Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zucker highlighted some of the report's findings and recommendations. Among the <br />highlighted recommendations were that: <br /> <br /> · The City should develop an implementation plan for the report's recommendations; <br /> · The City should consider the benefits of being less prescriptive in its approach to <br /> permitting; <br /> · The City should examine Planning Division staffing levels; <br /> · The City should clarify its overall City policy and approach to planning and <br /> development; <br /> · The City should strengthen the division's management function; and <br /> · The City should strengthen the role of planners as project managers who worked on <br /> behalf of both the applicant and the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opened the floor for council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked how many other Oregon jurisdictions that Mr. Zucker's firm had worked with. <br />Mr. Zucker said that his firm had worked with Clackamas County. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he objected somewhat to Mr. Zucker's reference to the City's regulations as <br />prescriptive, adding that the State had largely precluded the City's ability to be flexible. He <br />questioned how the City could implement the recommendations given Planning staff reductions. <br />Mr. Meisner wished that there was more reflection of the citizen group's input in the report. He <br />said that City residents were very concerned with how City plans were implemented. Mr. Zucker <br />said that Mr. Meisner's remarks spoke to his statements regarding a work program that cut across <br />the department. He did not want to appear to be challenging the fact of the State mandates, but <br />he emphasized the importance of the City being clear about its objectives, which required a slight <br />degree of flexibility He thought that tweaks could be made to the current approach that would <br />improve the situation. Mr. Meisner said that would require staff effort and the right kind of <br />questions. He pointed out that staff, for example, did not ask the council what kind of <br />neighborhood it wanted for the courthouse area; it asked if the council wanted to see commercial <br />or mixed-use zoning on the site. Mr. Zucker said that was a good point. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Zucker for his report, which he commended as excellent. He asked Mr. <br />Coyle if he expected to be able to implement the majority of the recommendations over the next <br />two years. Mr. Coyle said yes. He noted that staff had about 53 items for follow-up; the council <br />had three. He added that work on some of the recommendations was already underway. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle agreed with Mr. Meisner that staff needed to ask better questions of the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff to speak at some point to the report's recommendation that the City should <br />consider the benefits of being less prescriptive in its approach to permitting, saying it seemed to <br />be a huge project. He asked what staff resources existed to do the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that as a member of the Planning Commission, she had been an advocate <br />for performance-based zoning but the idea had not gone far. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson referred to page 4 of the Zucker report, which included a finding that referred to <br />the many variables that affected the prescriptive approach, and suggested that technological <br />changes and advances in materials also had made a difference, even to the kinds of services that <br />existed. She referred to page 6 of the Zucker report, and highlighted the statement that said staff <br /> <br /> MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 25, 2003 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />