Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 I will go ahead and call to order this hearing of June 25th, 2026 for PLD 2026-00028 Glowstone Ridge subdivision. My name is Joe Charter. I'm the city county's hearings examiner. I'll start with some brief announcements and a summary of the process that will follow it so everyone understands I can participate in the hearing tonight. I start by saying I am not a county employee. I am licensed as an attorney and trained as a planner. I serve under contract, the board of commissioners. I say that so you know you're getting a somewhat independent review of the application before me tonight. My role as the hearings examiner is to conduct public hearings and make decisions about certain land use matters in Clark County.

0:59 In making those decisions, I'm required to apply the county's existing laws. I'm not a policy maker. I don't have the authority to vary from or change the law. If you think that the law needs to be changed, you can work with city, excuse me, the board of commissioners and planning commission to do that. But state law requires that this application be judged based on the laws in effect when the application was filed. As a hearings examiner, I provide an unbiased decision maker. I believe I am unbiased with regard to the application before me tonight. I have not had any pre-hearing contact with any of the parties regarding the substance of the application and I don't have any interest in the subject property or any of the surrounding properties. But if anyone has the right to challenge my impartiality, you can do that one as your opportunity to testify.

1:53 A procedure we'll follow, I'll start by asking staff to summarize their staff report, copies of which are available on the county's website. Then the applicant will have the opportunity to present their proposal and respond to the staff report. Then if anybody else wants to testify in support of the application, they may do so. And then anyone who wants to testify in opposition or with questions or concerns, that should cover everybody who wants to say anything about this application, you'll fall into one of those categories. Once everyone has had an initial opportunity to testify, I'll give staff and the applicant alone the opportunity to respond to the testimony that was offered. If those responses include any new evidence, I'll give everyone a chance to respond to the new evidence. Otherwise, I'll close the public portion of the hearing without taking further public testimony.

2:48 Anyone with interest in this application may offer relevant oral or written testimony. Testimony should be relevant to the applicable approval criteria, which are set out in the staff report. It is important that all parties make their best case to me. My decisions are final for purposes of the county, but may be appealed to superior court. But the court generally will not allow new testimony and evidence on appeal. I'll decide any appeal based on the record before me. So if you feel it's important that myself or any future decision maker knows something about this application, you need to make sure it gets into the record before me. In order to preserve your right to appeal, you or someone expressly representing you must testify orally or in writing before the close of the record. And in order to raise an issue on appeal, someone must raise that issue before me with

3:44 enough specificity that people can understand what it is. If you feel you need more time to prepare, I will hold the record open for one week after the close of the hearing to accept additional written testimony and evidence. Because I'm holding the record open, that gives anyone the opportunity to submit additional written testimony and evidence. If anybody wants me to hold the record open for a longer period or continue the hearing, make that request before the close of the hearing and provide some support for why whatever you want to submit during the longer open record or the continuance, why that information couldn't be submitted at the hearing tonight or during the one week open record period. When you testify, please begin by stating your name and your full mailing address. Please spell your last name so I get it right. And if you represent someone else, please say so.

4:42 Testimony is limited to 20 minutes for the applicant. They can split that between their initial presentation and their response. Everyone else is limited to a maximum of three minutes. Also, please don't repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. Repeating your testimony doesn't make your case any stronger. This is not a popularity contest, so whether everybody loves it or everybody hates it is not an issue I get to consider. The only issue before me is whether the application does or does not comply with the applicable approval criteria. If prior witnesses have already addressed the issues that you wanted to address, but you want to preserve your right to appeal by testifying, you can just indicate that you want to testify, give us your name and mailing address. Say I agree with the prior testimony and that's sufficient to preserve your right to appeal.

5:41 That concludes my introduction. Staff will give us an overview on the online, how you can indicate that you want to testify, etc. Ms. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. First, I'd like to present, oops, sorry here. First, I'd like to present a brief WebEx overview for those attending the public hearing this evening. For everyone participating in tonight's hearing, if you wish to testify about a specific agenda item, staff will ask that you raise your hand so that we can gauge who wishes to testify. If you're a call-in user, you can dial *3. If you're a web participant, you need to click the hand icon located at the lower hand corner of your screen and next to your name of participants.

6:38 Here's a graphic showing where you may find a hand icon shown by the red arrows. You may first need to turn on the list of participants. You can do this by clicking the participant button shown by the purple arrow. The hand icon locations are indicated by the red arrows. Once you have given your testimony, we ask that you put your hand down. You can accomplish this action by either clicking the hand icon again or dialing *3 again. We will ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute at any time they are not speaking. I will show you how to do that in the next slide. Please note that this is your opportunity to testify in person. If you miss your opportunity to testify for some reason, the record on each case will be open for a period of time so you can submit your testimony in writing. Finally, the chat button has been disabled for public record purposes. As I mentioned, we ask everyone to keep their microphones muted at any time they are not

