We are live. Okay.
>> Good evening, everyone, and
welcome to the June 11th, 2026,
hearing of the Clark County
Land Use Hearings Examiner. My
name is Daniel Keirns,
appearing remotely from British
Columbia. I'll be the examiner
presiding over tonight's
hearing, and it consists of two
agenda items. First up, 58th
Avenue subdivision. That's
PLD-2026-8. And secondly, the
Heartwood North subdivision pl
D2025-114. And we have a
procedural announcement about
heartland that I will get to
when I'm done with my
introductory remarks in which I
describe, introduce you to me
and describe how the process is
going to work tonight. First of
all, I and one other. I think
we have just one other hearings
examiner. We serve by
appointment by the Board of
County councilors to review
land use applications for
unincorporated Clark County. We
are independent land use
lawyers. We are not county
employees. We are not staff. We
are independent. We provide an
unbiased, independent
evaluation of these proposals
and. And to do that, we review
the application, all the
materials associated with it
and in support of it, the staff
report and all the various
staff and state agency comments,
and then also all of the public
comments on each of these
applications because they were
publicly noticed and posted,
and oftentimes generate a good
deal of local concern. So once
we review all these, we review
also the local code criteria.
Those are the standards that
control the outcome of each of
these items. Those are the
standards that were in the
county's Unified Development
Code on the day. Each one of
these applications was
submitted, and that freezes in
time. The standards, the
criteria that have to be met in
order for an applicant to gain
approval, we can't be more
stringent nor more lenient than
those standards allow. But yet
we have to fairly interpret
them. Look at the record,
determine if there is
sufficient credible evidence to
demonstrate that each of those
standards is met or can be met
through conditions of approval.
And if that evidence exists,
then we are obligated by state
law and the local code to
approve these development
proposals. But there is a long
way between here and there
before that happens. And so
part of that evaluation process
is to convene a public hearing
such as this and take public
testimony on the applications.
And then once everyone has had
full opportunity to evaluate
the proposal, make comments,
respond to comments. Only after
that will I close the public
record, and then I take it
under consideration and I will
decide the matter. So in
deciding these things, as I
mentioned, we're obligated to
be independent and unbiased.
And I believe that I am. With
regard to both of these items,
I don't have any personal or
business or familial
connections with the applicants
or any of the parties who have
weighed in on these items to
date. What I know about each
one is what I've read from the
record. I've had my record for
approximately two weeks on each
of these, and so if anyone has
any questions or wishes to
challenge my impartiality or
ability to decide these, feel
free to do so. Feel free to ask
questions or challenge my my
participation during the public
testimony portion. Excuse me of
tonight's hearing. Here's the
basic schedule of events for
each of these. Once we get
rolling, I'll begin with a
staff report. And that is a
verbal rendition of the written
report that was issued prior to
tonight's hearing. As I
mentioned, these items are
controlled by the approval
criteria in the code the staff
report goes through in somewhat
painful detail and analysis of
those standards, what they
require and what what's in the
application that addresses
those standards. And staff
makes a recommendation on
whether the standards are met
or not by way of findings, and
also suggests conditions of
approval to ensure compliance
with the applicable approval
criteria. So if anyone is
interested in in understanding
exactly what these criteria are,
I urge you to consult the staff
report. It's a pretty good
roadmap for understanding what
controls these proposals as
they go through. After the
staff report comes the
applicant's primary
presentation. For you
applicants out there, you can
assume I'm generally familiar
with the contours of the
proposal. A couple things I
need to know from you up front,
though. First of all, staff, as
I mentioned, issue a report
that contains suggested
findings and conditions. I need
to know if you have any
particular objections,
corrections, challenges to any
of those findings or any of
those conditions. And I need
those corrections or objections
with specificity. Second, I
need to know everyone needs to
know what is the actual final
version of the proposal that's
before us. Some of these
applications go through
multiple revisions to the plan.
And so I need to know what is
the current proposal on both
these items that's before us.
And the third thing I need to
know from the applicant is if
there's public testimony on
your application tonight, I
want you applicant to keep
track of the points raised, the
questions posed by the public
in that testimony. And I would
ask you in your final rebuttal
to respond to those questions
or comments as best you can.
