Mr. Conrad said his focus was on those issues related to the subject of compatibility. Everyone had an <br />idea about what the term meant. He liked Mr. Slocum's idea to identify density as an issue that was <br />not a basis for an appeal regarding compatibility. <br />Mr. Stafford questioned the relationship between a PUD and density. Ms. Bishow said that there have <br />been cases where the developer could not meet the criteria of preserving, to the extent possible, the <br />existing vegetation on a site and achieve the called-for density. The design of the structures on the site <br />might have to be altered to save more trees. Ms. Bishow said that the goal of the PUD was to balance <br />the built environment with the natural environment. Mr. Jacobson agreed, adding that a PUD could <br />achieve a higher density with the use of clustering than a subdivision could and also provide greater <br />protection for natural resources. <br />Ms. Wojahn said that it was the commission's task to resolve compability issues, and she did not want <br />to hamstring the process by being overly proscriptive. She also did not favor removing density from <br />consideration when evaluating compatibility. <br />Mr. Farmer observed that there were several measures of density,. including unit per acres, floor area, <br />bedroom counts, etc. He said the purpose of a PUD was to allow the underlying zoning density to be <br />achieved but in an alternative manner. One area of the site may be more dense than another area to <br />protect a natural resource, for example. Mr. Farmer said that traditionally PUDs do provide a density <br />bonus for specified things, such as restoration of environmental damage on a stream. <br />Ms. Childs was concerned about the use of the term "reasonably compatible with the surrounding <br />r' properties" in the proposed criteria in Section 9.6420(C) , noting it did not currently exist as a criteria. <br />If a PUD was successful in reducing impact through clustering, the City would be hard-pressed to say <br />the kind of structure mix was necessarily compatible with existing adjacent single-family residential <br />development. She noted this criterion could result in more appeals. <br />Ms. McMillan shared Ms. Wojahn's concern about the need to maintain flexibility. <br />Ms. Levis did not like the phrase "reasonably compatible" because she believed it would mean staff had <br />less flexibility in evaluating a proposal. Mr. Farley concurred. He suggested that staff seek another <br />phrase, such as "design consideration should have minimal impact." <br />Ms. Wojahn said she was less concerned about the term "reasonably compatible" than she was by the <br />list of design elements that followed it. <br />Mr. Bartel said that flexibility in the criteria was key. <br />Ms. Childs agreed with Ms. Wojahn that the list of design elements was important. She said that if the <br />commission endorsed the list, staff would develop alternatives to "reasonably compatible." Ms. Childs <br />asked the commission to confirm the list of design elements. The commission agreed. <br />Ms. Bishow contrasted the current and draft criteria. <br />Mr. Jacobson said that staff had not historically considered compatibility when evaluating PUDs. He <br />considered compatibility considerations to be more appropriate for the conditional use process, where <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 4 <br />0000'7064 <br />