Loading...
Request for Interpretation - STF-08-10.pdfRICHARD E. GIFFORD PLLC June 12, 2008 Rick Gifford Ismail: rick@,rgiffordlaw.com Mr. Rob Chave Planning Director City of Edmonds 121 – 5t` Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Project—Maverick on Main, 555 Main Street; Request for formal Code interpretation Dear Mr. Chave: 14ECEIVEC JUN 12 2W 1)rr A OUN7 RV10E5 HAND DELIVERED I am writing on behalf of RickMark LLC, the owner 555 Main Street, concerning its proposed re -development of the above property currently under discussion with the Edmonds Planning Division. The principals of RickMark LLC, Rick Kent and Marls Tramper, also own MaverickLabels.com, an Internet -based business located in the Harbor Square office complex. Mar. Kent and Mr. Tramper recently acquired 555 Main Street with plans for a mixed-use commercial building to house their company, retail uses, and other commercial offices. A question has arisen about the interpretation of the City's new Downtown Business (BD) zone as applied to the proposed project, specifically the provisions pertaining to the BD (Downtwon Retail Core) subdistrict in which the subject site is situated. The question, as we view it, is two -fold: (1) how is "ground floor" defined for purposes of the City's development code generally and for the BDl subdistrict zone; and, (2) what is the required minimum depth of the ground floor in the BD subdistrict, if any? The issues are framed in greater detail below by reference to the project and the relevant code provisions. Before turning to the particulars of the inquiry, it will be helpful to summarize the history of the re -development proposal and the course of discussions with planning staff to date. More discussion of policy and objectives is included than normally would be the case since we are dealing with matters of first impression under newly adopted and minimally applied code provisions. The BD zone implements pivotal downtown waterfront area planning initiatives. A. Site and Project Background The subject site is prominent and well known in the community. Its traditional single family residential use no longer is consistent with the City's targeted mixed use commercial concept. The centerpiece of this concept in the central downtown is street -level retail for the parcels lining Main Street between 6"' and 4u' Avenues. Ideally, and inevitably, this pivotal property will re- develop, combining a mixture of commercial office uses with street front retail and direct, at - grade pedestrian access, as currently proposed. 600 MAIN STREET, SUITE E • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON • 98020 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 • FAX: (425) 673-0631 Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 2 Under the City's comprehensive plan and its newly adopted downtown zoning configuration, the property sits at the Main Street gateway to the principal downtown retail corridors. It is the first parcel of BD1-zoned land on the north side of Main Street approaching downtown and represents the easternmost extension of the retail core as classified in both the comprehensive plan (the Retail Core Comprehensive Plan District in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Area) and the BDl subdistrict. The property's visibility and strategic location make it a catalyst site for downtown revitalization. Re -development of 555 Main likely will spark similar face lifting of companion commercial/retail properties stringing down Main Street. Mr. Kent and Mr. Trumper learned the property was on the market during their search for a workable new headquarters location in Edmonds. MaverickLabel.com currently employs more than 20 staff and wants larger, more distinctive space. Remaining in downtown Edmonds is a high priority, but suitable development properties in the City's business/retail core are in short supply. In addition to an attractive location, 555 Main offers sufficient size and flexibility. The development proposal and intended uses are perfectly compatible with the property's comprehensive plan and zoning classifications. The setting is ideally suited for the upscale mixed-use building envisioned. MaverickLabel.com, a clean, low impact, indigenous business is a model anchor for other retail and office uses both on- and off-site. B. Initial Proiect Design (Pian 1) Project architect Mike Perry (Bank of Washington building at Dayton and 5t') formulated a design for the proposed structure in accordance with applicable BD1 development standards. This design, referred to as "Plan 1", was presented at the pre -application conference in January 3, 2008, and received favorably by staff. A cross section of Plan 1 is shown in Figure 1 accompanying this letter for comparison purposes only. The proposed design was a conventional three-level building—main floor retail frontage and backside commercial office over full -floor underground parking, and upper floor commercial space for MaverickLabel.com's