Okay. We're live.
>> Okay, I'll go ahead and call
to order this hearing of April
23rd, 2026 for Clark County. My
name is Joe Turner. I'm one of
the county's hearing examiners.
I'll start by saying I'll start
with some brief announcements
and a summary of the process
that we'll follow. And I start
by saying, I'm 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, you know, you're
getting a somewhat independent
review of the applications
before me tonight. My role as
the hearings 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 am not a policy maker.
I don't have the authority to
vary from or change the laws.
If you think that the laws need
to be changed, you can work
with Planning Commission and
Board of Commissioners to do
that. But state law requires
that this application be judged.
These applications tonight must
be judged based on the laws in
effect from the applications
were filed as a hearings
examiner and provide an
unbiased decision maker. I
believe I am unbiased with
regard to the applications
before me tonight. I have not
had any pre-hearing contact
with any of the parties
regarding the substance of the
applications, and I don't have
any interest in any of the
subject properties or or any of
the surrounding properties. But
anyone has the right to
challenge my impartiality and
argue that I'm biased in one
way or another. And you could
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. I will
note that staff are not the
proponent for either of the
projects. They're merely
providing an overview of the
project process and the laws
and their that apply, and their
opinion as to whether or not
the applicable approval
criteria are met. Then the
applicant for the particular
project will have the
opportunity to present their
proposal and respond to the
staff report. Then, if anybody
else wants to testify in
support of that project, they
may do so. Then anyone who
wants to testify orally or in
writing before. Excuse me.
Skipped ahead in my my intro.
Anybody else who wants to
testify in opposition or with
questions or concerns. That
should cover everybody who
wants to say something about
these particular application.
You'll fall into one of those
categories. Once everyone has
had an initial opportunity to
testify about that application,
I will give staff and the
applicant alone the opportunity
to respond to the testimony
that was offered. If those
responses include any new
evidence, I will give everyone
a chance to respond to the new
evidence. Otherwise, they'll
close the public portion of the
hearing and announce what I'm
going to do without taking any
new public testimony. Anyone
with an interest in this
application may offer relevant
oral or written testimony, but
you can only testify when
you've been identified for that
purpose. 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
Superior Court. However, 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 the application
you're interested in, you need
to make sure that 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 for that
application. And in order to
raise an issue on appeal,
someone must have raised that
issue before me with enough
specificity that everyone can
understand what the issue is.
If anyone feels they need more
time to prepare, you can ask me
to hold the record open or
continue the hearing. If I hold
the record open, you'll have an
opportunity to submit
additional written testimony
and evidence before I make a
decision. If I continue the
hearing, we'll come back and do
this again at a later date.
Because of these online
hearings, we are. I will
automatically hold the record
open for one week for each
application after the close of
the hearing. But if anybody
wants me to hold the record
open for a longer period or
continue the hearing, you must
make that request before the
close of the hearing tonight
and provide some support for
why? Whatever you want to
submit during the open record
extended open record period or
the continuance, why that
information couldn't be
submitted tonight or during the
one week open record. When you
testify, please begin by
stating your name and 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, which they can split
between their initial response
and their initial presentation,
and then their response to
testimony that's offered.
Everyone else gets three
minutes per person. The
regardless testimony should be
relevant to the applicable
approval criteria which are set
out in the staff report. Also,
please don't repeat testimony
offered by yourself orally or
witnesses. Repeating your
testimony doesn't make your
case any stronger. 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 addressed the
issues that you wanted to
address, but you still want to
testify in order to preserve
your right to appeal, you can.
Indicate you want to testify.
Give us your name and mailing
address. Say, I agree with the
prior testimony, and that's
sufficient to maintain your
right to appeal. That concludes
my introduction. Mr. Daviau
will give us an overview of the
online issues, how to
participate online, and then
summarize the staff report for
our first project.
>> Certainly. Thank you, Mr.
Examiner. For the record, my
name is Richard Daviau and I'll
be presenting the both cases
tonight. And certainly starting
with this one, Taylor Reserve.
But before we do that, we are
going to do a little
instruction about how to use
the WebEx instructions for
raising and lowering your hand,
and also muting and other
things to make sure that
everybody can be heard and
testify tonight. So the first
thing we're going to do is show
you how to raise or lower your
hand. If you're a phone user,
you use dial, dial star three.
And if you are a web
participant, you want to click
the hand in the lower left hand
corner or next.
>> To your PowerPoints. Not
showing right now.
>> Sorry about that.
>> Oh no problem.
>> Is it now?
>> Yep.
>> Thank you. So since we have
the screen on I'll I'll I'll,
I'll just backtrack for a
second here to raise or lower
your hand for a phone user. You
want to dial star three. And if
you are a web participant, you
want to click in the lower left
hand corner of the screen or
next to your name. In the
participants. This screen shows
you here for the web user. Here
you can see the hand raise and
also next to your name. Again,
the phone is just a dial to
dial star three. Okay, so we're
going to ask that everybody who
testifies when you're done
testifying, please mute
yourself because sometimes
there's a lot of background
noise. And remember, when
you're testifying, any
background noise in your in
your environment will be
projected here live and it's
being recorded. So you might
want to make sure that you keep
your surroundings quiet and
mute yourself when you are not
testifying fees. And also we
have disabled the chat function
for public records purposes.
And that concludes our
presentation for the web screen
users and the dial in users for
instructions. Okay, so what I'm
going to do right now is go
right into staff's presentation
for Taylor's Reserve. PLD202526.
It's it's to subdivide roughly
four acres into 35 lots single
family, lots detached. And this
is in the R1 six zone. The
proposal they're proposing to
use the compact LOT development
standards. In addition, there's
been a boundary line adjustment,
technical road mod, and also
the applicant has. During the
review process, the applicant
submitted a request for
Planning Director review for an
interpretation of the lot. The
status of the lot under the
compact lot standards. And
that's what we have in front of
us. The applicant is Joel
Hollingsworth and the contact
is Scott Taylor from SGA. V
staff. Melissa Curtis has
prepared this information and I
am I am presenting it here
tonight. The review engineer is
Alastair Dawson and concurrency
review engineer is Craig Kathol.
Sorry. All right. For for our
present for the presentations
that not just you'll hear
exempt Mr. Examiner, but also
the public. The purpose of the
presentations is to provide an
overview and a summary of the
project, and to try to identify
all the major and any
outstanding issues. And this
all helps make a recommendation
to you, Mr. Senator.
>> All right.
>> So the subject site is shown
here on the screen with a black
dot. It's generally just a
little bit east of 50th Avenue
and immediately north of 114th
Street. You'll see here on the
screen, the site is zoned R1
six, as are the other
properties surrounding it. And
you'll see it's. The site is in
solid red color. And here we're
showing an aerial of the
existing residence. As we can
see, there's a quite a large
existing residence with
structures on the site. All of
that's going to be removed for
the subdivision as proposed by
the applicant. Also the
applicant, the driveway going
to that residence will also not
be a part of this development
that's going to be closed down.
Okay. Just to look at the
boundary line adjustment issues,
that's one of the probably the
biggest issue here tonight. And
I'll get into that a little bit
more. But just to show you the
plan. Here's the post
Post-decision review adjustment.
As you can see from the last
one, it was it was a pretty
square parcel. And these areas
in green, you'll see. Well,
it's the gray areas are green
in this site was adjusted to
tax lot 35 to the northwest of
the parcel northeast of the
parcel. Excuse me. Here is the
proposed development plan. As
we mentioned, the applicant is
proposing 35 lots. Okay. At
this time we're going to show
some photos of the of existing
conditions of the site. All
right. This first view is
looking East. 114th Street.
This is essentially where the
road turned. The county road
ends and it goes turns to
private. And you can see the
red X adjacent to this as to
where the the the photograph
was taken.
>> Oh I see.
>> Can you see my cursor? Going
right around the red X. Yeah.
No. Yeah maybe.
>> We do.
>> Yeah. I'm not sure why
that's happening. Oh well. All
right. Here is a picture of the
east boundary line. Of course
this is I'm assuming this is
the driveway of the existing
property. Okay. So this is
looking up the private driveway
and you can see where the red X
is on the right hand side of
the screen of where that
picture is taken. Okay, so this
is a view west along 114th
Street. As you can see, the
site and the existing driveway
is on this side. Well, you
can't see my cursor on the
right hand side of the screen.
Here's a, here's the photo of
existing of the existing home.
Also, this is more stuff about
the existing driveway. Like I
said, that's going to that's
not going to be utilized in the
development. And this is a
photo on the other side of the
development on the west side.
And here's another photo from
northeast 114th Street. Okay,
so just some timeline
information, including the up
to the most recent stuff as far
as the timelines and the staff
report, the applicant was
determined to be complete on
April 11th, 2025, and May 27th.
It was 2025. It was considered
fully complete. Notice of
determination. Optional Sipa
determination was mailed to the
neighborhood association and
the property owners the 500ft.
On June 4th, 2025. Notice of
Application. Public hearing was
mailed out to not only
neighborhood association but
property owners, also within
500ft. On March 23rd, 2026.
This also the same date that
the sign was posted on the
subject site. See the staff
report and recommendations to
the examiner was issued on
April 8th, just 15 days ago. It
did not include the concurrency
staff report as both cases.
Tonight we'll get into that a
little bit more, but now it is
in the record as exhibit 59. We
do have them now. Okay. Well I
think, you know, certainly do
due to the fact that we've had
the. Concurrency reports come
in just a day or two ago, we're
going to need at least two
weeks for the for the first
period of open record, I'm sure
you're going to be looking at
these other things. I'm sure.
>> I think you're right. I
forgot about that when I was
doing my intro. And yes, I'm
I'm sure we'll pull it on for
at least two weeks.
>> Yeah.
>> The issue there is I am
going on vacation. May 2nd.
17th. I'm coming back June 5th.
So we. I'm unlikely to get
these out before decisions out
before I come back. Yep.
>> I think that's likely.
>> I want to give everybody a
heads up to that effect. And so
I'm happy to accommodate longer
open records if for either of
these cases, if if requested
and necessary.
>> Perfect. Yeah. And we might
certainly in this one, we might
need it. Okay. So just as far
as the exhibits that are in the
record, see staff report and
recommendation was issued on,
like we already said, April 8th,
that's exhibit 58. Let's see.
And in in this said that the
new exhibits have been added 61
to 65. There they are. All 61
through 65 are all neighbor
comments. We also got a 66,
another neighbor 6667 also
neighbor comments. I sent those
to you earlier today, Mr.
Examiner.
>> Okay. And 66 I see your
email. Thank you.
>> And the other important
thing about that email is that
it the last exhibit in the
record is six so far is 68. And
the applicant, I'm sure they
want to make, you know, they're
planning on making an argument
about the about that compact
lot, lot size or as an
existence. So they provide they
provided some lot determination
information. So that's 68. Okay,
so moving on to that very same
issue as far as the whether
this lot qualifies for compact
lot standards at the time of
the pre-application conference,
staff indicated to the
applicant that a boundary line
adjustment could not be done
and use the Compact development
code because, as we know, the
the very top of those standards,
it says that they need to be
the. The site needs to be have
existed or in. At the prior to
the date of the ordinance being
adopted, which was about a year
and a half ago, almost two
years ago now. So pursuant to
42, 6070 compact lot
developments, compact lots are
permitted on parcels created
prior to the adoption of the
date. As I just paraphrased.
The parcel is three acres or
smaller in size. It was stated
to them that the adjustment
would change the status of the
parcel, and would no longer be
created prior to April 26th,
2024. Oh, that's the date.
Great. So that's, that's the
main issue. And that's the
that's the issue that and the
reason why staff is
recommending denial.
>> Just to clarify, even if
they hadn't recorded that
boundary line adjustment, they
still wouldn't qualify for
compact lot development because
it's even bigger. Correct.
