Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 Okay, we're live. Okay. I'll go ahead and call to order this hearing of July 23rd, 2026 for PLD 2025. Actually, for two cases on tonight's agenda, sorry, I'll skip that part. We'll get to that at the end. For Clark County land use, my name is Joe Turner. I am the county's hearings examiner. I'll start with some brief announcements and a summary of the process that will follow so everyone understands how you could participate in the hearing today. I started 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 so you know you're getting an independent review of the applications before me tonight. My role as the hearings

0:58 examiner is to conduct public hearings and make decisions about certain land use matters in Clark County. In making those decisions, I am 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 laws. If you think that the laws need to be changed, you can work with Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission to do that. But state law requires that these applications be judged based on the laws in effect when the applications were filed. As a hearings examiner, I'm to provide an unbiased decision maker. I believe I am unbiased with regard to the applications before me tonight. I've 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 either of the surrounding property, either of the properties proposed for development or any of the properties surrounding

1:55 those properties. But if anybody wants to challenge my impartiality, you may do so 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. And the applicant will have the opportunity to present their proposal and respond to the staff report. And if anybody else wants to testify in favor of the application, they may do so. And then anybody who wants to testify in opposition or with questions or concerns, you know, everybody who wants to say something should fall into one of those categories. Once everyone has had an initial opportunity to testify, 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, I'll close the public portion of the hearing and announce what I'm going to do. Generally,

2:54 I will issue a written decision within about two weeks after the close of the public record. I'll send my decision to the county and the county will send it to parties of record. So anybody who testifies orally or in writing before the close of the record will be sure and receive a copy of my decision when it's issued. If you decide you don't need to testify but would like to get a copy of my decision, you can contact -- provide your contact information to staff for that application. Anyone in interest in this -- either of these applications may testify orally or -- may offer relevant -- excuse me, lost my train of thought here -- oral or written testimony, but please only speak when we identify you for that purpose. But it is important that all parties make their best case to me. My decisions are final for purposes of the county. My decisions may be appealed to superior court, but the court

3:52 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 either of these applications, 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 have raised that issue before me with enough specificity that everyone understands what that issue is. Because we're doing these online now and people sometimes run into technical issues, we do -- I will hold the record open for one week after the close of the hearing to -- excuse me -- to allow anyone to submit additional written testimony and evidence on both of these cases. But if anybody wants

4:48 me to hold the record open for a longer period or to continue the hearing, you can make that request before the close of the hearing today and provide some support for why whatever you want to submit during the open record, longer open record or continuance, why that information couldn't be submitted at the hearing tonight or during the one week of open record. When you testify, please begin by stating your name and full mailing address. Please spell your last name so I get it right. And if you represent someone else, please say so. Also please don't repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. Testimony -- repeating your testimony doesn't make your case any stronger. The only issue before me is whether the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria. This is not a popularity contest. So whether everybody loves it or everybody hates it is not an issue

5:46 I get to consider. Also testimony should be relevant to the applicable approval criteria which are set out in the staff report. That concludes my introduction. Mr. Davio will go through the -- the online meeting process, how you can indicate that you'd like to testify, et cetera. Mr. Davio, whenever you're ready. >> Oh, actually Marion's going to do that because she's got the first case. >> Okay. That's -- oh, is -- sorry, I got my cases backwards. >> You're good. Can you hear me okay, Mr. Examiner? >> Yeah. >> Awesome. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Examiner, for everyone participating in tonight's hearing. If you're wishing to testify about a specific agenda item, we ask that you raise your hand so that you -- we can gauge who wishes to testify. If you're a call-in user, you can dial star 3. If you're a web participant, you need to click the hand icon located in

6:43 the lower right hand corner of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants. Here's a graphic showing where you can find the hand icon shown by the red arrows. You might first need to turn on the list of participants which you can do by clicking the participants button shown by the purple arrow. Once you have given your testimony, we would ask that you put your hand down. You can do this by either clicking the hand icon again or dialing star 3 again. We will also ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute at any time that they're not speaking. I will show you how to do that in the next slide. Prior to the close of each agenda item, we will open all microphones for everyone in attendance to ensure that everyone who wants to testify has the opportunity. So please be aware that any noise in your personal environment will be broadcasted at that time. 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. And finally, the chat function

7:42 has been disabled for public records purposes. So as I mentioned, we ask everyone to keep their microphones muted at any time that they're not speaking. There are a few ways in which to mute yourself. If you're a web user and you're using your computer for audio, you can simply click the mute button at the bottom of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants shown by the red arrows. If you're a web user and you're using a phone for audio, you can either mute yourself on your computer or use your phone's mute capability. Phone only users can use the mute capability on their phone. We would ask that you stay muted anytime that you're not speaking. And that is it for the technical portion of the presentation. So now onto the first item on tonight's agenda. Okay, good evening, Mr. Examiner, county staff and the general public. For the record, my name is Marion Bateman. I'm a land use planner with Clark County Community Developments. And the project before you tonight

8:40 is the Northeast 40th Street subdivision. So for this development, the applicant's proposing to divide one parcel containing just over one acre into 14 single family attached townhouse lots located in the R16 zoning district. The applicant is Paul Williams. The property owners are Timothy and Natalia Andriets. The site is located at 5610 Northeast 40th Street in Vancouver, Washington. So as I mentioned, my name is Marion Bateman. I'm the review planner for this project. The review engineer is Hannah Deidle Isakson. The review biologist is Keith Radcliffe. And Craig Cottle was the transportation concurrency reviewer. And Jason Noble reviewed the application for fire safety. So here's an outline for tonight. During the presentation, I'll provide an overview and summary of the proposal, identify any major

9:36 outstanding issues or concerns, and then ultimately, we will make our recommendation to the examiner. Okay, so here's the vicinity map. The subject site is shown by the black dot. The site is located on the north side of 40th Street about eight blocks east of 54th Avenue in Vancouver. Here is the zoning map. The site is located within the R16 zoning district and it abuts other R16 zone parcels in each direction. That little pocket of public facilities zoning that you see to the west is Rhodes End Park, a small neighborhood park. And here is the site map. This is an aerial view of the site showing a bit more as far as existing conditions. As you can see, the parcel is heavily treated and contains one single-family residence. There's also one shop structure, both of which are proposed to be removed as part of this project. To the north of the site is a county-owned parcel retained as open space and then to

10:36 the east and west are other existing single-family residences. So here is the proposed preliminary plat. This is in the record as exhibit 22. As I mentioned, this is a proposed townhouse development so the applicant's proposing 14 new townhouse lots. There will be six separate structures containing the 14 attached dwellings. The applicant is proposing a private street tract to serve all 14 lots via individual driveways. And since the applicant is proposing townhomes, they also needed to comply with the narrow lot development standards contained in Title 40 Section 4261.55, which stipulates certain site plan requirements such as street trees at the frontage of each narrow lot. They also have to meet minimum parking requirements, which they are with two spaces per dwelling unit, one in the driveway and one in the future garage for each house. In addition, guest parking is required at a rate of one guest

11:33 parking space for every three narrow lots. So four guest parking spaces were required and they're providing six along the private street track, so they're good on parking. There were a couple of conditions placed in the staff report, but for the most part they're complying with the narrow lot standards. And we got a public comment about asking about the parking, so I wanted to make sure to break that down. So we will circle back to the plan and project issues, but first I will show some site photos. So here I'm standing just directly across 40th Street to the south, looking north towards the site. The site is, as you might have noticed before, it's kind of long and thin running north to south, so all my pictures are taken from the front near 40th Street. But as you can see, the existing residents and the proposed development sign out there out front. And then here I'm just

12:29 at the southeast corner of the site looking northwest, so better angled view of the residents in the front yard and existing street frontage along 40th. As I mentioned before, the site is pretty heavily treed the further north you go, so pictures towards the back of the lot were not really doable. Here, kind of the same, but from the southwest corner, the site's pretty flat, so it looks pretty much like that towards the north too, just with more trees. But what I really wanted to capture in my pictures was along northeast 40th Street and just the lack of sidewalks and the safety concerns around that, because that's one of the issues for the project. So here's another one. This one shows both sides of the street better, so this is 40th Street. The concern here is for students who will be walking to school from the site and, of course, just pedestrians in general, but this was an issue raised by several neighbors who I spoke with over the phone during the review of this project. And we also received one public comment in the record, which is Exhibit 9, a comment

13:29 letter from one of the neighbors who also raised the concern. So the issue's been raised by neighbors who watch kids walk by every day with no sidewalks and see the traffic and just had major concerns with the conditions out there and just safety in general. It's also a state plotting requirement stemming from revised code of Washington 5817110 that sidewalks be provided for students who walk to and from school. So for this development specifically the concern is for students walking to Truman Elementary School, which is about half mile away to the northwest on 44th Street. Here's another one showing just the other side of the street. You can see this site in the background there, and yeah, you're either walking on the street or in the dirt to the side. I think it may turn into a culvert further down the street, so certainly not safe walking conditions. Also the site distance coming in and out of those neighborhood streets is not great from what I could tell, especially

14:29 pulling onto 40th Street from any of those neighboring side streets. You've got parked cars and overgrown bushes and trees that impede site distance and things, and so with no sidewalks on top of that I can certainly understand why there's concern from the neighbors. The RCW that I coded requires applicants to provide a safe walking map showing how students can safely get to school, and in the event one cannot be provided sometimes improvements are required. It does not come up often, but sometimes developments are found responsible for constructing offsite sidewalks in order to meet the safe walking planning requirements for students. So as of right now, this is an outstanding issue, but I will get more to project issues here momentarily. First, I will go over the staff report and recommendation and just overall project timeline. So the applications submittal was received by the county on October 8, 2025. The application was deemed fully complete on January 13, 2026.

