I will go ahead and call to
order this hearing on June 25th,
2026 for PLD 2026-00028. Excuse
me, Stone Ridge Subdivision. My
name is Joe Turner. I'm the
county's hearings examiner.
I'll start with some brief
announcements and a summary of
the process that will follow so
everyone understands. I can
participate in the hearing
tonight. I start by saying I am
not a county employee. I am
licensed as an attorney and
trained as a planner. I serve
under contract to the Board of
Commissioners. I say that so
you know, you're getting a
somewhat independent review of
the application before me
tonight. My role as the hearing
examiner is to conduct public
hearings and make decisions
about certain land use matters
in Clark County. In making
those decisions, I'm required
to apply the county's existing
laws. I'm not a policymaker. I
don't have the authority to
vary from or change the law. If
you think that the law needs to
be changed, you can work with
city. Excuse me, plant, Board
of Commissioners and Planning
Commission to do that. But
state law requires that this
application be judged based on
the laws. In effect, when the
application was filed as a
hearings examiner, I'm to
provide an unbiased decision
maker. I believe I am unbiased
with regard to the application
before me tonight. I have not
had any pre-hearing contact
with any of the parties
regarding the substance of the
application, and I don't have
any interest in the subject,
property or any of the
surrounding properties. But
anyone has the right to
challenge my impartiality, and
you can do that when it's your
opportunity to testify.
Procedure will follow. I'll
start by asking staff to
summarize their staff report,
copies of which are available
on the county's website. Then
the applicant will have the
opportunity to present their
proposal and respond to the
staff report. Then, if anybody
else wants to testify in
support of the application,
they may do so. And then anyone
who wants to testify in
opposition or with questions or
concerns. That should cover
everybody who wants to say
anything about this application.
You fall into one of those
categories. Once everyone has
had an opportunity to testify,
I'll give staff and the
applicant alone the opportunity
to respond to the testimony
that was offered. If those
responses include any new
evidence, I'll give everyone a
chance to respond to the new
evidence. Otherwise, I'll close
the public portion of the
hearing without taking further
public testimony. Anyone with
an interest in this application
may offer relevant oral or
written testimony, but
testimony should be relevant to
the applicable approval
criteria which are set out.
Excuse me. Set out in the staff
report. It is important that
all parties make their best
case to me. My decisions are
final for purposes of the
county but may be appealed to
Circuit Superior Court. But the
court generally will not allow
new testimony and evidence on
appeal. They'll decide any
appeal based on the record
before me. So if you feel it's
important that myself or any
future decision maker knows
something about this
application, you need to make
sure it gets into the record
before me in order to preserve
your right to appeal. You or
someone expressly representing
you must testify orally or in
writing before the close of the
record and in order to raise an
issue on appeal, someone must
raise that issue before me with
enough specificity that people
can understand what it is. If
you feel you need more time to
prepare, I will hold the record
open for one week after the
close of the hearing to accept
additional written testimony
and evidence. But if anybody
wants me to hold, if I because
I'm holding the record open,
that gives anyone the
opportunity to submit
additional written testimony
and evidence. If anybody wants
me to hold the record open for
a longer period or continue the
hearing, must make that request
before the close of the hearing
and provide some support for
why? Whatever you want to
submit during the longer open
record or the continuance, why
that information couldn't be
submitted at the hearing
tonight or during the one week
open record period. When you
testify, please begin by
stating your name and your full
mailing address. Please spell
your last name so I get it
right. And if you represent
someone else, please say so.
Testimony is limited to 20
minutes for the applicant. They
can split that between their
initial presentation and their
response. Everyone else is
limited to a maximum of three
minutes. Also, please don't
repeat testimony offered by
yourself or earlier witnesses.
Repeating your testimony
doesn't make your case any
stronger. This is not a
popularity contest, so whether
everybody loves it or everybody
hates it is not an issue I get
to consider. The only issue
before me is whether the
application does or does not
comply with the applicable
approval criteria. If prior
witnesses have already
addressed the issues that you
wanted to address, you can, but
you want to preserve your right
to test, to appeal by
testifying, you can just
indicate that you want to
testify. Give us your name and
mailing address. Say I agree
with the prior testimony, and
that's sufficient to preserve
your right to appeal. That
concludes my introduction.
Staff will give us an overview
on the online, how you can
indicate that you want to
testify, etc. Miss Curtis.
>> Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
First I'd like to present. Oops,
sorry. Here. First, I'd like to
present a brief WebEx overview
for those attending the public
hearing this evening. For
everyone participating in
tonight's hearing, if you wish
to wish to testify about a
specific agenda item, staff
will ask that you raise your
hand so that we can gauge who
wishes to testify. If you're a
call end user, you can dial
star three. If you're a
participant, you need to click
the hand icon located at the
lower hand corner of your
screen and next to your name.
Participants. Here's a graphic
showing where you may find the
hand icon shown by the Red
arrows. You May 1st need to
turn on the list of
participants. You can do this
by clicking the participant
button shown by the purple
arrow. The hand icon locations
are indicated by the red arrows.
Once you have given your
testimony, we ask that you put
your hand down. You can
accomplish this action by
either clicking the hand icon
again or dialing. Start dialing
star three. Star three again.
We will 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. Please note
that that this is your
opportunity to testify in
person. 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
submit your testimony in
writing. Finally, the chat
button has been disabled for
public record purposes. As I
mentioned, we ask everyone to
keep their microphones muted at
any time they're not speaking.
There are a few ways in which
which to mute yourself. If
you're a web user and using
your computer for audio, you
can simply simply click the
button at the bottom of your
screen or next to your name of
the list participants shown by
the Red arrows. If you're a web
user and using a phone audio,
you can either mute yourself on
the computer or on your phone's
mute button. Phone only users
can use the mute button on
their phone. We ask that you
stay muted at all times. You're
not speaking. Thank you. Okay,
I'll just go right in if that's
alright, Mr. Examiner.
