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
3/27/2026 <br /> <br />2 <br />The Decision responds to these concerns by stating that the Fire Marshal’s Office reviewed the final <br />PUD and earlier iterations of the PUD and subdivision and “expressed no concerns related to emergency service <br />access to the site.” Decision, p. 2. In a specific response to public comments regarding the driveways being too <br />narrow for emergency vehicle access, the Decision states that the Fire Marshal provided referral comments <br />“which did not express concerns with the driveway widths or indicate a risk to public safety.” Decision, p. 4. <br />These statements in the Decision are false. <br />Attachment A to the Decision is a two-page document consisting of comments and conditions by the <br />Fire Department which flatly contradict the Planning Director’s statements.. For example, point 1 of the Fire <br />Marshal’s comments states: <br />1. The maximum street profile slope for Tambour Court has changed from the PDF-24-01 to the PTF- <br />25-01 from a maximum slope of 19% to 24%. This is not acceptable for fire apparatus access. <br />(Emphasis added.) Show a revied (sic) profile with maximum slope of 20% with transitions to 10% <br />on each side. <br />This is especially troubling as this represents a modification, a significant change, to the original <br />approval of the tentative PDF, which would necessarily require a new or modified tentative PUD application. <br />This change is expressly noted by the Fire Marshal as problematic with respect to fire apparatus access. With <br />the increased risk of wildfire in Eugene, this potential handicap to fire response endangers not just this proposed <br />development, but the existing residences in the surrounding area. This change which the Decision fails to <br />address represents a danger to the health and safety of the community. <br />This modification violates EC 9.8365(1), which provides: <br />“The planning director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a final PUD application, <br />based on compliance with the following criteria: <br />(1) The final PUD plan conforms with the approved tentative PUD plan and all conditions <br />attached thereto.” <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.