offices. The plan included limited surface parking/loading areas behind the building off the alley. The basement garage entrance also was behind the building so that all vehicular traffic would enter and leave via the alley, the preferred point of access. In subsequent discussions with Mike Clugston, the Planning Division staff person assigned to the project, Mr. Perry identified certain problems with the PIan 1 building design, including the location of primary pedestrian access from the sidewalk at grade along Main Street, and the inclusion of surface parking/loading stalls beneath a rear building overhang on the same level as the main floor. The necessity of PT slab for the main floor over the garage made street -level pedestrian entrances from Main extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, and tremendously expensive. C. Revised Current Project Design (Plan 2) Due to these considerations, the architect re -designed the building and presented Mr. Clugston with "Plan 2", consisting of a virtually identical building footprint and identical building height compared with Plan 1, but resolving the identified design and cost problems. Floor plans for each of the four levels of the structure, a building cross section, and conceptual north -facing (along the Main Street frontage) and west -facing (along 6th Avenue) elevations depicting Plan 2 are enclosed as Figures 2A -D 3, and 4A -B, respectively. Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 3 While Plan 1 was a standard three-level structure with two floors over basement parking, Plan 2 is a more innovative four -level structure with a ground level along Main Street, a recessed parking garage, a stepped up second level, and a third (uppermost) level. The architect was able to retain roughly the same leaseable square footage as provided by Plan 1 and also preserve substantial structured parking on site. The applicant contends that the ground level, to its full 45 - foot depth from the building face along Main Street, is the "ground floor" within the clear meaning of the code, and thus is the only portion of the structure required to meet the ground floor dimensional an use standards of ECDC 16.43.030. The other levels of the building, notably the recessed, or stepped -down, parking level, and the stepped-up second level above and behind the ground level, are not part of the ground floor in legal or practical terms. Plan 2 has been altered modestly from the version first shown to Mr. Clugston to conceptually show at -grade pedestrian access from Main Street for all ground floor commercial space. The full -floor basement parking garage in Plan 1 is replaced by a half -floor recessed garage, eliminating the tension slab for the ground level and increasing flexibility in the design of the crucial front portion of the structure along Main. Plan 2 also eliminates surface parking/loading stalls completely, but retains a significant amount of garaged, off-street parking, although the code exempts BD properties from parking requirements. Further, as the code prefers, parking access remains entirely off the alley behind the property. No use of the pre- existing curb cut from 6'' Avenue is proposed with Plan 2. The redesigned proposal provides for the required ground floor commercial uses and increased height (15' floor to floor) along the entire Main Street frontage of the building for the full depth of the ground level. That depth exceeds the stated 30 -foot minimum depth per code for ground floor commercial space, as discussed below. D. Planning Staff Interpretation as Applied to Plan 2 Mr. Clugston preliminarily determined that the proposed design does not conform to BD 1 requirements. Plan 2 addresses the issues raised by Mr. Clugston, with the exception of his perplexing determination that "the entry/ground floor rule applies all the way from Main Street to the alley." He informed Mr. Perry that planning staff had reviewed the design and concurred. We question this determination and request a formal review and reconsideration by your office. In a later communication to Mr. Perry, Mr. Clugston summarized his reasoning as follows: "In the case of 555 Main, if the building is designed to be 70' deep from the Main Street property line [actual building depth as proposed is 110' from boundary to boundary], the remaining 40' [presumably after allowance for the 30 -foot minimum depth of ground floor commercial uses] back to the alley could be surface parking. But, in the current conception of building to the rear lot line, the ground floor has to be entirely commercial (can't be parldng) and meet the 7" requirement." [Emphasis supplied]. Mr. Clugston generally cited code section 16.43.030, but without explanation or elaboration. He has not identified specific code language supporting his conclusions. Somehow, he is reading the code to define the "ground floor" of the proposed building to be the full building depth front to back (inclusive of the ground Ievel and the