Some of these a lot of the
testimony we get comes in the
form of questions of how a
proposal is going to affect the
local transportation system,
stormwater drainage, critical
areas, those kinds of things,
which are of huge concern to
abutting neighbors that already
live next to these sites. So
those are often most
appropriately addressed by the
applicant, sometimes staff, but
oftentimes the applicant. So I
look to you to take laboring or
on responding to the public
testimony in your final
rebuttal. Then anything else
you want to offer applicant by
way of last minute details, I
have I may not have fully
digested any of really recent
exhibits that were submitted in
the last day or two. So just
make sure that you go over
those. Any late breaking
comments? That's it for the
applicant's presentation. After
that, I'll take testimony from
anyone who's in favor of the
application. Then I take
testimony with from anyone with
questions or neutral testimony.
And finally, I take testimony
from anyone who's in opposition
to the proposal, oppose in any
respect. So and then after the
opponent testimony, I come back
to the applicant for final
rebuttal. In all of these
matters, the applicant gets the
last word. And that's because
the applicant has the burden of
proof, the burden of proving
that they meet the applicable
approval standards that I
mentioned and which are
preeminent in my evaluation,
and should be a focus of any
public testimony. After the
applicant has done final
rebuttal. Understanding that
applicants also have a right to
submit final rebuttal in
writing after the hearing. But
after I hear from the applicant,
I'll turn to staff for parting
advice based on testimony that
comes in tonight. And then it's
my typical habit to close
record. In these cases, though,
the the notice indicated that
the record will be kept open
for at least one week following
tonight's hearing, and that
would put it to June 18th.
During that time, anybody can
submit any written comment
that's relevant to the these
proposals before the record
closes. And this is kind of a
post-pandemic provision, just
because a lot of people often
have trouble navigating this
WebEx, internet based
environment, or they think of
new things or additional things
they want to talk about or
raise as a result of this
hearing. And so the record is
open for anybody on a relevant
comment for a week. For those
of you who are testifying
tonight, be mindful that my
decisions, they come out in
writing approximately two weeks
after the record closes. And my
decisions are the county's
final decision on the matter.
But they can be appealed to
Superior Court through the Land
Use Petition Act to appeal one
of my decisions. You have to
participate. While the record
is open, either orally at
tonight's hearing or in writing,
and you need to raise before me
while the record is open, any
issue you want to preserve for
a subsequent appeal and you
need to present to me any
evidence or documents or
anything of any sort you want
me to consider or that you
would want to rely upon in that
subsequent appeal. So when the
record is open and when it
finally closes, those are
critical things that people
need to be mindful of because
once the record closes, that
ends your ability to raise new
issues and it ends your ability
to submit evidence. So
participation matters in these
things. We will let me give
some pointers on how to
participate tonight. We'll
first of all, when I'm done
with my opening comments, we'll
get a primer from staff as to
how to navigate this WebEx
internet based environment, how
that functions when it's time
for public testimony, I will
take testimony from anyone who
raises their hand. There's a
little hand icon at the bottom
in the order that I just
presented pro neutral con. And
when it's your turn to speak,
we'll unmute your microphone,
start with your name and give
me some understanding of like
where you live or what's your
relationship to this property.
It helps me better understand
where you're coming from and
how this project is going to
impact you. Also, if you could
spell your name. So I get that
straight. Here's a kind of an
insider's tip for anyone
testifying tonight. A lot of
people on the Heartwood North
subdivision submitted written
comments. Those are super
useful. So if you're going to
be presenting testimony and
you've already submitted
written comments, that's
oftentimes the written comment
is the is kind of the gold
standard because I'm a terrible
note taker and it's useful to
have your comments, your
testimony in writing so that I
can refer to it as I'm
cogitating on the application
and each of the issues that you
raise, I have it in your words.
