Loading...
107 2ND AVE N.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII4779 107 2ND AVE N I 0 0 0 %�%l�, Y"P X r L �- ez-c-p— • 0 O O {n coo VI Y1N xxx u1 V1y N N N STREET FILE CDD[k 1 S I�N a INC. SCC IATES SO � � 19a ., NG 4230198thST S.W. LY(\NWOCD, WASH98036 (206) CONFERENCE REPORT TO: Chris Beckman, City of Edmonds, Engineering Coordinator FROM: Ken Jensen, Commercial Design Associates, Inc. DATE: September 21, 1988 PROJECT: SECOND &. MAIN OFFICE BUILDING, CDA it 12587 SUBJECT: Vehicular Access 6 Egress The following statements summarize our telephone conversation on the above date: * Another traffic access scheme was verbally presented to Mr. Beckman for his comments. In this scheme, the proposed building is located on the alley property line. The lower level garage stalls are assigned. * Alley access to the garage is limited with signage to a right turn in and a right turn out, as well as alley access to the upper parking lot. This would encourage a one-way use by occupants of this building. This would be in conformance to the eventual one-way dedication of the alleys as described by Dan Smith. * The responses by Mr. Beckman to this scheme are: 1. Too much traffic is directed to the north and may be objectionable by neighbors. 2. The aisle width for the existing western neighbor's parking stalls should be at least 25'. * According to measurements of the western neighbors site taken on September 21, 1988,_ the distance from the face of building to the alley, property line is 25'-10".' This includes the 5' concrete sidewalk. The 1,6'-0" alley added to that produces 41'-10" for stalls and drive aisle for the _nei.ghb.or.',s�parking lot. -This is V-2" shallower than city requirements and___is therefore currently,_--, cn .0.0.1 CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. Sincerely, COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Ken ensen Project Designer cc: Scott Shanks, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT KJ:kj048 ef AD6 /oa -0 � I�CIAL INC. t�VbC IATES 4230 198th ST S.W. LYI\11\WC(--)D, WASH Ii',I( 4TOi\,198036 (206) 771-2)300 E E i V E D S F P 9� ? 1988 CONFERENCE REPORT: ENGINEERING TO: CHRIS BECKMAN - CITY OF EDMONDS, ENGINEERING COORDINATOR FROM: KEN JENSEN, CDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 PROJECT: SECOND AND MAIN OFFICE BUILDING CDA JOB #1268T. SUBJECT: VEHICULAR ACCESS AND EGRESS The following statements summarize our telephone conversation on the above date: The alley entrance, to the garage, can be maintained, provided: A.) It is designated to be an entry only and B.) it has signage that directs cars to exit up an internal proposed ramp to the upper parking lot and then to the driveway at Second Avenue North. This driveway should be 24' wide with 1 0'radiuses. This alternative would not require widening the existing alley, and the upper parking lot would not directly access the alley. CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Inn!en Project Designer CP:mjj53 cc: Scott Shanks, FWD C D� ��RCIAL INC. OCIATES 4230 198th ST S. W LYNf\WC)-DHIi �, WAS1 _7,T f l 98036 (' Oh) 771-2300 CONFERENCE REPORT TO: Chris Beckman, City of Edmonds FROM: Ken Jensen, Commercial Design Associates, Inc. DATE: September 20, 1988 PROJECT: SECOND S MAIN OFFICE BUILDING CDA 1112687 `SUBJECT:_ Vehicular Access Is Egress - -- -- - - - -- IN ATTENDANCE AT MEETING: Chris Beckman, City of Edmonds Robert Alberts, City Engineer Ken Jensen, CDA The following statements summarize our meeting on the above date: * Two alternative schemes were discussed. s F P 2 q 1988 ENGINEERING * Scheme A illustrated a revision to the submitted plan that would allow in 6 out access to the below grade parking garage by widening the alley width to 25' up to and including the entry. * Scheme B extended this widening up to and