>> You know, I'm not so sure
that's the case. I'll look at
that too. And we'll have the
applicant address that I, I
think I think Melissa, I think
we, I think it might have been
because they can also subtract
out.
>> Rights of way and open space.
>> Yeah. So we'll, we'll have
the applicant address that.
>> But I asked that thing.
>> So so the, the most recent
updated plans as as shown here
is exhibit 46. And as I just
stated, of course, staff does
not recommend approval. We
recommend denial based upon
that compact lot requirement.
And that concludes staff
presentation, at least land use
presentation.
>> I have some questions about
the staff report. I understand
you didn't draft it, so if you
don't know, that's fine with
you, Miss Curtis or whoever's
whenever if she gets back in
time and address it during the
open record.
>> I might. I have them here
and we'll see if their land use
or other. Yes. Shoot.
>> Right. Yeah. I engineering
I'm sure somebody here who
could do it. But. Page six, top
of the page it says the gross
area of the site is 4.6 acres,
comma 3.60 post boundary line
adjustment with 3.6 net acres.
After removing right of way
insensitive lands and then at
2.23 acres, that does the
density calculations based on
2.23. Is that it was. Is it?
This may be why I'm confused.
It was 4.6. And then the
boundary line adjustment
reduced it to 3.6. And then
deducting for open space and
rights of way, reduced it to
2.23.
>> I believe here I'm getting
there right now. I've got.
>> The applicant may be able to
address that more easily, but.
>> And you're at the very top
of page six, right?
>> Yeah. The first paragraph
there.
>> Yeah. Yes, yes. I believe
that's the case. The one piece
of it, I will ask the applicant
to confirm the one piece of
information, the one piece of
information that probably could
be helpful is what's what's the
what's the area of the site?
You know, 3BLA with the right
of way and stuff taken out. And
I'm sure that's something that
the applicant that would answer
your question about what was it
really below three acres before?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Page nine. Bottom of the
page under E main entrances for
compact lot structures on
compact lots residences. Just
wait for me to get there. So
don't jump ahead of you, okay?
>> I'm on page nine now.
>> Okay, bottom of the page, it
says main entrances have to be
visible from the street and set
back no more than eight feet
from the longest street facing
wall of the structure. I'm
assuming in that Wall Street
facing includes shared
driveways because lots 17
through 20 or 18 through 20 are
on a private shared driveway
rather than a street.
>> And the lot you're referring
to are what lots.
>> On the top left, northwest
corner, 18 through 20 and
possibly 17.
>> Yeah, I think it's 17
because 17 does not have direct
access onto the loop on the
loop road.
>> So as a shared driveway
constitute a street for
purposes of a street facing
wall.
>> It does pursuant to our code.
Let me let me look at let me
look at that and I'll try I'll
try to respond to a little bit
later. Okay. I know pursuant to
and unless the unless the
compact lot standards trumpet,
it's I know in our definitions,
it's easements, access
easements are considered
streets.
>> Okay. I assumed it was. I
just intended to get back and
look at that. And I never got
back to it. On page ten. I was
just under 42, 61, 55 finding
nine. The findings talks about
the revised site plan is
exhibit 25. I think the latest
revised site plan is exhibit 46.
Just one of them.
>> Okay. So I'm I'm I'm sorry,
I was a little slower on page
ten.
>> Sorry, sorry.
>> No no no no. I'm sorry.
>> Page ten. Under finding nine.
Got it. C1AI the finding at the
time of preliminary application
it starts out with italicized
there.
>> At the time the applicant
provided a separate plan she.
>> No finding nine at time of
preliminary application. Oh
yeah you went on. I'm sorry.
Revised site plan refers to
exhibit 25 as. The revised site
plan is. Exhibit 46 is the most
recent. I have revised site
plan.
>> I think I'm pretty sure
that's correct. I'm going to
verify that. Right.
>> I think it just didn't get
updated.
>> I think you're right. Yes,
absolutely. That is correct
because it 46 is I'm verifying
it. The 46 is the most recent
revised plan. So that should
that you should put 46 in there.
>> Okay. Page same page. Bottom
the page under three B starts
out. The applicant's proposing
on street parking. It says.
Last part of the sentence is
providing 14 parking spaces
within two common areas. I only
see one common area for parking
in the revised plan.
>> Yes, we might have to ask
the. And maybe. Maybe what it
was is. Since there are. They
are providing some parking
along. Since this is a local
residential access road, they
can also provide parking along
the street and you can see.
>> I think that's.
>> Yeah, you.
>> Can see mentioned in that
earlier in that finding. So
there's five parallel on street
parallel parking spaces on the
urban local access road and 14
parking spaces within two
common areas. And there's not
14 spaces within the one common
area. So that finding just
needs to be modified to reflect
the current proposal.
>> That's correct. That's
correct. And we'll ask the
applicant to I'm sure the
applicant will. Yeah. Yeah.
That as well.
>> I these are just things I
wanted to raise so that of the
applicant and anybody else can
address them. Page 17. That's
the last one I have. This is
probably for Mr. Dawson because
it's regarding the road mod or
if there's other transportation
engineers finding six at the
top of. Page 17 says they
requested road modifications
for relief from cross
circulation and from
intersection spacing, and from
full frontage improvements on
northeast 115th Street. Oh yes,
that's the street. Again, I
think this is because the plat
changed. They're no longer
requesting, I assume, cross
circulation or intersection
spacing relief because they
have proposed road to the east.
That's still.
>> Let's ask Alistair to
respond to that.
>> Yeah. Mr.
>> Dawson? Yes. Alistair Dawson,
development engineering here.
You're correct. The original
road mod did have those first
two requests in there. So the
revised road modification
provided by the applicant, I
believe still had discussion
about them. But they were, you
know, crossed out or modified.
So yes, the proposal did change
throughout the review process
to include public road
circulation. So relief from
providing circulation was no
longer needed because it was
met outright. And the same with
intersection spacing is also
met. So they were no longer
applicable. By the time we got
to the end of this.
>> Do they still need a road
mod for sorry, circulation
because they're not providing
it to the west or to the north?
I don't know, obviously they
can't. So road mod would be
appropriate. But. Do they need
road mod where there is
existing development precluding
it.
>> It was determined that they
were doing the maximum amount
feasible on their westerly and
northerly property lines. It's
already been developed and you
can see the proximity. So if
it's within 100ft I didn't
measure it, but I'm guessing
100ft north and west. Then they
wouldn't need to stub to those.
I don't believe so. That was
not it was not a condition
coming out of the road Mod that
they did not try and extend to
those previously developed
areas.
>> Yeah, I just when I, when I
write my final order, I usually
adopt or take the county's
findings and edit them. And I
just if clearly the road mod to
the cross circulation to the
east is no longer required. I
just wasn't sure if a road mod
for cross circulation to the
north and west was actually was
was required and was approved.
Just trying to figure out how
to phrase that finding. And the
applicant may have some
response, but again, I just
wanted to raise the issue. We
can resolve it during the open
record. That was the only
questions I had. Thank you, Mr.
Daviau and Mr. Dawson. Mr.
Housley, I understand you're
representing representing the
applicant.
>> I am Mr. Examiner. I believe
Mr. Taylor from SGA is going to
go first and probably answer.
>> You're the only one on my
screen at the moment, but
things jump around.
>> We'll start with Mr. Taylor.
>> Perfect. Looks like I've
been up to panelists. Thank you
very much, Mr. Daviau Scott
Taylor.
>> I saw there was SGA also on
there, so I didn't.
>> Yeah, sorry. Well, we've got
Jason Mattis and Scott Taylor
both here with SGA engineering
this evening representing the
applicant. And then also Mr.
Housley. So I'd like to first
start off with sort of a little
quick overview of how we got to
the plan we have tonight, and
then also answer your questions,
Mr. Turner. So as it's been
alluded to and discussed and
sort of shown throughout the
plans and all the exhibits,
this project started out with a
private loop road and a gated
community concept throughout,
working with staff and working
through code requirements,
cross circulation requirements,
and intersection alignment
requirements. We now have a
public loop road and a public
stub road to the eastern
boundary to meet the cross
circulation requirements. The
gate was removed and one of the
lots was also removed. So what
was a 36 lot subdivision is now
35 that I believe may say 36 in
a couple spots, maybe in the
concurrency staff report, but
it is 35. Currently, exhibit 46
is the one on the screen
currently. And is the current
plan okay. We, you know, worked
through a boundary line
adjustment with the neighbors
to resolve an agreement that
they had previously set in
place for retention of a number
of mature fir trees and other
native trees. There's a couple
dogwoods and maples in there.
And so those are shown on this
plan as well. To answer your
questions, I'd like to go down
those in order. And then also,
if there's any other questions,
I'm glad to answer those and
help answer questions with the
public this evening. So number
one, the gross site area 4.06
acres post boundary line
adjustment. It is 3.6 acres.
I'm going to get back to our
same page here. We were on page
six. So the third number here
saying post boundary line
adjustment with 3.6 net acres
is incorrect. That I believe
there's yeah, I believe they're
saying I don't honestly know
exactly how that was supposed
to be worded, but that's an
extra number that should not be
in there. When you remove right
of way sensitive lands, you
know, areas for access and road
dedication. You have a. Net
site area of 2.238. So that's
correct. 2.23 correct.
>> Thank you.
>> And you know, compact lot
developments are allowed the
200% density. And so that
doubles the allowed maximum
density. And when you do that
math you end up at 35.23 units
max. And so 35 lot subdivision
meets that code. Now the
question was posed before the
Bla, what was the. Net site
area? So at time of our
pre-application conference, we
submitted a very similar plan
and loop road. And the net
acreage was 2.98 acres. So we
met the less than three acre
requirement at the time of the
pre app. The boundary line
adjustment was not completed to
circumnavigate any code or make
things smaller. To get into
this compact lot code allowance,
we met that allowance without
the boundary line adjustment.
Number two question the front
of the lots. You know, we agree
that the shared driveways and
access easements should
function as the front of the
lots for these homes. That's
where the garages will be.
That's where the front porches
will be. And that's.
>> That's clearly the intent. I
just haven't used that word
street.
>> So we agree with staff. You
know, the front of the lots
should be those shared
driveways and shared access
easements. Question three on
page ten. Exhibit 46. Yes. Is
the current plan and the
correct exhibit number?
Question for the two common
areas for parking have been
revised. Thank you, Mr. Dawson,
for confirming that, you know,
we had South Common parking
area there when you first come
into the development. And
unfortunately, that is in the
way of sort of intersection
clearance requirements. So they
don't want people backing out
into intersections. So we
removed that parking area and
show the on street parking and
then the north parking area.
Those two parking areas meet
the requirements for guest
parking.
>> And staff confirms that too.
By the way, just just to chime
in because they have five part,
it's 12 parking spaces that are
required and they between the
street and the common area, it
is. 12 so that that that meets
the code.
>> Thank you.
>> And then on.
>> The 6 or 7 spaces in the
common area, I can't tell if
it's a car or an island.
>> It's a car.
>> Okay. So there's seven
spaces, correct.
>> Okay.
>> And so guest parking is met.
There's additional spaces to
where some people could park on
the street, but we didn't show
those additional parking spaces.
We just showed compliance, you
know, with the guest parking
for the areas that are that
function well for street
parking. The final question you
had was on the road mods and
where there were three
originally, we were able to
work through the first two with
staff and no longer needed
those. So it is just one road
modification necessary and for
not completing frontage
improvements on 1/15 street.
And again there you know it's
required for cross circulation,
but it's silly to build a four
foot strip of pavement and a
sidewalk to nowhere. And so the
agreement was made with staff
that we can dedicate that right
away. So if in the future
neighbors to the east develop,
they could extend the road. But
at this time, this project
would construct a short section
of road after the returns and
stop. So therefore we don't
need to remove any trees for
road construction. And you
don't have a sidewalk that
sends people back to nowhere.
And so that's part of that road
modification findings on 1/15
Street. And we agree with that.
