressed his belief that there should be some way to verify that signs have been permitted by using a sticker
system, etc. Board Member Robles said there are other ways to simulate permitting. For example, businesses could lease
artistic signs from artists, and the lease agreements would effectively become the permit. Business owners would pay money
directly to the artists rather than the City. However, he cautioned that if the City is going to accommodate individual
businesses, they must have a way to keep track of the accommodations such as a database or map.
Mr. Lien commented that although the technology to implement Board Member Robles concept may be available, the City is
not there yet. However, the City is moving in that direction by incorporating more graphics as part of the code update that is
currently in progress. He said Option 3, as currently written, allows some flexibility for the City to accommodate the needs
of individual businesses. It simply states that the signs must be located within 10 feet of the ground floor entrance and within
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
two feet of the building or two feet of the curb. The intent is to ensure pedestrian access. As far as businesses being able to
look at the code and determine the types of signs allowed, staff often speaks with prospective business owners to inform them
of the sign code requirements. He reminded the Board that the intent of this sign code update is to address the specific issue
of temporary signs in the downtown, as well as a number of minor clarifications and code language updates and issues.
Board Member Cheung commented that the number, size and design of signs is subjective. Some people may feel that no
signs would be better, and others may think that prohibiting signs would result in a desolate downtown. With regard to sign
location, he emphasized that the signs must not block ADA accessibility, which is a federal law. He summarized his belief
that pedestrian signs have a huge impact on businesses, and they are used to attract customers. If the City makes the sign
code too restrictive or prohibits pedestrian signs altogether, businesses may actually leave the downtown. Businesses are in
competition with each other. While it could be mutually beneficial to limit the number of signs, they need to work together
with the business owners before any final decisions are made. He voiced support for Board Member Crank's comment about
businesses voluntarily coming together to create uniformity of signs that benefit them all. Those businesses didn't need
anyone to step in and make it happen; they did it on their own. He said he would prefer to collect as much input as possible
from the business owners. Instead of forcing a sign code upon them, they should be allowed to work together and provide
c
recommendations that help improve the downtown business community. He said he is leaning towards allowing the most
N
freedom and flexibility for pedestrian signs, and letting the business owners figure out their own limitations and restrictions.
d
c
Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the public hearing, there were several comments about the need for off -premise signs
to direct pedestrian to the businesses that are located on the side streets. He asked the Board to share their thoughts on how
N
these businesses could be best served in a way that does not put more clutter and signage on the street. He suggested that;
Board Member Robles' idea may work well for these situations. The City could provide directional signs and auction off the
=
space to businesses. Board Member Robles cautioned that there is real peril when the City starts allocating public good to a
g
private enterprise. However, they are ways of having exchanges that are not necessarily financial and there are ways to share
the spots without bidding for property. Having a social agreement in place with the business owners would address the legal
concerns.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she supports Option 3, which counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area and number
of signs allowed for each business. As per Option 3, pedestrian signs would become one of the several options a business
owner can choose for signage.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that staff has had some discussion with the City Attorney about the legality of the City
providing wayfinding signs. The current code allows them, but whether or not they can be used to advertise specific
businesses is in question and must be reviewed by the City Attorney. The intent of the signs would be to help businesses that
are located off the main roads.
Board Member Monroe referred to a picture of a directional sign that allows the individual signs to be changed as needed.
The City could construct the sign to a certain standard, and then businesses could purchase the individual plaques that are
attached to the sign. Board Member Cheung asked if the directional sign would be in addition to allowing one pedestrian
sign per storefront, and Board Member Monroe agreed that was his intent. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that
commercial property in the downtown would become more valuable if there was a way to have off -site signage.
Board Member Cheung agreed it would be helpful to provide off -premise directional signs to direct customers to the
businesses located on side street, but he does not believe the directional signs would completely solve the desire of businesses
to use pedestrian signs. The code must still be updated to address pedestrian signs, but directional signs would have value to
businesses and auctioning off the space could help pay for the signs, themselves.
Chair Lovell agreed that directional signage could be done with the concept of uniformity, along with elements of flexibility
to add or change the signs as needed. However, it is important to realize that there would be cost to the City. He suggested
the Board could recommend that the City Council direct staff to investigate the feasibility of establishing a directional sign
program. Vice Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that the sign code already allows directional signs. The Board's comments
can be noted that they think this is a private concern and the City Attorney will need to set some language for how
wayfinding signs could be used. But as far as the Board's current review of the sign code, no changes need to be made to
implement a directional sign program. Mr. Lien said the City Attorney has affirmed that no changes would be needed to the
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
existing code to allow directional signs, but the Board could also include this in its recommendation to the City Council as
something they want the City Council to pursue. Board Member Cheung agreed that directional signs might reduce the need
for businesses to use off -site pedestrian signs to attract customers to their businesses, but the Board still needs to address on -
premise pedestrian signs.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the changes that were made to Option 3 since the public hearing. Pedestrian signs would
become a type of permanent sign that must be brought in at night when the business is closed. In addition, staff is proposing
that the language be changed to allow one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance rather than one sign per ground floor
storefront. He provided examples to illustrate why this change was made.
Chair Lovell pointed out that, with the exception of downtown, the current code does not allow temporary signs in any other
commercial zone. He voiced concern that the regulations are not currently being enforced, and business owners in the
downtown may feel that they are being discriminated against if they are required to comply with strict enforcement of the
code when other commercial areas are not.
T
0
Board Member Robles shared a story about an architect who designed a university campus without any sidewalks. The N
owner decided not to pay the architect until the sidewalks had been installed. Six months later, there were clear paths 00
through the grass, and the architect knew exactly where the sidewalks should go. The moral to the story is to observe what a)
people are doing, memorialize it, and then adapt to what is needed. If the City knows how many signs there are currently,
they will have a better idea of whether there is not enough or too many. Chair Lovell asked if Board Member Robles is rn
inferring that all of the existing signs in the downtown should be memorialized and accepted. Board Member Robles said;
that seems to be what the City has allowed up to this point. _
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the downtown is supposed to be walkable. While pedestrian signs near the curb are
more visible to drivers passing by, they are not conducive to a pedestrian environment. Mr. Lien emphasized that, as
currently proposed, the signs must be located within two feet of the entry or within two feet of the curb. They would not be
allowed to block pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk.
Chair Lovell summarized that Option 3 allows pedestrian signs, but it could be further improved to provide flexibility and
guidelines for staff to utilize when working with business owners to fit what is best for each individual site. He felt that
would be the best option. The City could not only work with business owners to limit pedestrian signs, but they could
encourage them to create solutions for their businesses. The "green dot" concept may be an option to consider in the future
as the City moves towards a more sophisticated GIS system.
Board Member Crank said she appreciates the change from one pedestrian sign per storefront to one pedestrian sign per
entrance. She recalled that at the last meeting she voiced concern about how the regulations would impact businesses that are
located in buildings with multiple tenants. In an effort to move the discussion forward, she reminded the Board that the focus
of their discussion is supposed to be on identifying a preferred option (1, 2 or 3). She noted that most of the Board's
discussion has been relative to Option 3, with some tweaks. If that is the direction the Board wants to go, she suggested that
they affirm this and then move the discussion forward.
Chair Lovell summarized that the Board is generally in support of Option 3, which requires a permit, limits the number of
pedestrian signs allowed and provides guidelines. However, there are certain accompanying provisions and guidelines the
Board would like the City Council to consider. He summarized that the Board is in favor o£
• Creating the ability to work with a specific business given the conditions.
• Limiting pedestrian signs to one per storefront entrance.
• Counting pedestrian signs as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have and also part of the overall sign
area allowed.
• Giving City staff the opportunity to work with odd architectural situations in order to accommodate a necessary
business signage opportunity.
• Developing criteria or a program that provides hard -to -find -business locations with a type of directional sign,
recognizing that there may be legal ramifications. The City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses, and
signage is an important part of that.
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
• Considering what can be done to increase enforcement of the regulations and guidelines.
• Allowing and even encouraging blade signs that accommodate changing information.
• Encouraging some level of uniformity for pedestrian signs. While the Board was not interested in forcing
uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform
sign program that meets the code requirements.
Mr. Lien agreed to prepare draft code language for Option 3 based on direction provided by the Board. He could also prepare
a memorandum to the City Council outlining the Board's additional recommendations in conjunction with the proposed sign
code amendments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that
there is some work being done with respect to housing affordability, and the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish
County provided a presentation on the topic to the City Council on May 25t". Council Member Tibbott is particularly in tune c
with affordable housing issues. It was pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the goal of creating housing that N
is affordable, and he anticipates the issue will come before the Board for further discussion at some point in the future. O0
d
c
Chair Lovell reported that the City recently entered into a Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington
University with respect to elements of sustainability that the City is trying to achieve. This will be an ongoing project, and a rn
number of the elements will likely pass through the Board in the next few months.
Board Member Crank referred to the announcement in the report that the City would no longer allow people to line chairs up
along the street in anticipation of the 41h of July Parade. She said she informed the Chamber of this change, since they are the
event sponsor.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien advised that the Board would continue its discussion on the sign code amendments on June 22nd. The land division
update would be postponed to a future agenda. He reminded the Chair and Vice Chair that they are scheduled to present a
Planning Board Update to the City Council on June 28th. Chair Lovell said the City Council has requested that the Board also
have a discussion about redevelopment opportunities at Five corners, similar to what was done for Westgate. Mr. Lien
reminded the Board that work done by Green Lab from the University of Washington included both Five Corners and
Westgate. In the near future, Mr. Chave will revisit the work that was done relative to Five Corners with the City Council.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart acknowledged Sam Klevin's service to the Planning Board as the Student Representative. He has
spent the past academic year getting to know what the Board does and sharing his thoughts. He plans to attend Washington
State University in the fall and will pursue student government there.
Board Member Stewart announced that the Students Saving Salmon Streams Team from Edmonds Woodway High School
will present the results of their water quality monitoring program to the City Council on June 141h. She encouraged Board
Members to either attend the meeting or watch the audio recording.
Board Member Crank reported that she served as a volunteer at the Edmonds Waterfront Festival this past weekend. It was a
great event that was well attended. The most popular attraction at the event was a large 2,500-pound fiberglass salmon that
people were allowed to climb inside. There was a mural inside that provided educational information.
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
Board Member Crank announced that the Edmonds Noon Rotary has taken on a project to sponsor a muralist to do a mural
on a downtown building. The Bank of America Building was approved as the site for the mural, but it is being sold and is no
longer available. They are currently looking for a new location.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2016 Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2016
Director Report June 17, 2016
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and consider information
Narrative
Director Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Report.06.17.16
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
OY F f]M
v
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 17, 2016
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
Planning Board —Next Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is on June 22, with an agenda focused on:
❑ Sign Code update recommendation (focused primarily on A -frames and similar signs in
the downtown area)
❑ Status of Highway 99 Subarea Plan project
REGIONAL UPDATES
Sound Transit 3
The Sound Transit Board has approved changes to the proposed ST3 plan that would speed up
the next round of light rail extensions. The Board will consider the final documents on June 23,
which would become the basis for a ballot measure to fund the next round of long-term
regional transit improvements.
Alliance for Housing Affordability
The sole full-time staff person for the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), of which
Edmonds is a member, is resigning and taking another job. A process has begun to recruit for
this position.
LOCAL UPDATES
Architectural Design Board
The Architectural Design Board will have a meeting on July 6 to review the proposed design for
the Senior/Community Center, which would replace the current senior facility.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner meetings for June were cancelled due to a lack of items.
Historic Preservation Commission
The Historic Preservation Commission will have a Special Meeting on June 29. Its agenda is
focused on the Civic Field structures.
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
Economic Development Commission
The Economic Development Commission meets on June 15. Its agenda will focus on:
consolidating/refining the Commission's priorities for next year.
City Council
Below are a few highlights from the June 14 City Council meeting:
❑ Presentation on Students Saving Salmon Sunset Avenue Walkway Project —concept
proposals
❑ Stormwater Code —update on amendments being prepared
❑ Consideration of update to City Code Chapter 10.95—Tree Board
The Council's June 21 meeting agenda includes:
❑ Approval of Title 19 updates (building and fire codes)
❑ Closed record review of the Planning Board's recommendation on rezoning 21805 98tn
Ave. W.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
❑ June 17 —19: Edmonds Art Festival from 10 am — 8 pm
❑ June 18: Summer Market from 9 am — 3 pm
❑ June 18 - July 2: The Edmonds Historical Museum presents its coming exhibit, "Salish
Bounty: Traditional Native American Foods of Puget Sound". Organized by the Burke
Museum, University of Washington, with co -curators Warren King George
(Muckleshoot/Upper Skagit Indian Tribe) and Elizabeth Swanaset
(Nooksack/Cowichan/Laq'amel tribes).
❑ June 23: Civic Park Master Plan Open House, Edmonds Plaza Room, 6:00 — 7:30 pm
❑ July 4: Edmonds Kind of 4tn
❑ July 4: Beat Brackett 5K
❑ July 10: Summer Concerts, Edmonds City Park from 3 pm — 4 pm.
❑ July 14: Summer Concert, Hazel Miller Plaza "The Tarantellas
❑ July 21: Summer Concert, Hazel Miller Plaza, "The Ginger Ups"
❑ July 28: Summer Concert, Hazel Miller Plaza, "Squirrel Butter"
21
Packet Pg. 16
5.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2016
Update on Highway 99 Subarea Plan project
Staff Lead: Brad Shipley
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The purpose of the Highway 99 subarea planning project is to create a vision for the corridor.
Historically, the corridor developed with little planning guidance. The result is what we are left with
today: poor connections, unsafe streets, and general lack of cohesiveness between buildings. Taking a
more proactive approach will provide a "big picture" view of community goals such as transportation,
land use, and safety. In addition, the completed plan will identify specific action steps the City can take
to accomplish community goals.
On May 19th, the City with consultants, Fregonese Associates, hosted an open house at Swedish
Hospital to discuss draft scenarios and define the project's scope. Over 70 citizens attended the event.
Staff Recommendation
The intent of the presentation is to update Planning Board on the current status of the project
Narrative
The presentation will provide an overview of early analysis results, including what we learned from the
March public workshop, description of existing conditions along the corridor, review of draft scenarios
and draft scenario indicators.
Attachments:
Edmonds Open House PB update - 20160622
Packet Pg. 17
5.B.a
Highway 99
Subarea Planning Project
Edmonds, WA
June 22, 2016
Packet Pg. 18
5.B.a
Agenda
1. Overview of planning project
2. Presentation of alternative scenarios (to reflect
transportation and land use issues)
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 19
Fr
INO pDS�,r',
w
_ fit.,,• / .
3 3� ** r � i• �i _
3 b`` M•
Sns tom' �1� '���� '!•�y, ��lL�,
/ J 11.. t `- � sir•-'A-��R-� .a,
AA
ES PAS
TA
Cl KET-t
z r ! s
77
w m
KE BALLINGER
• .6i. I CD,
' .3 fie`' • f V \` `_ �
w EDMO S -
`1'
rsW T aT o
�. �11�Q�
_
SHORELINE'
FREGONESE
5.B.a
Y 3
209'rH ST SW
2
3H
ST qW>
Z
n
¢
°
z
�P
Distinct Subdistricts
om
213TH 57 SW
z n
212TM 57 5W o
n
m
Edmonds
2137H PL SW
i= SW
214TH PL `
Woodway
2157H ST SW
215TH ST SW
High School_.
21STH ST SW
215TH PL SW
z
• Major local and
z,6TM ST
2,6TH ST SW r
Swedish ST 5W
regional destinations on
3
a
Hospital
Hwy 99
a
m = 3
2,a MST -s�-
• International District
Z
2197H ST SW
r '19
HSTSyy°as
ry
� �
zzorH sr sw
3 5
�
— Diverse restaurants,
z
� 220TH PLSW
u
2 2215T PLSW
n
'I. SW
grocers and shops;
major Korean
Plum Tree
• Health District
m 224THsrs,,,,
Plaza
3 224TH PL SW
w
_
-
— Swedish Hospital and
3 '=
99Ra
it J
medical offices
3
a n = 226TH sr sw
Q
Public
forage
Mark
x;
W
s 2217H ST S1,
g o Han
• Gateway District
3
2267,-
arket
>3
J
— Identified by the
Q a
s i a
community during
W m
p TI15T5W
Brentwood
:'Plaza
?sOTH5T S4v
workshop
231ST ST SW
°
N
.r
— Desire for gateway
23'
SW
and distinct transition
HOLLY LN
point in and out of
MAPLE LN
a:
. �V,
-C
Edmonds
MADRONA LN
• How can we support
and grow these unique
Aurora
arketplace
centers?
