Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Scenic Heights PUD modification after residents press trail and tree concerns
Summary
Council voted 4–3 to continue a modification to the Scenic Heights PUD after residents objected to removing interior mulch trails because of wetlands and alleged tree clearing; applicant said the original PUD allowed trails only if permitted and staff recommended the clarification and timing changes.
The City Council on April 21 voted to continue consideration of a modification to the Scenic Heights PUD for 30 days after a contentious public comment period about trail removal, tree clearing and drainage concerns.
The modification seeks to revise road‑sequencing timelines and to remove a network of proposed mulch trails through a forested wetland in favor of perimeter trails and elevated boardwalks where necessary. Applicant Grady Palmer (Williams Mullen) said the change reflects on‑site environmental conditions revealed during pre‑construction testing and noted the original development criteria included a contingency allowing trails only "if permittable" by regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and DEQ. Palmer said the change clarifies trail widths and sequencing and that construction has already begun on other site elements.
Several nearby residents and stakeholders, including Jeff Staples and Christina Tewen, spoke in opposition citing tree removal already underway, chronic drainage and water‑table concerns, and the loss of internal walking trails that were a key amenity when the project was rezoned. A student from TCC's horticulture program said local greenhouse operators have reported well‑water impacts following recent nearby development. Council members asked staff and the applicant detailed questions about the feasibility of mulch trails, whether permits would ever allow them, the location of current clearing, and whether the modified timing made certificate‑of‑occupancy issuance faster.
Planning staff said most changes are timing and sequencing of road construction and that no land‑use changes are proposed; staff recommended approval of the clarified development criteria but recognized community concerns. Council substituted a motion to continue the item to allow staff and the applicant to prepare two versions (with and without the trail modification) for consideration. The substitute motion to continue to the May 19 meeting passed 4–3.