7:37 speaking. There are a few ways in which to mute yourself. If you're a web user and using your computer for audio, you can simply click the button at the bottom of your screen or next to your name of the list participants shown by the red arrows. If you're a web user and using a phone audio, you can either mute yourself on the computer or on your phone's mute button. Phone only users can use the mute button on their phone. We ask that you stay muted at all times you are not speaking. Thank you. Okay. I'll just go right in if that's all right, Mr. Examinant. Yep, please. All right. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Examinant, today and to everyone who is attending tonight's hearing, my name is Melissa Curtis, the land use planner assigned to this project. The applicant is proposing the subdivision approval to create 25 single family lots on

8:35 4.7 acres in the R-167. The project is located at 2206 Northeast 187th Avenue. The applicant and owner is Forest View Inc. Contact is Scott Taylor with SGA engineering. With me tonight is Hannah Ditel-Isaacson, the review engineer, and Craig Heffel, the concurrency engineer. Okay. Tonight's staff will provide an overview and summary of the proposal, identify any major outstanding issues if there are any or concerns, and make any recommendations to and make our recommendations to the hearings example. Here is the vicinity map of the site. The general location of the site property is identified with black dots.

9:25 It is located south of Northeast 23rd Street and west of 189th Avenue. The zoning map provides a closer look at the parcel and the abutting lots. The site is highlighted in red. The subject parcel is R-16 zone and parcels abutting the lots are also R-16 with an urban low overlay for our comp plan. This slide is an aerial view of the subject properties. The lots are outlined in red. The aerial view shows a single family home, detached garage. It didn't show your aerial view right there. There it goes. But is it there now? Oh, then I just moved it. Yep. There? Okay. Thank you. This aerial view shows a single family home, detached garage, and a hardship mobile on

10:25 parcel 172119, this one right here. Parcel 17221000 includes an existing barn. All existing structures will be removed with this development. The site is generally flat with trees throughout the parcel. And here is the development plan and a closer look. The preliminary plan shows the proposed layout of the lots. Each lot meeting the criteria of the urban 6th zone. Access to the development is via Northeast 187th Avenue to Northeast 22nd Street. The next few slides will be of the photographs that I took on site. Here's a signposting for tonight's hearing.

11:21 Staff is standing on Northeast 23rd Street and Northeast 187th Avenue. We're looking west and the project site is located on the left. Lots of trees in there. This photo provides a view of the site and the west property line right here. And like a North on Northeast 187th Avenue. Here, I'm on the same location, I just turned myself around, I'm looking south and the site is on the right of the screen here. This photo, all you can see here is the front edge of the property, along with all the trees that front the property line there.

12:14 I went down Northeast 23rd Street, fully treed. It's hard to go on site with all the vegetation there. Because the development was full of trees, it was hard for me to take pictures of the existing structures. So this one right here, I took up the dwelling off of Clark GIS. And again, on this one GIS Clark site is the manufactured home, which was the hardship. And this one right here is both of the house and the hardship taken off of Google. And I hear I'm on 187th. Next I will review the project, review timelines, staff report and recommendation to the hearings examiner.

13:13 The fully complete application was submitted on March 17th, 2026, and was determined fully complete on March 31st, 2026. A notice of application and public hearing was mailed to the applicant, the neighborhood program coordinator, and properties within 500 feet of the site on April 14th of this year. A sign was posted on the subject property by the applicant, May 20th, 26th. This project is exempt from requirements from the SEPA review and staff's recommendation to the hearings examiner was issued June 10th, 2026. Issue public comments came in after the issuance of staff's recommendation to the hearings examiner. They have been added to the exhibit list, exhibits 40 and 41 and sent to the hearings examiner, staff and the contact exhibit list is up to date.

14:11 The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create 25 single family lots on 4.78 acres in the R16 zone based upon the proposed plan known as exhibit 35 and the findings and conclusions and understanding that the applicant is required to adhere to all applicable codes and law. Staff recommends the hearing examiner approves this request as stated in exhibit 36. Thank you for your time this evening. This does conclude county's presentation for the proposal and staff will be available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Curtis. I have a couple of questions, I think probably for Mr. Dargene at least to start out concurrency question. I think the first one's going to be for the applicant, I'll just hold off on that one. There was questions in the some of the neighbor comments, whether the traffic study and the county reviewed all of the regionally significant corridors and intersections within one mile

15:10 of the site. Did that happen? Good evening, Mr. Hings, examiner David Jardine, traffic engineering section manager. And so, yes, the regionally significant intersections and corridors that were determined to be impacted were evaluated as requested by the county. So that that is shown in the traffic study and then as a part of the early issues follow up, it was a memorandum I believe it was exhibit 24 that the applicant's traffic engineer provided

16:08 that performed the volume to capacity analysis for the corridors that we had requested. So yes, sir. Okay, that's what I assumed I just wanted to check. The staff report on page 13 under concurrency corridors. The second paragraph says the HCM capacity manual methodology applies adjustment factors and goes on from there. Were adjustments applied or was it just the 0.9 volume capacity from the finding? Understood. So in the in the finding itself, so at the bottom of the that narrative that discussion,

17:03 it's titled concurrency findings and we have indicated that using the prescriptive method which is the code itself, the 0.9, the applicant has shown that the volume to capacity ratio thresholds have been met. Okay, that's what I thought from this traffic study. The discussion and the neighbors confused me a little bit and the neighbors as well because it appeared based on the way the finding was phrased that the adjustments were applied. So the prescriptive evaluation means you're just applying the code 0.9, you're not applying the That is correct. That is correct. I'm sorry for the confusion. That's all right.