Health
District
International
District
ye Gateway
y �� � 24 FH ST SW
District
1 A DOCKS
� _ v9 Mall
m qp MP '4 421ND ST .5':+. 2 242ND PL S,w
EDMONDS[� RAMP � '
HIGHWAY 79
4 '..y- 9 P LAKE BALLINGER WAY
Packet Pg. 21
Already a Mixed -
Use District
• Horizontal mixed -
use district
• Retail uses adjacent
to apartments and
neighborhoods
• Opportunities for
better integrated
uses?
EDM0ND599
HIGHWAY
EDMONDS
WOODWAY
HIGH
SCHOOL
L,��.,,
r
SWEDISH n o
EDMONDS
CAMPUS
, bw
H. cpts
212th
220th
228th
l� ` v.
N
A.
Residential
Sites
o
Multi -Family
r_
CL
♦\
O
Mobile Homes
•
Town Homes
o
E
—
-0
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, N
LU
contributors.. and the GI::
Single Family
M Q,C griStr
er ccITdi�
user cc IT
E
t
• a
Packet Pg. 22
5.B.a
Urban Form
"Heat Map"
• 3 spots with
reasonably good
urban form
— Crossings
— Transit service
— Block size
— Employment activity
• Opportunity to
enhance these nodes
further?
• How can we improve
the "in between
areas"?
11041'r
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 23
5.B.a
Safe Pedestrian
0 212th
c
R
limited
WOODWAYCrossings
SCHOOL•
EDMONDSFIND
"'GH
• Many places missing
• 220th
o
marked pedestrian
crossings
CID
— Particularly in south
..
• 228th
N
N
0
N
r � i
ILI
'
m
d
Pedestrian Crossing
O
�Ir'_
rL
O
.➢��j AM2
• 3
c
C
Esri, HERE, DeLorrri
• 4
W
contributors, and the
Mapmylndi
user com N4 h
E
�
.,
EDMONDS��
HIGHWAY
a
Packet Pg. 24
5.B.a
Long Segments
Without Crossings
• Central area requires
10 minute walk to
find safe crossing
• Green-1 minute
• Yellow —10 minutes
• Red — 20 minutes
I 4P,4q,
ci "TEA
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 25
5.B.a
March 2016 Public Workshop
• Identified opportunities for new
housing and business, community
centers and services, and
infrastructure upgrades
• What did the public want?
-140'4�
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
hj
a
Packet Pg. 26
5.B.a
Housing
Development
• Widespread
desire for
housing
• Particularly in
south
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
r �
212th
I '
220th ,
I I 1
1 228th
1 • � r 1 � • psis
- _ 1
�I
w
L t. - 3 .
i i --'I 244It�a, DeLorme, INCREMENT P, NGA., U5G`.
a
L
Cn
0
CL
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
m
FZ
N
7
0
2
r-
Q
0
C
0
W
d
t
v
a
Packet Pg. 27
5.B.a
Mixed Use
Development
• Widespread
desire for
mixed use
• Particularly in
south and
central
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
212th
I ,
I 220th
I ,
I = i
rl�� r
I
J 228th
-
I • •t -
• a
I I;
7 — — — - - J 2A4itlthD,Lorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
a
M
L
O
CL
w
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
m
7
O
C
4)
CL
O
O
W
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 28
5.B.a
f. si
f'.lfr I
-- Ap
Pedestrian ,� 40 9 'T-212th
I
Safety 216th
,
11 .A +y 220th
• Pedestrian safety is
a major concern :��
1 �
throughout thel
corridor -
li 228th
IT'.4041r9i
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
L J
t 'r
1 yam.
Esh, HERE, DeLorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
r—
CU
FL
(D
Cn
0
CL
00
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
d
R
Q
^W^
0
2
r—
Q
O
U)
0
LU
C
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 29
5.B.a
landscaped
Median
• Widespread
desire for
landscaped
median
enhancements
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
I- f
212th
I
I 220th
I
ter,
1 228th
r-. r
j 7fIre
7 — — — - — J 2A4itlthD,Lorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
r-
a
M
L
0
CL
00
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
m
(D
0
r-
4)
CL
O
N
0
W
C
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 30
5.B.a
Pedestrian
Crossing
• More mid -block
crossings throughout
• Specifically:
— 228t" — new crossing just
completed
— Between 230-234t" near
Community Health Center
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
212th
I
I �
I �
220th
Apt-
� I
rI
228th
244itlthD,Lorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
_
a
M
L
0
00
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
m
0
r_
4)
CL
0
0
LU
S_
t
a
Packet Pg. 31
Y�
5.B.a
Pedestrian
Refuge
• At mid -block crossings
locations
• And key destinations
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
High School
212th
I /
I 216th
I Dicks
o°S Drive -In
Esperance
Park
J
I rl
/ J 228th
1
Health
— - Center
a f
I� r
Safeway�\
llii �
7 — — — - — J 244itlthD,Lorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
r_
CU
a
L
Cn
2
0
CL
w
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
d
f3
m
a
0
r_
0
U)
c
0
LU
C
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 32
5.B.a
Traffic
Calming
• Desire for traffic
calming on the
high speed
southern area
• Hwy 99 and Hwy
104 interchange
• 220t" in the
neighborhood
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
I ,
I 212th
I /
I �
I �
220th
I I
I I
_ J
r�
1 228th
� r
! —ink
Hwy99 & Hw�t,
Y
�/ v r
104 Interchange
e, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
a
M
L
0
CL
00
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
m
0
r-
rL
0
0
W
t
a
Packet Pg. 33
5.B.a
Enhanced
Transit
• Better
connection
mid -corridor
to future
regional rail
• Better
transfers at
south end
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
212th
220th
Connection to
Future Regional
Rail via 228th
J ' '
Better_ -
Transfers
1
�• � ��
r y tea••
7 — — — - — J 2A4itlthD,Lorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
c
R
a
M
L
0
CL
w
N
M
N
N
0
0
N
d
R
m
0
r_
4)
CL
0
N
0
LU
C
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 34
5.B.a
Wayfinding /
Signage
• Establish
Edmonds identity
on Hwy 99
• Sense of place
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
/ "12th
I �
220th
� s
CO
N
M
N
I / N
Future Regional
Rail via 228th N
I �
m
Ballinger
f Lake Park o
I 1 u �!
Southern 1 % +jJf ;a E
LU
Gateway �t
�arf4itlthDeLorme, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
v
a
Packet Pg. 35
Improved routes
and signage to
downtown
5.B.a
Community Values
Connectivity Destinations Beautification
o°
o,�
,o
V
Safety
0
c�
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Walkability
o°
oa
00
Affordable
Housing
F�q
Healthy
Businesses
oil
FREGONESE
5.B.a
What is Scenario Planning?
Traditional Approach
The Present
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
The Future
P fk
milk
,��. �� .., �. ►rf++t...� ,.. �...�� +,.++,-�� ice.-.,.. +.w r....-.y. .....+
FREGONESE
5.B.a
What is Scenario Planning?
Scenario Approach --
Plausible Stories About the Future
4*
6�
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
I
iElf 4, * VA
"r4M. %rd.f-1y — F-0,*
c
R
a
CU
L
am
CU
L
0
CL
00
N
M
N
N
O
O
tD
O
N
d
R
Q
3
m
d
N
7
0
c
m
a
O
U)
c
0
w
w
c
0
t
V
a
Packet Pg. 38
5.B.a
Identify Potential Redevelopment Parcels
& Focus Areas from Public Workshop
ef
MAR
�
,!
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 39
5.B.a
Many Sites are Less
than 25% Covered
with Buildings
• Blue = very low
building intensity
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
CU
212th
a�
L
Cn
220th I 0
CL
�co
N
M
N
to
228th
N
R
i,
Floor Area Ratio`
CO
aD
0.00 - 0.25
N
0
0.26 - 0.50
c
a�
a
Cn
0.51 - 1.00
Cn
1.01 +
0
E
W
None or Unknown
r
C
I 0
244th
2EGONESE
Packet Pg. 40
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
.in@
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
5.B.a
Determine Feasible Building Types
Calibrated in a Pro Forma for Edmonds Market
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE BY BUILDING TYPE:
$ilo BASE CASE
5100
Sao
S60
$40
$20
So
So
(5201
(Sw
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 43
5.B.a
The Impact of Higher Amenities
FEASIBILITY SPECTRUM
1
1
1 SAFTEY & STREET
1 IMPROVEMENTS
1
LI)tq%[09
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
5.B.a
Real-time Scenario Building and Evaluation
ru Edit ke.rt Paint UdE Io g¢bamea
�— APp" Ren En SEdA _ S,,Ed,
P-1 [aln 1 Select
y Ial pevelapn,em
0.11"...
I
1p
MAIN
■1
!!1`
go w=
Mdmlo,x Hosing Mlr � � �'
Mouabp Unila add MI,
Aa,.,<an.um.d
See Changes Instantly
3sd To.ddd la.oad
add 'adao ]z odp
B.00d
Lw zddd sd,ddd
200 600p •Muhl[an01, 8.0ap
■Nddsnial
■0evebped Alres 5,000 .Tacmhame
150 a,00a 6.Odd •ONMe
• Varr.lAues 51nEje Fen,lly
OR f o0d i dod � paud
50 - L.00a I.IuWle Hnn.e 3, OUR tw]
S—ado] 5—avio] 5<a 3 %—Mo4 Sre IoS _ 5,mano] 5renado2 San 3 5rmadal 5rena,ia5 5[t rwl S,a»aHot 51 a..x4.3 V-1.4 51-005
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 45
5.B.a
90m
O,ma
7,000
6,00g
5pm
4,000
3,000
2,006
1Dw
Land Use and Transportation Scenarios
117
Bu Scenario 1: SCenallO 2: 5cenarlo 3:
2 1$ting—dcrare level high level
rnnd" om of am nldo ofamenhies
I 1
11096 90% 100%
Potential achievable rents
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
% Change in Daily Non -Auto Internal Trips
■ Mu1u-lamny
. iownhome
140.0%
120.0%
® 5ingfa-lamlly
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
127.9%
40 0%
59.5%
20.0%
0.0%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
FFZEGONESE
Packet Pg. 46—]
5.B.a
Combined Land Use and Transportation
Scenarios for Edmond
• Scenario 1: near -term development opportunities & strategic,
cost-effective transportation improvement package
• Scenario 2: long term development opportunities & higher
quality, more costly transportation improvement package
• Key assumption:
— City addresses key zoning issues, such as providing transit -supportive
parking standards and improved pedestrian activity zone between
buildings and street
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
MMMMM=ff -Packet
4Pg47
5.B.a
Near -Term
Development
Opportunities
• North end
• 5-10 years
• Mix of 4-over-1 mixed
use buildings and 2-3
story apartment
buildings
• Residential capacity as
high as 800-1,600 new
units
)-8th
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
212th
220th
„r
i --�j
-�iq
a
L
Cn
0
Iz
00
N
M
7
N
N
O
O
tD
O
N
d
R
m
a�
0
Q
0
0
W
w
:_
0
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
4
5.B.a
Near -Term
Development
Opportunities
• South end
• 5-10 years
• Mix of 4-over-1
mixed use buildings
and 2-3 story
apartment buildings
• Residential capacity
as high as 800-1,600
new units
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
1
,frrr'
228th
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
Packet Pg. 49
5.B.a
Near -Term
Transportation
•..
-
ca
L
212th
Opportunities
■■■■...■.....■
�- ® ■n
■
i';�
3
• North End
• Within 5-10 years
ED
0
^�^
INTERSECTION CAPACITY&SAFETY
00
i
IMPROVEMENTS + PED REFUGE
cC
EXISTING SIGNALIZED
:
1.' ISLANDS
/
04
INTERSECTION AND PED XING
:
,. '�
N
® PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
22Coth
®
c
AND PEDESTFRIAN CFOSSING
N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL
F-1
IMPROVEMENTS
Q.
00000 NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION
a
SENSE NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
i■■■■■■■■�■■■■■
r
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR
c
PEDESTRIANS
�
F' NEW SIGNAL AND PED CROSSING
O
ACCESS MANAGEMENT {RAISED
AT REALIGNED 76TH AVENUE WAND
-a
MEDIANS}
■
■
99
o
228thr
SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY,
W
ADAANp LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
�
EDMONDS9
HIGHWAY 9
IL �•
a
Packet Pg. 50
5.B.a
Near -Term
Transportation
Opportunities
• South end
• Within 5-10 years
EXISTING SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION AND PED XING
PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
®
AND PEDESTFRIAN CFOSSING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL
❑
IMPROVEMENTS
■■■■■
NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION
SEEM■
NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PEDESTRIANS
ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED
MEDIANS)
EDMOND599
HIGHWAY
■rrrrrr2rrrrrr
28th rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrrrrrrrr
236th
SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE
VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENTS
SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY,
ADA AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
CONNECTION TO
FUTURE REGIONAL
COMMUNITY HEALTH �` fr, ; RAIL VIA228TH
CENTER
MID-BLOCKCH055ING #/♦
BETWEEN BUS STOPS ♦♦
AND(OMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER i
SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE
VISIBILITY, ADA AND ♦j
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ��rrrrrrrrrrr■
HIGH-VISI BILITY CROSSWALK
MARKINGS ON SR 104ON AND
OFF -RAMPS
244th
I=
a
cC
L
7
cn
M
3
t
2
C
O
N
R
00
N
M
N
N
w
0
W
r
O
N
m
sZ
m
d
rn
O
2
C
d
O
uJ
c
O
E
Lu
a
Packet Pg. 51
5.B.a
Long -Term
Development
Opportunities
• North end
• 10-20 years
• Mix of 5-over-1 mixed
use buildings and 3
story apartments
• Residential capacity as
high as 3,000-6,000
units
�r
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
220th
228th
11
AA
FREGONESE
Packet Pg. 52
5.B.a
Long -Term
Development
Opportunities
• South end
• 10-20 years
• Mix of 5-over-1
mixed use
buildings and 3
story apartments
• Residential
capacity as high as
3,000-6,000 units
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
236th
228th
Packet Pg. 53
5.B.a
Long -Term
Transportation
Opportunities
• North end
• Within 10-20 years
EXISTING SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION AND PED XING
® PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AND PEDESTFRIAN CFOSSING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
00001 NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PEDESTRIANS
ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED
MEDIANS)
EDMOND599
HIGHWAY
IES
■
■
■
I
♦
♦
--�--------------------------
,
Street Lighting
El
, L
Packet Pg. 54
5.B.a
Long -Term
Transportation
Opportunities
• South end
• Within 10-20 years
EXISTING SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION AND PED XING
®
PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AND PEDESTFRIAN CFOSSING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
00001
NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PEDESTRIANS
ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED
MEDIANS)
EDMOND599
HIGHWAY
_
.� - _ .. r _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _
_ . _ _
,
It
It If
WIDEN TO THREE LANES i
WITH CURB, GUTTER, BIKE i
LANES, AND SIDEWALK 1
WIDEN TO THREE LANES
WITH CURB, GUTTER, BIKE
LANES, AND SIDEWALK
IMPROVE LOCAL
BUS STOP NORTH-
BOUND ON 240TH
NEW SIGNAL, PE
AND PED REFUGG
NEW SIGNAL AND
PED CROSSING
AT 240TH
IMPROVE LOCAL BUS STOP
NORTHBOUND ON 240TH
RECONFIGURING OFF -RAMPS
FOR SAFER PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS
Packet Pg. 55
5.B.a
Scenario Performance
Indicators
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
C
Cu
a
Cu
a�
L
am
Cu
L
ME
a
Packet Pg. 56
5.B.a
I! Mt 1Mrrw tiA &Wkwrw
• 40y VAOM 1M lM
.r:_
.�0010
2. c.r
l...�C
W6.00 7-100 COMW
ttiv�
♦
,.fir
♦
oom tt♦rOwwrti
�d aww Oar
io
_Op'P/
r Wry
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Envision Tomorrow
■- — -- — — — - --r - --- - -— —---------
�� I I V I __J I NI./ I I UK Edition
to m o r rou,-
suite of torn planning and urban revitalisation tools
c
Cu
FL
M
L
M
Cn
� Jf :SA,
°
{: s'!CL
IEGONESE
CO
N
M
.l
0
w
Packet Pg. 57
5.B.a
Scenario Indicators
DEVELOPED ACRES
■ Vacant ■ Developed
NEAR -TERM OPPORTUNITIES LONG TERM OPPORTUNITIES
go -),04
mm5r 4�#rgi
EDMONDS
HIGHWAY 99
DEVELOPED ACRES
■ Vacant ■ Developed
NEAR -TERM OPPORTUNITIES LONG TERM OPPORTUNITIES
Packet Pg. 58
5.B.a
$250,000.00
$200,000.00
$150,000.00
$100,000.00
Scenario Indicators
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE PER ACRE
$221,128.39
$161,769.47
$50,000.00
Near -term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities
• Substantial tax revenue potential
EDMONDS
HIGHWAY
• Transit -oriented buildings have high value per acre,
"value density"
FREGONESE
5.B.a
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Scenario Indicators
Redevelopment
72%
62%
Near -term Opportunities
■ Housing ■
89%
91%
Long Term Opportunities
• New investment and development will be heavily °
reliant on redevelopment °
W
w
C
v
EDMONDS C)FREGONESE
Packet Pg. 60
5.B.a
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Scenario Indicators
Housing by Type
Existing Near -term Opportunities
Long Term Opportunities
Large Lot Single Family Conventional Lot Single Family Small Lot Single Family Townhome Multifamily Mobile Home
• New housing in the corridor will mostly be
multifamily
• Opportunities for more affordable housing types
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I AS SO C I AT E S
Packet ..