15:28 The notice of development application was issued January 27, 2026. The application was placed on hold pending additional information requested by staff, so we issued a notice of canceled hearing for the original hearing date. That was issued March 10, 2026. Once the hold was removed, we followed that up with a separate notice of hearing date for tonight's hearing, and that was issued on June 22, 2026. And then staff's recommendation to the examiner was issued on July 8, 2026, which is exhibit 30 in the public record. So there are a number of project issues to go over. I already discussed the lack of sidewalks in the area and the fact that the applicants failed to either provide proof students will be bused to Truman Elementary or provide a safe walking map showing that there is a safe route to Truman, including sidewalks along the route, or to propose improvements along the route that would guarantee safe walking conditions for students bused not complying

16:26 with RCW 5817110. I did speak with the applicant, well, very briefly over email prior to the hearing tonight, and he indicated that the school letter did indicate students would be bused. So I double checked it, and it's with the fully complete application. So it's within exhibit one, the school walking letter. But I reread it, and it clearly states that students attending Geyser and the other, what was the other one? It's Geyser and Fort Vancouver. It states that those students will be bused, and then it says the students that attend Truman will be within one mile, and it doesn't specifically say that they have to walk, but my understanding is that it's implying that they will be walking. So maybe some disagreement there on the language in the letter, but that's how I read it. So next is the issue of the proposed private street tracks. Development engineering staff are requiring a public street

17:23 to meet cross-circulation. I will mention too that the applicant submitted a road modification to request relief from the standard, and staff denied this request. And that decision is memorialized in the record as exhibit 16, but I'll let development engineering staff touch on that one more if you have follow-up questions on that issue. The other issue is another engineering issue regarding stormwater. They stated that the stormwater plan is not feasible, which it does relate directly to the fact that the county has conditioned the applicant to provide that public roadway and not a private road as proposed by the applicant. But again, I'll let them speak more to that one when we get there if you have more questions on that. So that's really it for the major project issues. Still some pretty sizable things to sort out for this development. And so for those reasons that development engineering staff and planning staff both recommend denial to the examiner. However, should the examiner

18:23 decide to approve this application, staff still place conditions of approval in the staff report and recommendation, which again is exhibit 30 in the public record. And that concludes my presentation. So staff will remain available for any questions. Thank you, Ms. Bateman. I had a couple of questions. I think I'll start with the one for you, but the safe walking issue, what does the code, if anything, does the code require? I mean, it's gravel, asphalt path, or sidewalk. Yeah, it's not super clear. And it comes from the state planning laws. And really what it states is that safe walking routes shall be provided for students. And then in parentheses, it says it may include things like sidewalks, crosswalks, other safe walking types of measures that you see along the route. So it's somewhat ambiguous, but we have taken the stance, especially

19:18 on the sidewalks. When we see there's clearly not a route to a school with sufficient sidewalks, that's usually what triggers us to look at it more closely. In this case, I saw a definite deficit there. But yeah, the state planning standards are not super clear as far as how much sidewalk or what exactly can be done if there's just maybe a small hole where there's part of the sidewalk missing, but most of it has sidewalks. It's not very clear. So as far as we're concerned, there should be sidewalks for kids to get to school. So that's the position that we're taking. Okay. But when you say sidewalks, do you mean concrete sidewalks to county standards or in the past, like you said, it's been a long time since this has come up, but in the past when it has come up, I seem to recall that it'll asphalt paths was allowed within the right-of-way because there was enough right-of-way room to put a sidewalk at where it was going to go.

20:17 Yeah, no, there's definitely been cases. I did have another project where we ended up settling on something similar to that because of the right-of-way width and what was available out there. But again, it kind of comes down to the applicant having the burden of proof. So this was pointed out and the applicant did not address it in any way. And so there's definitely different options that we can discuss for taking care of the safe walking/cladding requirement, but it's a discussion that we just haven't been able to have yet. The other question I had on that issue was does Dolan proportionality apply? I assume it does, in which case the county has the burden of proof to show that it's proportional. Clearly, there's a nexus. They're generating student traffic. But given the distance, I

21:15 don't know what all the issues could be, but the county would have to show that the cost is proportional to the impact. So during the open record period, I'm hoping staff and the applicant can provide more argument on those issues. The other questions I had were engineering. Page 10 of Exhibit 16, the county's response to the road modification denial of the road modification. Road modification request number one, on page 16 under staff's evaluation, the second paragraph says county staff reviewed the proportionality of constructing public streets on the subject parcel, concluded that including public streets would be proportional with the proposed 12 lots and any related frontage improvements.

22:15 Next on what? There's no analysis. There is just a conclusion. Good evening, Mr. hearing examiner. This is Alistair Dawson filling in for Hannah. This was not my project, but my understanding is that the county utilized the BOCC resolution to evaluate the ADT in relationship to the area. So the impacts created directly by the development and what the development should be, or could be required to provide. I believe that that is, I looked for it. I didn't find the calculations, but I'm sure during the open record that I can either find it or provide it to you if you wish. Okay, great. I'm familiar with what the BOCC Board of County Commissioners resolution is,

23:12 but can you give the public a summary of what that was? Yeah, so there are metrics provided for the amount of ride away that the county can ask for the amount of public improvements that we can ask for. And it's due, it's related to the average daily trips that the development creates. So there's 14 attached lots and each lot would have an ADT attached to it. So you would just multiply the ADT times 14, and then you would divide that by the square footage of the public improvements. The guidelines were given by the Board of County Commissioners to say within this range, we find it to be proportional for these different aspects. Like I mentioned, frontage, right away, dedication,

24:08 circulation. So there is a document that the county has adopted, accepted that generally goes over these parameters. And so staff utilize those metrics to evaluate if our request for circulation was proportional and staff has deemed that it falls within the acceptable parameters. Okay. And those parameters are generally that so many square feet per average daily trip is proportional up to a certain point. Correct. From that point to another point, it needs more study. If it's beyond a certain number of square feet per trip, it's not, it's deemed, I'm not proportional based on that in that study or that resolution. Yep. Great. Thank you. Thank you. That answers that question. And you're requiring that they

25:06 provide a public stub street to the east of this site. Am I correct that if this was a public street instead of the private, that it would be built as a half-width street on the west boundary so that the, so it could be extended to the west in the future as well? Yeah. I was reading the report before the meeting and it, it doesn't say that, but I think that's why it doesn't say that a stub to the west should be provided because this would act as the half-width or the partial width running north and south. And then if the development to the west came in, then they could build the other half street and go west. So I, uh, my, um, assumptions and, and, uh, assertions are the same as yours. Okay. Cause that, when I first looked at that, I thought, well, why not? Why only do these, why not cross circulation to the west? And then I viewed it as a yes, because they lots

26:01 sizing, et cetera, seems to be fairly similar on both sides. I think that was all the questions I had for staff. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Um, there's the applicant's opportunity to testify and present their proposal, respond to the staff report. I don't see the applicant, anybody who's an applicant on my screen at the moment, but I'm sure they're there. Um, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. This is Paul Williams. I don't know why it says unverified. I don't either. You're representing the applicant. Is that correct? Mr. Williams? Yeah, that's correct. I prepared a PowerPoint presentation. I guess I share an eye on my

26:57 hand. Okay. I see it being one second here. Is he a panelist? If he is, he'd have a share screen button at the bottom, but I don't because he's comes across as unverified. I don't know. I don't show him as unverified. He is a panelist. I promoted him to a panel. Okay. When he's test, when he starts to speak instead of a picture or a box showing up, it just a little square at the top. So then unverified doesn't show his name. Yeah. It says unverified for me too, but I was able to share it. He should be able to. Okay. Do you have a share button at the bottom of your screen? Yeah. It's at the bottom of the screen, at least for there's a video start video and a share button. If not, I can share for you, Paul, just let me

27:56 know. Can you see it now? Yes. There we go. Now I can. Yes. I just, there was a subdivision. I don't know if you can see the cursor on the screen. Yup. But we got one issue. One is the road mod, you know, cross circulation, access spacing, and then issue two is the safe walking route to school. What I'd like to do, you know, once again, the road modification staff is wanting a public road and where, or I'm sorry, a public road and we're proposing a private road. The reason why the County is proposing public road is because they want this area that currently the area doesn't meet circulation. The other issue is safe

28:47 walking. Or do we already go over this? It's now your opportunity to present your arguments on both those issues. So I just, yeah, the other issue is safe walking route. We do have a school letter. So what I'd like to take a look at is when you look at cross circulation, the code, this is the code section B-2-A, ensure adequate cross circulation in a manner that allows subsequent, sequential developments to meet these standards and provide a mechanism for integration of the street into an effective, safe transportation network. That's in the transportation section. So what you do is you have to take a look at all the sites. That's number one. Number two, you want to look at within a 600 foot radius. And then

29:47 number three, you need to make sure that it's feasible with all adjacent lands. And then number four, we want to double check the arterial atlas to see if the atlas is already recommending putting a future road through here. So what I'd like to do is show you the site. The site is here in pink project. To the north, we have a wetland. To the east, we have a park. Just west of it, we have an approved shore plot. And then to the east, we already have an approved subdivision to the east. But this is the-- I'm sorry, Mr. Williams, where's the approved short plot to the west? Right here. Yeah, this little one right here. So that gray one and-- Yeah, I think it's called Kerns. That's the gray parcel. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to make sure.

