Good evening everyone. I'd like
to call to order the September
10th, 2026, hearing of the
Clark County Land Use Hearings
Examiner. My name is Daniel
Keirns, and I'll be presiding
over tonight's hearing, which
consists of five agenda items.
I'll go through them in a
little bit, but let me begin
with a brief introduction to me
and an explanation as to how
the process is going to work
this evening. For each of these
five hearing items. First of
all, I and one other examiner
we serve by appointment from
the Board of County councilors
to review and decide
development proposals in
unincorporated Clark County. We.
We do that by reviewing the
record. All the written
materials, the application, all
the agency and staff comments,
plus all the public comments.
And finally, we convene a
public hearing such as this to
take public testimony. Before
we close the record. And once
the record closes, we issue our
decisions approximately two
weeks after that happens, after
the record closes. In each of
these, we are required to apply
the applicable approval
criteria. They control our
decision in each of these cases,
and those are the standards
that were in place in the
county's Unified Development
Code. On the day each of these
development applications came
in. And so that freezes in time.
The set of approval standards
that control my decision and
control the fate of each of
these applications. And if you
have any question as to what
those approval standards are
for the development that you're
interested in, consult the
staff report. The staff report
goes through those standards
and makes a recommendation as
to whether, in staff's view the
application meets or doesn't
meet the approval criteria.
That's my ultimate job, is to
make that decision as to
whether, in fact, they do meet
those criteria in convening
this proceeding and making that
decision, I'm required to be
objective and impartial, and I
believe that I am with all five
of these items. I don't have
any business or personal or
familial relations with any of
the the applicants or any of
the parties that have weighed
in on each of these items. What
I know about each of these
cases is what I have gleaned
from the record. I've had my
record for about two weeks now
on each of these, and I as I
mentioned, I don't have any
particular biases either. So if
anyone has any questions or
wishes to challenge or question
me about any of my potential
conflicts of interest or ex
parte contacts, feel free to do
so. During the public testimony
portion of tonight's hearing.
With regard to each of these
items, though, here's the
process that we're going to
follow. We'll take them in
order in which they appear on
the agenda. Let me run through
them quickly. First is Cresap
Meadows subdivision. That's PLD
2026-52 and then is 39th Avenue
Subdivision. PLD 2025-94. Then
Hartwood North Subdivision as
PLD 2025-114. The fourth one is
O'Donnell Estates Cluster
Subdivision. PLD 2025-8, and
finally, Pleasant Wood North
Subdivision. PLD 2026-21. So
we'll take those in order in
which they appear. We'll begin
with a staff report, which is a
verbal rendition of the written
staff report that was issued
prior to tonight's hearing. On
each of these items. After the
staff report, I'll take the
applicant's presentation. The
applicant you can you can
assume I'm generally familiar
with the proposal, but there
are a couple of things I really
want to know kind of up front
from you about about the
project. First of all, what is
the current version of the plan
before us tonight? So I and
everyone else that's zooming in
on this knows what is the
latest version of the proposal.
Second, I need to know your. If
you have any corrections or
objections or changes you would
like to see in the staff report,
either in the findings or the
staff's recommended conditions
of approval. Give me those with
specificity so that I and staff
and everyone else can
understand exactly what changes
you want to see to the staff
report. And finally, in all of
these, I want the applicant to
keep track of the testimony
that comes in and to be
prepared during your rebuttal,
to respond to the testimony
that is presented by public.
And I say that because a lot of
times the testimony that I get
from the general public comes
in the form of questions about
or assumptions about how this
project is going to work, how
it's going to impact the
neighborhood, how it's going to
impact neighbors, how the
stormwater system works or
doesn't work. Those sorts of
questions are often best
addressed by the applicant's
team, so be prepared to respond
to those things during your
final rebuttal. So after the
applicant's presentation, I'll
take testimony from anyone else
in favor of the proposal. After
that, I'll take testimony from
anyone with neutral testimony
or questions. And finally, I'll
take testimony in opposition to
the proposal. After that, I
will take the the applicant
gets final rebuttal. And all of
these cases, the applicant gets
the last word because the
applicant has the burden of
proof. That is the burden of
proving that they have met all
of those approval criteria that
I mentioned and are addressed
in the staff report. So after
the applicant does their final
rebuttal, I turn to staff to
see if they have any additional
comments they would like to
share. Based on the public
testimony that's come in. And
it's my typical habit then to
close the record, unless
someone has requested a
continuance or that the record
be kept open. I think in all of
these, though, the county's
notice said that the record
would be kept open at least one
week for each of these items.
So that puts us out at least a
week before the record closes.
And that's important because
for anyone who wants to get
anything into the record before
me, for me to consider, that
ends your chance to raise new
issues or to present evidence.
Also, that ends your chance to
make your record for potential
appeal. My decisions are the
final decision at the county
level. They are appealable when
they are. When they come out to
Clark County Superior Court
through the Land Use Petition
Act. But to bring a LUP appeal,
you have to participate either
orally or in writing before the
record closes, and you have to
raise before me any issue that
you want to preserve for that
appeal. And you also need to
present to me any evidence or
documents or memos or anything
that you want to rely upon in a
subsequent appeal. So it's
important for all of you to
understand when the record
closes on each of these items.
>> Let's see.
>> Here are some basic do's and
don'ts for testifying tonight.
First of all, I think we're
going to have limitations on
time because we have so many
proposals before us tonight.
Five of them. The applicant
will give you a maximum of 20
minutes for your primary
presentation. Then after that,
every any individual that wants
to testify, you have three
minutes pop to testify. But
understand, we take unlimited
written comments and memos. And
I know that a lot of you who
may be tuning in tonight have
taken advantage of that and
submitted your comments in
writing well before this
hearing. That's a good thing to
do because for a couple of
reasons. First of all, it makes
a permanent record that no one
can dispute about the issues
that you raised and the points
that you articulated and the
evidence that you pointed to.
It's in writing, it's submitted
to the record. Secondly, I'm a
terrible note taker, so I'll
sit here and listen to what
people say. And while I'm doing
that, I forget to write things
down. So if you could submit
your comments in writing, it
really is more effective. When
it comes time for me to sit
down at my kitchen table and
write this opinion, I have your
written comments right in front
of me, and I can kind of make
notes on the written copy. So
it's a very effective way to
get your issues and arguments
before me. So understand you'll
have a chance to do that if you
haven't already done so
following tonight's hearing.
But it's not an unlimited
opportunity. And we'll talk
about those open record
schedules before we conclude
each of these items tonight,
when it's your turn to testify,
and we'll get a primer from the
staff planner at the beginning,
when I'm done talking, you'll
get a primer on how to function
in this WebEx internet based
environment. But basically,
when it's your turn to testify,
raise your hand. There's a
little raise your hand icon,
and we'll kind of take
everybody in order. And we will
unmute your microphone, start
with your your name and give me
I don't I don't need your
mailing address, but you'll
need to get your mailing
address to the staff planner at
some point so that we can
provide you a copy of my
decision when it comes out. So
by participating, you're
entitled to a copy of the
decision. And that's how we
fulfill that obligation. So
tell me basically where you
live or what's your kind of
geographic connection to the
development that you're
testifying about. So I can
better appreciate the impacts
that you will be talking about.
Then go raise the points that
you want me to know about.
Remember, limit your testimony
to the approval criteria
because that's all I can take
into account. I'm purely
co-driven. None of these cases
are popularity contests. I'm. I
have to look and decide whether
there's sufficient evidence in
the record to determine whether
each of those standards is met
or not, and a general complaint
about a development is not
going to be sufficient for me
to give any credence in that
context. So focus on the
approval criteria. Also, don't
be repetitious. If you agree
with something someone has said
or that you've said in writing,
tell me that and move on to
your next point. So for those
of you who have submitted
written comments, I've gone
through most of them. I'm
generally familiar with them.
Let me know if you have
something new or additional to
say. And don't. Don't repeat
what you've already submitted
in writing. If you have new and
interesting things to say,
submit that in writing at the
conclusion of tonight's hearing.
You do that by emailing it to
the staff planner. So even if
you weren't planning to submit
written comments, but just give
oral testimony, submit your
script, submit your notes, make
them an exhibit item you're
interested in, and then I'll
have a copy of that. Remember
to raise any issue during your
testimony that you might want
to preserve for a subsequent
appeal, remember to submit any
documents or evidence that you
want me or a subsequent judge
to take into consideration. And
if you want more of an open
record, then just one week, let
me know that and we will talk
about the open record schedule.
Before we conclude each of
these items. So I think that's
it. By way of a general rundown
on process tonight, if you have
questions, as I mentioned,
going forward, feel free to ask
during the public testimony
portion of the hearing. So at
this point, we will get a
primer on how to function in
WebEx. So take it away. Whoever
is doing that.
>> That would be me. Thank you,
Mr. Examiner. Let me pull up
the right slide here. All right.
For everyone participating in
tonight's hearing, if you wish
to testify about a specific
agenda item, staff asks that
you raise your hand so that we
can gauge who wishes to testify.
If you are a call in user, you
can dial star three. If you are
a web participant, you need to
click the hand icon located in
the lower right hand corner of
your screen or next to your
name in the list of
participants. Here is 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. The hand icon locations
are indicated by the red arrows.
Once you have given your
testimony, we would ask that
you put your hand down. You can
accomplish this accident action
by either clicking the hand
icon again or dialing star
three again. We will also ask
everyone to keep their
microphones on mute at any time
they are not speaking. I will
show you how to do that in the
next slide. Prior to the close
of each agenda item, we will
open all microphones for
everyone in attendance to
ensure that everyone who wants
to testify has the opportunity.
Please be aware that any noise
in your personal environment
will be broadcast at this time.
If you miss your 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 prior, we asked
everyone to keep their
microphones muted at any time
they are not speaking. There
are a few ways in which to mute
yourself. If you are a web user
and are 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 by the Red
arrows. If you are a web user
and using a phone for audio,
you can either mute yourself on
your computer or you can use
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, and thank you
everyone. Let me pull up my
case here as I'm the first case
this evening. Okay? Good
evening, Mr. Examiner, County
staff and the general public.
For the record, my name is Joe
Kinsman and I am the land use
planner for this project. The
name of this project is the
Crescent Meadows Subdivision.
The case before the hearings
examiner this evening is a
request to divide 1.97 acres
into a 22 lot compact, narrow
and zero lot line subdivision
within the R-1 six zone. Okay,
as I said, my name is Joe
Kinsman and I'm the review
planner for this project.
Hannani Patel Isaacson is the
review engineer, and Jason
Noble reviewed this from the
fire Marshal's office. And
Craig Caudill reviewed this for
us. Transportation concurrency,
although we have Mr. David
Jardine here as well to assist
in that matter. Okay. Tonight
during our presentation, staff
will provide an overview and
summary of the proposal,
identify any major outstanding
issues or concerns, and make
our recommendation to the
examiner. Here we have the
vicinity map. The subject
property is identified by the
black dot. For reference, North
is oriented to the top of the
page. We can see on this map
that it lies south of northeast
139th Street, east of northeast
50th Avenue. West of northeast
87th Avenue, and north of
northeast 119th Street. Here we
have the zoning map, and the
zoning map provides a closer
look at the parcelization of
the subject and abutting lots.
The site is highlighted in red.
The site and surrounding
parcels are zoned R1 six, with
other single family
developments to the north,
south, North, South, East and
west. This slide is an aerial
view of the subject area with
the subject property lines in
red. In this view, we can see
the surrounding developments in
the area. We can also see
northeast 129th Street to the
south and north east 64th
Avenue to the north, which
currently ends at the site, but
is proposed to be extended
through the site as shown in
the next slide. Please. This
slide shows the proposed plan
for the site. On this plan,
North is oriented to the top of
the slide. This view shows the
extension of northeast 64th
Avenue through the site, and
the general layout and
configuration of the proposed
lots. This time, staff will
show photos taken from the site
and. This photo here is looking
east on northeast 129th Street.
Out front of the subject
property. Here we have the west
view on northeast 129th Street
in front of the subject
property, and this is North
Ward facing into the site off
of northeast 129th Street. Here
we have a west view into the
site from the adjacent parcel
to the east. And here we have
looking diagonally southwest
into the site from the
northeast corner of the
property. And here is looking
south into the site from the
dead end road. Currently being
northeast 64th Avenue. Again,
that's proposed to run through
the site. And from here we have
the northwest corner of the
property or this view is from
the northwest west corner of
the property. Looking southeast
into the site diagonally. And
here we have a view from the
southwest corner of the
property, looking northeast
into the site from northeast
129th Street, abutting the
subject property. All right.
And just comments on our staff
report here. The fully complete
application was submitted on
April 3rd, 2026. The
application was deemed fully
complete on April 24th, 2026.
The Notice of Development
application was issued on May
21st, 2026, with the notice of
the new hearing date issued on
August 4th of 2026. The staff
recommendation to the Hearings
Examiner was issued on August
26th, 2026 and is in the record
as exhibit 28. With this
proposal, a sequel, a Baugh,
was not applicable to this
application. The applicant
posted the development sign at
the site on June 1st, 2026, and
that is in the record as
exhibit six and seven, and the
updated hearing date was
revised on the sign posted on
the site on August 11th, 2026,
and that is in the record as
exhibits 26 and 27. Project
issues on the site, which were
public comments. There were
concerns about the site grading
that could cause sewer and
drainage violations. The adding
to the already existing traffic
increase in the area. This
increase could put kids,
pedestrians and pets at risk.
Another comment was the
increase in noise that the
project would cause. Then we
have concerns that the
developer may not be aware that
by removing the temporary
turnaround, they would need to
restore the front yards of the
adjacent hidden crest addition
plat. The hidden crest addition
plat was added to the record as
exhibit 22, and the applicant
has has verified that they are
aware of that requirement. Next,
we have emergency vehicles
being able to access the area
with the increase in parking,
as well as site distance issues
that would arise from street
parking. And then we had
feelings that this proposal
doesn't match the surrounding
single family residences, as
it's a more compact development.
And lastly, we have one
commenter did not like the
proposed loss of the dead end
street that they live on. Next
up, we have our recommendation
two Mr. Examiner and Staff
recommends that this
application be approved subject
to the conditions of approval
identified in the staff report,
and the staff Report is in the
record as exhibit 28. And here
is a photo again of the
proposed plan. Mr. examiner,
it's all you.
>> Thanks. Where is this?
There's a turnaround temporary
turnaround that will be removed
for this connection. Is it to
the north?
>> I believe it was to the
north. Correct? Yeah. Hidden
crest addition is up here on
the northern point, where 64th
ends. Currently into the site.
>> Hidden crest addition.
>> Correct. The plat. Oh.
Didn't mean to change the page
there. Sorry about that.
>> So the temporary turnaround
was constructed as part of that
development that stubs to this
property line.
>> Correct. On the southern
point of the hidden crest and
the northern point of this
proposal.
>> Got it. And the main street
going through the middle
northeast 64th. That'll be a
public street. And these tract
A and B, will those be dry
private driveways or private
streets? What's their status?
>> Our engineer Hannah would
have to speak to the
classification of the the
different tracks or if they are
indeed just a tract, I'm not
sure on that point.
>> So also if you look to the
to the east, there's another
development that appears to
have a hammerhead stubbing to
this property. That's not going
to connect, is it? Or what's
what's that?
>> Correct. No, there's,
there's no proposal to connect
that hammerhead.
>> Not even for emergency
access.
>> No, I my understanding is
there would be some sort of
fencing along there.
>> Okay. And so cross
circulation is achieved simply
by the extension of 64th Avenue.
>> That's my understanding. But
Mr. Caudle would have to
confirm the circulation portion
or Hannah as our engineer.
>> Okay, thanks. And there's
mentioned in one of the public
comments about sewer and
drainage violations. There's
not a record of sewer or
drainage violations associated
with this property yet. Right.
So this is a fear of those
things.
>> Correct. There's so there's
in the photos there, you can
see there's a bit of a increase
in the contour lines and
grading on, I don't know, lots
one through one through five
and 19 through 22. There's a
bit of a hump. And I think they
just had general concerns that
with the grading it could cause
drainage issues on adjacent
sites. Okay. But there's
nothing historically that I've
been made aware of.
>> Okay. And the existing house
on this property is going to be
demolished and removed. Be a
clean scrape.
>> Correct.
>> Okay, okay. I think that's
it for land use questions. I
just, I think I had just a few
questions. For Miss Isaacson.
She there. Hannah, are you
there?
>> For the record, I am Hannah
Isaacson, Clark County
development engineering.
Welcome.
>> So there's I guess it's not
such a pressing question here,
but I want to later on tonight
on the agenda, the question of
public versus private. But in
this case, 64th will be public.
And these track A and track B
connections that serve a lot of
the internal lots, those are
private driveways or so.
>> Tract A and B are classified
as urban private roads. And
then they will turn into joint
driveways.
>> Okay, okay. At the end they
become joint driveways.
>> Got it? Yes.
>> Okay. A quick question about
cross circulation. Is it
possible to achieve cross
circulation with a private road?
>> No, we do not consider
private roads in our
circulation.
>> Okay, let's see any road
modifications on this one? I
don't think I saw any.
>> No. There were not any road
modifications on this one.
>> Okay, okay. I think that
does it then. Thank you.
>> Yep. Thank you.
>> With that, I'll take the
applicant's presentation,
please.
>> Good evening, Mr. Scott
Taylor, SGA engineering
representing the applicant. So
appreciate everyone's efforts
staff and Mr. Examiner and
reviewing this project and the
staff report all the findings
and conditions. I've got a few
minor edits and questions or
comments for staff and the
examiner, so I can run down
that list. And quickly, I guess
to make sure all your questions
were answered. Mr. examiner,
the temporary turnaround is
indeed to the north. It's not
shown in this plan, but it is
part of their plat. And there's
plat notes that talk about the
adjacent developer's
responsibility to remove that
and restore front yards.
There's also another option
there where if for some reason,
neighbors wanted to keep it and
did not want it removed and
front yards replaced, they
could sign an agreement that
said that, and we could provide
that to Clark County staff. But
I believe in this instance,
they'll probably want it
removed and have a little more
front yards, other newer homes.
And so, yes, we understand that
as a responsibility and that
will be part of the
construction plans. Tracks A
and B are indeed private roads.
And then after a short private
road track, they would go in
shared driveways or joint
driveways for the last four
lots. So that is accurate. And
those, of course do not meet
cross circulation needs
requirements. But it's nice we
finally meet cross circulation
with the project and don't need
a road mod for that or, you
know, other intersection
alignments or anything else. So
no road mods on this project,
which is great. Sewer and
drainage concerns are in that
northwest corner as property
sort of dives down. There's
also a rise as you go further
north. And so we evaluated that
off site drainages actually do
sort of drain onto the site
from the north. And there's cut
off ditches that were provided
with previous engineering. Our
site will have full
infiltration of stormwater. You
know, there won't be runoff
that will go onto adjacent
parcels and sewage, you know,
will be public sewer that will
be under the driveways and the
roads and all gravity fed from
this area. So the septic system
that's on site would be removed.
