proposed uses may not possibly be compatible and could be prohibited. PUDs addressed outright uses <br />with alternative designs. <br />Ms. McMillan liked the draft criteria. Mr. Farley agreed. He suggested that item 9.6420(C)(4) related <br />to natural resources be eliminated because the issue was addressed in section (D). Ms. McMillan <br />suggested it be retained because it addressed off-site impacts. Staff concurred. <br />Ms. Childs suggested staff examine the use of the word "minimize." <br />Mr. Conrad referred to the City's Growth Management Study policies and said that because of the <br />City's decision to densify, the appearance of the community would change over time. He said the <br />commission needed to consider compatibility but to acknowledge the impact of what that meant. <br />Ms. Childs summarized the commission's input, which was to revise the preamble and maintain the <br />five new draft criteria in Section 9.6420(C). <br />Responding to a request for direction from Ms. Bishow, the commission agreed to retain the phrase <br />"but not limited to" in (C). Also at Ms. Bishow's request, commissioners discussed the phrase <br />"adequately preserve" in (D) as it pertained to the retention of significant natural features. Mr. <br />Jacobson believed that the phrase "to the extent possible" would give a developer more direction, but <br />acknowledged that both were subjective. <br />Ms. Cueller thought that "to the extent practicable" was overly restrictive. She said it implied that <br />l preservation of natural features had priority over other goals, such as density. She said that flexibility <br />was needed. Mr. Conrad said that the commission had a vision of the draft code's intent, and he did <br />not perceive a policy difference between the phrases in actual implementation. Ms. Bishow clarified <br />that "to the extent possible" in this context meant that developers preserved natural features to the extent <br />possible given the basic design of the development and the density proposed. <br />Mr. Slocum advocated for the elimination of the phrase "but not limited to" in (C). He said the <br />commission should determine if it wanted five criteria or unlimited criteria. He endorsed the phrase "to <br />the extent possible." <br />Mr. Farley suggested the phrase "adequately preserve and avoid unnecessary disruption to..." <br />Mr. Conrad reminded the commission that it was discussing development policies related to <br />development on land inside the urban growth boundary, rather than protection policies related to <br />preventing development. Mr. Farley suggested that the commission was discussing something in <br />between the two; he noted the City's goals related to preservation of the environment. <br />Ms. Wojahn said that the list in (C) represented things that the City did not "bargain" away. She <br />believed that "to the extent possible" made sense, particularly given the City's densification goals. Ms. <br />Levis and Ms. McMillan concurred. <br />Ms. Bishow asked the commission if it wished to have stronger environmental protection measures in <br />the code, or leave the stronger environmental protection measures that developments could be subject <br />to as additional criteria in the refinement plans, such as the South Hills Study. <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 5 <br />0000'7865 <br />