30:46 So right now when we look at the block perimeter, it's going down 40th and then going up north and circulating around. And the code, the previous slides, we want block lengths no greater than 800 feet in any direction. 800 here, 800 here, 800 here, and 800. So 800 times four is 3,200. We're actually at 4,600. So we don't meet cross circulation, nor any of these parcels in this area meet cross circulation. So once again, to go over it, here is the code section within the cross circulation. The block lengths are either from 100 to 800 feet. To exceptions, we can actually use cross circulation actually to meet either vehicle access or pedestrian access. But once again,

31:44 the maximum is 3,200. We definitely exceed that. So yeah, I'm just kind of summarizing here. To the north, we're blocked by a large wetland. To the west is blocked by the park. And then to the east, it's blocked by developments, you know, as we shown to the east. The key thing is the code section right here is where possible conditions can be met. And here's the code section B2C1 requires cross circulation that enables future developments only where possible. So we have to look at a network, not only look at our parcel, but we need to look at the adjacent parcels to see if they can put a public road or a private road. And there is one caveat. Basically, I'm showing

32:39 you all of the code section of the cross circulation. There is no distinct distinction or requirement as in to be in public or private. And so we can make this thing private and just grant easement to our adjacent parcels. I'd like to give you an example. You have a mixed use development that has a private shared access that goes to other retail or commercial or industrial and, you know, they share the internal system. But yet their access are controlled or agree upon accesses for the development. So it's not uncommon to have, you know, a private access way, you know, shared with adjacent parcels. It's done all the time with mixed use projects. So once again, I went ahead and labeled all

33:33 the parcels within the 600-foot radius. So we have lot A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, L, N, O, P. So I looked at every single one of them. They happen to have the same zoning as us, as R16, which the maximum density is 7.9. And since parcel B, C, J, L, N, O, net zero, I mean, these parcels are too small. So for example, let's take lot five. Five can only be a one-lot shore plat. So there is no one-lot shore plat. So this is our project here in pink. So if they were to extend the public or even private road, it would actually stop here because B is only a one-lot shore plat. C could be a two-lot shore plat, but

34:28 if you're to put a 40-foot width road through there and now it would only be a one-lot shore plat. So there is no way that the road can go any further to the west. Now, if we go to the east, J and K and L can only be a two-lot shore plat, but if you put a 40-foot road through there, then it'd only be a one-lot shore plat and the county doesn't have a one-lot shore plat. So there is no feasible way. So once again, the circulation, once a circulation road or route, this would be 100 or no less than 100. This would be less than the 100 and no greater than 800. So this would meet the dimensional standards and be less than 3,200, but B, C, and A cannot redevelop it by putting a road through there, either private

35:24 or public. And going east, same thing. This would be circulation, would meet circulation. This is the only one that would actually meet access spacing through here. We're not meeting access spacing because you can see the public roads to the south, and this is an arterial. So none of these parcels to the west can meet access spacing, even if A was even remotely possible to put a street here. It still won't meet intersection spacing. The only one would be to the far east, where parcel A is. But once again, there is no future development potential for JKL. And what I did was put this all in the table. So once again, just for ease, I labeled them from A to P. Here is the parcel number. Here is GIS parcel size. And then here is-

36:21 Mr. Williams, I don't think, there we go. Your thing took a minute to advance. Now I'm seeing it. And I have reviewed this before the hearing, so I'm familiar with what you're presenting here. Okay. I'll just do timers down to 12 minutes. I don't want you to run out of time to respond as well. Yeah, I'm trying to get through this thing as fast as possible. And so there must be six, they're under cross circulation. So there's the standards that are 100 to 800 and no greater than 3200. And then once you look at the system, like I was showing you, there is a west circulation route or a possible east circulation route. These are all the criteria that it needs to meet convenient parcel access to the arterial street. So if this public street, the county is recommending a public street, and if it dead ends and it can't further expand to the east and the west because the parcels are too small, it won't meet criteria A. Of course,

37:20 discourage extra vehicle traffic. If it can't exceed that, of course, but it doesn't meet the intent of cross circulation. So it doesn't meet C. And then, you know, there is a possibility. But once again, that could be met with just putting an easement on our private street that grants access to our adjacent neighbors for either future pedestrian or bike. D is discourage internal shortcuts. One of those don't meet it. And then D, internal circulation to our arterial relate. If this is just a T street, it doesn't meet requirement D. So none of the just the public road as a T does not meet any of these criteria. So once again, the intent of cross circulation is to provide a cross circulation in the future, but I just

38:14 demonstrate just before that it's not feasible. It seems like the staff is not necessarily asking us to do a public road. It seems like because it can't, you know, meet cross circulation requirements. It seems like that they're using this rationale as access management. So just taking the adjacent properties and forcing them onto our property. But there's nothing in code that gives the county the authority to require us to put a public road to control access or for access requirements. Or I'm sorry, access management requirements. I'll do a real quick summary on this one. I did find a couple of case laws. The only reason why I put case law in here is because the county does or agencies do have some responsibility

39:12 when they're asking for public road, and especially for public road extension. So that is the the county has a responsibility to due diligence on making sure that off site can be met with a public road network. But I'm here it just I see it as you know, the county could ask me to you know, provide which I showed you on the table and above and of course the map, you know, the count the road mod committee team could ask me to provide that information and I could have. So I know that Alistair went over this proportionality that was just for our site. But once again, I just showed you the code section. When it comes to cross

40:06 circulations, we have to look at the adjacent sites and make sure that they can extend the road in the future without causing a burden with a burden on them. So even though disproportionality doesn't work for our site, but once again, cross circulation does not limit this to either a private road or a public road. It can be either one of them. The code is absolutely silent in this manner. And the safe walking route. I hopefully it got submitted in the record. I you know, I submitted with the original one but the school letter does say the kids are going to be bust where data June 2nd. Yeah, it because it I don't see that it says

40:58 that it says bus stops are determined as parcels a bit at the present time. Truman students residing at this location are within one mile. The bus stop for geyser in Vancouver students is located 54th and 40th. The the quotes you put in your letter don't appear in this letter and your PowerPoint rather don't appear in this letter. Well, that's why that the way that I read it because we're not quite a mile to the school. I think the easiest way to address that is to get another letter from the school that says yes, we're bussing from to Truman. Yeah, that could could that be possibly the condition because there's there's about I don't think it could no I have to find that it's that's feasible to comply with that standard. So if they're being bused it you can pull by if they're being if they have

41:54 to walk you have to show that safe walking around is available and I have to find that it's feasible to provide that etcetera before I could approve it. So I couldn't approve it subject to condition but I can hold the record. I'm holding the record open you could submit it during the open record. Yeah. Yeah, like I said, there's a mile of missing sidewalk. So I think yeah, I looked at the aerial photos the record there and I see the issue. Yeah, so I if you can get something from the school district that would eliminate that issue. Oh, absolutely. I can do that. They will be bused. Okay. Okay. Well, let me cut it short so I don't run out of time. But once again, you know, the code does ask us to look at the adjacent parcels. I just showed you it's not feasible. You can see on GIS these parcels are really small. It's real easy to analysis on some of these and you'll figure

42:47 out real quick also to I'm like, you know, is all these parcels have existing homes. So how do you know a one lot or a two lot is this site if I mean if somebody can remove those homes and redevelop those properties? No, but when you look at Yes, but we're one of the bigger parcels. But when you look at BCJLNO, you know, it's yeah, there's there's no there's no development. So there is no future extension of the public road. But once again, we don't mind you know, we still want to put a public road and we don't mind granting our neighbors an easement and when they come in for the adjacent parcels because they're a little bit bigger you know, then the ones a little bit further to the east of the west is grant them so we do can consolidate, you know, to one access the private access and we don't exceed the ADT. No, we don't even come remotely close exceeding the ADT for