And so there are no concerns
from our viewpoint on sewage or
drainage concerns.
>> So I don't see any
stormwater tracks. So this
stormwater will be dealt with
through infiltration on this
project.
>> Correct. Yeah. We didn't
need a pond or anything large
like that. We had great
infiltration rates. And so the
systems are under the roads and
under the private drives and
will be 100% infiltration.
>> Okay. What else? Oh, you had
a list of.
>> I think this is the most
yeah. I'll go through my list.
Just some comments and findings
and conditions. And then just
to clarify for you. Yeah, this
is the most recent plan that is
under review and submitted with
staff.
>> It's exhibit 17. Is that
right, Joe?
>> Let me look right now for
you. Sorry, I is we're loading
correct. Yep. Exhibit 17.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I don't think this one
has not gone through a whole
lot of revisions unlike some of
the others.
>> Correct? Yep, yep. We're
thankful for that.
>> Okay.
>> So going right into it in
the staff report on page nine,
at the top of the page, there
is a finding says the applicant
provides two common parallel
off street parking areas for a
total of six parking spaces.
Those are actually on street.
With this project, we don't
have any off street parking,
just a minor clarification on
that finding.
>> Okay.
>> And then on page ten, at the
very top of the page, we're
talking about shared driveways
and the finding says no shared
driveways are proposed. And I
think that's just a carryover
from a different project. This
one has those two shared
driveways.
>> Sorry, what page is that
again?
>> Page ten.
>> Got it.
>> At the very, very top. It's
a single single sentence. And
so staff correctly talks about
that later in the findings and
the conditions. So this is the
only spot in the report where
it just needed to be clarified.
So we do have two shared
driveways for lots nine through
12 and 17 through 20.
>> Okay.
>> On page 12 under finding 11.
This is one of my only real
points of contention for the
evening and to discuss with you
and staff on the existing
structures on site. So the
finding talks about the site
has one existing single family
home with associated
outbuildings. They're proposed
to be removed with the
development. These structures
shall be removed prior to
construction plan approval,
complying with demolition
permits from the jurisdictions.
So that's not common and it's
not consistent with other
projects. A lot of times
developers aren't going to be
demolishing a home or
structures on a property until
they've got full plan approval.
They're, you know, setting up
on the site with their
construction entrances and
their erosion control, and
they've got their bank
financing to do all this site
work.
>> So, you know, this issue has
come up a couple times lately.
So what should the trigger be
for?
>> So my request would be these
structures shall be removed
prior to construction
acceptance. Instead of
construction plan approval.
>> Prior to construction plan
acceptance. Okay.
>> So not even plan. So just
construction acceptance. So
that means when they're out on
the site building the project
prior to them signing off on
construction acceptance, the
home has been demolished or the
structures have been removed as
required.
>> Okay, so construction
acceptance means county
acceptance of the streets and
public infrastructure, correct?
>> Yeah. And so prior to
construction plan approval is
just too early. And it's not,
you know, in the pleasant woods,
you know, staff report that we
have later this evening. So
that's one point. And so I know,
like you said, it's come up a
couple times recently and it's
a little bit of a cart before
the horse situation. So yeah,
okay.
>> We'll get kind of input from
the engineer on whether that'll
work.
>> For sure. I believe staff
discussed it and said they
weren't originally in favor or
supporting of that, but I think
it makes sense. And hopefully
with discussions this evening,
we can get there. And I'll
point to the conditions of
approval that associate to that
next item on page 20. Under
finding eight site distance. On
the conclusion, the staff says
in summary, concurrency staff
recommends approval of the
development application with
the following conditions and
then period. And so I think
they might need to point to the
specific condition there. And I
think that is a nine, a dash
nine A through C.
>> Okay.
>> I think they'll close the
loop on that.
>> Yeah. I usually pick up on
things like that. When I go to
write the opinion. I, I hate
loose ends that refer to things
that are not clear.
>> Yep, yep. And it's
understanding things always
change and findings and
conditions and making sure the
numbers match. So we appreciate
that.
>> Yeah, the numbers change and
that's always a pain in the
neck.
>> Alrighty. So on page 24
we're into the conditions of
approval. Condition of approval
a one h. So landscape this is a
landscape condition that's
required when you have parking
areas that are not on street
parking. If they're off street
parking in like a tract. And so
you're trying to landscape for
vehicle headlights. So I
believe this item is not
applicable for this project. So
either just going on the record,
that item, you know, condition
approval HA1H is not applicable.
It could be stricken from the
report. I'm good with that as
well. But if staff would like
to keep it in there, it needs
to just sort of say where
applicable. I mean it says in
the condition provided where
vehicle parking or loading or
drive through facilities, but a
public right of way. So it's
already making that
clarification, but it's not
applicable specifically to this
project. So I just didn't want
staff to be looking for it
later.
>> Okay.
>> And I know there's a number
of things like that in compact
code that, you know, if
applicable, make sure you're
doing A, B, C so it's fine if
that needs to stay. Page 27 has
condition of approval. A six L.
Item L is talking about
Bioretention facilities, so the
applicant shall submit
infiltration testing at the
rate of minimum of one test per
bioretention facility. We don't
have any bioretention with this
project. They could potentially
use those in the future if that
was a different design, but I
believe they could just strike
the word bioretention and just
say one test per facility. And
that should cover the storm
concepts.
>> Okay. What else?
>> So on page 29, item B one
sorry, condition B1A. So this
is the removal of existing
structures and the timing. So I
think prior to construction
acceptance instead of prior to
construction plan approval is
that same finding language we
talked about. I feel this
condition could be moved to
section C specifically it could
be condition of approval C
three. And that matches this
other project. This evening I'm
working on Pleasant Woods. I
think this is a sea condition
and not a B condition.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Page 31. We have
condition of approval. D4A. So
again this property and project
does not have guessed parking
lots or guest parking areas.
It's on street. So a D4A is not
really applicable to the
project. We could either add
some language there about when
applicable, or that could
potentially be stricken as a
condition. And I think my final
item is on condition of
approval. Page 35E1G. And again
this is the removal of existing
structures. If we just change
that language from prior to
construction plan approval to
prior to construction
acceptance would cover it.
>> Okay.
>> And that is all I have for
the staff report and findings
and conditions and definitely
available to take notes on
people testifying and answer
all the questions I can.
>> Okay.
>> That's it. Yes, that covers
it. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. And just preface as
well, you know, we're okay with
the one week open record and
understand the need for that.
And then anticipate just a one
week response. Rebuttal period
is our standard request.
>> Okay. I'll take note of that.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone
else? They're online wish to
testify in favor of this
proposal or neutral in favor or
neutral. Anyone out there,
raise your hand. Anyone doing
that, Richard.
>> No, I don't see any hands
raised.
>> Okay. Anyone opposed to this
project wish to testify? Raise
your hand.
>> We do have Jason Foster.
>> Okay. Mr. foster.
>> I sent a request to unmute
him. So, Jason, you should be
able to unmute yourself. There
he goes. Looks like he's on.
>> Okay, Mr. foster, you're on.
>> Thank you very much for
taking the time to listen to my
public comment. I'm speaking as
a neighbor directly to the
northwest on 164th and my house.
>> Where are you? We've got the
plat up there. You're in.
You're in that.
>> Hidden crescent addition.
>> Okay, so you're up there in
the northwest corner. That
whole big parcel?
>> Yes, on the upper left.
>> Okay. So you're like an
older house that's been there a
while.
>> No, I'm a newer house that's
been here about five years.
>> Okay.
>> And you're the last house
built in this division.
>> Do you abut the. Do you have
part of this cul de sac thing
in your front yard?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Got it. Okay.
>> Go ahead. I'm speaking today
because there are a number of
concerns where I believe that
all considerations are being
made in favor of the developer,
as opposed to the existing
residents nearby. For example,
I'm going from having one
neighbor alongside my house to
four. If the lots were to match
the sizes of the neighborhood
adjacent, we'd most likely have
around 12 lots or 12 residences
being built. Now we're going to
have 22 because we have a small
private drives off. The main
drive on street parking will be
extremely limited, which will
inevitably end up backing up
onto 164th because there is no
other outlet. Question also, is.
>> There is there on street
parking allowed on 64th where
you live?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And that will be, I assume,
where the majority of overflow
from 22 houses taking the place
of one house will go just it
just seems like it would be
unavoidable. It also will most
likely negatively affect the
property values of the most
nearby. They're on 164th
because we'll be going from
having a larger sort of exurban,
almost rural.
>> You know, that that, you
know, property values are not
an issue that are in my list of
approval criteria. You know,
the county board of
commissioners, councilors, they
zoned this property what they
did and their zoning allows for
this kind of density. And so
presumably they took your these
concerns into account when they
they zoned it. But it's
something that I can't.
>> I understand I'll move on to
the next concern that I have in
the two neighboring
subdivisions, the hidden Crest
proper and the Philbrook farms,
both. There's that one.
Philbrook farms is to the west
towards 50th. It runs right up
against Hidden Crest on the
west side, through a connecting
street. And then there's
another large park there, both
in that and in Hidden Crest.
The attempts to properly
irrigate and drain or to drain,
sorry, those subdivisions have
been lackluster and have
resulted in regular flooding.
Our nearby park and hidden
crest is regularly flooded
along a tree line that abuts
with two properties, and then
the park in the Philbrook Farms
that currently has a basketball
court on. It is flooded so
often that during the rainy
season it is locked, so people
can't accidentally be the
victim of that flooding by
going down into that sunken
property. So I do have concerns
with how hilly this particular
property is, and the fact that
it does run down towards my
property, that there may be
flooding if we are to replace,
you know, absorbent soil with
mostly concrete and asphalt.
Yeah. So I have a serious
concern about that. Yeah.
Besides that, was there
anything else I should share?
No. Okay. I think that's all of
my concerns. Thank you.
>> Okay. And feel free if you
want to. If you're reading from
a script or with notes, feel
free to submit that. That's
always very useful thing to do.
>> Okay. Yeah, I haven't had a
script, but I will send it
afterwards. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else
wish to testify in opposition
to this thing? This is Chris
Meadows.
>> I'm not seeing any.
>> Okay, so with that, Mr.
Taylor, final rebuttal.
>> Good evening, Scott Taylor,
SG engineering. So I think
drainage wise, you know, we've
gone through the proper
channels of working with the
geotechnical engineer, having
the site testing completed,
identifying groundwater levels,
writing stormwater reports and
doing proper calculations and
researching adjacent
developments as well. So these
are all pieces that are taken
into account when this is
designed. The Clark County also
has a number of factors of
safety. You have to apply when
you design stormwater
facilities. And so that's the
concepts and that's the
requirements that have been
sort of worked through to get
to this point today. Site
distance lines you can see are
shown on the proper on the
plans on the screen, you know,
on street parking is allowed to
be in those areas. And then
people are expected to pull out
past those and look, you know,
for oncoming traffic. The goal
really with neighborhoods is to
provide as much parking as
possible. This property and
project meets on street parking
and guest parking requirements
based on the compact codes. And
so that's also a question.
>> Question, Mr. Taylor. So
each one of these units is
going to have a driveway and a
garage, right?
>> Yeah. The goal is to have a
two car driveway and two car
garage. And so that's what's
shown in the plans here.
>> And so the yeah, so that
plan shows. So that's a total
potential storage of four cars
in the driveway and garage.
>> Typically.
>> Okay. But everybody knows
you don't put cars in a garage.
That's where you put your stuff.
So and otherwise there's no,
the only on street parking that
would be where there's space
for it in this development
would be on 64th then, right?
>> Correct. The private streets
are 20ft wide and you're not
allowed on street parking
unless you're 24ft or wider. So
64th Avenue is a 28 foot wide
local access roadway. And so
parking is allowed on both
sides. It does make it
challenging when people do that.
If it works that way and this
project, it'll actually be
offset with the curve in the
road. And so the guest parking
is shown on street parking is
shown there sort of lightly in
the plan. And so we meet the
requirements for the narrow lot
one guest parking space for
every three narrow lots. And so
that's where this one's coming
from. Okay. Where we're sort of
correct, correct. And then
where we're connecting 1/29
Street. It's a unique situation
where we're sort of the missing
link. Right now. You have two
sort of dead end road systems
there, and there's also been
some historic private streets
in this area serving these
homes and adjacent parcels like,
like you notice the one to the
east is developed recently and
is under construction has been
built, but homes are under
construction soon. And so yeah,
it's finishing roads,
connections and making sort of
cross circulation improvements.
But yes, it will I'm sure have
lots of guest parking and
requirements and needs over the
years. And the goal is to have
the best parking we can,
providing the densities that
are allowed by the county. So
it's.
>> Also a question of.
>> These, these houses that are
what's the like maximum square
footage of these houses? Do you
have a guess as to what it is?
I'm trying to guess whether,
you know, like a family of 6 or
8 could live in one of these
houses, which usually means
three, 4 or 5 cars with that.
>> Yeah. Nothing's set in
mandatory requirements for
minimums and maximums. They
have lot coverage maximums, of
course, but the conceptual
footprints that we are showing,
I think are 20ft wide and 60ft
deep. So you have a 166.
>> Zero feet deep, okay, 20 by
six.
>> So they can make two story
homes and you can have nice
three bedroom homes. And you
need, you know, all the parking
you can get. But these aren't
large, large homes.
>> Okay, so you can get a three.
You could possibly get a three
bedroom house out of these.
Okay. But you're not going to
get, you know, three bedrooms
and three baths and or more
bedrooms than that is there
there are certain constraints
given how small these lots are.
>> Yeah. They'll have the
maximum lot coverage
requirements as well. And so
these are smaller lots. This is
affordable entry level housing
is the concept here with with
the.
>> That's the hope.
>> That's the hope for sure.
And so this is what codes were
used. And it's definitely
different than adjacent
neighborhoods have been years
past.
>> Do you know what those are?
>> What the hidden Crest
Edition zoning is?
>> I'm sorry, I don't know the
exact numbers right off. I have
their plot here and oh, here we
go. So here's 5000 805,900. It
looks like the adjacent parcel
of the gentleman that testified.
Their lot is 7900ft². So one of
the nice larger ones.
>> Okay.
>> But yeah, that plot, I mean,
they do go down to 5400ft². And
our one six zone, you know, is
traditionally been a sort of 5
to 6000 square foot zoning. And
with the new compact housing
standards, I mean, you can be
down to 2750. And if these were
attached townhomes, they could
be as small as 2000 square foot
lots. And so there could even
be more density. And so it's a
tough balance to for
neighborhoods to strike with
traditional larger lots and
these new, smaller lots.
>> But well, I mean, I don't
know about tough balance, but I
hear a lot in these. I get a
lot of the compact lot
developments. And and I hear,
you know. Mr. Mr. Foster's
complaints from a lot of
neighbors in existing
neighborhoods. And it's it is
sort of jarring to see such
density coming in next to these
subdivisions that aren't that
old. And it's true that the
Board of Board of county
counselors has really changed
things up in Up zoning these
residential areas and allows
for a lot higher density. And
was true five years ago.
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> And it's, it's not
traditional for a lot of people.
So we, we empathize with that
100%. And you know, this one,
you know, we've gone through
all the codes and worked really
hard to not have road mods or
variances with this project. So,
and National builder could come
through and purchase this and
build homes or local builder
could also build homes on this
property and provide a lot of
good opportunities for
homeownership.
>> So okay, I think anything
else?
>> The questions? Yeah, nothing
else for me specifically
definitely can answer any other
questions that do come up and
talk about timelines or open
record stuff as needed.
>> Okay.
>> Let me check in with staff.
Anything staff would like to
add before we talk about open
record.
>> Thank you. Mr. Examiner. Joe
Kaspan I have nothing further
to add at this time.
>> Okay. Miss Isaacson.
>> Hannah Isaacson I don't have
anything to add either.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Open
record. Here's another wrench
I'm going to throw into the
open record for this one and
all the others tonight is. I'm.
I'm headed out of town. I won't
be back till October 5th. So,
you know, a week or two extra
would help accommodate that
because I can start writing as
soon as I get back and the
record will be closed by then.
So if we're looking at one week
from tonight, that's the 17th
for anybody to submit any sort
of comment at all relevant to
this proposal. And then, Mr.
Taylor, you want one week for
your final rebuttal. That would
get to the 24th?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Would that work? Okay, so
I'm going to need more than two
weeks. If that's when the
record closes, I'm going to
need more than two weeks to
kick this out because let's see.
One, the next Thursday, two
weeks would put it on October
8th. So I'm going to probably I
may not make that deadline. It
might be the next week, but no
later than that. Is that okay?
>> That's all right by the
applicant.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, so for all of you
tuning in, I guess Mr. Foster
in particular, since you're the
one who weighed in on this, but
also anyone else interested in
this, we're going to leave the
record open for anybody. Any
comments? Mr. foster? This is
submit your any further
comments by 5 p.m. on Thursday,
September 17th. Email it to Mr.
Kinsman. Make sure it's in his
hands by 5 p.m. and then the
applicant has final rebuttal
until 5 p.m. on the 24th of
September. In Mr. Kinsman's
hands. Any any objection to
that?
>> None.
>> Hearing none. That's what
we'll do with this one. I will
continue this. Keep the record
open. Conclude the hearing on
this item. Cresap Meadows pl
D2026-52 record will stay open
until the 17th or anybody any
relevant issue and then the
24th for final rebuttal. The
record will close then and I'll
issue a written decision. I'm
shooting for the 15th of
October, so that's it for
Cresap Meadows. Thank you.
Let's shift to the next one.
39th Avenue Subdivision pl
D2025-94. Mr. Daviau, who's got
that one?
>> I do, I'm covering this for
Melissa.
>> You be Melissa tonight, okay.
Go ahead. Whenever you're ready.
>> Okay. For the record, my
name is Richard Daviau. I am
covering for the project
planner. Who is Melissa Curtis?
This 39th Avenue subdivision is
the proposal. PLD 2025 00094.
It's a subdivision to develop
just a little bit under two
acres into 25 lots, single
family detached. It's in the R
one six zone. This is proposed
to utilize the compact lots and
there are lot standards. Paul
Williams is the contact the
applicant and the project is
located on 10003 northeast 39th
Avenue. As I mentioned, Melissa
is the planner. I'm covering
for her tonight. The review
engineer is Alistair Dawson,
concurrency engineer is Craig
Cogdill, and the fire marshal
deputy who reviewed this case
is Jason Noble. And the purpose
for the presentations tonight
is to provide an overview and
summary of the proposal. Also
to identify any outstanding or
major issues. And that's all
helps to make a recommendation
to you the hearing examiner.
Okay. As you can see, this next
slide shows basically the
vicinity map where this project
is located. It's represented by
these black dots. They're
overlapping each other because
there's two lots here. And just
to point out quickly, you can
see the north south road that
this is a budding is 39th
Avenue. I'll show some pictures
of that. And to the south it's
a lot away, but there's 99th
Street. The subject site is
zoned R1 six, as is the
surrounding properties as
represented here. And as I
mentioned before, this road
down here is 99th. And there's
a couple lots between the
subject site and 99th Street.
