Okay. We're live.
>> Okay. Good evening everyone.
Welcome to the August 13th
hearing of the Clark County
Land Use Hearings examiner. My
name is Daniel Keirns, and I'll
be presiding over tonight's
hearing. We have on the agenda
tonight a single item. It's
Valike terrace site plan and
zone change. That's PSR
2026-00021. Let me begin with
an introduction to me and
explanation of how the process
is going to unfold tonight.
First of all, I and one other
person we serve by appointment
from the Board of County
counselors to review and decide
development proposals in
unincorporated Clark County.
It's our job to review the
record, review the application,
review all of the public
comments, the staff report, and
other documents that anybody
submits into this each matter.
And then we review the code and
determine what the code
requires. Then we convene a
hearing such as this to take
public testimony. But
ultimately, our job is to
decide whether each of these
proposals meets or doesn't meet
the applicable approval
criteria. And those are the
standards that control each of
these. Those are the standards
that were in the the code, the
development code at the time
each of these was submitted. So
that submission freezes in time.
The standards that will control
its passage and ultimately
ultimate decision through the
county's process. In making
these decisions, I am required
to be objective and free of
conflicts of interest, and I
believe that I am. With regard
to this one tonight, I don't
know the the applicant or the
property owner. I have no
familial or personal or
business relations with with
anyone associated with the
applicant. I don't know any of
the opponents who have weighed
in so far. What I know about
this case is what I have
gleaned from the record, and
I've had my record. I've had
access to it for about two
weeks, and the record is a
changing creature. Up until
just an hour ago, things have
changed somewhat. So that's
what I know about this case. I
believe I am free of any
conflicts of interest or bias,
and if anyone wishes to
question me about any of these
disclosures, feel free to do so.
During the public testimony
portion of tonight's hearing.
With regard to that hearing,
here's how we're going to go.
We'll begin with a staff report,
and that's a verbal rendition
of the written staff report
that was issued prior to
tonight's hearing. That's
exhibit 59 in the record. For
those of you who are watching.
We after the staff report, I
will take the applicant's
primary presentation. The
applicant can assume that I'm
generally familiar with the
proposal, but there are a
couple things that I want to
know up front from the
applicant. First of all, the
staff report that was issued
has findings on each of the
criteria and proposed
conditions of approval. I want
to know. Well, actually it has
alternative conditions of
approval because staff is
recommending denial. But I want
to know what objections or
corrections you would have to
the findings and the conditions.
Assuming you don't already
object to the denial part of it
after that from the applicant,
I need to know what's the
what's the the current proposal
before me. And that's one of
the things that may be changing.
So that's always an important
thing to know before the record
closes is what is the plan. So
right now we have an alternate,
an alternate, I'll call it plan
B, exhibit 63 that came in
yesterday, I think it was and
it's intended as I read it, to
get around in development
Engineering's recommendation of
a denial on the road mod. So
those two things, the third
thing I need from the applicant
is there's likely to be a lot
of public testimony in this
matter. I would ask the
applicant to keep note of all
of the issues that the
opponents raise. They've
already raised a lot. They're
summarized in the staff report,
by the way, and I want the
applicant to take the first
stab during rebuttal to
responding to some of those. At
least some of those opponent
issues. And that's because, you
know, a lot of times the
opponent and neighbor testimony
comes in the form of how is
this thing going to function?
How is it going to affect my
access and stormwater system?
How is that going to work?
There are a number of things
that public testimony asks of
the applicant. And so I'd ask
in rebuttal, the applicant take
a first stab at responding to
those questions. So that's the
applicant side. After that,
anyone else in favor of the
proposal can testify, then
anyone in the middle there with
neutral testimony or questions
can testify. And then finally,
anyone who is opposed. And I
think we have, as I mentioned,
we have a lot of opponent
testimony. We're going to limit
time. The applicant gets a
chunk of 20 minutes to do their
primary presentation. Anyone
who wants to testify, members
of the public pro, neutral or
con is is it three minutes a
pop, Richard?
>> Yes, three minutes.
>> Three minutes a pop. But
understand, for those of you
out there in Zoom land who want
to participate in this, the the
most effective way to do that,
from my perspective, here's
sort of a pro tip is when I go
to sit down my kitchen table to
write this opinion, I'll have
like copies of all the opponent
testimony there in front of me.
So it's a written thing. It's a
written summary of your
testimony. It's your letters
that are most impactful because
I'm a terrible note taker. And
so if you're going to spring
some new and surprising issues
during oral testimony, I'd
recommend you also submit your
testimony in writing. It's I
tell you, it's most impactful.
And we already have a lot of
the written issues in the
record. So next I'll roll into
how to frame your public
testimony. But one of the first
things will be don't repeat. So
anyhow, so after we get the
opponent testimony, I'll go
back to take final rebuttal
from the applicant. The
applicant in all of these cases
has the last word. And that's
because they have the burden of
proof, the burden of proving
that they meet each of the
approval criteria, including
all the road standards. And in
this case, maybe a road
modification too, if it's
needed. After the applicant's
final rebuttal, I'll go back to
staff to see if there's any
parting comments that staff has
based on the public testimony.
And then it's my typical habit.
As soon as the dust settles to
close the record. And that
means that that'll end
everybody's ability to raise
new issues or to submit new
evidence. You need you have to
know that you are obligated if
you want to appeal one of my
decisions, you have to
participate either orally or in
writing before the record
closes. And you need to raise
any issue that you want to
preserve for an appeal, and you
need to submit any evidence you
want me to consider or that
you'd want to rely upon in a
subsequent appeal. So all of
you be mindful of when the
record closes. As I mentioned,
we have a request for the
record at least, to be kept
open, maybe for an entire
continuance. We'll talk about
that before we're done here
tonight. But if you want
anything more than that in
terms of additional time, you
need to make that request.
While the record is still open.
Let's see. The how to
participate tonight in this
WebEx internet based
environment. We'll get a primer
from Brian Madsen, the staff
planner, in a little bit. But
when you testify, do so in that
order I just recited. When your
microphone is unmuted and it's
your turn to talk, start with
your name and you don't have to
give me your address, but kind
of tell me where you live
relative to this project so I
understand where you're coming
from. If you agree with
something that somebody else
said, you don't have to repeat
their testimony. Just tell me
that I'll ascribe that point to
you, and you can go on to your
next point. If you want to
submit any evidence or
documents, you can email those
to Mr. Madsen. The record is
going to stay open at least
following tonight's hearing, so
you'll have time to do that.
But don't forget, if you
represent somebody else, let me
know that. Don't repeat
testimony and remember the best
way to get your issues before
me so that I don't forget them
is to submit it in writing. So
that's it by way of a
procedural rundown. Now it's
time for kind of a primer on
how to operate in this WebEx
environment. Brian.
>> Are you, are you able to see
the first slide by sharing that
correctly?
>> Yeah, I can see it looks
good.
>> Okay, great. Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Examiner. My name is Brian
Matson. For everyone
participating in tonight's
hearing, if you're wishing to
testify about a specific agenda
item to staff, ask that you
raise your hand so that we can
gauge who wishes to testify. If
you're a call in user, you can
dial star three. If you're a
participant, you need to click
the hand icon located in the
lower right hand corner of the
of your screen or next to your
name in the list of
participants. Here's a graphic
showing where you may find the
hand icon shown by the red
arrows. You May 1st need to
turn on the list of
participants. You can do this
by clicking the participants
button shown by the purple
arrow. Once you've given your
testimony, we would ask that
you put your hand down. You can
accomplish this by either
clicking the hand icon again or
dialing star three again. We
will ask everyone to keep their
microphones on mute and mute at
any time they are not speaking.