43:46 a private street. Okay. And and this way, you know, as they come in, they can just access to it. And but even though we don't meet cross circulation, but at least you know, we're trying our best to help out the immediately adjacent parcels because once again, the ones on the peripheral, they just can't redevelop. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Okay, how do we unshare? Stop sharing. Okay, that worked. Is there anybody else who'd like to testify in support of this application? If so, please click on the raise your hand button. Mr. Davio, the timer covers up my participants. So I'm gonna have to rely on you to tell me who's raising hands if anybody. Sure, we do have two people that have raised their hands, but their hands have been raised ever since Mary and finish their presentation. So I can see

44:43 if they I don't think they're raising their hand recently. But do you want to raise the first one's hand? You mean that unmute them? Yeah, let's go ahead because if if no, there's no new hands raised, I'm assuming that nobody wants to testify in support. So let's go ahead with opposition or questions and concerns and whoever different. So David, David's sub Chuck, I think he should be able to unmute himself. But I'm not sure if he's here to testify in favor. He's one of the project managers. I'm getting familiar with the system. So yeah, that was next on my behalf. So you didn't intend to raise your hand. You don't want to testify at this point? No, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Who's

45:36 the next one? Does anybody else want to testify about this application in opposition with questions or concerns? Anything? Anybody want to say anything about this application? I just on the radio user number to call in user number two. Great, thanks. I do have a since there's no opposition to it since I was late to the hearing, sorry about that technical difficulty. Um, it appears that there is no opposition to my PowerPoint presentation from the county. Well, I'm going to give them a chance to respond to your PowerPoint presentation. Um, but first I'm going to take public testimony. We had a raised hand. Is that correct? Yeah, but they're, they're not responding. I think you should start over and just repeat that. They're not, they're not chiming in that we had a call in user two. Um, okay. So if somebody's

46:35 on the phone and wants to testify, you'll need to unmute yourself and let us know you want to testify and that user is not hit. The hands off is lowered. So I don't think they want. Okay. Okay. Okay. So there's no raised hands at this point. Nope. Okay, great. Um, back to staff then. Any response from, um, county? Yes, this is Marian Bateman. Mr. examiner. Um, I don't, I don't think I heard you call in for people that are in opposition. Yeah. Anybody who wants to say anything about this opposition in opposition or with questions or concerns, please raise your hand now. Um, I thought I had said that a couple of times, but I'm happy to repeat. You might be right now. And I'm not sorry. One more try. Anybody

47:33 wants to say anything about this application, opposition or questions, anything at all? Nope. Please raise your hand. Nobody's raising their hands. Okay. Sorry about that. Go ahead. That's okay. No, I appreciate the checking better to go the wrong way. All right. I think back to staff, right? Is that okay? Mr. Examiner? Yes. Awesome. So, um, yeah, I, I concur with the the school district letter. If we're able to get a letter saying that the students will be bused. Absolutely. We agree that takes care of it in the event that he's not able to provide that. I'm wondering if we can request two weeks open record period, um, as it might take further discussion if, if the letter is difficult to get for that, um, that might be appropriate, especially with the, um, the cross circulation discussion. I don't know

48:29 if it's going to be any discussion with staff or not, but, um, we can consider argument from the applicant if they object to that, but we'll go from most of both. I will consider that just a minute. Mr. William, I want to get response from Mr. Dawson if he has any at this point about the cross circulation issue. Uh, the one thing I did, sorry, is Alistair Dawson with development engineering. The one thing I did want to point out that I disagree with the code being silent on public versus private for circulation. If you look at a under block length, it says it's the distance between public road intersections as measured along the near side right away line. So essentially if you make a private road network, there won't be any right of way to measure along and there won't be any

49:24 public road intersections. So it may not be as clear as the applicant wants it to be, but I would say historically circulate cross circulation has always been about public infrastructure and I believe the code supports that. So that, that that's my response. Uh, I'll take a look at the applicant's exhibit and respond during the open record. Um, couple of questions. I'm trying to summarize the applicant's argument, but given what he's shown, it appears that it's not possible to connect the road on this site back to 40th or any other public street, but it is feasible, appears to be feasible to extend it basically a T street as he referred to it to the east and west to those larger parcels. Um, is that, does that meet circuit

50:20 cross circulation requirements because there's no connection, there's no circulation. I would say the applicant's making an assumption that the road is not going to go back to 40th. He, in his road mod and the applicant's road mod, they asked for a relief from intersection spacing. So there's nothing preventing subsequent developments for asking for the same thing. Uh, there are also two stubs, uh, 57th and 58th on the south side. So intersections could line up with those. Um, just food for thought. We don't, that's part of what the conversation is about is trying to provide a public network. So if we don't get one with this development, that's in the middle of, you know, 12, 14 parcels or so, then there's really no conversation to be had for, for the subsequent parcels. So we're starting the conversation now in

51:19 the hopes that we could provide a block in which, uh, we could find some compliance in. Okay. The other is he did show a potential couple of potential connections back to 40th through the adjacent property, but his argument is that it's not, um, the County wouldn't be able to require a, such a road connection because the part, some of those parcels are so small that it wouldn't be proportional to the County would be precluded from requiring the public road. So it would never connect basically arguing that Burton case. I'll just say that. Yeah. I mean, in my experience, I haven't looked at making assumptions about what the ADT could be. Uh, I think that the applicant did and the applicant has in other

52:18 cross circulation conversations to say, this is my speculation on what could happen. Um, there's a new comprehensive plan that's going to be released later this year that could change the zoning. So any analysis by the County or by the applicant would be a presumption based on what's available today. Uh, so that's definitely something that you could request Mr. Henry's examiner, but historically I haven't worked on a project where I've gone and made assumptions about the product and the ADT for the neighbor to figure out where the proportionality lies, stops begins. Okay. Um, not to make the applicant's argument, but, but he just to expand on my question, then somebody has to, he's arguing that somebody has to show

53:17 that it's feasible to provide those connections and he's arguing it's not. Um, and I'm sorry, if you can respond to that issue during the open record, I'd appreciate it. Yes, sir. Um, Mr. Williams, do you want to respond? Yeah. So it wasn't, it wasn't a speculation. It's just taking the lot area and divided by maximum density. We have no choice, but to use the base zone, what current zone is, because once again, we're looking at a feasibility for today, not necessarily the future, but like I said, some of them are, are pretty darn straightforward because the parcels are really, really small. Um, I know I'm doing a scaled out version, but the data, the table, the data and the table is accurate. So once again,

54:14 I just don't see how it's going to recirculate, you know, circulate back to 40th because of some of these parcels are too small. And once again, it's really easy with GIS to look at this because the public road is 48 feet wide. That's a huge swath. That's got to come through these very, very small parcels. So I didn't do a disproportionality analysis. I just wanted to keep it simple for the hearing, like at the parcel size divided by the maximum density. And you can see it's either one lot, one lot, two lot, one lot, two lot. And then if you got two lots and you're having to put a 48, 48, 48 foot road through it, it's, it's pretty much, you know, minus out that area. Then you're back to a one lot short plot with an existing out on it. Okay. And Oh, one thing for the school letter is it is summertime.

55:14 I know typically a two week period is typical, you know, the open record, but if you want a longer period, I'm happy to grant that. Yeah. If you wouldn't mind like maybe three weeks because of summer. Okay. Thank you. Good point. Thanks. Yeah. I didn't, I forgot about summer. Okay. Anything else you want to add Mr. Williams? Yes. The public version is that that's the test. You look at the existing system, you look at the existing, which is, we want to look at the public street, not the private street. So the public streets that circulate around our project. So that's why that language is using, but the actual meet circulation requirements, the code is actually silent, but maybe I can do a summary

56:09 and provide it. I appreciate that. Okay. So I guess I'm going to submit basically a small summary and the letter, then the County reviews it. So I guess you'll go over those details. Yep. But I'm going to, I'm going to hold it open for three periods. Let's put it that way. So the the three weeks that you requested for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence, but in the County. So if they want to respond to your, and then I'll hold it up for a second period for anybody to respond to whatever was submitted during that first period. And then for the final applicant alone to submit a final argument, which you can waive. So what I would be just predisposed to do, and that's what somebody wants more time is three weeks for the initial period. So you can get your letter and the County can review your and respond one week for response from everybody. And then one week for your final argument,

57:04 does that work for you? Yeah, perfect. Okay. Let me write that down and I'll grab a calendar and give a specific dates. Okay. So with that, I'm going to close the hearing on this item. I'll hold the record open for three weeks, August 13th for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence about this application. I'll hold it open until August 20th for anybody to respond to whatever was submitted during that first three week period. No new issues can be raised during that second period. It's only a response to whatever was submitted

58:00 by the 13th. And then till August 27th for the applicant alone to submit a final argument. And Mr. Williams, if you want to close the record, submit your final argument early or you decide you don't need to submit a final argument. You can just send an email to that effect anytime after the 20th. Yeah. Oh, close of the second open record period. So a little bit of clarification. If I submit something and I want staff to review it, just let the planner know. Yeah. Anything anybody wants to submit has to be submitted to the county to Ms. Bateman and then she'll make it part of the record, but she'll forward it on to me. Okay. And then anything the county submits, obviously you'll get as well and anybody's going to review the public record. But so that's what I'm going to do. I'll close the

58:58 hearing. I'll hold it up until the 13th for anybody to submit new evidence and testimony until the 20th of August for anybody to respond until the 27th of August for the applicant alone to submit a final argument. And by the way, anything anybody wants to submit has to be physically received by the county by 5 PM on the relevant closing dates. I'll try and get my decision out by September. I'll do my best to get it out by September 10th. My daughter's getting married in September, so I think maybe a little, maybe a little bit longer, but I will do my best to get it out before that. So that's what we're going to do. That concludes the hearing on that item. We'll take just a second to which staff

59:46 and rich cases. Thank you. Thank you. So that brings us to our next item on our agenda. Living stone Meadows, uh, PLD 2025.00106. So Davio, is this one yours? Yes, it is. Okay. All right.