>> Yep. Please.
>> All right. Thank you. Thank
you again, Mr. Examiner. Today
and to everyone who is
attending tonight's hearing, my
name is Melissa Curtis, the
land use planner assigned to
this project. The applicant.
The applicant is proposing the
subdivision approval to create
25 single family lots on 4.7
acres in the R one six zone.
The project is located at 2206
northeast 187th Avenue. The
applicant and owner is Forest
View, Inc. contact is Scott
Taylor with SGA engineering.
With me tonight is Hannah
Isaacson, the review engineer,
and Craig Hedval, the
concurrency engineer. Okay.
Tonight's staff will provide an
overview and summary of the
proposal. Identify any major
outstanding issues if there are
any or concerns, and make any
recommendations to and make our
recommendations to the hearings
examining. Here is the vicinity
map of the site. The general
location of the site property
is identified with black dots.
It is located south of
northeast 23rd Street. And west
of 180 189th Avenue. The zoning
map provides a closer look of
the parcel and the abutting
lots. The site is highlighted
in red. The subject parcels.
The subject parcel is R one six
zone. Parcels abutting the lots
are also R one six with an
urban overlay for our comp plan.
This slide is an aerial view of
the subject properties. The
lots are outlined in red. The
aerial view shows a single
family home detached garage.
>> Didn't show your aerial view.
Right there it goes.
>> There now then I just moved
it there.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Thank you. This area
view shows a single family home,
detached garage and a hardship
mobile on parcel 172119. This
one right here. Parcel
(717) 221-0000 includes an
existing barn. All existing
structures will be removed with
this development. The site is
generally flat with trees
throughout the parcel. And
here's the development plan and
a closer look. The preliminary
plan shows the proposed layout
of the lots, each lot meeting
the criteria of R1 six zone
access to the development is
via northeast 187th Avenue to
northeast 2020 second Street.
The next few slides will be of
the. Of the photographs that I
took on site. Here's the
signposting for tonight's
hearing. Staff is standing on
northeast 23rd Street and
Northeast 1/87 Avenue. We're
looking west and the project
site is located on the left.
Lots of trees in there. And
this photo provides a view of
the site and the west property
line right here and looking
north on northeast 1/87 Avenue.
I'm here. I'm at the same
location. I just turned myself
around. I'm looking south and
the site is on the right of the
screen here. This photo you can
see here is the frontage of the
property along with all the
trees. That front on the
property line there. I went
down northeast 23rd Street
fully fully treed. It's hard to
go on site with all the
vegetation there because the
development was full of trees.
It was hard for me to take
pictures of the the existing
structures. So this one right
here I took of the dwelling off
of Clark GIS. And again on this
one GIS Clark site is the
manufactured home which was the
hardship. And this one right
here is both of the house and
the hardship taken off of
Google. And I here I'm on 1/87.
Next I will review the project
review timelines, staff report
and recommendation to the
hearings examiner. The fully
complete application was
submitted on March 17th, 2026
and was determined fully
complete on March 31st, 2026. A
notice of Application and
public hearing was mailed by
the mail to the applicant. The
Neighborhood Program
Coordinator and properties
within 500ft of the site. On
April 14th of this year, the
sign was posted by the on the
subject property by the
applicant May 20th 26. This
project is exempt from
requirements from the Sipa
review and staff's
recommendation to the hearings
examiner was issued June 10th,
2026. Two public comments came
in after the issuance of
staff's recommendation to the
hearings examiner. They have
been added to the exhibit list,
exhibits 40 and 41 and sent to
the Hearings examiner staff and
the contact. The exhibit list
is up to date. The app can.
Requesting subdivision approval
to create 25 single family lots
on 4.78 acres in the R one six
zone. Based upon the proposed
plan known as exhibit 35 and
the findings and conclusions
and understanding that the
applicant is required to adhere
to all applicable codes and law
staff recommends the Hearing
Examiner approves this request
as stated in exhibit 36. Thank
you for your time this evening.
This does conclude county's
presentation for the proposal
and staff will be available for
any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Curtis. I
have a couple of questions. I
think probably for Mr. Jaejin,
at least to start out,
concurrency question. I think
the first one is going to be
for the applicant. I'll just
hold off on that one. There was
questions in some of the
neighbor comments whether the
the traffic study and the the
county reviewed all of the
regionally significant
corridors and intersections
within one mile of the site.
Did that happen? Good evening.
Mr.
>> Sorry. Good evening. Good.
Good evening, Mr. Examiner.
David Jardine, traffic
engineering section manager.
And so. Yes, the the the
regionally significant
intersections and corridors
that were determined to be
impacted were evaluated as, as
requested by the county. So
that that is shown in the
traffic study. And then as a
part of the early issues follow
up, it was a memorandum, I
believe it was exhibit 24, that
the the applicant's traffic
engineer provided that that
performed the volume to
capacity analysis for the
corridors that we had requested.
So. Yes, sir. Okay.
>> That's what I assumed. I
just wanted to check the staff
report on page 13 under
concurrency corridors. The
second paragraph. Excuse me,
says the HHCM highway capacity
manual methodology applies
adjustment factors and goes on
from there. More adjustments
applied, or was it just the 0.9
volume capacity? The findings
understood.
>> So in the in the finding
itself. So at the bottom of the
that narrative, that discussion,
it it's titled concurrency
findings. And we have indicated
that using the prescriptive
method. Which is the the code
itself, the point. Nine the
applicant has shown that the
volume to capacity ratio
thresholds have been met.
>> Okay. That's that's what I
thought from this traffic study.
The discussion and the
neighbors confused me a little
bit and the neighbors as well,
because the it, it appeared
based on the way the phrase,
the finding was phrased, that
the adjustments were applied.