So if you're going to testify
tonight, submit your your
script, your comments in
writing, do so by emailing them
to the staff planner assigned
to the case. And if you've
already submitted comments and
you don't have anything
additional to add, you can say
that and we can move on to the
next witness on the item. So
that's just kind of an
insider's tip on how to how's
best, most effective way to
participate. When you do
testify, stick to the approval
criteria. As I mentioned, they
control my decision. I can't go
outside of them. If you raise
issues that are unrelated to
the approval criteria, there's
nothing I can really do about
that. I don't have the
authority to condition or deny
an application based on issues
that don't relate to those
criteria. If you think that
other standards apply and or
should apply, let me know what
they are and why. But focus on
those approval criteria. If you
have any documents or other
sorts of evidence you want me
to consider, you can quickly
email that to the staff planner
to get that to me, or sometime
during this next week. But just
remember to submit your written
comments and your evidence
before the record closes. If
you represent somebody else,
let me know who that is. So I
understand who has a stake in
the matter before me. And
remember to raise your any
issue you want to preserve for
an appeal and submit any
evidence you want to rely upon
in a subsequent appeal. So
that's it by way of oh, we also
went during the public
testimony. We'll probably limit
the time that people are
allowed to speak, especially
for any application where
there's a lot of opposition.
Unfortunately, we have to limit
the time so that everybody has
a chance to speak, which shifts
the focus. We'll limit that to,
I think, three minutes of pop.
That will shift the focus again
to the written comments. That's
why, if you have an awful lot
to say, put it in writing and
submit it that way, the
applicant will be given 20
minutes to make their
presentation. If they need that
much time. Hopefully they won't,
so we'll have those limitations
and we will shortly get a a
primer on how to participate.
But before that, I mentioned we
have a little procedural
surprise here. On the second
item, it's Heartwood North
subdivision. As I recall, this
was kicked over from a previous
hearing. And so this is a
continued hearing date. The
applicant, as I understand it,
has a request to continue this
item to a the first or second
Thursday in August, that would
be August 13th. Is the
applicant out there in Zoom
land for the Heartwood North
subdivision. That's PLD
2025-114.
>> Yes, Mr. Examiner Steve
Morasch with Lannen Mahlum
representing the applicant. And
we have our whole team here
present today.
>> Okay. And you have a request
for continuance. Let's let's
hear it from the horse's mouth.
>> Okay. Yeah. There's two
reasons why we're requesting a
continuance. One is that there
was a comment that came in a
few days ago raising issues
with the public notice. Now,
we've responded to that by
providing a dated email showing
that I believe it was May 11th,
whatever the date of the email
was, that the the sign was
amended with a sticker on that
day. So the sign was accurate.
But the allegations are that
there are other problems with
the notice, like the agenda
wasn't proper and it may not
have been published. So one,
one reason for the continuance
is it would solve all these
issues that have been raised
with respect to the notice of
this hearing. If we continue to
a date certain, then that would
solve that problem. The bigger
the bigger issue for the
continuance, however, is
comments that I believe were
submitted yesterday or today.
We got them today, and it
raises an issue that first came
up about a month ago in another
hearing. There's a there's
basically a glitch in the
county's concurrency ordinance
and the ordinance. It says that
that roads shall meet 9/10
volume capacity on the corridor.
And this 119th doesn't or at
least there are certain
segments of it that don't. And
the county staff has submitted
findings indicating that that
they believe that although the
code says shall meet 9/10
volume capacity, that there's
other language in the code that
gives staff the ability to look
at factors under subsection F
of the concurrency code, to do
sort of a bigger analysis of
whether or not the corridor is
actually functioning adequately,
despite not meeting this 9/10,
because intersections are the
choke points that backup the
traffic. However, the code
language says shall meet 9/10.
And so there's been an effort
for the county council to
address this with an interim
ordinance that would clarify
the intent of the code. And and
originally that was scheduled
to go to a hearing on June 16th.
However, I don't see it on the
agenda for that date. So I'm
not sure you know exactly when,
but I believe probably in the
next couple of months, the
county would address this with
an interim ordinance. If they
do, under the East County
reclamation case, which is a
Court of appeals case, the
applicant can waive vesting.
They have to waive all the
vesting. They can't selectively
waive vesting, but they can
waive all the vesting. So if
there's an interim ordinance
that comes into effect in the
next month or two, the idea
would be that this applicant
would then waive all vesting
and go under the new code.
That's in effect on the day
that the interim ordinance is
in effect, which at this point
we don't believe that there's
any other material code changes.