17:54 That's why we're here on the 185th on the west boundary, as several neighbors noted parallel to the private road, which I think is also one of the small on my screen there. What measures will be taken to keep traffic from this site from accessing that adjacent private road? That is a great question, sir. I am going to turn that over to either the applicant or development engineering to answer on that one. Okay. Thanks. Is development engineering able to respond? If not, we'll leave it to the applicant. Hi, I'm Hannah Isaacson with Clark County development engineering, sorry about that.

18:49 Especially with the partial width roads, there is some kind of physical barrier. We do require a physical barrier between the two roads. So people can't hop a curb over so Okay. And what would that be? Can you give me a concept of what that physical barrier could consist of? Sometimes it's fencing. I think that's typically what it is, is some kind of fencing. Okay, that's kind of what I assumed but that's what I wanted to know is just it's typically acting right? Yep, they call it fencing. Okay. Thank you. Do you want me to look at the, sorry, I'm having issues in my mouse here. Will there be a barrier on 22nd Street? Doesn't appear to be a private road on the south boundary.

19:46 So that's less of an issue. There probably will be since it will be a road of butting up onto someone else's property. It should. Yeah, there should be some kind of barrier between those two. Are conditions of approval necessary to require those barriers that we just talked about? Are they required by the code anyway? They're required by code. Okay. Mr. Examiner. Yes. Hi, this is Naomi. I'm sorry, I don't know who's speaking. Are you able to hear me? Ms. Padi-Banda. This is Naomi Padi-Banda. Yes. For the 22nd Street end of pavement, I don't think there is a code required barricade like we do at the end of the termination of the road. I think there was. Yeah.

20:45 I appreciate the clarification. Yeah. But I do recommend that the applicant address that with the developer. Typically we would see fencing and I would expect the same here, but I don't know if it is code required. I also check in with planning for if there is any boundary fencing requirements. I'm seeing a no from Michelle. Generally, except for the roads, generally the code does not require fencing on the perimeter of the site, but it's my understanding that developers often do that to make the development look more consistent for whatever reasons, make it easier to sell those lots and other reasons they may come up with. Anyway, I'll let the applicant address that, whether they're going to address that or not. Understood.

21:40 So David Jardine again, I apologize and I don't mean to speak over development engineering, but it's been my experience that there is a code section that requires a two foot buffer between a property line and the near edge of the pavement. So maybe the applicant can speak a little bit more to that and what they may be putting in that two foot zone, or if I just got it outright wrong on that, but the applicant may be better. No, I think you're right about the two foot buffer, but an actual physical barrier, I don't believe. It hasn't been required in the past in my experience, but you're right about the two foot buffer. So thank you, Mr. Jardine, appreciate the heads up.

22:40 And that's a question for the applicant. And then my last question, oh, in exhibit one, it's the cross circulation plan that's secluded in exhibit one, it shows 23rd street on the north boundary of the site. That's no longer proposed. It's now on 22nd as a through street right along the north boundary. And that's the cross circulation requirements are based on, the analysis by the applicant is based on that. This new plat moves 20, the through street, if you will, to 22nd street on the south boundary. Does it still meet the cross circulation requirements, block length and a perimeter? This is Hannah. Just Alex. And again, yes, they're, their new proposal would still meet our circulation requirement. Great. Thanks.

23:40 Yep. Ms. Pot of Linda, what's your title? I didn't catch that. I'm the engineering manager with development. Thank you. I know we've, I've heard from you before. I just didn't, couldn't recall what your title was. Thank you. That's the only questions I have for staff at this point, Mr. Taylor, I understand you're representing the applicant. All right. Good evening, Scott Taylor, SGA engineering. Thank you, Mr. Examiner for your introduction and going over the initial questions. I can answer a couple and clarify real quick and then you could go on with some additional questions for sure. I got to start the timer now for 20 minutes. All right. Thanks. Here we go. All right. So on 185th on the Western boundary, you know, keeping traffic away from the existing private road.

24:36 So yes, the developers interested in installing a fence and it likely be, you know, six foot privacy fence, and that would be the barrier that would keep people from driving across to 185th private Avenue to the West. There's an existing fence line on the South side of the property that is, I think some field fencing and then some chain link fencing and you know, those would be retained and, or improved, you know, like likely the field fence, they would remove that and put in some nice Cedar, you know, fencing on that South property line. And there is indeed a two foot space on perimeters of property. The way we understood it is it's an IBC requirement that for grading, you know, you're not supposed to change the grades or negatively affect neighbor's property and give a two foot sort of buffer or clear space. And so that's what's shown in our plans.