You know, that's great. We
really.
>> Just for the public eye,
sorry, just for the public who
may not be as familiar, we're
talking about the little strip
that's just north of lot
proposed lot ten. That is where
the boundary line adjustment
kind of jogs to the west.
>> Correct.
>> And so that was the
discussion with staff and the
agreement that it makes more
sense to stop 1/15 Street and a
nice, you know, squared fashion,
avoid impacting any of these,
you know, 42 inch fir, 30 inch
fir, dogwood trees, you know,
preserving all these trees that
the neighbors pushed so hard to
preserve. And we agree with
that. And so there would be a
barricade, you know, put up
there at the end of the street
next to lot 11. And, you know,
as far as cross circulation
requirements, we worked quite a
bit with staff. You know,
there's a number of cross
circulation plans in the record.
But if you refer to exhibits 48
and 49, those are the most
current cross circulation
narratives and plans that we
worked on with staff and the
road Mod committee. So cross
circulation is met with the
adjacent streets to the west
and then the north, and then
streets to the east in the
future. So, so yeah, stubbing
roads to the west and the north
would not be necessary and also
not make sense, you know, with
adjacent to 50th Avenue
subdivision that got developed.
So that was our, our position.
I think staff shares that as
well. And no additional cross
circulation road mods would be
necessary for the proposal. You
know, we appreciate all staff's
efforts and time on this. It's
taken a long time to get to
this point. And we understand
there's a challenge, you know,
with this interpretation of lot
creation. And, you know, I
appreciate Mr. Housley being on
tonight. And so I'll turn it
over to him. Now, as far as,
you know, more of a state law
interpretation issue that we're
going to dive into. So unless
you have any other questions
for me, Mr. Examiner.
>> I don't at this time. Thank
you, Mr. Taylor.
>> Great.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, Mr. Examiner,
just for the record, my name is
Jamie Housley. I am at 1211
Southwest Fifth Avenue, suite
2700, Portland, Oregon, 97204.
I am the attorney for the
applicant here. First of all, I
would like to thank Mr. Daviau.
I know he's pinch hitting
tonight for Miss Curtis. He did
a great job. I want to thank
Mr. Taylor as well. From my
perspective, this is a real
simple question of how state
law interplays with with the
development code. And so I
think to start, I want to start
way down in the weeds of the
county code first, and then I'm
going to go up the abstraction
ladder into some state law, and
then I'm going to come sort of
back down, hopefully in focus
on this particular facts of
this case. So just as a
threshold matter from the very
beginning. Title 40 has the
definition section. And I know
Mr. Examiner is very familiar
with that. It's 4100, 700. And
it's important that parcel is
not defined anywhere in the
code. But a lot is a lot is
defined at, which means a
designated parcel tract or area
of land established by a short
plat subdivision or otherwise
permitted by this title to be
owned, separately, leased, used,
developed or built upon. So
parcel is is encompassed within
the definition of lot. And I'll
kind of get to the conclusion a
little bit later. We'll return
that to. Motschman. Next you
would have the county code and
it contains what is called the
legal lot determination process,
as defined by. 4510 010 I know
the examiner is very familiar
with with this process as, as
am I. I did believe Mr. Taylor
did send an email that Mr.
Daviau had referenced to the
county earlier today, which is
a snippet from the county's
website that explains this
process in detail. But again,
essentially, this is a
historical exercise when you
are are going through that
process to see whether or not a
parcel of land was created as
an exempt land division, which
is there are certain periods of
time where those could have
been created by state law and
county code, through a survey,
through a short plat or
subdivision, or if if the
parcel itself or lot itself was
created prior to the State
Subdivision Act coming into
effect. And, and all of these
have different fees and there's
different criteria that, you
know, the examiner is very
familiar with. And I'll return
back to the specific lot here
in question in a bit under this
code. Next in the county code,
we have the county code related
to boundary line adjustments.
And this is under Clark County
code 45401. Oh. And
specifically, I would call the
examiner's attention to
parenthetical a and this states
this is a process for the
purpose of adjusting boundary
lines, which does not create
any additional lot tract,
parcel, site or division, nor
create any lot tract, parcel
site or division, which creates
insufficient area and dimension
to meet the minimum
requirements for a building
site. And this county code
provision is basically a carbon
copy right from the state
planning statute of R, C, W
5817, and more specifically,
under the exceptions to
platting under 58170406, which
states that divisions are
exempt when they're made for
the purpose of alteration by
adjusting boundary lines
between platted or unplatted
lots or both, which again does
not create any additional lot
tract, parcel, site or division,
nor create any lot tract,
parcel, site or division which
contains any insufficient area
or dimension for building site.
So now I kind of want to move.
I don't know whether this is
going up or sideways. I never
know where case law kind of
blows in this. So we'll just
I'll just say both. But then we
have this case called City of
Seattle V Crispin Cristen
Crispin KERISPIN00.
>> Okay. Yeah, I've heard of
that one.
>> Yeah. And this this is 149
win second. 896. I don't know
if the examiner uses Pacific
third, but it's so it's 71
Pacific third. 208 it's a 2003
case. And at the time.
>> You give me the first site
again.
>> 149WM149 Win second.
>> 896896 thank you.
>> Yeah. The 2000 and. In this
case was essentially bought,
brought up to by the Supreme
Court to. And it was in bank
decision to try to settle this
question of what was really
meant with this RC W 58170406
what did it mean? There was
some dispute within the the
lower ranking courts. And so
just briefly kind of want to
touch on the facts of this case,
because I think. It's
illustrative of what what's
going on here. So in that case
there originally ten lots that
were created prior, you know,
some some time in the distant
past. And in Seattle, they were
eventually consolidated down to
three lots. So they were merged
effectively down to three
sometime in the late 1960s. And
during this time, there were a
bunch of buildings built. And
then in 1972, four apartment
buildings were converted into
condominiums. And at that time
they they realigned or did an
adjustment to the property
lines, and they had. And this
was in September. And the city
of Seattle adopted their
subdivision ordinance a little
bit earlier than the state law
and had adopted it in in May.
But there was the buildings
were on two parcels. There was
essentially this this vacant
third third parcel, this third
property through a period of
time was eventually not paying.
The owner was not paying real
estate taxes and some other
stuff. And the county or the
city went to foreclose on it.
And Mr. Crispin ended up buying
the property and he sought a
building permit. To make a long
story short, a bunch of
neighbors didn't want to see
Mr. Crispin build a house. And
the city, who was initially in
favor of Mr. Crispin's position,
somehow reversed itself midway
in this process. I'm not really
sure what happened there, but
they they made an argument that
this was not a lot because it
was didn't wasn't created by
the city's subdivision statute.
And the court basically said,
no, that's not that's not
correct. 58170406 means what it
says. The court held that
boundary line adjustments are
exempt, so long as there's not
a new lot created. So back to
the facts of this case. This
specific parcel at question,
there was already a legal lot
determination done by the
county in 2004. This was BLA
2000 and 4-00044. And it
determined that this was a lot
of record. And therefore under
state law and the county code A,
BLA and under Crispin BLA can
be can be done. It's it's an
exempt land division that's not
creating an additional lot. And
what was important in the
Crispin case is said, even if
it. What are what are the exact
words? Even if it creates a new
building site or like a new
geometry, so long as it doesn't
dip below the minimum standard,
that that doesn't matter. It's
still exempt by by state law.
So turning to the county's
ordinance here, I think that
the word parcel is an
unfortunate word choice in in
the code it could be more
precise. It should be, you know,
lot as somebody who's practiced
a, you know, examiner knows a
lot in this area, no pun
intended. There. You can create
new tax parcels at any time for
a property. But that doesn't
that doesn't mean they're legal.
Lots of record. That would be
then be able to avail
themselves to the boundary line
adjustment so I could I could
see where the where the
confusion is here. And I'd be
happy to sort of expound upon
that if the examiner wishes at
this point, or it sounds like
we're going to have an open
record, maybe I can pontificate
on that a little bit more. But
essentially, I think it's it's
a it's a poor drafting in the
ordinance. But to my mind, the
logic of this is clear. This
this is the heading of it is
compact lot. Standard lot is
the only thing defined in the
code. And parcels are
encompassed by lot. So in this
case, the timing of the
ordinance is is irrelevant for
the purposes here, because the
county had already deemed this
lot to be a legal lot of record.
And the boundary line
adjustment in this case is
exempt. It's an exempt process
by case law, by state statute,
and the county code. And that's
about as clear as I can. I can
make it. It's it's not very
often that we have cases that
are sort of purely legal
argument, but I feel this is
sort of a unique circumstance.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Housley.
>> Thank you.
>> Is that it from the
applicant at this point?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. Is there anybody
who'd like to testify in
support in support of this
application? Not seeing eye,
please click on the Raise Your
Hand button if you want to do
that. Sorry, I forgot that part
and I don't see any. Thank you.
I don't I don't get to see them.
Mr. Daviau does. So anybody
who'd like to testify in
opposition or the questions or
concerns about this application,
if so, please click on the
Raise Your Hand button now.
>> Yep.
>> We do have some.
>> I thought we might.
>> Kim. Kim is our first. It
just says Kim, I will. Kim, I
just unmuted you. You should be
able to unmute. Well, you have
to unmute yourself. But I just
did that. So you should be able
to.
>> Kim.
>> I think I'm there.
>> Yes.
>> We're hearing you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. My name is Kim Hamlet.
HAMLIK. I live at 5222
northeast, 114th Street. I am
the president of the Curtain
Creek Neighborhood Association
and with my family and owner of
the property directly adjacent
to and east of this, the
proposed Taylor Reserve
subdivision. We are parties of
record. We oppose this
application and to raise
critical issues about our
property rights staff has
recommended denial and. We
believe that recommendation is
legally correct. I. There's a
Keesee number that I could go
into, but it requires a parcel
to have been created before.
April 26th, 2024 to qualify for
a compact LOT development. The
subject parcel is in current
condition is in. Its current
configuration was created in
February 26th, 2025, ten months
after that deadline, when the
boundary line adjustment was
recorded, the applicant knew
this. They proceeded anyway.
The code was is clear and the
parcel does not qualify without
compact lot. Without compact
lot standards, the project
cannot achieve even a third of
its proposed density.
Regardless of how you rule on
the density questions, we have
a separate and urgent concern
about our property rights. The
preliminary plat shows a road
stub and notation along the
eastern boundary of this
development. This notation
references our property, the
hamlet parcels to the east, and
implies that our land is
developed in the future. A road
will extend across it. We were
never consulted. We were never.
We never. We did not consent
and we do not agree. The County
cannot approve a plat that
places road obligations on
private property without the
owner's consent. That would be
be a taking under article one,
section 16 of the Washington
Constitution. We ask that you
strike any road notation, road
track dedication or right of
way language, referring our
parcels as a condition of any
approval or as part of your
denial order. We also have a
written agreement with the.
Each development signed before
this application was filed that
protects the trees. That
agreement is in the record. Any
road across our property would
destroy trees. That very. Beech
contractually promised to
protect. We submitted details,
written testimony on all these
issues, and we ask you to. One
deny the application. Two if
you do approve it, strike any
road, notify notification, not
road.
>> Stub to the east. I
understand.
>> Affecting our property from
the face of the plat and three
acquire require the applicant
to place in the record the
written agreement protecting
the trees along our boundary.
Thank you.
>> Thank you ma'am. Do we have
more raised hands, Mr. Daviau?
>> Yes we do. Jim Hemlock. Jim,
I am you should be able to
unmute yourself now, Jim.
>> All right. Can you hear me?
>> Yep.
>> All right. My name is Jim
Hamlet. I live at 522 northeast,
114th Street. And. Good evening,
examiner. My name is Jim Hamlet,
co-owner of tax lot 35,
adjacent parcels immediately
east of this proposed
development, I have submitted a
written testimony and I am a
party of record. Our family
owns tax lot 35 assessor's file
number 3248188 and adjacent
parcels directly east of the
proposed development. Those
parcels appear on the plat map
submitted with this application.
