Residents in planning exercise reject proposed 18‑lot subdivision amid stormwater and density concerns

Staff presented a proposed 18‑lot single‑family subdivision on roughly 3.3 acres off City Street and recommended approval with conditions. Nick Little, Community & Economic Development director, said the project would extend City Street, add curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, fire hydrants and utilities, and treat runoff on‑site via a bioretention facility discharging to the Consolidated Diking Improvement District (CDID) ditch. Little said the application included a geotechnical report, a traffic study and a stormwater technical information report and that staff found the proposal to conform to the Longview municipal subdivision and zoning codes but recommended conditions to ensure code compliance.

During public comment, neighbors raised repeated concerns about stormwater and flooding. Chris Collins told the commissioners he was "fearful of the stormwater conditions," noting winter standing water on the vacant site and saying he had seen downstream diking ditches overwhelmed "and had water all the way up to the front doors of the houses." Jen, a nearby resident, said the parcel functioned as informal open space used for dog walking and small gardens and warned that "18 homes on 3 acres feels cramped and out of character with the surrounding area." Irene Urikanga, who identified herself as living across the street, said she and other neighbors had not received notice and asked that the project be paused to allow broader neighborhood engagement.

Stormwater manager Steve Hobner said projects are required to meet both city and Washington state stormwater requirements and described mitigation included in the review: the developer was required to coordinate with CDID to upsize the downstream portion of the ditch and improve upstream segments to handle additional runoff, and to install an interceptor ditch to prevent runoff from reaching existing backyards. Hobner said such design and coordination are reviewed as part of the permit process.

Commissioner Kuroda pressed staff on the capacity of existing, decades‑old infrastructure to handle added runoff. Hobner reiterated that the review requires a system that collects and conveys additional stormwater and noted the specific mitigation in this case. On traffic, staff said trip estimates used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual; staff acknowledged table representatives could note disagreement in their comments but that the methodology is standard practice.

As part of the event, attendees were seated as a five‑member mock planning commission and made a recommendation by table vote. The host moved to approve the project "as presented" and the motion was seconded; the simulated vote failed. Nick Little explained that official decisions require written findings and that denials can be appealed. He said staff typically has to prepare findings within about 14 days and that a developer would then have 20 days to appeal; he cautioned that denials often do not stand in court if, on review, the project demonstrably meets code and any impacts were reviewed and mitigated.

What happens next: because this was an educational role play rather than an actual planning commission decision, there is no immediate formal action record to appeal. If this were a formal planning commission recommendation, staff would prepare findings and the proposal could proceed to city council with the record created at the planning hearing. Staff noted that if approved in later formal proceedings the applicant would typically have preliminary design (around 30 percent) at this stage, up to five years to build, and would return for construction permits and final plat approval after site work and bonds are in place.

Authorities referenced in discussion include the Longview municipal subdivision code (chapter cited by staff), the residential zoning chapter referenced by staff, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process used for environmental review. Details not specified in the public presentation include the developer's name and the exact vote tally from the simulated exercise.

The planning staff said they will keep project documents available for public review and encouraged residents to check the city's project webpage and the staff report for full technical studies and the list of conditions and mitigations.