MINUTES <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />Sloat Room--99 West 10°i Avenue <br />May 10, 1999 <br />11:30 a.m. <br />PRESENT: Robert Conrad, President; Anne Marie Levis, Vice President; Adell McMillan, Ellen <br />Wojahn, Art Farley, Peter Bartel, members; Dave Reinhard, Paul Farmer, ex officio <br />members; Jerry Jacobson, Teresa Bishow, Kurt Yeiter, Nan Lawrence, Dick Gassman, <br />Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department; Scott Meisner, David Kelly, <br />Eugene City Council;- Gloria Gardner, Department of Land Conservation and Develop- <br />ment; Tom Connelly, David Hinkely, Jon Belcher, Jan Wostman, Philip Farrington, <br />Roxie Cueller, guests. <br />ABSENT: John Van Landingham, member. <br />Mr. Conrad called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. <br />1. LAND USE CODE UPDATE <br />A. Planned Unit Development (9.6400-9.6430) <br />Mr. Kelly addressed the commission. He stressed the importance of the PUD as a tool in achieving <br />well-organized projects that fit their surroundings and benefit both existing residents and the developer. <br />He said that the process must be fair for the public, the developer, and staff. He asked the commission <br />to maintain the current processes in the code and strengthen them where possible. Mr. Kelly called the <br />commission's attention to the letter from Jake Bradshaw in the meeting packet, which addressed several <br />process issues, including the continuance used by the developer of Son Blaze to allow what was <br />essentially a new application to be submitted. He said the use of the continuance was unfair to the <br />residents, the Hearings Official, and staff. Mr. Kelly thanked the commission for its work. <br />Mr. Farmer and Ms. Wojahn arrived at 11:47 p.m. <br />Ms. Bishow called the commission's attention to the site plan for three PUDs approved in recent years. <br />The commission reviewed the site plans for Somerset Three. Ms. Bishow noted the use of circle lots <br />and the lack of fences on the site plan and pointed out common areas on the plan. She explained that as <br />property owners bought their lots, they essentially bought a buildable area on which to construct. The <br />boundaries of the lots were not as well-defined as in a traditional subdivision. She noted that the <br />Somerset Three PUD did not illustrate clustering or a mix of use, so staff had also provided the site <br />plan for University Commons to illustrate examples of those elements. In that case, the property <br />owners had the choice of selecting site review or the PUD overlay, and requested the PUD overlay. <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 1 <br />00007861 <br />