Mr. Farmer urged the commission to write the code to achieve the City's goals related to development <br />and environmental protection. He said that the code needed to have more clarity and detail about what <br />the City was trying to accomplish. He said the commission wanted to avoid situations where people <br />used different interpretations of the code to preclude development. Responding to a question from Ms. <br />Wojahn about his reaction to the phrase "to the extent possible," he said that being more "upfront" about <br />what the City was trying to achieve regarding growth management and density could avoid the need for <br />the phrase. <br />Mr. Kelly did not think the commission needed to choose density above environmental protection or <br />vice versa. He agreed with Ms. Wojahn that the list in (C) represented things that should not be <br />bargained away but that did not mean development would not occur. He endorsed Mr. Farmer's <br />suggestions about clarifying the code intent. <br />Mr. Nystron said that the last statement in (D) was an attempt to address the concerns raised by Mr. <br />Farmer. He said that it was very difficult for the City to mandate changes in design with the current <br />PUD criteria. He said that the commission might wish to discuss if it wanted to take a more mandatory <br />approach. Mr. Bartel said that he did not object to going that direction but questioned if the City had <br />sufficient staff expertise to deal with the more complicated development sites. Mr. Nystrom said the <br />City staff team had considerable expertise. Ms. Bishow added that Eugene had an active citizenry <br />offering input as well. <br />Ms. Childs said that the term "significant" as used in (D) had meaning beyond the code in terms of <br />natural resource planning. She said that the list of items in that section were-a mixture of items that <br />{ would be considered "significant" under Statewide Goal 5. Referring to item 3, "Prominent <br />Topographic Features," Ms. Childs suggested that staff check the Metropolitan Plan to see if it <br />contained such a list of specific topographic features in the community. Mr. Jacobson doubted such a <br />list existed. <br />Mr. Farley supported Mr. Farmer's suggested approach. He wanted to include mention of <br />development that left a still environmentally functional site, including consideration of stormwater and <br />clean air. He suggested that the information could be included in the preamble. <br />Ms. Cueller requested clarification, saying "to the extent possible," implied preservation of significant <br />natural features as opposed to whatever was necessary to implement the development proposal. She <br />said that the code needed to be clear about what had priority. Mr. Conrad said that the intent was that <br />the development fit within the confines of the natural system. Ms. Cueller agreed with that intent, <br />saying the intent of the PUD was to maximize development while preserving natural features. She was <br />concerned about (D)(1), saying that if the City was going to give a priority to preserving natural <br />resources it needed to clarify phrases such as "mature and prominent individual trees." <br />Mr. Farrington concurred with Ms. Cueller, asking if a remnant orchard, for example, was a <br />significant onsite feature. He said that developers needed to know upfront what constraints existed on a <br />site so they did not misspend their time on designs that the City would not accept. <br />Ms. Wojahn wanted to reduce misspent time and suggested that the City use predevelopment <br />conferences whenever possible to ensure that developers were aware of code requirements. <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 6 <br />0000'7866 <br />