So the prescriptive evaluation
means you're just applying the
code 0.9. You're not applying
the.
>> That is correct. That is
correct. I'm sorry for the
confusion.
>> That's all right. That's why
we're here. On was it 1/85 on
the west boundary? As several
neighbors noted, it's parallel
to the private road, which I
think is also 1/85 small on my
screen there. What measures
will be taken to keep traffic
from this site, from accessing
that adjacent private road?
>> That is a great question,
sir. I am going to turn that
over to to either the applicant
or development engineering to
answer on that one. Okay.
>> Thanks. Kitterman
engineering able to respond. If
not, we'll leave it to the
applicant. But I'm hoping.
>> I'm Isaacson with Clark
County Development Engineering.
Sorry about that. Typically
with the the partial width
roads, there is some kind of
physical barrier. We do require
a physical barrier between the
two roads, so people can't hop
a curb over.
>> So okay, what would that can
you give me a concept of what
that physical barrier could
consist of?
>> Sometimes it's fencing. I
think that's typically what it
is, is some kind of fencing.
>> Okay, that's. Kind of what I
assumed.
>> But yeah.
>> That's what I wanted to know
is just it's typically
happening, right? Fencing. Okay.
Thank you. Let me look at the.
Come on. Sorry. I'm having
issues with my mouse here. Will
there be a barrier on 22nd
Street? I doesn't appear to be
a private road on the south
boundary, so that's less of an
issue.
>> There probably will be,
since it will be a road
abutting up onto someone else's
property. It should. Yeah,
there should be some kind of
barrier between those two
properties.
>> Conditions of approval
necessary to require those
barriers that we just talked
about. Are they required by the
code anyway?
>> They're required by code.
>> Okay.
>> Let's try examiner.
>> Yes.
>> Hi. This is.
>> No no speaking.
>> Are you able to. Patibandla.
Yes. For the 22nd Street end of
pavement. I don't think there
is a code required barricade
like we do at the end of the.
At the termination of the road.
>> There was. So I appreciate
the clarification.
>> Yeah, but I do recommend
that the applicant address that
with the developer. Typically
we would see fencing and I
would expect the same here, but
I don't know if it is code
required. I also check in with
planning for if there is any
boundary fencing requirements.
I'm seeing a no from Michelle.
Okay.
>> Generally given except for
the roads. Generally the code
does not require fencing on the
perimeter of the site, but it's
my understanding that
developers often do that as a.
To make the development look
more consistent for whatever
reasons, make it easier to sell
those lots and other reasons
they may come up with. Anyway,
I'll let the applicant address
that, whether they're going to
come back or not.
>> Understood. So, David
Jardine, again, I apologize and
I don't mean to speak over
development engineering, but
it's been my experience that
there is a code section that
requires a two foot buffer
between a property line and the
movement. So maybe the
applicant, maybe the applicant
can speak a little bit more to
that and what they may be
putting in that two foot zone,
or if I just got it outright
wrong on that. But the
applicant.
>> I think you're right about
the two foot buffer, but an
actual physical barrier I don't
believe is it hasn't been
required in the past in my
experience. But you're right,
I'm about the two foot buffer.
So thank you, Mr. Jardine.
Appreciate the heads up. I
think that's a question for the
applicant. And then my last
question. Oh, in exhibit one
attached it's the cross
circulation plan that's
included in exhibit one. It
shows 23rd Street on the north
boundary of the site that's no
longer proposed. It's now 22nd
as a through street right along
the north boundary. And that's
the cross circulation
requirements are based on the
analysis that the applicant is
based on, that this new plat
moves 20 the through street, if
you will, to 22nd Street on the
south boundary. Does it still
meet the cross circulation
requirements? Block length and.
Perimeter.
>> This is Hannah Isaacson
again. Yes. Their their new
proposal would still meet our
circulation requirement.
>> Right. Thanks.
>> Yep.
>> Miss, what's your title? I
didn't catch that.
>> I'm the engineering manager
with developer. Thank you.
>> I know we've I've heard from
you before. I just couldn't
recall what your title was.
Thank you. That's the only
questions I have for staff at
this point. Mr. Taylor, I
understand you're representing
the applicant.
>> All right. Good evening,
Scott Taylor, SGA engineering.
Thank you, Mr. Examiner, for
your introduction and going
over the initial questions. I
can answer a couple and clarify
real quick. And then you could
go on with some additional
questions for sure.
>> I'm going to start the timer
now for 20 minutes.
>> All right. Here we go. All
right. So on 1/85 on the
western boundary, you know
keeping traffic away from the
existing private road. Yes. The
developers interested in
installing a fence and it would
likely be a, you know, six foot
privacy fence. And that would
be the barrier that would keep
people from driving across to
1/85 private avenue to the west.
There's an existing fence line
on the south side of the
property that is, I think, some
field fencing and then some
chain link fencing. And, you
know, those would be retained
and or improved, you know, like
likely the field fence, they
would remove that and put in
some nice cedar fencing on that
south property line. And there
is indeed a two foot space on
perimeters of property. The way
we understood it is it's an IBC
requirement that for grading,
you know, you're not supposed
to change the grades or
negatively affect neighbor's
property and give a two foot
sort of buffer or clear space.
And so that's what's shown in
our plans. There is a two foot
space there to the edge of the
new pavement. The goal, you
know, be build it that way and
put the new fence right on the
property line and be able to
keep people off private
property. And just using the
new public roads. Cross
circulation that was covered
and, you know, still meets the
requirements with this new road
alignment. And there's no other
road modifications requested
with this project. Intersection
spacing is met, sight distance
will be met, you know,
following construction. And I
think this is a great project,
you know, as far as circulation
and access, it's challenging
with all these private roads
around. I know the neighbors
have concerns with that. And so
by adjusting this layout and
having 22nd Street come into
the site instead of 23rd Street,
I think is a better design. You
know, we'll have no parking
fire lane signage throughout
the development where it's not
full width, pavement, full
width streets. And then in the
event any neighbors do develop
in the future, the public road
system could be expanded on and
dedications and, you know,
access to their site via public
roads and not the private roads.