5.B.a
12,000
10,000
1,104
8,000
.se
5,886
4,000
2,000 V
2,405
Existing
Scenario Indicators
. Retail Office ■ Industrial
c
R
a
L
M
Cn
rn
0
a�
1,690
.8.
a
w
5,631 N
M
N
N
0
2,961 co
0
N
Near -term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities
a
Public / Civic Educational Hotel / Hospitality Commercial Parking '
m
a
a
• Corridor already heavy in employment
• Most new growth will likely be residential rL
o
Employment by Type
1,093
5,821
2,565
• Possible exception are major office users and hospital
0
expansion W
.14
EDMOND599
HIGHWAY
IEGONESE
w
Packet Pg. 62
5.B.a
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Scenario Indicators
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions per Household
5.1 4.7
Existing Near -term Opportunities
4.6
Long Term Opportunities
• Shift to more compact housing types reduces
energy use and carbon emissions of future
residents
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I EIASSOCIATES
Pac et ..
5.B.a
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
243.2
Existing
Scenario Indicators
Internal Water Use per Household
220.0
Near -term Opportunities
Internal Water Consumption (G/Day)
183.1
Long Term Opportunities
• Similarly, a shift to smaller units and more compact
housing reduces infrastructure demands, such as
water use and waste generation
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S 0 C I A T E S
5.B.a
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
167.5
Existing
Scenario Indicators
Waste Water per Household
149.3
Near -term Opportunities
Waste Water (G/Day)
120.4
Long Term Opportunities
• Similarly, a shift to smaller units and more compact
housing reduces infrastructure demands, such as
water use and waste generation
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S 0 C I A T E S
5.B.a
c
R
a
Scenario Indicators L
Daily Internal Walk Trips per Unit Daily Internal Walk Trips per Unit
7,000 300%
c
6,000 250% 00
r
5,000
200% a
4,000
6,662 150% M
3,000 247%
100% N
2,000 3,479 c
1,000 1,918 50% 81%
0
N
- 0% d
Existing Near -term Long Term Near -term Opportunity Long Term Opportunity a
Opportunity Opportunity
Total per Dwelling Unit m
Total per Dwelling Unit N
0
• Safety improvement, additional housing and
frequent transit service "complete" the corridor °
and greatly expand walking -0
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
IEGONESE
w
0
Packet Pg. 66
5.B.a
Scenario Indicators
Change in Phyical Activity (METs Expended)
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
3.3%
1.0%
0.5% 0.8%
0.0%
Near -term Opportunity Long Term Opportunity
Daily METs per Capita
• More walking increases passive exercise and
improves public health
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S 0 C I A T E S
Packet •
5.B.a
c
R
a
Scenario Indicators L
Estimated Daily Transit Trips Daily Transit Trips (% Change)
9,000 25.0%
O
8,000
a�
r
7,000 20.0%
a
6,000
5,000
15.0% N
M
7
4,000 7,723 10.0% 21.9% N
3,000 5 573 5,941 c
2,000
5.0% N
1,000 7 6% '
m
R
0.0% Q
Existing Near -term Long Term Near -term Opportunity Long Term Opportunity m
Opportunity Opportunity 4)
Total per Dwelling Unit
Total per Dwelling Unit O
c
m
• Expanded housing and improved safety increase
transit ridership substantially
O
W
EDMOND599
HIGHWAY
IEGONESE
w
Packet Pg. 68
5.B.a
Scenario Indicators
Daily Vehicle Trips per Household
Near -term Opportunity Long Term Opportunity
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0% -3.8%
-3.0%
-4.0%
-8.9%
-5.0%
-6.0%
-7.0%
-8.0%
-9.0%
-10.0%
Total per Dwelling Unit (MXD)
• Safety improvement and additional transit -
oriented housing opportunities reduce reliance on
the automobile
0 !� TqM
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S O C I A T E S
Packet ;69
5.B.a
Scenario Indicators
Change in Traffic Accidents per Capita
0.0%
-2.0% -3.5%
-4.0%
-6.0% -11.2%
Near -term Opportunity Long Term Opportunity
Crashes per Capita
• Fewer auto trips and safety improvements reduce
traffic accidents
11041T
IT'., N
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
FREGONESE
I A S S 0 C I A T E S
Packet • 70
5.B.a
Scenario Indicators
Transportation Costs (per
Transportation Costs (per
Household)
Household)
$1,000
0.0%
$900
2.0%
$800
-4.9%
$700
-4.0%
00
-6.0%
-12.6%
$600
$400
$892 $848 $780
-8.0%
$300
-10.0%
$200
$100
12.0%
$-
-14.0%
Existing Near -term Long Term
Near -term Long Term
Opportunity Opportunity
Opportunity Opportunity
• Safety improvements and
transit -oriented housing
options reduce household transportation costs
.1 4TIM
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
IE A S S O C I A T E S
5.B.a
Next Steps:
• Incorporate Open House and Agency Feedback
• Refine scenarios
• Draft Sub -Area Plan
• New policies or policy changes
• Capital projects list (short term and long term)
• Prepare Planned Action EIS
Packet Pg. 72
5.B.a
Understanding
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Project Timeline
Develop Sub-
r.
Packet Pg. 73
5.B.a
Questions?
Visit www.EdmondsHWY99.org for more information such as
project updates, workshop results, upcoming events and more.
EDMOND599 HIGHWAY
Packet Pg. 74
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2016
Recommendation on Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Sign Code regarding temporary (e.g. A -
frame) signs and other amendments to address a number of other minor clarifications and code
language updates/issues.
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Planning Board has had several discussions on options for temporary portable signs downtown,
including their meetings of April 27 and May 11, 2016. A Public Hearing was held on May 25, 2016 to
gather input on three options dealing with temporary (e.g. A -frame) signs in the Downtown area,
including (1) banning temporary portable signs such as A -frames, (2) allowing them as temporary signs
for 60 days only (same as current code), or (3) allowing them as a form of permanent signage with
restrictions on time, place and manner. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary portable
signs, the draft amendments address a number of other minor clarifications and code language
updates/issues. At the June 8, 2016 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board indicated a preference
for Option 3 and requested staff prepare a recommendation to City Council for Option 3 and the other
clarifying amendments.
Staff Recommendation
Forward recommendation to City Council to create new section ECDC 20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs and
other sign code language clarifications.
Narrative
The City Council requested the Planning Board to provide recommendations concerning temporary
portable signs in the downtown area. Staff is also working on updates to the City's development code on
various subjects, and some minor updates to the sign code are incorporated into the drafts being
considered here.
Various types of signs are used as temporary portable signs downtown, including A -frames, stanchions,
easels, etc. In the updated code the proposal is simply to call all of these signs "pedestrian signs" for
simplicity's sake.
For pedestrian signs in the downtown area (e.g. A -frame, stanchion, or other freestanding portable
signs), the existing code considers these to be 'temporary signs' and only allows them for a total of 60
days in a calendar year. The Planning Board considered 3 options regarding these types of signs: Option
1 would have no longer permitted pedestrian signs, Option 2 would maintain pedestrian signs but
require a permit so the signs could be tracked, and Option 3 would permit "pedestrian signs" as
permanent signage (so that the 60-day limit no longer applies), but also include specific conditions on
Packet Pg. 75
7.A
duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb, and only in front of the
store), and how many (only one per ground floor entrance).
After considering public comments and deliberating on the three options for pedestrians signs, the
Planning Board settled on Option 3 as the preferred option (Attachment 1). The Planning Board also
expressed support for the other minor amendments to the sign code considered in this update.
Attachment 2 is a draft recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council given the Planning
Board's guidance to staff.
Attachments:
PB Recomm._SIGNS 6_22_16
Edmonds ECDC 20.60 Sign Code - Planning Board draft Recommendation: Pedestrian Signs as permanent
signage subject to restrictions
Sign Code Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 76
7.A.a
'11 . 18yV
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 Sch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 42S.771.0220 • Fax: 42S.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposal: ECDC 20.60 Sign Code Update
File Number: AMD20160002
From:
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Date: June 22, 2016
SCOPE OF SIGN CODE UPDATE
The City Council requested the Planning Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable
signs (pedestrian signs) in the downtown area. While the broader code update may consider additional
amendments to the sign code, this update is primarily focused on the temporary portable signs in the
downtown area. In addition to the temporary portable sign issue, the recommended amendments also
includes a number of proposed guideline provisions intended to clean up and update the code language
based on issues that have arisen from implementing the existing code. None of the recommended
changes would increase the number of signs or the amount of sign area currently allowed by the sign
code.
PUBLIC PROCESS
The City has held two open houses (August 3, 2015 and December 15, 2015) soliciting opinions for and
options to address portable signs in the downtown area. The Planning Board has discussed the sign code
over the course of seven meetings, including a public hearing on May 25, 2016. In addition to the public
meetings, numerous written comments were submitted with recommendations and concerns about
portable signs in the downtown area.
COMMENTS
The Planning Board received comments from the downtown business community as well as citizens who
frequent the downtown area. Some general concerns about portable signs included visual clutter,
pedestrian obstacles as signs are placed on the sidewalks, and issues with enforcement as currently the
temporary portable signs are limited to being displayed only 60 days during a calendar year. Businesses
expressed the importance of pedestrian signs in attracting customers. Businesses outside of the main
shopping corridor also expressed a need for off -site signage to direct customers to their locations.
Opinions were also offered regarding sign design (e.g. uniform sign design) and difficulties of sign
placement on older structures under the existing sign code.
Packet Pg. 77
7.A.a
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Having considered all of the public comments and evaluated the pros and cons of various options, the
Planning Board respectfully submits the amendments included in Attachment 1 for the City Council's
consideration. This recommended code will create a new section in the sign code for pedestrian signs
(ECDC 20.60.055) that will permit pedestrian signs as a new type of permanent signage with specific
conditions. This recommended code will:
• Limit the number of pedestrian signs to one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance,
• Require signs to be brought in when the business is closed,
• Restrict the placement of pedestrian signs to ensure clear path for pedestrian access,
• Provide enough flexibility for placement to address each site's specific conditions,
• Require a permit for signs which will aid in enforcement, and
• Count each pedestrian sign towards the overall number and square footage of signage allowed per
business.
The Planning Board also fully supports the other recommended amendments to clarifying and updating
the sign code. These amendments will make the code more understandable and provide opportunity for
the City to work with odd architectural situations in order to accommodate necessary signage opportunity
In addition to the recommended code amendments, the Planning Board encourages the City Council
consider the following items of concern:
Neither the existing nor the recommended sign code allows for off -site [`off -premises'] signage.
Businesses with locations off the beaten path or in hard to find locations expressed a strong need
for signage that can direct traffic to their locations. The Planning Board recommends the City
develop a program that provides directional signage at strategic locations downtown that could
direct traffic to businesses similar to other City directional signage around town. The Planning
Board recognizes there may be legal ramifications of such a program and maintenance issues with
such signs; however, the City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses and signage is an
important for businesses to remain vital. Such a program could be developed with input from the
Arts Commission and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance.
• Numerous comments were received encouraging uniform design in signage. While the Planning
Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed
amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code
requirements. The Planning Board encourages some level of uniformity in the design for
pedestrian signs.
• The sign code allows and encourages blade signs by not counting the sign area of blade signs four
feet or less against the allowable sign area. Nothing in the code prevents blade signs from
accommodating changing information. The City should encourage the use of blade signs as a
means for businesses to provide changing information.
Packet Pg. 78
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Chapter 20.60
SIGN CODE
Sections:
20.60.000
Purpose.
20.60.005
Definitions.
20.60.010
Permit required.
20.60.015
Design review procedures.
20.60.020
General regulations for permanent signs.
20.60.025
Total maximum permanent sign area.
20.60.030
Wall signs— Maximum area and height.
20.60.035
Window signs — Maximum area.
20.60.040
Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions.
20.60.045
Freestanding signs— Regulations.
20.60.050
Wall graphic and identification structures.
20.60.055
Pedestrian Signs
20.60.060
Campaign signs.
20.60.065
Real estate signs.
20.60.080
Temporary signs.
20.60.070
Construction signs.
20.60.090
Prohibited signs.
20.60.095
Exempt signs.
20.60.100
Administration.
Page 1/18
20.60.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to enact regulatory measures to implement those goals and policies stated in the
Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan and to achieve the following objectives:
A. Protect the public right-of-way from obstructions which would impair the public's use of their right-of-way.
B. Minimize the hazard to the public represented by distractions to drivers from moving, blinking, or other similar
forms of signage or visual clutter.
C. Provide for distinct signage for each distinct property.
D. Encourage the use of graphics/symbols to reduce the visual clutter associated with overly large letters or
extensive use of lettering.
E. Minimize potential for view blockage and visual clutter along public rights -of -way. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of the enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
"Attached sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building. Attached signs include wall signs, projecting signs, and
window signs.
"Boxed cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly rectangular in
shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the message of the sign by replacing a single transparent
or translucent material such as a Plexiglas/lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign
that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign, or an "outline
cabinet sign."
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 79
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 2/18
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
"Building ID/historic sign" is a permanent sign that identifies or names a building and assists in creating landmarks
in the city. Examples include dates, "1890"; names, "Beeson Building"; or addresses.
"Campaign sign" is a temporary sign displaying a message relating to a candidate, political party, or issue that is
registered or certified for an upcoming election.
"Commercial sign" is a sign displayed for the purpose of identifying a commercial use, or advertising a service,
product, business or venture that is offered for trade or sale.
"Community event banner" is a noncommercial sign composed of cloth, fabric, canvas or similarly flexible material
that promotes a temporary community event endorsed, operated or sponsored wholly or in part by a local public
entity the jurisdiction of which includes the city of Edmonds. "Community events" are nonprofit, governmental or
charitable festivals, contests, programs, fairs, carnivals or recreational contests conducted within the city.
"Construction sign" is a permanent or temporary sign displayed on premises where any physical excavation,
construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work is currently occurring, pursuant to a
valid building permit.
"Directional symbols" are small in size (two square feet or less) and intended to provide on -site directions to
specific locations or areas (such as parking areas, drive -through facilities, ATMs and entries and/or exits), hours of
operation, parking limitations, warnings of hazards, prohibition of activities (such as "no parking"), historical
markers and similar public information. Directional symbols are not considered to be signage as regulated in this
chapter.
"Fixed sign" is any sign attached or affixed to the ground or any structure in such a manner so as to provide for
continuous display for an extended or indeterminable period of time. Fixed signs include, but are not limited to,
freestanding signs and wall signs.
"Freestanding sign" is any sign that is not attached or affixed to a building. Freestanding signs can be further
described as "monument signs" or "pole signs."