25:36 There is a two foot space there to the edge of the new pavement. The goal would, you know, be build it that way and put the new fence right on the property line and be able to keep people off private property and just using the new public roads. Traditional circulation that was covered and, you know, still meets the requirements with this new road alignment and there's no other road modifications requested with this project and intersection spacing is met, site distance will be met, you know, following construction. And I think this is a great project, you know, as far as circulation and access, it's challenging with all these private roads around and I know the neighbors have concerns with that. And so by adjusting this layout and having 22nd Street come into the site instead of 23rd Street, I think is a better design. You know, we'll have no parking fire lane signage throughout the development where it's

26:35 not full width pavement, full width streets. And then in the event any neighbors do develop in the future, the public road system could be expanded on and dedications and, you know, access to their site via public roads and not the private roads. So I think we've covered most of the concerns with the neighbors. And so we're meeting all the other county design requirements with this plan and not utilizing compact lots, you know, not going down to 3,000 square foot lots like a lot of new developments do. So I think it'll be a great addition, you know, to the neighborhood. It's definitely not one acre lots and large lot development, which that zoning doesn't really exist anymore with Clark County. You know, this will be great opportunities for new homeownership, but not necessarily tiny homes. So I will, I think, stop with that for the moment and then, yeah, what next questions

27:33 can I answer for you? The traffic counts that were conducted in September of 2025, one of the neighbors said that the school was on strike during that period. Can you confirm whether it was or not? I'll have to look into that. I know there was discussion with the traffic engineer and them wanting to make sure they got counts. You know, while school was in session, I think there was the ending of a strike happening and making sure that they started counted after they'd come back into school. But I can provide that in this one week open record. Okay. The 23rd Street, the private 23rd Street is north of the site. Does the easement for that extend onto this site or is it entirely on the adjacent properties to the north? I do not believe it does. From our research, the only easement that extended into this site was at the very southwest

28:31 corner and there was, I believe, an old access easement for 185th Avenue, but the applicant didn't want to exercise that or push for any access from 185th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Is that it from the applicant at this point? I have a couple of different notes for the staff report and so I just want to make sure any questions, you know, answer those first. And staff has done a great job with this. All the conditions of approval are in good shape. I think there's just a couple different findings that still have some maybe older language in them, but just want to make sure and bring note to for the record. On page seven, finding four, existing residential structures. So this is some older language where they're stating the structures on site shall be removed prior to construction plan approval complying with Clark County building, etc.

29:31 And that is actually corrected, you know, in condition of approval B1A on page 23. And it just says prior to construction, you know, it's, it's not fair to have to remove buildings, you know, ahead of engineering plan approval. And so I don't believe you'll end up you end up changing findings with your final orders, but more just notes for the record, condition B1A is worded well, and we agree with that. Okay. And page 16, just want to bring awareness to finding three on fire flow. The second paragraph under finding three fire flow, a fire flow letter dated 4/2/25 states there's 1500 GPM in the area. And so this responds to a condition of approval.

30:28 So my my edit, my request would be condition of approval A8 on page 22. So A8 condition, yeah, the actual condition A8B it states a utility review from the water purveyor indicates the required fire flow is not currently available at the site additions to water mains shall be installed. That's incorrect, you know, with the finding three on page 16, you know, there's 1500 gallons per minute. It's probably a carryover, you know, from maybe a different project. Should we delete that condition? I think so. I mean, it could be corrected, just to say fire flow is currently available. But then the second sentence additions to water mains supplying fire flow shall be installed. I mean, those are going to be part of the project, but it's not for fire flow. It's just for water service.

31:23 So I'll leave that one up to you, I'm not concerned overly with it. I think just omitting the second sentence or maybe even the condition would be fine. Okay, resolve it. The first sentence is just a finding that as amended it fire flows met, period. And that's I don't think a condition is necessary for that. And you're going to have to install. Yes. I'll look at that. But I understand what the issue is. Yeah, nothing major. So just sort of want to make those points on record. And that is it for the moment. Thank you. I don't have any other questions at this point. Is there anybody else who'd like to say anything about this application in support of this application rather? If so, please click on the raise your hand button at this time, pausing to give everyone a chance to find a raise your hand button and Mr. Dalvio, my the timer covers up the

32:19 participants, so let me know if somebody raises their hand. We're not seeing any. I'm not seeing any hands raised right now. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody who'd like to go now? Somebody just came in. Arlene. Okay. I'll unmute her. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can thank you. Yes. Good evening, hearing examiner, Melissa and other participants. My name is Arlan Schleif. For spelling purposes, A-R-L-E-N, last name, S-C-H-L-E-I-F. My wife Mindy and I live at 2210 Northeast 185th Avenue. And so we are directly west of the proposed development.