And that would solve this this
this glitch in the code where,
you know, the county has an
interpretation that, you know,
maybe a little bit at odds with
some of the language in the
code would fix the problem, so
to speak. And so for that
reason, I mean, we'd rather not
get a denial if there's a code
fix that's, you know, in the in
the works in the next month or
two. And so for both those
reasons, I think we probably
would want to continue to the
September hearing. I mean, the
August hearing might be might
be okay. But I mean, I think
the September hearing gives us
a little bit more leeway to see
if the, you know, if the code
does get fixed or not and you
know, how long that, you know,
that might take. So that's,
that's the basis for our
request for a continuance.
>> One quick question. When you
say September hearing, I know
US hearings examiner Joe Turner
and I, we are both out of town
for the 2nd September hearing.
So I'm here for the first one.
That's September 10th. Is that
what you're referring to? You
think?
>> Yeah, I believe that would
be the date.
>> Okay. That would work. So at
this point you're requesting a
continuance of this item to
September 10th at 6:00.
>> That's correct. And we're
also requesting no fee because
the continuance is kind of an
odd you know, there's a glitch
in the code and it was just
raised in this matter yesterday.
I believe the the language
about the fee says if if it was
something that was raised at
the hearing, then the
applicant's not charged a fee.
So yes, we would be asking for
September 10th hearing and we'd
request no fee. I mean, if we
have to pay a fee, obviously we
can, but we think it would be
fair not to.
>> Okay.
>> Staff, do you have any
particular insights into this
request?
>> Marion Bateman with
Community Development Planner
for the case. Yeah, we are fine
with the continuance, but we
were under the understanding
that the applicant would pay
the fee. So I would have to
look into that and let them
know, unless Richard or Brant
want to jump in and answer that
part of it.
>> Okay.
>> I'm not really the person
who deals with the fees. I'm
not allowed to take money from
anyone. So I'll let you.
>> We can always talk with
staff about the fee later.
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> You have to deal with staff
on that later for for the
applicant team and for anyone
out there in Zoom land who's
listening to this and has an
interest in this matter, I'm
always inclined to grant
continuances for a couple of
reasons. First of all, the
applicant has the burden of
proof, as I mentioned, and so
I'm always inclined to let the
party with the burden bear that
burden. And if they need more
time to do so, then that's fair.
Secondly, the I did note the
procedural objection on the
notice the way under Washington
case law, and it's pretty well
established across the country
to cure an allegation of a
procedural defect is to provide
more notice, more process. And
so a continuance would give
people that opportunity for
more to prepare their comments
for when this hearing comes up.
If there was an inadequate
notice or a defective posting,
it doesn't result in denial. It
just results in more time for
the for people to prepare. And
that's what this would do. So
for those of you who are in
here to testify in Heartwood
North, I would ask you to keep
your powder dry and show up on
September 10th. I'm inclined to
grant the continuance request
to September 10th at 6:00,
because if you never know how
these applications are going to
change between now and when
they come up for a hearing, so
that if you give comments
tonight, it might be irrelevant
in light of changes that occur
between now and when the
continued hearing happens. So I
would urge all people with an
interest in this matter to just
hold on and watch to see what
happens with this development
proposal. It may morph, but it
will be back before me on
September 10th at 6:00. So I'm
going to grant this request and
would urge everyone to attend
that meeting. Be prepared.
Connect with Miss Bateman
before the hearing to see what
changes, what new things have
come into the record, and
prepare your comments based on
what the application looks like
at that time. Does that make
sense to everyone?
>> Okay, Mr. Examiner, we do
have a hand raised by Steve
Thalberg. I don't know if he
wants to ask about the
continuance or how we should.
>> Go ahead and go ahead and
unmute Mr. Thalberg's
microphone, and we'll hear what
he has to say about this.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Hi, this is Steve Thalberg
in unincorporated Clark County,
and I was at the council
meeting yesterday, and the
council was going to address
concurrency. But at the meeting,
they stated they wanted to hear
the hearing examiner's results
or findings before the county
asked. And since you're not
giving a finding, it's likely
that the county will not be
making any changes by the
September 10th because they
base their decisions upon the
hearing officer's findings.
>> So this is like a chicken.
This is like a chicken and egg
problem.
