( 2. Should the PUD. process be an option without requiring the applicant to <br />demonstrate that the project can not occur within the framework of regular code <br />standards? <br />Ms. Bishow explained that the PUD process can currently be used if required by an adopted study or if <br />the proposed development could not be accomplished without using other available zoning or land <br />division procedures. She said that Section 9.6450(B) attempted to address the issue by allowing the <br />PUD provisions to be used when the proposed design could not be accommodated in any other way. <br />Mr. Conrad asked why the commission did not simply say the PUD provisions could be requested by <br />the owner. Ms. Childs agreed. She said that there were likely many situations where the PUD was the <br />most appropriate approach. She did not think property owners would request PUDs if they could <br />accomplish what they wanted through the subdivision process. She recommended that subsection (B) <br />be eliminated because while it was technically accurate, it was unclear. She said that it could be <br />revised to indicate that the property owner could use the PUD process if he or she believed it would <br />result in a better design. <br />Mr. Bartel questioned the difference between Section 9.6450 and the alternative path. Ms. Bishow <br />suggested it could be a sort of alternative path. Mr. Conrad concurred it might be one alternative path <br />but perhaps not the only one because of its focus on projects of a larger size. <br />Mr. Slocum asked if rezoning was required for the application of the PUD process. Ms. Bishow said <br />no; the applicant could apply for a PUD and, under the commission's latest suggestion, not have to <br />show the City a conceptual plan before requesting the PUD. She added that the PUD suffix was not a <br />zoning overlay like site review. <br />Mr. Jacobson noted that the current code does not give the Hearings Official the authority to apply the <br />zoning overlays in the plan and asked Ms. Bishow to check on the language in the draft code. <br />3. Are the approval criteria in Section 9.6420 clear? Do they sufficiently address the <br />range of design issues important to consider in a PUD? <br />The commission reviewed the proposed criteria and contrasted them with the current criteria. The <br />commission concurred that the use of the term "reasonably compatible" in Section 9.6420 was <br />problematic. Mr. Conrad preferred the original criteria because of its specificity. Mr. Farmer <br />reminded the commission that it was discussing PUDs, and flexibility, not certainty, was the goal. He <br />did not think it was a problematic phrase for a PUD. <br />Mr. Slocum said that most of the compatibility issues he had seen were related to controversy over the <br />density proposed for low-income housing. He suggested that the code specifically identify items, such <br />as density, that were not a basis for judging compatibility. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Bartel, Ms. Bishow said that evaluating a PUD required judgment. <br />The criteria provided for considerable discretion because of the high degree of flexibility intended. If <br />the City decided, for example, that the minimum building height standard allowed in a base zone would <br />always be permitted, it changed the process from a discretionary process to a more constrained process. <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 3 <br />0000786 3 <br />