33:19 In fact, our entire property will be adjacent to it. So we are probably one of the properties that is largely impacted by this development. So we've been here a little over 10 years and you know, when we bought this place, we knew that probably someday this was going to happen and here we are. So in light of that, we do have a few requests and comments regarding this proposed development. Some of it may have been covered already. So I'm not, like you said earlier, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, but I just want to go over bullet points. Now, my understanding is from what was discussed so far, that there's going to be a two foot setback from our Northeast 185th to the new Northeast 185th. Is there any opportunity to push that back a little further, like say 10 feet?

34:18 And the reason I say that is sometimes when we have, since it's a one lane road, when we have traffic going each direction, we do use that field occasionally for cars to go by each other. So two feet really wouldn't do us a whole lot of good. It'd be great if we could look at somewhere around 10 feet, if possible. The other thing is, unless there's an easement on this site for that purpose, no, I can't require that. The applicant's allowed to develop their property to the extent of the property. Understand that if there's an easement, that's another issue. So I'll ask the applicant to address that issue. Okay. And they were talking about fencing, the six foot cedar fence. There is a six foot cedar fence, Melissa, I'm sure you saw it.

35:13 When you're on 187th, it's on the east side of 187th, just north of the proposed subdivision. Something like that fencing would be wonderful. We would propose that it not only goes along northeast 185th, but also down northeast 23rd. So it would be consistent and not let each individual homeowner put up whatever kind of fence that they want to put up in their backyards. We would also like to ask, well, it's been stated that we do not wish for having any construction vehicles coming down our private road during this process. So I understand that there's a fence going to go up once everything is done. And we would also request that there would not be any type of gate put in there.

36:09 So we could have pedestrians and people walking over towards our property. So that fence would be, you know, solid, that would be one request. The other thing would be what could be put up since we're going to be facing all of the construction from our house here, what could be put up during construction that could help with sound, dirt, dust flying all over the place? Is there anything that is required? I understand Mr. Schleff, your timer's run out, but I can respond to what you've asked. Construction vehicles to start with, the applicant and their contractors have no right to use your private roads, just like you have no right to use the site for passing. So they will be prohibited. If it happens, it's a trespass issue, it can be addressed through the civil procedure,

37:06 but it's the applicant's, it won't be incentivized to keep his, make sure that his contractors know that and don't do that because it would be a trespass on private property. Okay, I remember your second question. As far as dust, noise, et cetera, this developed, they're not required to put anything up, but they are required to comply with the county's erosion control and noise standards. So they have to limit dust during construction. They have to install erosion control measures to prevent sediment from leaving the site. They have to deal with stormwater during construction. Noise they are subject to the county noise standard. But beyond that, the code is, the laws assume that development's going to happen in the urban area. It will, it's a shorter term impact, but it's something that you have to deal with living

38:04 in the urban area, like road construction or anything else. It's a pain when it happens, but it's a shorter term. It goes away after some period of time. So that's my response to those questions. Do we have any, does anybody else want to say anything about this application? Please raise your hand now. Yes, we have another, we have Leah Kent who was the next in line and I am going to. I did, I, I sent that she, you should be able to unmute yourself. We're hearing you. Thank you, Ms. Kent. You're breaking up pretty bad. We're just here. You come in just a little bit. Can you repeat what you're trying to say?

38:55 She I don't know, Ms. Kent, just so you know, you're still breaking up. I'm going to ask Mr. Dobby, have you had any suggestions? She's really completely inaudible. I can't even hear you. You've got a really bad connection, Ms. Kent. Should she log out and log back in with that potentially help? That's probably, that's probably an option. Okay. Ms. Kent, we're unable to hear you. We just get bits and little noises when you're trying to testify, so we're not hearing anything you're actually saying. So could you log out and log back into the hearing and we will come back to you before we close the hearing so you have the opportunity to testify, but right now we're totally unable to hear you. It's. We have three more people waiting. I'm assuming it's a connection issue with your internet. I'm sorry, Mr. Dobby.

39:54 What'd you say? We have three more people with their hands raised in addition to take testimony from the next person in line, and then we'll come back to Ms. Kent, which you like back on. Heidi is the next one. I will unmute her or get that request so she could unmute herself. Good evening. My name is Heidi Pozo, P O Z Z O. My mailing address is 13 0 to three Northeast Highway 99 suite seven dash two 98 Vancouver 98686. So my comment concerns the transportation concurrency recommendation under Clark County code 40 dash 40 dot three 50 dot 0 to zero e three concurrency approval may issue only on a determination that the developments impacts keep every affected corridor and enter section

40:49 of regional significance at or above the level of service standards and subsection g subject section g fixes both the standard and the method for corridors of volume to capacity ratio no greater than point nine per segment with capacity taken from table 40 dot three 50 dot zero to zero dash one or where a road is not built to county standards from its current condition for intersections the prescribed delay in level of service thresholds the staff report does not perform that analysis in place of g one a ratio it applies the concurrency corridors narrative intersection level of service throughput and subsection F nine real world influences a methodology. That's what I asked Mr. Jardine about and he said that they did use the point nine volume capacity. Yeah.