>> Yes, it is a chicken and egg
problem. And then the other
question I'd like to raise is
that you said that the rules
that guide your decisions are
based upon the rules in force
at the time of the application,
and that seems and that any
change in the rules would not
affect the rules in force at
the time of the application,
unless unless it's being
considered that the applicant
is withdrawing their entire
application and then will
resubmit it after at such time,
when the county may revise
their interpretation of the
current law. That we those
competing things where you're
giving them time to have change
in the law. But you previously
stated that your decisions are
based upon the law. At the time
of the filing of the
application, right?
>> The way the law works is
that that vesting that you
mentioned, the application
vests, the approval standards
at the time, they are the
application is submitted. That
is a right that state law
affords an applicant. And in
this case, Mr. Morasch, the
lawyer for the applicant here
has indicated that they would
the applicant would waive that
right to the vesting accorded
by state law and and come in
under the approval standards
that would apply now. And so
that's that's how that would
work. The other thing is that,
as I understand the board's
position, they're always
interested to hear how we
examiners interpret the code.
As I understand it, the board
was interested in 174th Street
project, which the record for
which closed today and not not
this application. This hasn't
really gained any traction with
the board, but the 174th Street
application has. And I think
the issue is in that one. So
the for the reasons that I had
previously mentioned, I'm still
inclined to grant the
continuance. I appreciate your
questions.
>> I appreciate the
clarifications. Thank you.
>> And I also appreciate your
update from the Board of County
Counselors. Any other questions
or observations or objections
to this? Okay. This item none.
This item will be continued.
The Heartwood North Subdivision
PLD 2025-114 will be continued
to September 10th at beginning
at 6:00. Be aware that the
application proposal might
actually morph a bit, so stay
in close communication with
Miss Bateman to see what comes
into the record between now and
then. So thank you for that one.
And that brings.
>> Us had another hand raise.
I'm not sure if you want to
address that.
>> Who who is that is.
>> It must be the last name
Michod's. Maybe I'm not
pronouncing it correctly. I'm
sure.
>> The Michod's I see the
michod's have raised a hand. Is
this a procedural question
about the Heartwood North
subdivision? Go ahead and
unmute the Michod's microphone.
>> I just did.
>> Hello. This might be just
kind of a dumb question. I just
want to confirm.
>> Could you introduce yourself,
please.
>> I apologize. Yes. So my name
is actually Aria Johnson. I
married Corey Michaud. And so I
now go by Aria Michaud. I am a
adjacent to the Heartwood phase
two property.
>> Okay. What's up?
>> I just wanted to make sure
that written comment will be
extended as well. Oh yeah. This
hearing. Yeah. And then an
additional notice will come.
>> The record is open and there
are a lot of comments already
in, but I always just caution
people that these continuances,
oftentimes, I don't know in
this case, but oftentimes
result in the proposal changing.
So if you have comments that
you haven't submitted yet,
maybe wait to see if this
proposal changes and it might
affect the relevance of those
comments. See what I mean?
>> Perfect.
>> Thank you. Yep. Records
still open, not closed. Okay.
Anything else on Heartwood
North?
>> Seeing none.
>> It's continued to September
10th. Stand by everybody. Thank
you. So that leaves the 58th
Avenue subdivision. PL D2026-8.
Still before me. And we need a
primer on how to function in
this WebEx environment before
we roll into the public hearing
on the 58th Avenue proposal. So
who's going to do that?
>> Thank you. Mr. Tamine, this
is Brian Mattson. Can you see
my.
>> Yeah, it says WebEx
instructions.
>> Perfect. Okay. Again, my
name is Brian Mattson. I'll be
the planner for this next case
that we're going to discuss.
But first, for everyone
participating in tonight's
hearing, if you're wishing 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're a call in user, you can
dial star three. If you're a
participant, you need to click
the hand hand icon located in
the lower right hand corner of
your screen or next to your
name in the list of
participants. Here's a graphic
showing where you may find the
hand icon by the red arrows.
You May 1st need to turn on the
list of participants. You can
do this by clicking the
participants button shown by
the purple arrow. Once you have
given your testimony, we would
ask that you put your hand down.
You can accomplish this action
by either clicking the hand
icon again or by dialing star
three again. We will also ask
everyone to keep their
microphones on mute. Any time
you're 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 the opportunity to
talk opportunity to testify.