Here is an aerial of this of
the site representing the
conditions. And here is a copy
of the proposed plat.
>> And this is exhibit 35.
>> It is. That's exhibit 35
which is the most recent plat.
And I'll get more to this later.
We have a couple copies of this.
There's a couple issues, but
I'll continue onward here. As I
mentioned this, they're
proposing 25 lots. We have an
issue with one lot density that
they're right on the right on
the cusp, but I'll get into
that in a minute. Okay. At this
point, I'd like to show some
photographs representing the
existing sites. This first shot
is one basically showing the
development sign that is one of
the existing homes in the
background. And this is coming
from more the north portion of
the site.
>> There are two homes on this
right.
>> Now.
>> And they're both going away.
>> Yes, I believe they are. I'm
going to have the applicant
address that that's coming up
in one of my next slides that
I'm going to get to. In a
second. This next slide is one
looking south on the 39th
Avenue subject sites on the
left hand side of the screen.
And you can see they made a
note 99th Street, you can
barely see it down there. It's
not that far down the street,
99th Street. This next slide is
one going north of 39th Avenue.
Subject site is on the right
hand side of the screen. And
this time. Here, I think this
is the same residence that
we're looking at before. This
is the the one of the existing
residences that's on the shot.
And and this you can see this
is the driveway that's along
the north property line. That's
this, this driver here is
accessed to 39th Avenue. And
this is just showing the other
accessory structures behind
this house. Here's a last slide.
And the first picture on this
slide. It's one from the north
property line. Essentially
looking south on 39th Avenue is
in this direction. You can't
really see it too much. But the
South property line, of course,
is directly south. This last
picture is, is, is the point I
wanted to make. There was a
note here on this on the, on
the PowerPoint presentation
that this is existing house was
to remain and the staff report
on page. On page 13, finding
seven. It does show. It says
that the that that it. It
appears the home one home will
remain on proposed lot five. I
don't think that's the case.
I'm going to ask the applicant
just to verify that when they
get online, I think I think
this was an error. I think both
homes are going to be removed.
And if you look at the plat, it
seems difficult that that it
would be. But I just wanted to
point that out. I'm going to
ask the applicant to address
that.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> So this project received as
far as some of the dates here
and just giving some
information, the project was
fully completed, deemed fully
complete on December 31st of
2025. The original notice of
application went on, went out
on January 7th, 2026, and there
was originally a hearing
scheduled for February 25th,
which was canceled. And we did
send out a notice of canceled
hearing date on February 25th.
And then the new notice for
this hearing was sent out on
August 6th. Staff report
recommendation to the examiner.
That's exhibit 49. Cepa, like
the last case, was not
applicable to this project, and
the applicant posted a
development sign on the site on
August 10th, 2026. Okay, for
the exhibit list, I've already
mentioned the staff report was
exhibit 49. Just wanted to
mention quickly that exhibits
53 and 54 are out of date. On
that last slide, I mentioned
about the canceled hearing, and
even And though we did issue a
cancellation notice, it wasn't
put into the exhibit list of
where it should have been. So I
just want you to know. Exhibits
50.
>> Yeah, I figured that out.
>> Are out of date, but that's
that's not a problem. It's we
did we did do the cancellation.
So I just wanted to point that.
We've received quite a bit of
public comments on this case
and mainly our property. The
mainly of concern and and I'm
not just so you know, I'm not
we had a bunch of new comments
that have come in in the last
week or so, exhibits 55 through
66. And certainly I think it
would be 61 through 66. We
haven't really been able to.
We've made them exhibits. Of
course, we've sent them to you,
but haven't gone through those
so far though we have basically
property values, noise,
increased traffic on 39th
Street and 99th Street. I'm
just going to go through a
couple of these. Obviously
traffic, crowded streets,
traffic flow and danger to
walking citizens like the last
case, very concerned about the
more density. That that some of
these projects are seeing. And
of course, as you know, Mr.
Examiner, you know, we were we
were dealt with stuff from the
state that mandated us to
require to allow these compact
lot developments for higher
density. And that's why we're
seeing a lot more of these.
Also, there's a note about a
traffic signal on 99th and 39th
Avenue. Lack of parking,
inability to handle waste and
garbage services. And there was
also a comment about a 50 year
old Douglas fir tree, 50 year
old trees that are next to the
property line. Probably
probably the biggest project
issue I referred to a little
earlier. I just, of course
mentioned about compact lots
and compact lots basically
allow double density, 200% of
the maximum density of the
underlying zone. And you notice
when I, when we first talked
about this, say you'll notice
that the project site is 1.99
acres. And if you add up all
this here, 1.59 acres, as far
as what the net gross acreage
is, even though they're
proposing 25 lots, it comes out
to 24.9, which is the density.
And you can't round up in
density. I think they're only
about a 10th of a of a F. So as
you'll notice in the staff
report, we we did point this
out. And you know, unless
unless you know, when the
applicant does the final survey
for the final review, if you
know, if you know, sometimes
when you get that final survey,
sometimes they're a little less,
a tiny bit less or a tiny bit
more, we'll just have to see.
But based upon the numbers we
have now, the applicant does
need to lose a lot. Although
like I said, it's very close.
It's very close. Okay, so as
far as as far as the
recommendations go, we have a
denial recommendation for two
reasons. Development
engineering is recommending
denial for crossroads
circulation and a sidewalk
issue. And also concurrency is
recommending denial. And it
appears it's because there
wasn't sufficient information.
Of of data that was that was
not supplied in the traffic
study. I believe we gave the
applicant the opportunity to
and that was not submitted. So
we are also recommending denial
of that. And of course, the
exhibit concurrency exhibit. 48
exactly 48. I was just going to
say that that gives more
information on that. But so
right now, the both of those
issues are still for
recommendation of denial.
>> Okay.
>> So maybe this is I guess
this is an engineering question.
I'll save it.
>> Go ahead.
>> That I've got the proposed
plan up on the thing that
concludes staff's presentation.
And unless you have further
questions, you probably do.
>> I think I'm okay. On the
land use side. I have questions
on development, engineering and
these road mods. So is that is
that you, Mr. Dawson?
>> Yes. Alistair Dawson here
with Development Engineering.
>> Hi. Welcome.
>> So the basis for the part of
the basis for denial here is
denial of the road
modifications. There are two of
them and one is cross
circulation. The other one is
compliant sidewalks. So you
heard my question. So as I. See
it that this the road mod
report talks about stubbing
this street to the southern
boundary of the site is
required to provide cross
circulation. And so I look at
the the revised plan exhibit 35
and it stubs to the southern
boundary is the reason this
doesn't provide cross
circulation that is compliant
with the code because it's a
private street.
>> Yes, sir. There is a
specific code language that
says that private roads are not
considered to provide cross
circulation.
>> And is it possible to make.
Could the is there enough room
to make a compliant public
street in what they're
proposing by way of street
width?
>> Yes. Based on our
proportionality calculations,
which are based on the 2008
Boerke resolution, our
calculations show that 25 lots
with public infrastructure
would be proportional. I
haven't seen a revised layout,
so I'd have to defer to the
applicant if they lose lots and
what the resultant would be.
And then of course, as Richard
said, if they have to lose a
lot right off the bat, you know,
those are all different
scenarios that we can evaluate
during the open record. But at
this point, D recommends denial
based on lack of circulation
and the fact that providing
public circulation through the
site would be proportional to
the impacts created by this
development.
>> So wasn't a sidewalk issue
part of the road mod request?
>> So yeah, the sidewalk, I
mean the sidewalk issue is
definitely secondary. It's just
the standard detail for a
hammerhead turnaround. Shows in
the urban area shows sidewalk
all the way around.
>> The hammerhead would be at
the southern stub thing. Or
where would that, where would
the where's the hammerhead on
here? Right here. Where should
it be?
>> It's it's kind of like a
sideways one. You can see, I
think, well, Alistair can
correct me if.
>> I'm wrong. Oh, so that's.
>> A hammerhead. Okay, I got it.
>> It's just it just goes
longer to the south, but I
think. Okay.
>> And so the they don't want
to provide sidewalks on that at
all.
>> They're showing sidewalks on
the south side here, right?
>> It's supposed to wrap all
the way around. So, I mean, in
this case, the hammerhead
extends, I guess, longer than
the standard detail. Like
typically it would just be 60ft
on either side of the center
line, north and south. So it's
a little bit atypical as far as
the geometry goes. I think.
>> You saw I couldn't tell, I
thought the hammerhead was down
on one of these stub things. So
but I get it now. Okay.
>> Understood.
>> And and they're providing
they're proposing a sidewalk on.
One side, but not the other.
>> Right.
>> You could see Mr.
Geigenmiller see my cursor?
Even on the north, even on the
east side here, the sidewalk
looks like it's proposed all
the way to here, which is
probably what Alistair just
mentioned. That's where it ends.
The full.
>> Okay, that's the sidewalk,
and it just ends.
>> Down from here. There isn't
any sidewalk from along 12 lots,
12, 13 and 14.
>> Okay. Got it. That's weird.
And it looks like there's a
sidewalk on the west side of
this street.
>> Yep.
>> All the way. Okay, so it's
the sidewalk that's missing is
just the frontages of 12, 13
and 14.
>> Essentially. Yeah. It
depends. And if yeah, if it's
stubbed to the south and we
wouldn't require sidewalk along
that. But there is another. If
you go back to the exhibit, the
where the road mod, the last
road mod I think was 23 and the
site plan at the time when the
road mod was discussed, the
roadway stopped shorter, so
there would have been a need to
have the sidewalk go across the
southerly end of the hammerhead.
>> Okay, that seems small
potatoes compared to the rest
though.
>> Agreed.
>> Okay. And let's see, is Mr.
Caudle there to talk about the
concurrency recommendation of
denial?
>> Yes, sir. For the record,
this Craig Caudle, concurrency
engineering.
>> So you've been hearing
listening to this. And
concurrency is a basis for the
denial recommendation. What's
up with your recommendation.
>> So there are several items
that are missing from the
traffic study that was
submitted.
>> And it's with the original.
>> Application. Right.
>> Correct.
>> I don't think.
>> There's a. So I believe I
deemed this traffic study fully
complete back in December of
2025. And basically with the
fully complete determination,
it's a real quick review for
concurrency. I don't I don't
dive into the weeds with the
traffic study until the early
issue portion of the land use
process. And with this one with
with the list of dates that was
previously shown, I didn't see
an early issue submittal date.
So when when this was reissued
for a hearing on, I believe the
date was August 6th, I looked
at the traffic study and
realized that traffic signal
warrants that may be required
were not included. There was
not any crash history provided.
There were several
intersections that I would
suggest require a level of
service analysis that were not
included in the TIA. Also, the
volume to capacity analysis was
missing and I. I don't remember,
I don't think I supplied the
applicant's engineer, the
traffic engineer with any
in-process data. So for those
reasons, concurrency
recommended denial for this one.
>> Okay. Let's see. I'm looking
I'm looking at the early issues
memo. Okay. All right. And so.
There are a number of
deficiencies in the traffic
study that you normally expect
to be fulfilled without too
much trouble. They just weren't
in this case. Is that a fair
characterization?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> So until those elements are
submitted, you can't complete
your concurrency review on this
thing.
>> That's correct. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Fair enough. All right.
Thank you. With that, I'll take
the applicant's presentation,
please.
>> Hello, this is Paul Williams.
I sent Richard to exhibit.
Hopefully you got him.
>> Let's see.
>> What would those be, Richard?
>> I did not know. I did. I did
speak to Alastair just as I was
logging in for the for the
hearing. And and he did mention
I didn't get those directly. I
did mention there was a couple
new things.
>> Do you do you have them,
Richard? Can you forward them
to me right now?
>> Initially he emailed them to
Melissa, then realized she's
out. And then I turned around
and emailed them to Richard.
>> Okay.
>> I will forward those to you.
And I think one of them was a
presentation, right. And you
can share that yourself on, on
the screen.
>> Yeah, go ahead and do that.
>> I'll stop sharing and then
you can share.
>> I don't know how to share.
All right. Okay. I'm gonna
figure this out.
>> You learned that in
kindergarten.
>> Where we're like, where is
the share button?
>> It's down below. On the
bottom, it says share. It's
pretty, it's, it's, it's.
>> A yeah, right in the middle.
>> Oh, there it is.
>> And then you have to pick
what screen you want to share
from, depending on how many
monitors you have.
>> Okay.
>> So we'll start with the very
last slide because we're
talking about the topic of
density. And Richard is correct.
We're at 24.9956.
>> Geez. Oh man. Okay. What's
the solution?
>> Apparently we can well,
we're not allowed to. I mean,
we got four significant figures
here. I don't know if we're
allowed to round up to 25 or is.
Okay. It is 24 lots.
>> Okay. You'll figure out
something. And like you said,
with the final survey, you
never know. Maybe the
preliminary survey was an
underestimate. So, you know,
the dust hasn't settled on.
>> Yeah, we're talking about
feet.
>> Yeah.
>> But I want to get back to
the traffic study. I haven't
received any comments regarding
issues with it, so I just need
a list of things that need to
be addressed. And then, you
know, I can submit those. And
it seems like we're going to
have to keep the record open
and allow Greg to review it and
then respond. And, you know,
until Greg is satisfied.
>> So look for exhibit 48. Mr.
Williams that's the concurrency
report. It's short. It's a two
pager. And then I think the
early issues memo is exhibit 19.
That's like five pages. And I
think it's in there. Do I have
that right, Richard?
>> Yes.
>> No, the traffic comments are
not in.
>> Oh, wait, there are other
there are additional early
issues memos.
>> There's a couple of early
issue.
>> There's a exhibit 24,
exhibit.
>> 3419 was the first early
issues.
>> Yeah.
>> Then. 24 and Paul, do you
not have exhibit 48 because I
can send that very easily to
you right now. Do you have
exhibit 48?
>> No, I have exhibit 19, which
was the first one. The second
one was storm related. And then
the last one. No, no, I did not.
>> I'll send you 48 right now.
I can do that for you right now.
Yeah. But also.
>> 4848 itemize all the things
that need to be addressed in
the traffic study.
>> Boy.
>> It's once again, if not,
maybe I can reach out to Greg
and it's a.
>> Concurrency memo. So it says
I'll read it. The traffic study
contains requests for the
Public Works Director to waive
requirements to collect data
and analyze regionally
significant intersections
within the study area. The
Public Works Director did not
approve or support the
applicant's request. Therefore,
the applicant was required to
comply with Keesee 40.3 50.020
related to the data collection
and the analysis of trip
impacts from the proposed
development on the surrounding
road network. Conclusion.
Staff's review of the submitted
traffic study found that there
was not sufficient information
and analysis to show compliance
with. 435020, so that that's
kind of the bottom line sounds
like. So that's exhibit 48.
>> Good evening, Mr. hearings
examiner, this is David Jardine,
traffic engineering section
manager. At the end of the day,
I would encourage the applicant
to reach out to the concurrency
engineer to to ensure that
whatever information is
necessary is adequately
communicated so that there's no
confusion as we move forward.
>> Right. So it doesn't seem
like a deal killer. It just
seems like additional
information is needed to allow
staff to do their analysis.
>> I agree.
>> Okay. Okay, so I interrupted
your presentation. Why don't
you go ahead, Mr. Williams?
>> So I think we're down just
to the cross circulation.
>> Yes.
>> Let me just go. Since I got
17 minutes here. So in the
cross circulation, this is code
related. The roads, any cross
circulation road must meet
intersection spacing. Also
cross circulation shall be
provided in a manner that meets
these standards and where
possible, that will allow so
sequential developments to meet
these standards. So we don't
hear here is yes, we do not
meet circulation. So what the
the county has recommended that
this would be a public road and
we would stub to the south. And
then I actually look because
this is public road and I did
cite Burton and Clark County
because once this county is
recommending a public road,
they have some burden in
looking at these analysis too.
But I went ahead and did it. If
the road was to go through, it
would not meet intersection
spacing. And once again, this
table is explicitly cited in
the cross circulation standards.
So if there were to punch a new
road through here and they're
asking us to center, center
this up on the two properties,
and they would come through and
then connect to 99th Street.
However, it won't meet
intersection spacing. So the
next step was to make sure that
this is feasible. And once
again, you know, the resolution
was mentioned. And that's what
we used to determine. If it is
feasible or not. So we got the
west parcel East parcel. You
can see these are very small
parcels. They both have
existing homes on it. So the
area of right of way dedication
because there is one existing
home one only can do a two lot.
They both can basically only do
a two lot. So their per net ADT.
>> So when you're talking the
west parcel on the east parcel
are those the the parcels south
of you.
>> Yeah.
>> So you're doing an analysis
of whether it would be
proportional for those you know
speculative future lots to do
some speculative future
development. I think the
proportionality analysis is
whether the improvements you're
being required to construct are
proportionate to the, to the
impact and value of your
project.
>> Yeah. That's why I'm citing
the, the citation out of the
code. It says cross circulation
shall be provided in a manner
that meets these standards and
where possible, that allows
subsequent development to meet
these standards.
>> So analyzing whether the
properties to the South could
meet the standards.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Also put in there, there was
two exhibits that were that
should be provided to you. One
of them was a previous case
that it was absolutely similar
to this, that I just provided
you for reference. And the same
thing. You know, we looked at
the offsite to make sure that
it's feasible. So why would we
propose a road where it's not
feasible to extend? Okay, so
what.
>> Was that case, by the way?
>> It's in the exhibit. It was.
>> Was it a Clark County
hearings examiner decision?
>> Yeah. The decision was, I
believe, issued yesterday.
>> That's hot off the press.
>> It's for.
>> Yeah, PLD 2005 00093.
>> 40th Street subdivision.
>> And I provided provided this
to you. But my PowerPoint
presentation that I'm
presenting to you today is
literally identical to the one
I did for 40th Street.
>> Okay.
>> So once again, we just need
to make sure that the
circulation code, if you look
at it, it's we need to be
responsible to make sure that,
that the adjacent developments
can continue on this road. And
so I'm seeing two issues here.
One, it can't meet intersection
spacing. The two, it just puts
a burden on the property.
>> On your property.
>> No, on their property.
>> Okay. And right now you're
proposing a street, a private
street where it's where staff
is recommending it. Go and
provide cross circulation. It's
just that it's private and not
a public street. Do I
understand that correctly? Okay.
>> Yeah, we had meetings with
the county on this and they
agreed to I mean, they're aware
of the intersection. You know,
I thought we had an agreement
that we just leave it private
and just allow those two
southern parcels to connect to
our private street so that when
they did come in for further
development, they would not
have access on to 99th Street.
So this conversion to public
road, we weren't notified until
the the staff report was issued.