1:00:34 You ready? We're not. Sorry. Yes. I was writing notes. I wasn't looking at my screen, but whenever you're ready, go ahead. All right. So this next case is PLD 2025.00106 Livingston living stone Meadows subdivision. Um, it is a request to subdivide roughly 4.8 acres into a 22 lots in the R one seven five zoning district. I am the review planner. Um, Allister Dawson is here, um, hovering for chase. Um, to present that we have our habitat biologist here, Lance

1:01:29 and our concurrency engineer, Craig, uh, Cottle. All right. The, uh, the presentation is not just from the staff and the applicant from even testimony from the neighbors will help us provide an overview and a summary of the prop of the proposal, uh, identify any major issues and concerns. And of course this all helps us make a recommendation to you, Mr. examiner. All right. The, uh, subject site is located, uh, north of one 39th street. And you can see here, um, I've got a vicinity map on the screen that shows, uh, these blocked dot black dots represent, um, the, the parcels that are involved. There are four, this next

1:02:20 screen shows the zoning. As you can see, uh, the site is zoned R one seven five, um, and the surrounding sites as well. Uh, there's R one 10 to the north across 144th. And here is a copy of the proposed plot. Um, one of the things that I've mentioned is that we have our habitat biologist here, Lance watt. Um, and it becomes one of the major issues, although it looks like it looks like everything's in order, but as you can tell by this plat, there are many white Oak trees here, which is the subject to our habitat review. Um, and that you can see by the drip line that our applicant is protecting these white Oaks. Okay. At this time, I'd like to show site photographs for existing conditions. Okay.

1:03:18 This first you is East along 144th street. The subject site is right here on the right hand side of the screen. You can see the sign, the developments poster sign. Okay. This is a view South of this, uh, onto the site and, um, very close to the same location. I took the last picture. Um, this is the subject site. It's hard to see right here. You'll see it's, it's really hard to get inside the site with the exception of luckily there is an easement. So there's a house right up right front, which is a little bit further to the East than this picture. Uh, you could see the driveway right here on my cursor is pointing. You can see my cursor, right? Yeah. Um, and then there is a easement that goes back that serves the bottom lots and you can, that's really right here. A lot 13, that's where

1:04:16 the existing lot is currently. There is an easement that runs through somewhere along here. It's of course, it's not shown in the proposed plat because that's all going to go away. Um, but that just helps us understand. And here is aware the, this easement, um, accesses 144th. I'm going to do a little, there's a couple of shots here. I'm going to go do along this easement so you can see this. It also gives a little bit of a view of what it's like inside the site. That's it's heavily treated at this point. This is the road. You can kind of see the house down here, but the next slide shows the house that's going to be on lot the proposed lot 13. Okay. So now, um, I'm right at the edge of the development and you can see here, this is the, um, Northwest, excuse me, Northeast 25th Avenue. Um, that's

1:05:14 right here and there may not be, I think there's a delay in your screen sharing because I'm seeing the house at the end of the driveway right now. Oh, there we go. Now we're seeing 144th. Yeah. I guess there's some sort of delay. I'll, I'll make it a little slower next time. So yeah, uh, this, this photo shows it's, it's right at the end of the development, right where this, you can see this curve curb cut is the curb got the curve that goes, that's the, uh, Northeast corner of the site. Yeah. 25th Avenue. That's okay. Yeah. That's exactly what it is. Great. And then there's also, there's a shot that goes further along 144th past the development. And now I'll take a shot going down 25th Avenue. There's been some comments regarding 25th Avenue in this, in the record. So I just switched the picture

1:06:12 down view South along 25th Avenue, but I'll let it, that's strange. There it goes. Good. So you can see, um, you know, it, this does not, there's no outlet for this road. It is a dead end. Um, and you can see here, it's a little hard to see, but you could see there's a fence. The fence doesn't go all the way down along their property line. I have one more shot coming back the other way, which we'll show in just a minute. And now I've just switched to the view North along Northeast 25th Avenue and I'll look down. We got it. They just appeared and you can see there's the, here's the fencing on the applicant side that we can see. And there's a similar fence of course on the other side as well. You could see there's not a sidewalk on this side. My understanding is the applicant will be providing

1:07:10 a sidewalk, uh, along this to finish this part of the roadway. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the case. Okay. So what I'm going to do right now is just go over some of the exhibits that we had. And Mr. Examiner, I did forward you the updated exhibit list just before the hearing. Wow. Actually an hour before the hearing. So you might have that. But what I'd like to do is just go over a couple of the items in the exhibit list. And I, um, I was out of the office for a couple of weeks. I finished my comments before I left. Um, but one thing I noticed when I got back, I would, I noticed that the, um, uh, the staff report staff report when it was issued was missing transportation and stormwater comments.

1:08:09 Those have been entered now as exhibit 58. Those are the transportation onsite transportation and stormwater comments, uh, for the development, for our development engineering section. They are now exhibit 58 concurrency comments were in the staff report. But like I said, I noticed that the staff, that the, uh, the record didn't contain the staff report. So I entered that it, even though it's out of order, I entered it in as 62 exhibit 62. Okay. Because we might need to refer to the staff report. So I thought it should be in the record. Yeah. Appreciate the clarification. Okay. So as I've mentioned, uh, there are many white Oak trees on the subject site, uh, which many are required to be protected. Um, Lance and the applicant can get into more of those specifics. You might have some questions about that, but

1:09:06 the applicant is proposing to protect these white Oak trees as damage. I pointed it out on the, on the plan. And of course, um, Lance, Lance or the applicant can provide some additional information if you have questions on those. Okay. So, um, what I'd like to do right now is just go over. We have received a lot of comments. And, uh, as I mentioned, there was a second reason why I mentioned that I was out of the office for a couple of weeks because when I finished my review, we had only had one comment letter and that's what I mentioned in the staff report. Obviously many, many more have come in. You can, you can see exhibits 35 through 44, 48 through 56. I think there were even some earlier than that 32. There, there are lots, we have lots of neighborhood comments. So I just wanted to, uh, acknowledge

1:10:03 that that even though I had only listed one, a comment letter when I, when I had written the staff report, um, obviously a lot more has come in since, since then. And so I would just want it to, uh, acknowledge that. Okay. So, um, based upon the staff report and recommendation, uh, which was exhibit, as I said, I met made exhibit 62 and our onsite transportation and stormwater comments and staff report, which is exhibit 58. Uh, we do recommend approval of the subdivision proposed subdivision, um, based upon those conditions that are in both of those exhibits. And that concludes my presentation. Of course I understand you may have some further

1:10:52 followup questions. Okay. Um, sorry, I can't read my own writing here. I think that did a couple of questions for the applicants. I'll skip those for now on page nine of your staff report, um, uh, finding 12 under habitat impacts. So, uh, this is from Mr. Watt. Um, it says their temporary habitat impacts under certain of the Oak trees for trenching. And, um, but if, if, if you, if they're trenching and it cuts the root, isn't that a permanent impact? I'm not sure how that's a temporary impact and Mr. Watt, if you can respond to

1:11:43 that question, Mr. Watt, we're not hearing you. I think you're muted, Mr. Watt. We're not hearing you. Let's try that. There we go. There we go. Okay. I don't know what happened. Um, so yeah, uh, Lance Watt Park County habitat. And so I guess that when we've been in discussion with fish and wildlife on this issue with Oak trees and you know, what's a permanent

1:12:43 impact was that temporal impact. And he said, I mean, if we're talking about, I guess they're looking more at the physical impact as the whole loss of the entire Oak and they're generally considering if we've got impacts underneath the canopy of the Oak that the Oak itself may still survive. But I said, that's where we generally try to fall on talking with an arborist and they said they've provided a report from an arborist that mentioned that they thought that the Oak trees should still survive with some of these impacts, but we also condition that they still have to monitor them after everything. So we've got a base

1:13:37 condition before any construction happens. And then we get another report right after construction and then or another handful of years afterwards. And if there's adverse impacts to those Oaks, then we're looking at additional permitting requirements. Okay. So if, because of the temporal impacts, uh, and Oak tree dies, the applicant has to mitigate for that loss of that tree. Right. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Block. Um, page 14 out of question, the, the traffic study, I mean, let me find, it was based on 18 single family detached

1:14:34 houses and four duplexes, eight dwelling units for those duplexes, but now it's 22 single family detached houses, which presumably, uh, impacts the alters, the, uh, total number of trips generated by this development. Does it impact the alter the analysis of that transportation impact? Is there enough difference between, um, the duplexes and detached single family? Not sure who has to answer that. That should be Craig Cottle is that was, I think you unmuted. Can you hear me? There we go. Now I can. Okay. Uh, Craig Cottle transportation concurrency.