For some reason, the record on
each case will be open for a
period of time, so you can
submit your testimony in
writing. Finally, the chat
function has been disabled for
public records purposes. As I
mentioned, we ask everyone to
keep their microphones muted at
any time they're not speaking.
There are a few ways in which
to mute yourself. If you're a
web user and you're using your
computer for audio, you can
simply click the mute button at
the bottom of your screen or
next to your name in the list
of participants shown here by
the Red arrows. If you're a web
user. Well, I just lost that
screen, didn't I? Let's try
that again.
>> There you go.
>> There we go. Okay, sorry. If
you're a web user and you're
using a phone for audio, you
can either mute yourself on
your computer or use your
phone's mute capability. We
would ask that you that you
stay muted anytime you're not
speaking. And that's the end of
the raise your hand function
chat. Okay, for the next
presentation. Unfortunately, I
lost the PowerPoint
presentation for this next case
five minutes before the hearing.
So I'm going to attempt to do
it with just the GIS screen and
the photos that I've taken at
the site and the script that,
that, that I had already
prepared. Okay. So bear with me,
please, if you have any
questions at all, Mr. Examiner,
please stop me and I can I can
back up.
>> Go for it.
>> Okay. Okay. Are you seeing
my screen now?
>> Yeah. Yes, yes.
>> Okay. So this lot in blue
here is the subject parcel for
our next for our next, our next
case. In this case, the
applicant is proposing to
divide approximately 0.79 acres
into 12 single family attached
townhome lots in the R one six
zone. And I have the plan right
here. So what you can't see
very well here is there's an
existing single family home
located about right here, a
detached garage that is going
to be demolished. And they're
proposing for three separate
buildings consisting of four
townhomes each. And these will
all be on their own lot.
>> Quick, quick question. Yes,
this is the original plan that
was submitted with the
application. That's exhibit one,
Tab nine. It hasn't changed as
far as I can tell from the
record. Is that right?
>> Correct.
>> Correct. It has not changed.
>> There's been this is from.
>> The original application.
>> Other iterations of road
mods and stormwater. But this
plan is the same as the
original application.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, so I'm going to go to
the vicinity map again, which
I'm going to use GIS for
property. Located property is
identified by the by the blue
square. Here it lies on the
south side of north east 70th
Street. Here on the east side
of northeast 58th Avenue. Here
it lies just north of Walnut
Grove Park, and if we zoom out,
we can get a better idea of
where this sits in terms of
Vancouver landmarks. This is I
205 over here. This is Peyton
Parkway and this is Saint
John's here. And this is
Minnehaha here. So it gives you
a better idea of the vicinity.
At least I hope. I'm going to
turn on the the zoning here. So
the zoning you can see that
this lot in all of the
surrounding lots, with the
exception of the park, are
zoned R1 six, which is a single
family residential zone. The
park is zoned public facilities
because it's owned by the
public. I'm going to do a quick
aerial photo here so you can
see there's a couple of trees
on on the property. There are a
couple of large ones here just
to the south of this existing
home. Here's your detached
garage again, this is 70th
Street and this is 58th. If I
get rid of this view and I show
you the a little more recent,
you can see all the the
buildings next door.
>> So you.
>> Just can't see the house
very well because of the shadow
by the trees. But again, here's
the, the park to the south kind
of gives you an idea of the
site conditions. What you can't
see here on this picture is
that the this northeast corner,
I think, is about the the high
point of the site. And it
gradually slopes down to the
southwest, which is
approximately the low point.
But again, this is a gradual
slope, gives the parcel a
slight south south southwest
aspect, but not much. Okay,
back to the plan. Again, the
lots one through four here
they're going. They're proposed
to access directly onto 58th
Avenue. The lots five through
12 here. These are going to
access a private road. This is
tract A and this road will
connect with northeast 70th
Street to the north. One of the
things that I noticed when I
was walking this site and
taking my photos is there's not
much room to walk along 58th
Avenue, and you're going to see
that in the pictures. And these
sidewalks that they're going to
put in are really, I think are
really going to benefit the
neighbors that live on 70th
Street as far as pedestrian
access to the park, because
there really isn't a safe spot
to walk along this road, at
least when I was out there. So
I just wanted to point that out.