So I think we've covered most
of the concerns with the
neighbors. And so we're meeting
all the other county design
requirements with this, with
this plan and not utilizing
compact lots, you know, not
going down to 3000 square foot
lots, like a lot of new
developments do. So I think
it'll be a great. Addition, you
know, to the neighborhood. It's
definitely not one acre lots
and large lot development,
which that zoning doesn't
really exist anymore with Clark
County. You know, this would be
great opportunities for new
home ownership, but not
necessarily tiny homes. So I
will, I think, stop with that
for the moment. And then yeah,
what next questions can I
answer for you?
>> The traffic counts that were
conducted in September of 2025.
One of the neighbors said that
school was the school was on
strike during that period. Can
you confirm whether it was or
not?
>> I'll have to look into that.
I know there was discussion
with the traffic engineer and
them wanting to make sure they
got counts, you know, while
school was in session, I think
there was an ending of a strike
happening and making sure that
they stored counted after
they'd come back into school.
But I can provide that in this
one week open record.
>> Okay. The 23rd street, the
23rd street that's north of the
site. Does the easement for
that extend onto this site, or
is it entirely on the adjacent
properties to the north?
>> I do not believe it does
from our research.
>> Okay.
>> The only easement that
extended into this site was at
the very southwest corner, and
there was, I believe, an old
access easement for 1/85 Avenue,
but the applicant didn't want
to exercise that or push push
for any access from 1/85. So.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Is that it from the applicant
at this point?
>> I have a couple different
notes for the staff report. And
so I just want to make sure any
questions, you know, answer
those first. And staff has done
a great job with this. All the
conditions of approval are in
good shape. I think there's
just a couple different
findings that still have some
maybe older language in them,
but I just want to make sure
and bring note to, for the
record, on page seven, finding
for existing residential
structures. So this is some
older language where they're
stating the structures on site
shall be removed prior to
construction plan approval,
complying with Clark County
building, etc. And that is
actually corrected, you know,
in condition of approval, B1A
on page 23. And it just says
prior to construction, you know,
it's it's not fair to have
people remove buildings, you
know, ahead of engineering plan
approval. Yeah. And so I don't
believe you'll end up, you end
up changing findings with your
final orders, but more just
notes for the record, condition
B1 A is worded well and we
agree with that.
>> Okay.
>> And page 16 just want to
bring awareness to finding
three on fire flow. The second
paragraph under finding three
fire flow. The fire flow letter
dated for 225 states. There's
1500 GPM in the area. And so
this responds to a condition of
approval. So my my edit my
request would be condition of
approval a eight on page 22.
Okay. So a condition. Yeah. The
actual condition A eight B it
just states a utility review
from the water purveyor
indicates that the required
fire flow is not currently
available at the site.
Additions to water mains shall
be installed. That's incorrect.
You know, with the finding
three on page 16, you know,
there's 1500 gallons per minute.
That's probably a carryover,
you know, from maybe a
different project.
>> Should we delete that
condition? I think so.
>> I mean, it could be
corrected just to say fire flow
is currently available. But
then the second sentence
additions to water mains
supplying fire flow shall be
installed. I mean those are
going to be part of the project.
But it's not for fire flow.
It's just for water service. So
I'll leave that one up to you.
I'm not concerned overly with
it. I think just omitting the
second sentence or maybe even
the condition would be fine.
>> Okay.
>> Resolve it.
>> The first sentence is just a
finding that, as amended, fire
flow is met, period. And so I
don't think a condition is
necessary for that. And you're
going to have to install. Yes,
I'll I'll look at that. But I
understand what the issue is.
>> Yeah. Nothing major. So just
sort of want to make those
points on record. And that is
it for the moment.
>> Thank you. I don't have any
other questions at this point.
Is there anybody else who'd
like to say anything about this
application in support of this
application rather? If so,
please click on the Raise Your
Hand button at this time,
pausing to give everyone a
chance to find the raise your
hand button. And Mr. Darby. Oh
my. The timer covers up the
participants, so let me know if
somebody raises their hand. I'm
not seeing any.
>> I'm not seeing any hands
raised right now.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
anything you'd.
>> Like to go now? Somebody
just came in. Arlene, I can't
pronounce it. I don't think
I'll unmute her.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Yes we can, thank you.
>> Yes. Good evening. Hearing
examiner Melissa and other
participants. My name is Arlen
Schleif. For spelling purposes,
A RLEN, last name SCHLEIF. My
wife Mindy, and I live at 2210
northeast 1/85 Avenue, and so
we are directly west of the
proposed development. In fact,
our entire property will be
adjacent to it. So we we are
probably one of the properties
that is the largely impacted by
this development. So we've been
here a little over ten years.
And you know, when we bought
this place, we knew that
probably someday this was going
to happen. And here we are. So
in light of that, we do have a
few requests and comments
regarding this proposed
development. Some of it may
have been covered already. So
I'm not, like you said earlier,
I'm not trying to win a
popularity contest, but I just
want to go over our bullet
points. Now, my understanding
is from what was discussed so
far that there's going to be a
two foot setback from our
northeast 1/85 to the new
northeast 1/85. Is there any
opportunity to push that back a
little further, like, say, ten
feet? And the reason I say that
is sometimes when we have since
it's a one lane road, when we
have traffic going each
direction, we do use that field
occasionally to for cars to go
by each other. So two feet
really wouldn't do us a whole
lot of good. It'd be great if
we could look at somewhere
around ten feet if possible.
The other thing.