"Governmental sign" is a sign owned, operated or sponsored by a governmental entity, and which promotes the
public health, safety or welfare. Governmental signs include, but are not limited to, traffic signs, directional and
informational signs for public facilities, publicly sponsored warning or hazard signs, and community event banners
displayed by a governmental entity on public property.
"Group sign" is a sign or signs on one sign structure serving two or more businesses sharing a parking facility.
"Halo sign" is a sign where the light source is concealed behind an opaque face and the rays of illumination are
projected outward around the edges of the sign or directed against the surface behind the sign forming a
silhouette or halo effect. Halo signs are not considered to be internally illuminated signs for the purposes of this
chapter.
"Identification structure" is a structure intended to attract the attention of the public to a site, without the use of
words or symbols identifying the businesses. Examples include fountains, sculptures, awnings, and totem poles.
"Internally illuminated signs" include any sign where light shines through a transparent or semi -transparent sign
face to illuminate the sign's message. Exposed neon is considered to be a form of internal illumination.
"Marquee" or canopy is a permanent roofed structure attached and supported by the building.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 80
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 3/18
"Marquee sign" is any sign attached to or made a part of a building marquee. A marquee sign is a form of
projecting sign.
"Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design
of the sign and sign base.
"Noncommercial sign" is a sign that is intended to display a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental,
informational, political, educational, or artistic message, that is not primarily associated with a good, product, or
service offered for sale or trade. Noncommercial signs include signs advertising incidental and temporary
commercial activities conducted by churches and nonprofit businesses, clubs, groups, associations or
organizations.
"Off -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting, that is
offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at some location or premises other than that upon which the sign is
posted or displayed. Off -premises signs include all signs posted or displayed in the public right-of-way.
"On -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting that is
lawfully permitted to be offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at the location or premises upon which the
sign is posted or displayed. On -premises signs also include signs not related to any particular location or premises,
such as signs displaying religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic
messages that are intentionally displayed by the owner of the property or premises upon which the sign is
displayed.
"Outline cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that roughly follows the shape
of the text or symbology of the sign and provides for internal illumination. This definition is meant to distinguish
between a cabinet sign that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a rectangular
box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be treated more like an "individual letter sign" where
the area of the sign is calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign.
"Permanent sign" is a fixed or portable sign intended for continuous or intermittent display for periods exceeding
60 days in any calendar year.
"Pole signs" are freestanding signs where the structural support for the sign is one or more aexposed pole(s). Pole
signs may include community event banners where the banner is supported by at least two poles that are
permanently attached to the ground ("pole -mounted community event banners"). However, pole signs with two
poles that are not more than six (6) feet in height are considered to be monument signs.
"Portable sign" is any sign that is readily capable of being moved or removed, whether attached or affixed to the
ground or any structure that is typically intended for temporary display. Portable signs include, but are not limited
to:
1. Signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels;
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 81
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 4/18
2. Pedestrian signs, including signs such as A -frame (sandwich board), stanchion, easel, or post -style signs
8. "A" and „T„ fFaFne signs;
4. Wooden, metal, or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs;
S. Posters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees, hedges, or other structures or vegetation,
except for pole -mounted community event banners;
6. Signs mounted upon vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the
related business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of the business, and
except for signs advertising for sale the vehicle upon which the sign is mounted;
7. Searchlights;
8. Inflatables.
"Premises" is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the
boundaries ef the BG eF BD zene iR the dewRtewn aetivity eenteF aS defined in the eeMpFehensive plan, where
11 pFemffises" shall include any portion of the publie sidewalk which fronts upon the let.
"Projecting sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends
more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall.
"Reader board sign" is a sign that is designed to allow for a change in the message, either by adding or removing
plastic letters, or by means of electronics and lights. Reader boards do not include signs which have a changeable
message where the sign does not change more than once per day and where the changeable features are
integrated with the background and overall design of the sign, including the sign's typefaces, colors and
symbology. Individual letters or numbers placed on a solid colored background is considered to be a reader board.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 82
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 5/18
Two Left: Acceptable changeable message sign;
Two Rieht: A reader board.
OPEN HOUSENOVEMBER It •a
ILI
ro- !�EVlLAR PCWEHEOr THE SOHCOIH AHU WORSHIPPASTOR HARRY H JOHNS ill
"Real estate sign" is a sign displaying a message relating to the sale or rent of real property.
"Sign" is any structure, device or fixture that is visible from a public place, that incorporates graphics, symbols, or
written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message to public observers, including wall graphics or
identification structures.
"Sign area" is the maximurn actual area of a sign that as visible from any single point of ebseF1.f_Rt6A_1n frArn any public
vantage paint. SUPP90ing Strue-A-Hre-S vilhieh aFe paFt of a sign display shall be n the calculation of the sign
area area of a sign on which copy is to be placed, as set forth in ECDC 20.60.020(A).
"Temporary sign" is an allowed per a sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar days in
any calendar year. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 are not regulated as temporary
Signs.
"Wall graphic" is a wall sign, including murals, in which color and form, and primarily without the use of words, is a
part of the overall design on the building(s) where the wall graphic is proposed. A wall graphic may be painted or
applied (not to exceed one-half inch in thickness) to a building as a part of its overall color and design, but may not
be internally lighted. Internally lighted assemblies, including those which project from the wall of the structure, or
which are located on any accessory structure on the site, shall be considered wall signs and comply with the
requirements of this chapter.
"Wall sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a wall and that is parallel to and not projecting more than 12
inches at any angle from such wall. Wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall.
"Window sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a window, or a sign displayed within 24 inches of the inside of
a window in such a manner as to be visible from any public place. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3631 § 1, 2007; Ord.
3628 § 8, 2007; Ord. 3561 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3514 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031.
20.60.010 Permit required.
A. Except as provided in this chapter, no permanent sign may be constructed, installed, posted, displayed or
modified without first obtaining a sign permit approving the proposed sign's size, design, location, and display as
provided for in this chapter.
B. Design approval is not required for the posting of permanent signs in residential zones; provided, that the
restrictions and standards of this chapter are met. If additional signage is requested for conditional or
nonconforming uses in residential zones, the property owner shall apply for design review. Design review is not
required for any sign which does not require a building permit.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 83
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 6/18
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
C. A sign modification shall include, but is not limited to, relocations, modifications to size, design, height or color
scheme, or the replacement of 25 percent or more of the structural material in the sign area. Normal and ordinary
maintenance and repair, and changes to the graphics, symbols, or copy of a sign, without affecting the size,
structural design, height, or color scheme, shall not constitute modifications for purposes of this section. [Ord.
3514 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.015 Design review procedures.
A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,
and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all
applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application
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; provided, that for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review
the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the
planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural
design board are appealable to the Hearing Examiner.Feveewable as a Type II appeal (See ECDC 20 n1 005)
established On Chapter 20.105 EGDG fOF appeal of sta4 deeffisions and signs reviewed under subsection (A)(!) of this
section are appealable as provided theFeimn-.
1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board
for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the
potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety:
a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter;
b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter;
c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not
consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed below in
subsection (B)(1) and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this
section.
n ae-ee—rd-ance with the pelicies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteFla set fOFth in ECDC 20.10.070, and the standards and
Fecluirements of this chapteF. The decision of the architectural design board on any sign permit application may be
appealed te the city ceuncil PUFSuant te the precedUFe established in ECDC 20.10.080 feF appeal ef aFChitectural
design board decisions.
1. The ADB shall review any Assign 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 foll.,,.,in
Uiter+a that arise from one of the following two situations:
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 or topography;
b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details
that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity.
2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria:
ea. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and
proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity;
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 84
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 7/18
db. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by
more than 50 percent.
C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the
planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in
accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may
make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or
artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by
theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing
a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure established in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure
quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or
message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork
with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of
the downtown area.
2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to:
a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork;
b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component;
c. Material/color samples;
d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a
description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements;
a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of
liability by applicant or designee; and
e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from
the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated
historic district.
3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include:
a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no
fluorescent paints;
b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering.
Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and
c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent
structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale,
color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may
be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not
be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an
existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the
existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the
same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60,
2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 85
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 8/18
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs.
A. Sian Area. The area of a Bien shall be calculated as follows:
1. The area of a sign is maximum actual area of a sign that is visible from anv single point of observation
from any public vantage point. The sign area is normally the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire
copy area of the sign.
2. Individual letters, numbers or symbols applied directly to a wall or structure and used to form the sign
shall be calculated individually;
3. Supporting structures which are part of a sign display shall be included in the calculation of the sign area,
except that the supporting structure of a monument sign or pole sign shall not be included when
calculating the sign area.
STORE ?
NAME 1
MpS
Left: Sign Area = X * Y Right: Applied individual letters are calculated separately
Monument sign: the base is not included in the calculation of sign area (dashed rectangle)
A. When located on a wall or mansard roof, no sign may extend above the highest point of the wall or mansard
roof when the mansard roof is on a one-story building., or above the eave er drip line ^f a ^`*^bell roof on which it
lecated. Other than a mansard roof on a one-story building, ,-a sign may not be attached above the eave or drip
line on a pitched roof.
B. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, no sign or any part of a sign may be designed or
constructed to be moving by any means and shall not contain items such as banners, ribbons, streamers and
spinners. Signs with type that is movable to change the message (reader boards) are allowed, subject to the
specific requirements detailed elsewhere in this chapter.
C. "moo^ signs shall Signs that extend into or over a public right-of-way unless an ehment ^ „.,:} has been
approved fseeshall comply with -Chapter 18.70 ECDC4.
D. Exposed braces and angle irons are prohibited unless they are part of a decorative design that is integral to the
design of the sign. Guywires are prohibited unless there are no other practical means of supporting the sign.
E. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing
light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs that conform in all other respects to this
chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have messages that change, however, moving messages are not
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 86
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 9/18
allowed. Messages that change at intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not
allowed.
F. No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or adjacent property.
G. No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer than eight inches on
center.
H. 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. No window signs above the first floor shall be illuminated.
J. Sign height shall be determined as follows:
1. For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point on the sign to the average
finished grade.
2. For freestanding signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point of the sign area or its
support to the average elevation of undisturbed se4the finished grade at the base of the supports.
K. Portable signs may not be used as permanent signage; only fixed signs are permitted.
L. The following matrix summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city:
Sign Type
Downtown'
SR-99'
Westgate/SR-1043
Neighborhood
Commercial (BN BP
and FVMU Zones)
Business Uses in RM
Zones
Wall -mounted
P
P
P
P
P
Monument
C
P
P
C
C
Pole
N
P
N
N
N
Projecting
P
P
P
P
P
Internal Illumination
C
P
P
C
N
Reader Boards
C
C
C
C
C
Individual Letters
P
P
P
P
P
Boxed Cabinet
N
P
C
C
N
Building ID
P
P
P
P
p
5;A1g(a,.0,,h PARF,JS
Pedestrian
P
N
N
N
N
Wall Graphics
C
C
C
C
C
' Downtown includes all properties within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
SR-99 includes all properties within the Medical -Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
3 Westgate/SR-104 includes all properties within the Westgate Corridor, the Edmonds Way Corridor, and within the Westgate Community
Commercial area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 87
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 10/18
Note: In the above table, P = Permitted; N = Not permitted; C = Conditionally permitted through design review if consistent with the standards
itemized in ECDC 20.60.020(M).
M. The following standards clarify how some signs identified as "conditionally permitted" must be installed to be
permitted in the city of Edmonds.
1. 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.
2. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial areas may only light the
letters or logos/symbols. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated.
3. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas must be
mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning.
4. Internally illuminated signs that use exposed neon may only be located in the interior of buildings in the
downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas.
5. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height.
6. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only.
7. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Public uses and places of
assembly include, but are not limited to, schools and churches as well as local and regional public facilities.
8. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and compliment the colors
used on the building.
9. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination
to shine through. [Ord. 3631 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area.
A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, CW and CG).
1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones
shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance to the
primary building or structure located upon a separate legal lot.
2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the CG zone shall be 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
shall be computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that
frontage may be oriented along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be accumulated to
yield a total allowable sign area greater than that permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses
choosing not to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their allowable freestanding sign area
for additional attached sign area. Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the architectural
design board.
3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs,
in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC
20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less and Windew
window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign
area permitted.
4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or three per physically enclosed
business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. A site with more than one street frontage
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 88
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 11/18
is allowed a maximum of five (5) signs. Pro[ecting (including blade) signs of four square feet or less and
Wandew-window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total number of
permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites are allowed one additional group sign per street frontage
identifying the individual subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also
comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter.
5. Where permitted, pedestrian signs do count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs
permitted.
B. Residential Zone Districts (RS, RM).
1. The maximum allowable signage area for individual residential lots shall be four square feet per street
frontage, except as provided in subsection (13)(2) of this section.
2. The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments
(PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street
entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance.
3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall and freestanding signs, in
accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC
20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count
against the total permanent sign area permitted.
4. Signage in excess of that provided in subsections (13)(1) and (2) of this section for lawful nonconforming or
conditional nonresidential uses in residential zones may be approved through the issuance of a sign permit
pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010, subject to the maximum area and height limitations established for signs in the
BN zone.
5. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is one, except that multifamily sites with more than
one vehicular entrance may have one permanent sign per entrance. The total sign area of all signs (excluding
incidental signs) permitted on -site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in
this chapter. [Ord. 3805 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3628 § 9, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height.
A. The maximum area of any wall sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign
RS, RM
4 square feet
BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG,
WMU, FVMU
1 square foot per lineal foot of attached
wall
B. The maximum height of any attached sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Height of Sign
RS, RM
6 feet
BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGL
14 feet or the height of the face of the
WMU, FVMU
building on which the sign is located,
consistent with ECDC 20.60.020(A)
[Ord. 3628 § 10, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 89
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 12/18
20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area.
The maximum area of any window sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign
RS, RM
4 square feet
BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG,
WMU,FVMU
1 square foot per each lineal foot of
window frontage
[Ord. 3628 § 11, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031.
20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions.
A. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign
RS, RM
Not permitted
BN, BP BC, BD, CW.
WMU, FVMU
16 square feet
CG
32 square feet
B. The maximum height of any projecting sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Height of Sign
RS, RM
Not permitted
BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGS
WMU, FVMU
44-feeFHeight of the wall to which the
sign is attached
C. The bettem of the SigR area of prejecting sign-s shall be at least eight feet in height and at least 1-1- feet in height
;f ;t projects eve.r a „hide traveled right of .. The sign area of a marquee sign may not exceed two feet in
vertical dimension. [Ord. 3628 § 12, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations.
A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the
applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative signage
methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement.
B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign
RS, RM
10 square feet (subdivision, PRD, multifamily)
4 square feet (individual residence sign)
BN BP
24 square feet (single)
48 square feet (group)
BC, BD, WMU,
32 square feet (single)
FVMU
48 square feet (group)
CW
32 square feet (single)
48 square feet (group)
CG
Sign area shall be governed by subsection (C) of
this section
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 90
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 13/18
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on
general commercial sites shall be 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. Multiple business or
tenant sites shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial
tenant or occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to
accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet.
D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Height of Sign
R5, RM
6 feet
BN, BBC, BD, CW,
WMU, FVMU
14 feet
CG
25 feet
E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which
they are located. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, freestanding signs may not be located on
public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each
frontage. Monument signs not more than six feet in height may be located in a zoning setback, but not less than
five (5) feet from a property line.
F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, 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 subject to the restrictions on area contained within this chapter.
G. Landscaping.
1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the size of the sign area at the base of the sign
The landscaping and sign base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing.
2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated
costs of the landscaping, or $1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance with
Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 3631 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 13, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures.
There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031.
20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs.
Pedestrian signs are only permitted on private property and in the adjacent right-of-way in the BC, BD, CW, and CG
zones located within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian
signs are only permitted if they meet the following requirements.
1. Pedestrian signs maybe permitted to be located either (1) between the business ground floor
entrance and the public right-of-way, or (2) on the sidewalk in front of the business storefront if
the pedestrian sign meets the following standards.
a. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor entrance;
b. Businesses may make arrangements to rotate their pedestrian signs provided they meet the
one sign -per -ground floor entrance standard;
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 91
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 14/18
c. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location
that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access:
d. A business with multiple ground floor entrances shall have no more than one pedestrian
sign.
e. The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to
pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of
the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles;
f. Pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public.