Okay, let's go ahead and go to
the photos I took when I was
there. This photo I'm looking
west. This is 70th Street along
the north of the site. This
sidewalk is that development
just to the east. So this
sidewalk is going to continue
west along 70th Street. They're
going to widen this pavement
out, and this will go around
the corner, lead to the south,
and will connect with that
walnut Grove Park to the south.
This one I took basically
standing at what I approximated
was the northeast corner. I'm
looking south. You can see the
chain link fence that I assume
is close to the south property
line of this site. You can also
see that the you know that the
site is kind of overgrown, but
it's not much of a slope from
here. This one I took at the
intersection of 70th Street and
58th Avenue. I'm looking
easterly down 70th Street. This
detached garage way will.
Garage will be removed and so
will this existing single
family residence will be
removed to develop this site.
And again, the sidewalk will be
coming through here where my
cursor is. It will be turning
south and going along here.
This next photo, I'm standing
in the same spot and I'm just
looking northerly here. I took
this just in case somebody
wanted to talk about site
distance or something, just so
I had it doesn't have a whole
lot of bearing it. You can also
see that this 58th Avenue does
have speed humps already
installed, different intervals.
So. This is the same spot. I'm
just looking south here. This
is you can see the posted sign
that the applicant is as as
installed. Again this will be
widened out. You can see that
there's really not a pedestrian
path here. So I think that the
sidewalk is going to be
beneficial here with the
widened with the widened right
of way. I also noticed that
they have the overhead power
line. So I don't know if those
are going to be undergrounded
or they're going to be moved to
the other side of the road. I
assume they're going to be
undergrounded on this side, but
I'll let the applicant speak to
that if they choose to. This
one, I'm sitting at the
southwest corner. I'm just
looking east just because I'm
walking along the property. I
thought I'd take this picture.
These trees are close to the
south property line. The reason
you can't see this existing
family home or single family
residence in their most recent
is because of the shadows from
these trees. They're quite tall.
>> And that's what's going to
be demolished.
>> Yes. Correct. Correct.
>> And this last one I took
from standing in the park, and
I'm just looking at the
southeast corner, you can see
there's kind of a elevation
drop to get into the park, but
the site itself is flat. The
bank is is on the park side. So
I don't know if there'll be any
sorts of retaining walls up
here. I doubt it. There was a
there was a small one or
there's a short one proposed at
the southeast corner. But again,
I made a condition of my staff
report that that retaining wall
had to meet the setback
standards, so I don't expect
that to be an issue.
>> Okay.
>> So. There weren't many
issues with this project except
for the road modification. And
I think there was a couple of
requests for additional
stormwater information. Again,
I have this written out in my
my PowerPoint presentation that
I destroyed. So forgive me if
anybody wants to watch that
PowerPoint, please get in touch
and I'll get I'll contact the
county IT people so I can
recover that and share it if
anybody wants to see it. But
there weren't many issues.
>> If you do.
>> If you do recover it, Mr.
Mattson, it'll be submitted as
an exhibit into the record of
this matter.
>> Right? Correct. Correct.
>> And also the well, there'll
be a transcription of
everything we've said here too,
also. But but both of those are
usually automatically entered
into the record. So. The
applicant probably has a better
recall of the specific issues.
I know that there was a road
modification. They were looking
for relief to perimeter block
length I think, and can't
remember something else related
to that circulation. Cross
circulation, I believe. But the
road modification review team
has recommended approval of
that now, and that is one of
the exhibits. And I don't have
that written down right here.
But ultimately, according to
the proposed plan and the
exhibits in the public record,
staff has recommended
conditional approval for this
project. Based on the plan you
see here and the exhibits on
the public record. One note I
do want to point out again,
even though this was brought up
earlier, staff did issue a memo
of correction for two smaller
matters a couple a day ago or
two days ago. Basically, the
matters that were clarified was
that in the staff report, land
use staff had incorrectly
referenced the the parallel
parking standards of the
commercial or or otherwise non
narrow lot development
standards. And the narrow lot
development standards have
their own on street parking
length requirements and
separation. So I wanted to
refer I wanted to reference the
correct standard there. And I
also wanted to point out
specifically that there is an
existing single family
residence there, and that there
will be a credit for probably
two different narrow lots for
that to make up for that single
family residence that will be
removed as well, because single
family residences are assessed
a higher rate than than
townhomes. So one lot will be
completely exempt. And then a
second lot will be partially
exempt to make up for that
single family residence.