1:15:28 So the original, let me pull up the trip generation here. Um, okay. So the original, uh, TIA shows 18 units of single family detached housing and eight units of attached housing. Um, which has a total am peak hour trip generation of 16 PM peak hour trips at 20 and ADT of two to 10. So the updated, um, you said 16 units, 22 single family detached, 22 single family

1:16:18 detached. So, uh, the trip generation for 22 single family detached would be extremely similar. Um, so an updated trip generation analysis wasn't asked for because that's what I wanted for generation. Yeah. It is within, it's pretty much exactly the same. Okay. I thought it probably was, but I don't have the IT manual and so I wasn't able to confirm that or not. Um, that answered that question. Um, then there was the site distance issue at the intersection of 25th Avenue and 144th street. Um, I understand the intersection site distance requirement can't be met, but intersection stopping site distance can be

1:17:16 met and the county granted a road modification for that. Um, I guess I do, I would say I'm just spitball in here, but would it be safer to close that access and run a, um, provide access to 144th through this site that meets the site distance requirements, um, so that the people that are currently served by 25th Avenue could travel through this site to a new intersection on 144th safely access. It may not be possible because the applicant, um, can't be required to or whatever, but I just want to throw that out question, throw out that question so everybody can respond. This is Alistair Dawson. I'm sorry. This is, yeah, this is a development engineering related for site distance. So the road mod was at the intersection of 144th and 25th. I don't,

1:18:15 this was not, uh, related to the proposed access location for the development. Correct. So if that really is your question, I mean the county has no nexus to close 25th Avenue. Is that what you're implying? Yeah, I was just because it would provide a safer access to 144th. If for instance, 24th or, oh, these are private streets anyway, but probably isn't going to work. I just thought I'd, you know, when I see that issue, I see this site. Another option would be to just to provide a street access to 144th through this site with a connection to 25th and closure of the 25th 144th intersection. I don't think the county has that capability,

1:19:09 but I thought I'd throw it out and let you tell me I'm right or wrong. I development engineering does not have a nexus for that. I mean the, the roadway classifications for 144th and 25th are, are similar. 25th local access, 144th neighborhood circulator. You can see the lot one is taking access off of 144th. But, uh, I mean, based on that one metric alone, the road mod did not suggest that the applicant reroutes. I mean we had lots of conversations about providing public circulation through the site is cross circulation was also in the road mod. So ultimately it was determined the applicant said that this layout is generally dictated by the white Oak placement and we felt like they were doing the best that they could to help preserve the habitat. And again, I just want to mention

1:20:06 that the location where the site takes asset access on the 25th, uh, it doesn't have any deficiencies. Um, and I believe that is the, is it stopped controlled 25th? I mean, it's a T intersection, but I got, it doesn't show on the plan. Yeah. So I mean it's a T intersection. So um, anyway, we, we could get into, you know, the volumes expected on 25th are going to be less than what's expected on 144th, but, um, yeah, so, so we, we considered the options, but the development engineering has no nexus to force the applicant to take access off of 144th instead of 25th. Okay. That's kind of what I thought. We just wanted to get a response. Um, the other question I had, and it may be more for the applicant, but

1:21:01 where's the stormwater facility going to discharge to the plan shows a pipe to the South South or Southwest, but I'm not sure what it goes from there, what it's connected to or if it's a discharge point on just a rip rap or what. And if you don't know, we can just leave it to the applicant. Mr. Dawson, I'm assuming that's my question for you. Yeah, I don't, I don't have the stormwater plan. I'll ask the applicant. I'm sure they have an answer for me. Um, I think those are the last questions I have for staff at this point. I'm hoping the applicant can address, we'll address other ones. And if I'll of course raise my question for the applicant, we'll get to that point, but is that it from staff then? Mr. Davio want to make sure that I'm cutting. Yes, it is. That's it from staff. Okay, great. Is

1:21:55 the applicant's opportunity to testify Mr. Johnson? And when he starts speaking, I will start the 20 minute timer. Okay. My name is Jason Taylor. I will be representing the applicant for this project today. Um, so Jason Taylor, that's T A Y L O R and my address is 6 0 4 West Evergreen Boulevard. Um, I'll start off by, um, I guess addressing a minor thing in the staff report. Now I have not seen any of the new exhibits that have been submitted in the last, in the last few weeks, including, uh, public comments and including the updated

1:22:51 staff report and, uh, transportation and stormwater findings and conditions. Um, I assume everything is good in there. Um, you know, we, we have those road modification requests. So my assumption is that it's still recommending approval of those road mods and the staff report still recommends approval. I don't think there was an updated staff report. I think it's the same staff report. You just gave an exhibit number. Okay. Is that right Mr. W? Yes, that's also included. The concurrency findings weren't included in the staff report, but they were part of the record. But development engineering wasn't, um, I'll forward that to you right now. I thought I did. I'll forward that to you right now, Jason. So 50 58 is the transportation or engineering and stormwater comments. And then 62 was the staff report. Okay. But 62

1:23:47 technically arrived before 58. Okay. Yeah, it did, but I noticed it wasn't in the record. I mentioned this earlier. So that's why I'm like, I think I should get it in the record. Okay. Sounds good. Um, in general, you know, what I've seen in staff report, everything looks good to me. Um, I can make comments if needed. I doubt it will be necessary based on, um, exhibit 58. There's one line, um, that I think might have been a holdover from a different project and that's in the actual recommendation of approval. The staff report exhibit 62. So page 21. Okay. So at the bottom of the page in the recommendation, it says staff recommends the hearing examiner proves, um, request provided the applicant can address

1:24:47 the guest parking and water availability issues. I don't believe that there are any guest parking or water availability issues. No, that was my mistake. That is correct. I mistakenly left that in there. That, that should be stricken. So that, that is the only, that's the only comment that I have, um, on the staff report. And yeah, this was, you know, this was a difficult project given the, the amount of Oak trees that are onsite. And I feel like we did, um, we did a pretty good job at, you know, retaining a majority of those Oak trees onsite where, where it was feasible. Um, I think we came up with a, a creative plan to, um, to make that all work. And we spent, spent a lot of time working with Lance, um, and making sure that we were meeting all the conditions that County code requires for, uh, for mitigation of those Oak trees and ensuring that those Oak trees are protected during development

1:25:46 and in the future. Um, regarding, uh, I guess I can start off by addressing the storm facility. Uh, I, I believe we, I think one of the original plans that we submitted maybe omitted a flow spreader that was on the Southern edge of the property. I believe more recent plans do show a flow spreader. The, the idea is that the entire site slopes to the South. That's where stormwater goes currently. So that's where a stormwater will continue to go once, once the site is developed, um, after it's been, after the flow control has been managed by the stormwater facility. Now in looking at the plans for the apartment complex to the South, they do have stormwater infrastructure. You know, they, you know, they have buildings there and retaining walls. They, you know, they didn't design their site, ignoring all the stormwater that was coming from the Hillside to the North. They have, they have pipes and

1:26:45 um, French drains that pick up stormwater, um, before it hits the back of the walls and before it hits those apartment buildings and routes it, uh, to the West and eventually to either two wetlands further South or to their own storm facility. So there is, um, there is a flow path for where that stormwater is going. It's not just dumping at the back of those apartment units. Um, and, um, you know, we believe we're, we're allowed to, to continue the discharge of stormwater in that location at the Southern, Southern end of our property. Regarding, uh, regarding site distance at the intersection of 25th Avenue and 144th Street, um, you know, it's something where we don't meet the standard primarily because of a tree that was planted by the neighbor and the neighbor planted the

1:27:43 tree in the absolute worst place possible for site distance. Um, and it's unclear if the County has any authority to, um, I guess, manage, uh, site distance for an existing intersection on, on, on private property. Now, I mean, if you go into Google maps, you can see when, when those, when street view was, um, when that imagery was taken, there, there was site distance available. I imagine when that road was built, site distance was available. It's the, the newer vegetation that's grown that, that is blocking site distance looking, um, looking to the East. Now, site distance is available to the West. So cars that are turning that are, um, Northbound on 25th Avenue that are turning right have

