Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAR & OBJECTIVE HOUSING: APPROVAL C RITERIA UPDATE <br />November 13, 2018 DRAFT Preferred Concepts Report: Introduction Page 3 of 59 <br />required materials. We also offered four two-hour drop-in “office hour” sessions for anyone wanting to <br />ask more questions about the project, the land use process, or the issues and possible concepts <br />discussed at the working groups. A compilation of the written comments received is included in <br />Appendix A . <br />This report is organized to present the preferred concepts for maintenance issues first followed by <br />preferred concepts for the significant issues that were discussed with working groups. As a reminder, <br />the items identified as maintenance issues represent procedural changes or amendments that can <br />create consistency between the clear and objective and discretionary review tracks , consistency with <br />other sections of the land use code, or otherwise improve efficiency or effectiveness. They require only <br />maintenance-level code revisions that are relatively straightforward. These maintenance level issues <br />were not addressed as part of the working group sessions as they offer readily-available solutions that <br />require less attention and discussion relative to the larger, more challenging issues that were discussed <br />by the working groups. In contrast the significant issues represent core challenges identified in the clear <br />and objective approval criteria, and solutions raise larger policy questions that will affect a range of <br />stakeholders. Due to the limited timeframe to consider issues, and the already high demand on <br />participant time, working group time was focused on addressing the significant issues. <br />The recommendations contained in this report were derived using input from the working groups, <br />research into the issues and possible concepts, consultation with internal staff who work with the land <br />use application review process daily, and a concept evaluation rubric for the 19 significant issues (COS- <br />XX). For these reasons, in some cases recommendations may not reflect the apparent preference from <br />the working group results. In these instances, an explanation for the discrepancy is provided. <br />The draft, proposed solutions are conceptual only. Actual code language will be crafted in the next <br />phase of the project (Phase 3), after conceptual solutions have been vetted. This approach is designed <br />to narrow the focus of the code writing process. Community members, the Planning Commission an d <br />City Council will be asked to review the draft code language during Phase 3. This review and feedback <br />will help determine the finer details and appropriate amounts for implementing specific requirements. <br />All recommendations in this report are subject to Planning Commission review and modification, and <br />ultimately require approval by City Council in order to move ahead to Phase 3, drafting proposed code <br />changes. <br />Organization of this report includes a summary table provided at the beginning of each section, followed <br />by the following information for each issue: <br />Description : Includes a brief explanation of the particular key issue. <br />Applies to : Identifies the type of the land use application(s) that the issue applies to. Currently, <br />there are clear and objective approval criteria for five types of land use applications: conditional <br />use permits, site reviews, partitions, planned unit developments and subdivisions. <br />Existing Code Section(s): Provides the pertinent section number(s) of Eugene Code Chapter <br />9 (land use code). <br />November 26, 2018, Work Session – Item 2