Their eastern boundary was
established in part through the
same boundary line adjustment
recorded February 2025 that
created the parcel
configuration the applicant is
now trying to use to claim
compact lot eligibility. Before
this application was filed, V
development signed a written
agreement with our family. A
Purchase and Sale Agreement
addendum dated October 1st,
2024, paragraph 11 of that
addendum contains an express
guarantee by which that there
will be no logging on Taylor
Parcel on any lots adjacent our
property. Paragraph six of that
same addendum contains
additional protection for trees
and vegetation along the
boundary shared between the
Taylor parcel and our property.
This is not a vague promise. It
is signed, written contractual
guarantee made by each
development in direct
contemplation of this
subdivision. If this project is
approved, those trees which
each promised us would be
protected are at risk both from
construction and from the road
stubbed aimed at our property.
We're asking this examiner to
require beech to place that
agreement in the record, and to
condition any approval on a
finding that the paragraph 11
tree guarantee is binding in
all successors, including
anyone who buys a lot in this
subdivision. Finally, we
believe that the Sipa analysis
did not adequately consider the
environmental impact of the
significant trees along our
shared boundary. We reserve the
right to challenge the DNS on
that basis with inadequate
applicable appeal. Period.
Please deny this application if
you approve it. Require the PSA
Addendum Tree guarantee be to
be recorded as a plat
conveyance and strike all road
notations affecting our
property. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I will note that.
The agreement with the
developer is a private
agreement, which I have no
authority to enforce, but you
do through a civil procedure if
it became necessary. And as far
as putting it in the record, I
can't require the applicant to
put anything in the record, but
you can put it in the record
during the open record period
just to make sure it gets in
there. I mean, the applicant
likely would, but just to make
sure that would be the best way
to ensure that it happens.
>> All right.
>> Thank you sir.
>> Any other raised hands, Mr.
Fabio?
>> Stand by. Let me see.
>> Oh, I forgot, you have to
change screens too.
>> I don't see, I don't see any
raised hands.
>> Okay.
>> Don't see any to confirm.
>> Does anybody else want to
say anything about this
application in support
opposition or with questions?
If so, please raise your hand
now. Still nobody?
>> Nope.
>> Nobody.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Anything further from staff
at this point?
>> Let's see. We land use.
We've we've addressed the the
the questions that have come in.
I'm not sure if one of our
engineers wants to talk about
that stub road to the east. But,
but but I'll just say, of
course we don't require any.
You know, it's obviously the
way that Stub Road would come
into play is if someone came in
to develop that property. So
that's, that's.
>> How.
>> Yeah.
>> That's how that stub road
would come in. We would not be
we would not be able to make
her make that property or build
a road or do anything at this
point, only if it comes in for
development. So that's, that's
probably more of a possible
future item. So I just wanted
to make that note. That's all I
have for staff.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mr. Housley or Mr. Taylor.
>> Yeah, I would, I just have a
couple points, Mr. Examiner.
One, I agree with Mr. Daviau
that a stub road is a county
code requirement for cross
circulation to go to adjacent
parcels. So you're not
landlocked parcels from public
access. That would be incumbent
upon that parcel to do some
redevelopment in order to take
advantage of that. But another
nevertheless, it's required by
code number two. There was the
neighbors raised a variety of
issues that the examiner duly
noted, are real property
matters and not germane to the
approval criteria here. So
again, just just finally, we
have a different view again as
outlaid by our analysis tonight,
our letter in the record. And
then since there will be an
open record period, I will
further elaborate on our view
about how exempt boundary line
adjustments work.
>> Okay.
>> At this point I'm go go
ahead. Mr. Daviau.
>> One thing I want to say is
as soon as I started talking,
somebody else raised their hand.
So it's as soon as I started
talking just before. Jamie.
Yeah, I, I don't know if we
want to try to.
>> Let's go back to that raised
hand.
>> So it's. Stefan. Stefan.
Dobey, I'm sure I'm not
pronouncing that correct. I
have just unmuted you. You
should be able to unmute
yourself now.
>> Not hearing you yet.
>> You have to unmute yourself
on your end, Stefan.
>> We're still not hearing you.
Obviously having some technical
issues. Oh, there we go. You
appeared for a second now.
Herrejon.
>> My name is Stefan Dyba. My
address is 5217 northeast,
114th Street. I am right across
the street from this
development and the other
concerns that have been brought
up. My concern is the traffic
survey and the traffic
congestion is going to happen
with this development. If you
look at an average house that's
built, you're going to have two
cars per house and each one
lots only has one parking spot,
and they are not addressing all
the parking that's going to
happen. And where all this
parking is going to happen
along 114th Street, which would
basically make 114th Street, a
one lane road.
>> This is Jodi Doba, I'm his
wife. I live also the same
address I currently there is a
subdivision being built right
across from it and they've only
got, I believe ten houses in
there. Their parking is already
full. Their overflow parking is
every night full, their parking
already on the street. 14th
Street on 114th Street. And
there's already there's only
ten houses built when they're
supposed to be another 19 more.
So when those are completed,
when that subdivision is
completed and this one is
started, there's no room for
parking. I know that I read the
survey, I have no idea how they
are approving that with already
what we're seeing with this
subdivision that has been
approved. Every night I can
show you pictures. Their
overflow parking is full by the
the people have already
purchased and it's not even
built out yet. So once we get
that and we have the 30,
however many, you have 35 more
with two more cars per house,
and none of those have even
driveways that people can park
on. They are so small, there's
not a driveway. I'm also a real
estate agent and noticing that
none of those I mean, that
neighborhood should have been
sold last year totally out. But
nobody wants to buy a house
with no garage, no parking, and
no driveway to park in where
you have to walk down your
street on a main road that you
have to park to get to your
home with your groceries. It
doesn't. It's not a very
thought out neighborhood. It's
not very. Nobody wants to live
in that. It's it's undesirable.
It's going to be an undesirable
place.
>> So that application or that
development is not before me
and it's been approved. I can't
change it now, but I understand
your concerns about parking.
>> Yes.
>> And the other concern would
be emergency access for
emergency vehicles, also for
the utility vehicles for
garbage. And again, 114th would
be limited down to a one lane
road. So any cars coming off of
50th Avenue and me coming from
my driveway would have to give
way or back up to let people
through. If they're going to
allow all these cars to come
into this development. And the
other concern is coming off of
50th Avenue, being able to have
visibility to get onto 114th or
off 114th onto 50th Avenue.
>> There's already been
multiple people have almost
gotten accidents. No, they
haven't gotten them, thank
goodness. But it's only a
matter of time.
>> Thank you.
>> The timer has run out
regarding the number of parking
spaces. Regarding the number of
parking spaces, that is. A
policy choice by the Board of
Commissioners. The code only
requires one space per lot, and
with compact development, an
additional one space per three
lots. Is that some? I don't
remember exactly, but that's
the. As proposed development
meets the standards. Minimum
parking requirements of the
code, I can't require more. And
as far. As restricting 100 and
fourteenths to a single lane,
that's also a policy choice by
the board because the county's
road standards for local access
roads, if that's the right term,
parking on both sides of full.
Width streets that are subject
to that local access standard,
which does limit it to a single
through lane when parking
occurs on both sides of the
street. And the fire marshal is
okay with that because they
adopted the code. The purpose
of that is that it functions as
a traffic calming measure. It
forces drivers to slow down
rather than traveling at higher
speeds through neighborhoods.
So it's a trade off. It's more
difficult to get through,
forces people to slow down,
which is a good thing, but it
also makes it more difficult to
get out of the neighborhood.
But it is a policy choice by
the board of commissioners.
It's not something. Those two
issues are something. I cannot
deny this development based on
those issues. If it meets the
code, I have to approve it. But
the issue is whether it meets
the code, and that's what we'll
have to decide. Mr. Daviau,
anything you want to add in
response to the testimony we
just heard?
>> The only thing I wasn't I
didn't hear the very first
thing you said. I just want to
correct something that the last
testifier, the the couple
talked about, the applicant is
providing actually two parking
spaces on each lot and then the
guest parking. And they had
said, one, it's actually two
parking spaces. And in some
cases it could be more
depending on how the width of
the driveway is. But yeah,
they're providing two parking
spaces per lot.
>> So as proposed, there is
parking in the garage and on
the driveway in front of the
garage. Is that correct?
>> A lot of times with these
narrower lots do it'll be one
in the garage and then two in
the driveway. But we can also
let the applicant verify that.
>> Yeah, I can address that.
>> Oh, thanks. Sorry about that.
>> Mr. Houser.
>> Yeah. Just on rebuttal to
this testimony. And it reminded
me of another issue I wanted to
touch on, I think, to respond
to that, maybe the general
concerns of the neighbors. But
we we essentially have a 18
wide driveways. So that's two
cars on.
>> 18 foot wide.
>> Yeah. So there's two cars on
each driveway, plus a two car
garage for each home. Plus
there's 12 parking stalls. I
think it's readily you can see
them on the site plan. So
there's 152 spaces for parking
for this project, which is
quite a lot for the size of
project. And then as far as
114th Street is going, we are
in fact widening that out to, I
think, 36ft an asphalt to
create safer conditions. There.
And I would suggest we have
looked at alternatives to this
site plan, and that would be
one thing is, is should the
examiner eventually agree with
staff and deny this project, we
would ask that it would be a
denial without prejudice, and
we would seek to resubmit under
the townhouse development,
which would actually increase
the density even greater, I
believe up to 44 lots, which
would be substantially more
than the presently proposed 35
that Mr. Taylor had indicated.
So it's sort of a Sophie's
Choice issue. The neighbors.
>> Okay, just a second. I want
to finish my note. Just for the
neighbors, the public.
Generally the. Without
prejudice, if I denied it with.
Without saying, without
prejudice, the. The applicant
would be limited on how soon
they could reapply for a
different development. If I
denied it without prejudice, it
would allow them to immediately
reapply with a different
development. I don't.
>> I.
>> I don't know, but I thought
the the code only prevented you
from reapplying for basically
the same development. I didn't
know it would prevent you from
coming in with something
totally different. Doesn't
matter if I if we get to that
point, I will consider that and
I'll review that issue in more
detail. But I appreciate the
the request.
>> Yeah. I just want to be
clear there.
>> No.
>> I appreciate that. With that,
I'm going to close the hearing,
hold the record open. I'm going
to grab. Mr. Housley. And for
Mr. Taylor. I'm going to hold
it open for two weeks.
>> Where are we. Because of the.
>> The fact that the staff the
complete staff report with
concurrency finding was not
available until yesterday. So I
want to give everybody the full
two weeks that the code
requires for review of the
staff report, which puts us to
May 7th.
>> Now, can I interject for a
minute here, Mr. Sumner, this
is Richard Daviau.
>> Yeah.
>> So I'm not sure. You know,
Mr. Housley talked about
submitting stuff in the record
for the compact lot stuff. And
of course, the way the record,
the way we want the record open,
we for for what we want to be
able to respond to that issue.
And so I don't know if it makes
sense for that stuff to come in
first and then to have another
two week period. I'm thinking
the first two week period may
not work just because we we
want to be able to respond to
any new information, any
information that the applicant
submits on that, especially on
that any issue, but especially
on that issue.
>> Well, I mean, first of all,
I would I would articulate that
what I'm suggesting is legal
argument. So that would be the
final rebuttal for all I care.
And but if if we're going to
submit new evidence, which I
don't think we're going to do,
we can certainly do that within
the same time period of the
first two weeks. And then the
county would have their week to
respond or two weeks to respond.
Okay.
>> So we've got a lot of there
was a lot of different
durations mentioned there. Mr.
Mr. Housley, do you want a week
for the applicant to submit new.