including the aisle to the upper r'1 parking area. Both alternatives were acceptable in that they permitted two-way alley traffic to access the parking garage on scheme A and both the garage and upper fob Fi�� lot on scheme B. Neither scheme utilized an interior ramp to inter -connect the two parking areas. A question regarding the parking lot dimensions of the neighboring property to the west was raised by Robert Alberts. His concern was' that the alley might be encroached upon by the parking stalls located there and that our proposed building may need to be cut back even further to accomodate their maneuvering. CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. Sincerely, COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Ken nsen Project Designer cc: Scott Shanks, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT KJ:kjb:046 CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION FOR . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE First Western Development ADDRESS 19009 33rd Avenue W.. Lynnwood, WA ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Commercial Design Associates, inc. ADDRESS .4230 198th St. SW - Lynnwood. WA DATEOt !4, (FILE #AaV-AC�. SITE PLAN SIGN EXHIBITS BUILDING PLANS 3 : ELEVATIONS �— LANDSC PE PLAN l/ ENVIRONMENT DATA V. FEE RECT # PLAN MODIFICATIONS 0 F E HEARING DATE to & , PHONE[2061775-6000 ZIP CODE 98036 PHONE (205) 771-2300 ZIP CODE 98036 PROPERTY ADDRESS Second 6 Main St. _ ZONING Q-C; LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 G 2 of Block 12 plat of Edmonds, according to volume 1 of plats page 26 records S of Snohcmish County, WA. PLANS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: 1. Building Plans - Preliminary x Final Site Plan x Landscape Plan x Elevations x 2. Sign Elevations N/A Site Plan Landscape Plan 3. Modifications of previous approval N/A EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Two story office building with surface and structures' parking underneath. APPROXIMATE DATE WORK WILL BEGIN ON PROJECT December 1968. ESTIMATED TIME.FOR COMPLETION OF WORK 9 Months RELEASE/HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS: The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorney fees, arising from any action or inaction of the City whenever such action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. PERMISSION TO ENTER SUBJECT PROPERTY: The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. r APPADBI/PFORMS Signature of Applicant CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE First Western Development ADDRESS 19009 33rd Avenue W...Lynnwood, WA DATE FI LE # SITE -PLAN SIGN EXHIBITS BUILDING PLANS 3 ELEVATIONS �— LANDSC PE PLAN V'ENVIRONMENT DATA �. FEE10 RECT #� PLAN MODIFICATIONS 0 &FE HEARING DATE PHONE[2061775-6000 ZIP CODE 98036 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Commercial Design Associates, inc. PHONE (2061 771-2300 ADDRESS .4230 198th St. SW -Lynnwood. WA ZIP CODE 98036 PROPERTY ADDRESS Second 6 Main St. ZONING B-C LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 6 2 of Block 12 plat of Edmonds, according to volume 1 of plats page 26 records i of Snohcmish County, WA. PLANS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: 1. Building Plans - Preliminary x Final Site Plan x Landscape Plan xElevations X 2. Sign Elevations N/A Site Plan Landscape Plan 3. Modifications of previous approval N/A EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Two story office building with surface and structured parking underneath.. APPROXIMATE DATE WORK WILL BEGIN ON PROJECT December 1986 ESTIMATED TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK 9 Months RELEASE/HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS: The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorney fees, arising from any action or