The hearing addressed a proposal to subdivide a 2.2-acre site into a 25-lot residential subdivision using infill and narrow-lot development standards within an R9 zoning district. Local residents expressed concerns about the project's density and the planned extension of a dead-end street, citing potential traffic hazards, safety risks for pedestrians, and a lack of parking. In response, the applicant and city planners defended the development, stating it complies with applicable zoning codes and that the street connection was mandated by the city for adequate vehicular circulation.
Building_development
Vancouver Land Use Hearings · May 19, 2026 · 50:42–51:06 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: comprehensive plan zoning density plat subdivision
What was said
49:40 eight years, it's been no less than six times that people have had to take evasive maneuvers coming through that intersection and have run over my lawn and destroyed our sprinkler system. So not that I want to prevent a subdivision going in to help my sprinkler system, but it just speaks to the already dangerous layout of this. Mr. Johnson spoke to the kind of pre-planning of how Vancouver stubbed out 132nd with the intention of going through there. I have concerns about that pre-planning and how dangerous this intersection already is. I know Octavio has children. I have a four-year-old and to have the volume of cars coming through there that are almost certainly going to be more accidents at this point has major concern for me. So I will again echo what Mr. Payne said. I am not here to say
50:35 that we should completely leave that land as is. I'm totally fine with it being developed. I think a subdivision that kind of matches or extends out from what was already here. I mean, you can tell that the road houses that we all reside in connected to older parts of the neighborhood. To see that kind of extend down with similar housing would I think alleviate most of the parking issues just because of the density, the lack of density compared to having 25 dwellings go in there. But more so, to echo what Mr. Payne said, that if we don't actually connect the road through four vehicles, but make a walking lane, that would alleviate the vast majority of my concerns at this point. I don't think that anything that the City of Vancouver could say as far as adding another stop sign or anything would
51:32 improve safety because the stop sign that is currently there does absolutely nothing. I can count on one hand in the past year, the amount of times I've seen a vehicle actually come even close to a complete stop there at this point. So adding another stop sign is not going to do anything. The City of Vancouver does absolutely nothing for parking enforcement within the fire lanes. I have tried to make that known several times and have never had any kind of response to that. So I have concerns again that the density is going to increase parking in the fire lanes, which will decrease visibility through an already dangerous intersection
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 50:42–51:06 comprehensive plan, zoning, density, plat, subdivision
e almost certainly going to be more accidents at this point has major concern for me. So I will again echo what Mr. Payne said. I am not here to say that we should completely leave that land as is. I'm totally fine with it being developed. I think a subdivision that kind of matches or extends out from what was already here. I mean, you can tell that the road houses that we all reside in connected to older parts of the neighborhood. To see that kind of extend down with similar housing would I thi