•3of3- <br />III. Reliance on the Adjustment Review Process as a "Fix" is not the Answer. <br />In Planning Commission hearings, staff proposed that the adjustment review process would be <br />adequate to address specific conflicts with the proposed code amendments. However, relying on <br />the adjustment review process to "fix" problems cannot be the answer. <br />For example, at 121 River Avenue, the existing structure has been used for the same business for <br />decades. It is highly feasible that a replacement business would require a building addition to meet <br />future business needs. There is more than adequate space onsite for expanding the structure, <br />however, it does not makes sense at this site to build against the sidewalk and have windows every <br />20 feet. As any building addition on the site would trigger the proposed building standards, the <br />tenant most likely will be required to apply for adjustment review for multiple standards. The <br />adjustment review criteria are as follows:2 <br />The [EC standard] may be adjusted if the proposal achieves all of the following: <br />1. Contributes to the continuity of building fagades along the street. <br />2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets <br />3. Is compatible with adjacent development. (emphasis mine) <br />An adjustment review that is required to comply with all three of the above would make any <br />prospective buyer or lessee wary. The criteria are highly discretionary, the process is costly, time <br />consuming, fraught with uncertainty, carries with it the threat that a denial will limit expansion of <br />business, and a potential for appeal. <br />IV. Conclusion: Either 1) the Proposed RRSC Code Amendments Should Not be Adopted <br />or 2) the North Side of River Avenue Should be Carved out from all Proposed RRSC <br />C-2 Code Amendments, both Prohibited Uses and Building Standards. <br />We urge the Council to not adopt any of the proposed RRSC code amendments. However, if the <br />Council does support adopting the proposed RRSC code amendments, we urge the Council to <br />carve out the area north of River Avenue from all proposed C-2 code amendments as River Avenue <br />is a unique location adjacent to the Beltline with existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, a <br />unique history of industrial zoning, an area where commercial activity is appropriate and has been <br />thriving with long term locally owned businesses for decades. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Andree N. Phelps <br />Attorney for Lewis Rucker and Rucker Properties, LLC <br />2 Applicable adjustment review language under EC 9.8030(2) and draft EC 9.8030(39) is almost identical. <br />Andree Phelps • Attorney at Law <br />Andree Phelps Law, LLC <br />541.221.1431 <br />andree@andreephelpslaw.com <br />