Pedestrian signs are limited to six (6) square feet in area and 3-1/2 feet in height for A -frame
or sandwich board signs, or six (6) square feet in area and 4-1/2 feet in height for stanchion,
easel or other types of pedestrian signs.
20.60.060 Campaign signs.
A. On -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in all zones, subject to the maximum
sign size limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080.
B. Off -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in the public right-of-way; provided,
that the following requirements are met:
1. All campaign signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B).
2. All off -premises campaign signs shall be removed within 10 days after the primary, general, or special
election to which they pertain.
3. Off -premises campaign signs shall be posted and displayed no earlier than upon declaration of candidacy in
accordance with Chapter 29.15 RCW, or other formal registration or certification of the candidate, party,
initiative, referendum or other ballot issue for an upcoming election, or 60 days prior to the election,
whichever time period is greater.
C. There is no maximum number of off -premises campaign signs that may be posted. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.065 Real estate signs.
A. On -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial
zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080.
B. Off -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage, subject to the following
requirements:
1. Two and only two types of off -premises real estate signs shall be permitted:
a. An off -premises real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and either a
company or logo, or an indication that the property is for sale by its owner, and installed for the purpose
of directing the public to the property.
b. An off -premises open house sign is a form of temporary off -premises sign indicating the property is
currently open for viewing.
2. All off -premises real estate signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC
20.60.080(B ).
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 92
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 15/18
3. The maximum number of off -premises real estate signs allowed per property shall only be the number
reasonably necessary to direct people to the premises. An agent or owner shall be permitted no more than
one off -premises real estate directional sign per intersection and five in total. No more than one off -premises
open house sign shall be displayed per intersection and no more than five in total.
a. Each off -premises real estate directional sign shall bear a legible tag located on the sign or supporting
post indicating the date of posting and the address of the property to which it pertains.
b. Off -premises real estate open house signs shall only be posted during daylight hours when the real
estate agent or owner is in attendance at the property for sale or rent, and shall be removed
immediately upon the termination of an "open house" or other similar property display event.
4. No off -premises real estate signs shall be fastened to any traffic control device, public structure, fence,
rock, tree or shrub.
C. All on -premises and all off -premises real estate directional signs shall be removed within seven days after the
closing of the sale or lease of real property to which the sign pertains. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031.
20.60.070 Construction signs.
Construction signs shall, irrespective of their duration, conform to the general regulations for permanent signs
specified under ECDC 20.60.020. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum area of a
construction sign in any zone shall be 32 square feet. No sign permit is required for the posting of construction
signs; provided, that all construction signs shall be removed from the premises within 10 days of the cessation of
the excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work on site.
Zone
Maximum Area of Signage (per Street Frontage)
RS
16 square feet, or 32 square feet if one sign is
displayed for a project consisting of building
permits issued for four lots or more. Only one sign
may be displayed per project.
All other
32 square feet
zones
The preceding square footages shall be in addition to any other temporary signage permitted by ECDC 20.60.080
[Ord. 3514 § 3, 20041.
20.60.080 Temporary signs.
A. On -Premises Temporary Signs. On -premises temporary signs are permitted in residential and commercial zones,
in addition to any allowed or permitted permanent signage, subject to the following restrictions and standards:
1. Residential Zones (RS, RM).
a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used as temporary signage.
b. Commercial on -premises temporary signage is not permitted, except for real estate signs as defined by
ECDC 20.60.065.
c. Maximum number is one attached or freestanding sign.
2. Commercial Zones (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, FVMU, CW, CG).
a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used for temporary signage; PFeVi ed, that
"sandwiel; heard" er "A" frame portable signs shall only be permitted In the 13C, BD and QU zener.
"Attached" signs may be affixed to any existing building or sign structure that is permitted as a
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 93
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 16/18
permanent structure on the property. New temporary structures whose sole purpose is to display the
temDorary sien are not otherwise permitted.
b. Maximum duration of display is 60 days in any calendar year for the cumulative posting of all
temporary commercial signage upon each commercial location or premises. A permit is required,
specifying the duration and location of display.
c. Maximum number of temporary signs is one freestanding sign per property street frontage, and one
attached sign per building.
3. The total maximum area of on -premises temporary signage shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Temporary Sign
RS, RM
6 square feet
BN, BP BC, BD, CW,
WMU, FVMU
20 square feet
CG
30 square feet
4. The total maximum area for each allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Temporary Sign
RS, RM
6 square feet (freestanding and attached)
BN, BP BC, BD,
6 squape feet (fFeest nd ng)
CW, WMU,
20 square feet (attached)
FVMU
CG
6 square feet (freestanding)
30 square feet (attached)
5. The maximum height of any allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows:
Zone
Maximum Height of Sign
RS, RM
6 feet (freestanding and attached)
BN, BP BC, BD, CW,
CG, WMU, FVMU
3 feet (freestand ng)
14 feet (attached)
6. In no case shall temporary signage be posted, located, or displayed in violation of the regulations for
permanent signs set forth in ECDC 20.60.020 through 20.60.050.
B. Off -Premises Temporary Signage. Off -premises temporary signs are allowed in residential and commercial
zones, in accordance with the restrictions and standards set forth below:
1. Commercial off -premises temporary signage is prohibited, except for real estate signs as permitted by ECDC
20.60.065; provided, that such off -premises real estate signs shall be posted, displayed, and removed as
provided for in that section, in addition to the provisions of subsections (13)(5) through (9) of this section.
2. Noncommercial off -premises signs are permitted in the public right-of-way; provided, that the posting and
display of off -premises signs in the public right-of-way shall require a street use permit where required
pursuant to Chapter 18.70 ECDC.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 94
7.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
Page 17/18
3. Maximum duration of display for all temporary off -premises signs is a cumulative of 60 days in any calendar
year, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs. Display may be continuous or
intermittent, except as otherwise provided in this section.
4. Except for campaign signs as provided in ECDC 20.60.060, all off -premises noncommercial signs relating to a
specific meeting, event, or occurrence shall be removed within 48 hours following the conclusion of the
meeting, event, or occurrence to which they relate.
5. Only portable freestanding signs may be used as temporary off -premises signage; provided, that the
following types of portable freestanding signs are prohibited from use as an off -premises sign:
a. Signs with a vehicular chassis or support with or without wheels;
b. Posters and banners;
c. Signs mounted upon vehicles;
d. Searchlights;
e. Inflatables.
6. Maximum number of allowed off -premises signs to be displayed simultaneously shall be one sign per sign
poster except as provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs and in ECDC 20.60.065 for real estate signs.
7. Maximum allowable sign area for all temporary off -premises freestanding signs is six square feet.
8. Maximum allowable sign height for all permitted off -premises signs is three feet.
9. All off -premises temporary signage shall be posted and displayed in accordance with the following
restrictions:
a. Off -premises signs may not be placed in any portion of the public right-of-way typically used by motor
vehicles in a lawful manner.
b. Off -premises signs shall be placed so as not to impede pedestrian, bicycle, or handicapped travel or
access.
c. Off -premises signs shall not be posted in a manner or location which impairs traffic safety by
unreasonably blocking line of sight at intersections.
d. Off -premises signs shall be constructed of suitable material and design to adequately withstand the
reasonably expected normal or average weather conditions during the intended display period of the
sign.
e. Off -premises signs shall be regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been damaged or
destroyed by natural forces or vandalism. Damaged and destroyed signs shall be immediately removed
or repaired so as to avoid threats to public health and safety or the accumulation of unclaimed refuse
upon the public rights -of -way.
f. Off -premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the public right-of-way, and
shall further not be posted within or upon planter boxes and flower beds within the publicly maintained
landscaped portions of the public right-of-way. [Ord. 3628 § 14, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.090 Prohibited signs.
A. General. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited.
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 95
7.A.b
Edmonds Page 18/18
Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE
B. Hazards. Signs which the director of public works determines to be a hazard to vehicle or water traffic because
they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage,
are prohibited. These signs shall be removed if they already exist.
C. Confiscation of Prohibited Signs in Public Rights -of -Way. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way
and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be
subject to immediate removal and confiscation.
D. Any signs confiscated by the city shall be held for 10 working days after which such signs may be destroyed or
otherwise disposed of. The owner of any confiscated signs may recover the same upon payment of a $25.00 fee to
cover the cost of confiscation and storage. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031.
20.60.095 Exempt signs.
The following types of signs are exempted from regulations of this chapter, except that the dimensional and
placement standards shall apply unless variance is required by other provisions of local, state or federal law:
A. Governmental signs.
B. Signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law.
C. Official public notices required by provision of local, state, or federal law.
D. Signs not visible from a public location.
E. Seasonal and holiday displays not incorporating the use of written copy or graphics to convey a message.
F. Gravestones. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.60.100 Administration.
A. General. The community development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of
this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. Fees shall be as stated in Chapter
15.00 ECDC.
B. Installation Permits. Many signs require installation permits under Chapter 19.45 ECDC and may require plan
checking fees as well.
C. Notice of Violation. Whenever the planning director becomes aware of a violation of the provisions of this
chapter, the planning director shall cause a notice to be sent to the alleged violator informing him or her of the
violation, the applicable code section, and a time within which to remedy the violation. The notice shall also advise
of the penalties for continued violation of the code as specified in this chapter. If the violation has not been
corrected within the time limit specified, the planning director shall refer the matter to the city attorney's office
for institution of appropriate legal action.
D. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine of $25.00 for each day of continued violation. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation)
Packet Pg. 96
7.A.c
From: Natlie Shippen
Received Email: June 7, 2016
Planning Board Members:
If Option 3 is adopted, signs that are currently listed as "temporary' in the Edmonds sign code
would become "permanent". The Code now says a "temporary sign" is an "allowed portable
sign not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year." The "portable" definition lists those
signs as: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; 2.
menu and "sandwich" board signs, 3. "A" and "T" frame signs, 4. wooden, metal or plastic
"stake" or "yard" signs, 5. posters or banners affixed ... 7. searchlights. 8. inflatables.
If Option 3 is adopted, there will be no 60-day time limit on the signs listed above. They could
be out all day (currently, brought in at night for practical reasons), all month, all year for the
length of their business life.
Options 2 and 3 together are "simply" word games to turn temporary signs into permanent
signs. If you doubt that, read the "Narrative" section of the packet closely and note the
transition in terminology from temporary, to pedestrian to permanent.
The City Council has two choices. Adopt Option 3 which turns temporary signs into permanent
ones; that's easy to enforce. Or, adopt Option 1 which prohibits temporary signs. To explain the
PURPOSE of Option 1, adopt the language of the carmel code with its emphasis on community
quality and explicitly denying the use of public streets for advertising.
I suggest that no action be taken on the rest of the proposed amendments (red -lined) "not
tied to the pedestrian signs " but based on "staff's working knowledge." (the correct word is
"temporary" not "pedestrian" I think blanket approvals should be avoided especially on
detailed subjects that lend themselves to doctoring for a specific benefit.
Natalie Shippen
Packet Pg. 97
7.A.c
MeDoftgldP,,,,CGa
630 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020
May 23, 2016
Edmonds Planning Board
250 51h Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Pedestrian Sign Code Revisions
Dear Board Members:
I am submitting this written comment as I cannot attend the Public Hearing. However, I
did attend the Planning Board Meeting on May 11, 2016 and have also read the Agenda
Packet regarding the three options for the sign code, so I am familiar with the general nature
of the options.
My wife, Sandy, and I own the property at 630 Main St. which houses our Insurance
Agency, McDonald McGarry. We have been there since 1996 and have used pedestrian
signs for most all of that time.
At the May 11 meeting, a citizen asked "What is the public benefit of pedestrian signs?"
The signs themselves do not directly benefit the public, however the signs benefit the
businesses that utilize them and in turn those businesses benefit the public by creating a
vibrant downtown core. While on a different scale, the theory is no different than allowing
sidewalk dining. The dining may not benefit the public, but the increase in the economic
health of the business in the downtown core does. Most likely all of you have all been here
long enough to remember when downtown Edmonds was pretty dreary and oftentimes, it
was where businesses went to die. Cleary these signs are helpful to sustaining some
businesses.
One concern that is common to all three proposals is that we do not want the sidewalks to
be overly cluttered and in turn pose a burden on pedestrians with mobility issues or any
pedestrians at all. I acknowledge this as a valid concern, however sidewalk encroachment
is not a problem that is unique to the downtown core. We live in the Seaview neighborhood.
Not every street has a sidewalk and those that do are not always easily passable. Most often
the cause is a neighbor that does not keep shrubbery trimmed back, so a 4 foot wide
sidewalk can easily be reduced to half that width. In addition, on garbage collection days
garbage, recycling and yard waste cans pose an obstacle to easy and safe passage along the
sidewalk. So while we need to keep the downtown sidewalks open, please do not be misled
to believe that this is only a problem caused by pedestrian signage in the downtown core.
Option one is basically an outright ban on pedestrian signs. I feel that this is an overly harsh
response to the problem. The common sense elements of the other two proposals, such as
having the signage allowed only in front of the sign owner's business, should reduce the
clutter and allow easy passage for all pedestrians. Second, I believe it is punitive. The
problems with excessive signs is probably created by a handful of businesses and as a result
all of the businesses in the area would be punished. This situation is much like the neighbor
(425)774-3200 www.mcdonaldmggaLU.com
(800)466-4700 Fax (425)774-3 packet pg. 98
7.A.c
that does not keep their bushes off of the sidewalk, they may be either unaware or simply
ignore the applicable rules. Unfortunately, developing personal responsibility and morality
is something that no planning code can accomplish.
In our office, we use pedestrian signs to promote our business. In addition, we use them to
promote a number of community events which we sponsor throughout the year. Please see
the next page for a sample of those signs. The purpose of these events is of course to build
our business, however they are open to all members of the community, not just our clients
or prospective clients. For example, our annual document shredding event has well over
100 total participants. (We were down a bit this last Saturday due to the rain.) By our
estimate, less than one fourth of these are our clients. So the pedestrian signboards do have
a community benefit.
Option two is basically a continuation of the current code. Adopting this without any
consistent corresponding enforcement mechanism does not make any sense either. In all
likelihood the problems which are trying to be corrected by revising the code would most
likely reoccur. Without an excessive monetary burden on the city, I am unaware of any
way to regulate the signs to a 60 day annual display period. In addition, I'm not sure how
the 60 day term was determined and that time period itself could be a discussion point (or
argument) long into the future.
Option three seems to me to make the most sense. It has the potential to eliminate sign
clutter and it removes the necessity of creating an elaborate process to ensure that
businesses are not exceeding the 60 day time limit that has been proposed in option two.
This seems to be a reasonable compromise that would keep the sidewalks accessible to all,
while at the same time allowing businesses to use pedestrian signage to promote their
establishment.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
McDONALD McGARRY
Jo A. McDonald
il: john(ibracdonaldmcgarry.com
losure
M/hs
Packet Pg. 99
I 7.A.c I
McDonald McGarry
Insurance
School
Supply
..'� Drive!
ab
Drop off
new sup
PECO
rr�s�rtian*,�
lies here.
CELL PHONES
FOR
LDI ER
Now Collecting Gently Used
to Help Troops Call Home
425-774-3200
vrrww.m donaIdmcgarry.ccrn
iCDOUN IG" 7 1 mrAncr
425�74
,an btLLI mr-dei 1 MIflFftr. naa FIV -Nei ll
Packet Pg. 100 1
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Laura Zeck <laura@zincartinteriors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:43 AM
To: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Nelson, Michael
Subject: Re: Public Hearing on Signs Wed. May 25
Hi - I am a business owner and would love to attend this meeting, however I have a conflict as my 5th grader is
performing in her school orchestra that night at the same time.
Please feel free to pass the information below on at the hearing.
As the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors at the corner of 3rd and Main in Edmonds, WA. I would like to state that
use of A -Boards has been essential to my business, it's visibility and it's viability.
As many of you know the circle/fountain is the hub of Edmonds. This is reinforced by the location of the
Saturday Market, Chamber Events, and traffic patterns.
ZINC has now been open for 28 months and it is still a daily struggle to get the general population and visitors
to understand that Edmonds does exist beyond the circle, and A -Boards have played a huge role. I can actually
look at days where we have neglected to put out our A -Board and see a dramatic difference in that days sales.
