Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Phase 4 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents protest Shoreline Phase 4 changes; applicant pulls item, council continues hearing
Summary
Numerous residents said the Shoreline Phase 4 proposal increases density, threatens stormwater control and evacuation routes; the developer withdrew the item and the council continued the public hearing to a date uncertain.
Dozens of residents raised objections on May 8 to a revised Shoreline Phase 4 subdivision plan that, opponents said, replaces previously discussed single-family housing with dense stacked townhomes and multifamily buildings. After an extended public-comment period, the applicant withdrew the item from consideration; the council voted to continue the hearing to a date uncertain.
Speakers addressed several recurring concerns: a perceived shift from low-density single-family lots to plans showing as many as 239 townhome units in the Phase 4 footprint, an unfinished lift station they said is needed before the area can be fully built out, unresolved stormwater and detention-basin questions, and the effect of increased density on evacuation and traffic.
Tom Slyke, a Shoreline-area resident, urged the council to deny the proposed density changes. “When we purchased land and built our homes here, we did so based on a clear understanding of the plan density,” he told the council. “This proposal undermines the integrity of the planning process.” Residents said they had expected about 65 single-family lots in the phase and expressed concern a revised plan would “pack” homes close together and reduce property values.
Doug Silver and several other residents asked for clarity on an unfinished lift station they say is needed to support build-out; one resident pointed to email exchanges with the developer dating to October and urged the council to insist on a timeline. Others raised stormwater concerns, noting a detention basin on the plan that appears to hold standing water and warning that insufficient drainage could harm downstream areas, including the state park.
Staff and planning commissioners did not take final action. The developer (identified in meeting materials) had asked that the item be continued; the council voted to continue the final subdivision approval to a date uncertain so the applicant can address issues and return with a revised plan. Planning commission chair Tony (last name in packet) had earlier asked the council to ensure any future submittal complies with the town’s master plan and technical requirements.
Next steps: the applicant will work with staff and the planning commission to address resident concerns and engineering questions about stormwater and lift-station capacity before returning for final subdivision approval.
