01/12/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Gary Chenkin, Planning, who was filling in for Terri Vanderpool. Mr. Chenkin discussed the work program for the process review and used a flip chart to present the proposed guidelines for streamlining land use application processes. He said that the guidelines had been reviewed and recommended by the Coordinated Permit Counter Task Team (CPCTT), the Economic Diversification Task Team (EDTT), the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), and the Planning Commission. Mr. Chenkin gave some examples of inconsistencies in various existing City land use application processes and said that the guidelines emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency. He discussed each of the seven guidelines: 1) Reduce, combine, or eliminate processes or steps within processes whenever possible; examples--one of the existing three stages of the planned unit development process could be eliminatedt and many easement vacations could be handled on an administrative level rather than being referred, as they now are, to the City Council. 2) Define the appropriate level of review for each type of application; example--provide a hierachy in which issues without major policy implications are dealt with at the administrative level or heard by the Hearings Official, issues with major policy implications are heard by the Planning Commission, and the City Council hears amendments to ordinances or appeals of Planning Commission actions. 3) Establish a maximum time frame within which all applications will receive final action by the City; in enacting this guideline, the applicant's need for rapid processing would need to be balanced with opportunity for citizen involvement. e 4) Provide a maximum of one public hearing for initial application review, recognizing that some types of applications may not require hearings. 5) Provide for one local appeal hearing for all types of applications--for example, provide for administrative decisions to be heard by the Hearings Official; Hearings Official decisions to be heard by the Planning Commission; and Planning Commission decisions to be heard by the City Council. 6) Where possible, make provisions for expedited processes, which would allow certain public hearing requirements to be bypassed if there is no public interest in them. 7) Maintain consistency in general provisions common to most processes--for example, public notice requirements, time frame for submission of appeals, and time frame for referrals of applications should each be uniform for all processes. Councilor Obie asked what the next step would be in the process, assuming that the council endorsed the guidelines. Mr. Chenkin said that staff would draft amendments to the City Code, working with interested groups such as neighborhood organizations and the Homebuilders Association that commonly make applications or respond to them. He said that the Citizen Involvement Committee would be consulted for suggestions of groups to be contacted. Mr. Chenkin said that these proposed amendments would then be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 7