Public Comment (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

necessary with their permission. I have tried to contact the owners of the other parcel which is gated and includes a fence topped with razor wire, but I have had no success in getting them to respond. I am not sure who those owners are. There must be a solution to the egress problem before I can offer support to this plan. As this situation has been created because the City did not recognize its own guidelines regarding egress for earlier development, the solution should not fall on the developer. However, this must be addressed by the City, with the neighbors, with the property owners and Bonneville before building proceeds. 2). The plan includes a "detention facility" to manage water run-off from the property. I know that Branch Engineering did a study (including placing sensors on our property) to determine the best location for that facility. Those measurements were taken during a period of relatively light rainfall and concluded that no significant water runs off the current property. I have lived here for 40 years and can assure you that, although I do not have a degree in hydraulic engineering, I do know that water from this property in times of heavy rain comes directly into my back yard (I have created my own diversion for that issue), as well as seeping from the hill to the south of where the detention facility is planned. I do hope that the detention facility is sufficient to handle the run-off from the additional roof and street paving that will be involved in the development. Mr. Walter has assured me that he will work with me to make sure that it does. I would like assurance as a condition of development that an increase in the flow that will be placed on our property be assessed over a period of at least 5 years (longer if there is a continued drought) and that the developer and the City agree to work with me in the creation of a second detention facility on my property if further channeling or the creation of additional wetlands occur as a result of run-off from this development. 3). Vivian Way appears on the map, although Walter Development has chosen not to use it for access to the property. I very much appreciate their sensitivity to the intrusion that opening Vivian Way would create for us. Vivian Way cannot be used to solve the egress problem (the slope up to Fox Hollow would limit that and the end point would still be at the intersection in question). I would suggest to the City that it vacate the right-of-way and add half of it to the each of the two adjacent properties, thus returning it to the tax rolls. Or, if the City wishes to retain this "phantom street," it should maintain it in keeping with the standards of the State's urban-forest transition zone requirements. It currently contains potentially dangerous ladder fuels, dead/dying trees and significant downed timber (some of which has fallen on the developer's property). I know that Mr. Walter has offered to remove one large pine tree from Vivian Way. I would note that there is another seriously leaning tree just up hill from that one which will also fall in about the same line at some point (and probably uproot trees on our property). 4). Mr. Walter has assured me that the houses to be built on the four lots immediately adjacent to Vivian Way will be constructed toward the uphill side of those lots (toward the new access drive). I would prefer to have this assurance made explicit in writing and that the setback from the eastern property line (Vivian Way) be at least 30 feet.