And then two weeks for Brittnie
respond or just two weeks, and
you could submit during that
two weeks and then a week for
the applicant's final argument.
>> So we say two weeks, two
weeks, and then one week, two
weeks.
>> Two.
>> Weeks.
>> Two weeks and a week.
Because if Mr. if Mr. Housley
submits new evidence, I think
everybody needs a chance to
respond. Anybody submits new
evidence, everybody gets a
chance to respond to that. But
if he just submits final
addition, if he just submits
legal argument, then there's no
opportunity for rebuttal to
that. The applicant can just do
that in their final argument.
So I could. Mr. Housley.
>> Well, I do that reminds me,
I forgot to mention, I think
Mr. Taylor had some cleanup
items in the staff report, so
it would probably behoove us
maybe to take a week, a week to
do that. Then the public and
the county could respond in
that second week while also
providing that that second week
window. And then the final week
would be our our final argument.
>> Okay.
>> And the county is requesting
for our second period. We,
we're asking for two weeks. So
that would be a week, then two
weeks and then a week for final
rebuttal. Rebuttal.
>> Okay. And like I said, I
will be gone on vacation. So I
won't, it won't delay my
decision in this matter. And it
would give you more time.
>> Sure. I, I'm, I'm amenable.
>> Okay, so we decided on is
two weeks, two weeks and a week.
Is that correct? Yes. Okay.
I'll get okay with that. I will
close the hearing. Close the
record. I will hold it open for
two weeks until May 7th for
anybody to submit new testimony
and evidence. I'll hold it up
for another two weeks until May
21st for anybody to respond to
whatever was submitted during
that first two weeks. By May
7th, that second period is
limited to responses to
whatever was submitted during
the first open record. No new
issues may be raised during the
second open record period. I'll
hold it open until May 28th for
the applicant to submit a final
written argument. Without any
new evidence, the applicant can
submit sooner if they choose or
waive, but I won't get to this
my decision out until I come
back. And so I will do my best
to get my decision out by the
19th of June, two weeks after I
get back, and I don't see an
issue with that. So anything
anybody wants to submit. Mr.
Daviau, should it go to you or
to Miss Curtis?
>> It should probably go. It
should probably go to to
Melissa Curtis or or or maybe
even both of us.
>> Yeah.
>> You're going to get a copy
of Richard. So. Just because I
like to see your face.
>> Anybody who wants to submit
anything, it has to be
physically received by the
county by 4:00 PM, 5:00 first
period, 5:00, 5:00. Is that
what you okay? At 4:00? My
notes. I need to change that.
I've many jurisdictions and all
have different closing times.
Anything anybody wants to
submit has to be received by
5:00. In this case, for the
first week, first period by May
7th. Second period. May 21st,
applicants final by May 28th.
And then my decision in mid
June 19th at the latest. I'll
send my decision to the county.
The county will send it to the
record. So anybody who has
testified or does so during the
open record period, we'll be
sure and receive a copy of my
decision. As I noted, you can
send your comments to Mr.
Daviau and or Miss Curtis, and
that concludes our hearing on
that item. Thank you all. Have
a good evening. Thank you.
We'll continue with the second
item on our agenda in just a
moment.
>> Thank you.
>> Solevad. Sure.
>> We're going to take a very
short break, because I think
this next one's going to go a
little longer. And so I'll be
right back and we'll start
again in say five minutes.
>> Perfect.
>> Thank you.
>> Then I'll start the hearing
for PLD 20262026-00002 174th
Street Subdivision. Whenever
you're.
>> Ready and you can see my
screen, right, my sharing, my
presentation. Excellent. That's
what I thought.
>> Yes, I can excellent.
>> Okay, so in this case, the
applicant proposes to subdivide
approximately 25 acres into 100
lots. The site is currently
split zoned R1 ten and R1 20.
The applicants also proposing a
concurrent rezone to rezone the
R1 20 portions of the site to
R1 ten. Let's see. And also,
there were requesting a 10%
variance for lot width for
multiple lots within two phases,
and the site falls within the
Mill Creek overlay. The
consultant firm. The contact is
PLS engineering. Jalissa.
Curtis did produce the staff
report and the information. I'm
doing the presentation tonight.
Alistair Dawson is our review
engineer. Craig Cordell is our
concurrency engineer and Ariel
Whitaker is here as our wetland
biologist staff.
>> Okay.
>> And and as I've mentioned
before, really there's there's
different purposes for the
presentations tonight, not just
from staff, but from, but from
the neighbors and the applicant.
It's to provide an overview of
the summary and a summary of
the project, identify any major
issues or concerns and relate
those to you, Mr. Examiner, so
you can make a record or make a
recommendation to you.
>> Okay.
>> The subject site is located
here with with black dots on
the screen. It's located on the
south side of 174th Street and
on the east side of 40th Avenue.
As we can see, the site is
zoned as split zoned R ten and
R 20. And you can see it's
surrounded by R 20 on on the
east and south side and R 110
on the west side across the
street from 174th Street. It's
a r 175. But here we have a
copy of the aerial. And these.
The reason why we're seeing
these different. These are
actually separate parcels. And
that's why we're seeing these
different grids the outlines.
But you can see the aerial of.
And what's existing on the site.
Okay. Here's a copy of the
proposed plan. This is the
north. The split phase one is
their north. And then phase two
is south. We pasted them
together just so you could kind
of see the full one. But we
want to look at the other ones
individually to get more
clearer picture. Okay.
>> Appreciate that. And the
same thing on paper. Copy.
>> Okay. At this point we want
to show some slides
demonstrating the existing
conditions of the site. Okay.
This first view is one south of
northeast 40th Avenue. And you
can see that's 169th Street
that, that, that, that peels
off and goes to the west. This
view is one north of northeast
40th Avenue, and you can see
174th Street there at the stop
sign. And the next picture, we
will pretty much go. Right. And
I think it's just right there.
Yep. And there is a view
heading east on 174th Street.
And then here are a couple of
driveways at 16915 northeast
40th Avenue. Here's another one
on 40th, 17101. Okay. So as far
as a timeline and the exhibit
list go, the applicant was
determined to be Kaliner
complete on January 7th, 2026.
Fully complete. February 9th,
2026 notice of Sipa optional
Sipa and public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, the
neighborhood association and
property owners within 500ft of
the site. On February 24th. One
sign was posted on the subject
site and two within the
vicinity. On March 13th, 2026.
So far as the exhibits go,
let's go back and the staff
report and recommendation was
exhibit 46, similar to the last
case, we have concurrency stuff
that came in. Looks like that
is exhibit four. Oh no. That's
a comment from. Hold on a
second. I'm a little confused.
I want to make sure I know
where the comments are. Stand
by one second. Okay?
>> I think it's exhibit 52
concurrency staff report.
That's it. Yes.
>> I'm sorry. That's exactly I
was just I just I was just
looking at that and confirming
that yes.
>> That's no problem.
>> Okay. So and some of the
main parts that was, that was
written here, that Melissa
right here for timeline and a
new exhibits, ten new exhibits
came in from Heidi Pozzo. I'm
not sure if I'm pronouncing her
last name correctly. Brian
Telegin, David Gilroy. And of
course, we've already talked
about the engineering
concurrency, the looks like
it's the ten exhibits from 10
or 11 exhibits from Heidi came
in were exhibits 59. Those just
came in yesterday, 59 through
70. And then the applicant
submitted just today, submitted
exhibit 71 through 77. And I
think that's all regarding the
arterial atlas and those
transportation issues that
we've had similar stuff on some
of these cases in the past. So
those are exhibit 71 through 71
through 77, and 77 is the last
exhibit we have in the record.
>> Okay. I have exhibits
through 70, so I'd appreciate
it if staff could either send
them or put them on the website
for the county.
>> So yeah, let's talk let's
talk a little bit later. I know,
I know Christie, I think
Christie sent I think Christie
sent you the link for the
updated stuff. But let's let's
talk to make sure you've got
those. I think she sent those
to you. At least I hope she did.
Let's let's check on that.
>> She did. And but I when I
checked this this early
afternoon, I only had through
70. But oh, okay. Like more
came in. Okay. But they're
they're great. I'm sure I'll
get them one way or another.
>> Yeah. Let's, I'll, you and I
can converse tomorrow to make
sure you've got those. Yeah.
Okay. So the staff
recommendation was, was issued.
We just mentioned about that
just a couple minutes ago. And
that was of course exhibit 46.
We'll talk more about the
record left open. But yes,
we're going to we're going to
be asking again for a more
extensive record open because
of the concurrency comments and
possibly other reasons as well.
Right. So when the concurrency
report was issued, we did issue
denial. Due to a failing level
of service. Here is a copy of
the full plan. Again, we'll
we'll go for more details.
We'll we'll look at the
individual sections for more
clear or oops. Okay. And that
concludes staff present at
least land use staff
presentation. However, at this
point in time, what I'd like to
do is because of those more
recent exhibits that were sent
into the record, the ones that
you not that you at least don't
have your eyes on yet. Steve
Archer from the county is here
and would like to just give a
little background, little
information. All right, Steve,
you're on.
>> Thank you, Mr. Landis.
Examiner. Mr. Turner, my name
is Steve Archer. I'm senior
deputy prosecuting attorney for
Clark County, and we're located
at 1300 Franklin Street, suite
three, 80, Vancouver. And I
would like to take the liberty.
Just making an informational
statement. In my role, I I'm
not an advocate here. I am here
to advise staff. I also can
answer questions from you.
However, it's my understanding
that an exhibit has been
submitted with regards to this
by. On behalf of Mr. Dean
Hergesheimer by his capable
counsel, Brian Telegin. And in
that there are mentions of
arguments related to Clark
County Code, section 33, 50
030B4B4A.
>> And 40. Did you mean 4350?
>> Did I say 40 4350 or did I
say 333 50 or.
>> Yeah, I wasn't aware of that
particular code. Okay.
>> Well, you know, I, I figured
I'd get it wrong on the B four
side of things. I didn't know
I'd get it right out of the
gate wrong. So. And I, I also
would invite Mr. Telegin to
comment. I haven't discussed
this with him all, all I want
to say Informationally, is that
in the past you have issued
interpretations and decisions
regarding this section. Now,
Mr. Hergesheimer has challenged
these. I in my capacity never
contact you or any land use
examiner when I represent the
county. When a land use
decision has been challenged
and I have not done so here. To
the extent that information
that you may want or need
information about the status of
any of those, I'd be happy to
weigh in and happy to allow Mr.
Telegin also. But Serape, since
you. To my knowledge, I haven't
expressed any of these to you.
If that is of any significance
to you, I. I'm happy to say a
few words.
>> Okay. I think it was. The
applicant submitted a number of
documents, including decisions
of appeals regarding my prior
decisions, where generally the
court agreed with my analysis
and affirmed those. My
interpretation of the code. So
I am familiar with, based on
what's in the record. So I, I
think I, I again, I don't know
what I don't know, so I think
we're okay, but I'm not sure.
>> All right. And I believe so
I, I think that I just wanted
to make that available, but I,
I think it's delicate and I
want to be very diplomatic
about it. So thank you.
>> I appreciate that. Anything
else from other county staff.
>> Yes. What I would what I'd
like to do at this point, Mr.
Examiner, is. Craig Cottle,
would you like to give an
update? Because the concurrency
comments came in a little bit
late, but they were. But but it
was a recommendation for denial.
Craig would like to give you an
update, would like to give an
update as far as the
concurrency situation.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks, Richard. For the
record, this is Craig Cottle,
Clark County concurrency. So
yes, at the time of this
hearing, concurrency has
recommended denial because at
the time I submitted my staff
report for review and signature,
the applicant had not
volunteered any mitigation to
show compliance with the
concurrency code. So in order
to attain concurrency approval,
the applicant needs to show or
they need to volunteer
mitigation for the intersection
of northeast 179th Street and
Northeast 50th Avenue that
meets or exceeds
pre-development conditions. The
county has since received that
volunteer letter. So during the
open record period, I'll be
reviewing that with my manager
and providing comments at that
time.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anything
further from other county staff?