At the time that we leased our space, sign code would not allow for a sign that actually made sense for the
length of our street front. We are now stuck with a sign that is incredibly small above our front door. It is low to
the ground and at times completely disappears behind vehicles parked in front of the building. I have asked the
parking division to either make the space in front of the building a 15 minute zone or to clearly mark the space
as the 3 hour parking that space that they say it is because on many days the space is occupied by one car for the
entire duration of our business hours 10-7pm. I have mentioned this to many police as they pick up their
uniforms next door at Corry's Dry Cleaning, but their response is that the space is not marked clearly and
therefore they can not ticket the vehicle parked there all day. Many days these vehicles are very large and tall
and completely block our building. Without the use of an A -Board on the corner of 3rd and Main, many people
would not even see we exist.
As a tax paying business of Edmonds, I feel it is essential that you take these frustrations and issues with the
sign code into account. One citizen with complaints does not make up for the amount of revenue that our
business brings to the city, let alone the culture, community and service we provide on a daily basis.
In addition I have attached the current street view of our building that is available on Google. As you can see
our business doesn't "exist", and the pole in front of our building has no sign indicating parking
regulations. ZINC needs all the help it can get as a new business struggling to become part of the community
Please help us by improving the sign code and making it friendlier for businesses within the business district
where signage is and should be visible and helpful.
Thanks so much for your time!
Please contact me if you have any questions at all.
Best!
Laura
On May 11, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Cunningham, Diane<Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov>
wrote:
a�
0
U
c
N
c
0
w
as
r
0
r
a�
E
a�
E
a
M
N
CO)
U)
a�
J
C
N
E
0
U
a�
0
U
c
r
c
a�
E
Q
Packet Pg. 101
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Hope, Shane
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Chave, Rob
Subject: FW: Edmonds sign code
FYR
From: Monillas, Adrienne
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 10:37 PM
To: Hope, Shane
Subject: Fwd: Edmonds sign code
FYI
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Date: May 5, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM PDT
To: <council&dmonds_wa.gov>
Cc: <diane.cunnin hama dmondswa.com>
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Council Members:
What public purpose is served by allowing a 4-foot high advertising structure i.e. a mini -
billboard, in front of every business in the Bowl? Or, anywhere in Edmonds since the Westgate
Plan suggests city-wide walkability is now a city goal?
Instead of posting daily message changes ON that billboard structure, why not provide a
decorative box near the business entrance and place daily new advertising IN it? The Downtown
Business Alliance could design it, have it produced and sell it to those who want a location for
periodic advertising material. The Box might be introduced with a campaign to Visit Edmonds
and Check the Box.
Adding the Box would allow business three (3) permanent means of reaching the public: A wall
sign, a blade sign and the Box, plus one short-term temporary sign could be added for a business
opening event and/or a special event organized by the Downtown Business Alliance. Many
businesses already use a permanent, red, small, non -flashing "OPEN" sign. Isn"t that enough
signage?
I noted in the April 26, 2016 minutes that an instant poll at a public workshop re Hwy. 99 asked
residents what their top priority would be if just one thing could be done for the corridor. Their
answer was "public space improvements and beautification-42%". Edmonds residents, regardless
of their home's location, know they live in a town that has a reputation for attractiveness and
they want their area to share that reputation.
No one has ever argued that big signs on public sidewalks are a public space improvement or
that they contribute to the beautification of Edmonds. Sandwich boards, stanchions and other
Packet Pg. 102
7.A.c
From: Brent Malgarin [mailto:elegantaems@amx.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:30 AM
To: Hope, Shane
Subject: sign code
Dear Shane,
I have been reading the proposal for changes to the sign code.
I find it rather amazing that the City acts, after one person complains about "A -boards", yet the BID
wants to add significant sign clutter by putting ED! badges all over town.
If a person does not know they are shopping in Downtown Edmonds, then they should not be out
walking around.
Alley signage--- what a joke. Seattle has it because there are businesses located in those locations with
no other point of entry or egress. Pathetic.
I am filing a complaint about pole and Ed! sign pollution in Edmonds.
I have spent 17 years selling in resort towns, and this City does not have the slightest idea what it is
doing.
Although-- the corrupt BID Directors figured out how to personally benefit from their positions.... Only
goes to show the integrity of the people--- who want other peoples money.
Brent Malgarin.
Packet Pg. 103
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Hope, Shane
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Chave, Rob
Subject: FW: sign code update
Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf
From: Pam Stuller[mailto:parm_@walnutstreetcoffee.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Hope, Shane
Subject: sign code update
Hi Diane,
As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process.
My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way.
When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be
above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building.
With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my
roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so
my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street.
I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would
ultimately like to replace my current sign with.
I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is
a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain
amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it.
Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info.
m
0
U
c
in
N
c
0
E
w
as
Y
0
Y
U)
Y
a�
E
a�
E
a
M
N
M
U)
Y
a
J
Y
a�
E
0
U
a�
0
U
c
�n
a�
E
Y
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 104
7.A.c
611 -green -big circle
7459 - blue - inner circle
1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim
497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S
7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup
716 - orange - OFFEE
white - foundation base coat
Packet Pg. 105
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From:
Hope, Shane
Sent:
Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:49 AM
To:
Cunningham, Diane
Cc:
Chave, Rob
Subject:
FW: Signage
From: Clayton Moss [mailto:cmoss@formaseattle.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Hope, Shane
Subject: Signage
Hello,
Well, over the past month I believe we have manage to gather enough feedback from people regarding the
different sign types that we discussed at our last meeting to feel confident that we are moving in the right
direction.
I was just wondering if looking at it from your perspective, is there is any kind of timeline that I should be
aware of? I would like to get some schematics over to you that illustrates our proposed recommendations.
Clayton Moss
Designer
206.920.5912
FORMA
114 4th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Pg. 106
7.A.c
From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Council
Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board
Council/ Planning Board Members,
Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the
planning board.
About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the
downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways
particularly when the sidewalks are so narrow to begin with. It is difficult to get around the
tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts)
but for persons who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is
ADA compliant, and I can't see how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on
the street is not a pleasant experience at all
Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks
taken up by outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is
truly daunting and I don't believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow
to accommodate outdoor seating, sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all.
In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility
issues first and foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who
want to expand their space and businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs
all over further clutter what should be a public sidewalk for all to use.
Thank you.
Packet Pg. 107
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: D Talmadge <justme56@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:15 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Signs, sidewalks and ADA
Planning Board members,
About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that
the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways particularly when the sidewalks are so
narrow to begin with, particularly with the sandwich boards strewn about. It is difficult to get around the
v
tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts) but for persons
a�
who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is ADA compliant, and I can't see
in
how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on the street is not a pleasant experience at all
Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks taken up by
C
outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is truly daunting and I don't
w
believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow to accommodate outdoor seating,
sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all.
o
In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility issues first and
foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who want to expand their space and
E
businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs all over further clutter what should be a public
c
sidewalk for all to use.
E
a
Thank you. N
Diane Talmadge r
Sent from Cloud 9 0
Packet Pg. 108
7.A.c
Below Councilmember Buckshnis's message is one from Diane Talmadge.
-----Original Message -----
From: Buckshnis, Diane
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:07 AM
To: D Talmadge
Cc: Hope, Shane
Subject: RE: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board
Good Morning Diane,
Here is the planning boards' email and you can watch what various Council Members said in the
Council Meeting last week and Ms. Fraley Monillas also brought up the ADA issue as well as the
street dining. The outdoor dining was a HUGE council discussion issue four or five years back
and I can't recall it all but it was only for the spring/summer months, I think. You can email
Shane Hope and ask. Personally, I think we should try a 30 day temp ban and see if business
are affected. It would be similar to going on a specific diet - you don't know if you like it or not
because you have never tried it! Why not try it to see if business really need those signs. I
noticed that I mentioned Zinc and that I see the bright orange and who needs that a -frame and
they didn't have it out yesterday (which I am sure they don't watch City Council) with the
orange balloons. But, it looked so nice on that corner. Snap Fitness is another sign always
out .... you either work out or you don't and folks either get it or they don't - so why clutter? So,
much for my ranting.
planning@edmondswa.gov is the address that will get to everyone.
Have a great day,
Diane
Diane Buckshnis
City Council Position #4
206-228-3462
From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Council
Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board
Council/ Planning Board Members,
Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the
planning board.
About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the
downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways
Packet Pg. 109
7.A.c
Date: April 27, 2016
From: Ashley Systsma (for Rick Steves who is currently out of the Country)
Ashley@ricksteves.com
Even though my company puts one out, I'm opposed to sandwich boards in Edmonds. I'd be happy to
see our town rid of these completely, including my own.
-Rick Steves
Packet Pg. 110
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Council
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Planning Board Members:
As I listen to the Planning Board and read its minutes, I get the strong impression that the Planning Board
as
v
accepts temporary commercial on Edmonds streets as needed, desirable and even inevitable. The only
questions Board members discuss is how many and where.
(0
I think its unfortunate that a small, but well -organized downtown group, feels it must soil its own nest to
N
E
make a living but I don't believe that others should have to pay to solve their problem.
w
Those others are the 40,000 people who share that nest. They are called residents and THEIR home is a
a)
o
flourishing, attractive residential community. Those residents have spent thousands of dollars in over 50 years
to make residential and commercial Edmonds look the way it does today. Their efforts deserve more
consideration than they are now receiving from the Planning Board.
c
a�
Temporary commercial signs are a blight. About four years ago a consultant, Roger Brooks, was retained to
a
explore ways make edmonds more inviting. He had a long list; the theme of one of the items was "First
N
Impressions Are Lasting". Applying that old adage, he suggested that the entering "Edmonds" sign NOT be
r
placed at Westgate but further along where SR104 enters the Bowl.lt's easy to see why.
U)
L
Entering Westgate one is met with a flashing car -wash sign on the right and, on the left, a collection of drab,
_'DJ
low commercial buildings with a row of sandwich board signs, strung along SR 104, identifying each business.
(The car wash sign no longer flashes but the board signs are still there). It is the perfect poor first impression.
E
Edmonds residents don't deserve more blight and more poor impressions on Main and on Fifth streets.
v
Temporary commercial signs are a stigma. They send a far more significant message than the actual words
as
v
on the sign. They convey a state of mind, they cry economic distress, even panic; they cry cheap.None of these
a
attitudes reflect the reality of a prosperous, attractive RESIDENTIAL community.
i'n
Locating temporary commercial signs (sandwich boa rds,stanchions, banners etc) in the public right-of-way
r
c
m
E
creates the picture of a fine home with a seedy front yard. Does the Planning Board believe that is the image
r
residents want their sign code to produce? Q
Natalie Shippen
Packet Pg. 111111
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:47 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Council
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Planning Board Members:
a�
1 read the minutes of your last meeting with interest.Mr. Clugston says, "the proliferation of A -frame signs in U
the downtown is a problem." and, later, temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue
and the GOAL of the current effort is to fix the problems.." n
It's not the message on the temporary A -frame signs that is the PROBLEM. It's the number of those signs
on the street. Changing the message doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. E
It's not the style of the A -frames that is the PROBLEM it's the number of those signs on the street. w
Substituting another type of temporary sign doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. r
0
r
Currently, those "temporary" signs are, in fact, permanent because they have been out on the street all day,
all week, all year for several years. The time limit on temporary signs is 60 cumulative days annually. No owner
complies with that time limit and it can't be enforced using a "Request for Code Enforcement Action" because a
no City record is kept of when the sign was put on the street. E
Requiring a permit for temporary signs is overkill; requiring notification and the expiration date on the sign
itself would partially solve the time limit problem. Changing the word "cumulative" to "consecutive" would M
complete the solution to the time limit problem. Other cities do not use the word "cumulative" presumably
because it's too difficult to track.They use the word "consecutive" which produces a specific date that can be
easily checked
J
C
Other city codes also use number of days to measure the time limit. Shifting A -frame or sandwich board signs E
from the "temporary" category to a "right of way" category (see "note" on back page) and then allowing them E
on the street all the time except for non -business hours (at night) isn't a time limit:i it's an absurdity. It doesn't U
solve the proliferation problem and it doesn't solve the potential for pedestrian/sign conflict. 'a
0
U
c
Enforcing the existing code time limit might reduce the number of temporary signs on the street at one time, in
but whether it would appreciably reduce proliferation hasn't been examined.
c
a�
E
Natalie Shippen
0
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 112
OM
.r r, n A a_ CP A
I-r c-
_ADS �
a
z
O
U —
LM
co
C
—
cO
G
E
a
M
N
M
•
L
m
J
C
d
—
O
U
O —
O
U
7 [�
r
C
E
y
—
t
t,1
c0
a
Packet Pg. 113
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:27 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Council
Subject: sign code revisions
Planning Board Member:
FACTS:
m
G
U
1. "TEMPORARY" signs (Edmonds sign code)
c
a�
in
a) definition - "allowed portable signs intended for short-term display,not to exceed 60 calendar days
(cumulative) in any calendar year" ;
G
E
Portable sign - "...any sign that is capable of being moved or removed ... that is typically intended for
w
temporary display.:
Portable signs include but are not limited to: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support
o
r
with or without wheels (stanchion?), 2. "menu" and SANDWICH BOARD" signs, 3. A and T frame signs, 4.
wood, metal or plastics "stake" or "yard" signs, 5. pos tees ters or
a
banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees etc., 6. searchlights, inflatables etc.
b)PROBLEM - No record is kept of when any of the above signs are posted; that allows "temporary" signs to
be, in fact, permanent.
a
solution - Rewrite Code to limit temporary commercial signs to "60 CONSECUTIVE days, one-time only"
N
(business opening): business owner must notify Planning Dept. when a temporary sign is placed anywhere so
r
there is a date from which to calculate the time limit on signs,
In
as
2. "PREMISES - 'Premises "is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except
—J
within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the downtown activity center as defined in the C.P where
"premises shall include any portion of the sidewalk which fronts upon the lot.
E
PROBLEM - Changes what would normally be an off -premise sign (>usually not allowed) into an on -premise
U
sign. Results, for example,in Old Milltown each business in that complex is allowed one sign on 5th AND one
sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of 5th and Dayton. That's a lot of signs adjacent to a privately-
v
funded, attractive, land-scaped plaza. Here Edmonds sign policy is counter -productive to the desire of a
private owner to make Edmond a more attractive town.
N
r
of solution - remove "premiises" from the "definition"section.;other codes don't bother to define it because
it has a common meaning.
r
3. ADMINISTRATION —"The Community Development director is responsible for administering and enforcing Q
the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits.
COMMENTS:
I have filed about 20 ""Requests For Enforcement" in the last two+ years in the Bowl, at Westgate and in
between on SR104. In the course of following those requests I found that the Edmonds sign code is special
interest legislation. In neither wording nor enforcement does the Code emphasize the importance of
Packet Pg. 114
7.A.c
protecting Edmonds reputation as an attractive, up -scale residential community. Rather, it offers a crutch to
those marginal businesses that claim they need cheap advertising signs in the public right-of-way in order to
survive.
The Planning Dept. recommendations regarding "temporary"" signs don't improve the Code; they make it
worse.The temporary sandwich board sign which now litter the Bowl are illegal under two separate chapters
of the Code;they don't have street permits ($115)as required by (18.70), and they exceed the time limit on
"temporary" signs (20.60). The Planning Dept. recommendations would simply make those signs permanently
legal by requiring a permit but eliminating the time limit.
Permanent signs have a valid purpose. They identify and locate a town business. Temporary signs do not. If
a walker is close enough to a "temporary" sign to read it, the walker is also close enough to the business to
read its permanent sign. As identification temporary signs are redundant Iitter.They are really just advertising
signs in the public right-of-way and should be prohibited except for one commercial event, and closely
monitored, time -limited public events.
The following are my suggestions for sign code changes:
1. EMPHASIZE that the Edmonds Sign Code exists to protect the quality of the community a la Carmel.
2,Commercial "temporary" signs are prohibited except for a 60 consecutive day, one-time only business -
opening event (some towns allow a limited number of 4-day special events).
3. "Premises" - remove that word from the "definition" section.
4.Permit the use of a temporary sign while a permanent sign is being reviewed by the ADB, and then mounted.
5, Permit permanent directional signs subject to ADB approval.
6. Prohibit pole signs every where; use monument signs instead 7. Have ADB approve permanent signs, and
ask it to review the proposed recommendations re calculation, classification and wall -mounted signs.