inaction of the City whenever such action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. PERMISSION TO ENTER SUBJECT PROPERTY: The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. APPADBI/PFORMS Signature of Applicant 46j6cr 13FI3lee- 89p-199- CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: ' Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering September 30, 1988 Carl Pirscher Commercial Design Associates 4230 - 198th St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA. 98036 Dear Mr. Pirscher: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR STgEET FILE PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The current proposal by your firm for the 2nd and Main office building is not acceptable. Our City Code sets standards for street widths. A 16 foot wide, two-way alley is nonconforming by these standards and additional traffic from your office building parking lot to this alley is not allowable. Your options, as we have discussed numerous times, are to petition the Hearing Examiner to change the alley from two-way to one-way, widen the alley to an acceptable width adjacent to your property, or redesign the parking lot/building to access to another point. Very truly yours, DAN SMITH Engineering Inspector DS/sdt ALBERTS PIRSCHER/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan T♦ • COMMERCIAL , DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 4230 198th Street SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 (206) 771-2300 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via Shop drawings ❑ Prints lX Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Plans L IEUTEM OF'TUlliUSEDUML i► �I lol I F�'s he following items: Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION �% / -�-� [� �.� �( l li 1 I IAA _ \✓� ' 1�-�li . THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER TO UpS� REMARKS! `/+ �-T�� lO 5 A R&OM . 'LOAN As w '0 F 1� u _&I E PcW wt&fQ , COPY TO �'�►y �l;►V��� SIGNED: PRODUCT 240-2 im., Grad,, sm 01471 It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. r ; v 4230 198th ST S.W. September 24, 1988 CIAL tovcN IATES �qEr? Q,7 1988 PERMIT COUNTER LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (206) 771-2300 Duane Bowman CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 505 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 PROJECT: SECOND AND MAIN OFFICE BUILDING CDA JOB *2988. SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW Dear Duane: It was a pleasure meeting with you and other members of the City of Edmonds staff to review the departmental requirements for approval of this project. At this time, there seems to be what we believe is a crucial issue to the success to this project as yet unresolved. Due to a variety of conditions imposed on the development of this project by the existing site topography, conditions of the City's platting of streets and alleys and finally, the basic requirements of the zoning code itself the building that you now have before you, for review, virtually requires the access points shown on our site plan to be considered programmatically successful on behalf of my client. Following our discussion, of last week, we evaluated the allowable parking dimension and driveway dimensions there at the alley in question. As noted by you and members of your staff the adjacent building fully utilizes the alley for turning movements in each direction and also enjoys the advantage of having 90 degree parking backing directly Into this avenue. We have incorporated the dimensional relationship of the adjacent property into our site plan for your review. The backup and traffic lane requirements for access into this alley, are virtually provided by the present situation especially in light of the- adjacent parking level that utilizes that alley in a