separate parking level), and, therefore, to require Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 4 that the entire area conform to all BDl ground floor commercial requirements. With all due respect, this reading of the code misinterprets or overlooks express code provisions affirming the applicant's position. There is no code provision requiring that the ground floor of a building in the BD1 zone is deemed to extend to the building's full physical depth, regardless of building configuration or other relevant considerations. Here, total building depth admittedly is measured from the front wall along Main Street to the rear wall along the alley. The only specification regarding ground floor depth in BD1 is that the minimum ground floor and commercial use depth is 30 feet from the primary street entrance (here, Main Street). Plan 2 incorporates a ground floor commercial space that exceeds the 30 -foot minimum by a full 15 feet. The imposition of a constrictive standard not found in the BD code runs counter to the flexible planning and development philosophy expressed in the comprehensive plan for the retail core "to encourage a vibrant downtown ...to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level." The proposed design advances the stated objectives and does so in a manner consistent with governing code provisions. Property owners and developers need to be able to rely on the code as drafted and on its consistent application. E. Planning and Code Provisions Once again, 555 Main is within, and is a point of entry to, the downtown retail core as coextensively identified in the comprehensive plan and the zoning code. The implementing strategy for downtown includes various short term actions, including enhancing and developing "'gateways' at key entrances to the downtown area which enhance the identity and sense of place for downtown." ECP, Short Term Action 10. The following specific comprehensive plan policy applies to properties in the retail core: "... [F]irst floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level." Pursuant to ECDC 16.43.020, commercial, retail, and office uses are expressly approved primary uses in BD I, and off-street parking, though not required, is an outright permitted use secondary to any permitted primary use. The design and intended uses for the proposed building align with the City's planning goals and policies and with the BD Downtown Retail Core guidelines and standards. It is informative to walk through the various code provisions that need to be taken into account in reaching a defensible interpretation that makes sense and conforms to policy and planning objectives. The pertinent code provisions are excerpted below. 21.35.017 [Definitions] Ground floor. The ground floor of a structure is that floor which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the street which provides primary access to the sub' ectroert. A structure consisting of a building with multiple entrances divided into individual offices and related uses shall have onlyground floor. [Emphasis supplied]. Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 5 16.43.000 Purposes... . A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. [Emphasis supplied].... 16.43.030. Site Development Standards. B. Ground Floor. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk..... 2.c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5b Avenue or Main Street [here, it is Main Streetl. .... [Emphasis supplied]. 3.c Within the BD 1 zone, development on the ground floor shall _consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building death of 60 feet as measured from the street front of the building. [Emphasis supplied]. 6.. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (13)(1) through (5) of this section apply with the following exceptions and clarifications. C. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e., when the first 60 feet of the building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. [Emphasis supplied]. £ Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. D. Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5t' Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June.12, 2008 Page 6 16.43.040 Operating Restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except:.. . 