1:28:37 the needed site distance, um, which would allow them to turn right onto 144th Street. The issue would be cars that are turning left onto 144th Street from 25th Avenue and being able to see cars that are Westbound on 140, 144th Street. Now, the standards for site distance require the measurement to be taken 15 feet back from the traveled way, which, which puts the car, um, you know, pretty far back from the road. And that's, um, that's a fairly conservative standard. Um, if the car is all the way at the stop bar, there'll be, there'll be ahead of that 15 foot mark, which will enable them to have better site distance, um, looking to the East. And because there is ample site distance to the West,

1:29:33 um, a car would even be able to, um, inch forward into, into the Southern lane, um, and then be able to see a down 144th Street and see if there are any cars coming before they fully commit to making a left turn. So I don't believe, I don't believe the intersection is unsafe. Um, yes, it doesn't meet the technical standards for site distance. Um, but given, given the, the road conditions, there's not a lot of traffic on this road. Um, and, you know, it currently functions, um, with the, um, you know, dozen, dozen or so homes that currently use that, um, that intersection. Um, I, I believe that it's, it's not going to be an issue, um, for, for cars accessing and entering and exiting, um, that road and

1:30:25 the subdivision that's proposed. Um, I, I don't have anything else, but I, I'm, I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Davio, if you want to stop the timer, I don't want to take the applicant's time, but I could, I kind of, as I went through these, I wrote down some of the issues that were raised. I want to give the applicant a summary so that they can respond if they want to be so that the public can respond to his response. So to make this more efficient, um, exhibit 32 may have already, maybe the one that's in the rec that was addressed in the staff report, but he raised, uh, issues with bald Eagles using the trees on the site and that there are trees on the west boundary. They express concern that development on this site will impact those trees. A number of people raised objections about additional driveways on the 25th, arguing that it's a very narrow street and, um, difficult to maneuver

1:31:23 now and they object to any proposed connection of the onsite straight to 25th. Um, the exhibit 36 says that she's the owner of the existing residents in the Southeast corner of the site. And as I recall, she said that residents, the parcel on which that resident sits was divided off as a separate parcel and that this development impacts that her separate parcel. Um, that's clearly not what the applicant is showing. Um, so I'm hoping either now or during the open record, you can address that issue. Um, exhibit 37 also is her son and he raised similar, basically reiterated the same issues. Um, they were concerned about

1:32:18 construction impacts and safety of children on 25th, traffic, just traffic. I'm 25th site distance at 25th and 144th, which you've addressed that 25th is the sole access to all of the lots that are in there. And that would be also the sole access to this site. Um, so the number of lots served by single access, um, a lot of these are repeated. So there's lack of parking on 25th. Um, again, like number of these are repeated. So I'm just trying to skim through the resident at the get my direction straight here because things are going sideways north on the, on the east side of 25th at 144, that existing home there noted

1:33:15 that when, uh, drivers stop at the intersection 144th, it causes backups on 25th that block is driveway. Um, concerns were expressed about the site access on the 25th being in close in proximity to that intersection with 144 expressed concern about conflicting turn movements. I'm assuming it meets, I know it meets the County standards based on the findings in the staff report, um, concerns about illegal parking on 25th and disputed the density calculations

1:34:06 and exhibit exhibit 49 disputed the density calculations. Um, there was some SIPA comments that they argued it should be a MDNS instead of an ENS, but they, this one, there was a lot of concern about the trees on properties to the west or on the west boundary, which are partially on this site, partially on the adjacent site that, um, construction on this site will damage the roots of those trees then cause them to decline or die. Um, migratory birds using the site was raised, but, um, I know that's a federal law issue and the

1:34:58 applicant can comply with that. Okay. Now that was a quick summary of all of the issues that I, or most of the issues that I saw raised. I just saw you could, if you want to respond, if you, or you can do it during the open record or after the public testimony, but you want to throw those out so you have the opportunity. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for the summary. Um, I can address, um, some of those items. Um, the, so, so the, there's the parcel to the, that's part of the South East corner of the site. Um, that, that parcel was included with

1:35:51 this application. Um, I, I have not had direct communication with that property owner. The, um, the applicant was the one that was working with that property owner and they, um, they signed the application for, for this proposal, um, where, where they're included within this, this application. Um, so I'm not sure what. Yeah. You can read you the letter and respond during the open record. Yeah. So the, yeah, the, the development doesn't affect the parcel. Um, you know, there, there are a lot, there's an extra lot that's proposed that is intended to, to go to that property owner as well. Um, so the subdivision is not removing land from, from that property owner, but that, that property owner in the end will, will

1:36:45 gain, gain an additional tax parcel, um, which is, um, yeah, they, their property would increase and it would include law 13 and 14. Um, but that's, I mean, that's entirely a private agreement and, um, we can, you know, the applicant can, can work with the property owner to further clarify any, any issues that are going on there. Um, regarding, um, bald eagles, um, that that is news to me. I have not seen any, any evidence. Um, I have not seen the public comment to see if there is any evidence in the record of, of that. So I don't have any information to, to provide there. Um, regarding the 25th frontage, it is 25th avenue is a narrow, um, half width road. Currently, um, they built an attached sidewalk on the Eastern

1:37:43 side 20 foot road, and they have curb on the Western end of that. Now the, the issue, um, from the development issue, from our perspective, uh, you know, we, we're required to provide applicable, um, half width improvements to that road. Um, that road was built in close proximity to, um, a lot of Oak trees that are on our site. So the full widening of that road to what the, um, I guess what the typical County standard would be, uh, would, would cause the removal of, um, I think seven or eight large Oak trees. Uh, so when, when you look at the standard details, um, there, there isn't, there's a typical standard, which is

1:38:37 used 99% of the time. Um, but if you look at that detail, it shows that there's a core road and then there's flex zones on either side. Now that the core road that's required to provide is, um, for a local access road is, is the 12 foot center, um, section, right. That that width has to be provided. You have to have sidewalk on both sides. Um, but everything else, the standards are, are technically flexible as, um, you know, as, as far, as far as you can get them approved by the public works director, 12 foot is that that's not adequate for two way traffic, is it? It's so the standard for local access road is 28 feet, which includes a 12 foot lane down the middle and eight feet of parking on either side. Um, so, so yeah,

1:39:35 that allows you to be, yeah, the feet of parking either side is, is what's included in the flex zone. Obviously the fire marshal and the County likely would not approve a 12 foot road and, you know, plan or strip for the rest of it. Um, but there, there is flexibility and that allows, um, that allows it, the development to let's say preserve, um, you know, you know, to narrow the roadway, to preserve critical areas that are onsite, it would allow a development to, uh, put in larger bio retention, uh, within the roadway. So you can, you know, very easily get rid of an eight foot parking lane, do a 20 foot wide road. And that would give you, you know, a 12 foot wide bio retention, um, you know, on, on one side of the street, which is something that has been approved in the past. In our case, you know, we are, we're doing the first option, which we're using that flexibility to provide a larger planner

1:40:31 strip on one side so that we can protect, um, onsite critical areas. So the, um, you know, the 20 foot wide road, um, that for the most part is remaining. Um, we are going to build a sidewalk on our side, but we're going to, for the most part retain that frontage as is, um, as to not impact those Oak trees anymore than they have already been, been impacted by the past construction of the road. There's a small segment of widening that's happening at the intersection. We went back and forth with the County. Um, there, there are other small areas that we can bump out the road to make it wider where we're not impacting Oak trees, but the County felt like it wasn't, you know, further South, um, on, on that roadway frontage County decided that they, they didn't want us to widen a small section of road. It was better to keep that at a 20 foot width, um, until, until we get

1:41:29 closer to our site access and the, um, and the intersection of 25th and 144th street, uh, regarding, um, trees offsite trees. Um, we, yeah, I do see that there are some sizable trees to the West of us. Um, you know, for, for a majority of the site, we're not actually proposing significant grading. Um, that significant grading that we are proposing is down by the storm facility. Um, so adjacent to a lot of those newer homes that are to the West of us and some large trees that are there, um, I don't anticipate that the grading will, um, be a significant impact to the roots of those trees. Uh, but the, the trees that are on, on our side of the fence, those, those would be proposed to be removed. Uh, regarding

1:42:24 density calcs, um, you know, within the last year or two, the County updated their, uh, low density development standards or low density zone development standards. The, the density that is allowed is entirely based on average lot area for these lots in our, our average lot area. Um, based on information we've provided is 7,101 square feet. The minimum average is 6,500. So, so there are lots that are smaller than 6,500 square feet, but the, the standard is that the average lot size cannot be less than 6,500. Uh, so, um, so we do, we do meet that standard and by, by extension, we meet, we meet density. There's not a specific density calculation outside of making sure that we meet the minimum average lot size. Um, I think

1:43:24 that addresses, um, a majority of the comments and I can, I'll be here to answer and respond to any public comments that are, um, thank you, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Dobby, are there any hands raised at this point? If I'm sure there is just stand by one second. Yes, there is. Okay. Um, I'm going to just open it for testimony from anybody in support in opposition or with questions or concerns because I don't expect a lot of support, but if anybody wants to testify and support, they can. But, um, so anybody who wants to say anything about this application, you can raise your hand now. We'll just go through the list of raised hands. And, uh, again, we've seen how it was done. You'll unmute yourself, give us your name and address and give us your testimony. Um, but again,

