Ms. Bishow pointed out the mix of housing on the site and the mixed-use commercial area, which was <br />limited in size to neighborhood-oriented commercial services. She said that several design features, <br />such as the small lots on which the cottages were located, would not be permitted in a standard <br />subdivision. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Conrad regarding the density on the University Commons site, Mr. <br />Yeiter said that it was an average 15 units an acre. The site was 19 acres in size. Responding to a <br />question from Ms. McMillan, Ms. Bishow said that staff was working with the developer to clarify the <br />range of commercial services that would be allowed. The developer initially wanted the commercial <br />area to be located on Garden Way, but staff preferred that it be located on the interior of the site to <br />more directly serve the residents. Mr. Yeiter added that the development did include the potential for a <br />small amount of commercial activity on the corner of Garden Way. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Cueller, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the developer of University <br />Commons had to waive the 120-day window for the City's decision to accommodate the needed design <br />changes. She added that in this case, public interest in the project was low, possibly due to its low <br />visibility from Garden Way. <br />Ms. McMillan asked if there were historic considerations regarding the houses along Garden Way that <br />had been nominated for the National Register. Ms. Bishow said that the owner of one such house was <br />involved in the design; that property was abutted by cottages. She noted that since the PUD was <br />approved, City staff had expressed interest in acquiring a part of that area for a park. <br />The commission reviewed Alpine East PUD located off Stonewood Drive. Ms. Bishow pointed out <br />that density was achieved through clustering, which also served to protect the wooded areas on the site. <br />The commission reviewed the Fairway Loop PUD. Ms. Bishow pointed out the mix of commercial <br />development and attached single-family housing. She said that the access way provided an opportunity <br />for shared services and facilities. The developer retained landscaping on the northern portion of the <br />site to increase the setback and provide a buffer. Existing vegetation along the creek was preserved. <br />Ms. Bishow pointed out that the housing wascloser to Fairway Loop than normally permitted, but <br />explained City staff believed it was a good tradeoff with the additional open space retained along the <br />northern edge. <br />Ms. Bishow called the commission's attention to the key policy issues in the meeting packet: <br />Is Section 9.6400 clear regarding the overall purpose of the Planned Unit <br />Development (POD)? <br />The commission agreed that the purpose of the section was clear. <br />Mr. Stafford suggested that the purpose statement implied that other code standards could be relaxed. <br />Ms. Bishow agreed. Mr. Stafford suggested that the fact could be more clearly stated. If the intent <br />was that there be more flexibility to the standards, the reader should know which standards could be <br />modified. Ms. Bishow proposed that the purpose statement be revised to indicate that the PUD allows <br />consideration of modifications. The commission concurred. <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 2 <br />0000'7862 <br />