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots..... F. Proposed Code Interpretation and Application 1. Plan 2 Ground Level meets definition of "Ground Floor" The first question that must be answered is, "What is the ground floor of proposed building?" The answer, of course, hinges on the applicable definition of "ground floor" for purposes of the BD1 subdistrict. The ground floor concept is central to the new BD zone, which places special emphasis on street level access to commercial uses. There is apparent misunderstanding about what constitutes the ground floor of the proposed building. Staff seems to use the term under a different meaning than is assigned to in the code. While Mr. Clugston did not articulate a working definition, he has insisted that the ground floor occupies the full depth of the building front to back, effectively the entirety of that portion of the structure that is in contact with the ground. This sounds logical standing alone, but does not correspond with the categorical definition. It is more akin to the concepts of building footprint (not defined in the Edmonds code, but generally understood to mean the outline of the total area of a structure that is surrounded by exterior walls), building envelope (ECDC 21.10.060), and building area (ECDC 21.10.050), which are based on the physical expanse of a building. By contrast, elevation, orientation, and segmentation in all have to be taken into account in determining which of a building's discrete levels is its one ground floor. When the building has non-standard features, such as the stacked levels in the Plan 2 design, that produce multiple levels, the distinctions drawn in the technical definition have greater importance and provide more focused guidance in making the crucial ground floor determination. In the BD zone this determination s foundational, since so many design and use standards turn on the issue. The BD1 sudistrict, in particular, encourages high visibility ground floor retail uses accessible directly from the fronting street and sidewalk. The definition of "ground floor" in ECDC 21.35.017 applies without modification in the BD zone. The definition is clear. It dictates that the ground floor of any structure is that single floor closest in elevation to the finished grade „ along the width of the structure,facing its, primary access „street. Under ECDC 16.43.030.B.2.c, the primary access street for corner lots in a BD zone, is Main Street or 5"' Avenue if frontage on either is available. For this site, then, the primary access street is Main and the building's ground floor is determined by reference to that frontage and the specified definitional criteria. The only level shown in Plan 2 that connects with Main Street and offers direct, at -grade entry to and from the primary access sidewalk, is the "ground level" depicted in Figures 2A and 3. We submit this can be the building's only ground floor by definition under the code. The other levels or floors of the building do not conform to the governing definition of ground floor. They do not face or connect to Main Street and they are set at different elevations from the ground (main) level. Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 7 The controlling definition refers to "that floor [singular] which is closest in elevation" to the finished grade along the width of the building fronting on Main Street. The only floor of the proposed building satisfying these criteria is the ground level. The second sentence in the code definition, states unequivocally that a multi -entrance, multi-level building like the one proposed, with spaces divided into individual offices and related uses, as will be the case among the four levels shown in Plan 2, "shall have only one rg`oun.d„floor". By code, this building can have gWy one ground floor, and it must be the floor principally oriented to Main Street. The 45 -foot deep ground level at the front of the structure is the only floor or level of the building that qualifies or conceivably could qualify as the "ground floor" under the governing definition. The parking level is not an extension or continuation of the street -level ground floor, but an entirely separate . and independent level of the structure, divided by interior walls, by elevation, and by entry. As has been noted, the BD code does not re -define "ground floor” for purposes of this subdistrict. All references to "ground floor" in. the ECDC Ch. 16.43 necessarily presuppose the generally applicable definition. Moreover, nothing in the BD1 subzone stipulates that a ground floor invariably and necessarily extends to the full building depth measured from the primary access street frontage. ECDC 16.43.030.B.3 requires only that the ground floor, as defined above, must contain commercial uses. That is the case here, where the full depth of the 45 -foot ground floor off Main is committed to commercial (most probably retail) uses. Had the Council intended to establish a minimum depth for ground floor commercial space in BD1, it readily could and should have done so explicitly, as it did for the BD2 and BD3 subzones in the next sentence of the same code subsection. ECDC 16.43.030.B.3 imposes two different and specific requirements in immediate succession. First, it states that in the BD1 subzone, ground floor development shall consist only of commercial uses. It specifies no minimum depth of the ground floor for such uses and certainly does not state or imply that the ground floor must extend the full building depth. The code provision then proceeds to establish a precise minimum depth of 60 feet for ground floor commercial uses in the BD2 and BD3 zones. The juxtaposition of these