>> There is, unless there's an
easement on that on this site
for that purpose. No, I can't
require that.
>> Okay.
>> The applicant is allowed to
develop their property to the
extent of the property.
>> Understand?
>> But if there's an easement,
that's another issue. So I'll
ask the applicant to address
that issue.
>> Okay. And they were talking
about fencing a six foot cedar
fence. You know, there is there
is a six foot cedar fence.
Melissa, I'm sure you saw it.
It's when you're on 1/87 it's
on the east side of 1/87, just
north of the proposed
subdivision. Something
something like that fencing
would be would be wonderful. We
would propose that it not only
goes along northeast 1/85, but
also down northeast 23rd. So it
would be consistent and not let
you know, each individual
homeowner put up whatever kind
of fence that they want to put
up in their backyards. We would
also would also like to ask,
well, it's been stated that we,
we do not wish for have any
construction vehicles coming
down our private road during
this process. So I understand
that there's a fence going to
go up once everything is done.
And we would also request that
there would not be any type of
gate put in there. So, you know,
we could have pedestrians and
people walking over towards our
property. So that fence would
be, you know, solid. That would
be one request. The other thing
would be what could be put up,
since we're going to be facing
all of the construction from
our house here, what could be
put up during construction that
could help with sound, dirt,
dust flying all over the place?
Is there anything that is
required or.
>> Mr. Chef, I understand, Mr.
Chef. Your time has run out,
but I can respond to what
you've asked. Construction
vehicles to start with the the
applicant and the their
contractors have no right to
use your private roads, just
like you have no right to use
the site for passing. So they
are. They will be prohibited.
If it happens. It's a trespass
issue. It can be addressed
through the civil procedure,
but it's the applicant's. It
will be incentivized to make
sure that his contractors know
that and don't do that, because
it would be a trespass on
private property. The. Oh, okay.
I remember your second question.
As far as dust, noise, etc.
this development, they're not
required to put anything up,
but they are required to comply
with the county's erosion
control and noise standards. So
they have to limit dust during
construction. They have to
install erosion control
measures to prevent sediment
from leaving the site. They
have to deal with stormwater
during construction noise. They
are subject to the county noise
standard. But beyond that, the
code is the laws assume that
development is going to happen
in the urban area. It's a short,
shorter term impact, but it's
something that you have to deal
with living in the urban area,
like road construction or
anything else. It's a pain when
it happens, but it's a shorter
term. It goes away after some
period of time. So that's my
response to those questions. Do
we have any does anybody else
want to say anything about this
application. Please raise your
hand now.
>> Yes, we have another. We
have Leah Kent, who was the
next in line. And I am going to.
I did I, I sent that she you
should be able to unmute
yourself. Leah.
>> We're hearing you. Thank you,
Miss Kent.
>> You are very happy to be.
>> You're breaking up pretty
bad. We're just here. You're
coming just a little bit. Can
you repeat what you're trying
to say? Maybe. I don't know.
Miss Kent, just so you know,
you're still breaking up. I'm
going to ask Mr. Darby if he
had any suggestions.
>> She's really completely
inaudible. I can't even hear
her.
>> Yeah, you've got a really
bad connection, Miss Kent. Can
should she log out and log back
in with that potentially help?
>> That's probably that's
probably an option.
>> Okay. Miss Kent, unable to
hear you. We just get bits and
and little noises when you're
trying to testify. So we're not
hearing anything you're
actually saying. So could you
log out and log back into the
hearing and we will come back
to you before we close the
hearing. So you have the
opportunity to testify. But
right now, we're totally unable
to hear you.
>> It's and we.
>> Have three. I'm assuming
it's a connection issue with
your internet. I'm sorry, Mr.
Darby. What did you say?
>> We have three more people
with their hands raised in
addition to.
>> Yeah, I'll go ahead and take
testimony from the next person
in line, and then we'll. We'll
come back to Miss Kent when she
logs back on.
>> Heidi is the next one. I
will unmute her or get that
request so she can unmute
herself.
>> Good evening. My name is
Heidi Pozo, POZZO. My mailing
address is 13023 Northeast
Highway 99, suite 7-298,
Vancouver, 98686. So, my
comment concerns the
transportation concurrency
recommendation under Clark
County, code 40-40.350.020E3. A
concurrency approval may issue
only on a determination that
the development's impacts Keip
every affected corridor and
intersection of regional
significance at or above the
level of service standards and
subsection G sub section G
fixes both the standard and the
method for corridors of volume
to capacity ratio no greater
than 0.9 per segment, with
capacity taken from table 40
.350.020-1, or. Where a road is
not built to county standards
from its current condition for
intersections, the prescribed
delay and level of service
thresholds. The staff report
does not perform that analysis.
In place of G one, a ratio. It
applies the concurrency
corridors narrative,
intersection level of service
throughput and subsection F
nine. Reule world influences a
methodology.
>> That's what I asked Mr.
Jardine about, and he said that
they did use the 0.9 volume
capacity. Yeah.
>> And so the point I'm trying
to make is that the report
needs to reflect that. So I'm
not asking you to deny the
application because it looks
like the corridor data suggests
it complies. But all the
readers, the staff report and
the concurrency report should
reflect the code based analysis,
which it doesn't right now.
>> Okay, I see what you're
saying. And I, I will try and
do that. I will I will reflect
the code, let's put it that way.
I'm not an engineer. So I, I,
but I understand what you're
saying and I understand what
the code means and requires.
And I will make sure that it's
the findings are consistent
with the code perfect.
>> And so every reader can
understand that that it does. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Do we have any
other. Who's next with the
raised hands? I assume we have
more.
>> Yes, we do have more. In the
next one on the list is Steve
Kirkland and I will. I just
sent the request for him to
unmute himself. He should be
able to do that.
