Laserfiche WebLink
<br />property. Such a suggestion was presented at the public forums held prior to <br />development of the ordinance, but was evidently not presented to the decision-makers as <br />an option. <br /> <br />While PeaceHealth's ownership in the affected area is undeveloped, I'd also like to <br />comment on a portion of the ordinance that relates to developed properties along the <br />river. Rather than establishing a blanket grandfather for pre-existing uses, proposed EC <br />9.4950 appears to require the owner of an existing developed property to apply for a Type <br />III review to seek an exception from the standards in 9.4930 and 9.4980, and puts the <br />onus upon the owner to demonstrate compliance with the criteria in 9.4950(2)(b). This <br />seems to put undue hardship on the owner of existing properties and businesses, and <br />places owners in the position of owning non-conforming uses unless this the property <br />owner initiates this expensive and cumbersome process. <br /> <br />Furthermore, the provision in proposed EC 9.4950(c) eliminates this possibility entirely if <br />Measure 37 is "voided by court action or rescinded by legislative action." While I'm <br />personally no fan of Measure 37, it may be more likely that Measure 37 is upheld or its <br />progeny (via legislative enactment or initiative) would invalidate the restrictions and <br />corresponding diminution of development potential and property values resulting from <br />the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Therefore, I urge the Council to develop an alternative track that is less prescriptive to <br />allow for creative design solutions that meet the intent of Goal 5 and Greenway <br />regulations, and to grandfather existing uses intruding into the setback areas established <br />by the ordinance. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Philip Farrington, AICP <br />Director, Land Use Planning & Development <br />PeaceHealth Oregon Region <br />(541) 686-3828 <br />pfarrington@peacehealth.org <br />