contrasting code provisions in the same subpart of the code very strongly implies, if it does not confirm; the Council's intention to omit a minimum depth for ground floor commercial use in BD1. This likelihood is reinforced by the 30 -foot threshold established for all BD subdistricts in ECDC 16.43.030.B.6.c, reviewed in greater detail below. The Council left that zone -wide standard in place for BD1, but purposely and unequivocally altered it for subzones BD2 and BD3. Even if a different intent is imagined, the fact remains that a more restrictive standard was not adopted for BD1 as it was for BD2 and BD3, and the City and applicants must work within the contours of the express code language, which here is unambiguous. For BD1-zoned property like 555 Main; there simply is no minimum depth for the ground floor commercial space beyond the 30 -foot general standard. The resulting standard can only be that the entire ground floor, of whatever depth under the governing definition, must be committed to commercial uses (subject only to the 30 -foot rule). Again, the 45 -foot ground floor shown in Plan 2 fulfills all BD1 conditions—it has the requisite height and direct sidewalk entrances, and it will be devoted to commercial uses. Nothing in the code requires or allows the City to customize the definition of ground floor or append other building levels or spaces to the qualifying ground floor in order to extend commercial use to the back of the building. Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 8 2. Ground Floor Commercial Cannot be Forced Beyond 30 feet Depth The blanket minimum 30 -foot depth for ground floor commercial space is an overlay in all BD subzones (expressly overridden by the 60 -foot minimum requirement in BD2 and BD3 subzones unless a parcel is less than 90 feet deep, in which case a limited exception is made for on-site parking). This fail safe provision is contained at the end of ECDC 16.43.030.B.6.c dealing principally with off-street parking and quoted above. The code provision affords some flexibility for off-street parking, not otherwise considered a commercial use for the ground floor requirements, where shallow lots create development challenges. In those cases, parking can encroach into the ground floor commercial space so long as no less than 30 feet is devoted to qualifying commercial uses (non -parking). This is the irreducible minimum in BD, and the only limiting standard on ground floor depth that applies in BD1. Under the ECDC 21.35.017 definition of "ground floor", Plan 2 conforms because it devotes 100% of its 45 feet of ground floor depth to commercial space, and, pursuant to ECDC Ch. 16.43, a greater ground floor commercial depth cannot be compelled. Were the site in BD2 or BD3, the City could demand that ground floor commercial space extend to a depth of at least 60 feet, and since the lot is deeper than 90 feet, parking inside the 60 -foot restricted area would not be permitted. But this site is not in BD2 or BD3. It is in BD1, where there is no more restrictive depth standard than the 30 -foot threshold, which is substantially exceeded in the proposed design. Plan 2 should be allowed so long as the otherwise applicable use, height, access, entry, exposure, and other requirements in BD1 are satisfied. The interpretation advanced by planning staff simply does not square with express code provisions or with underlying policy; it is at odds with the letter and the spirit of the BD development plan and regulations. The applicant has been told that this is an issue of first impression under the newly adopted code, and that staff can point to no other projects or instances where this interpretation has been applied, nor to any clarifying policy directive. In short, the City and the applicant are contemporaneously looking at this matter for the first time and without the benefit of prior interpretations or rulings. We appreciate the challenge of initially interpreting and applying new code provisions, but consider this a relatively straightforward and non -discretionary issue. G Planning and Policy Objectives also Support the Applicant's Interpretation In addition to the code -based argument, support for the instant proposal can be found in the City planning policies and objectives that underlie the new BD zone. We believe the proposal as outlined in PIan 2 comports with, and advances, these policies and objectives. The proposal retains beneficial off-street parking, although this is not a code requirement in the BD subzone. From the applicant's perspective, the proposed design meets or exceeds every requirement and represents precisely what the City is seeking for the revitalization of its downtown retail core, with the bonus of surplus off-street parking for employees, clients, and customers. Governing code provisions would permit development of an alternate Plan 3, show in the attached Fi re 5. As Figures 4-A and -B illustrate, the buildings can be virtually identical in height, mass, bulk, and