I will show you how to do that
in the next slide. When it's
your turn to testify, you'll be
sent a request to unmute
yourself. If you miss your
opportunity to opportunity to
testify. For some reason, the
record on each case will be
open for a period of time, so
you can submit your testimony
in writing. Finally, the chat
function has been disabled for
public records purposes. As I
mentioned, we ask everyone to
keep their microphones muted at
any time they're not speaking.
There are a few ways in which
to mute your mute yourself. If
you're a web user and you're
using your computer for audio,
you can simply click the mute
button at the bottom of your
screen or next to your name in
the list of participants shown
here by the Red arrows. If
you're a web user and using a
phone for audio, you can either
mute yourself on your computer
or using your phone's mute
capability. Phone only users
can use the mute capability on
their phone. We would ask that
you stay muted any time you are
not speaking. Thanks, everyone.
And that concludes the
instructional portion of the
presentation.
>> Thanks. Should we roll into
the staff report then?
>> Sure.
>> Thanks.
>> I have to switch
presentations here. Second. Are
you seeing the.
>> No, no?
>> Okay, let's try that again.
Try this again. How about now?
>> Let's see.
>> Public hearing.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Good deal. All right.
Tonight's during this
presentation, staff staff is
going to try to give a rundown
or a brief summary of the
report and recommendation.
We'll go to applicant's
testimony and then public
testimony. Then the applicant's
rebuttal hearings examiner
already covered this. So I'm
going to move forward. The case
tonight is the site plan and
zone change. The case number is
PSR 2026-00021. The request is
the applicant's requesting site
plan. Review approval to
construct an 18 unit apartment
complex on .88 acres.
Additionally, as part of this
proposal, the applicant is
requesting to rezone the site
from the current R-12 zoning to
R-22 to allow for greater
density. The applicant Songbird
Homes. The contact is PLS
engineering and the owner is
Osprey Ventures LLC. The
location is 3511 northwest,
1/19 Street, Vancouver,
Washington. 986850. Okay. As I
said before, my name was. My
name is Brian Matson. We also
have a review engineer here for
Alistair dot Alistair Dawson,
who will talk about on site
transportation, probably get
into the road model
modification issues a bit. We
have a concurrency engineer,
Craig Cottle and Senior Deputy
Fire Marshal Jason Noble also
reviewed this for code
compliance. As I said on the
review planner for this project,
during our presentation, we're
going to provide the overview
summary of the proposal,
identify any major outstanding
issues or concerns, and make an
ultimately, make our
recommendation to the examiner
okay on the vicinity map here.
The subject property is
identified by the black dot. If
you can see my cursor, it's
right here. North is oriented
to the top of the page. The
subject site lies south of
northwest, 119th Street and
east of Northwest Lakeshore
Avenue and west of northwest
35th Avenue. Of note here is
Jefferson Middle School. Here
we also have the mixed use
light village mixed use
development kind of kitty
corner at the intersection of
119th and Lakeshore has some
commercial uses here, and then
Raspberry Fields Park is to the
southwest here. The zoning map
shows kind of the parcelization
of the surrounding lots. The
site is highlighted here in red.
The site and the parcels to the
east are all zoned R-12. The
parcels to the north across to
119th Street are zoned R 110.
We have a single parcel zoned
neighborhood commercial across
the street to the west. You
have the mixed use where they
have the village. A village
mixed use development. And then
to the southwest you have
R1-7.5, which is a single
family zoning.
>> So a question, Brian.
>> Yes, sir.
>> How close is the nearest R
22.
>> I don't I don't have that
information. Okay. Right here.
I could break free from this
presentation and.
>> That's okay. That's okay.
Think about that maybe later.
>> Okay. I've got here. I've
got an aerial map, an aerial
photo, aerial photogrammetry of
the site here in blue. You can
see the school here. Off to the
east you can see both the
arterials, Lakeshore Avenue and
1/19 here. These three
buildings are the village mixed
use development. And you can
also see a lot of the single
flying single family residences
that surround the area. I did.
I put this one in also in case
we wanted to talk about
something in more detail,
because the last one was zoomed
out so far, just in case
somebody wanted to talk about
118th Street, which I
anticipated would be would be a
topic. This just a blown up
version of what I had there
before.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, here's the proposed
site plan that we that we wrote
the staff report for this. The
main difference between this
and the alternate one or the
newer one is that the access
here is proposed to connect to
1/18 Street, which is this road
here, which is a source of a
lot of the comments. Also, part
of the reason that development
engineering is recommending a
denial based on.
>> The road model was to the
cross circulation requirement.
>> Cross circulation and street
extensions.
>> Okay. And most of the
opponents, I assume, are east
of this property.
>> Correct?
>> Correct.
>> That's that's my
understanding. I didn't look up
every address, but my
understanding is most of them
are to the east.
>> I'm betting.
>> Certainly the most impacted.
So. You can see also here that
detached sidewalks are being
proposed along 1/19 and all
along Lakeshore Avenue. There
currently aren't any sidewalks
along this property. So that'll
be a benefit. You have a you
have a building proposed here
on the north portion, and then
you have another building here
to the to the south portion.
Both buildings meet the
setbacks. You have the required
landscape and landscape buffers.
And then also obviously you can
see the parking lot here.
>> One question is building
height and issue. And is there
a difference in maximum allowed
building height in our 12
versus our 22?
>> No, they're both 50 foot and
the building height is a is a
concern for the for the
neighbors. A lot of comments
about building height and loss
of privacy as a result.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, I put this in here
because I didn't know if we
were going to talk about this.
Now, it turns out that, you
know, we're going to I'm going
to wreck. I'm going to request
a continuance. The applicant, I
believe is may want an open
record period review time. But
but I'll let.
>> You exit 63. Okay.
>> This is the new exhibit. Yes.
And you can.
>> See I'm calling I've been
calling that plan B.
>> Okay. Right. You can see the
main difference here is a
deceleration lane and a right
in right out. Access to
Lakeshore Avenue is what the
alternate proposal is. And of
note, there is no connection to
118th Street under.
>> This plan. Not even
emergency.
>> Not it doesn't. I don't see
it on this plan again. You know,
with more time to review this,
that might be a condition of
approval for this plan if we
were to look at it more. But
how.
>> About pedestrian pedestrian
access through there? That
would also be in the cards,
right?
>> I don't I don't see it right.
I don't I don't see it in this
plan. Right? They have a
sidewalk here, but it's
separated from the street by, I
would assume, landscaping or
whatnot.
>> Concertina wire.
>> Right, right. And one of the
things that I, that I, that I
got wrong in my staff report, I
noticed when I was looking at
this plan and I'll, I'll
mention that when I get to it.
But, but again, at this point,
at this preliminary alternate
site plan or plan B, I don't
see any pedestrian connections
to 118th Street. Okay. I'll
just go through a couple of
quick site photos here. I won't
dwell on them very long if we
need to go back to it, I can
always go back to it. So this
first one is I'm standing in
35th Avenue and I'm looking at
that 118th Street, looking
westerly at it there. If you
can see in the background,
there's a barricade. If you
keep driving straight through
that barricade, you're on the
site.
>> Okay, so people are parking
in this thing.
>> Yeah. It's typical for dead
end roads. And yeah, at least
they were. They were on this
day.
>> Okay. No, no sidewalks, but
it's what's the width of 118th.