>> Okay. And that was the 26th
of last month. So question is
99th Street a collector or an
arterial arterial. Okay. That's
why direct access is not
recommended. Right?
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> So the issue is, is my
analysis assumes that they come
in at the same time. If one
comes in at the other. And you
can see the note that I have
off to here, you know. You know,
23ft, you know, 46ft is a local
access. If each one come in,
it'd be 23 foot dedication on
each side of the property.
However, they got to maintain a
20 foot property. And that's
that red dashed line. But it's
the dark dash, the dash line
that is the 4100ft² of
dedication for the West. One
and 5229 for the East one, and
they get a credit for the
existing home. And so it's only
ten eight divided by 5000. So
that pushes it into not being
proportionate.
>> So what's the development
potential of those two lots
maxed out.
>> Two lots.
>> Two each.
>> To each. Yeah. Total of four.
>> Okay.
>> So once again right away
dedication 1080. That puts the
burden. So if they were to come
in and this the county was to
say, hey, you need to put a
public road, they have the
right to do proportionality.
>> Okay.
>> And demonstrate that putting
a road there, I mean, because
that's a big dedication, you
know, for these very, very
small lots. I only have nine
minutes left. The hammerhead
thing or the sidewalk was the
hammerhead standard details,
120ft. So we have sidewalk that
comes here, here and down here,
120ft. So there's 120ft. So I
was thinking technically it
meets the requirements of the
sidewalk part, but I guess.
>> For a standard hammerhead.
>> Yeah. Standard hammerhead.
Yeah.
>> Okay. This is standard
hammerhead though.
>> Well, it's 60 and 60 because
what we're going to do, the
fire marshal made the comment
and e that this doesn't meet
requirements. And Alistair made
the comment that we gotta we
have to have on street parking.
So I pushed the parking down
here. I guess I put it on the
preliminary just said no, you
know, fire lane, no parking. So
there would be within this
120ft, there would be no
parking fire lane in this area.
>> Okay. How does that affect
given a sidewalk for lots 12,
13 and 14 though?
>> I mean, we can bring the
sidewalk all the way down. I
don't see that.
>> I think that takes care of
that issue that that takes care
of that basis for staff's
negative recommendation.
>> But I'm asking for a
modification to be done to the
fire standard, because he wants
us to increase this to 28ft. I
know previously the previous
subdivision, he mentioned 24ft,
but the fire marshal on
condition E says 28ft. But have
you talked.
>> To the fire marshal about
this?
>> No. And that comment got the
last minute too.
>> Okay. Because I think that,
you know, it's always amazed me
that the fire marshal holds a
lot of cards in these
subdivision when it comes down
to fire life, safety and what
they'll require and what
they'll allow. So that's kind
of where I would start.
>> So I guess I can reach out
to the fire marshal since we
have open record, I'll just
yeah. Reach out. Yeah. There
are.
>> A number of open record
things that you'll want to do.
>> Okay.
>> Starting with figuring out
that 25th lot. That's, that's
kind of a big deal.
>> Well, I think we kind of
already know where we're going
to get rid of it. We are
keeping the or where do I do
with the did I.
>> Would that be a quick,
simple, easy change to the plat,
or would that require you to
rejigger everything?
>> No. 2022 we're more likely
to get rid of lot 22. 21 is
going to be the existing home.
>> Oh really? Okay, so you are
going to keep one of those
houses.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. For some reason, staff
thought it was lot five.
>> Oh yeah. I and the client
mentioned he may maybe we just
get we combine. So we got two
options here. Real quick. Get
rid of lot 22 easy simple. Or
we just combine five and six to
keep the other existing home.
>> And you know, I mean, aside
from tweaking the lot lines,
the issue is whether if you if
they go away and you have new
houses, you get impact fee
credits for a house that you
scrape off. So that's, that's
the implication that I see.
>> Okay. I don't see any
problems with that. But yeah,
we'll, we'll take that under
consideration.
>> Okay. And so the traffic
study seems like get in touch
with your concurrency engineer.
And that seems, you know,
figure out what additional
information is required for
county to do their, their
completeness review. And then
anything more you want to say
about the, it seems like
they're the, the real dispute
is over the cost circulation
road mod. So correct. You know,
the record will be left open
and you can think about whether
you want to stand pat or revise
things, change your road mod
request or just do a public
street.
>> I think we're going to stay
firm with the private road.
>> Okay. That's your
prerogative.
>> Yeah. Because we're doing a
public road would just wipe out
so many homes.
>> But on adjacent lots on
those two adjacent lots.
>> I don't.
>> You know, putting in a
public go ahead.
>> To do the public street on
your property, would it
eliminate any lots on yours?
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> A lot.
>> So you'll to, to build a
public street standards would
require a wider profile.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. How many lots would
you lose.
>> I am predicting like 6 to 7
lots.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, you have a
little rejiggering to do during
the open record period. So
that's something else you can
think about.
>> Okay.
>> And this presentation here,
this PowerPoint thing you have,
you submitted that as an
exhibit?
>> Yes. Along with 40th Street.
>> Okay, good.
>> And I email it to yeah, I
did.
>> I did get it. I got it from
I, I did your email never came
through to me, Paul, but I did
get it from Alastair. So we
have the PowerPoint
presentation, the one you're
seeing now. And we have that
decision on 40th, which just
came out the other day. We'll
make those exhibits. And for
those few. Mr. Exhibit.
>> Okay. That's a Joe Turner
decision, right?
>> Yes it is.
>> Okay, okay. So things are
still still not solidified at
this point. So do you what else
do you would you like to add by
way of your primary
presentation? Mr. Williams?
>> That's pretty much it.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else like to out there
in Zoom land like to testify in
favor of this proposal or
neutral? We'll take both. We
have quite a few people
submitted opposition comments.
Anyone else out there like to
testify in opposition to this
thing? Raise your hand if you
do.
>> We do.
>> We have Jack. Jacqueline. We
have a couple now. So
Jacqueline Cruz was the first
one. Jacqueline, I'm sending a
request to unmute you. You
should be able to unmute
yourself now.
>> Can you? Yeah. Hi, I'm
Jacqueline Cruz. I live in one
of the houses above to the
north of this proposed
development. So it's just it's
also considered 39th Avenue.
But what I wanted to speak to
you today were mentioned in the
comments earlier, but I also
wanted to share that, you know,
there is genuine concern about
emergency vehicles being able
to have safe and reliable
access through the subdivision.
And also, you know, will
garbage and recycling trucks be
able to safely navigate, you
know, the proposed roads and
serve all of the homes? I
currently live on a street
where both of those things were
saying that they could happen,
and neither are able to make it
down our street. So I wanted to
bring that forward as a genuine
concern of, you know, depending
on the number of homes that are
approved, you know, what that
would actually look like. And
then the other thing I really
wanted to mention is that, you
know, assuming this is the same
person that we spoke to, we did
have a meeting because we are
the immediate neighbors to this
proposed lot. I have three
other houses that I live right
next to on the one way road or
flagpole lot, whatever you want
to call it. And it was included
that they would be 300 zero
square foot lots, along with
references to homes being
around 2100ft² with attached
garages. And then they talked
about a different configuration.
I understand that a
neighborhood meeting discussion
is not necessarily a binding
commitment. I'm just wanting to
mention that because there were
alternatives discussed. So they
are open to other.
>> Yeah, none of these are that
none of these lots are that big.
Yeah.
>> So that was the initial
discussion with us. Assuming
this is the same person. I'm
not 100% sure to be honest. But
I, you know, it was shared with
us to be a different kind of
development initially.
Obviously, when you buy land,
you can, you know, propose to
do what you want with it. But I
think.
>> Within within limits.
>> Yes, yes. Sorry. Within
limits. So I'm, you know, I
understand the like that the
proposals have changed or not
the proposals, but like the
code has changed a lot in terms
of how many houses. And so I'm
not saying that it shouldn't be
developed. I'm just asking for
it to be reasonable to the
neighborhood that I already
live in.
>> One question I didn't catch
where you you live north of
this?
>> Yeah. So there is a single
lane road right above where?
Right there where the cursor is.
So I live in one of the houses.
>> Okay. Got it, got it, got it.
Okay. You might. Your points
are interesting. You might
consider jotting them down and
submitting them as just a
written comment, because the
record is going to remain open
for a while.
>> Okay. Yeah, I can definitely
do that. I just want to make
sure to speak as well to make
sure that my, you know,
thoughts were heard with you.
So thank you.
>> They were. Thank you. Who
else?
>> Next we have Josh Schlitt.
If I'm pronouncing it correctly.
Josh, I just sent a request to
unmute you. You should be able
to unmute yourself. Josh.
>> Hey, thank you. It's Josh
Selch. We live west of this
proposed development. It is
really close to 99th Street,
and the amount of homes
proposed to be built there.
It's already a pretty busy road.
My wife has personally been in
two incidents on 39th Street.
Coming into this area. It does
get pretty busy with proposing
20 some homes being built there.
You know, raises a lot of
concerns about congestion. The
the other thing I would note is,
you know, we we live just
across where the, the power
easement way is and the road
coming into our neighborhood
into Sherwood Glen is the
development there.
>> There's that's where you,
you.
>> Live in Sherwood Glen.
>> Yes. Okay. Correct. We we
see people parking there who.
We have no idea who they are.
We see garbage being dropped
off into the entrance of our
neighborhood. You know, not
saying that that, you know,
these folks would be doing that,
but there is definitely a
change in the neighborhood.
>> That illegal.
>> Dumping, you mean?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. We in fact, we've had
I was just having a
conversation with the neighbor
on person who is sleeping in
their car into the entrance of
our neighborhood. There are
several families in the
neighborhood that have kids. In
fact, the bus stop is right
there on the edge of 39th and
100. And first that comes and
picks up the kids, and that's
going to be very close to where
this proposed development is.
>> Okay, okay, let's see. I
didn't see you. Did you have a
written you have one comment in
the record. I see exhibit 12.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And if any anything
else occurs to you, feel free
to submit additional written
comments.
>> We will. And I just echo
Jacqueline's comments about,
you know, the the land has been
bought there. You know, it's
their right to develop the land.
We're just asking for
consideration for the existing
neighborhoods.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Who else would like to
testify in opposition? And when?
Richard.
>> I'm not seeing anybody else.
>> Okay. Mr. Williams, we're
going to have the record stay
open after tonight. But you can
take a. You have final rebuttal
tonight, and usually you can
take that as an opportunity to
respond to any of these
comments or you don't have to
take this opportunity at all
because the record will stay
open and, and you'll have
further opportunity for your
for final rebuttal in written
form. So it's your pleasure.
>> Yeah. No further comments.
>> Okay. Thank you. Take it
back to staff. Anything staff
would like to add?
>> Yes, I got just a couple
quick things to add. I'll make
it fast. I'm going to get back
and share my screen. I just
want to I just want to bring up
the.
>> The most recent proposal.
>> Do you see the plot on the
screen now?
>> Yes. Is that.
>> Exhibit 33? Where are we?
That's from the original
application. This hasn't really
changed, has it?
>> I think there's some minor
changes. I think.
>> 27.
>> Yep. Well yeah. And 35 is
the most recent plot revised
exhibit 35.
>> Okay. You're right.
>> So just quickly, the only
thing is I want to mention is
that. And I didn't, I'm not
sure if I understood Paul
correctly, but he talked about
removing, possibly maybe
removing parking or something
about the parking here that's
on the, on the hammerhead or
the extension of the hammerhead.
I just want to keep in mind
that, you know, with 25 lots,
they were required to have nine
guest parking spaces with 24
lots. It's actually down to
eight. So they do have to
provide eight guest parking.
And they're showing that on the
plan. You can see there's eight,
seven, six and then the other
ones are along here. They do
comply with it, but I'm not so
sure they can. I mean, maybe I
misunderstood. I just want to
make sure we can't. Remove. The
applicant does have to provide
eight guest parking spaces. So
I just want to make sure that
was clear. Second point. And
this is really and maybe we
should get get information from
Craig Criddle. But if the
applicant is going to be
submitting a new traffic study,
I think we're going to have to
be going for a long record
period because obviously the
applicant has to has to
resubmit a traffic study. I
don't know how long it's going
to take for them to get the
revised traffic study. How long
will it take for Craig to
review that traffic study and
internally what they have to do?
I mean, I would suggest it's
weeks, but let's have.
>> Craig write in all these
open record things. As I
mentioned before, the applicant
has the burden of proof and
demonstrating compliance with
all the criteria. And. And
generally speaking, I give the
applicant the time that they
need to do that. So we'll start.
When we get to it. We'll we'll
start with how much time Mr.
Williams needs to submit
whatever he wants to submit,
and then we can talk about
response times for that. So
you're right, it'll take a
while to, to, to make sure that
he has time to do what he needs
to do here.
>> My last point is the comment
that Jacqueline Jacqueline made
about the solid waste and
recycling pickup. As you can
see, you know, if you look at
the code section in the narrow
lot standards, it talks about
joint driveways that there's a
concern of. As you can see here,
the applicant is providing even
though it's a private road,
it's it's it's wider than than
most private roads. It's 24ft.
It looks like it's 24ft of
pavement. So this is adequate
for the trucks to pick up solid
waste and recycling. And so,
you know, if it was a smaller
width and the private road that
was 12 or joint driveway for
12ft, then we would look for a
collection point. But since
since they're providing 24 foot
paved areas, then this is
adequate for the collection
points. I know, I know, maybe
some neighbors wouldn't think
it's adequate, but it is
adequate.
>> If this were a public street,
how wide would it be? Do you
know the standard for that?
>> You'll have to ask
engineering on that. But 24ft
wide does allow parking on both
sides, if I'm not mistaken. So
and of course, they're only
proposing parking on one side,
so. Well, it could be both
sides, but that's what the code
says and that's all I have.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now
is the time to talk about the
open record. So I'm going to
start with you, Mr. Williams.
Today is September 10th. How
much time do you need to submit
everything that you want to
submit? To either respond to or
satisfy or whatever?
>> Yeah. I mean, the the items
that need to be addressed in
the traffic study are easy. I
can submit them by next
Wednesday.
>> Next Wednesday. So you just
need one week to submit
everything that you want to.
>> Everything I desire. Yes.
>> Okay. One week. So we'll
give you a week. Staff. How
much time do you think you'll
need to review the new
submissions? And for those of
you in the public sector
looking to comment on this, you
can expect some changes to this
proposal that will hit the deck
on the next week about the 17th
or so. And I take you want to
get a copy of that and see
what's been submitted, because
it may affect the comments that
you have submitted or want to
submit on the project. So
members of the public keep that
in mind. So staff, what do you
need? So, Mr. Cado, you'll be
reviewing this and who else?
Mr. Dawson and Richard.
>> For the record, this is
Craig. I would request up to
two weeks for review.
>> Okay, so that would get to
October 1st is two weeks out.
How's that set with you, Mr.
Dawson? And Richard.
>> I guess I have a question to
pose. Paul mentioned some
things during tonight's hearing
that were not in the last road
mod. So if Paul wishes to
formally present those back as
a increased scope or slightly
different approach than the
wording that he used previously,
I guess I would ask for a three
weeks to review any revised
road mod. If he doesn't wish to
provide that during the open
record period, then I guess it
defaults back to Craig if he
has the only new information to
review.
>> That's true, but he said he
only needed a week, so at the
end here I'll. I'll circle back
to Mr. Williams, see if he
wants to stick with the week or
what. It's his pleasure because
he has the burden of proof. So
anyhow, you want three weeks,
Mr. Dawson, so. And, Richard,
there'll be some changes that
get into the land use
Department as well. So your
opinion matters.
>> Yeah. There will be some I
think if you're if the second
period open record, we said the
first was just a week. We'll
see how that goes. Second, you
said two weeks and then maybe
change it to three weeks.
That's more than either 2 or 3
weeks is adequate.
>> Okay, okay.
>> That's fine.
>> Okay. Here's what I'm here's
what I'm shooting for one week
for the applicant to submit
whatever, you know, revised
Platt, revised road mod
supplemental traffic study. All
that and anything else. One
week. So that'd be the 17th by
5 p.m. in the county's hands.
And then staff gets three weeks
to review that and gel that
with what was previously
submitted and churn out new
staff recommendations. So that
gets us to the 8th of October.
And also, I'd add the public.
They their opinion matters as
well has. I would say you
should have until the eighth to
submit comments on the
revisions to the application,
but also the the once the staff
submits their revised
recommendations on the 8th of
October, the applicant and the
public can weigh in and respond
to staff's new recommendations.
So, Mr. Williams, since I have
you online, assuming staff's
recommendations after they've
reviewed your new submittal
come out on 8th of October, how
much time do you need to digest
and respond to staff's new
recommendations?
>> I do have one question
Alastair mentioned about
resubmitting a road. I'm a
little bit confused on that
because I believe the road mod
talked about sidewalk for the
hammerhead and of course the
cross circulation. Is Alastair
wanting me to put this
proportionality and
intersection spacing in the
road mod. So the road mod team
can take a look at this. I'm a
little bit confused if.
>> You're using those arguments
to justify your road mod
request, I think you should
include it. Yes.
>> Okay. So okay. Once again,
I'll submit all the new stuff
on the 17th and okay, I guess
then the controlling factor is
not necessarily the traffic
because traffic needs two weeks.
And it looks like Alastair
wants three weeks.
>> But I think staff and staff
in general, I'll give, you know,
staff as a as the body three
weeks to get every everything
digested and spit out new
reports. All collectively staff
has said three weeks would do
the trick. And I think the
heavy lift will be not maybe
not so much concurrency, but
development, engineering and
land use, I think. Plus you
need to talk to the fire
department, the fire marshal,
if you want us to want some
something to change on on
street parking or street widths
or those sorts of things. But
keep that in mind as well, okay.
>> So just one week for me to
respond to staff's comments.
>> Okay, so that'll get to the
15th of October. So I'll give
you and the public a week to
review staff's new
recommendations and analysis of
what you've submitted. So staff
should kick theirs out by the
8th of October. You and the
general public have until the
15th to respond to all of that.
And there may be new and
interesting stuff for you, Mr.
Williams, in the public
comments, I don't know. That
will come in on the 15th, but
generally you would have then
one week for final rebuttal if
you want it. So that would get
you for your final rebuttal.
October 22nd. If you if you
want it, you could waive that
once you see what comes in on
the 15th and you can say skip
it. And the record would then
close on the 15th. Does that
make sense?
>> Yeah, that makes sense to me.
>> Okay. All right. So I guess,
Miss Cruz, Mr. Selch, you've
been listening in. You were the
people who testified tonight,
but there may be others. Have
you been tracking this open
record discussion? And do you
understand where we're headed
and the time allowed for the
applicant and for the public
and for staff to have time to
review and comment on all of
this stuff.
>> Yes, Jacqueline.
>> Go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, no. It's okay. This is
Jacqueline Cruz, I understand,
thank you.
>> Okay. Mr. Selch, you okay
with what we've been talking
about?
>> I had I, I had to unmute
them, so I just did that.
>> Okay. Mr. Selch, you can
talk now, I think.
>> So, yes. We understand.
>> Okay. Okay, good. All right.
So we're going to do that. Let
me let me put this on the
record. The here it is
September 10th. So the
applicant has until September
17th. To submit everything it
wants to supplement or revise
his application and proposal,
including the road modification
to satisfy or not satisfy what
staff is looking for. September
17th at 5 p.m. Then staff. All
staff. That large body of staff
have three weeks until October
8th to kick out new
recommendations or after
they've analyzed everything
that the applicant has
submitted. So September October
8th is when staff will kick out
their comments, and I would
recommend that members of the
public. You have until the
eighth to also provide comments
on whatever the applicant
submits on the 17th. So after
everything comes in on the
eighth, then the applicant has
until October 15th and the
public have until October 15th
to provide a response to
staff's new recommendations.
That's 5 p.m. on October 15th
in the county's hands, and then
the applicant has the option of
final rebuttal. October 22nd at
5 p.m. which Mr. Williams can
waive, and the record then on
the outside, the record will
close on the 22nd, and that
should be that will start the
clock for me to digest it all
and render a decision
approximately two weeks after
that. So that's what I'm going
to do. And therefore this item,
this hearing is concluded, but
the record is left open
according to that schedule.
Thanks to all of you. And let's
roll into the next item.
>> If we can.
>> All right. I'm up next. Let
me get my screen shared here.
>> Take your time. I'll give a
quick announcement. Heartwood
North Pole 2025-114.
>> All right. Can you see my
slides up there, Mr. Jesser?
Awesome. All right. Good
evening, Mr. Examiner. County
staff and the general public.
For the record, my name is
Marion Bateman. I'm a land use
planner with Clark County
Community Development. And the
project before you tonight is
the Heartwood North subdivision.
So for this development, the
applicant is proposing to
divide three parcels containing
approximately 33 acres into 146
single family detached lots.
They're doing this in four
separate phases, and the site
is located in the R1 five
zoning district. The applicant
is Ax engineering and the owner
is Greg Kubicek with SG
development, and the site is
not currently addressed, but it
lies south of northeast 119th
Street and east of northeast
132nd Avenue. So as I mentioned,
my name is Marion Bateman. I'm
the review planner for this
project. The review engineer is
Alistair Dawson. The review
biologist is Keith Radcliffe.
Jason Noble reviewed the
application for fire safety.
Craig Cordell was the
transportation concurrency
reviewer, and Hunter Decker
reviewed the forest practices
side of the development. So
here's an outline for tonight.
During this presentation, I
will provide an overview and
summary of the proposal,
identify any major outstanding
issues or concerns. And then
ultimately we will make our
>> Our recommendation to the
examiner. Okay, so here is the
vicinity map. The subject site
is identified by the black dots.
As I mentioned, the site
consists of three separate
parcels and it is located
approximately 1300ft south of
northeast 119th Street and
about 1300ft east of northeast
132nd Avenue. Here's the zoning
map. The site is located within
the R one five zoning district,
and it abuts other R one five
zoned parcels, mostly to the
northeast, south, and west with
a pocket of high density
residential abutting to the
northeast corner of the site.
And then there's BP zoning as
well. Abutting to the east
along the east perimeter. Okay,
so this next one is the site
map. It's an aerial view of the
site showing current conditions.
You can see the site is heavily
treed and is surrounded by
established neighborhoods. You
can also see the existing
streets which terminate at the
property boundaries of the site.
In the next slides, I'll show
the plan so you'll be able to
see all the proposed street
connections and everything, but
it's going to fit fit in there
nicely within that pocket there.
So here is the proposed
preliminary plat. This is in
the record as exhibit 27. And I
actually have two slides here.
So I can toggle between the two
as needed. So yeah so this
one's showing the north half.
The other slide shows the south
half. As I mentioned, the
applicant's requesting to
subdivide three three separate
parcels containing about 33
acres. And they're proposing
146 single family detached
residential lots. Also proposed
are several public streets
providing on site circulation.
As I mentioned, they're
proposing multiple tracks that
will be dedicated to couple
different things stormwater
facilities, open space areas.
And then there's some
preservation of on site
critical areas as well. And the
project, as I mentioned, is
proposed in four separate
phases. So kind of breeze over
that for now, but we can always
go back to the plan. So next
I'll show some site photos.
Okay, so here I am standing on
northeast 112th Street looking
west across the site. This will
be a future street connection.
You'll see a bunch of these.
Let's see here. I'm standing on
northeast 142nd Avenue looking
north across the site. Another
future street connection. You
can see the site's pretty flat,
with just a lot of existing
trees and shrubs. And then
another one from northeast
142nd Street, but looking
northeast across the site. And
then here I'm standing on
northeast 109th Street, looking
west. There's their development
sign located on 109th Street,
and you can see the established
residences that border the
perimeter of the site there as
well. And then this is just
look in the other direction on
109th Street, looking northeast
with another future street
connection there. So lots of,
lots of connectivity for
existing streets. And so that's
it for site photos. So I will
go over the staff report and
recommendation and the project
timeline. So the application
submittal was received by the
county on December 12th 2025.
The application was deemed
fully complete. March 3rd, 2026.
The Notice of Development
application was issued on March
26th, 2026. The application was
then placed on hold pending
additional information, and so
we issued a notice of canceled
hearing on May 7th, 2026. And
then the hold was removed, and
we followed that up with a
separate notice of hearing date
on May 26th, 2026. And then
staff's recommendation to the
hearing examiner was issued on
May 28th, 2026, which is
exhibit 51 in the record. But
then at the June 11th hearing,
the applicant had requested a
continuance due to some public
notice issues and potential
outstanding concurrency issues.
So we had agreed on tonight's
hearing date of September 10th,
and then we issued a notice of
New hearing date on August 25th,
2026, and then a revised staff
report and recommendation was
issued on August 26th, which
had some corrections to it,
including the new notice
details, some corrections to
the critical area findings, and
a few other minor corrections
to some of the development
engineering findings, I believe.
So that revised staff report is
in the record as exhibit 102.
So for project issues, there
are a couple, one of which are
the traffic concerns pertaining
to this development. We had
many public comments submitted
regarding traffic, and I
believe we also have some folks
here to testify. I'm not sure
if it'll be related to the
traffic traffic, but I think
that's the biggest issue to
discuss as far as, you know,
issues that were raised in
public comments, the other
issues raised by public by
public commenters, I think were
sufficiently addressed in this
in the staff report. We can
always revisit any, you know,
any of them that we need to,
but I'll let the applicant
address the concerns around
traffic, especially since we
had some, you know, concurrency
analysis added to the record,
both by neighbors and by the
applicant to address those
traffic concerns. So I will
move on from the traffic issue
for now. The other project
issue has to do with the Oregon
white oak woodlands that are on
site. So I'm going to hand it
over to my supervisor, Brant
Davis, to present this portion.
>> Okay.
>> Good evening, Mr. Examiner.
I'm Brant Davis, I'm the land
use review manager as well as
the Wetland and habitat review
manager. So I am putting on my
habitat hat tonight for this
presentation. There's an
unusual aspect to this
application regarding request
for reasonable use assurance as
it relates to the Oregon White
Oak Woodland habitat that's on
the site. So I just wanted to
go over staff's analysis of
this a little bit. It's
presented in a lot more detail,
both in exhibit one and exhibit
102, I'm sorry, exhibit 61 and
exhibit 102. The references in
this presentation refer to
exhibit 61, primarily because I
did not update it after the
continued hearing. So. Just a
little bit to to start this off,
the photo here shows the
critical areas mapping on the
site from, I believe it's
exhibit 32. The applicant's
mitigation plan. So there's 148
priority habitat White Oaks
identified on the site. The
canopy of those oaks covers
approximately 2.35 acres, and
that represents about 7.1% of
the entire site area. Another
critical element is that the
distribution of these oaks does
not meet the definition of a
white oak woodland stand. In
the oak habitat definitions,
there are essentially two types
of oak woodland habitat
individual oaks, as well as as
stands when there's a certain
density of oak canopy relative
to the surrounding forest. And
this distinction is important
because generally with the
stand, the entire unit is
considered the habitat, whereas
with the individual oaks, only
the oak canopy is considered
the habitat. Next slide please.
So because of this difference
with just the individual oak
canopies actually being. The
portion that's defined as
habitat, with a distribution
that's still relatively high
density, it can make it
difficult to develop in between
some of those oaks when they're
close enough together that you
can't don't have room to build
a road or place a house and
still avoid oak impacts. And
that can create conflict with
other comprehensive plan
policies, such as, you know,
housing and housing density and
ultimately housing
affordability. So the
Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife is our state
agency with expertise in
priority habitat, including
white oak woodland, and they
have provided very detailed
science based recommendation
for how we assess oak woodland
functions and how we prescribe
mitigation that, in their
scientific view, is sufficient
to replace all of those
functions over time. However,
it is important to note that
the critical areas language in
the GMA talks about functions
and values and w d, f, w s
prescriptions do not consider
values or broader land use
policy or property rights
issues. They are not a
regulatory agency. They only
provide a framework for
defining what the what we
regulate as habitat and
providing recommendations on
how those habitats are managed.
It's up to the local
jurisdictions to develop
policies around the GMA
mandates. The Growth Management
Act mandates for critical areas.
Protection. And. To date, the
county has not developed a
specific oak woodland
mitigation policy. There is
provision in in the Critical
Areas ordinance that grants the
county authority to develop.
Mitigation recommendations. And
we have not specifically done
that for Oak woodland. Next
slide please. So with regard to
looking at the reasonable use
assurance question. We believe
that it is important in the in
this context to. To consider
best available science and the
way that it's framed in the
Growth Management Act, which is
that we have a requirement to
consider best available science
in developing our critical
areas policy. We are not we are
not strictly required to apply
the best available science
without any other
considerations. So in this
particular case, because of
that spacing of land between
the individual oaks, there's a
loss of otherwise developable
land that is necessary in order
to protect those, a lot of
those individual oaks on the
site. And that creates
conflicts, as I mentioned
earlier, with some of the other
comprehensive plan policies. So
just to bring this back to this
current proposal, the applicant
is proposing to protect several
oaks in tracks, which is what
the Critical Areas ordinance
requires. If you're going to
set aside habitat in a
subdivision, it has to be in a
tract. So in those tracks that
they have proposed, there's
2.31 acres of of developable
land that is protecting about a
half an acre of oak woodland.
So essentially. So which.
>> Which, which of the tracks
again, see.
>> There's several. I don't
have that.
>> C is the big one.
>> Yeah. C is the big one,
which includes the wetlands,
but there's several smaller
tracks. Some of them are
similar to the lot sizes. Okay.
Scattered throughout the
development. And many of those
tracks have 1 or 2 oaks within
them.
>> Okay.
>> And, and in our analysis,
protecting additional oaks in
additional tracks would
disproportionately reduce the
developable area of the site
even further. And in our
analysis, reasonable use
question aside, we believe the
applicant has met their burden
with regard to our avoidance
and minimization standards. And
I can explain a little bit more
about that in the next slide,
please. Oh I'm sorry, I'll back
up. So as part of their
avoidance and minimization work,
prior to submitting their
application, the applicant
reached out to county staff and
Department of Fish and Wildlife
biologists and walked the site
with a county biologist and a
fish and wildlife biologist.
And as part of that process,
they increased the amount of
oak that they were retaining by
about 7%, 7.5%, and focused on
specific oaks that the Fish and
Wildlife biologist identified
as being a higher priority for
protection. And in addition to
that, we believe that, you know,
changing the plan either to
reduce lots or to try to reduce
infrastructure, you know,
infrastructure doesn't yield
much more in terms of oak
protection, primarily because
of the cross circulation that's
required to connect to all of
the surrounding development and
the stubs that have been either
approved or constructed. And we
did not see a way to to meet
those requirements that would
have less impact. Next slide.
I'm sorry, this slide's good.
Yes. So just to, to, to talk
about why the applicant is
requesting a reasonable use
assurance. It's, it's not
because we can't come to an
understanding about what we
think is adequate for avoidance
and minimization. It's because
of the, the effect of the
mitigation guidelines that Fish
and Wildlife has published,
that it's essentially
financially unreasonable and
practically impossible to
achieve for the impact that's
proposed. And exhibits 102 has
findings that go into the
details about that. But
essentially, in terms of buying
mitigation bank credits, there
aren't enough credits available
on the market to meet the
mitigation burden it would
require to do concurrent
mitigation on. Off site land.
It would require acquisition of
of up to 17 acres of additional
land that is appropriate for
mitigation. And that court. In
addition to the potential cost
and impact that that would have
to the development, it's not
likely that the applicant could
find one site that could meet
those requirements and may have
to, you know, would likely have
to negotiate agreements with
multiple landowners and
multiple locations and manage
mitigation plans spread
geographically across a large
portion of the county. So we
analyzed the fiscal impact of
mitigation based on the
financial analysis that the
applicant provided. I believe
it's exhibit 33. And. In that
analysis, we concluded that
purchasing an additional 0.95
acres of white oak mitigation
bank credits would be where we
believe the reasonable use
threshold lies. We base this on
applying a factor of 6.5% to
the estimated gross value of
the proposed development, which
is again provided by the
applicant in exhibit 33.
>> I don't think this is
exhibit 33, but. Well, Marion,
kind of adjust this later, but.
>> I'm sorry, I let me back up.
You're correct. It's it's
exhibit one, tabs 32 and 33
that I meant to.
>> Oh, okay. From the original
application.
>> Yes, yes. Okay. I apologize
for the confusion. All right.
Next slide please. So in
conclusion, we believe that the
reasonable use of assurance
threshold is met, provided that
the applicant proposed
purchases, the additional bank
credits that we've included in
our conditions, which results
in a total of 2.922.29 for Oak
bank credits, as opposed to the
1.34 for that the applicant
proposed in their mitigation
plan. And that.
>> So that's that's your
recommended requirement is 2.29
for Oak Bank credits.
>> Yes. And that's in addition
to the wetland mitigation
that's proposed as well as the
mitigation. And there is also
an element of on site oak
mitigation as well. We're doing
about six I can't remember the
exact number, six point over
six acres of on site mitigation
between wetlands and oak
woodlands. They're doing oak
enhancement and oak creation in
those areas that are not oak
woodland in their tracks that
they're proposing.
>> So is there did I hear you
correctly? There's snag credits
or they'll just be snags on
site.
>> There. There thing to do.
Yes. Snag mitigation on site.
>> Okay. I've never heard of
snag credits, so.
>> Well, we do have a bank that
does will have snag credits in
the future, but they don't have
them yet.
>> The snags have not been
created yet.
>> Correct. Because it's in
their next phase when they it's
an oak bank. And when they do
the stand enhancement for the
oak, they will be removing
Douglas fir, which competes
with the oak. And they're going
to convert some of those firs
to snags. They're just going to
girdle them and kill them. So
they become snags and no longer
compete with the oak, but
provide snag functions.
>> Okay, I wondered how that
would work. Okay.
>> All right. That's my
contribution.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Brant. Oh.
>> So what else? Staff. Marion,
what are you.
>> Yeah, that's that's it for
staff. Really. I'm on my my
last slide. Just to say overall
we recommend approval subject
to the conditions of approval
identified in the revised staff
report or exhibit 102 in the
record. And that's the end of
my presentation. So I'll remain
available for any questions and
I'll have the plan up.
>> Okay. Thanks. I don't know
that I have any particular
questions for Alistair this
time. The questions I have, I
think, are for Mr. Caudill on
concurrency. And these
questions come up about from
public comments about the
concurrency analysis,
particularly from comments from
Erica Frazier and Heidi Posel.
So I think those are Craig
Caudill issues.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Let's hear from
concurrency.
>> Yes, sir. So I was not able
to review all of the public
testimony for this one. So is
there a particular question
that.
>> Yeah. So the comments I see
are very similar to those that
were addressed by the county in
hearings, examiner in, I think,
174th Avenue subdivision that
just just got appealed to
Superior Court. And either you
or Mr. Jardine took the
laboring or on the county's
part to respond to these
identical questions about
interpretation of the code
concurrency requirements as
they pertain to street segments
and the maximum allowable
volumes. And since this exceeds
the the codes volume to
capacity limit for what is it?
>> 0.9? Yeah.
>> So nine on is it 119th.
>> And 119th and northeast 99th
Street. And they're both from
SR 503 to northeast 124th
Avenue.
>> Yeah.
>> So so concurrency in the
Clark County code. 40.3 5020G1A
that is considered the
prescriptive method for
analyzing volume to capacity.
And obviously, in plain English,
it states that the volume
capacity ratio needs to be less
than 0.9. This. This method is
based on a fixed single
direction capacity per hour for
each direction of travel, and
the. And it's outlined in table
40.35020-1. And it's based on,
you know, the classification of
the roadway. So one thing to
keep in mind is the concurrency
code also states in Clark
County, code 40 .350020 in the
F section that the operating
level for a transportation
corridor shall be defined as
the traffic characteristics of
those roadways and
intersections with. Considering
the following factors and f
nine. Allows any other factors
that the Public Works Director
has determined could have an
impact on the operating level
of the transportation corridors
or intersections. So these
corridors don't necessarily
meet the prescriptive method,
but there are other factors
that.
>> Clearly they clearly don't.
I think that's fair to say.
They clearly don't know.
>> And so another thing to
consider with the failing
volume to capacity ratio is if
you look at the background
volume to capacity ratio, if
this development weren't to be
developed in the. In the build
out year, the background
information.
>> Even without this
development, the volume to
capacity.
>> Without this development, if
I don't have those numbers
right off the top of my head,
but I know it's under 0.9, I
think it's around 0.6 somewhere
around there for northeast 99th
Street and northeast 119th
Street in the eastbound and
westbound direction. But for
the background conditions for
northeast 119th Street, there,
they would be at 1.09 using the
prescriptive method, right, for
the build out year, they're at
1.10. So to me, the way I'm
interpreting that is volume.
Capacity ratio, regardless of
this development, will still be
over 0.9 using the prescriptive
method. But the prescriptive
method isn't including factors
like lane width, the presence
or absence of shoulders, heavy
vehicle volumes, roadway grades,
certain factors that the
Highway capacity manual does
take into consideration when
calculating volume to capacity
ratio.
>> So so those those, those
because I, I look at the code
and f sub nine was it f f sub
nine. Any other factors that
the Public Works director has
determined could have an impact
on the operating level of the
transportation corridors and
intersections is extremely
nonspecific. But you say there
are specific factors in the is
it the trip generation manual?
>> There are not the trip. Well,
there may be, but not the
factors that I'm referring to
come from the highway capacity
manual.
>> Okay, that. So I'm unaware
of that. So go ahead.