8. No one shall put any sign in the public right-of-way without first notifying the Planning Dept.
Natalie Shippen
as
0
U
c
N
C
0
w
as
0
r
c
as
E
c
a�
E
a
M
N
M
r
Packet Pg. 115
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Council
Cc: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Revision of Edmonds sign code
Council Members:
Currently, there are no "temporary' signs in Edmonds; they are all "permanent" because sign regulation
isn't enforced except by citizen complaint. However, because the Planning Dept. keeps no record of when
temporary signs are erected, the time limit can't be calculated and enforced upon citizen Request. In Edmonds
the major and most controversial signs, "temporary ones" aren't regulated by time limits or in any other way.
REMEDY: Make it clear in the code that "temporary" means temporary by enacting the following ordinance:
"Time limit for temporary signs —a new business may install a temporary sign on a one-time basis only. No
business shall be allowed to display this type of sign more than once. All temporary signs are to be removed
no later than 60 consecutive days from the date of notification to" the Planning Dept.(The words within
quotation marks are from another municipal code.)REMEDY:Require that a business owner shall notify the
Planning Dept. of the day on which a sign will be placed on a roof, wall, or public right-of-way and the date it
will be removed. Require that the Planning Dept. keep a record of the above information.
REMEDY —Under the ADMINISTRATION section of the sign code, include a statement that the sign code is
enforced only upon citizen request. It's deceptive to let Edmonds residents think that their executive branch
enforces the laws enacted by their legislative branch, an age-old assumption.
In the "definition" section of the Edmonds sign code, there appears a definition of the word "premises"
which is unlike that found in any other municipality. The definition says,"premises is the actual physical area of
the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed EXCEPT within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the
downtown activity area ... where "premises" shall include any portion of the public sidewalk which fronts upon
the lot." What does this exception allow?
There was an Old Milltown business that was located on Dayton St. about one-half block East of Fifth St. It
had a sign at the Fifth/Dayton intersection which I appealed as an off -premise sign. The City's reply was, "The
City's position is that the signs in question (I had appealed sign at Third and Main) are not off -premise, but on -
premise DUE to the DEFINITION of "PREMISES (my emphasis), and that their premises extend to the lot of the
business, not just the business sidewalk frontage."I was told there are other "lots" in downtown Edmonds
where the "premises" definition would apply.
I lost the appeal but I learned that every business on the Old Milltown lot is allowed one sign on 5th and one
sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of Fifth and Dayton. Is that number of signs the desired result of a
sign code that seeks to control "visual clutter" in Edmonds, a goal listed four times in the PURPOSE section?
REMEDY: Strike all the words that follow EXCEPT in the code definition of "premises".
Finally, I suggest that all PERMANENT signs be reviewed and approved by the ADB. The ADB is a quality -
control Board, and most of its members are selected for their training in assessing quality; signs and their
location quality-sensative issues
as
0
U
c
in
N
c
0
w
as
r
0
U)
c
as
c
a�
E
a
M
N
M
U)
L
J
c
CD
E
E
0
U
as
0
U
c
in
c
m
E
r
Q
Packet Pg. 116
7.A.c
A few years ago two large permanent signs appeared too high on two facades of Old Milltown. I appealed
them and they were removed. The question is, "How did those signs get by Staff? Did they approve them and
then not check their final location because they were too busy? I think the ADB has more members and more
time to ensure that the conditions of its approval are obeyed.
Natalie Shippen
Packet Pg. 117
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Council
Cc: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Edmonds sign code revision
Council Members:
as
As of today, I haven't seen a copy of the sign code changes that will be presented to the Council at its Feb. 0
23, 2016 work meeting. Based upon a Planning Dept. presentation at an earlier public meeting in December, I a,
expect that only two code revisions will be proposed: 1. minor changes to "permanent" sign regulations and, y
2. significant changes to the regulation of "sandwich board" signs which are usually classed as "temporary"
signs. In this e-mail letter I will describe the current confusion that exists in the regulation of signs; later I will E
suggest code remedies. w
as
r
Sign code regulations appear in two separate ECDC chapters: 1. Chapt. 20.60 administered by the Planning r
Dept.; and 2. Chapt. 18.70 Street Use and Encroachment Permits administered by the Engineering Dept.
Chapt.18.70 defines sandwich board sign as "temporary objects" which require a street permit. A permit costs E
$115.; the duration of the permit isn't defined.
E
On 9-2-15 1 appealed three sandwich board signs citing failure to obtain a street permit as the reason for a a
Request for Code enforcement action. Phil Williams determined that the three businesses I cited did not have M
street permits; however, no enforcement action was taken because Code revision is in progress. Meantime, all
the sandwich board signs that litter the commercial streets of the Bowl (the ONLY location where they're
allowed) are illegal, have been for years, and the City of Edmonds is owed thousands of dollars. (Incidentally, J
in the last couple of years I have appealed signs under Chapt. 20.60. When my requests were upheld, the signs
were removed.There was no mention of a code revision in progress.) believe code enforcement is, partly,an E
issue that is separate from the language of the code itself, but one that should also be addressed.) c
v
While the language of Chapt. 18.70 is clear,Chapt. 20.60 is confusing. It defines sandwich boards as c
"temporary" in one section, and as "permanent" in another. Under the "definitions" section of 20.60, a v
c
"temporary" sign is "an allowed portable sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar in a)
any calendar year." ( That's a lax time limit; other municipal codes have a fixed number of CONSECUTIVE days
in
c
for one-year only.
E
Further along in the code there is a section (20,60.020) titled "General Regulations for PERMANENT signs." In r
that section there is a chart which "summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district Q
within the City. On that chart sandwich boards are listed as permitted only in Downtownl.
I consider sandwich boards a temporary sign. In mid-2014 I filed a Request for Code Enforcement against
three temporary signs including two sandwich boards. The reply was, "The City advises businesses of the 60-
day limit, but does not monitor the site or count the days a sign is out. The City could not proceed with
enforcement without City verified information and could not progress to a hearing or legal proceeding with
third party information." I asked whether the City required that businesses notify the Planning Dept. of the
date a sign was placed in the public right-of-way or elsewhere. the answer was "No". It is impossible to
Packet Pg. 118
7.A.c
calculate the 60-day limit without that knowledge, and very difficult to do even if known, because the 60 days
are cumulative rather than consecutive. That method of counting days is peculiar to Edmonds.
(To be continued)
Natalie Shippen
Packet Pg. 119
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Hope, Shane
Subject: Shippen Requests for Enforcement
To the Planning Board Chairman:
Will the Planning Board Chairman (Neil Tibbot) please request that the Planning Department include copies (or
a list) of my Requests for Enforcement in the Sign Code reform packet, and the enforcement decision(s) that
was made for each? Early on, Shane Hope invited me to submit a list to her of any suggested code changes I
might have. I couldn't do that as I was learning with each appeal how the code did or didn't address my
Requests.
Like the Planning Department I didn't keep records; I assume it does now. I believe my Requests demonstrate
how the sign code operates. I recall only twelve Requests for Enforcement which involved 26 signs. As you will
see, some of my Requests were approved and some were denied.
Natalie Shippen
as
0
U
c
aM
N
C
0
E
w
as
0
r
U)
c
as
E
c
a�
E
a
M
N
M
r
Packet Pg. 120
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: English, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:27 PM
To: 'Natalie Shippen'
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Williams, Phil
Subject: RE: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs
Ms. Shippen —Sections 20.60 and 18.70 of the current City code are not consistent with regard to temporary
signs (including A -frames). For this reason, the City will not pursue code enforcement action. The City's
Planning Division will be updating the sign code this fall to address this issue. The process will include public
meetings at the Planning Board and City Council.
-----Original Message -----
From: Natalie Shippen[ma ilto:natalieshippen@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM
To: English, Robert
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane
Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs
Mr. English.
On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited
Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public
space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not
have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and
you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept.
I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use
permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits?
Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit
from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", and
"temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards."
Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for
Enforcement don't result in code enforcement?
Natalie Shippen
as
0
U
c
N
c
0
E
w
as
r
0
r
U)
c
as
E
c
m
E
a
M
N
M
Packet Pg. 121
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM
To: English, Robert
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane
Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs
Mr. English.
as
On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited U
Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public �,
space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not o
have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and
you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept. E
I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use w
permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits? r
Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit
from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", and
"temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards." E
Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for
Enforcement don't result in code enforcement? a
M
Natalie Shippen M
r
Packet Pg. 122
7.A.c
To: Shane Hope
From Ed! Advisory Board: Signage Committee
Clayton Moss, Pam Stuller, Jordana Turner, Robert Boehlke
RE: Recommendations for Sign Code Revisions
Date: September 18, 2015
Recommendations:
Amend the code to allow the applicant or the planning manager to refer design review
applications to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) in the following unique situations:
1. When the applicants specific building set back (from the public street) is
significantly greater than the adjacent buildings or when there are other special
physical circumstances or physical conditions, such as topography, sign
structures or other physical features on adjacent properties or public right-of-way
obstacles that substantial restrict the effectiveness of the proposed sign in
question. These special circumstances are peculiar to the particular business or
enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention to and do not apply
generally to other businesses in the area.
2. When there are special physical circumstances or physical conditions of the
applicants specific building such as architectural features or details that
substantially restrict the placement and effectiveness of the proposed sign in
question or which make it impossible to both integrate the sign with the
architectural design of the building and at the same time adhere to various code
restrictions with regards to sign type, area or height.
3. When certain exceptional design features are included in a proposed sign
design which enhances the appearance & quality of the sign but by doing so
would exceed code constraints. Examples would be monument sign designs
which are designed to be in harmony with the landscape design and/or integrate
with the design and scale of a particular building or multi -building complex.
4. When a retail center or multi -tenant building or complex submits a
comprehensive master sign program.
Section References
Definitions of Signs— request for clarification/revision.
1. "Internally illuminated sign" —Add "Halo Lit"
2. "Marquee": add description/definiation
3. "Outline cabinet sign" — Can also be non -illuminated
4. "Portable Sign" — add stanchion sign type to this group. Encourage artistry.
1. Identify who is responsible for the sign — require sticker "license tab". Add
Registration requirement, street use, provide application form, submittal
requirement check -list. Establish areas for legal portable signs in downtown.
Allow for a little bit of character, for instance restaurants to show their happy
hour specials, but protect quaint downtown streetscape so that it does not
Packet Pg. 123
7.A.c
become littered with portable signs. Consider public wayfinding group signs
at critical decision points to direct people to businesses off the beaten path,
(Main street & 5th Ave). Restrict placement so portable signs are within two
of the building.
5. Projecting Sign — is perpendicular to the building fagade, usually double face.
Maximum projection from building surface is 4 ft. (Note maximum depth of wall
sign is 12")
6. "Sign Area" supporting brackets which are required by engineering and are
designed to be integral to the sign & building design will not be included in the
calculation of the sign area.
7. "Wall Graphic" - clarify differences between wall graphic and murals.
8. Wall Sign - revise to read affixed to building: wall, surface, or structure — is
single faced. Maximum depth of sign is 12" — not to extend further than 12" from
surface.
9. Freestanding signs- raise height limit to 5' and sq. ft area of graphic area — do not
include base in sq. ft area calculation- especially for monuments
10. Internally illuminated signs may only light letters "and graphic marks or logos"
20.60.025
1. Add zoning map showing commercial areas.
2. Facades at entry do not always lend themselves to signage. Allow signage on
facades and or have ADB review the situation. Small Micro -frontage businesses
like Daphne's should be allowed the 20'sq. ft area.
20.60.050
This section states there are no restrictions on wall graphics which contradicts the
previously stated restrictions.
20.60.070
"Construction Signs" increase area from 32 to 40 sq ft of graphic area. Encourage visual
imagery of the project.
Staff Review of Murals & Artwork;- designs have been approved by staff that are not in
harmony with architecture an neighborhood. Need to include a public notice, so adjacent
building owners have opportunity for input. Case in point Edmonds Historical Museum
was not informed. Include ADB in review process.
New Sign Types to consider:
A. Light Standard Graphics — banners
B. Portable Sign: "Stanchions" encourage stanchions vs A -Boards, allow ht to 5'.
C. Wayfinding/Directionals- purpose to reduce quantity of portable signs
C. Alley Gateway: refer to Post Alley Seattle, Bellen Alley in SF.
Packet Pg. 124
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From:
Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent:
Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:08 PM
To:
English, Robert
Cc:
Cunningham, Diane; Spellman, Jana
Subject:
Code appeal
Mr. English,
as
1 understand the Planning Dept. has referred my "inquiry" to you. U
c
I asked that three sandwich board signs (Waterfront Coffee; State Farm Mutual; Cafe de Louvre) be removed N
N
because they didn't have a street use permit as required by ord. 18.70.000. Was that assertion correct? I also c
asked where I could get a blank copy of a street use permit and an encroachment permit. And how much each E
of those would cost (to clarify - not the cost to me for the blank permit forms, but to the owners of the w
sandwich board signs). How much does each permit type cost an applicant? r
0
r
Natalie Shippen
as
E
c
a�
E
a
M
N
M
r
Packet Pg. 125
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From:
Pam Stuller <pam@edmondsdowntown.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:23 AM
To:
Cunningham, Diane
Cc:
Robert Boehlke
Subject:
Housewares sign input
Robert from Housewares was mentioning that the current sign code did not allow for his sign to be lit. He
couldn't remember the code limitations exactly, but as his sign was above 14' it's in the dark once the -sun goes
down.
r dodo Oro-,
Pam Stuller
Edmonds Downtown Alliance
206-914-1753
r
Q
1
Packet Pg. 126
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Hope, Shane
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Sign Code Comments
Pls add this to your record of sign code comments:
I just got off the phone with the owner of Elegant Gyms (on 5th Ave.). He wanted to comment that A -board signs are
okay, that they are needed and useful. The only thing is they should be located close to the building, not in other parts
of the sidewalk.
Shane Hope, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Edmonds
425.771.0220 x-1216
shone. hope@edmondswo. gov
Packet Pg. 127
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Pam Stuller < Pam @walnutstreetcoffee.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Hope, Shane
Subject: sign code update
Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf
Hi Diane, Z
N
As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process. v
c
My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way.
When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be E
above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building. w
r
With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my r
roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so 4
my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street. E
c
I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would E
ultimately like to replace my current sign with. Q
M
I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is
a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain N
amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it.;
a�
J
Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info:
CD
E
E
0
U
m
13
0
U
c
a�
to
r
Q
Packet Pg. 128
7.A.c
IJ
611 -green -big circle
7459 - blue - inner circle
1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim
497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S
7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup
716 - orange - OFFEE
white - foundation base coat
Packet Pg. 129
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From:
Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent:
Friday, July 31, 2015 11:35 AM
To:
Spellman, Jana
Cc:
Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane
Subject:
Edmonds Sign Code revision
Council Members:
REAL ESTATE
There shall be no exceptions from the Code for real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be used
only to direct buyers to SPECIFIC properties for sale, rent or lease. Directional signs are permitted as
regulated by the current code. Real estate offices may not use temporary signs to advertise their
office location (see flocks of little signs at intersections), or to identify their office location with
sidewalk signs.
The City of Edmonds invites residents to contribute to the maintenance of their corner parks and
hanging baskets by making an annual donation. What is the residents incentive to do so when downtown
businesses are allowed to plunk their tacky signs on the adjacent public sidewalks?
Down town business argues that their business will suffer without signs. How do they prove that? Open
their books to justify their signs? Not likely. Should businesses that don't need signs to prosper still be
allowed to place junk in the public right -of ways because then they will make still more money?
I remind the Council of a long-standing principle of organized business i.e. if you've got a problem,
government is not the solution.. Nowhere is that principle more applicable than in your current discussion
of the Edmonds Sign Code. Sign codes are about maintaining the quality of a municipality, not private
profitability.
Natalie Shippen
a�
0
U
c
N
0
E
w
as
r
0
U)
a�
a�
E
Q
M
N
M
r
U)
L
a�
J
C
N
E
E
0
U
m
0
U
a
a�
r
c
m
E
t
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 130
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:21 AM
To: Spellman, Jana
Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Council Members:
Signs are junk; signs create visual blight on Edmonds landscaped streets. They diminish the results of
long-time efforts to improve the appearance of an ugly gritty mill town. The only valid commercial sign is
the permanent facade sign that identifies the business below it.