leaseable area, and aesthetically indistinguishable. The differences are that Plan 2 has four discrete building levels in the same above -ground envelope and offers significant on-site parking, while Plan 3 has only two conventional building levels and includes no parking whatsoever. The applicant's straightforward reading of the code permits either Plan 2 Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 9 or Plan 3 as a conforming design for this site, with comparable function, amenities, and commercial uses. Under staff's expressed interpretation, only Plan 3 is allowed, despite marked similarities and the obvious deficiencies of the no -parking alternative from the standpoint of vehicular access and traffic/parking congestion. Plan 3 features a ground floor that physically extends all the way through the building to the back alley. By contrast, the street -oriented ground floor in Plan 2 physically and by code stops at the elevation break between levels midway through the building where the structural change between the ground level and the lower parking level and upper second level occurs. Either should be allowed under the code as drafted, since each has a clearly demarcated ground floor that meets all dimensional and use requirements for BDl-zoned property. Interestingly, the cavernous depth of Plan 3's ground floor would be too deep for many retail uses that want shallower frontage orientation with light penetration, visibility, and sidewalk exposure through the space, not elongated, closet -like interiors. In either case, retail would only occupy the front of the building; deeper commercial uses will be devoted to office space, which benefits from reduced visibility into the interior and does not rely on sidewalk visibility as does street front retail. The net result would be comparable commercial space of 17,000-19,000 square feet, with forced street front access to the entire ground floor, desired or not, preferred by commercial users or not, and absolutely no parking for anyone working in or visiting the building. This is a far cry from the picture of a vibrant downtown center with mixed uses, high accessibility, inviting sidewalk level retail, and manageable congestion. As much as we want to draw pedestrians into the retail core to shop, work, live, and visit, they will not come in abundance if we are unable to offer them convenient parking and comfortable circulation. The isolated parking relief afforded in four of five BD subdistricts, including BD I, reverses ECDC Ch. 17.50's mandate that off-street parking be provided for every development in Edmonds. This is a concession to the special conditions and needs of the downtown core and the desire to accommodate and spur re -development here. In order to motivate desired downtown revitalization, the City realized it had to ease up on conventional off-street parking requirements in this specialized locale. This is a difficult balance to strike, more so since the two objectives—a lively pedestrian oriented downtown and adequate, reasonably convenient parking -are not mutually exclusive and actually are interdependent goals. The City has chosen to promote mixed use and pedestrian scale and orientation, at the possible expense of parking and traffic ---a calculated risk. It is an experiment whose results cannot be known for years as the new scheme is tested and tried. The allowance of development in the core without parking is a "kick start" provision, if you will, designed to stimulate development activity, but certainly not intended to inhibit or discourage the responsible provision of off-street parking in the retail core where feasible. The City cannot give up on off-street parking in the BD zone and should encourage it wherever and however it feasibly may be supplied by project developers. For the rare site in BD1 where fruitful, code -compliant re -development can be accomplished with off-street parking in the mix, the best of both worlds is possible. 555 Main Street is such a site and Plan 2 is a highly effective design incorporating the standards and goals of the code and the comprehensive plan, without totally compromising parking and traffic. We contend the Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 10 position advanced by planning staff misreads and overreaches the letter of the code, first of all, but we also believe it fails to advance the intent beneath the code. It is an interpretation that limits development flexibility needlessly, stifles the productive creativity so vital to this sort of re- development initiative, and, in some cases, imposes unreasonable costs for little or no benefit to the surrounding community. We think Plan 2, devised in reliance on the express language of the code, also hits the philosophical bulls eye, offering a vibrant, pedestrian friendly, anchor project at the eastern gateway to the Edmonds downtown shopping district, while, without mandate, seeking to address some of its own (and, by extension, the