A proposed 100-lot residential subdivision is under review, prompting a complex debate over traffic concurrency and the adequacy of local infrastructure. The primary point of contention is whether the 179th Street corridor's volume-to-capacity ratios meet county code requirements to support the increased housing density. Stakeholders are heavily divided on how to interpret these concurrency standards, as strict application could potentially halt further development along the entire corridor.
Building_development
Clark County Land Use Hearings · Apr 23, 2026 · 1:49:02–1:49:36 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: plat concurrency subdivision density infrastructure Concurrency
What was said
1:48:00 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 case 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, 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
1:48:55 0.9 on the 179th corridor is because of all of the other in-process developments within your area. So it's not a direct impact from the 174th subdivision development. They don't have a full code in front of me, but if they're sending trips through a failing corridor, I thought the code prohibited approval of the development in that case. Unless you know there's the five trips that you've mentioned through a failing intersection movement, but it I don't see that same for failing corridor. Well would
1:49:53 it be would I be able to discuss this with my manager during the open 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 4350-020-G1A maximum volume to capacity ratio for each roadway shall not exceed 9/10 when measured independently for each direction of travel period. It 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 look forward to explanations from all
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 1:49:02–1:49:36 plat, concurrency, subdivision, density, infrastructure, Concurrency
rips or very minimal amount of trips through that corridor. So a big reason why the volume capacity is over 0.9 on the 179th corridor is because of all of the other in-process developments within your area. So it's not a direct impact from the 174th subdivision development. They don't have a full code in front of me, but if they're sending trips through a failing corridor, I thought the code prohibited approval of the development in that case. Unless you know there's the five trips that you've m