similar situation to our proposal. What is clear is that we have a pre-existing condition which appears to be working satisfactorily. It is, therefore, felt by ourselves that approval of the project as now submitted, should be granted. On behalf of our clients we would, therefore, request that you re-evaluate your initial response to our application In light of additional information provided. We do not feel that the project should be held up pending a City Council review of a one way traffic access to the alley. If the City wishes to pursue this matter on its own this project would of course comply with Council decisions. If in reviewing this project you feel conditions discussed in our last meeting are elemental to the City's approval, I would request that such stipulations be sent to me, in writing, for my client's review. SECOND AND MAIN OFFICE BUILDING September 24, 1988 Page 2 I hope this Information largely resolves the issues related to site plan approval. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, 101 .5, CFP:mjj02 cc: Chris Beckman, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING/CITY OF EDMONDS Scott Shanks, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT George Barber, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT (=:D RCIAL DK INC. SO C IATES 4230 198th ST S.W. LYNNWOOD, WASHIf,.k�TOJ 98036 October 26, 1988 Bob Alberts, City Engineer CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 503 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 771-2300 ���F���® ��.� 311968 ENGINEERING PROJECT: SECOND AND MAIN OFFICE BUILDING CDA JOB #1268T SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR ALLEY ACCESS STREET FILE Dear Bob: Based on our meeting today, it is my understanding that the following site plan changes will be required of this project in order to secure a Public Works approval of the design concept: 1. The upper level parking tier shall be blocked off from alley access. 2. The transition from the minimum of 22-feet alley width to the existing 16-foot alley easement, be handled as an ang!ed wall, thereby removing some space from the parking stall #19 rather than the abrupt transition with paint stripes as shown on the plans submitted. 3. The maximum grades established in the alley way, subsequent to our grading efforts, will be approximate) 8 o or less. 4. In lieu of blocking off the upper deck of parking, and transitioning the building as noted on our plans, the City would be willing to accept a concept that reduces the building continuously at the alley sufficient to provide a 22-foot minimal alley width. This would allow us to maintain access to the alley from both the upper and lower decks of parking. In addition, the following issues wero discussed as recommendations from the City staff for inclusion in: this project: 1. Prior to replacing the sidewalk subsequent to our excavation for the lower level parking baserrent, the City will recommend that we place conduit for future City connections to proposed City streetlights. SECOND AND MAIN OFFICE BUILDING October 26, 1988 Page 2 2. The City may request that the ownership participate in providing up to three (3) street.level pedestrian lamps, standards, and fixtures per a recent Council decision to implement an aesthetic street lighting scheme on the Main Street thoroughfare. 3. A transitional paving area should be provided at the pedestrian sidewalk as it crosses over the proposed alley possibly to include a bominite or exposed aggregate finish to warn pedestrians of the possibility of crossing traffic. I believe that the above c j,mmsnts r3preSomt the rn;a;or pc;rts ^f cur di.