>> Hi, this is Kara Kirtland on
the same line here with Steve
CARA Kirkland, CURTLAND. We're
at 1915, northeast 185th Avenue.
And the question that we have
is, you had mentioned that
there's going to be a barrier
at the north end of 1/85
between our private road and
the new road. What's not clear
to me is how that works with
right now, our private road,
1/85 turns to onto northeast
22nd, and that's a contiguous
private lane. So how are you
managing the barrier that keeps
the private road that is both
1/85 and 22nd as not accessible
and private.
>> Can you tell me where? 22nd
because my map shows 23rd on
the north boundary.
>> To the left. So at the
bottom just yeah, just to the
left there you see the right
there and to the left of that.
That's all a private road.
>> So does 22nd go west from
1/85.
>> That's right.
>> Okay, so I'm not sure I
understand what the concern is
then. Because if you're coming,
I'm assuming you're southbound
on 20. On 1/85, you turn right
onto 22nd. How does this
conflict with that?
>> Well, there needs to be a
barrier going south on 1/85, as
well as not allowing a turn the
other. Right?
>> Yes. They'll have to have a
barrier on the north and south
ends and the west boundary of
1/85 right.
>> And the barrier such that
the traffic in both directions
can actually turn. And those
large trucks can get through.
So we have our our garbage
trucks need to be able to turn
there. Excuse me, turn there
without having those barriers
be in the way.
>> Okay. As I note, I'll ask
the applicant to clarify that
issue. But unless there is an
easement on this site for that
purpose, the applicant isn't
required to to accommodate that.
>> No, no, all I'm saying is
the barrier that needs that's
put up needs to be right at the
edge.
>> And yeah, it'll be on.
>> The site.
>> It definitely will not be
off the site, but it'll be on
the boundary of the site.
>> Yeah. So we need two
barriers I think is my point.
One, at the south end of the
property. Yes.
>> South and north and west.
It'll be basically a continuous
fence around that perimeter of
the site where wherever the
1/85 Avenue is. So drivers
cannot move from this site onto
private 1/85 to the west.
>> Or private 22nd.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. We have our next
person up is Julie Romero, and
I am sending the request to
unmute her.
>> Hello, my name is Julia
Romero. I live at 18416
northeast 23rd Street,
Vancouver, Washington, 98684. I
would like to, I guess, state
that when the traffic study was
done, the teachers were on
strike and it was in the middle
of the day during. Low traffic.
My concern is that once or if
this development is approved,
the traffic will be such that
if there's an emergency,
there'll be delays to emergency
vehicles coming to our homes.
I've been present on two
occasions where fire trucks and
ambulances have had difficulty
turning into our road because
of traffic already, and I've
also witnessed them having
trouble leaving our private
road. You know, in the middle
of the night. And I, and I
worry about when there's
construction vehicles and such
during if the project gets
approved, how will it affect us
in the case that we need to
leave our our private road.
>> Okay. How did the traffic
affect it in the emergency
access in the middle of the
night, I don't.
>> Because if you. So I live on
23rd Street and. Turning left
or right, coming out or in.
Because the other. It's only a
two way road. You know, these
guys have to get off of their
truck and, and pause traffic
that you know, that are still
that's, you know, the cars
coming or going. That's on
187th. They have to get out of
their trucks, pause traffic
because they're, they're
backing out and they have to
okay, to, to even, you know,
tell, they've had to tell cars
to back up so they can get
their rigs out of there. And I
mean, this is a, you know, a 30
minute, 40 minute operation.
And I'm just wondering, you
know, if there is a true
emergency. I mean, we've had a
small fire here. We've had a
medical emergency. And, you
know, I just want to make sure
that we're taking care of it in,
in the event of a fire, God
forbid, you know, these guys
need to come and go quickly.
And same goes for for an
ambulance.
>> Okay. But that's an existing
problem that they have to back
out now. They're gonna have to
back out later. The applicant
is not required to fix that.
There will be some increase in
traffic, but I don't see how
it's significant enough to
they'll still have to be able
to stop traffic, and people
will still be required to back
up. But it's not. The applicant
can't be required to fix that.
>> How does. Why is a traffic
study required?
>> The applicant is required to
fix the traffic. If it doesn't
meet the standard adopted by
the. The. The Board of
Commissioners. A level of
service D or better at most
intersections. That's the
primary. And then the
concurrency issue that we
talked about that the corridors
have. Adequate capacity to
accommodate the traffic. But
the the it's not required for
the private streets that don't
aren't impacted by this
development, are not used by
this development.
>> What what does that mean?
Like on 187th, what would make
it acceptable or not?
>> The emergency access. I mean,
they're backing up now. They'll
have to back up in the future.
They can stop traffic.
>> So but.
>> If there's I don't see how
traffic makes.
>> It any worse. Well, if
there's more cars on that road,
but there will be more. They'll
be stopped. How will there be a
but like in the instance where
they've had to ask cars to back
up. And oftentimes during
school hours, you know, the
line from 187th, you know, way
exceeds. You know, sometimes
we're waiting here, you know,
20, 30 minutes on, on school
days to make a right out of
187th. So I, I can't, I can't
imagine if we have an emergency
and there's more cars on 187th,
how they'll even get to us or
leave. It's a, it's a two way
road. I mean, we can't ask
these these guys to, to clear
out anywhere else.
>> Okay. I understand the
concern, but it's it's an
existing problem and the
applicant is not required to
fix it. If there was if this
was a new development that
would be required and that was
a dead end road, they'd be
required to put a turnaround.
So the vehicle, the emergency
vehicles can exit and forward
direction.
>> Well, is.
>> The this isn't changing that.
>> Not to make it worse.
>> Yes, but adding traffic when
an emergency vehicles there.
They have to. They can stop
traffic. People have to get out
of the way. They have to do
that. Now, some people may not
do that. I mean, some. You
can't control human behavior,
but most people are going to,
you know, get the do what they
can to get the emergency
vehicle through.