>> I'm not I don't know that we
do. I unless you have questions,
that could be it.
>> I do. There was I didn't put
the name in my notes, but one
of the neighbors or opponents
at least raised the appeal
issue. I think it was exhibit
70. I saw that my understanding
under the county code that the
appeal the appeal deadline is
jurisdictional. If they didn't
file an appeal, I have no no
authority to extend that
deadline or otherwise review.
That's, I think I understand
the concerns that they raised
in their letter, but those most
of the issues that they raised,
they they weren't addressed.
And therefore, it would have
been appropriate to. The issues
they raised were not addressed
in the staff report, but it
would have been appropriate to
file an appeal. It's
unfortunate that they were
unaware that things may change,
but I can't consider the the CP
issues absent an appeal. And
Mr. Archer, it looks like you
have your. You have a response
to that?
>> Not. Presently you're. Oh.
>> Okay, I thought I, I just
saw out of the corner of my eye.
So your head move or something?
I thought you'd raised your
hand. So sorry. No, no.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Governor.
>> I have a little bit of a
response.
>> Okay. Let me let me finish
my thought there on that issue.
It's I will acknowledge that
the staff report didn't address
the comments. That's
disappointing. The or any the
public comments didn't
reference public comments at
all. And there were several
before the staff report. And it.
I don't know, but it appears,
given the timing of things that
the applicant was informed of
the contents of the concurrency
analysis regarding 179th and
50th, that it would not pass
concurrency because the day
after the concurrency report
was dated, the applicant
volunteered to fix it, so to
speak. But regardless, even if
they had if whenever the
concurrency report came out,
they would have, I assume, made
that same volunteer, it
wouldn't have affected the
appeal. They. Because
concurrency is a code standard
rather than a CPA issue. The
tire issue that the tire
articulates. There's a certain
chemical that was concerned
clearly wasn't relevant to
concurrency and is clearly a
CPA appeal. They could have
appealed on that. They didn't.
Again, I'm not casting
aspersions on anybody. I'm.
It's unfortunate that the
concern that the CPA appeal
deadline was missed, but I have
no authority to extend that. So,
Mr. Darby, if you wanted to
respond, go ahead.
>> Well, yeah, I think you
responded to. One of the things
that I was going to say was, of
course, the concurrency issue
is a code issue, not a CPA
issue. And also that letter
that came in exhibit 70 for the
CPA comments, if you read
further down, they say they
decided not to file an appeal
because we were recommending
denial. So they made that
choice not well, it appears
they made that choice not to
file an appeal. But I mean, I
just want to note the denial
issues wouldn't wouldn't have
been a CPA issue anyway because
it's a code compliant
concurrency issue. But that
that exhibit just came in
yesterday. Or maybe it was this
morning. I think it late
yesterday I got it.
>> I got it this afternoon. I
was out this morning.
>> So that at that point we
didn't we didn't we certainly
didn't have the we didn't have
any of those comments when we
when we issued the staff report
15 days ago.
>> But she submitted those.
This is basically the same
comments. No, she submitted.
Let me look at the exhibit
numbers. She submitted exhibit
16 and no, that's. Yeah, 16 was
hers. And maybe that was it.
They were combined, but she did
submit that exhibit 16 before
this long before the staff
report was issued. I don't know,
before the staff report was
issued, she resubmitted them as
exhibits 48. I think it's just
labeled as Sipah EIS challenge
in my in the documents. But she
resubmitted them because they'd
gotten mixed up. The paper
pages got mixed up, but they
were. They were in the record
before the the staff report was
issued. So that's why I was
surprised that there were no
public comments. I had that
note in my copy of the staff
report as there were public
comments, but they're not
mentioned. But I will hold the
record open so everybody can
address those comments. Staff,
applicant, anybody else. Anyway,
on to another issue in the
staff report on page three.
Under public comments, it notes
that. Department of Fish and
Wildlife will require a culvert
and which will require an HPA
from Fish and Wildlife. But
exhibit ten is a letter from
Fish and Wildlife says that
says an HPA is not required. So
I think that may have come in.
I don't know what the timing
was, but I just wanted to see
if someone can clarify that
issue, because I think there's
a condition that requires an
HPA. I'm not sure actually.
>> We can ask the applicant,
but we can also we can also,
after the applicant goes. We
can also ask our biologist,
Ariel, who's here to. Yeah,
>> I'm I can you guys hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, I did right. I noticed.
>> Miss Whitaker. Can you state
your name for the record?
>> I'm Ariel Whitaker,
biologist with Clark County
Community Development, and I
wrote to Fish and Wildlife
about that and to get
clarification. And they
confirmed, I think it was
exhibit 10 or 11, that an HPA
was not required.
>> So yeah, it was exhibit ten,
I think.
>> Yeah. So they had I think
they they just had like
somebody who kind of responds
to those generally. And then I
clarified and they confirmed
that was not required. And
there's an exhibit should be 10
or 11.
>> I'll just need to revise
that statement in the staff
report. When I write my
findings. Miss Whitaker, since
you're here, the the
subdivision proposed
improvements to 174th and 50th
Turn lane. I don't remember, I
don't know, some kind of
improvements and was also. The
staff noted that A HCHCZ. I'm
not sure. How about that
conservation of something maybe
required for those improvements?
I'm. This applicant is required
to make those same improvements
if. Veers doesn't do it first,
so I'm assuming they would also
have to get an. They have to
consider whether an Keesee is
required or determined. Is that
correct?
>> So the HCZ means habitat
conservation zone associated
with the stream. And so the
subdivision. It was this was a
complicated one because the
Vista subdivision is to the
east of this. They share the
eastern boundary or it's to the
east of this one. And so
there's two wetlands that cross
the boundaries on either side.
So veers had already had
approval to fill a couple of
the wetlands. These are really
small wetlands, by the way.
>> Yeah. I think we're talking
about different issues here. So
I just want to clarify, I'm
familiar with what you're
talking about with the wetlands
that may extend on to this site.
That veers is filling, but
veers is also the veers
applicant also proposed to
construct certain improvements
at 174th and 50th at that
intersection, some kind of a
turn lane improvement. And as I
had to go back and look at that
decision for something else,
and I just happened to notice
that the I think the condition
there was something about that
may require an HCC permit, or I
may have gotten the initials
wrong for. Because improvements
to that intersection to build
that turn lane may impact a
stream or whatever the.
>> Yeah.
>> I think.
>> That that project was having
to do with final. What a final
wetland or habitat permit due
to the widening turn lane that
was going to be required off of
50th.
>> Yeah. Should this
development be have that same
requirement if they build that
improvement?
>> I didn't condition that. So
I'm not really aware. Okay.
Maybe that's.
>> It was just a heads up.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's what
I needed.
>> Okay.
>> Appreciate it. And then
concurrence. Yeah, I have a.
Mr. Cottle. The concurrency
staff report, exhibit 52 at
pages four and five. I'm
summarizing notes that the
corridors based on the staff,
based on the applicant's
traffic study, the corridors
fail. The volume to capacity
measurement or standard. But
because the intersections in
those corridors are operating
at acceptable levels of service,
it passes concurrency. So does
that mean I understand what you
know, traffic's it's as I
understand it, that means
traffic's flowing through those
intersections at an acceptable
rate. So does that mean the
volume capacity analysis is
just wrong and it's overstating
it or.
>> For the record, this is
Craig Cottle No, it doesn't
necessarily mean that the
volume capacity is wrong. The
volume to capacity ratio is
used as a tool to understand
how much volume a corridor,
regionally significant corridor
within the county is
experiencing. But when we see
volume capacities in excess of
0.9, it's important to look at
the corresponding intersections
at the. Beginning and end of
those corridors. So with the
volume capacity that was in
excess of 0.9, all of the level
of service at the corresponding
intersections were at an
acceptable level except for
northeast 179th Street and 50th
Avenue and 159th Street and
72nd Avenue, which we requested
a volunteer letter for
northeast 179th Street and
Northeast 50th Avenue in order
to mitigate northeast 159th
Street and 72nd Avenue, was not
required to provide mitigation
because of Clark County code
435020G1C and that specifically
gives two different criteria
that need to be met. And the
first one of that criteria, the
proposed development, adds at
least five peak period trips
were not met at that
intersection. So it was not
required there.
>> Buy from this development.
Is that correct? You mean five
trips? Okay. Thank you. That's
what I understood as well. But
I just wanted to make sure
everybody else did. Okay. I
understand what you're saying
now, and that's what I assumed
as far as the volume capacity
and the level of service. But
your code 435020G1A provides
the maximum volume to capacity
ratio for each roadway segment
shall not exceed 9/10 period
when measured independently for
each direction of travel period.
It doesn't say anything about
level of service at either end.
So I'm not sure how does how do
you get there based on that
language? I know I've seen this
in a number of other cases.
Concurrency findings, but I
never questioned it before.
>> Right. Yeah. And it. So if
we take northeast 10th Avenue,
for example, if you look at the
trip assignments in the traffic
study, the. They're not sending
any trips or very minimal
amount of trips through that
corridor. So a big reason why
the volume capacity is over 0.9
on the 1/79 corridor is because
of all of the other in process
developments within the area.
So it's not a direct impact
from the 1/74 subdivision.
Development.
>> But they will they don't
have the full code in front of
me. But if they're sending
trips through a failing
corridor doesn't. It's. I
thought the code prohibited
approval of the development in
that case. Unless, you know,
there's the five trips that you
mentioned through a failing
intersection movement, but I
don't see that. Same for
failing corridor.
>> Well, would it be. Would I
be able to discuss this with my
manager? Absolutely.
>> During the open record?
>> During the
>> Record.
>> Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to
raise the issue so everybody
gets a chance to respond. But
as I read that code section, I
cited 435020 g one. A maximum
volume to capacity ratio for
each roadway shall not exceed
9/10 when measured
independently for each
direction of travel. Period.
Says nothing about level of
service at the intersections at
either end. I understand your
analysis and the basis for your
findings, but I don't see how
that's consistent with the code
language. So I'm looking
forward to explanations from
all parties as their opinion of
how that should be interpreted.
But I just wanted to raise the
issue. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Gallo.
And I know I just mispronounced
your name. Sorry. I think that
was the last question I had for
staff. Oh, just because it's
right in front of me right now.
For all parties, I would, if
possible in the future, if you
submit documents, is it
possible? Can you make them in
a form that is searchable and
copyable? When I'm going
through these online, I will
often see an argument or a
finding or statement, whatever.
I want to copy a section out so
I can make sure I. So I can
include it in my notes or in my
decision or whatever. With Mr.
Telegin s letter, exhibit 50
and a couple of other documents.
They weren't. I couldn't copy
it. Any text out of the
document. I couldn't search the
document for. So if I go back
later and I want to find where
I came up with it, somebody
mentioned something. That's
just an overall request. In the
future, if possible. I'm not
technology expert, but most
documents that I receive that
have been scanned, I can search
and I can copy text out of, but
there's there's several in this
case that didn't. No question.
They're just a request for the
future. Thank you. That's the
only questions I had for staff.
Now it's the applicant's
opportunity to testify, and I'm
not sure who's the applicant
representative in this case,
because there's not enough
space on my screen. There we go.
>> Thank you.
>> I think we're we're. Can you
hear us?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. This is Steve Morasch
with Lannen, and I'm in the
office of Engineering. Was the
engineer on the project. And I
think most of the presentation
I'm going to make tonight. But
I have Jason Taylor, a PLS. So
if there's engineering
questions or specific details I
may refer to to Mr. Taylor, my,
my involvement in this
application has been pretty
recent. But on the issue of
concurrency, my understanding
is that the applicant initially
proposed conditions to do the
improvements that are now
subject to the volunteer letter.
So their their failure was just
in submitting the right form,
which they've now submitted.