41:45 And so the point I'm trying to make is that the report needs to reflect that. So not asking you to deny the application because it looks like the quarter data suggests it complies but all the readers the staff report and the concurrency report should reflect the code based analysis which it doesn't right now. Okay I see what you're saying and I will try and do that I will I will reflect the code let's put it that way I'm not an engineer so but I understand what you're saying and I understand what the code means and requires and I will make sure that it's the findings are consistent with the code perfect and so every reader can understand that that it does I appreciate that thank you thank you do we have any other who's next with the raised

42:43 hands I assume we have more yes we do have more and the next one on the list is Steve Kirtland and I will I just sent the request for him to unmute himself he should be able to do that hi this is Kara Kirtland not the same line here with Steve uh C-A-R-A Kirtland C-U-R-T-L-A-N-D we're at 1915 northeast 185th avenue and the question that we have is you had mentioned that there's going to be a barrier at the north end of 185th between our private road and the new road what's not clear to me is how that works with right now our private road 185th turns uh to onto northeast 22nd

43:39 and that's a contiguous private lane so how are you managing the barrier that keeps the private road that is both 185th and 22nd as not accessible and private can you tell me where 22nd because my map shows 23rd on the north boundary to the left so at the bottom just yeah just to the left there you see the right there and to the left of that that's all a private road so what does 22nd go west from 185th that's right okay so i'm not sure i understand what the concern is then because if you're coming i'm assuming you're southbound on 20 on 185th you turn right onto 22nd how does this conflict with that well there needs

44:33 to be a barrier going south on 185th as well as not allowing a turn the other direction right yes they'll have to have a barrier on the north and south ends and the west boundary of 185th right and make the barriers such that the traffic in both directions can actually turn and those large um trucks can get through so we have our our garbage trucks need to be able to turn there excuse me turn there without having those barriers be in the way okay as i know it i'll ask the applicants gonna have to clarify that issue but unless there is an easement on this site for that purpose the applicant isn't required to to accommodate that no no all i'm saying is the barrier that needs that's put up needs to be right at the edge and yeah it'll be on the site it definitely will not be off the

45:29 side but it could it'll be on the boundary of the site yeah so we need two barriers i think is my point yes south and north and west it'll be basically a continuous fence around that that perimeter of the site where wherever the 185th avenue is so drivers cannot move from this site onto private 185th to the west or private 22nd correct okay thank you thank you okay we have our next person up is julie romero and i am sending the request to unmute her

46:23 hello my name is julia romero i live at 18416 northeast 23rd street vancouver washington 98684 i would like to i guess state that when the traffic study was done the teachers were on a national strike and it was in the middle of the day during low traffic my concern is that once or if this development is approved the traffic will be such that if there's an emergency there'll be delays to emergency vehicles coming to our homes i've been present

47:20 on two occasions where fire trucks and ambulances have had difficulty turning into our road because of traffic already and i've also witnessed them having trouble leaving our private road you know in the middle of the night and i and i worry about when there's construction vehicles and such during if the project gets approved how will it affect us in the case that we need to leave our private road okay how did the traffic affect it in the emergency access in the middle of the night i know because if you so i live on 23rd street and um turning

48:11 left or right coming out or in because the other it's only a two-way road you know these guys have to get off of their truck and and pause traffic that you know that are still that's you know the cars coming or going for that's on 187th they have to get out of their trucks pause traffic because they're they're backing out and they have to to even you know tell they've had to tell cars to back up so they can get their rigs out of there and i mean this is a you know a 30-minute 40-minute operation and i'm just wondering you know if there is a true emergency i mean we've had a small fire here we've had a medical emergency and you know i just want to make sure that we're taken care of and in in the event of a fire god forbid you know these guys need to come and go quickly and same

49:08 goes for for an ambulance okay but that's an existing problem they're they have to back out now they're gonna have to back out later um the applicant is not required to fix that there will be some increase in traffic but i don't see how it's significant enough to they'll still have to be able to stop traffic um and people will still be required to back up but it's not the applicant can't be required to fix that how does why is a traffic study required the applicant's required to fix the traffic so if it doesn't meet the standard adopted by the the um the board of commissioners a level of service d or better at most intersections that's the primary and then the concurrency issue that we talked about that the corridors have um adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic but it's not required for the private

50:04 streets that don't aren't impacted by this development are not used by this development what what does that mean like on 187th what would make it um acceptable or not the emergency access i mean they're backing up now they'll have to back up in the future they could stop traffic so but if there's i don't see how traffic on that road well if there's more cars on that road but there will be more on the road how will there be but like in the instance where they've had to ask cars to back up and oftentimes during school hours you know the line from 187th you know way exceeds um um you know sometimes we're waiting