>> So I'm I'm not extremely
familiar with all of the
factors, but some of the
factors are lane width,
presence or absence of
shoulders. And these factors
all need to be considered with
these corridors or any other
corridors, as well as the
intersections that bound these
corridors. Because if the
intersections that bound the
corridors have acceptable level
of service in the build out
year, that would allow more
traffic to flow through and
real, you know, looking at this
from real world scenario would
allow more capacity through,
even if the concurrency code
says 1800 is the limit, or in
this case, 900. 900 would be
the limit.
>> So this is am I correct?
This is this whole issue is a
corridor, a street segment
capacity issue. It's not an
intersection capacity. That's
that's inadequate.
>> Yes. That is correct.
>> Okay. Because I'm I'm used
to seeing intersections that
are that don't meet the
capacity requirements. And this
is kind of maybe the first
street segment.
>> Yeah. And northeast, the
intersection of northeast 119th
Street and northeast 132nd
Avenue did not meet concurrency
code requirements. So they are
volunteering mitigation, right?
Intersection, but every other
intersection that was analyzed
meets the concurrency code
requirements.
>> Okay. I guess, I mean, I the,
the opponents here, Miss
Frazier and Miss Poso submitted.
A lot of the documents out of
the 174th Street subdivision.
And there were a number of
pithy staff memos that I didn't
I didn't read them in detail,
but may address what you've
just attested to. And it
strikes me that this record
needs that kind of staff
response focused, detailed
staff response to these issues.
Because, quite frankly, the
just looking at the issues as
they're raised and looking at
the code provisions implicated
and looking at the. The, you
know, what, how much discretion
staff has. And then the
underlying purpose behind
concurrency, which comes out of
the Growth Management Act and
is expressed in the
administrative code. I think
their points are valid. So I
would really like to see this
kind of response in writing in
this record. Is that possible?
>> Yeah, yeah that's possible.
I would just need a little more
time to review all of the
written testimony.
Unfortunately. There's a lot to
review it all.
>> There's a ton of public
comments here, but a couple of
them are extremely focused. So
let's see. Miss Frazier's
Exhibit 89. Miss Pozo's,
exhibit 64, and I think also
there's another one here. Where
is it? Mr. Thalberg's comments.
Exhibit 62. I think that that
in in my view, captures the
issue. And Miss Pozo submitted
all the stuff out of the 174th
174th Street subdivision is now
in the record here. So.
>> Okay, I will review all of
those exhibits.
>> Okay. Because I'm not sure,
you know, based on the record
as it currently exists. I, I'm,
I am doubtful that I could rule
the same way that Mr. Turner
ruled on 174th Street
subdivision. So he had the
benefit of your focused of
concurrences focused response
to these issues. Okay. I think
that's it for. Unless there's
anything else that anyone on
the staff side wants to submit,
I'm ready to turn it over to
the applicants presentation.
Does it seem right? Okay,
applicant go ahead. You're up.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Can you hear
me?
>> Yes.
>> Hi. My name is Dave Weston,
land use planner with ACS
engineering. And I'm here on
behalf of the applicant. First,
I'd like to thank staff for all
their time and effort that they
put into reviewing this
application. It is appreciated.
We'd like to state that we
support staff's revised staff
report, which is exhibit 102,
with the following correction,
which was originally addressed
in exhibit 90 but was not
updated in the revised staff
report. Exhibit 102 since the
new revised staff report added
some pages, the requested
change is now on page one or
page 32. Finding for. It's the
second paragraph and I believe
it's just a scrivener's error
where they list that they
evaluated right and left turn
lanes on northeast 107th Street,
and we believe that actually
should be northeast 109th
Street, which is the street
that cuts through the center of
our site.
>> So that's page 31.
>> I think. Marion.
>> Hang on one second, I'm
getting there.
>> That would be.
>> Transportation finding for.
>> 32 finding for turn lane
warrants.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Ninth Street.
>> I see you see on page 32 of
56 finding for turn lane
warrants. Are you still not
finding it? Mr.
>> I got it, I got.
>> It, I think. Okay, yeah,
part of it is I, I have part of
the old pagination. So, so this
is on page 32.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Got it.
>> And then the last thing I
wanted to discuss was the
question on which tracks were
including the oaks that were
being preserved. And then in
addition, mitigation and
enhancement, those are tracks B
as in boy, C as in Cat, F as in
foot. H is in hand, and G.
>> Those are the oak tracks.
>> That. That is correct. Some
of those have additional items
in them, like wetlands and
buffers. But yes, those are
being retained in those tracks.
And now I will hand it off to
Mr. Steve Morasch.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Good evening, Mr. Examiner.
Steve Morasch with Lande 805
Broadway, Vancouver,
representing the property owner.
And I just briefly wanted to
address the concurrency issue
that's been raised, the 9/10
volume to capacity, and I was
the one who litigated the 174th
Street subdivision on behalf of
the applicant. In that case, in
front of Mr. Turner. And
initially, Mr. Turner was quite
skeptical about, you know, how
could a development be approved
if the volume capacity is
already over 0.9 tenths with
existing plus background,
before we even add the new
traffic from the development?
Ultimately, as you can see in
the decision, Mr. Turner
ultimately agreed with staff's
interpretation of the code, and
I hope staff in this case does
produce more detailed
memorandum. As the examiner has
requested. I would support that.
I also wanted to talk about a
couple of other legal arguments
that that are not discussed in
Mr. Turner's decision. Now, now,
I understand you know that, Mr.
Tanner, you're not bound by Mr.
Turner's decision, but but I
think the reasoning is
persuasive. So that's why we
submitted it in the record. But
in addition to the in addition
to the the interpretation Mr.
Turner made, we made a couple
of other arguments that he
didn't address because he
didn't have to address them,
because he interpreted the code
just based on the language of
the code, which I believe he's
correct. But but just so that
you have the full picture, we
made two other arguments and
and they're both based on the
Growth Management Act and
different provisions. And the
county's code has to be
consistent with the Growth
Management Act. It's it's sort
of like the Constitution for
the county's code. And in
constitutional law, there's
this rule that, you know, if
there's two possible
interpretations of a of a
statute or a code, one of which
is constitutional and one of
which isn't, then, you know,
you got to pick the
constitutional interpretation,
not the unconstitutional. In
here. There's two provisions of
the Growth Management Act that
would be violated if the county
interpreted the 9/10 volume
capacity to be an absolute
requirement that, you know, if
it's not met, requires denial,
regardless of what the county
says under subsection F, which
I think is the interpretation
that the project opponents are
advocating. The first is the
concurrency statute itself in
3678, 070, the statute that
establishes concurrency has a
sentence in there that says
that you're supposed to provide
the applicant the ability to
mitigate. If there's a
concurrency problem and a
strict reading of three of
435020GA wouldn't allow any
opportunity for the applicant
to mitigate. Because if you
look at that section, it says
capacity is based on the table,
and the table says, here's your
capacity based on the
functional classification. So
it doesn't matter what the
applicant builds, the road will
still have the same functional
classification, even if the
applicant adds additional turn
lanes or excuse me, additional
travel lanes to the roads,
which wouldn't you know, that
would be disproportional. But
even if they did, it would
still the capacity would still
be based on the table and it
wouldn't increase. So there's
no opportunity for mitigation
under the project opponents
interpretation of the code. So
that would violate subsection
070 of the Growth Management
Act. Concurrency statute itself.
There's a second Growth
Management Act problem. And
that is s rc W 3673 90 which is
the moratorium statute. The
moratorium statute says that if
the county wants to adopt a
moratorium, they've got to have
a public hearing on it within
so many days, they can only
adopt a moratorium. That goes
for six months. They have to
have a work program. They could
renew it after six months. And,
you know, of course, the county
hasn't done any of that here
because the county's
interpretation is that they can
look at the actual way the road
is functioning under subsection
F, look at the highway capacity
manual, and determine that the
road's actually functioning
adequately, despite exceeding
the 9/10. But if you follow the
project.
>> Mr. Morasch so if I were to
deny this proposal, is that a
moratorium.
>> I believe it would be. And
the reason is, if you look at
exhibit 65. Well, part of it is
you should deny the other
applications in front of you
today as well, because they all
send traffic to a road that is
already exceeding 9/10. If you
look at exhibit 65, which the
project opponents submitted
into the record, it's a memo
produced by Daniel Stumpf, a
licensed traffic engineer with
PLS, and he shows all of the
corridors in the county that
currently do not meet 9/10
volume capacity based on
existing plus background
traffic. And there's a lot of
them. I believe it's going from
memory here, but 99th Street
1/19, 1/39, 1/79 SR 503 and the
Patent Parkway all fail.
Significant portions of them
fail. And so theoretically,
subdivisions within 1 or 2
miles of those corridors should
be denied. If you apply this
9/10 rule consistently across
all applications, because
they're all sent traffic to
those corridors. And so then,
yes, it would be a moratorium
on a huge part of the county,
maybe not all of it, but a huge
part of it would be stuck in de
facto moratorium if, if the
9/10 volume capacity rule is
applied as an absolute
threshold, and if that is
applied consistently to all
applicants across the county,
the result would be a de facto
moratorium, as shown in exhibit
65. And so then our argument is
that would also violate the the
Growth Management Act. And so
those were the two points I
wanted to make in addition to.
Then those are both in addition
to the reasoning that Mr.
Turner put in his decision. Now,
he didn't need to reach those
issues because Mr. Turner found,
just based on his
interpretation of the code,
that the application could be
approved because county met the
subsection F factors, and that
that superseded the 9/10
problem in subsection G. And so,
you know, you don't need to
reach these other two issues
unless you disagree with Mr.
Turner's interpretation.
>> His decision doesn't have a
whole lot of analysis on it.
Basically, you know, finds that
based on these the exhibits in
the record, he goes with
staff's recommendation. He
doesn't really provide an
analysis of it. And so I so I
have to look at the, you know,
what were the memoranda? What
evidence did he see in his
record that he got to basic.
Yes. So that's why I need to
see that in my record.
>> And we can add those
memorandums to the record. But
I would hope that the county
staff would put their own, you
know, work for this subdivision
because you were dealing with a
different road. Right. But, you
know, in a nutshell, I think,
you know, what, what the county
said and the other record and
sort of in plain English was,
you know, the corridors are
functioning adequately, the
intersections are functioning
adequately. So the traffic is
flowing. And because the
traffic is flowing, you're
showing a higher than 0.9
tenths volume capacity on the
corridor. But because the
corridors are adequately built
and the intersections are all
flowing, there's no problem.
The traffic is, you know, it's
moving, it's not backed up. And
therefore the corridors are
functioning adequately, despite
the fact that they're exceeding
this artificial 9/10 threshold,
in a nutshell, is, I think,
what they found in the in the
other case, in their memorandum
and their memorandum looked at
the highway capacity manual and
these same sort of things that
Mr. Kaplan was talking cattle
was talking about.
>> And I guess what I'm looking
for is he referenced the
highway capacity manual that
was that was new to me, but
also what I look for from
professional transportation
engineers is a professional
opinion. And that kind of catch
all exception in f nine. It
just it's just so like open
ended so that it's almost an
exception that consumes the
Reule. And so it warrants a
professional opinion about
really why under the
circumstances of this
particular road segment, these
other factors are X, Y, and Z.
And in my professional opinion,
the the road functions
adequately despite the volume
to capacity problem that that
sort of thing. And you're right,
it has to be kind of road
segment specific in order for
it to be, you know, relevant
and probative, credible
evidence in this record about
this proposal and these roads.
>> Yeah. And I would hope that
the county would be able to
provide that during the open
record period.
>> Yeah, yeah. Because the I
think the opponents have
briefed the issue extremely
well. They've they've canvased
the landscape on this issue.
They've really focused in on it.
And that's that's what I rarely
see in these in opponent
testimony, in these
developments. And so it really
caught my attention.
>> Yeah. I think this is an
issue that has been sort of
hiding in the weeds for a long
time, because these are not new
code provisions, but it's just
no one's ever raised it before
until the 174th Street
subdivision. Well, because it's
been it's it's been a long time
that, that, that many of these
roads have already exceeded
this standard with background
traffic.
>> Right. They're getting up
there and it, it harkens back
to the pipeline projects that
that was a major showstopper.
It wasn't a street segment
deficiency, but it was a
showstopper for a large number
of projects that were forced to
stall and communicate and come
up with a comprehensive
mitigation plan for this, this
deficiency that stopped them
all. So I don't know that we're
there yet. And this would seem
like.
>> All development in the
county. I mean.
>> It could yeah. The
implication of this is pretty
broad. If if if what the
opponents are saying is true,
where would this end? There are
a lot of street segments in
this category.
>> Yeah. They're shown in
exhibit 65.
>> Yeah. Okay. What else?
>> I think that's all I have
unless there's questions and
we'll save time for rebuttal.
We do have our traffic engineer
here who can testify and answer
questions if needed.
>> I don't know that. And we
did.
>> We did submit a recent
exhibit that addressed a number
of the comments in writing, I
think that was submitted
yesterday.
>> I did see that. 107 yeah.
Yeah. No, I think that that
that is seems like a sufficient
response from the applicant's
transportation engineer, but I
think I and the opponents, they
really want to hear from the
county's concurrency engineers.
>> Yeah, I agree.
>> Okay.
>> We would like to also thank
you.
>> I think is that it from the
applicant side for the moment?
>> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thanks. Anyone out
there wish to testify in favor
of this project or in a neutral
capacity? Raise your hand.
Anyone?
>> Richard. Not seeing any of
those? No hands right now.
>> Okay. Opposition. Who would
like to testify in opposition
to this project?
>> We have the. If I think it's
the Mashayla. I'm not sure if
I'm pronouncing that right.
>> Okay. Why don't you unmute
them in order and we'll we'll
we'll start.
>> And it's just one group.
Yeah, it looks like there
lights green or getting green.
>> Can you hear me?
>> I hear you, yeah.
>> I can hear you. It sounds
kind of weird. Keep talking.
>> Can you hear me now? Okay,
let me try one more thing.
>> Go ahead. Try again. It
sounds like you're, like,
talking through a long section
of pipe.
>> Can you hear me now?
>> Oh, much better, much better.
Go ahead, go ahead, introduce
yourself.
>> Good evening. My name is
Aria Miranda Johnson. I
recently last excuse me. I
recently just got married and
changed my last name to Michaud.
I am a party of the record.
>> You to spell your first name.
It's a little tricky one.
>> Yeah, it's a RIA. And my
last name, MICHAUD.
>> Okay. Got it.
>> I am a part of the record. I
live directly adjacent to the
proposed Heartwood phase three
development in the Plateau
Manor neighborhood. If you go
down to the second part of the
development, I think it's the
next page. My home is lot eight.
It's directly behind proposed
lot 90. I have three concerns
that I wanted to highlight
tonight that I did briefly
address and exhibit 17, which
are the changed hydraulic
conditions, the protected
habitat and the archeological
resources. The biggest concern
that I have is the hydrology. I
previously submitted detailed
written comments and
photographic evidence that is
in exhibit 17. So I'm not going
to repeat all of that evidence
tonight, but I do want to
direct you to the before and
after photographs showing
standing water and draining
immediately behind Plateau
Manor and proposed lots 82
through 98. Those photographs
document conditions after phase
one grading, drainage and
street infrastructure were
completed. My concern is pretty
straightforward that the
hydrology information relied
upon for phase three predates
the documented changes to the
water flows that have taken
place after phase one
development began. Keesee 43,
excuse me, 40 .386 requires
compliance with county
stormwater requirements, and I
asked that the phase one
hydrology studies, if they
adequately demonstrate
compliance for phase three area
when the physical drainage
conditions have since
materially changed since phase
one even began. This is
particularly important for
proposed lots 82 through 98,
which border the affected area
and could put the existing
homes, including mine, at
further risk of flooding. I
asked that those lots not be
approved as currently proposed
until current wet weather
conditions are evaluated, and
that all the existing
vegetation in that area be
preserved. In the meantime, I
know I'm running out of time,
so I just want to also address
the habitat. I know we talked a
lot about that since I
submitted exhibit 17, The bald,
we have documented a bald eagle
in the area using the protected
excuse me, the habitat, the
Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act protects bald
eagles from prohibited
disturbance, and I don't see
that that's been addressed in
any of the reports. I also
don't see that there's been any
addressed comments of how the
74 Oregon White Oaks that are
being proposed to be removed,
how it addresses the currently
endangered species, the western
gray squirrel that is native to
Washington. I therefore ask
that the examiner determine
whether proposed mitigation
actually counts for these
habitat functions. And I'm out
of time, so I will leave it
there and provide additional
written testimony.
>> Okay. Thank you ma'am.
>> Okay. Next up is Heidi.
Heidi, I just sent a request to
unmute you. You should be able
to.
>> Thank you. And thank you,
Mr. Examiner. I just have one
request. I appreciate your
questions. On the concurrency
topic, when staff submit the
further analysis, I hope you
give us time as the public to
take a look at it before the
record closes so we.
>> Can I will you you heard the
last case that it's fairly
complicated when we leave the
record open, just to provide
that kind of back and forth. So
for sure that will happen.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. And I see you have
quite a few exhibits in the
record. So I think your issues
are pretty well covered. But as
they say, keep those cards and
letters coming because there
should be more in the record
before this show is over.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Who else?
>> I'm not seeing anybody else
raising their hand.
>> Okay.
>> Nope.
>> Okay. I guess we're back to
applicant's rebuttal. And maybe
Mr. Morasch, if you're going to
take the lead on that, we
should talk about the open
record period. And I don't
think there's anything that
you've suggested you need to
submit in the open record
period, but why don't you kind
of get started and let's hear
what you have to say.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
Steve Morasch again, I have
very brief. All I want to do is
point out that our traffic
engineer's report is in the
record as exhibit one, Tab 13,
and this issue of volume
capacity was addressed in our
traffic report on page 30. And
I just I'm just want to read
two sentences from that report.
And the report is in the record.
So anybody can go refer to it.
But at kind of in the middle of
page 30, it says the
overcapacity volume capacity
ratio does not represent a
roadway deficiency. Rather
corridor mobility facilitated
with acceptable signalized
intersection loss. The 99th
Street corridor segment appears
to be constructed to its
planned ultimate three lane
configuration, and it is
unclear what, if any,
additional capacity can be
provided along the corridor. So
I just wanted to get that in
the record, and we would still
like to have a more detailed
response from the county
engineer, but our traffic
engineer has responded to the
issue in the initial report,
and I believe that we have a
couple people here from ACS and
LS who want to address the
hydrology issue briefly. Before
we close for tonight and talk
about how long of an open
record period.
>> Okay, good. Go ahead.
>> Mr. examiner, this is
Francis Naglik of biologist
with Ecological Land Services.
We performed all the biological
studies on the site for
critical areas, including
wetlands, streams. There's not
none except there are ditches.
And there's also oak habitat.
As you know, the referenced
flooding in the ditches. The
times we've been out there, we
did not see that. But we do
know that there have been at
times downstream or down ditch
flows off this property.
They're not on this property
where there was plugs from
beaver dams that may have
backed water into those ditches.