And so I believe that the
concurrency determination, when
submitted in the open record
period will be approval, and
therefore we're going to
request approval of the
application, subject to the
existing conditions in the
staff report. We are happy with
the conditions and we're not
requesting any changes. And I
want to thank staff for their
work on this. And we agree with
the staff report as to the
issue the examiner just raised.
With respect to the code,
section 43, 502, oh point G,
point A, we will want to submit
post hearing evidence on that
as well as briefing. I will let
the examiner know if I believe
is if the examiner interprets
that to require denial of this
application, the examiner will
have to deny every application
along the 179 corridor, because.
>> I understand that. That's
why I want to know.
>> And that would throw the
whole area into moratorium. And
it's not just 179. I'm
understanding from engineers
that 503 doesn't meet the
standard either. So it would be
throwing a significant chunk of
the county in the moratorium.
>> I understand, but I have to
apply the county code as it's
written. Right?
>> Well.
>> I you know that.
>> My interpretation of the
code is that the corridor issue
is something that causes the
county to pay more attention.
To concurrency at the
intersections. That's how it's
always been interpreted. And
because of the long standing
practice of the county
interpreting it that way, it
should continue to be
interpreted that way. None of
the developments that have been
approved, there's been about
100 units approved since the
urban hold was lifted. None of
those could have been approved.
You know, if this was
interpreted a different way.
And a number of the documents I
submitted into the record today
include a couple of newspaper
articles that describe the
lifting of the urban hold, and
one of the four development
agreements that was entered
into with the developer for the
M.A, which is the one that's in
this area. There were also
development agreements with
Killian Pacific, with Whole
homes and with Terry Wogan. And
what those agreements say is
that the county is going to
lift the urban hold, and those
four developers are going to
pay their tifs early. Usually
tifs are paid at the time of
building permit, but those four
developers agreed to pay their
tiffs even before preliminary
plat approval. There's a
schedule that they had to meet,
and not only were they going to
pay tiffs, but they paid $3,500
per lot surcharge, which is an
additional over the TIF. And
the county at that time also
raised their tiff for the area.
And the whole point of that was
so they could do their 179th
corridor improvements, which
the county has done. Some of
those, and some of those are
planned to be completed in the
next few years. And one of the
documents I submitted is from
the county website that shows
the various projects, just sort
of a list of projects and which
ones have been completed and
which ones are going to be
completed. We've also submitted
179th corridor plan, and so I
would submit that the whole
purpose of that body of work
that took place over a number
of years and required
cooperation between four large
property owners and the county,
was for the express purpose of
making the 179th corridor meet
concurrency. And so if this
code provision is interpreted
to absolutely prohibit any
development on 179th corridor,
it kind of goes contrary to
that, all those development
agreements and the 170 corridor
plan and all the planning and
work that's gone in to, you
know, make this area
developable. I would also point
out that the way the code is
written, if it's interpreted
literally, there is no possible
way. There's no conceivable set
of improvements that would
solve the concurrency problem,
because the way capacity is
designed in the table that is
right under that code section,
it says capacity is based on
the number of trips per hour in
the table, based on the
functional classification. And
179 is a principal arterial.
That's the highest
classification unless you want
to turn it into a parkway like
the Patton. And so it has 1800
trips an hour, and that's your
capacity. You can't create any
more capacity no matter what
you do, because that is what
defines the capacity right
there. And so it's impossible
to do any set of improvements
that would increase the
capacity. The only way to
increase capacity would be
either to change that table and
increase that number, or change
the functional classification
of 179. But the only the only
classification the county has
that's higher is Parkway. So
they'd have to turn it into a
parkway. So basically if the
code is interpreted literally,
it just doesn't work. It breaks
down and makes no sense. And I
think the rule of law that if
there's an interpretation
that's nonsensical and, and one
that makes sense, but maybe,
you know, doesn't do complete
justice to the literal wording.
You go to the one that makes
sense, even if it's not the
literal wording versus adopting
a completely nonsensical
interpretation that says we
just can't develop anywhere
along 179th period once we
change the code.
>> I understand.
>> That's that's my argument on
that. I will obviously want to
submit some additional evidence
about how, you know, effects
across the county of this code.
And anyway, but I think I, I
basically outlined that
argument. Unless there's
questions about my position, I
can move on to another.
>> Thank you, Mr. Morasch. Go
ahead.
>> So the other topic I want to
raise is this appeal. I think
the examiner's analysis is
correct. For whatever reason,
there was not a appeal, and
therefore it's too late to
challenge Sipa at this point. I
think that's a jurisdictional
issue. So I agree with that. I
also had concerns generally
about the I mean, the Sipa
appeal. It appears it was
written by an AI program. And
although some. I think the
issue about the concurrency
that we just talked about was
raised. And that, of course, is,
is an issue, an important issue
that needs to be addressed. But
I think much of the rest of it
is, is really not making a lot
of sense. And I know that they
cite case law, but the case is
the case. The citation is not
accurate. The A can be Clark
County case. And on page at
least I page. These pages
aren't numbered, but that case
is referred to as being a
growth management hearings for
case from the central Puget
Sound, which obviously it was
not. It was a. It was Western
Washington hearings. Boerke
case. But beyond that, the
Growth Management Hearings
board looks at these things in
a much different context than
than we do here at Development
Review, because they're
reviewing comp plan changes. So
I'm not sure that it has any
real applicability anyway. And
the concurrency issue obviously
doesn't need to be raised, as I
think staff correctly pointed
out. That's not really a
separate issue. Anyway. That's
an issue under the county's
code. So to sum up on the Sipa
appeal, it's too late. There's
no jurisdiction to hear it. But
even if there was jurisdiction,
I mean, it's really not a steep
appeal. It's a concurrency
issue. And I think those can be
addressed under the under the
concurrency findings in the
final decision. And it's also
comments submitted, I think it
was exhibit 57 or 58 to submit
a yesterday about the zone
change. And those had to do
with whether there was a
substantial change in
conditions. And in response to
that, I submitted for the
record your decision in the
90th Street Site Plan, Final
Order, which. The reason I
submitted that that was one of
my cases and the same issue was
raised there. And we made
arguments based on the housing
Options and action study. And I
think those same arguments are
applicable here. And rather
than getting into detail right
now, because I only have 20
minutes, I'm going to refer to
that final order that's in the
record. And I've also submitted
the Housing Options Act study,
and I've submitted that into
the record. So that's all in
the record and we can address
that in further detail, I think
during. The open record period.
And then the final issue I
wanted to address is the one
Steve Archer spoke about.
435030B4B4A, and that code
limits developments. Excuse me,
that have only one access to
100 lots. And this is an issue
that I've personally litigated
three times now against Mr.
Hergesheimer. And I submitted a
number of the documents. I
think you've seen three times
this issue has gone in front of
three, three different Superior
Court judges, two in Clark
County, Judge Gregerson and
Judge Banfield, and now one in
Lewis County, are sitting on
Lewis Cowlitz County. Judge
Evans, your decisions were
upheld all three times. Now,
two of those decisions are
going up to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals
has not weighed in yet, so
we'll see what happens. But I
wanted to get those in the
record because I'm anticipating
another appeal to court, and I
and I want to have a full and
complete record of the history
when I when I get to court. So
that that's why I submitted all
of that in. In a nutshell,
435030B4B4A has been held
numerous times not to apply to
174th because it's a collector.
And that provision only applies
to local access roads. So 174th
is not an issue. Now Mr.
Hergesheimer is raising an
issue with respect to 40th, but
the code that that code section,
what it requires is that if you
want to have more than 100 lots,
you need two accesses. And the
subdivision does have two
accesses. It accesses directly
to 174th. And then it also
accesses over to 40th, which
then goes up to 174th and again
174th. The code doesn't apply
to 174th, but it would apply to
40th as a secondary access to
the subdivision. Because 40th
is not a collector, 40th is a
local access street. Now, Mr.
Hergesheimer raises a question
whether 40th is a local access
or is it a neighborhood
circulator, which is another
type of a local access street,
but it has a slightly higher
capacity? Actually, it's it's
double capacity to a regular
local access street, and we can
submit from our engineers
during the open record. But the
summary on that is that
essentially, the county
typically decides during
project review whether to
require the road to meet the
higher neighbor circulator
standard based on the number of
trips being generated in the
area. And I believe the
conditions of approval require
us to meet that standard for
all of our 40th improvements.
And we're not we're not
objecting that we're agreeing
to meet that standard. But our
engineer submitted into the
record yesterday a memorandum
where he has estimated the
number of trips on 40th from
all developments that have been
approved, even the ones that
aren't built yet, including
beers. But it's been approved,
as well as the existing
dwellings that use 40th, as
well as the proposed new trips
from this subdivision, and
concluded that it was 1300
trips total on 40th. Now that's
less than 1500, which is the
design volume for a local
access street. And and
therefore, our analysis is even
if we apply. 4350030B4B4A to
40th, it's going to meet the
standard because it's a
secondary access. It's not
primary access. We have a
primary access that goes up to
1/74. So we have two accesses.
40th is the second access. And
it's going to function at least
as good as an urban local
access road because it's going
to have 1300 trips, which is
less than the maximum allowed
on that road of 1500. And so we
believe that that code section
is met with respect to 40th and
that 1/74, it doesn't apply to
1/74. And so for those reasons,
we believe the. The application
should be approved. And we we
welcome an extended open record
period due to the number of,
you know, issues and late, late
exhibits that have been filed.
And I believe that Mr. Telegin
wanted 15 days from the day he
gets the final concurrency memo
from the county. We have no
objection to that. When the
time comes for setting an open
record period, and it sounds
like you're going to be on
vacation. So we've got we've
got plenty of time to get stuff
in before you get back. And,
and then you can dig in and
start reviewing. So unless
there's questions for me that
that concludes my opening
remarks.
>> Thank you. I don't have any
questions at this point. Is
there anybody who'd like else
who'd like to testify in
support of this application? If
so, please click on the Raise
Your Hand button. I'm not
expecting anybody, but just in
case.
>> Nope. I'm not seeing anybody
for support.
>> Who wants to go first in
opposition or with questions or
concerns, I. Please click on
the raise your hand.
>> We have Heidi I Pozzo. I'm
hoping I'm pronouncing this
correctly. She's first and I
will. Heidi, I'm unmuting you,
which means. But then now you
have to unmute yourself.
>> Okay. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Perfect. Yes. Good evening.
My name is Heidi Pozzo, POZZO.
My mailing address is 13023
Northeast Highway 99, suite
seven, two, 98, Vancouver,
Washington. I live about a mile
west of the proposed
development. I. I hear that
you've already considered my
comments, so you know that I've
written a number of items. The
purpose of concurrency is to
assure that those public
facilities and services
necessary to support
development are adequate to
serve that development at the
time it is available for
occupancy and use without
decreasing service levels below
locally established minimum
standards. This application is
the latest in more than two
dozen developer commissioned
traffic studies I've reviewed
from projects across the
corridor documenting the same
failures. I was going to talk a
little bit about the CPA
comments. My primary concern
there was my comments weren't
addressed, and also the way
that the timing worked. On the
staff report being issued in
complete with the recommended
denial, with that information
being provided yesterday, which
was the end of the period for
appeal, I think is problematic
and should be noted as a
process issue. On my
concurrency analysis, there
were a number of issues, but
since we only have three
minutes, I just want to comment
on the VC ratio for being
cleared by intersections. It's
not in code, as you noted, but
additionally that methodology
of analysis is really designed
for signalized intersections.
So a red light causes the cars
to fill up the road segment.
When the light turns green, the
cars move through. And so it
clears up the capacity issue on
the segment. With roundabouts,
they don't function the same
way. Roundabouts continuously
move traffic into the road
segment, so you don't have that
mechanism of clearing. So when
you have a road segment issue
it is a problem. And I provided
information on that from the
highway traffic manuals. So
that's in some of my exhibits
just to see that that's
different with roundabouts,
which is what is modeled in the
2028 build out year. The entire
the entire future
infrastructure improvements on
1/79 and the I-5 interchange
are modeled. So these these
future projections assume all
of the infrastructure is built
out. As was discussed earlier.