50:59 here you know 20 30 minutes on on school days to make a right out of 187th so i i can't i can't imagine if we have an emergency and there's more cars on 187th how they'll even get to us or leave it's a two-way road i mean we can't ask these these guys to to clear out anywhere else okay i understand the concern um but it's it's an existing problem the applicant's not required to fix it if it was if this was a new development that would be equals and that was a dead-end road they'd be required to put a turnaround so the vehicle the emergency vehicle some exit and forward direction um well is this isn't changing required not to make it worse yes but adding traffic when an emergency vehicle's there they have to

51:54 they can stop traffic people have to get out of the way they have to do that now some people may not do that i mean some you can't control human behavior but most people are going to you know get the do what they can to get the emergency vehicle through um so unless development if this development makes traffic worse would that deem it inappropriate for the if it doesn't meet the criteria that have been adopted by the board the level of service standard that's how the the board determined the county determines whether it's adequate or not if it meets level of service then i would like to and that's go back to my original question since you since you stated that that there needs to be a new traffic study done to reflect the accurate flow of traffic right i'm going to ask that during the the school strike i i

52:53 think it's an important i do too to require that especially if you just said that if if it makes things worse then it may not be appropriate it's not that it makes things worse that it makes it fall below the level of the adopted level of service standard i mean worse any any dad one car that's going to make it worse um so it's not a subjective standards an objective level of service if it meets it it's okay if it doesn't meet it it's not okay so that's the standard i have to apply i understand your concern and i will address it my written decision thank you ma'am thank you mr dobio who's next we have l kent must be leah kent is back so i'm gonna send a request to unmute her great i'm glad she's back

53:45 l can't you should not be able to unmute yourself can you tell if she's on the phone or on a browser well you know and the old handle is still there leah and then there's l can't can't is what i just did and i i we're not hearing you miss candid that's um how does she if she's on a phone is it star three to unmute yes okay so if you're on a phone you need to hit star three to unmute yourself unfortunately we are not hearing her but she doesn't appear on my screen either usually when somebody's on looks like she just raised her hand she

54:41 just raised her hand too yeah and i just i just did that again i said there she goes oh my goodness i saw it for a second there we go whatever you're having a panic trying to get on oh thank you thank you i'm so sorry i'm glad you're working oh my goodness i'm very stressed out now my name is leah kent l i a k e n t i live at the end of that private road that everybody keeps referring to as the north end of what they've been calling 22nd that's actually 23rd way you keep following that and that becomes my driveway all the way down across those houses that you see on the left hand side of the screen um we we respectfully invite you to come and visit and see the surrounding area because what you see on the map is not an entirely correct road names are not incorrect especially on google maps we've had so many issues with emergency vehicles uh confusion trying to

55:40 get to our house um it's already a problem so we respectfully request that you do not name this other road northeast 23rd way we are already having a lot of difficulty with 23rd street that does not go all the way through into the maple crest um neighborhood next door there is like a four-foot difference between the two so we already have a lot of confusion there emergency vehicles are not able to get to my house i've already had two incidents where they've had to uh they weren't able to get to my house for me for emergencies um which has been a problem um increased traffic we have cars coming down our driveway continually because they think they can get into the subdivision or they are lost or something um it's a problem i have a seven-year-old daughter who plays outside in my driveway um and it's a concern

56:34 that we'd have more vehicles coming down our driveway and with a seven-year-old daughter i'm very concerned about this um we request that a sound wall not six feet but 10 feet would be preferable um due to the noise and the dust um that we will be experiencing also that uh there would be some landscaping so that it's more appealing we've worked really hard to create this community this green space the area that we live in and so we request that that be taken into consideration that we'd like to keep this area the way it is as much as possible although we do understand more housing is needed in conclusion traffic management measures and safety improvements we'd like to have those re-evaluated to minimize

57:28 the impacts on us the hours as well of the noise pollution because we are not in the city limits we follow clark county we are very concerned about this we've already had neighbors uh paving asphalt until 10 o'clock at night when i have a seven-year-old i'm trying to put to bed and it was right next door so we're having issues with this already we're concerned about people getting lost or their construction vehicles coming down our road and damaging some more um so we definitely do not want construction or changes made to our private roads so that would include 185th northeast 185th northeast 23rd way which is the continuation of 185th and northeast 23rd street okay thank you ma'am your timer's run

58:18 out do we have uh anybody else mr davio any other raised hands we do not i don't see any other raised hands okay does anybody else want to say anything about this application who's not to have the opportunity to do so please click on the raise your hand button now not seeing anybody um okay anything further from county staff i'm elissa curtis land use planner and i like to just comment on leah's um 23rd way so any addressing or street names are going to be done at the time of final plot they do get reviewed by a staff person here since we are the um the registered person to um to name streets by number um so here it looks like from here down um we have it as northeast 23rd where's here i'm not seeing

59:17 your mouth oh there yeah so from here to here i don't know if i just bring my gis if you can see my gis map um uh we have it from here looks like probably about here is northeast 23rd street and then starting about here we have it as northeast 23rd way so it's not 23rd way all the way down it's just all um but i do get um leah's concern about naming um streets there but we do have um that's what gis mapping has if this is not correct then they'll probably have to contact um gis but that's what it is um um on site on our gis mapping okay but the sorry i can't talk here uh the county will review the the proposed name street names on this site as well during the review and may only on site right only on site yeah not not the existing private street but the on-site roads that's correct