I believe the beaver dams have
subsequently been removed. The
ditching district has that
under control, and that should
not be an ongoing issue in the
future. ACS is here. The
engineer. If we need to address
stormwater and the way water
flows on and off the site. So I
think that's our answer to that.
The sighting of a bald eagle is
not surprising. The eagle can
can use this area, but we have
no knowledge of a nest site for
bald eagle on there. And we had
fish and wildlife out there in
the county. So no, no critical
habitat for bald eagle that
we're that we're aware of. And
right now they are not
currently listed by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Finally,
Oregon White Oak, we have a
very robust mitigation plan for
that. As as you are well aware,
and we feel like our mitigation
plan stands behind that. Thank
you.
>> What about the squirrel?
That's the first time I've
heard the Western gray squirrel
mentioned. Is that was the
squirrel on your radar screen?
>> Well, the squirrel is on
everybody's radar screen.
Unfortunately, it's not here in
Western Washington because it's
been pushed out by the eastern
gray squirrel. But the
potential for some day, the
Western gray squirrel will
return to western Washington
with oak trees remaining, which
we're doing and keeping the
habitat available for them when
and if they are able to fight
their way back into existence.
In the western side of the
mountains.
>> I have a lot of eastern gray
squirrels in my yard, so I. I
await that reversal of fortunes.
Okay. Okay, I think that's it.
That makes sense. So it's time
to talk about the open record.
And I didn't hear that the
applicant wants to submit
anything during the open record
period. So I think it's just
just staff. So Mr. Caudle I
think that's that would be you.
>> Yeah. Can I request up to
three weeks during the open
record period for review of all
the public comments and to get
a response.
>> Okay. So that takes us to
the 1st of October. That's
three weeks out. One, two,
three. Yeah, 1st of October.
And for you to submit your
materials and I assume they'll,
it'll be as thorough a response
as was submitted to the 174th
Street Subdivision record. The
the applicant and the public
have a chance then to respond
to that. So I would. I guess
Miss Pozzo is there, but I was
thinking one week or two weeks
to respond to whatever staff
produces on October 1st. Miss
Pozzo, are you there? I wonder
if you could, Richard, if you
could unmute her microphone
just to see. How much.
>> Time should be able to talk
now?
>> Yeah. I'm here. That's fine
with me. There are other people
who have submitted comments, so
I can't.
>> Erika Frazier also hit hit
the issue to.
>> And I can't answer for her.
But okay, one week is
sufficient for me. I think, you
know, it's up to you on what
you want to grant for everyone
else.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Fair enough. Let's see just
one second here. Okay, so how
about this? And I guess let me
shoot it back to you. Mr.
Morasch staff needs three weeks.
That takes us to October 1st.
Miss Pozzo said she could see
what's. I don't think it would
be a big surprise what his
staff may submit on this in. In
terms of analysis, it should be
similar to what she saw in
174th Street. She asked for a
week, which gets us to October
8th, and then you as the
applicant, you have the right
of final rebuttal. I think,
after that.
>> So yeah, one week. Is yeah,
that sounds fine. One week for
final rebuttal, we we may
submit our rebuttal early and
waive the remainder of the one
week period just to get it to
you quicker. But at this point,
I think I'd like the one week
rebuttal to submit my legal
arguments.
>> Okay. That gets to 17th of
no it doesn't. It's the 15th of
October. Okay. That's what I'm
going to do. Staff three weeks.
You've heard the discussion
tonight in terms of more detail
on the concurrency
recommendation here. You have
three weeks to do that. Takes
it to October 1st. The the
applicant and the general
public have a week to review
and respond to that. That's
October 8th. And then the
applicant gets final rebuttal
until October 15th unless
waived and the record closes
earlier. So does that make
sense? Is that okay with
everybody. Any objections? Okay.
>> That works for us.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, okay. That's what
we'll do. We wait. Further info
on this case. I will conclude
the hearing on this item now
and keep the record open
according to that schedule.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. That is it for
that one. We roll into Arden
Estates, a cluster subdivision.
Yes.
>> Which is also mine.
>> On an old zone. EAG ten. We
don't get too many g ten
subdivisions these days.
>> Hopefully this is our last
one.
>> I was wondering because.
>> I think it is. I think it is.
>> A few of these.
>> Yeah.
>> I think we should ask Mr.
Sterling since he seems to have
all these. Kind of built a
cottage industry on these
things.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Whenever you're ready.
>> All right. Good evening, Mr.
Examiner. County staff and the
general public. For the record,
my name is Mary Ann Bateman.
I'm a land use planner with
Clark County Community
Development. And my second case
before you tonight is the Arden
L Estates Cluster subdivision.
So for this development, the
applicant is proposing to
divide one parcel containing
approximately 70 acres into
seven residential cluster lots
and an eighth non buildable
remainder lot containing 61.7
acres. The site is currently
zoned AG 20. However, the
application, as was just
mentioned, is Contingently
vested to the AG ten standards
that were in effect at the time
that this application was
originally submitted. The
property owner is listed as
Darryl Jermann. The applicant
is Sterling Design and the
contact person is Joel Sterling,
and the site is located at
17802 North East 88th Street in
Vancouver, Washington. All
right, so as I mentioned, my
name is Mary Bateman. I was the
review planner for this project.
The review engineer was
Alistair Dawson. The review
biologist was Lance Watt. And
Jason Noble reviewed the
application for fire safety.
And then Craig Caudill was the
transportation concurrency
reviewer. All right. So for the
outline for tonight, I will
provide an overview. First of
the proposal, go over any
outstanding issues, and then we
will make our recommendation to
the examiner. So here's the
vicinity map. The subject site
is shown by the black dot. The
site lies on the north side of
north east 88th Street, about
700ft east of northeast Ward
road, and you can see Shanghai
Creek there shown to the
northeast of the black dot.
That's the north end of the
parcel there with the creek
located on it. You'll see that
in a little better in one of
the next slides. So here's the
zoning map again. The site is
currently located in the AG 20
zoning, but it's vested to the
AG ten standards that were in
effect when it was submitted.
So at that time it was AG ten
zoning for the site and for
those parcels to the north,
east and west and to the south
was and still is single family
residential zoning. And here's
an aerial view. So the site is
currently developed with two
single family residences. There
are several barns and accessory
structures, all currently
contained within the southwest
corner of the site. The
applicants proposing to remove
all of the existing structures
with this development. And as
you can see, the site is mostly
covered in grasses. You can see
again, you know where the creek
is on the north end of the
parcel there where the the
green vegetation follows the
water line. And so here is the
proposed preliminary plat. This
is in the record.
>> As question. This doesn't
have a forestry permit
associated with it because I
noticed a lack of trees.
>> Correct. There's no forestry
application. Okay. Got it. All
right. So yeah. So this
proposed plan is in the record
as exhibit 45. This is sheet
four of nine. So as I mentioned,
the applicant's requesting
approval to divide about 70
acres into seven developable
cluster lots ranging in size
from 1.1 to 1.6 acres. And then
a non buildable remainder lot
of approximately 61.7 acres, or
88% of the total site. The
large remainder lot contains
the on site critical areas
associated with fifth Plane
Creek and Shanghai Creek. And
so. So it's proposed to be kept
in a natural state and retained
as open space with a
conservation covenant.
>> So the the current plan is
exhibit 45. Do I have that
right?
>> Yes. Correct. And then this
next slide here is just an
enlarged view of the proposed
cluster. Lots. Lots one through
seven. So the applicant's
proposing a 20 foot wide
private road within a 30 foot
wide private access and
utilities easement to serve all
seven lots. The proposed
cluster lots include building
envelopes, which avoid all
critical areas, and those do
meet the minimum setbacks for
cluster developments. The
applicants, also proposing a
six foot high vegetated
vegetative buffer, which is
required to be at least 50%
opaque year round within the
first three years of planting.
So this buffer is proposed
along the south perimeter of
the cluster lots, where they
will but 88th Street, and then
also along the west where they
will abut the neighboring
parcel. So this meets the
minimum landscaping standards
for cluster lots. No concerns
there. So I will show some site
photos next. Okay, so here I'm
standing near the middle of the
site's frontage on northeast
88th Street, looking northeast
towards the site. There's the
development sign and you can
see one of the existing
residences right there from the
street to. And here I walked a
bit further west along north
east 88th Street. So I'm at the
southwest corner of the site,
looking northeast towards the
site. You can see the existing
trees along the roadway there,
which is where that landscaping
buffer will be placed along the
street. And then here's a
similar view just closer in.
Again, you know, that
landscaping buffer will extend
along this west property line
along the length of the
proposed cluster lots. And you
can see the existing structures
back there as well. And so here
I'm standing at the southeast
corner of the site. So I'm
standing at the northeast 88th
Street and northeast 1/82
Avenue intersection, looking
northwest towards the site.
That's northeast 88th Street
there on the left, and then
1/82 Avenue on the right, which
is a private gravel road. And
then another one just zoomed in
a bit from that same spot with
northeast 82nd Avenue on the
right. So here we're looking at
what will be the southeast
corner of the remainder parcel,
which will of course extends
back further north away from
88th Street. And that is it for
site photos. So I will go over
the staff report and
recommendation and project
timeline. So this application
was originally submitted back
in 2017 under our old system,
but it had been placed on hold
for critical area issues as my
understanding. And so it stayed
on hold until we migrated it
over to our new system in LMS
and got the documents all
carried over to resume staff's
review. But because it had
stayed on hold for so long and
we had, you know, a whole thing
once we got the new submittal
uploaded and ready to review in
the new system, we treated
March 18th, 2025 as the date
the application became fully
complete so that we could route
it for review and start the
county's timeline. So March
18th being the new quote
unquote fully complete date or
our new routing date for for
the timeline sake. So from
there, the notice of
development application was
issued on April 3rd, 2025, and
the project was then placed on
hold. And so a notice of
canceled hearing was issued
April 30th. A notice of hearing
date change was issued on
August 26th, 2026. For this
hearing date and staff's
recommendation to the examiner
was issued on August 26th, 2026,
and this is exhibit 62 in the
record. And then the
development engineering
findings. So the transportation,
on site transportation and the
stormwater and erosion control
findings were issued two days
later. So on August 28th, 2026.
So that's exhibit 64 in the
record. So for project issues
for this one, the issue really
comes down to the poor soils
issue mentioned in the staff
report. So under Clark County
code 4210.010 dot E4B6, and
this is from the AG ten
standards. Yes. It states that
cluster lots shall be created
as follows. If located on
agriculturally zoned land and
to the extent not precluded by
other provisions of this
subsection to be limited to
lands with poor soils or soils
otherwise unsuitable for
agricultural purposes. There
was a previous AG ten cluster
proposal that had been denied
by the county because of the
poor soils issue. This was
Mountain Estates cluster
subdivision, so Pldi 20,
2017-00046. This is in the
record as exhibit 61. It raised
issues such as how to define
poor soils because it's not
exactly clarified in our code.
Another issue is, you know, to
what degree can poor soils be
located on the cluster lots.
Because again, that's not
really the code does not really
give us more specific standards
by which to apply the poor
soils requirements. So the
denial for Mountain estates
cluster subdivision was then
overturned by Superior Court.
And this is in the record as
exhibit 65. So I'm kind of
breezing over this a little bit,
just because I'd like to let
the applicant have the floor to
discuss the issue, especially
since they were the developer
for Mountain Estates Cluster
subdivision and are familiar
with the poor soils issue and
how it relates specifically to
this site. But basically,
staff's takeaway was that, you
know, the issue of poor soils
should not necessarily be cause
to deny the application,
considering all other cluster
standards are met. And in the
case of the Mountain Estates
cluster subdivision, it had
been found that the existence
existence of poor soils was not,
you know, reason enough on its
own to to deny the application.
So with that, staff recommends
that this application be
approved subject to conditions
of approval identified in the
staff report, which is in the
record as exhibit 62 and 64.
And that concludes my
presentation.
>> So one one quick question. I
have I think it's for. Mr. What
about this farm plan? I don't
think I've run across a farm
plan before. Is that is that in
your wheelhouse? Mr. What?
>> That's actually for the
cluster standards. There are
some exhibits in there where he
was. We were going back and
forth on that farm plan, and it
because it it relates to the
remainder parcel being
completely considered critical
areas, the entire remainder
parcel.
>> I guess I've never seen a
farm plan before. And I see
this back and forth. And so
it's a farm plan at issue here.
>> It's not an issue. It's
required from the ag cluster
standards. Basically. You know,
as long as the proposed use of
the remainder parcel is made
clear, there are original farm
plan had, I think, a note that
made it a little ambiguous as
far as what exactly is it going
to be used for? And I believe
that was the biologists issue
of. As long as it's very clear
that this entire remainder
parcel is going to be
considered critical areas and
preserved, okay, then we were
okay with it.
>> Hopefully it's a non farm
plan, correct?
>> Yes, yes.
>> It turned into all right.
>> I saw this kind of like it
seemed like you were, you
weren't expecting it. And I saw
this comments back and forth.
So it, it turned out to be a
simple a non issue as I had
hoped. Okay, let let's let's
hear from the applicant. Mr.
Sterling it's been it's been
since mountain estates since
you and I have have seen each
other and apparently a lot has
happened. So why don't you
bring me current.
>> For the record, my name is
Joel Sterling. My last name
spelled STIRLING, unlike my
company name, which is STERLING.
>> I don't understand why you
keep misspelling that company
name.
>> Yes, yes, we've dealt with
that for how many years now?
>> And you have a few more
years yet to deal with that?
>> Yes I do, for the record, my
address is 2208 East Evergreen
Boulevard. I am a registered
engineer licensed in Washington,
and I'm also the owner of
Sterling Design Incorporated. I
represent the owner, Darrell
Germain, on the property. This
project has been in the works
since really 2026. So we're
going on ten years. Your
comment of holding these
projects and having some sort
of cottage cottage industry? I
don't recommend holding a
project ten years. You really
you kind of lose the financial
edge after, you know, 4 or 5
years. So yeah.
>> No wine before its time.
>> Yes, yes.
>> I'm glad to see these AG ten
projects finishing up. And it
has been interesting from the
legal side how the Mountain
Estates project ended up. So
I've learned a lot. I will say
for the record, I'm not an
attorney. I don't interpret
legal documents. So I like to
propose the question if the
examiner is concerned about
legal record or legal arguments
beyond what was done in
mountain estates, because I
don't know how much you
reviewed the case after it was
denied. We certainly.
>> Not at all. You know, we we
never hear if our if our
opinions are ever appealed.
>> Okay, okay.
>> County prosecutor's office
does their thing. And so this
was news to me that it had been
appealed and overturned. And so
I'm glad that the Superior
Court final order is in the
record. And. I, I mean, I
haven't interpreted I haven't
really reviewed it. It's pretty
short and sweet, reviewed it in
detail in the context of the
analysis I had in, in Mountain
Estates case. So I, I, I can't
really say, but, you know, it's
very clear what the court said.
I guess for you, someone who's
planning these things and now
living with the mountain
Estates decision, how do you
interpret the poor soils
criteria? Like what do you feel
you have to to do in order to
meet that criterion in the code
that talks about, you know,
poor soils? So sub six.
>> It's a very challenging
issue, mainly because it was
not defined. There really was
no definition. There is a vague
map that you can look on the
GIS that shows Clark County,
and it basically shows all the
areas that they consider
suitable for agriculture. But
it's not anything that's
delineated on the ground. It's
just a 300 zero foot or ten
zero zero zero foot look down
at Clark County, and let's kind
of follow contours and and
subtract out creek corridors
and that sort of thing. So
there wasn't a lot of thought
put into that map. So it didn't
give us on the design side, a
whole lot of details to work
with. So in mountainous states,
I think I had written up, I did
research on soils and what it
took to grow crops, that type
of information. I tried to make
an argument that the soils on
the Mountain Estates project,
while you could farm them, they
did require a certain amount of
effort and fertilizer. So you
could argue that those soils
weren't prime soils. They were
just soils that worked. My
argument, of course, was not
not taken into account, because
it really came down to more of
a legal argument. The concept
of maintaining a large
remainder parcel and densifying
a small area, in my opinion,
meets the intent of what the AG
ten wanted and the AG 20. I
agree farms. In this case, I
mean, we you know, there are
cows out there, but we also
have a lot of critical areas.
So this project is a much
smaller version of Mountain
Estates.
>> We had a lot more lots at
like 45 lots in Mountain
estates.
>> Estates was 425 acres. So we
had 42 lots.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> I guess the thing, as I
recall, there was the active
farming aspect of it. And was
that encumbered with a lot of
critical areas?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, the whole notion of
cluster development makes
perfect sense as a great
mechanism to conserve land for
a variety of purposes for
critical area preservation or
for farmland preservation. But
this standard, if located on
agriculturally zoned land,
which it is, and to the extent
not precluded by other
provisions of this subsection,
to be limited to lands with
poor soils or soils otherwise
unsuitable of agriculture.
Purpose. So with my sense,
based on what the Superior
Court Judge said, that poor is
a very relative sort of term,
unsuitable for agriculture
purpose. I mean, the vast
majority of the site, 61 acres
is going to be preserved and it
won't be farmed because it's
for the preservation of
critical areas. So I don't know
what the soils are like. I
don't even recall there was
much detail in the soils and
mountain estates, but it was
good enough to farm here. It's
hay, which isn't like, you know,
that great necessarily. I mean,
it's grass is growing and
that's all you can say. So it
just tells me that this
criterion means, you know,
don't put the houses on high
value farmland.
>> Right.
>> And then what's left farm it
unless you you can't or there's
a more compelling reason to
preserve it from farming. So
it's sort of a do good and
avoid evil standard. Which land
use is full of.
>> Yeah, exactly. They to me,
it contradicted itself because,
you know, we can't build in the
critical areas and wetlands,
you could argue our poor soils.
So we're not if if we have to
put our houses in the wetland,
well, we can't do that because
it specifically has a code
reference saying we can't.
>> You can't. And there's a bad
that's a contrary to public
policy.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> Okay. I guess there's not
much more I need to know. I've
got the the Superior Court
opinion and it says what it
says. It may not have a whole
lot of a lot of analysis to it.
I think I can it tells me how
to interpret this six criterion.
And, you know, I read the staff
report here and staff says,
well, you can't you can't deny
this project because of the
sixth criterion. You can't
certainly not in this context,
not in given the facts of this
case, the reason for the
preservation of the vast
majority of the site as non
buildable. So that.
>> Yeah, and I.
>> I would argue that, you know,
there, there may be a situation
where that would be
significantly different than
the Mountain Estates project,
where you would have some, you
could say, well, it's not
really the same thing. So this
decision may not apply, but
this project Arundell, which
just as a side note, I, I
should have, I should have
called this out sooner. It's
Arundale, not Arden. Dale
Arundale is a castle in Disney.
And so.
>> The owner's.
>> Daughter picked the name. I.
You know what I, I, I thought
it was just email spelling
errors. I didn't realize it was
going to come out in the staff
report that way. So you don't
have to change it. But you know,
if.
>> It's well, what.
>> Should it be? Tell me again.
