CCMinutes - 08/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asserted that the City had just completed ten years of land use code review. She felt that the PDD had already adopted the review as a work plan item. She did not see how this would improve the economic development policies of the City. She thought streamlining land use code would decrease regulation, which she opposed. She remarked that "more than just the developers" should be considered and the neighborhoods needed to be involved. She questioned opting to put the money in this way rather than creating an alternative path so that a developer could use a clear and objective code and a vehicle for an alternative path to allow developers to be creative and intuitive. She noted that PDD had asserted it did not have money to develop this "alternative path." Mr. Pap6 asked what was meant by the provision of a framework for "bounded delegation." Mr. Coyle replied that certain activities, projects, or standards different from the code could be approved if a series of standards were prescribed at the front end. He called it a level of flexibility at the edges of the code. He asserted it would allow the person at the front counter a certain level of creativity. Mr. Pap~ supported simplifying the process. He cited a city in California wherein a procedure was set up so that everyone acting on a permit sat at a table together and worked the kinks out of the proposal. He felt this resulted in better submittals. Mayor Torrey liked the recommendation. He predicted that there was a lot of work to be done on it while the council was on break. He felt that what was needed, more than anything else, was the ability to provide predictability to the people who bring their businesses to Eugene. He said the standpoint of the small person who wanted to add something on in the backyard was that the process was frustrating and often it was simpler to build things without permits. He noted that people sometimes opined that the Mayor could build a brick fence and others could not, but the truth of it was that he had built his brick fence five years ago, prior to changes in the code that precluded the building of such walls. He thought companies who did not have the ability or finances to address some of the land use issues in Eugene fled to Springfield. He opined that the cleaner and more predictable the code could be made, the better off the community would be. Mr. Kelly agreed there was room for improvement in the current code. He recalled that he had attended several sessions at the recent American Planners Association conference on form-based codes and other non- Euclidean constructs. He said, given the opportunity, he would support this. He asserted, however, that the staff motion did not express these ideas. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Coyle opined the "alternate path" idea would not speak to any of the principles that were being set forth. He called it a major zoning administration question. He asserted that undertaking a performance-based zone at this time would be a complete overhaul of the code. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion at what the "alternate path" would do. Mr. Coyle replied that it would add 20 percent more predictability to the adjustment review process. Mr. Kelly requested a work session on the "alternate path," adding that he did not think the staff activity reflected the council's direction. Ms. Nathanson recognized that the council would not likely take action at the present work session. She wished to convey, nonetheless, her suggestion for a change in the wording of the second revised staff motion so that it would read, as follows: MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session