= cussion. Please call if you have any questions or clarifications to the above. Sincerely, COM &RCIAVAES I'A' SOCI*ES, INC. CU/I F. Pirs her Principal CFP:als26 CC: George Barber, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT. Scott Shanks, FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CDKINC 4230 198th ST S. W CONFERENCE REPORT t�W"CIAL bC IATES OCT 11. 1988 ENGINEERING LYf 1i WCC%C-, WASHIi : T�' 19�'C � �2;= ) 771- -1300 I:-'r, Ih TO: ROBERT ALBERTS, CITY OF EDMONDS DAN SMITH, CITY OF EDMONDS LEIGH FRANCIS, CITY OF EDMONDS FROM: I KEN JENSEN, COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, !NC. DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1988 PROJECT: SECOND & MAIN OFFICE BUILDING CDA JOB *1268T. SUBJECT: VEHICULAR ACCESS AND EGRESS IN ATTENDANCE AT MEETING: ROBERT ALBERTS, CITY ENGINEER DAN SMITH, PLANNING/ENGINEERING LEIGH FRANCIS, PLANNING KEN JENSEN, CDA The following statements summarize our meeting on the above date: STREET FILE 1. Vehicular access to the alley, garage and parking lot was discussed. By notching the proposed building to accommodate the extra width required for current alley width standards of 22'-0", a transition from the 22' to the 16' would be a problem. If the notch would extend only far enough back to allow a full 25' wide recessed garage entry, the problem, according to Mr. Alberts, would be that cars continuing northbound might run into the building at this corner. 2. Also, if the north west corner of the building. is flush with the alley property line, his preference would be to close off the access to the alley from the upper parking area. His reasoning was to limit the use of the alley to access _the lower parking garage only. By providing a low curb along the alley property line, access would be prohibited while Stall #6 could back out and attain more maneuvering space by allowing its bumper to overhang the curb. SECOND & MAIN OFFICE BUILDING October 4, 1988 Page 2 3. Although, the notch scheme would accommodate two-way access to the garage, from Main Street via the alley, his preferred solution would be to widen the alley all the way along the site by setting the building back from the alley property line. He said that he would consider a 20' alley dedication instead of the 22' which is the standard. This would reduce the impact on the building area loss.. 4. Regarding the regrading of the alley and adjacent property, Mr. Alberts expressed a concern that he was unaware of this aspect of the.site design and that 12% may be too steep since the City does not sand alleys during ice and snowfall occurrences. The City code states that 14% is the maximum slope for driveways. He also suggested that the two property owners meet to discuss this regrading plan prior to proceeding because it is essential to the vehicular clearance required to access the parking garage. 5. ^: discussion then occurred regarding choice of garage entry locations. Dan Smith and I summarized our past meetings and discussions regarding this. This information is detailed In conference reports dated September 7, 1988; September 19, 1988; September 20, 1988 and September 21, 1988. 6. Leigh Francis and I then discussed, signage, a satellite dish and how to proceed at the A.D.B. meeting. She thought that the signage could be approved if more definition were provided at the meeting. The hearing examiner would have to decide about the height variance for signs above 14'-0". The City codes do not address satellite communication dishes, only receivers for T.Ws. Her feeling was that if we kept it lower than 15' above grade and positioned it at the back of the site, then there would be no problem with it's approval. 