>> Arundell. RARENELLE. Somehow
the n in the e got swapped. I
think it was on an email trail,
so.
>> And this.
>> Is or isn't the Disney
castle?
>> It's the Disney castle. Yes,
that's the idea.
>> Okay.
>> The owner's daughter named
it. So if you look on my plan,
it's it's correct.
>> It's correct.
>> I like that name a lot
better than 174th Street
Subdivision or 39th Street
subdivision. I mean, that's so
lame. So you can tell your you
can tell your client and his
daughter that I like this name.
It's it's it's got something
going for it.
>> Yeah. And people will know
that in their future homes,
they're coming, coming home to
their castles.
>> There you go.
>> So anyway, what I was going
to say on a serious note,
though, if you would like more
legal interpretation, I did
start talk with Mr. Morasch. I
had some email correspondence
with him. I had not really
anticipated that this would be
an issue just because I thought,
okay, we've got precedents.
They're the same project, but
Miss Bateman sent me the email
I think this morning that, hey,
this might come up. And I was
thinking, oh, shoot, I didn't
really prepare anything or have
Mr. Morasch available.
>> No, that's that's okay. You
might. We have to leave the
record open for a week anyway.
Can you maybe get his brief to
the Superior Court and submit
that?
>> Okay. Yes, I can do that.
Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. I think anything else,
like how's the staff report
findings conditions.
>> Yes. Actually, I, I only
have a couple things here and,
and I, I wouldn't have caught
them just because they, other
than the testimony on the
earlier cases. And that is
dealing, if you look on page 22
of the staff report. And. 23 it
talks about the on site sewage
system prior to final
construction approval, and I
want to make sure that the
finding and the conditions are
saying construction, physical
approval, not construction plan
approval, because like Mr.
Taylor had testified earlier,
we don't want to take away the
water source, the well and the
septic before the construction
plans are approved. People are
going to live there until the
project is actually built. So.
If you want to look at. So
that's on page 22 finding two.
>> And is it is.
>> It okay the way it's worded?
You just want to clarify or.
>> I, I just want to say prior
to it, it should just be final
or construction acceptance
would be okay rather than
construction approval.
>> Okay. Acceptance.
>> Yeah. And then similarly on
finding four on page 23. Same
thing. It says a copy of the
decommissioning well log must
be submitted to the health
department prior to final
construction approval. I think
it would clarify it to say
acceptance. And if you go to
the corresponding conditions.
So condition A2 on page 25.
This is under the prior prior
to construction, a final
construction plan shall be
submitted and in condition A2,
A and B. I would say condition
A should say prior to final
construction approval, a water
plan shall be approved. I don't
think we need the. The wells to
be abandoned prior to
construction plan approval.
>> So leave the approval there.
But a water plan.
>> Yeah, I, I don't even know
if A2 is needed because if you
look on the the conditions on
page 29. D4 subsections G, H
and e, f, g, h o it looks like
it's supposed to be I. So we
have a copy of the
decommissioning. Well log must
be submitted to the public
health. So that's prior to
final plat and then location of
the decommissioned well must be
on the final plat. So it's
covered in the staff report. I
just think it does not need to
be in condition A2.
>> Okay. Miss Bateman, you want
to weigh in on that. Does this
make sense to you?
>> Yeah it does. So I entered
the public health review
evaluation letter pretty much
verbatim into the staff report.
So there is a a part in their
letter where they say prior to
final construction plan
approval, I believe I meant to
word it the same way they did,
but I will double check the the
letter from Public Health and
make sure that I'm wording it
the way they are. But to change
anything from their letter,
they would need to be okay with
the change to their verbiage.
So unless. Go ahead.
>> I think you're correct. I
think their letter says prior
to final construction approval,
but I think what they intend is
the actual on site work. It's
not prior to final construction
plan approval. And the problem
with conditions being in the A
section is that is at the
beginning of the A section, it
says prior to construction, a
final construction plan shall
be submitted. Consistent with
the following. And then it's
listed as condition A2.
>> Right. Because the A
conditions are final
construction. Plan.
>> Construction plan. Yeah. We
have to address those prior to
our plans being signed off.
>> Okay. Yeah I will look at it.
Definitely.
>> And so.
>> Would you be shooting for an
A two A prior to final
construction acceptance. The.
The OSS must be properly
abandoned.
>> If you just put acceptance
that that should clarify it
enough. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. I'd be.
>> Think about that. Let me
know during this one week open
record period.
>> Same with B. Subsection B
has construction approval. If
you did both of those approvals
and just put acceptance, I
believe that that clarifies it
for everybody. So the
discussion on the record now as
well.
>> Where was the other B? You
said it's a a two a and.
>> A two. B.
>> They both have the word
approval which should be
acceptance. Okay.
>> Yep. And other than that, I
had a couple phone calls from
the public asking about the
project and I was able to
discuss it with them. I don't
see anything in the exhibit
list of any outside interest,
so I have nothing else unless
you have questions for me.
>> No I don't, I think you've
got them covered. Okay. Thank
you. So let's just verify. Is
anyone, anyone online who wants
to testify in any capacity on
this proposal? Raise your hand.
Anyone? Richard.
>> Looks like we don't have
very many people left. No. Okay,
okay.
>> We're whittling down.
>> Okay, so let's leave the
record open for one week for
Mr. Sterling to submit Morasch
his brief to the Superior Court.
If you can get a hold of that,
get it in. And, Marion, if you
could just verify or, you know,
are you okay with those changes
to the findings and the
conditions, construction
acceptance. To clarify, it's
not at the plan review period.
Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. With that, we would
leave the record open on this
item until today is September
10th. We'll leave it open till
September 17th. And for anybody
out there in in Zoom land to
submit any relevant comment on
any subject, although the
issues that I just mentioned,
I'm expecting and no one else
has weighed in so far. So that
should close it on the 17th. If
some, like bombshell shows up
in the record that you need to
rebut Mr. Sterling, can you let
staff know that and we can keep
the record open an additional
week for you to do rebuttal.
Okay.
>> Yeah, obviously, if
something comes in that I'm not
aware of, I would I would want
to have a couple of weeks at
least to evaluate it and see
what it is. But yeah, at this.
>> Point, I'll tell you what,
let's let's just lock that in
right now. So anything from
anybody until the 17th of
October, of 17th of September.
And then you have final
rebuttal until the 24th, which
you can waive.
>> Yes, that sounds good.
>> Okay. And I don't know if
you were here when I said I'm
going out of town, I won't be
back till the 5th of October,
so I'll need a few extra weeks
to get this kicked out when I
get back. So I'd be looking at
getting it out. I can turn to
this right away that first week
I get back, but I need probably
till sometime the week of the
12th. But I can I can
prioritize this one since there
aren't a lot of tricky opponent
arguments in it.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> That's acceptable. Not a
problem at all.
>> Okay. Okay. With that, we
will keep the record open for
one week for everybody on
anything till September 17th.
And then final rebuttal until
the 24th, which can be waived.
And with that, I'll conclude
this item with that open record
schedule.
>> Thank you, thank.
>> You, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> That takes us to the last
item, Pleasant Wood North
Subdivision pl D2026-21.
>> Perfect. Thank you, Mr.
Examiner.
>> Hello.
>> Alrighty. Hopefully you can
see my screen.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Great.
>> Good evening, Mr. Examiner.
And to everyone who's still
attending tonight's hearing for
the record, my name is Wendy
Baird and I'm a land use
planner for Clark County. See?
The final application before us
this evening is a preliminary
land use approval for a type
three subdivision to divide
3.40 acres into 2829 lots to
construct single family
detached homes. The site is
located in the Roeun 7.5 zoning
District, and the proposals
utilize in the compact lot
development and narrow lot
development standards. The
project is located at 5319
northeast 1/29 circle,
Vancouver, Washington. The
applicant is Joel Hollingsworth
with Bridger Homes, and the
contact is Scott Taylor with
SGA engineering. As I said
earlier, I'm the review planner
for this proposal with.
Alistair Dawson is the review
engineer. Craig Cottle is the
concurrence engineer, and Jason
Noble is the fire marshal
review staff member. With me
tonight is Alistair Dawson and
Craig Cottle. Tonight, staff
will provide an overview and
summary of the proposal.
Identify any major outstanding
issues or concerns and make our
recommendation to the hearings
examiner. Here is a view of the
applicant's preliminary plan.
Exhibit 43. Here's a vicinity
map of the site. The general
location of the subject
property identified by with the
black dot. The site is located
on the south side of north east
29th Street, south of 55th
Avenue and east of 50th Avenue.
The existing access to the site
is from northeast 1/29 circle.
The zoning map provides a
closer look at the
parcelization of the abutting
lot. The site is highlighted in
red. The subject parcel is
surrounded by R 17.5 single
family residential zoning. The
zoning map provides a closer
look at the parcelization of
the abutting lots. The site is
highlighted. Excuse me, I
forgot to go down one slide.
This slide provides an aerial
view of the subject property.
The lot is outlined in red. The
parcel contains an existing
single family residence and
several existing outbuildings.
A stand of fir trees are
located on the east end of the
site. Landscaping and a few
additional trees are located on
the western portion of the site.
The existing lot is a legal lot
of record and is known as lot
three within a recorded short
plat. Recorded in 1992. For the
applicant's plan, the existing
residence and outbuildings will
be removed. With this
development proposal. The
abutting parcel contains single
family residential homes. The
preliminary plan provides a
proposed lot layout that
includes lot dimensions and lot
sizes. All lots meet the
required applicable approval
criteria. The minimum. This is
just a blown up. Screenshot of
the proposed plan. The minimum
average lot size for single
family detached dwelling units
located in the R 175 zone.
Utilizing the compact lot
development and narrow lot
standards require an average
minimum lot size of 3250ft².
The smallest lot is 3150ft²,
and the largest is a little
over 4500ft², with an average
lot size of 3618ft². The site
is located within the Vancouver
Vancouver Urban Growth Area.
The project. The proposed
project will create a total of
29 new residential lots for
detached single family
residential dwellings. The
current access to the site is
proposed to be removed. The
applicant's proposal contains
one access located on the east
end of the site, adjacent to
the proposed lot one, and the
second access is proposed on
the west end of the site,
located adjacent to proposed
lot 16. The applicant's site
plan shows a required street
trees, nine guest parking
spaces, which is shown in the.
Kind of hard to see on the plan,
but they're up in in this area
here and then three there. It
also shows driveway access and
other applicable standards. At
this time, staff will show you
photographs that we took of the
site. This photograph is taken
from the East access on 1/29
circle. I am located at the
adjacent property to the west
of the proposed development.
The site contained a locked
gate as well as about a six
foot fence, so some of the
photographs are. They're
definitely limited on the
photographs for this particular
proposal. This photograph
provides a view of the posted
sign located at the
intersection of northeast 29th
Street and Northeast 55th
Avenue. The photograph shows
the approximate east entrance
to the proposed development.
This view is taken near the
east entrance. Looking along
northeast 1/29 Street includes
the approximate location of
proposed lot one along the
existing fence line. This photo.
I'm staying at the northeast
corner of the development site
and at the corner of proposed
lot one. I'm looking west along
the northeast 1/29 Street. This
photo provides an interior view
of the of a portion of the
existing site. And. The last
photograph this evening
provides a view looking east
from the west property line. In
the background you can see the
existing single family
residence barn and driveway.
The proposed stormwater track
is located at the northwest
section of the site. The
photograph also provides you a
view of the Western access and
proposed lot 16. Since the
issuance of the staff report,
which is exhibit 48, no new
exhibits have been submitted
into the record. The exhibit
list is up to date. The hearing
examiner and applicant have
been provided with the exhibit
list and exhibits. Public
comments were provided and
written in within the staff
report. Some of the public
comments discussed traffic
safety concerns, speed
mitigation, adequate on site
parking density, lot size,
wildlife and preserving
environmentally sensitive areas.
Next, I will review the
timelines and staff
recommendation to the hearing
examiner. The application for
Pleasant Woods North
subdivision was received
February 12th and determined
fully complete. March 23rd,
2026. Notice of hearing was
mailed to the applicant.
Pleasant Highland Neighborhood
Association and property owners
within 500ft of the site. April
2nd. A revised notice of
hearing was mailed. April 22nd,
2026. May 21st exhibit 31. A
notice of hearing cancellation
was mailed. A revised notice of
hearing was mailed August 26th,
which is exhibit 47. The
applicant posted the required
sign May 9th with an updated
hearing date posted for on
August 12th. Staff
recommendation to the hearing
examiner was issued August 26th,
2026 and is listed as exhibit
number 49 on the exhibit list.
Staff recommendation to the
Hearing examiner for this
application is an approval with
conditions. Thank you for your
time this evening. This does
conclude the county's
presentation for this proposal.
Staff will remain available for
any questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. So this was
Sepa exempt, right?
>> Yes.
>> Because it's under the 30
lot threshold. Yeah.
>> And no road modifications.
>> I don't think.
>> That's correct. There were
not.
>> Okay.
>> Oh I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I thought that was a statement.
>> Oh it was sort of a
statement begging for
information I guess. Okay. I
think that's I think I've got
the picture of it for right now.
Okay. I think I've got it
pretty well. Mr. Dawson, any
engineering issues that I
should be that you bring to my
attention on this one?
>> Not for me.
>> Okay.
>> And there's the comments
were on the adequacy of 29th,
129th Street. I guess that's
more of a concurrency issue. So
is Mr. Caudle there is this
this isn't the this does not
present the same issues as
we're in Hartwood North. Is
that right?
>> That's correct. There were
no volume capacity issues for
this development. The only
potential issue was similar to
the first agenda item tonight,
which is the intersection of
northeast 72nd Avenue and
Northeast 139th Street, which
has a level of service E in the
eastbound and westbound
approach. But for county code
435020G1C, this Unsignalized
intersection was not meeting
the two criteria for requiring
mitigation at that intersection.
>> Okay, okay, good. Thank you.
I think I'm ready to hear from
the applicant on this one now.
>> All right. Good evening, Mr.
Examiner. Scott Taylor SGA
engineering representing the
applicant. I appreciate staff's
time to go over this project
and all their efforts. I think
everything's been pretty well
covered so far. As far as the
overview and discussions. And
it's another project we worked
really hard on with staff and
went through some different
iterations to get to this point
and, you know, have no road
modifications and no variances.
A 29 lot development as shown
on the screen. And so providing
opportunity for future cross
circulation to the south. And
1/29 Street, you know, we would
finish building that street out
to be full width with
improvements on the south side
traffic study, you know, did
not have any offsite mitigation
requirements. And I think
everything else is in pretty
good order. As far as the
preliminary findings and
conditions. I do have a couple
little minor items so we can go
through those on the staff
report. Sure. So on page 12
under finding six landscaping,
there is the third paragraph is
item E and talks about
landscapes, training standards
for parking areas. The
paragraph below that the
sentence, the applicant's final
site plan and landscape plan
shall provide a five foot wide
strip landscape to at least L2
standard. This finding is not
applicable as it states you
know two paragraphs above. No
landscape buffer is required
between the proposed
development and the abutting
properties. You know, this
project, similar to the first
item tonight, does not have off
street parking areas. So
there's no additional screening
that's needed for like
headlights. So all parking is
on street. And so this sentence,
the applicant's final site plan
landscape plan shall provide a
five foot wide strip that could
be omitted. It's not applicable
to this project.
>> Okay.
>> That'd be our request. And
then there's a couple
conditions that are also tied
to that. So I'll touch on those.
>> Okay. What are those?
>> Oh, it just says there that
conditions a one E and one E,
you know, are a associated with
that finding. And that's not
applicable. Next item on page
17 under finding seven
stormwater proposal. So in the
second paragraph of finding
seven the last sentence it
talks about 2.8 years of new
hard surfaces. And that had
been revised with some of these.
The work we did with the layout
2.56 acres. And so that's a
minor difference. And that will
also be. Noted in the final.
>> So it should be 2.56. Just
wanted to.
>> Correct Nia was letting me
know.
>> Okay.
>> All right. So into the
conditions on page 27,
condition A 1EI feel a one e
could be stricken. It is. It is
not applicable for screening
parking lot areas.
>> Okay.
>> And I have some other notes
with our team, but I think
everything else is in order.
May have one last item here. I
think we answered our own
questions with that one. So I
think that is all my comments
on the findings and staff
report. And again, just want to
thank staff for all their work
on this. One last item I did
notice is they left off the S
on the title of the project. So
Pleasant Woods North was our
intended name for the project.
Not pleasant. Would. Oh. I
didn't notice that till later
on too, so.
>> Let me see. Let me just
check D1E yeah.
>> And I didn't flag that one.
Sorry but it's associated.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. D1E seems doesn't
specify the buffer landscaping.
It just says submit a landscape
plan that meets the
requirements.
>> Okay, that should be fine.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> That's it. Yep.
>> And available for any other
questions. And like before, you
know, we're acceptable to the
one week open record for
everyone and then one week
rebuttal opportunity.
>> Okay.
>> Very good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Now we'll go to public
testimony. Anyone in favor or
with neutral testimony or
questions out there, raise your
hand. Anyone out there, Richard?
>> None.
>> Okay. Anyone opposed? Wish
to testify on this? Raise your
hand. Anyone?
>> None.
>> Okay. We have a number of
written comments in the record
in opposition. So quite a few
issues have been raised. But
the applicant submitted has
responded to, I think those
that were in the record.
Exhibit. Applicant's response.
It's in the staff report. At
least there's a response to the
opponent. Comments. Okay, Okay.
That takes us back to rebuttal,
Mr. Taylor. Anything else you
want to add before we conclude?
>> No, I believe everything was
covered with all this evening.
Thank you. Okay.
>> Anything from staff before
we go to the open records
schedule?
>> Just for the record, it's
Wendy Baird, land use planner,
and I do not have any
additional information.
>> Okay, let's talk open record.
It's not clear that anything in
particular needs to come in. So
the record will remain open for
one week. That would take it to
September 17th for anyone to
submit any relevant comment of
any sort. B into staff's hands
by 5 p.m. on Thursday,
September 17th. And then the
applicant has one additional
week for final rebuttal that
would take it to the 24th, but
that can be waived if nothing
in of note comes in. So that
makes sense to you, Mr. Taylor?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Okay. With that, I
will. Also, Mr. Taylor, I
mentioned I'm going to be out
of town until the 5th of
October, so that will push my
opinion. Hitting the street
until probably the week of the
12th of October, if that's okay.
>> Understood. Yeah. No problem.
>> Okay, I'll get on it as soon
as I get back. Okay. With that,
I will conclude this item, but
keep the record open for one
week until September 17th for
anybody on any relevant topic.
And then the applicant has
final rebuttal until September
24th. That can be waived. And
that that's how I'll deal with
this item. And that concludes
it. And it also concludes
tonight's hearing. Thank you
very much, all of you, for
persevering. And we'll find out
what happens to all of these in
October. Thank you very much.
>> Thanks, everyone.
>> Thank you. Good night