>> It's it's a, I think it's a
25 foot right of way. It's on
the plan, on the proposed plan.
And I think it's a 21.4 width
of asphalt, if I remember
correctly.
>> 21.4ft. Okay.
>> I want to just take a second.
I've noticed that a couple of
participants have put their
hands up. I'm not. We're not
ignoring you. It's just we
haven't got to that part yet.
So so we will you'll be able to
testify. It's just we have to
get through this stuff first.
This picture is taken at the
intersection of 35th Avenue and
119th Street. I'm looking west
here. This is the existing
signal that's at the
intersection of Lakeshore and
Northwest 119th. You can see
that they have an existing
sidewalk that extends to the
west, but it stops at our site.
So the new sidewalk will
continue that. I didn't know if
this site distance was going to
be an issue from 35th Avenue,
so I took a picture looking
easterly at 119th Street. I
don't know if that really has
much to do with this with this
case, other than there is a
path here that you can see.
This is the path that will
eventually connect with the
school for the safe walking
conditions compliance.
>> So you're looking off to the
east there.
>> I'm looking on the east here
to 119th Street.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. This picture I took,
I'm, I'm standing at the
northeast corner of the site
and I'm looking southerly south
across the site. It's just kind
of some scrub brush right now.
No major trees that I could see
or anything. So the car you see
here in the distance, that's
Lakeshore Avenue. That car is
driving north. Okay. I took
this picture just to get a
better view of the intersection.
I'm standing at the northeast
corner of the site, same spot
as the last picture. I'm just
looking westerly at the
intersection here. You can see
they have an existing crosswalk,
and then you have the
commercial uses over here in
that village to village mixed
use development. I've mentioned
a couple times. This picture I
took from the northwest corner
of the site, this is basically
at the end of the crosswalk.
I'm looking southeasterly here.
You can see the neighboring
houses through these power
lines here or no, those are guy
wires. Sorry. You can also see
the the sign that they posted
on site here. And then this
road you can see here is
Northwest Lakeshore Avenue.
This picture I took looking
north from the south corner of
the site, there's this one
southerly corner and that's I'm
looking north from there. So
you can see the fence line for
the abutting neighbors to the
right of the picture. That's
the east side of the site. Okay.
The submittal was deemed
complete February 24th, 2026.
The application was deemed
fully complete March 13th, 2026,
and the staff report and
recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner was issued to July
29th, 2026 with a
recommendation of denial, and
that is exhibit 15.
>> So the project is just to.
The only basis for denial is
the development. Engineering's
recommendation of denial and
the road mod.
>> Correct, sir.
>> Otherwise the land use
issues are approvable.
>> Well with conditions.
>> Okay.
>> These are just some general
issues. The original hearing
date was set for five, 14, 2026,
but it was canceled or
rescheduled until tonight. In
order to give staff more time
to review the applicant's plans
and to allow response to
several transportation road
modification issues. As part of
the application, the applicant
requested a zone change from R
12 to R 22 to allow for a
higher density. Staff have
determined that this request
meets the applicable approval
criteria for zone change
requests in land use. Finding
one under land use. Finding
eight of the staff report and
recommendation land use staff.
I made an erroneously stated
that the internal sidewalks
connected to both the sidewalks
along northwest 119th Street
and Northwest Lakeshore Avenue.
>> What. What page of the staff
report is this?
>> I think it's the bottom of
14 under land use finding eight.
But that was an error. I'm not
sure where that came from or
what. How I might have mixed up
some line work and such, but.
>> So what's the what's a
pedestrian connection between
this project and Lakeshore and
119th?
>> Like they don't have one on
the, on the preliminary plan
that we wrote this, this report
for and what I what I'd like to
do is state that that finding
was in error. And I want to
request that a condition is
added that at least one
connection is made between the
frontage sidewalks and the
internal sidewalks to comply
with the safe pedestrian route
code requirement. Now, oddly
enough, when I when I looked at
the alternate plan or plan B,
they do have a sidewalk
connection from the sidewalk.
They're putting. They're going
to build along Lakeshore to the
internal sidewalks of the
development. So they have it in
the new plan. They just don't
on the on the original one.
>> So okay.
>> I don't, I don't believe I
couldn't find anywhere in the
code where I could, I could
require it for both. But for at
least for one, I feel that
that's supportable. So. Clark
County development engineering
staff and the Road modification
review team did not support the
applicant's road modification,
asking for relief from cross
circulation and street
extension requirements and
their their road modification
review team report. I feel adds
more, more definition or more
justification for that decision
than the staff report does. So
I would suggest looking at
exhibit 58 for a better
understanding of the Road
modification review team. So
and again, as you say, as you
asked earlier, that's the
primary reason for the
recommendation of denial.
Lastly, I'm kind of going over
things we've talked about
already here, but the applicant
submitted an alternate site
plan, exhibit 63 on 812, in
which the access is modified
and now proposes to access
Northwest Lakeshore Avenue
instead of northwest 118th
Street. Again, as. As I stated
earlier, staff is going to
request additional time to
review this information and
request a continuance to allow
sufficient time to assess the
code, compliance and potential
impacts.
>> Of plan B.
>> Plan B.
>> Okay.
>> I know I, I, I called it the
alternate site plan, but plan B
probably is a little more
descriptive. Shorter. It is
shorter.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, okay. Finally, the
recommendation based on the
application materials known as
exhibit one, the revised
development plans known as
exhibit 42, the revised
technical road modification
known as exhibit 39, and the
findings and conclusions stated
in the staff report and
recommendation known as exhibit
59. Staff recommends. The
hearing examiner denies this
request. Now I put a. I wanted
to add if the hearing examiner
chooses to allow the. The plan
B to be reviewed by staff
during an open record period,
then staff defers the
recommendation until a suitable
length of time has been granted
to allow for the additional
review of the new information.
>> Okay, so are you asking.
>> Staff preference is a
continuation, but.
>> Okay, a new hearing just to
decide.
>> How what form that takes.
>> So it's it's I got to tell
you, I don't think I've ever
seen staff recommend or ask for
a continuance ever. So why,
what's the reason for a new
hearing date instead of open
record?
>> I think to allow for a more
thorough vetting of the of the
new plan. One of the reasons,
one of the reasons is the new
plan is going to require a new
road modification that they're
going to have to apply.
>> And that has not been
submitted.
>> That hasn't been submitted.
So it's kind of a wonky to, to
not to do it during an open
record period seems wonky and,
and messy. And that's, I think
where we're leaning.
>> We don't want wonky and
messy, that's for sure.
>> That's why we're leaning
more to a, to a. Okay.
>> And I understand at least
one opponent has asked for a
continuance or an open record.
>> Correct? Correct. It was one
of the one of the comments that
were entered into the record
today, and I can't remember the
the number 60 something 60.
>> It's 62, 62. Miss Burnette.
>> Well, no, it would have it
would have to be after the open.
It would have to be after the
plan B so.
>> Okay. Oh let's I think that
says 63.
>> Yeah. That's 60 6464.
>> Let's see.
>> I can track that down for
you. It's it it it's comments
from.
>> Yeah. 64.
>> Okay.
>> Let's see. It's another
Terry Brunet submission. Yeah,
yeah.
>> Terry submitted several
comments. I put the dates in
there to try to, you know,
delineate them.
>> Yeah, sure. Okay. So that's
the last one. Okay.
>> Okay. Staff will remain
available for any questions.
>> That's okay. Thank you. I
guess I think I understand the
land use side of this pretty
well. The only questions I have
I think relate to the road mod.