You've also covered my request
for extending the time frame,
and so I. There are a number of
issues I'm going to want to
look at what else is being
published. And we'll probably
have additional comments. So in
closing, the concurrency code
is designed to balance the
interests of those who want to
develop with those who already
live here. And the applicant's
own traffic study demonstrates
that the pace of development
has exceeded the capacity of
the infrastructure. So under
the code, the correct
conclusion is denial. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Jason Job was the next
on the list. So, Jason, you
should be able to unmute
yourself.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Great, great. Thank you. My
name is Jason Job. Last name is
spelled JOB. I live at 3613
northeast, 168th Street,
Vancouver, Washington. My ask
is simple. You know, in looking
at all the data here, I believe
we should deny this application.
I speak with 54 neighbors who
have formally signed an
opposition at a website called
Safe 174.com. And really the
two main issues concurrency and
safety. Okay. From from a
consistency standpoint, I mean,
you have the reports. I think
that going back to, I think
what was was stating, you know,
just because we've approved all
the previous developments
doesn't mean we need to
continue that process. Okay. We
actually do need to use what I,
what I do agree with him is we
do need to use common sense,
right? If we are developing
much faster than, than the
infrastructure can support, we
need to slow that development
down and the infrastructure
needs to catch back up. Okay.
So my, my belief is that that,
that we are going to fail
drastically on concurrency and
that the infrastructure is not
going to keep up with the
growth. On the second issue,
this is a really big issue for
me. It's safety. And again, it
goes back to I know that
there's a lot of arguments on
this one, but it goes back to
one access for 300 plus homes,
I think plus stated that the.
That's not required for a
collector, 175 is not a
collector. I think there's a
label on some map that says
collector. I can put a label on
my house, but it's not a
collector. It's 24ft wide,
excuse me, 20ft wide at best.
Okay. And so that road by
itself, you know, if you use
common sense, as stated, it's
not a collector and we should
deny it based off of safety. I
know that there's many stories
of a lot of neighborhoods who
went down this path and have
one access, and it didn't end
end very well when there was
safety issue in the future. So
in closing, I really want to
state this. There are two
adequate grounds for denying
this application. Concurrency
is a problem, and the big one,
safety is a problem. I really,
you know, don't want to get
someone hurt off of this
neighborhood because the roads
blocked. There's only one
access. Fire trucks can't reach
people. I mean, if that happens,
someone's going to be asked who
approved this and why. Thank
you.
>> Thank you sir.
>> Okay. So we have our next
person is S Berg, but I'm
probably I'm sure I'm not
pronouncing that correctly. You
should be able to unmute
yourself now.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Hi, this is Steve Thalberg
in the Fort Creek Neighborhood
Association region. And. I have
Heidi, Heidi Parsa already
discussed that the roundabout
issue and different rules that
apply to that. I'm concerned
that. The the county has stated
that the corridor mobility
facilitated with good
intersection level of service.
But that excuse is not
permitted by the code. It was
already addressed before 40.350
.020 G one. They really need to
Keip with the code and not and
not consider other things that
they think may make sense, but
that don't follow the code.
Intersection findings cannot
substitute for corridor
findings. The code 435020 F6
states that both funding and
completion within six years
need to be satisfied in order
to qualify. So if an
improvement is funded but not
scheduled for completion within
within six years, it would not
satisfy the code. And if
improvement is scheduled for
completion within six years but
not reasonably funded, that too
would not satisfy the code. And
currently neither of those are
meeting the the code
recommendations.
>> I just. Mr. Thalberg, just a
moment. Mr. Daviau the timer
just reset. Was that.
>> Yeah, I made a mistake.
That's why I added the
appropriate time.
>> Thank you. Go ahead, Mr.
Thalberg. Sorry to interrupt.
>> Okay. They talk about the
the road 1/79 as being a PR
dash 4CB build out
classification, which is
basically four lanes and a bike.
But there are currently two
lanes and no bike pathway. So
therefore it would not meet the
1800 vehicles per hour capacity,
and it would be limited to the
600 to 800. And the projections
are well above that. Those
levels. And none of those are
projected to be reasonably
funded or completed in the six
year time frame. The 1/79 and
I-5 intersection isn't
scheduled to happen until 2031
or later, which is beyond the
current time frame and. The the
applicant filed a commitment to
match pre-development failing
conditions, but that's already
failing. And even if they meet
those conditions, it does not
cure the failure. So there's
still a problem there. So in
other words, the level of
service must be met before any
new development is approved.
It's not adequate to meet pre
pre-development level of
service. And the hearing
examiner should make findings
that reflect the full scope of
the record, rather than
affirming or denial on a narrow,
narrow, procedural ground alone,
we do recommend denial of the
application.
>> Okay, thank you, Mr.
Soelberg. Your timer has run
out, but I want to thank you.
You mentioned a neighborhood
association I missed and I
missed that. What could you are
you representing somebody else?
>> No I'm not. I'm not
representing the neighborhood
association. I'm an individual
in that in this.
>> Thank you. Appreciate that.
Anybody else?
>> Okay. We have Brian Telegin
as our next. Testifier. Brian,
you should be able to unmute
yourself.
>> Thank you. Can you hear me,
Mr. Examiner?
>> I can thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I just
wanted to touch on a couple
points. Not super big. As you
know, I represent Dean
Hergesheimer. I have appeared
before you a couple times
before. I wasn't going to go
into substantive issues tonight.
One thing I wanted to mention,
I heard you note earlier that
documents were submitted that
you could not select text. Yeah.
And you mentioned my letter in
particular. I wanted to let you
know my my documents fully text
searchable, at least when I
sent it into the county. Okay,
so maybe there's some sort of.
>> Maybe a county thing. Yeah,
I just, I wanted to raise it
globally and I'll talk to the
county after the hearing and
see if we can fix that. But
thank you for letting me know.
>> No problem. You know, and
then I guess I just wanted to
talk about the open record
period. And, you know, I had in
my comment letter, you know,
noted that the county code
requires the staff to hold it
open.
>> At least two weeks.
>> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
I heard you note, and I
appreciate that very much
during the last hearing, during
the last project, just before
this one, you had invited
people to make individual
requests. I just wanted to let
you know I would like there is
a lot of material on
concurrency and stuff like that.
I haven't had an opportunity to
review. That sounds to me like
Mr. Dawson, I think he said, is
going to review the applicant's
submittal and then sort of
weigh in on that. It sounds
like there might be a new
opinion. And so A, I want to
let you know I am going to be
in a civil jury trial starting
Monday through the fifth, which.
And so 15 days would be next
Thursday. I was wondering maybe
we could push it out to the
11th just to give me a little
bit of extra time or
alternatively, if Mr. Dawson is
going to change the case
recommendation, maybe that
should happen first. Yeah.
Right. And and then have and
then have 15 days after that
point.
>> So predisposed to do is hold
it for two weeks and two weeks
and a week. Given the volume
and the delays and the
everything else.
>> Yeah. Fair enough. I the
recommendation change. Yeah. I
just like to have two weeks
after that point.
>> No, I, I totally understand,
I appreciate you raising it.
And that's my, what I'm
predisposed to do at this point.
>> Excellent. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, Mr. Telegin. Any
other raised hands?
>> Okay. I'm looking to see if
we have anybody else who is
raising their hand to testify.
I'm not seeing any right now.
Hold on one second.
>> Anybody else wants to say
anything, please click on the
raise your hand button now.
>> I'm not seeing any.
>> Okay. Anything further from
county staff?
>> Oh, let's see here.
>> Only that Craig Cado will be
responding to any concurrency
issues. Not myself. Sorry.
Alastair Dawson, development
engineer.
>> Thanks. Thank you, Mr.
Dawson. Good point. Thank you.
I didn't think you sounded like
Mr. Cogdill, but I'm never sure
when I don't see a face.
>> There were a couple of
concurrency issues, but maybe
Craig would rather address
those during the open record
period.
>> Yeah, I I'm assuming so, but
I'll let him if he want. If you
want to say something, feel
free. But.
>> Nothing further. Nothing
further from me. Craig Cogdill
here.
>> Thank you.
>> Mr. Cole. Yeah. I will be
addressing all of the questions
during the open record period.
>> Okay. Thank you. Applicants.
Miss Morasch, I think you were
the only representative of the
applicant to make. So.
>> Yes. Thank you. I only have
one brief comment in rebuttal
to the to the comments that
were made by the opposition,
and that is relating to
concurrency. A number of people
seem to say that, you know,
these improvements on the 179th
corridor, and we're talking
about intersection improvements
aren't going to be done by the
time occupancy permits are
issued. And that's not the
standard. As you well know, the
standard is whether or not the
improvements are, are, are
funded and are reasonably
likely to be done within six
years of the final decision. So
I just wanted to point that
that is the correct standard on
open record, given the
magnitude of this, this new
issue about corridor
concurrency, I think we need
more than two weeks to.
>> Happy to because I will be
gone. So it doesn't make affect
anything. Yeah.
>> We probably need more. So I
don't know if we can submit
that during the second period.
Probably not. People want to
respond to it. So I, I think we
need at least three weeks for
the initial period.
>> That's fine with me. If you
want four, I'd be glad to.
>> Four I mean, I don't know
what I'm going to have to do to
try to. I mean, you know, this
is it's basically a position
where the code puts us in an
impossible if the code is read
strictly literally and that's
how it's applied, it kind of
puts us in an impossible
situation where the sea under
the volume and capacity is, is
defined in code. It doesn't
matter if you know, nothing
else matters other than what's
the functional classification
of the roadway. And then the
table says that's that you
multiply that times the number
of trips per hour in the table,
and that's your C, and there's
no way to change that. That's
the way the code is written. No
way to get more capacity for
the corridor other than
amending the code or change or
amending the arterial atlas so
that you change the functional
classification. Those are the
only two ways that I can see to,
you know, to add more capacity
to increase the the denominator
of that fraction. And so I want
at least a month to try to
figure out what to do with this.
>> Okay.
>> Because it's, it's obviously
a, a significant problem that's
going to affect the entire
county, not just this project.
So I want to get a hold of, you
know, the Dbw and other, you
know, other all the other
traffic engineers and, and, and
try to get a combined effort to
try to figure out what we need
to do to solve this. So I'd
like at least a month to do
that.
>> Okay. I'm happy to allow
that. So what I would be
predisposed to do is four week
open record for anybody to
submit new testimony and
evidence, two weeks for anybody
to respond to the whatever
submitted during that first
period and a week for the
applicant's final argument.
Does that work? Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Telegin. Does that work for
you?
>> It does. Can we is that
please put those in real dates?
>> Yes, I will, I will grab my
calendar just a second, but I
want to get confirmation before
we.
>> Yeah, that sounds great and
I really appreciate that. Thank
you so much.
>> Let me write it down before
I forget, and then I'll give
you a specific date. Okay. I'll
hold it open for four weeks. So
one, two, three, four until May
21st for anybody to submit new
testimony and evidence on any
issue for two weeks until June
4th, for anybody to respond to
whatever was submitted during
the first period. No new issues
can be raised during that
second period and then a week
for the applicant's final
argument, June 11th record will
close. I will try and get my
decision out by the 25th of
June.
>> All at 5:00 PM.
>> Yes.
>> Anybody, anything anybody
receives submits rather has to
be received by the county by 5
p.m. on those dates. Again, you
could send it to. Mr. Or is Mr.
Curtis on this one too? Was she
the primary?
>> Yep. Okay.
>> Mr. Daviau or or and or Miss
Curtis. And that concludes our
hearing. Thank you all. Have a
good evening.
>> Thank you, Mr. Examiner