New rules should state that each business is allowed one facade sign to identify the business; two, if
on a corner a la Star Bucks at the corner of Fifth and Main.A multi -business building may add one
landscaped monument -style group sign e.g. the 210 building on Fifth. An area of stores may do the same
e.g. the Westgate QFC sign at the corner of Ninth and 104.
Commercial pole signs are not permitted. Landscaped monument signs are permitted are permitted.
Roof mounted signs are prohibited.
Administration —All permanent signs shall be approved by the ADB. If, as alleged, by the
Administration, the Planning Dept. doesn't have time to enforce the Code, its responsibility for
evaluating new signs should be removed to save time. The ADB is better positioned to judge quality, and
maintaining quality is the goal of a good sign code.I think some Edmonds permanent signs have
deteriorated.
Natalie Shippen
a�
O
U
c
2
N
O
E
w
as
O
r
U)
a�
a�
E
M
N
CO)
r
N
L
a�
J
C
N
E
E
O
U
d
O
U
c
a�
to
r
c
m
E
t
R
r
r
Q
1
Packet Pg. 131
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:02 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Council Members:
TEMPORARY signs — In Edmonds "temporary" signs are permanent because the 60 "cumulative" days
limitation isn't enforced, indeed, can't be enforced. Businesses aren't required to notify the City when
they stick signs on their building or on the sidewalk.The new code should say: a temporary sign is one
displayed for a limited time. Commercial temporary signs shall not be allowed except for a one-time, 60
CONSECUTIVE days opening event. Three temporary signs are then allowed only one of which may be
place on a public sidewalk.
Other temporary signs (besides commercial) shall not be allowed in the public right of way.
Temporary include, but are not limited to (in case I omitted to mention one of the pests): signs
designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; menu and sandwich board
signs; "A" and "T" frame signs; wooden, metal or plastic "stake" or "yard"; signs; posters or banners
affixed to windows, railings overhangs; trees,hedges, or other structures or vegetation; flags; pennants,
banners; feather, ribbons and balloons.
Banner signs (including real estate signs may not be placed on roofs or walls (e.g. west wall of the
Chanterelle Building; roof of the business on the NW corner of Olympic View Dr. and 196th.). Banner
signs may not substitute for permanent signs.
Administration: Businesses must inform the Planning Dept. where and when they plan to place temporary
signs and the date they will remove them (within 60 CONSECUTIVE days). This is not an onerous
requirement as an opening event will occur only once.
Natalie Shippen
a�
0
U
a
�n
N
a
0
E
w
as
0
U)
a�
a
a�
E
Q
M
N
CO)
r
U)
L
a�
J
a
a�
E
E
0
U
a�
0
U
a
a�
to
r
a
m
E
t
R
r
r
Q
1
Packet Pg. 132
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Spellman, Jana
Cc: Hope, Shane; Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Edmonds sign code
Council Members:
0
The public meeting on August 3, 2015 to discuss Edmonds sign code changes is a welcome beginning and r_
one that, I hope, is concluded well before the holiday season. I will bring before the Council and Planning co
L
Board some of the problems that I have found and their suggested remedies. I' start with the Edmonds
Code definition of "premises". 0
E
w
I believe the Edmonds code should not include the public sidewalk as part of the definition of
"premises." Other cities don't include a definition of premises, but refer to it indirectly in their on- o
premise/Off premise definitions as the "property" on which a sign is/isn't to be located. I question the
propriety, and possibly the legality of selectively giving use of the public right-of-way to adjacent, E
private land -owners.
The current definition of "premises"also allows other junk to be placed on the public sidewalk e.g. the E
clothes rack in front of the Savvy Traveler and a small promotional red fire truck in front of a
Coldwell/Bain reality. These are in addition to their signs and banners. The result is the messiest corner M
in Edmonds adjacent to the most landscaped area in Edmonds (Fountain, Corner Parks, and Trees).
Natalie Sh'ippen
Packet Pg. 133
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From:
Hope, Shane
Sent:
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:01 AM
To:
'Natalie Shippen'
Cc:
Cunningham, Diane
Subject:
Sign Code Meeting
Mrs. Shippen,
m
I know you have been long interested in potential amendments to the city's sign code. That is also on our work program 0
for this year. You are invited to a public meeting about issues and options for our sign code on August 3, 6 pm, in the a2
Council Chambers. I hope you can attend. in
N
We will be issuing a press release about this soon and encouraging both residents and businesses to provide their E
input. We are especially looking at the issue of A -frame signs downtown. w
as
After the meeting, we will work on draft amendments to the sign code, so that in the fall, the public can review the draft r
and provide input. Then the draft will be refined as needed and brought to the Planning Board for at least 2 public
U)
meetings (including a public hearing) and recommendation, followed by at least 2 public meetings (including a public
hearing) and a decision of the City Council. A more detailed meeting schedule will be identified later. E
c
Feel free to share this information with others that you think will be interested. Thanks. E
a
Note: Interested parties, whether or not they attend the August 3 meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign N
regulations to the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. r
Regards,
Shane Hope
Shane Hope, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Edmonds
425.771.0220 x-1216
shane.hope@edmondswa. gov_
Packet Pg. 134
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: randall@randalijhodges.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:20 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Opinion about signs, from Randall J Hodges Photography Gallery
Hello To all concerning Signs
I am unable to attend the August 3rd meeting but wanted to share my thoughts
I own the Randall I Hodges Photography Gallery at 317 Main Street. I do use an A Frame sign and find it
Very, Very Helpful and Valuable, especially to announce special features events or lesson in the gallery,
like Art Walk
My A Frame is not in anyone's way, and I keep it in great condition, and I invested a lot of money into it. I
believe it is only fair to let us keep the A Frame Signs, in light of the many restaurant's who get to seat
customers outside, taking up way more space than our little A Boards and causing much more congestion,
and hazardous situations, which I have witnessed. I am no way saying that they should go away also, but
if they get to utilize the side walk for extending there restaurant's seating, I should be able to take up 3
square feet to put out my sign
I know the new restaurant The Salt and Iron, gets to use over 150 square feet of sidewalk space taking up
over 1/2 of the passible sidewalk
If the A board are no longer able to be put out, then the restaurants should also stay inside and not
invade the sidewalks. Otherwise I would like to apply to put tables in front of my Gallery space also, then I
could place my A Frame Sign on top of it, calling it a table tent .... I think that sounds very fair and
reasonable.
For me it is a question of what is fair, and if some of the businesses get to use the sidewalk as space, than
so should the other merchants.... Many of us shop keepers need all the help we can get to get customers
in the door, and the A Frame Signs help me greatly
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments on this important issue
Have a great day!
Randall Hodges
Randall J Hodges Photography
www.randalljhodges.com
randali@randallihodcies.com
cell 425-210-2506
Randall J Hodges Photography
Fine Art Photography Gallery
317 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
ph: 425-582-0803
"Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints"
"Walks Far"
m
O
U
c
a�
in
N
C
O
E
w
as
0
0
c
m
E
c
m
E
a
M
N
M
In
as
m
J
c
m
E
E
O
U
m
O
U
c
a�
in
r
c
m
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 135
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Hope, Shane
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Planning Work Group
Cc: McConnell, Jeanie; Zulauf, JoAnne; Lambert, Jennifer; English, Robert; Building Work
Group
Subject: FW: City meeting on sign code options
Just wanted you to know we are starting to get the word out about a public meeting (August 3, 6 pm; see below) to
identify issues and options for our sign code —especially regarding A -frame type signs in the ROW downtown. I'd like at 0
least a couple of city staff persons to be at the meeting with me. Let Rob C. or me know if you are interested. More 0
details later.
in
N
Shane
0
E
From: Hope, Shane U
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:55 AM
r
To: 'andy@clinejewelers.com' $
Cc: Doherty, Patrick
Subject: City meeting on sign code options
E
Hello Mr. Kline,
E
As you may know, the City has gotten various complaints about si na a, esp. A -frame signs downtown in the public right a
of way. The City Council has asked my department to look into whether our city's sign code should be amended and, if M
so, how. We are sensitive to the signage needs of businesses, as well as community preferences.
U)
L
To kick off this effort, we are holding a public meeting August 3, 6 pm, in the Council Chambers (250 5th Ave. N.) and
welcome both residents and business representatives. Please feel free to share this invitation with other DEMA _J
members. a
The intent of the August 3 meeting is to identify sign issues and options. In the fall, the City expects to have a draft of
any code changes for further review and input. The draft will then be refined and, as part of more public process,
brought to the Planning Board for a recommendation and the City Council for a decision.
The existing sign code is available on the City's webpage: http1Jwww.edmondswa.gaY/rules-and-
regulations.html. Then click "Community Development Code (ECDC)", then "Title 20", then "20.60 Sign Code".
Interested parties, whether or not they attend the meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign regulations to
the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov.
Note: We have shared this information with the ED! board, as well.
Thanks for your interest,
Shane Hope, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Edmonds
425.771.0220 x-1216
shone. ha a edmondswo. av
Packet Pg. 136
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Kurt Mattingly <kurt@dragonfire.gallery>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Dragonfire Art Gallery sign regulations to the City Statment
To whom it may concern
Sadly I will not be able to attend the meeting discussing the "A" boards, but wanted to express my opinion. c
U
I thinks it crucial, especial for small businesses not located right on 5tn or main to be able to display "A" boards. A huge % a�
of my not so great traffic is due to our board placement on 51n in
N
It would most definitely put us in a scary position of survival, and eventually out of business.
My boards are placed in areas that do not cause a safety concern for anyone. 0
E
w
PLEASE, I beg of you: DO NOT PASS a regulation stating NO "A" board usage in town.
r
0
Kindest regards, )
c
m
Kurt Mattingly E
m
E
Q
Kurt Mattingly M
GALLERY DIRECTOR L
425-275-7670
L
10 facebook.com/DragonfireEdmonds
Packet Pg. 137
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: Namascandystore@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:17 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: the A Board and sign issues
Hello: I own Nama's Candy Store and am a 20+ year resident of Edmonds. I have been involved in many aspects
of Edmonds retail including President of DEMA and member of the Chamber Board of Directors.
I agree with those that think there needs to be more control over signs and A Boards in Edmonds. I do admit to being
guilty of signage indiscretion at times and have some suggestions that I believe would solve most of the issues and still be
fair to all concerned.
A Boards:
One A Board per business location, no more than 3' tall and 21/2 ' wide. All A Boards must be within 5 feet of the building
housing the business and they must come in at closing. They cannot block any public walkway, curb or ramp. They
cannot be placed on property planted by the city or parks dept.
This would be a city wide code and include all business including Real estate. An open house sign would be placed within
5' of the home for sale. Event promotion boards would not be allowed.
Signage:
Two signs per Business, both attached to the business foot print not the building footprint. This pertains to buildings that
house multiple business. Hwy 99 signs would be larger than downtown core signs. Windows are at the business owners
discretion.
These simple changes would put an end to the following:
The Restaurant that puts a 5' sign in the handicap ramp at the fountain in front of Starbucks and never brings it in.
The store that puts 4 A Boards up on 4 separate corners, 1 block apart, 7 days a week. He does not even own a corner
business.
The gift store west of the theater that puts an A Board in the corner garden on 5th at the fountain.
The 3 businesses closer to 6th that bring signs down to both sides of 5th
The Realtor who puts 4 A Boards at each corner of 5th at the fountain for open houses and broker events
The store that has draped itself with banners and signs.
The solome courses pedestrians must negotiate on may of our sidewalks all over town.
The list goes on. The solutions must be all inclusive and fair to commerce.
Pat McKee
a�
0
U
a�
in
_
0
E
w
a�
r
0
r
c
aD
_
m
E
M
N
M
r
Packet Pg. 138
7.A.c
From: David Harb [mailto:dh42674 mail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: A Boards
Council Members:
When are you going to restrict A boards that take over the majority of the sidewalks making
walking difficult. Our sidewalks are narrow and uneven and almost ever service provides and
business owner feels that it's their right to put at least one sign out. Some business even have
as many as three signs out.
Please do something that would be community friendly and provides for safe walking in
Edmonds. Besides it is doubtful that these signs generate any business.
Regards,
David Harb
Packet Pg. 139
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: natalieshippen@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Enforcement of Edmonds sign code re temoroary signs
Planning Board Members:
Mr. Clugston's reply to my question about owner notification to the City when signs are placed in the -00
street is, "No, the code does not require that the business inform the City that they are going to put U
out a temporary sign." My question to the Planning Board is How can the 60-day cumulative period,
each year requirement be enforced when the Planning Department has no record of the signs, and co
third -party (complainant) information isn't accepted at a hearing or legal proceeding?
The Edmonds situation is aggravated because its Code requires more monitoring. Other towns E
forbid temporary signs with two exceptions. a ONE-TIME business opening period of various lengths w
(none as long as 60 days) and special events periods measured by a few days.
My appeal is a good example of a problem that could be corrected quickly. Temporary signs are the o
worst visual offenders, and, for practical purposes, all temporary signs in Edmonds are permanent. I
respectfully suggest that the Board adopt a piece -meal approach to correcting the sign code. One E
section of the code doesn't hinge upon another. E
Natalie Shippen a
M
N
M
r
Packet Pg. 140
7.A.c
Cunningham, Diane
From: natalieshippen@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:52 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Revision of the Edmonds sign code
To the Edmonds Planning Board:
Since only God knows when and how the City council will, procedurally, exercise its will, I hereby
submit some of my sign code concerns to the Planning Board. I shoot my ideas into the air, they'll fall
to earth I know not where (the City Council, perhaps? in this century, maybe).
PURPOSE of the sign code: To maintain Edmonds reputation as an attractive residential community
by protecting it from visual blight.
I think the following changes should be made to the Edmonds sign code:
TEMPORARY signs shall not be permitted anywhere at any time except:
1. to announce a new business opening - for a 60 CONSECUTIVE day period in the first year of
operation only, the 60 day period to begin the day the business license is issued.
2. to promote a special event - for four days prior to the event and a one -day clean-up following the
event.
3. Three of the following TYPES of TEMPORARY signs may be used for the opening and the
special events:
a) sandwich board b. feather (banner on a tall vertical pole) c)banners d)pennants e)small
placards on a stick used at intersections
There shall be no "indeterminable" lengths of time for "TEMPORARY" signs. There is a stigma
attached to signs and their temporary use is a privilege granted to business for a strictly limited time
PERMANENT signs that shall not be permitted anywhere: Pole signs; Blinking signs and movable
scrawl signs
GENERAL:
1. ALL signs require require a permit; the enforcement period begins on the day the permit is
issued.
2. No off -premise signs are permitted
3. The word "premise" should be re -defined. The public right-of-way is NOT a part of the premise
4. All PERMANENT signs must be approved by the ADB.
Example of bad sign include but is not limited to: the WALL banners on the Wells Fargo building on
5th; Chanterelle's-west wall'; SNAP Fitness; Claires Pantry -west wall; and the NW corner of
3rd/Dayton. The worst collection of signs are on the: SW corner of Fifth/Main; N. side of Main
between 3rd and Forth, and the NE corner of Milltown. WESTGATE
Natalie Shippen
0
U
r_
in
N
C
0
E
w
as
0
U)
E
a
M
N
CO)
Packet Pg. 141
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2016
Administrative Discussion: Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Consider and discuss
Narrative
Extended agenda is attached
Attachments:
06-22-2016 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 142
Items and Dates are subject to change
pLANI0IR(O BOARD
�4.. 1 RVD
Extended Agenda
June 22, 2016
Meeting Item
JUNE 2016
June 22 1. Sign Code Update
2. Hwy 99 Area Planning Project open house
12016
July 13 1. Land Division Code Update
July 27 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan
iUST 2016
Aug. 10 1. No public hearings to be scheduled tonight due to Police Foundation Open
House.
Aug. 24 1.
(EMBER 2016
Sept. 14 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan
Sept. 28 1.
OBER 2016
Oct. 12 1.
Oct. 26 1.
(EMBER 2016
Nov. 9 1.
Nov. 23 1.
EMBER 2016
Dec. 14 1.
Dec. 28 1.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 143
items ana I)ates are
9.A.a
to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2016 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring Topics 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
2. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
ca
c
m
a�
Q
d
C
r
X
W
O
O
M
C
d
Q
d
C
d
X
W
m
d
t0
O
N
N
N
to
O
C
d
E
M
V
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 144