And as is Mr. Dawson there.
>> Yes, sir. I'm here.
>> Hi. Welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> So is is the the road mod
request was for cross
circulation and road extension
and the and development
engineering. Yes. This went to
the road mod committee. Anyhow,
the recommendation was denial.
So the 100 I'm trying to
understand the feasibility of
of the applicant's plan A and
that relied on northwest 818 as
the access. The only access for
vehicles. That is. And it's is
it 25ft of right of way and
21.4ft of paved section. Is
that correct? Do you know.
>> That's what Brian said. I
would always just assumed it
was 20ft wide, but I suppose it
could vary in pavement with.
>> Can you check on that? Brian.
That kind of matters because as
I understand, it doesn't have a
sidewalk. It just has like a
slab of pavement. So I wonder
what's what the plan was to
make that work. Is it wide
enough for ingress and egress?
And it stands to reason that
there ought to be a at least a
sidewalk on one side. Is there
room for those things? In that?
>> I guess it comes down to I
mean, if there would be, if
it's 25ft of right of way is
what the plat says. So there
would be room for a 20 foot
wide paved surface with a five
foot sidewalk at grade with no
curb and gutter. It seems like
there'd be room there just it'd
be really tight with, you know,
trying not to grade on private
property and matters of that
nature.
>> And in terms of pedestrian
circulation on, into and
through and out of this site.
The it is kind of disturbing
that plan A didn't include any
pedestrian connections to the
two arterials, which seems like
a big omission in my mind,
since pedestrian ingress and
egress would most likely flow
towards the arterials. But I
just couldn't envision anyone
wanting to walk from this
development up to the east.
Since there weren't any like
places pedestrians would go. So
that was a thought that struck
me when I was looking at this
plan. The other thing that
struck me in the original plan
A is, and the Engineering's
denial of the road mod. I can't
recall, I can't recall in a
long, many years seeing staff
recommending access to an
arterial for a project like
this, when there is access to a
lesser street right there. And
then, you know, I deal with
road modification requests to
cross circulation all the time.
And the overriding policy issue
is to not create any landlocked
parcels that all parcels
adjacent to a development site
have to be given, you know,
cross circulation connections
so that they have access to the
the public transportation
network. But that's not an
issue here. It's not the reason
for cross circulation on this
site has nothing to do with
that policy basis for the cross
circulation requirement. AM I
missing something?
>> So it doesn't say in the
code that it's for landlocked
parcels. It does say be nice to
your neighbor and try to give
an access to the surrounding
neighborhood. There's the block
length maximum that we try to
abide by is 800ft. The maximum
block perimeter we try to abide
by is 3200ft. This development
does not meet either of that
criteria. Even though they're
on a corner. The subject site
is approximately 500ft from
north to south. So the road
modification is in relation to
is it viable to a extend the
public road that has been
stubbed to their plat boundary?
And if it could be extended,
should it. Is it I mean, I've
seen other plans where it
connects, whether it connects
with a private driveway or a
public road, I don't know. But
there's nothing to preclude 118
from coming through their site
and connecting somewhere to
help create a block that is
closer to meeting the standards.
And then potentially, if 1/18
Street was extended, it would
feel like it wasn't an
underdeveloped roadway. Well,
20ft paved width is the minimum
acceptable for a public roadway.
That's typically with the
intention that that's a partial
width roadway and it will be
widened to a full standard
later.
>> That's not the cards here.
Right.
>> Not for that portion of it
that's stubbed to their east.
That cannot be widened due to
the proximity of the developed
houses and the amount of right
of way that was left for it.
Correct.
>> So neither plan A nor plan B
proposes to punch 118th all the
way through to Lakeshore. Plan
A just has access out 118th and
plan B blocks off 118th and and
punches out to Lakeshore. So
neither plan A nor plan B
addresses block length or.
Block perimeter. Right?
>> Correct. Are you seeing plan
B here? Is this showing up?
Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.
>> Yeah. And it's I've always
been I've been lectured by
traffic engineers in the past,
that of the public safety
hazards, the traffic safety
hazards of allowing a
development like this to take
direct access onto an arterial.
>> I'm not a traffic engineer.
We from Development Engineering
and the road Mod review team
asked the applicant to address.
Are there any safety issues
with taking access from one of
these arterials? We did not get
a response so we could not
conclude ourselves. You know,
we we didn't pick a location
and evaluate it. We asked the
applicant to do so. They
politely declined to analyze
and access onto another roadway.
And so we said, since you are
not evaluating the safety of
your plan versus an alternate
plan, and you're choosing to
take access off of an
underdeveloped, they're calling
it an infill road. I'm calling
it an alley because it's the
closest thing. So that
shouldn't be the primary access
to a new development. They
should evaluate the access
needs for their development.
And using an alley was not
acceptable to development
engineering.
>> Was there a safety issue?
>> I think that could be argued.
>> Okay. On plan B, what kind
of road mod would you expect
them to submit? What's what?
Road standards aren't met with
plan B that would require road
mod.
>> So some items to address. I
believe corner clearance would
be met with the restriction of
the right in right out. Of
course, if they modified the
approach to be full access they
wouldn't meet corner clearance
with this. You mean arterial.
>> You mean distance between
the intersection of 119th and
Lakeshore relative to this new
access?
>> Correct.
>> It'd be too close.
>> Yeah. They would meet it
though, with the right in,
right out. So as it's drawn, my
assumption is they would meet
the spacing requirement to the
intersection to the north. They
the there's another, there's
two existing driveways on the
opposite side of the street
from them. It looks like they
would try to align with one of
them, I think. Okay, yeah,
which is great. It looks like
the spacing might be too close
to the other driveway. It looks
like those are already
substandard. So it's an
existing condition, something
to be evaluated. It seems kind
of silly if we're asking them
to access Lakeshore and not
1/18, but technically they
would have access to a higher
classified road. And why? Why
that's the predominantly
favorite access, whether it's
by the county or by the
applicant or both. And then it
depends on I don't know if they
had time to evaluate the site
distance. It's possible that
site distance could be met at
that location going around.
It's a soft horizontal curve,
but you know, there's still
there's still a corner there as
it bends around the southerly
side of their parcel. So it
that might come into play.
>> Okay. Okay. So it's, it's
doable at least. Yeah.
Theoretically. Okay.
>> I think it is.
>> Okay. All right. I guess
that's all I have by way of
questions for staff. I'll take
the applicant's presentation
and maybe for the applicant.
Let's start with plan B and our
are you requesting a
continuance or an open record?
Let's kind of get that out of
the way first.
>> I'll let for the record,
Jamie Housley, attorney for the
project, I'll let Mr. Johnson
talk about the plan B
alternative, but our request
would be for an open record
period, Mr. Examiner.
>> Okay.
>> I'm going to be gone next
week anyway, so I think we
could, but yeah, I think we
could be extending that period
out a little bit than the
typical seven, seven, seven to
give staff some additional time
to look at what we submit.
>> Oh, for sure, if there's an
open record, I mean, you
haven't even submitted a road
mod. The staff hasn't digested
that and the public hasn't seen
it either. I think the public
just saw a plan B for the first
time this evening. Word has not
spread, but it's significant
given their issues I think. So
that definitely warrants more
time.
>> Yeah, we just we just don't
feel like a continuance is
warranted, given that this was
supposed to be heard in May and
now we're in August.
>> Okay. Mr. Johnson.
