My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
PDF
>
2025
>
PDF 25-01
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2026 5:11:16 PM
Creation date
3/27/2026 5:11:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDF
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Braewood Hills 3rd Addition
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
3/27/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
View images
View plain text
March 27, 2026 <br />Mr. Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br />City of Eugene Planning Division <br />99 W. 10th Ave, Suite 290 <br />Eugene, OR 974012 <br /> <br />Via email: ngioello@eugene-or.gov; planning@eugene-or.gov <br /> <br />Re: Appeal Statement: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition, Final PUD (PDT 25-01) & Standards Review (SDR 25-02) <br /> <br />Save Videra Oak Meadows and Wes Van Winkle (“Clients”) provides the following appeal statement on <br />the Planning Director’s Decision on Braewood Hills 3rd Addition final planned unit development (“PUD”) and <br />standards review applications (“Final PUD” and “SDR,” respectively), File Nos. PDT 25-01/ST 25-02 <br />(collectively, “Applications”). The Planning Director’s Decision (“Decision”) has numerous errors precluding <br />approval of the Applications. <br />For the following reasons, the Decision should be reversed, and the Applications for the final planned <br />unit development and standards review denied. <br /> <br />I. Appeal T imeliness <br /> <br />The Decision was signed by the Planning Director on March 12, 2026, with the mailing of the Decision <br />occurring on March 17, 2026. This Appeal is being filed on March 27, 2026, along with the required filing fee, <br />and therefore, this appeal complies with EC 9.7605. <br />II. Final Planned Unit Development (PDF 25-01) <br /> <br />The Applicant has failed to comply with the applicable provisions for a final PUD, and the Decision errs <br />in approving the application. <br />1. The Decision contradicts the Fire Marshal’s review and errs in finding compliance with <br />EC 9.8365 <br />Public comments on the file’s documents noted numerous problems with access to the site by <br />emergency vehicles, including narrow private streets and driveways, excessively steep grades, and other issues.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.