• 3 of 4 • <br /> <br />Andrée Phelps • Attorney at Law <br />Andrée Phelps Law, LLC <br />541.221.1431 <br />andree@andreephelpslaw.com <br /> <br />The type of “commercial building look” the building code is attempting to achieve, buildings along <br />the street with see-through windows and architectural features, is just not suitable for River Avenue <br />businesses. The proposed building code standards just do not make sense for the commercial <br />properties that line River Avenue. <br />II. Reliance on Adjustment Review is NOT the Answer. <br />Asking that business owners rely on the adjustment review process to “fix” the building code is not <br />the answer. <br /> <br />For example, at 121 River Avenue, the existing structure has been used for the same business for over <br />30 years. It is highly feasible that a replacement business would require a building addition to meet <br />business needs. As any building addition on the site would trigger the proposed building code, the <br />tenant most likely will be required to apply for an adjustment review for multiple standards. The <br />adjustment review criteria are as follows:2 <br /> <br />The [EC standard] may be adjusted if the proposal achieves all of the following: <br />1. Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street. <br />2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets <br />3. Is compatible with adjacent development. (emphasis mine) <br /> <br />Again, in the interest of brevity, let us only consider the highly discretionary criteria #1 above in <br />relation to 121 River Avenue: “Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street.” <br />Due to the commercial and industrial history of the street, the building facades along River Avenue <br />are, understandably, variable. The two buildings to the west of 121 River Avenue are similar in nature <br />to the existing building with north/south oriented triangular buildings. The building to the east is <br />located away from River Avenue at the back of the property with entrances along the western façade. <br />As can easily be imagined, requiring an adjustment review that attempts to support that a building <br />addition contributes to the continuity of building facades on River Avenue would make a prospective <br />buyer or tenant wary as the criteria are highly discretionary, the process is costly, time consuming, <br />fraught with uncertainty, and carries with it the threat that a denial will limit expansion of business. <br /> <br />III. Conclusion: The North Side of River Avenue Should be Carved out from <br />Proposed Building Code Amendments as well as Proposed Prohibited Use <br />Amendments. <br />If implemented, the proposed building code amendments will adversely impact a viable commercial <br />area of local businesses where the existing commercial activity is appropriate and has been thriving <br />for decades. The code amendments will particularly affect River Avenue businesses by restricting the <br />ability of businesses to renovate and expand, decrease building security, increase costs related to <br /> <br />2 For EC 9.2170(4)(b) and (4)(c), relating to minimum and maximum front yard setbacks, applicable adjustment review <br />is found under EC 9.8030(2). For EC 9.2170(13)(b)(4) and (13)(c)(1), relating to building walls/window coverage and <br />weather protection respectively, applicable adjustment review is found under draft EC 9.8030(39). Although EC <br />9.8030(2) has additional subsections relating to specific zones, EC 9.8030(2) and (39) have identical applicable language. <br />9