1:00:17 to the extent possible yep based on the grid and coincide with what's there but also avoid conflicts or confusion that's correct okay thank you anything further from any other county staff not seeing anybody uh mr taylor good evening scott taylor sga engineering thank you staff and mr examiner for the responses and uh fielding the questions so far with the neighbors uh we definitely understand the confusion challenges and street naming challenges and i've seen this happen in other parts of the county and other jurisdictions i do believe the county holds pretty firm on their grid pattern and naming uh numerically i'm not really using street names that have you know

1:01:13 other nouns um and so i mean i feel that this is going to end up with similar street names to what's proposed with 22nd street on the south edge of the project aligning with other 22nd streets you know to the west and east and then 23rd is an existing private road and we're not looking to touch any of the private roads adjacent to the project and we will not have a 23rd street now so that should hopefully help not increase any more confusion with 23rd way 23rd street i can see where that confusion would would come from you know for our site we do have adequate turnaround area and you know new fire hydrants full access you know public streets for access in and out of the development so we're definitely doing everything we can to meet the county requirements for access and safety answering

1:02:08 some of the other questions i believe you know a 10-foot sound wall and additional landscaping is not required by code so that's not what would be proposed or developed there doesn't really seem appropriate you don't see a sound wall between other subdivisions um in the area and so currently the proposal is to do some site obscuring fencing and it looks like it would be on the north property line west property line and south property lines you know the the developer will have to abide by construction time rules for noise ordinance with 7 a.m to 10 p.m and dust and erosion control you guys already covered those items they're helped all those same standards and so that's that's what they'll focus on and also not trespassing on any neighbor's properties or disturbing or um causing any issues with

1:03:04 adjacent private roads there is no existing easements on our site for any adjacent properties that we're aware of um and so that's not an allowed use i guess for you know driving on the property so no adjustments like i guess i've said a couple times here would be proposed for any adjacent private roads so however the trash trucks come back and access now and however guests and vehicles drive and access now that's not going to change so we will have new street signs and hopefully that'll be nice and clear for people for deliveries and then once it's put in the map systems for our our streets and addresses hopefully won't cause any additional challenges for neighbors the barriers at the ends of the road we've talked about and so that's going to be fencing there's not really the big red and white barriers that you see at the end of a dead end street you know there could

1:04:02 be one placed at the north end of 185th avenue on our site so because we're providing a stub road there at that northwest corner there could be one of those barricades that says you know future road extensions you know do not block you know all the all the notes that are on standard barricades that would be the only barricade though for the project i think we've covered all the transportation concurrency requirements and how we did meet the required ratios and corridors and levels of service so i don't really need to talk much more about that but i did find in our traffic study talking about the date of the studies and that strike that took place so this is on page six of the traffic study looks like sort of second paragraph in order to perform the level of service analysis it was necessary to collect new traffic counts at the study intersections the counts were recorded in the amp and peak

1:04:58 hours on september 15th and 16th when evergreen school district was operating the count data is included in the appendix figure one illustration illustrates the year 2025 volume data so so this was accounted for by our engineer traffic engineer they did go out and do a second round accounts to make sure that they did this during active school and not with that strike that is not true so that is our i can't take any testimony from the the public at this point i will hold the record open if anybody wants to just provide evidence to dispute that you're welcome to but at this point i'll ask everybody to mute themselves go ahead mr taylor and we talked about the two-foot setbacks you know from the property line there will be construction fencing put up erosion control fencing but no additional fencing is proposed

1:05:54 or required during construction and then following construction you'll have the privacy fencing so i believe that covers most of the questions and discussion the camera put on my list here yep i believe we've covered it also any other questions from you mr examiner i'm i'm gonna hope i have to hold the record up for a week for public additional public testimony do you want an additional week for final argument if you to respond if you and then if you wanted to waive that at the end you can correct yeah we would uh elect to keep that week for responses if necessary okay so with that i'm going to close the hearing let me grab my calendar i'm going to hold the record open as we just discussed for one week until july 2nd for

1:06:54 anybody to submit additional testimony and evidence on any issues i will hold it open and for an additional week for the applicant alone to submit a final written argument without any new evidence until july 9th anything anybody wants to submit has to be physically received by the county by 5 p.m on july 2nd for the public july 9th for the applicant's final argument if the applicant wants they can either waive the final argument or submit it early and i'll close it when i receive the final argument i will issue try and get my decision out no later than july 23rd i will send my decision to the county the county will send it to parties of record so anybody who has testified orally or in writing or who does so during the following week open record period will be sure and receive a copy of my decision if you decide you don't need to testify but you want to get a copy of my decision you can contact miss curtis and she'll put you on the mailing list but that concludes

1:07:53 the hearing for tonight thank you all have a good evening thank you mr. geinz examiner thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you