>> Mr. Examiner, this is this
is PLS engineering in general
here, but this is Jason Taylor
with engineering and Travis
Johnson is also here. We'll
we'll be tag teaming on on this
item tonight. I just want to
address a few things with this
alternate plan. You know all of
this came about and it's it's
been a long and complicated
process to try to propose a
development on this site. And I
think the the letter that was
submitted today goes into a
briefly describes the history
of that and the different site
plans that have been proposed
and how we've gotten. I guess
at this point, we've gotten
different responses on, on how
we should develop this, how we
should provide access to this
site and the best we can do.
>> If I could just interrupt
you for the everyone out there
in Zoom land, this is a late
submitted memo from the
applicant's exhibit 66. It's
got a four page memo and about
50 pages of attachments. So
it's significant submission.
>> Yeah. And a majority of
those 50 pages is a is an old
an old staff report that was
submitted into the record. Part
of that part of that exhibit,
the main point of that exhibit
is to to confirm that this is
not 118th Street is not an
alley. I think there was some
confusion. Our original plan
that we submitted ourselves
called that an alley. That was.
So we we made a mistake there.
It is not. And I think that was
perpetuated in the accounting.
>> So what is this
classification?
>> Mr.
>> Keirns. Mr. Travis Johnson
engineering, I think you, Mr.
Housley and I will. Are the
only ones that know about the
old Enfield Code in Clark
County. And that is an infill,
a type roadway 20ft wide is
what it is. It ranges from 20
to 20ft wide.
>> The right of way or the
pavement width.
>> The pavement width.
>> Okay. But it's a 25 foot
right of way.
>> That is correct. 25 and the
roadway is centered within that
25ft. So you, I know that there
was mentions of sidewalk. The
whole road would have to be
tore up, shoved over to one
side or the other to put a
sidewalk along along that
roadway.
>> Right. But it's feasible.
>> It's, I think that I think
that within I don't think this
last submission, I don't
remember what you said. Exhibit
6463.
>> Is your memo.
>> 63, I think I think it
details.
>> 66 rather 66 is your memo 63
is plan B.
>> Apologies 66. It details out
proportionality. There is an
old resolution from the county
resolution 2008 dash 12-24. It
is exhibit E within that
submittal.
>> So your. Because if if if
118th was going to be feasible,
it would have to be made safe.
And in my view, given the
dimension that it has, that
would be have to have a
sidewalk. And your argument is
that that would be
disproportionate to the impact
of the development.
>> I'm saying that the frontage
improvements along Lakeshore
Avenue, 119th Street are
disproportional to the
development itself. We've
submitted an additional road
within that that that submittal
to explain all that. And we've
also submitted an updated site
plan within that, that
submittal not showing frontage
improvements. So just that. And
that alone just the frontage
improvements are
disproportional to the impacts
that this development is
creating. So adding in a
tearing up 118th Street with
that, adding a sidewalk just
adds to the problems of.
>> Okay. So so it's a totality
of the frontage improvements on
the two arterials when added to
the 118th Street sidewalk.
That's what pushes it beyond
proportionality.
>> It pushes it beyond
proportionality with even
without the sidewalk on 118th
Street. And that's just great.
>> So are you trying to get out
of the frontage improvements on
the two arterials?
>> That's correct.
>> Oh, okay. But and that's
with plan A, but you haven't
said with regard to plan B.
>> Well, we submitted plan B.
We're getting into a lot here.
I guess we can start off with
there was a submittal back in
oh nine that was approved of 11
lot subdivision that did access
northeast 108th Street, 18th
Street and didn't propose any
connections to Lakeshore and
1/19 Street, and that is
exhibit B within within the
letter I submitted.
>> Okay, so that was approved.
>> That's correct. It was
approved. Single access because
that's that was the code at
that point in time, an infill,
a roadway. Those roadways were
created as part of these infill
projects to increase density.
Since then, the the
commissioners did remove that
section of code, but we're
stuck with these roadways that
were approved back then, and
that provided the only access
to these properties.
>> Okay.
>> That access was approved by
Clark County when the project
to the east was developed. And
that was the access for this,
this piece of property subject
property we're dealing with
today, of course. 0809 were
difficult on a lot of people.
There wasn't financing to move
forward. Since then, the
applicant did submit a ten lot
subdivision that was 2022 00107.
>> How did it propose access?
>> It proposed access to 1/18
Street and proposed a same
right turn pocket right in from
Lakeshore.
>> And so it had both.
>> That's correct. Okay. And an
access to 1/19. Right in. Right
out. Yes.
>> Mr. Johnson, are those are
those plans part of your road
modification letter? If you
want me to share those, I can.
>> If you would like, Mr.
Manson.
>> Okay.
>> During that time, we
submitted a road modification
for right in. And we. And for
right in. Right out on 1/19
Street. There were a lot of
challenges with getting that
road mod approved. As I
mentioned earlier in this
letter, there is an additional
road mod for disproportionality
and what we couldn't get to
with Clark County in the. The
review engineers was an
agreement on how much
mitigation needed to be done
for the right in off Lakeshore
and the right in right off of
1/19. Ultimately, they denied
the access to 1/19 and the
Lakeshore one. They wanted
medians down the roadways. They
discussed people traveling
backwards down that right in,
right out. And we just couldn't
get there. We five months into
meetings and emails and road
mods, we couldn't get the
county to agree with the right
end off. That would be the, the,
the.
>> And that's off. That was off
Lakeshore.
>> That's correct.
>> So what makes you think
you'll do better this time?
>> If I can continue with the
history? Mr. Hearing examiner,
I apologize. We couldn't get
there. So we dropped the
project and we found it too
difficult to propose a right in
off Lakeshore and a right in
right out off 1/19. Based on
comments and the amount of time
it took and then the mitigation
that would be required. So we
come back in with this third
submittal. And this third
submittal is what the proposed
18 unit zone change project
that we have here today.
>> So you mean with this third
submittal you mean plan A yes.
>> Plan A correct. Sorry Mr.
Examiner we did not propose any
any accesses on Lakeshore in
1/19 because of based on the
comments and on the problems
with the road mod on the
previous project. So we thought
we were taking the easy path
and just connecting into the
infill roadway, northeast 1/18
Street.
>> You thought you were doing
what the county wanted.
>> That's correct.
>> So question question about
plan A though it looks like it
has full frontage improvements
for the two arterials.
>> It does. It does. We tried
to take the easy path and
propose full frontage
improvements. We did make a
mistake and we did not make a
sidewalk connection from the
development as you previously
mentioned.
>> Okay, so that wouldn't be
difficult to squeeze in. So
people walking, they could
easily get to both of these
arterials.
>> That's correct.
>> It seems like there's space.
>> Heck yeah. That's it's a
tight site. It's a difficult
site. But you know, we did have
a lot subdivision that was that
was submitted and there was
nothing wrong with the density
of it. We. And then there was
also a lot short plat. I think
it was a short plat, the first
middle from 2009. But there is
the same amount of trips from
an 11 lot subdivision in this
18 unit apartment complex. And
the letter does go through that.
So the impacts of, of an 18
unit apartment complex in a 11
lot subdivision are exactly the
same.
>> Okay. I'm not surprised. I
know the trip generation is
different for apartments versus
single family homes.
>> During this process. During
the 30 day early issues process,
the county requested cross
circulation. As. As you know,
Mr. Hearing examiner, cross
circulation cut in this
property in half or making a
public roadway connection. The
only place we could make it is
to Lakeshore Timthy
intersection spacing from 1/19.