>> Okay. And as I understand it,
your staff report is exhibit 29.
And your tweak to it that you
just submitted was exhibit 31,
correct?
>> Correct. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. I'll remain.
>> Remain for any other
questions. Also, I forgot to.
>> Mention that.
>> Okay. Thank you. Let's see.
Are there any engineering
issues on this one? I don't
think there was. There wasn't
was there? There wasn't even
concurrence concurrency on this.
>> No, we had no engineering
issues on this one, Mr.
Examiner.
>> Okay.
>> I guess then we're ready for
the applicant's presentation,
please.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Hearing Examiner. Andrew
Guenther with engineering, last
name spelled GUNTHER. I don't
have a whole lot to add from
Mr. Madsen's presentation. I
think we worked pretty closely
with county staff, working out
a few minor issues during the
the land use review process,
and I support and kind of raise
the the clarifications that
that have been mentioned in
exhibit 31 as far as impact fee
credits and just clarification
of the on street parking
standards. So those look good.
Mr. Mattson mentioned that we
had a, a road modification
request that came about during
the land use review. That was,
I guess I would characterize it
as almost a technicality that
even though we're on a corner
lot and we're a small parcel,
there aren't any any streets to
the east of us within 800ft.
And so there was a sort of
technically a block spacing
standard that required us to,
to address the fact that we're
not going to stub a public road
to a park. So other than that,
I think the review process has
been pretty smooth. And unless
you want any further discussion
of the of the exhibit 31, I
really don't have a whole lot
to add at this point.
>> Okay. Thank you. And you
didn't have any changes or
corrections to the staff report.
I guess the what came in today
sort of reflects the
conversation you had with Mr.
Mattson.
>> Exactly. Yep. Okay. That's
all I had. So. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. With that,
anyone have any anyone else
have testimony in favor of this
proposal? Anyone with neutral
testimony or questions about it?
Go ahead. Raise your hand.
>> Anyone?
>> What was that?
>> None yet.
>> Okay. Anyone wish to provide
testimony in opposition to this
proposal? Raise your hand. I
think we have one opposition
comment already from Marcus
Logan, exhibit 22. So there's
that.
>> I'm not seeing any hands
raised. Okay.
>> Okay. Going once, twice
understanding anyone out there
who may be lurking. You have a
week, a full week to think
about this and submit a written
comments you might have on this
matter. So okay, let me come
back to you, Mr. Gunther.
Anything else you want to add
before we conclude the hearing
on this item?
>> Yeah, sorry. That was, I
guess, a little bit of a
failure on my part not to
acknowledge the public comment.
Exhibit 22, the staff report. I
think Mr. Madsen did a good job
of responding to that comment.
I didn't feel any any further
response was necessary beyond
staff's addressing of the issue.
>> So okay, I noticed that. Yes.
Okay. Staff, anything else to
add before we conclude
tonight's hearing on this item?
>> No, sir.
>> Staff has nothing further to
add.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay, then I will conclude
the hearing on this item 58th
Avenue subdivision. But the
record will remain open for a
week until close of business
next Thursday, June 18th. For
anyone to submit any relevant
comment on this item. At that
point, the record will close
and I will take it under
consideration. Decision will be
issued about two weeks after
the record closes, but if
anyone wants to submit anything,
any comment, submit it by
emailing to Mr. Mattson.
Whatever you have documents,
comments, whatever. Make sure
it gets to him by 5 p.m. on
June 18th in order to be in
record. If it's late, it's out.
So. And also, if anyone out
there in Zoom land would like a
copy of my decision when it
finally gets issued,
communicate with Mr. Mattson to
get your name on the
distribution list for that that
decision. Okay. I think that
concludes this item. Record
stays open until close of
business on the 18th. And that
also concludes tonight's
hearing. We'll see you for the
Heartwood in September. But I
think we have other hearings in
July and August. So there are
other there's other business
before the county and before
then. I thank all of you for
participating and stay in touch.
Thank you. Good night.
>> Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
Thank you.