My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9-28-15 Planning Commission Record
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
9-28-15 Planning Commission Record
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
9/21/2015 12:38:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Planning Commission Meeting
Document_Date
9/21/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
346
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
specifications and standards. The county or city governing body shall consider <br />the needs of the fire department or firefighting agency when adopting the final <br />specifications and standards. <br />The first thing to note is that Eugene City Council has adopted standards for roads and streets <br />in EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875, and the standards applicable to Oakleigh Lane are found in <br />Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. So, if ORS 368.039(1) were interpreted to mean <br />that the City's adopted street standards completely mooted the street standards found in the <br />Eugene Fire Code, then this case is closed because the City street standards require Oakleigh <br />Lane to have a 45-foot right of way, and pavement width of 20 feet, which Oakleigh Lane does <br />not have. <br />Note that ORS 368.039 is very specific in that only street standards adopted by the governing <br />body, i.e., the Eugene City Council, can supersede the standards in the EFC. The Planning <br />Commission has no authority to ignore or supersede the EFC requirements, except where the <br />adopted street standards in Table 9.6870 conflict, and then the Table 9.6870 must actually be <br />applied. <br />Put another way, even if the Planning Commission were to accept the ridiculous argument that <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a) doesn't require the entirety of Oakleigh Lane to meet adopted street standards; <br />wherever the adopted street standards do not apply, then the EFC standards are not superseded <br />and do apply. <br />There is even more to consider, however. The Administrative Order No. 15-14-02-F, which <br />adopted the Eugene Fire Code explicitly states: <br />"Section 8010 of the Eugene Code 1971 authorizes the City Manager to administratively <br />adopt a fire code for the City of Eugene." <br />EUGENE FIRE CODE <br />ADMINISTRATIVE RULE R-8.010FC <br />R-8.010FC-A ADOPTION <br />The 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) as promulgated by the International Code <br />Council as adopted and amended by the State of Oregon as the 2014 Oregon Fire Code <br />(OFC) is hereby adopted, subject to the additions, deletions, and modifications set forth <br />in this rule, which together constitute the Eugene Fire Code (EFC) This rule is in <br />addition to, and is not exclusive of Administrative Rule R-8.005. References in this rule <br />to "this code" are references to the OFC adopted herein <br />R-8.010FC-B AMENDMENTS <br />[Section] 55. Appendix D Section D101.1 of the OFC is amended to provide: <br />D101.1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this <br />appendix and all other applicable requirements of the Oregon Fire Code and <br />regulations and standards adopted by the City of Eugene. The fire code official <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 10 August 31, 2015 <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.