It'd have to be further south
and would require another road
bond on top of a road bond. And
when we submitted that road
modification cross circulation,
the county came back and and
discussed connections,
different connections besides
cross circulation. The subject
matter was about private
connections, and we wanted them
to explain how private
connections to this project
would and would meet code. We
wrote the. We wrote the road
mod for cross circulation for
public roadway. We felt like it
was easily approvable and we
could get approval or denial
for that road mod, even though
we did request it.
>> So you're referring to the
one the road mod associated
with plan A?
>> That's correct.
>> And you were shocked that
you got denied.
>> Yeah,
>> We were shocked because
disproportionality would play a
huge role in getting this
property in half, and there's
more difficulties and more road
road mods associated with
bringing 1/18 Street, an infill
roadway through the site or
south and chopping the up more.
>> So in your prior discussions
with the county, did the county
want connection to both
Lakeshore and 118th? Because
right now plan A and plan B,
it's one or the other, not both.
>> Well, I think I think there
was a lot of phone calls to
upstairs and to community
development director and to the
engineers reviewing it, and
there was quite a bit of
pressure applied from the
neighbors. And that connection
to 18th Street. It was
difficult for staff in the
county to to put it bluntly. So
at that point in time, I at
that point in time we finally
did. We met with county staff
and explained our argument,
explained the the old approvals
and requests to meet with them.
Again, road Committee denied
that request. That's also part
of the. The exhibits within the
letter I sent. And then. It
wasn't until this week that
they. They they called and
wanted to meet and and try to
find a solution to this project.
And the challenge with two
accesses into the site is
parking. I know that the state
has is allowing us to have no
parking on these apartment
projects, but it just doesn't
work when you get down to 1.5
or 1 parking space for these
projects, you get parking
overflow into the neighboring
properties.
>> Yeah. You think the
neighbors are mad now?
>> Yes. So we we really want to
uphold that, that two parking
spaces are just shy of two
parking spaces per unit. And
what ends up happening is when
you have the 1/18 connection in
the right in right out off
Lakeshore or even a right in
off Lakeshore, we get under
that. We do not want to lose
parking. And as you can see,
I've read 20 comments from the
neighbors about utilizing
northwest 18th Street as an
access. I don't see anything in
there that discusses code
issues with using it, but if it.
>> Discusses what.
>> Code issues associated with
using that access. Because if
you look at a 20 foot wide
roadway, the only comparable
roadway in the county would be
a private road, which allows 50
lots to be served off a private
road, which is the same width
as that infill roadway or 580 T.
So it it is narrow, but it
based on county code, it does
meet a private road standard
which the county. The county
code does allow 580 T or 50
lots to to be served off a
private road, but we felt best
to submit something to appease
the neighbors, the county make
everybody happy and that is the
right in, right out. That is
the option B site plan.
>> Okay, so at this point, are
you going with either one or
have you dropped plan A in
favor of plan B or what's your
position right now?
>> The position right now is
the more we looked at this
project, the more we analyzed
how much impervious surface
that we were going to have to
install for Lakeshore Avenue in
1/19 Street. Within this letter,
we did submit an additional
site plan that removes all
frontage improvements and does
propose the right in, right out
access off Lakeshore Avenue.
>> So this is an alternative,
but you're you're you're not
dropping plan A.
>> We are dropping plan A,
there's a plan B and a plan C,
okay.
>> We're all okay.
>> That would be.
>> And do you do you agree with
Mr. Mr. Dawson about what kind
of road mods would be needed to
make plan B fly?
>> Yeah, I took some I took
some notes here. We do just
based on what was said. As I
mentioned, Mr. Harrington, we
do provide. We will provide a
sidewalk connection to
Lakeshore Avenue from the
project. We do have to provide
pedestrian connection to the
public right of way, site
distance was mentioned by
county staff through email. I
don't know if Mr. Dawson
mentioned it, but we do provide
an exhibit with the letter
showing we do meet 400 foot
site distance from the right
out access. Okay, we do meet
corner clearance. The driveway
is supposed to be 250ft from
northwest 1/19 Street. Unless
it is a right in right out
access. In addition to that,
since it is a right in right
out access, driveway spacing
should not be considered. So
right now, right now, today,
that access does meet code and
there shouldn't be a need for
an additional road mod.
>> Except what about the
frontage improvements? You're
not proposing that as part of
plan B, right?
>> Yeah. We're proposing that
as part of the record right now
after the after you closed the
record. Right. Your conditions.
We don't see a need for another
road modification.
>> Okay. So so plan B does
include frontage improvements
for the two arterials.
>> No. If Mr. Mattson would
scroll down, I think it's the
last exhibit in in. In a letter
that was submitted. That's the
site exhibit. Mr. Hearing
examiner that's the exhibit
that shows the impervious
surface for the road mod that's
in the letter. And that would
be what we are proposing right
now is option C.
>> No, no sidewalk along
Lakeshore or.
>> No.
>> 119th. Okay. And no
connection with 118th. Not even
emergency access.
>> Emergency access is needed.
Both legs coming in from
Lakeshore to the development.
1/18 are approvable by the fire
marshal. The parking lot does
provide a T intersection, just
like it did before on option A,
so this same layout does
provide for fire turnaround
emergency vehicle turnaround.
It does appease the neighbors
and based on the amount of
square footage, we submitted,
this road mod for you to
approve or deny.
>> Okay.
>> And Mr. Housley already said
open record is what you want,
not a continuance.
>> Yes, I in the latter, the
county did cancel the hearing
on us once already. It's. It's
not the applicant's. We
couldn't get an approval or
denial of the road modification
early on. County did wait till
the last week to actually talk
to us, even though we did
request a meeting. Yes, we are
changing the access, but this
layout does meet all applicable
code criteria. It. The layout
doesn't change. The buildings
are in the same spot. The
landscape buffers are in the
same spot. The parking count is
the same. The garbage enclosure
is the same. The only
difference is the access goes
south versus north and.
>> In the frontage improvements.
>> In the frontage. That's
correct.
>> Okay. What else do you want
me to know at this juncture?
>> I think that's that's all I
have. Mr. Hammer. I appreciate.
>> It.
>> Mr. Geigenmiller, one last
thing before we turn it over.
You had mentioned the issue
with access onto arterials. I
do agree with you that that has
been frustratingly apparent.
And, you know, the 30 years
that I've been doing this. But
in this particular instance, I
think that the alternative
proposal that we've come up
with sort of finds the happy
medium, no pun intended to
address the access to the site.
And I would point the examiner
to a project at a 14008
northeast 30th Avenue, where
there is 60 units that access
onto a minor arterial onto
northeast 29th Street up in
Salmon Creek.
>> Just a full access,
>> Yes.
>> I guess I wasn't aware of
that one. Okay. Second here,
let me. Fine.
>> And if and I can submit that
in the open record. Oh, there's
one other one other fact. This
is just going on the zone
change aspect of it. The the
examiner may know that the
county is in the process of
doing its Growth Management Act
update, and the county just
issued its final environmental
impact statement for comment
last month. Included within
that, the preferred alternative
here is to rezone this property
to R 24 anyway. So just just
bear that in mind, please.
>> That's interesting. Will
that be final before this case
is record closes on this thing?
>> Probably not. It'll be
coming on the heels of it
though. However, and with an
effective ordinance date, I
would assume sometime near the
first of the year.
>> Okay, okay.
>> You might consider since
record is going to be left open
for some period, submitting
something that kind of
documents, that's the the plan
before the board of councilors.
>> Yeah. And that that was a
plan, by the way, developed by
long range planning. It was not
something submitted by the
applicant.
>> So it wasn't your idea.
