Eugene planning commission hears appeal of Braidwood Hills 3rd; record closed, deliberations set

The Eugene Planning Commission on Jan. 14, 2025 held a quasi‑judicial public hearing on an appeal of the hearings officialdecision denying a tentative planned unit development (PDP24-1) and tentative subdivision (SD24-3) for Braidwood Hills 3rd, a proposed roughly 15‑acre residential development that would create 39 lots and associated streets and infrastructure.

City planning staff summarized 10 appeal issues in a detailed agenda item summary and asked the commission to review whether the hearings official erred on procedural and substantive points. Staff told commissioners the appeal record includes materials from two open record periods and recommended the commission consider reversing or modifying parts of the hearings officialdecision on several issues.

The most frequently cited topics during the hearing were (1) whether the site appears on the cityacknowledged Goal 5/special scenic inventory (Figure H2) and the effect of that status on tree preservation and geotechnical requirements, (2) whether a portion of Randy Lane must be built to public street standards and whether the hearings officialimproperly added a no‑parking condition, (3) stormwater and wetlands impacts and proposed detention/mitigation, and (4) a legal dispute over whether a state middle‑housing statute limits local overlay restrictions for a lot above 901 feet.

Applicant representatives, city attorneys and planning staff spoke during the opening portion. The applicant (through counsel) asked the commission to accept evidence submitted in a second open record period and to overturn findings on several issues. Staff walked through each of the 10 appeal issues and the factual record the hearings official relied upon.

Twelve members of the public were in the speaking queue; additional written testimony remained in the record. Speakers included nearby residents, a neighborhood homeowners association representative, the president of a neighborhood group Save Videra Oak Meadow, and Ward 8 City Councilor Randy Groves (who said he was taking a neutral stance but spoke from his prior experience as a 37‑year firefighter and former fire chief of Eugene‑Springfield Fire). Commenters opposed the project in its current form and emphasized potential loss of trees and habitat, risks to downstream properties from stormwater changes, emergency access and wildfire concerns, and the adequacy of the citytechnical record.

After public testimony the applicant had an opportunity for rebuttal. The commission then closed the public hearing and closed the record. The commission scheduled deliberations for Jan. 21 and Jan. 28, 2025, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., to decide whether to reverse, modify or uphold the hearings officialdecision.

Why this matters: the commissiondecision will determine whether and how the project can proceed, including whether tree preservation, geotechnical review, stormwater mitigation and street standards apply as argued by opponents and staff. The decision also may clarify how the statemiddle‑housing statute applies when local PD overlay restrictions (including the 901‑foot rule) are implicated.