>> So unless if this
development makes traffic worse,
would that deem it
inappropriate for the.
>> If it doesn't meet the
criteria that have been adopted
by the board, the level of
service standard. That's how
the board determined the County
determines whether it's
adequate or not. If it meets
the level of service.
>> Then I would like to. And
that's go back to my original
question, since you. Since you
stated that that there needs to
be a new traffic study done to
reflect the accurate flow of
traffic to make. Sure that it
won't.
>> Be that during the the
school strike.
>> I think it's an important.
>> I do to.
>> To require that, especially
if you just said that if if it
makes things worse, then it may
not be appropriate.
>> It not that it makes things
worse, that it makes it fall
below the level of the adopted
level of service standard. I
mean, worse, any, any that one
car, that's going to make it
worse. So it's not a subjective
standards that I'm objective
level of service. If it meets
it, it's okay. If it doesn't
meet it, it's not okay. So
that's the standard I have to
apply. I understand your
concern and I will address it
in my written decision. Thank
you ma'am.
>> Thank you.
>> Mr. Daviau. Who's next?
>> We have Elkinton must be
Leah Kent is back, so I'm going
to send the request to unmute
her. Great. She should.
>> Be glad she's back.
>> Kent, not be able to unmute
yourself.
>> Can you tell if she's on the
phone or on a browser?
>> Well, you know, in the old
handle still there, Leah. And
then there's l can't Kent is
the one I just did. And I, I.
>> We're not hearing him as if
that's how does she if she's on
her phone is it star three to
unmute.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So if you're on a
phone, You need to hit star
three to unmute yourself.
Unfortunately, we are not
hearing her, but she doesn't
appear on my screen either.
Usually when somebody is on.
>> Looks like she just raised
her hand. She just raised her
hand to.
>> Yeah, and I just I just did
that again. I said.
>> There she goes.
>> Oh my goodness.
>> I saw her for a second.
There we go. Whatever you did.
>> Try to get on. Oh thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry about that.
I'm glad you were. Oh my
goodness. I'm very stressed out
now. My name is Leah Kent,
LIAKENT. I live at the end of
that private road that
everybody keeps referring to as
the north end of what they've
been calling 22nd. That's
actually 23rd way. You keep
following that, and that
becomes my driveway all the way
down past those houses that you
see on the left hand side of
the screen. We, we respectfully
invite you to come and visit
and see the surrounding area,
because what you see on the map
is not an entirely correct road.
Names are not incorrect,
especially on Google Maps.
We've had so many issues with
emergency vehicles, confusion,
trying to get to our house.
It's already a problem. So we
respectfully request that you
do not name this other road.
Northeast 23rd way. We are
already having a lot of
difficulty with 23rd Street.
That does not go all the way
through into the Maple Crest
neighborhood. Next door, there
is like a four foot difference
between the two roads, so we
already have a lot of confusion
there. Emergency vehicles are
not able to get to my house.
I've already had two incidents
where they've had to. They
weren't able to get to my house
for me for emergencies, which
has been a problem. Increased
traffic. We have cars coming
down our driveway continually
because they think they can get
into the subdivision or they
are lost or something. It's a
problem. I have a 70 year old
daughter who plays outside in
my driveway, and it's a concern
that we'd have more vehicles
coming down our driveway. And
with a seven year old daughter,
I'm very concerned about this.
We request that a sound wall,
not six feet, but ten feet
would be preferable due to the
noise and the dust that we will
be experiencing. Also, that
there would be some landscaping
so that it's more appealing.
We've worked really hard to
create this community, this
green space, the area that we
live in. And so we request that
that be taken into
consideration, that we'd like
to keep this area the way it is
as much as possible, although
we do understand more housing
is needed. In conclusion,
traffic management measures and
safety improvements. We'd like
to have those reevaluated to
minimize the impacts on us, the
ours as well of the noise
pollution. Because we are not
in the city limits, we follow
Clark County. We are very
concerned about this. We've
already had neighbors paving
asphalt until 10:00 at night.
When I have a seven year old
I'm trying to put to bed, and
it was right next door. So
we're having issues with this
already. We're concerned about
people getting lost or their
construction vehicles coming
down our road and damaging some
more. So we definitely do not
want construction or changes
made to our private roads. So
that would include 1/85
northeast, 1/85 northeast 23rd
way, which is the continuation
of 1/85 and northeast 23rd
Street.
>> Okay. Thank you ma'am, your
time is running out. Do we have
anybody else, Mr. Daviau? Any
other raised hands?
>> We do not. I don't see any
other raised hands. Okay.
>> Does anybody else want to
say anything about this
application who's not had the
opportunity to do so? Please
click on the Raise Your Hand
button now. Not seeing anybody.
Okay. Anything further from
county staff?
>> I'm Melissa Curtis, land use
planner. And I'd like to just
comment on Leah's 23rd way. So
any addressing or street names
are going to be done at the
time of final plat. They do get
reviewed by a staff person here
since we are the the registered
person to to name streets by
number. So here it looks like
from here down we have it as
northeast 23rd.
>> Street here. I'm not seeing
your mouth. Oh there on 180.
Okay.
>> Yeah. So from here to here,
I don't know if I just bring my
GIS. If you can see my GIS map,
we have it from here. Looks
like probably about here is
northeast 23rd Street. And then
starting about here we have it
as northeast 23rd way. So it's
not 23rd way all the way down.
It's just all. But I do get
Leah's concern about naming
streets there, but we do have.
That's what GIS mapping has. If
this is not correct, then
they'll probably have to
contact GIS. But that's what it
is. On site on our GIS mapping.
>> Okay, but sorry I can't talk
here. The county will review
the proposed name street names
on this site as well during the
review, and may.
>> Only on.
>> Site, right?