7. She thought that the documents were sufficient to convey architectural character and would not change significantly if the Main Street elevation becomes narrower either with a notch or a reduction in width all the way north. She did qualify her opinion on what the decision might be by saying that there are seven board members on the A.D.B. and that it's impossible to predict their concerns and opinions. I stated that the Client needed a decision about the signage and satellite dish at the meeting as they both were essential elements for the major tenant of the building. CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being.correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. Sincerely, COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Ken eensen Project Designer KJ:mjj04 cc: Scott Shanks, FWD Carl Pirscher, CDA 3jI� d33ydS ©VEMB 'P PH in JOB NO 13588 NOV 16 1988 PLAP"„ T DEPT VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT DATA LOCATION: SECOND AND MAIN EDMONDS WASHINGTON ZONE: BC PROPOSED USE: OFFICE SITE AREA: 149400 S.F. BUILDING AREA: 13,216 S.F. PARKING PROVIDED: 25 STALLS ( 1 PER 529 S.F.) CONTOUR (EXISTING & PROPOSED 39— EX113TING PARKING WOOD FENCE 16'-0" ALLEY I 38---- 37 35 o TwI � UN VED Ai;EA EL. 36.5 34 \ \ BRICK D,UMPSTE R 7'-0" DIA. SATTELITE DISH in'-17' Alamm nm AP1G FACE BRICK VENEER ON 4" CONC. BLOCK Am �o - PAINTED METAL X`, 4" CONC. SLAB W/ SCREEN . DOORS BROOM FINISH SLOPE TO DRAIN DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE I LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ,TIN P K \\ _ E IS G AR ING ACER PLATANOIDES NORWAY MAPLE \ SUITE A SUITE B 1 3/ 4"-2" CAL. 3� \� F.F. � � �34.5 F.F 34.5 ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE t SETBACK 8' H T. EDGE OF \\ RHODODENDRON VARIETY EXISTING --_ BUILDING JEAN MARIE DE MONTAGUE \\ 18"-24" HT. _ BLUE DIAMOND IMPEDITUM --- ---- - _ NCRETE EL. 34.4 /�` P -ANTE _ �� _ 1 10.00 ILEX CRENATA CONVEXA TREE�GATE EXISTING CNCRETEDE\VALK REPAI 15 18 HT. 3 0 O.C. . " 33 _ �� 34 \�35 � � 36 16 -0 ALLEY HEDERA HELIX "BUCK'S FOOT" IVY FABRIC AWNING OVERHANG ABOVE 1 GAL. CAN AT 24" O.C. THUJA OCCIDENTALIS PYRAMADALIS MAIN STREET 3' O.C.- 4' TO 5' HIGH IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE PROVIDED SR 675 JG PLAN REIE GRATE EXISTING PLANTER EXISTING PLANTER E(,j"iD NOV 16 1988 PLAN°""►G DEPT MAIN STREET ELEVATION SCALE ve"-r-o" SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" iTUGGU BRICK VE INUM FR ,TED WIN 1C AWNII SECOND AVENUE NORTH- ELEVATION, SCALE 1/8'= 1'-0' • 1 �_i i�i NMI �i M iE 32'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/e'=1-0' K VENEER .If CO 'STUCCO ALUMINUM FRAME INSULATED WINDOWS STUCCO FABRIC AWNING FACE BRICK VENEER -- STUCCO JOB NO 13588 SR 675 pl_AN"""'G DEPT. olox—MA—W qR 675 I w5'sue, 9 ��� s /ASfrp7J%(�l,%1%i rSF' M-4 -111 m mz • i %= r / rr � i D1A/r�r ` � I r� l+i, ig���(//,) i� 1¢ �'� I "I'll"I'll 2.i'�„!.//� �'`S' .� "� f ! ,� I ,p��iwri%I T I fJ IiI:: ,`��'.�,j "'�.�x '.2' NOW • ilia J ---------------- pov I: aTITA a 1 Lei X, gel 0 1 1 MZ111111'1'01�1111 -, , * a , I. '" i I X - 11 0 ilL 1:4 Imm, ol STREET FILE 1988 PERMIT COUNTER VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA LOCATION SECOND & MAIN STREET , EDMONDS, WA. ZONE BC PROPOSED USE OFFICE SITE AREA 149400 S.F. BUILDING AREA : 179000 S.F. _ PARKING PROVIDED: 39 SPACES (1 PER 436 SF) LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ACER PLATANOIDES NORWAY MAPLE 1 1 1/2" CAL. - i ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 8' HGT. RHODODENDRON VARIETY JEAN MARIE DE MONTAGUE 18" — 24" HGT. BLUE DIAMOND IMPEDITUM BERBERIS JULIANAE WINTERGREEN BARBERRY HEDERA HELIX ENGLISH IVY .1 GAL. CAN AT 24" O.C. CHAMPS CYPARIS — PLICATA PRYM ADALAS CEDAR 3' O.C. — 4' TO 5' HIGH 3 9'_ J J m J m Oo 3 8 z - 3'7� w 36' _ 3 5'—\ 1 r WOOD FE PAINTI SC:RFFI " BRICK VENEER CONC. BLK. NC SLAB W/ FIN. SLOPE TO DRAIN DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 7' DIA. SATELLITE DISH 10'-17' ABOVE GRADE 16'-0"WENCLOSURE 120'-0" 42' �.ALLEY BRICK PLANTERDUMPSTER\1'- HIGH � 1 2 3 �4 5 42' I N 1 UPPER LEVEL SURFACE PARKING \ \ v o CATCH Lo �^ BASIN `v J ASPHALT \ �\ \ I N o _ \ 41 w s SECOND STORY BUILDING OVERHANG \ 41.65' i 6 7 87 9 10 11 12 13 \14 15 I 16 I �7 I S.P IT SYSTEM N�\ \ 1 � MEC ANICAL UNITS o \ BUMPER OVERHANG - N C E I co o N O UNSAVED A -� \ \ o z I / N 34/ , \ CL \ s I O 18 19 20 - 21 3 3 Y\ z Y m\ 1 / d —� Q c~n GARAGE PROPOSED \ U\ ENTRY CONTOUR \ <C 32 0 EXISTING \\ \< W \ CONTOUR 29 30 31 32 I \ C w l J \\ W cr IQIr T z z I \ ----- -- _ w O Q \ O EDGE OF U CATCH EXISTING ' BASIN BUILDING UPPER LE EL COVERED PARKING 00 \ CONCRETE WALKWAY TREE GRATE Im 22 33 I 23 24 1 25 0 26 BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE ELEVATION 32'-0" 34 (o) 35 37 EL. 3 4' �--NCO CRETE PLANTS S 120'-0" ,- 5'-1" 20'-9" EXIS \ \ ' TIN SIDEWALK - ll,�PAIR OR 'REPACE AS REQUTED 16'-0" 1 �� 1 / 1 �\ ALLEY I l I i 1 334 I \ 3 i 8.6\37' i 3 SITE/LA.NDSCAPING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" MAIN STREET 27 i z\ / Q \ /� J � wII I w CC / \ 28 Z 38 39 \ H/C S�ENTRY \ ON' Sc FLO 39' 40' ----- - 1141' I ENTRY ON FIRST FLOOR, EXIS1 EXISTING PLANTER MAIN STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" HT. LIMIT 63'-9" ROOF DECK EL.63'-O" COND FL .51'-6" ST FLOO V V V L— 1 I L— L.J 1 f1 1 I 1% I I V to I GARAGE El NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" BHT. LIMIT 63'-9" I I I I I I I I � SECOND AVENUE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" t.df%I 1fI%A L— I_1 V I 1 Ir-A1 V V I_ JOB NO 12687 SITE SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" VI=vv —MUiva UUMINQ=h Ur %"jtUUI\IU & MAIN STREET FILE S E P 141988 PERMIT COUNTER VICINITY MAP Jaw'101 PROJECT DATA PAINTI SCREEI ;DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ,16'-0"' x L.LEY , 3 9' "^1--' BRICK VENEER CONC. BLK. NC SLAB W/ FIN. SLOPE TO DRAIN 41' 120'-0" 4-2' _- + x k�`�c� % A`G—�.—r�+a "k-�—il-7C�X "k'k' k X %C h k k x•X C 1t ll k •c X k % Y k X k ! k �` \\ BRICK PLANTER 3' HIGH BRICK DUMPSTER e.-0SURE � � \�4 \\ 1 2 _ 3 5 LOCATION : SECOND & MAIN STREET , EDMONDS, WA. ZONE BC � CATCH �.�-- � BASIN PROPOSED USE : OFFICE 38'------ 0 — — — — — EL 3 8.0' ---f SITE AREA 14,400 S.F. -�i 6 7 8 9 11 BUILDING AREA 179000 S.F. 37\-- i PARKING PROVIDED: 39 SPACES (1 PER 436 SF) 36' ` k LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE . pw,,, 3 5' _ O I _ _ BUMPER J 1 cf) r 3 4 33 • ACER PLATANOIDES NORWAY MAPLE GARAGE } � i ENTRY PROPOSED 1 w 1 1/2" CAL. CONTOUR 32 ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE EXISTING CONTOUR 29 S' H G T . �� \ •� RHODODENDRON VARIETY V__ JEAN MARIE DE MONTAGUE `� CA1�CH 18 - 24 HGT. BLUE DIAMOND IMPEDITUM �`� BASIN n`v BERBERIS JULIANAE WINTERGREEN BARBERRY HEDERA HELIX ENGLISH IVY - ( 1 GAL. CAN, AT 24" O.C. 1� i CHAMPE CYPAR IS - PLICATA �1 PRYM ADALAS CEDAR 3' O.C.- 4' TO 5' HIGH EXISTING ALLEY 33� SITE/LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE r-I f v ATIr%AI n f% n" IN STREET —}- TREE GRATE i I EXISTING PLANTER aT � `OGLE GtllU , 6071 PLANTER I ANNUAL FLO\VERING PLANTS TO JJ MATCH EXISIIING 4 - / 70 I.\I A� I&I� I%#I. I IA I 1 P'-T Tr P9(1 ^^11 TAI 1 MAIN STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" /ITI I -% -. _\ r-I A II r%I I V V V L- I I L- V I /-1 I I I I I V %_4 I NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" oi HT. LIMIT 63'-9" ROOF DECK EL. 62'-0" ,COND FLOOR . 51'-0" ST FLOO GARAGE EL. 32'-0" HT. LIMIT 63'-9" ROOF DECK EL. 62'-0 SECOND FLOOR EL. 51'-0" GARAGE EL. 32'-0" STUCCO FINISH FACE BRICK VENEER ACCENT LIGHT FSTENCILED BLDG. ADDRESS JL I I I TILE ACCENTS — CONCRETE BASE SECOND AVENUE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" VVE ST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" MECHANICAL SCREEN —STUCCO ALUMINUM FRAMED INSULATED WINDOWS GARAGE ENTRANCE EXISTING GRADE SITE SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"