City's) parking needs on the property rather than on the street. This is helpful in a condensed area where cars, pedestrians, buildings, amenities, art, and other features of a vibrant urban village necessarily compete for space and need to blend together synergistically. When the City's primary planning objectives to promote mixed-use commercial re -development can be achieved within code parameters with off-street parking added to the mix at no cost to the City, it is a "win-win" for everyone. Policy considerations cannot and should not decide the issue for the Planning Division, but must inform and guide the interpretation of code language, especially new and untested provisions like those for the BD zone. A clear and plain reading of the relevant code sections, which implement the City's expressed planning objectives for the downtown core, supports the interpretation advanced by the project proponent. We fmd no basis or justification for the City's interpretation as it has been given to the applicant by Mr. Clugston and respectfully ask that it be re -considered and modified. H. Conclusion and Request for Formal Code Interpretation We appreciate the difficulty you and your staff face in reviewing, interpreting, and uniformly applying sometimes incomplete or conflicting code provisions. Multiple competing objectives and a shifting regulatory and planning climate make the task doubly difficult. This matter involves new and largely untried zoning regulations that must be integrated with the pre-existing code and evaluated in light of policy and planning guidelines. While the BD zone and regulations are new, the code provisions are not ambiguous. We submit that the controlling language is clear on its face and that the applicant's interpretation corresponds with code and policy. If the Planning Division believes something is missing from the code or that the code fails to adequately address the particular issues presented, we alternately submit that this proposal is not inconsistent in any respect with express code limitations or prohibitions, that it aligns with the purposes of the BD zone and the BD 1 subdistrict, and that it therefore should be found to be a conforming design.. We are confident that a careful re-examination of the relevant code provisions in light of the focus and intent of the BD1 subdistrict will confirm that the applicant's interpretation is correct and that it advances the interests of the City therein expressed. In sum, the proposed interpretation satisfies the letter and the spirit of the governing regulatory scheme. Our request is for formal review and approval of the interpretation advanced in this letter as applied herein to the instant proposal, to the effect that the ground level shown in Plan 2 is the "ground floor" of the proposed building for purposes of the BD ground floor requirements, and that the 45 -foot depth.of the ground floor not only meets, but exceeds, the established standard in Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director June 12, 2008 Page 11 BD 1, which is a minimum depth for ground floor commercial space of 30 -feet from Main, the primary access street for the project. We look forward to your written analysis and decision. It is our understanding that this request is for an administrative staff decision governed either the provisions of ECDC 20.95.040 pr 20.95.050, the main difference being whether or not notice is required to be given by the Director of Community Services under ECDC 20.91.010. Please let us know at your earliest convenience which of these provisions applies and if anything further is required from the applicant before you can proceed. At your direction, RickMark LLC submits herewith its check in payment of the $195.00 application fee. You have informed me that we will be notified in advance of any further charges that may be passed on to the applicant, such as City attorney time in developing the code interpretation, if any. I would appreciate confirmation of your receipt of these materials and a projected timeline and date for your review and issuance of a decision. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Iy*.i har Enclosures: Application Fee Check Figure 1 Plan 1 Building Cross Section Figure 2-A Plan 2—Ground Level Figure 2-B Plan 2—Parking Level Figure 2-C Plan 2 ----Second Level Figure 2-D Plan 2 -Third Level Figure 3 Plan 2 Building Section Figure 4-A Main Street Fagade Study Figure 4-B 6t' Ave. Elevation Study and Plan 2/Plan 3 Comparison Figure 5 Plan 3 Building Section cc (w/encls): Rick Kent Mark Trumper Mike Perry REG/mmi : I 41 Figure I Figure 2-A v 1565 Moin St, - Flan 2 --- Oround Level _ s :36CI3 --- Figure 2-B Om 2 555 Main St. -^ Man 2 - Porkinq level SF: 6010 1116 ] 0 6/610b Figure 2-C 555 Moin St. - Man 2 - Second Level 5P. 6010 V16" 1'-04' 6/6/05 Figure 2-D ONE 555 Main 5t. - FlIon 2 - Third Level SF; CKaa 4 1/16° = 11-0ll 6/6/08 AN MR Figure 3 Figure 4-A LL. I : -ft� . . l[vim..-6L- AvP, �IAYN Figure 4.13 i Figure 5