>> Only on site.
>> Yeah, not not the existing
private street, but the on site
roads to a. That's correct. To
the extent possible.
>> Yeah. Based on the grid and
yeah.
>> Coincide with what's there,
but also avoid conflicts or
confusion.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anything
further from any other county
staff? Not seeing anybody, Mr.
Taylor.
>> Good evening, Scott Taylor,
SGA engineering. Thank you
staff and Mr. Examiner for the
responses and fielding the
questions so far with the
neighbors. We definitely
understand the confusion,
challenges and street naming
challenges. And I've seen this
happen in other parts of the
county and other jurisdictions.
I do believe the county holds
pretty firm on their grid
pattern, and naming numerically,
and not really using street
names that have, you know,
other nouns. And so, I mean, I
feel that this is going to end
up with similar street names to
what's proposed with 22nd
Street on the south edge of the
project aligning with other
22nd streets, you know, to the
west and east, and then 23rd is
an existing private road. And
we're not looking to touch any
of the private roads adjacent
to the project. And we will not
have a 23rd street now. So that
should hopefully help not
increase any more confusion
with 23rd way 23rd Street. I
can see where that confusion
would come from. You know, for
our site, we do have adequate
turnaround area and, you know,
new fire hydrants, full access,
you know, public streets for
access, sending out the
development. So we're
definitely doing everything we
can to meet the county
requirements for access and
safety. Answering some of the
other questions. I believe, you
know, a ten foot sound wall and
additional landscaping is not
required by code. So that's not
what would be proposed or
developed there doesn't really
seem appropriate. You don't see
a sound wall between other
subdivisions in the area. And
so currently the proposal is to
do some sight obscuring fencing.
And it looks like it would be
on the north property line,
west property line and south
property lines. You know, the
developer will have to abide by
construction time rules for
noise ordinance with 7 a.m. to
10 p.m. and dust and erosion
control. You guys already
covered those items. They're
held to all those same
standards. And so that's,
that's what they'll focus on.
And also not trespassing on any
neighbors properties or
disturbing or causing any
issues with adjacent private
roads. There is no existing
easements on our site for any
adjacent properties that we're
aware of. And so that's not an
allowed use, I guess, for
driving on the property. So no
adjustments. Like I guess I've
said a couple times here would
be proposed for any adjacent
private roads. So however, the
trash trucks come back and
access now and however guests
and vehicles drive and access.
Now that's not going to change.
So we will have new street
signs and hopefully that'll be
nice and clear for people for
deliveries. And then once it's
put in the map systems for our
our streets and addresses
hopefully won't cause any
additional challenges for
neighbors. The barriers at the
ends of the road we've talked
about. And so that's going to
be fencing. There's not really
the big red and white barriers
that you see at the end of a
dead end street. You know,
there could be one placed at
the north end of 1/85 Avenue on
our site. So because we're
providing a stub road there at
that northwest corner, there
could be one of those
barricades that says, you know,
future road extensions do not
block all the all the notes
that are on standard barricades.
That would be the only
barricade, though, for the
project, I think. And I think
we've covered all the
transportation concurrency
requirements and how we did
meet the required ratios and
corridors and levels of service.
So I don't really need to talk
much more about that. But I did
find in our traffic study
talking about the date of the
studies and that strike that
took place. So this is on page
six of the traffic study. Looks
like sort of second paragraph.
In order to perform the level
of service analysis, it was
necessary to collect new
traffic counts at the study
intersections. The counts were
recorded in the a MPM peak
hours on September 15th and
16th, when Evergreen School
District was operating. The
count data is included in the
appendix. Figure one
illustration illustrates the
year 2025 volume data. So. So
this was accounted for by our
engineer traffic engineer. They
did go out and do a second
round of counts to make sure
that they did this during
active school, and not with
that strike.
>> That is not true.
>> So that is our.
>> I can't take any testimony
from the the public at this
point. I will hold the record
open. If anybody wants to
provide evidence to dispute
that, you're welcome to. But at
this point, I'll ask everybody
to mute themselves. Go ahead,
Mr. Taylor.
>> And we talked about the two
foot setbacks from the property
line. There will be
construction, fencing, put up
erosion control fencing, but no
additional fencing is proposed
or required during construction.
And then following construction,
you'll have the privacy fencing.
So. I believe that covers most
of the questions and discussion
that came up. Put on my list
here. Yep, I believe we've
covered it all. So any other
questions from you, Mr.
Examiner?
>> I'm going to I have to hold
the record on for a week for
public additional public
testimony. Do you want an
additional week for final
argument if to respond if you.
And then if you wanted to waive
that at the end, you can.
>> Correct. Yeah. We would
elect to keep that week for
responses if necessary.
>> Okay. So with that, I'm
going to close the hearing. Let
me grab my calendar. I'm going
to hold the record open. As we
just discussed for one week
until. Till July 2nd, for
anybody to submit additional
testimony and evidence. Any
issues, I'll hold it open for
an additional week for the
applicant alone to submit a
final written argument without
any new evidence until July 9th.
Anything anybody wants to
submit has to be physically
received by the county by 5
p.m. on July 2nd for the public,
July 9th for the applicants
final argument. If the
applicant wants, they can
either waive the final argument
or submit it early and I'll
close it. When I receive the
final argument, I will issue
try and get my decision out no
later than July 23rd. I will
send my decision to the county.
The county will send it to
parties of record. So anybody
who has testified orally or in
writing or who does so during
the following week, open record
period, we'll be sure and
receive a copy of my decision.
If you decide you don't need to
testify, but you want to get a
copy of my decision, you can
contact Miss Curtis and she'll
put you on the mailing list.
But that concludes the hearing
for tonight. Thank you all.
Have a good evening.
>> Thank you, Mr. Hearings
examiner.
>> Thank you. Yes.
>> Thank you