Laserfiche WebLink
B. Eugene Chamber of Commerce <br /> <br />Ms. Madison stated that the Eugene Chamber of Commerce was concerned that the Land Use <br />Code Update achieve its own goals and reflect City Council goals and community standards. <br />She said her organization believed the update should address legal mandates and fiscal <br />constraints, balance land use regulations and public expectations for development control, and <br />be easy to use and understand. She reviewed examples of proposed changes in the code with <br />Growth Management Study Policies and the Industrial Lands Policy Report. She reviewed new <br />landscaping standards in the draft Update for areas zoned I-1 Campus Industrial. She reviewed <br />other new regulations, the proposed code numbering system, its cross referencing, and the <br />location of tables and figures. She said that the Chamber of Commerce had concluded that the <br />Land Use Code Update did not meet the project goals, was in conflict with underlying principles <br />and planning goals, and that it contained a one-size-fits-all philosophy which did not improve <br />development. She suggested that additional time should be taken to understand principles <br />behind changes, make changes in the context of planning objectives, and understand the <br />implications of changes. She distributed a handout illustrating the text slides used in her <br />presentation. <br /> <br /> C. Home Builders Association of Lane County <br /> <br />Home Builders Association of Lane County Director of Government Affairs Kathy Bruebaker <br />expressed appreciation to City staff for its cooperation with the organizations presenting reports. <br />She described the process followed by her association in developing its report and presented <br />concerns, as follows: <br /> <br /> · The update increased regulations with negative effects on affordable housing. <br /> Since housing is "market driven," increased regulations were an obstacle to <br /> economic efficiency and created financing difficulties. <br /> <br /> · The update does not address certain goals of TransPlan and makes it impossible <br /> to meet others. <br /> <br /> · The update raises concerns about the Residential Lands and Housing study about <br /> high density proposals; open space, landscape and setback standards; and <br /> development of infrastructure. <br /> <br /> · The update does not work well with Growth Management Policies <br /> <br /> · The update should provide incentives to encourage affordable housing, such as: <br /> developer bonuses, fee waivers, design waivers, and acceptance of developer <br /> driven concepts. <br /> <br /> · The update should be flexible in design considerations, unit design and lot size <br /> coordination, eliminate a "once-size-fits-all approach, and reduce requirements. <br /> <br />Ms. Bruebaker distributed a handout illustrating the text slides used in her presentation. <br /> <br /> D. Friends of Eugene <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 5, 1998 Page 3 <br /> Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br /> <br />