>> Wasn't our idea.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Can I I'd like to just
add a couple of brief things
you had asked me earlier. How
far was the closest other R-22
zoning? I did look at that. The
closest one is two miles east.
>> Two miles. Wow.
>> Yeah. Also, I wanted just to
make it clear that none of the
road modifications have been
applied yet for yet. Right. The
road modifications we're
talking about, none have been
made application for you.
>> Right. And I recognize the
importance of having an actual
application of actual proposal
for everyone staff, the public
me to consider and to whether
it it meets or doesn't meet the
approval criteria. And that,
but I and I recognize tonight
is a lot of speculation about
what all plan B entails. You
know, it's just a drawing, but
it does have its dimension. It
does have detail, but other
applications like a road mod,
are going to be needed if plan
B has any has any viability.
And the public. Those details
matter to the public. I
recognize that, right.
>> And based on what I was
listening to, the plan C is in
play also, right?
>> What's plan C?
>> This is plan C here, right?
That we're looking at. I
thought that the applicant had
indicated that this.
>> Okay. And this is in the
this is in the memo packet that
they submitted tonight. That's
exhibit 66.
>> Correct. And this is this is
the one most notably to me
anyway, that does not propose
any sidewalks along Lakeshore
or 1/19 Street, which is.
>> Because I'm looking at plan
plan B, exhibit 63. It appears
to have a sidewalk on Lakeshore
and 19th.
>> This is the this one here
that you're looking at. I know
it looks the same, pretty close.
This is the last exhibit that
Travis asked me to scroll down
to from one of the last ones on
the on the road modification
letter. And this one does not
show the sidewalks. And I
thought that he had clarified
that. But again, if I
misunderstood that, by all
means set me straight. So.
>> Well, before we open it up
to anyone else. Travis, what is
it? Is this do we have plan B
and now plan C?
>> That's correct, Mr. Examiner.
>> And you're going with plan C?
>> We'd like to go with plan C.
Yes. After for yes. The only
thing to add about the
discussion. Part 22 property.
The property directly to the
east is medium density. It is
our. 12 so it's the same
classification as what we're
proposing. Our 22 and our 12
are both medium density
residential. So the the
development to the east was
built with single family homes,
but it could have been built
with apartment complexes.
>> Okay. All right. So at this
juncture, I normally open it up
to the public. But we for those
of you who are tuning in, I
think we have a lot of public
tuning in. We have this plan B
and now plan C, which changes a
lot of the details that matter
relative to the comments that
I've seen in the record already.
Plus, Miss Barnett Burnett has.
Her latest submission is
exhibit 62 and is an opponent
to this project and has
requested at least an open
record. I think I'm reading
this correctly, so I, I am
attribute that request to
virtually everybody who has
weighed in on this application.
My inclination. I haven't heard
a compelling reason for a
continued hearing. We have the
issues. The land use issues, I
think, are fairly well
crystallized in the testimony
opponent comments and in the
staff report. And it comes down
to what's in flux is just the
access and road modifications
that would be required. And so
my inclination is to go with an
open record, pretty extended
open record, so that everybody
has a chance to digest these
important details. So unless
does. So my inclination is to
do that. And does anyone have a
compelling argument for a
continued hearing out there?
>> None other than my original
statement. And that because
there is road modifications
that have to be decided?
>> Yeah, that'll take time.
That'll take time. And so also
members of the public who have
appeared tonight all geared up
to testify, here's, here's my
advice to you that unless you
have, number one, not submitted
anything in writing, number two
cannot submit anything writing.
And number three won't be
around for the next couple
weeks to submit something in
writing. I would allow you to
testify tonight, but you have
to understand you'd be
testifying about what is now
old news, an irrelevant plan
that has been abandoned by the
applicant.
>> So if if I may, Mr. Kearns,
to to Miss Burnett's comments,
one of her comments was
specifically asking about the
procedural review of like a
continuance versus an open
record. And to that, I think
her testimony would be relevant
to you.
>> Okay. Miss Burnett, are you
out there in Zoom land? Can we.
I haven't read your I yes
letter tonight.
>> It up for you if you'd like,
Mr. Keirns.
>> Well, this spring, Miss
Burnett up if she's here.
>> Yeah. We also had one other
person that raised their hand
before her. But right now I'm
sending a request to unmute
Terry Burnett.
>> Okay.
>> Terry, you should be able to
unmute yourself.
>> Miss Burnett. How's it
looking, Richard?
>> She's still read.
>> Okay. Can you can you hear
me now? Yes. Okay. Go ahead.
Well that's good.
>> Have you been following the
discussion so far tonight?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Go ahead. There is just
there is just so much new stuff
that just came at the 11th hour
here that is just very hard to
comprehend. I just feel like we
need to step back and just
start all over at this point. I
think the the applicant's lack
of trust in local government
does not give him the right to
demand a rushed unvetted dual
track approval. The land use.
>> We're not doing that. He.
Everyone mistrusts the
government. So he's they're not
alone in that. But also it's
the access that we're talking
about that has changed.
>> Well, the access is better
off Lake Shore and 1/19. But I
do in in just really oppose
northwest 1/18 Street because.
>> Right, right, right. You'll
have your chance to talk about
that or what your procedural
request here, because we're
this is not going to be decided
tonight. In fact, I'm planning
to not take public testimony
tonight, but rather we're in
kind of procedural land right
now. So do you understand the
difference between keeping the
record open to allow, you know,
the applicant to really
crystallize what it is they're
proposing and to make the
additional road modification
applications, get those in the
door, get county staff to
review, and either comment or
approve those or deny those.
And understanding that you and
all of your neighbors will have
a chance to review the new
submission, review staff's
response to those things, and
kind of understand what is
happening. It'll be a fully
public process. I mean, you've
seen how it's unfolded so far.
It's been pretty public. You've
seen how it's happened. So
there'd be the same thing. But
with this new plan B, or maybe
plan C.
>> Can you tell me if plan B or
C does approve what the 118th
option is as a fall back safety
net?
>> They haven't said that. It
appears that it's they're
they're forgetting they're
dropping 118th and that they're
going with access to Lakeshore
Avenue. It's not either. It's
not both. It's going to
Lakeshore. That's that's plans
B and C as I read them.
>> Okay.
>> But you know, it's only
Thursday.
>> Well, I just hope everybody
gets it right and and that
everyone can live among each
other. I do still oppose so
much.
>> Kind of guarantee that
neither of those things are
going to happen. The most you
can hope for is you understand
what the proposal is, and you
get to comment on it.
>> Yes, that sounds good.
>> Okay. I think with that, I'm
inclined to talk about an open
record period. So the first
thing we need is, you know, the
applicant has to have some time
to put together what road
modifications they see fit and
submit those. So the applicant
needs. So we should have an
open record period to allow
that to happen. And then staff
and the public get to digest
what the applicant submits and
and provide a response to that
might maybe including a staff
decision on the road mod. And
then the public gets a and the
applicant gets to respond to
what staff does and recommends.
So I'm looking at like a
revolving door here that will
extend out a couple of weeks.
So, Mr. Housley, are you the
one who knows how much time the
applicant needs?
>> Yeah, I just and I said from
the jump, I, I'm out next week.
But so I think if we could do a
two week initial period for us
to pull that information
together, that should suffice
on our end.
>> Okay. So just theoretically
speaking, today's the 13th. Two
weeks is the 27th of August. So
you think you can get it, get,
you know, identify exactly what
plan it is you're going with.
Yeah. And then and during that
same period, submit any and all
road modifications that are
needed to make that plan fly.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. We'll
pencil that in August 27th
close of business to applicant
submits all the new stuff they
need to.
>> Just so that I'm clear, Mr.
Keirns. Sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt. So I'm sure this is
only for the applicant to
submit.
>> I mean, people can say what
they want, but what do they. I
don't know what they're
commenting on.
>> Staff's not going to be able
to review what they submit
within two weeks.
>> No, no, no, they have two
weeks. They have a lot to do.
They have they have major lift.
So in the 27th you you and Mr.
Dawson should have everything
you need to figure out what's
the proposal is. So how much
time does staff need to review.
You know, the new plan and all
road modifications, assuming
you get it on the 27th.
>> So I. I welcome Alastair's
input, but for me to put a a
starting, I'd say five weeks
because Alastair has to
coordinate this road
modification review team. I'm
just if we're going to
negotiate, I'll start at five
weeks.
>> That's a long time.
>> It is, it is. That's why I
if if engineering can commit to
a to a quicker turnaround that
would that would that.
>> Mr. Dawson thinks is
possible. What do you think is
possible, Alastair.
>> You know put me on the spot
here.
>> Well Brian hasn't done a
very good job. So it's your
turn now.
>> You don't like five weeks.
>> Well it.
>> Just.
>> Seems kind of long, but I
don't know.
>> Well, there's also this
isn't the only project that
staff has to review. Can I go
to four weeks?
>> Yeah, yeah. Do you think you
think you can? So in four weeks
you would have a decision out
of the road mod committee, you
think.
>> Right. Yes. And then after
that, well, okay, typically in
a land use process, I have to
go and coordinate with Brian
after that. Maybe I don't have
to coordinate with him after
this. But typically there's a
lot of coordination with
development engineering, the
applicant and, and the planner.
So.
>> Okay. All right. Well, let's
pencil in four weeks. Brian,
can you what do you think?
Because it's just this issue,
the land use stuff, you're
unless you're going to change
your land use recommendation,
we're just talking about the
access and road mod.
>> And I don't think my stuff
is, is what we're still talking
about. To be honest, most of
it's transportation related
stuff.
>> My thought too.
>> So I mean, if Alastair
thinks four weeks works, then
I'll I'll follow his lead.
>> Who are we to second guess
engineering? Right? So if we go
four weeks from the 27th,
that's one, two, three. That's
September 24th. They get that,
right?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So the public also
during that period will have
all that time to throw stones
at whatever the applicant has
submitted on August 27th as
well. But everyone, I think, is
going to be waiting to see what
staff thinks about it. So staff
should be able to cough up its
resources, its analysis and
recommendation of the new plan
by September 24th. And at that
point, the applicant and the
public get to digest and
potentially throw stones at
staff's recommendation. So I
guess, Miss Brunet. You're a
typical opponent. How does two
weeks sound? And also, Mr.
Housley, you and Miss Burnett
will be together in this, I
think.
>> Oh.
>> Maybe two weeks from the 20,
from the 24th. That puts you to
October 8th, which is the next
hearing date.
>> So October 8th would be the
the next time that the hearing.
>> At that. Well, no, at that
point you have until October
8th from the 24th to the 28th
to digest staff's understanding
staff's revised staff report on
the new plan and decide whether
you agree with staff or not.
And the same thing with the
applicant. They may disagree
with staff. Who knows. But
that's two weeks for the
applicant and the general
public to respond. Comment on
staff's revised report. Does
that make sense?
>> Yep.
>> Yes it does.
>> So, Brian.
>> Yes.
>> I have a hearing on the
eighth that evening. I think
there are four items on the
agenda, though. Normally I'd
say, hey, let's put it on that
night.
>> I thought you were.
>> Yeah, I know, I know what I
said, but I'm just, you know,
to the extent that people are
really hung up on having
another hearing, it's possible,
but that would make it tight.
That would be a fifth item on
that night's hearing. It would
be I think it's that. No. Can
you check.
>> That would leave you with
little to no time to review the
two weeks of. That's true.
>> And Mr. Examiner, I'm going
to throw another monkey wrench
at that. I've got a preplanned
trip to Georgia that I'm going
to be gone. On the eighth.
>> Okay. All right. So. So
let's pencil in the eighth as.
>> The close of the open.
>> Yeah. Close of the open
record. And then the applicant
gets a week for final rebuttal.
They can submit that from
Georgia, presumably. So that
would be the third. The 15th.
>> Yeah.
>> And then at that point the
record closes. So does that
seem feasible.
>> Just so that I'm sorry, can
I back up one second just to
make sure I've got this clear?
After the two weeks you're
given, we're going to grant two
weeks after the staff response
or for the applicant and the
parties of record to submit
whatever they want to submit.
And then you want an additional
last two weeks for.
>> No, no, last week, one week
after.
>> One week. Okay. Final
rebuttal of one week. Gotcha.
>> Yeah. So that would put it
on October 15th. And if the
applicant is okay, the
applicant can waive that.
>> Right?
>> Right, right from Georgia.
>> From Georgia.
>> Yeah. They have the internet
there, don't they?
>> I believe they do at the.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. So Miss
Burnett, are you still online?
>> Yes. Can you go over those
dates one more time?
>> Okay. So I think the plan is
changing and the applicant has
until August 27th. That's two
weeks to submit. I would say
submit exactly what the plan is
you're proposing, whether it's
B or C or something else and
any road modifications.
Applicants submit everything
you need to make the the One
True plan fly by the 27th of
August. Then staff and the
public have until September
24th. That's four weeks to
review and comment on the
applicant's submission. That's
September 24th. And then at
that point, staff will kick out
their revised report, and the
applicant and the public have
two weeks until October 8th to
comment on staff's revised
report. And then that at that
point, the record will close on
October 8th, close of business,
and then the applicant has one
week for final rebuttal. I
don't know what they'll say,
but they have they have the
right of final rebuttal.
Typically, it's a week which
they can waive if they're happy
at that point and don't want to
say anything more. So does that
make sense then?
>> Yes, that that does.
>> Okay, Brian, how do you feel
about that?
>> We'll take what we can get.
>> Okay. Mr. Housley and, and
team. Phyllida, can you.
>> Yeah. We're good. Appreciate
that. Okay.
>> Okay. All right. I think we
have closure. Mr. Dawson has
remained silent. I'll take that
as consent. Okay, so I'm going
to at this point, I'm going to
shut off public testimony
because it would be pointless
given how the plan is changing.
I am instead going to conclude
this hearing and keep the
record open according to the
schedule I just articulated.
Applicant has to submit
everything by close of business.
That's like 5:00, 5:00, right?
Brian?
>> Yes. 5:00 if you if you
email it to me and I'm not here
at five, I'll, I'll get it the
next day as long as it's under
the deadline.
>> Okay. Email it before five
on August 27th. Then the staff
will kick out a revised report
by 5:00 on September 24th. At
that point, also, the public
can submit any comments they
want in response to the
application. Their deadline is
5:00 on September 24th. After
that, everybody, the applicant,
the public can respond to
staff's revised report until
5:00 on October 8th. At that
point, the record closes, and I
will only accept the
applicant's final rebuttal. No
new evidence until 5:00 on
October 15th. Easy peasy. Okay.
With that, I'll conclude
tonight's hearing, but keep the
record open according to that
schedule. Okay?
>> Yes, sir.
>> All right, stay tuned. And
remember to to visit us at our
next hearing date, September
10th. Thank you very much. Good
evening.
>> Thank you sir