1:44:18 please don't repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. Go ahead. I'll go first. First one is Mike Mellon, Chuck. I might not be pronouncing it correctly and I'm going to unmute Mike now. And when he starts talking, I will put on the three minute timer. We're not hearing you yet, Mr. Mellon check. You may need to unmute yourself at your end. I just, I just sent the request to unmute. He should. There we go. We're hearing you now. My name is Mike Melna Chuck. That's M e l n y c h u k. My address is two five zero three

1:45:08 northeast 142nd street and that's in Vancouver, Washington, nine eight six eight six. I live in Mount Vista Heights. I have lived there in Mount Vista Heights, a small 13 single family home development for 12 years. There is only one way in and one way out and that is northeast 25th avenue. There is no parking on the west side of this avenue and no parking on half of the east side because this avenue is only 20 feet wide. There cannot be any

1:45:58 restriction of traffic flow on northeast 25th avenue before, during or after construction of the Livingstone Meadows subdivision. Emergency and service vehicles which include fire, ambulance, police, trash, delivery services and mail must be able to get into Mount Vista Heights. If traffic flow is restricted, then another paved access road must be provided to get in or out of Mount Vista Heights. Additionally, the placement of the entrance and exit for the Livingstone Meadows subdivision cannot be placed near the intersection of northeast

1:46:57 25th avenue and northeast 144th street because the current hazardous intersection will become a bottleneck and much worse due to planned parking on both the west and east sides in the merge area. Even that small part of the road will be widened, but it's only going 20 to 28 feet. The increased traffic flow from a number of 35 homes, 13 from Mount Vista Heights and 22 from Livingstone Meadows subdivision create a hazardous bottleneck. Poor visibility

1:47:56 of vehicles coming on 144th street, particularly the three stop signs at the intersection of northeast 25th avenue create a hazard because too often vehicles will run the stop signs. Whether they're going east or west, it doesn't matter and it creates poor visibility because as the engineer said, there is growth there and you can't see traffic coming. Additionally, what was put on 144th street. Okay, basically what I'm saying is that we need to know who will we contact and who will be responsible to ensure the traffic flow will not be restricted

1:48:54 on northeast 25th avenue and this includes any construction events associated with Livingstone Meadows. Okay, thank you Mr. Melnychak. Yeah, additionally I agree with, I disagree with Mr. Taylor's comments. Mr. Melnychak, you can submit additional testimony in writing, but your timer has run out. You had three minutes, everybody gets three minutes. I have to hold people to that. Thank you. As far as construction access, the county has to approve a construction access plan. There may be, I don't know how, where utilities are coming in, etcetera. There will be some construction on 25th in order to put that sidewalk in, etcetera. The applicant may need to use flaggers and other minor delays which are common in the urban area, but they can't completely close that road and prevent anybody from getting in and out. It can't happen, it would be illegal, it would be unsafe obviously.

1:49:53 So the applicant will be required to get approval from the county of a plan for how they're going to do that if they need to limit access to that road, limit it to one lane, etcetera. They can use flaggers to do so, but they have to show how they will manage that to make sure that access is maintained. So thank you Mr. Melnychak. Who's our next raised hand? We have Julie Maglioni and I will, I just sent a request to unmute her. Julie, you should be able to unmute yourself now. We're not hearing you yet. There she goes. Hi, speaking of deep breath. Hi, can you hear me? Yes we can, thank you. Thank you examiner. My name is Julia Maglioni, M-A-G-L-I-O-N-E. I live at 14206 Northeast 26th Avenue in the Mount

1:50:52 Vista Heights neighborhood. I am not opposed to the developments. My concern is the use of Northeast 25th Avenue and how current residents will be impacted. My first concern is the selection of Northeast 25th as the primary access for the subdivision. I agree with examiner Turner. It is unclear to me why Northeast 25th Avenue was selected instead of Northeast 144th Street. Northeast 25th Avenue was built as a temporary private road for one neighborhood, Mount Vista Heights. It has not been improved even though the county has taken it over. So my question is why is it being considered as primary access for a separate larger subdivision when that property fronts and has access from Northeast 144th Street? I respectfully asked examiner Turner to ensure the record explains the basis for such an important decision.

1:51:51 My second concern involves the requested modifications to Northeast 25th. The proposal widens portions of the road, leaves other portions unchanged. How will that roadway function 10 or more years from now when it's serving both the existing Mount Vista Heights neighborhood and the new subdivision? I ask that the findings supporting those modifications be carefully reviewed to ensure they are fully supported by the record. I would like to mention a location familiar to Mount Vista Heights residents. The traffic impact study evaluates several intersections, but I did not find a discussion of the section where Northeast 142nd transitions into Northeast 25th Avenue. Residents leaving Mount Vista Heights experience that curve as having limited visibility, but the proposal includes adding driveways onto Northeast 25th

1:52:51 in that vicinity. Will this create an unsafe condition? I don't know. I ask examiner Turner to consider whether operations and safety at that location have been adequately addressed before making a final decision. As you all know, the decisions made here are permanent. My neighbors and I will live with these decisions every day for decades if the roadway changes don't make them move away, which I'm already hearing. I respectfully request the application not be approved in its current configuration and that a redesign of the project be required so that access is provided from Northeast 144th Street and all lots are served by the subdivision's internal street system rather than by Northeast 25th Avenue. I invite hearing examiner and county staff to visit the site and see the practical implications and daily

1:53:48 impacts and changes to Northeast 25th will create for current residents. Thank you examiner and staff for your time and consideration. Thank you, Miss Magdalena. Okay, next we have call-in user number five and I just sent an unmute for caller user number five. You should be able to unmute yourself. Not hearing you yet, call-in user number five. The red is gone, the green is not up, but the red is gone. There we go. Hi, good evening Mr. examiner and everyone on the call. My name is Michael Bennett. Just a few months ago my family and

1:54:47 I purchased the 2513 Northeast 144th Street, which is a lot of the northeast corner that the tolls are right abutting 25th Avenue and iron 44th just a few months ago. I've already submitted written testimony. I've heard we're not supposed to repeat written testimony, so I won't do that. But my primary concern and the reason I stayed on this call, there's a significant contradiction between the applicants submitted at EPA environmental checklist and the actual site plans that were provided and that are being discussed. And that's really what I want to make sure is included in this record. The SBPA checklist explicitly states and this is a quote, "access to the site will be from Northeast 144th Street, a public street that abuts the site to the north period." The visual site plans, the conversations that we've been having, everything that was mailed to us in the community is a material inaccuracy of this project description. And I think this has been talked by others and will more likely

1:55:43 than not continue to be talked by others following me. But this discrepancy I think is a strong argument for at least a request to the examiner to make sure that the access is definitively clarified, that there is truly the study done as to the impact of this Northeast 25th intersection corner, specifically in front of my driveway, as my house used to be the end of Northeast 144th Street. And I agree with others. I don't believe that the current plan provides an adequate safe, ingress, egress, traffic flow, and in my case, three on children, an opportunity for safe outdoor play in that area, nor easy ingress or egress from our own property just due to the location of our driveway due to the historical nature of how that property has been developed. I also am not opposed to this development. I think there is an absolute way that this development can proceed safely for everyone. I just don't believe that this current plan is it. And I believe that the SBPA checklist proposal probably knew that

1:56:42 in advance, which is why it was approved from Northeast 144th Street. My ask is just to please definitively clarify this access, make sure we have the appropriate traffic and safety impact studies and the appropriate conditions of approval if this is going to be accessed in Northeast 25th. And I'm otherwise just grateful for an opportunity to voice my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Gramner. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Okay, next up we have Jonathan Thomas. I just sent a request to unmute. Jonathan, you should be able to unmute yourself. Hi, thank you. I'm Jonathan Thompson, T-H-O-M-S-O-N. I live at 14307 Northeast 23rd Court, directly to the west of Lot 7. I did submit a public comment letter with arborist attachment as

1:57:39 well. I have a large Douglas fir tree, 47 inch diameter, sitting five feet from the fence line. And the arborist who's ISA certified documented this tree requiring an 18 and a half foot no dig protection buffer extending 18 and a half feet onto the east side and the development side of this fence. This tree is 115 feet tall and obviously provides an extreme hazard if damaged during the construction of this project. Like others have expressed, I'm not opposed to the development in general, but want to make sure that it's carried out in a thoughtful and safe manner. You can refer to the arborist letter for more details, but I wanted to at least make sure that it was brought to the attention during this meeting.

1:58:37 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Okay. Next up we have is Carolyn Porter. I have just sent a request to unmute Carolyn. You should be able to unmute yourself, Carolyn. My name is Carolyn Porter and I live in Northeast 142nd Street, 2502. And I'm here today representing my husband, Alan, and me as residents in the Mount Vista Heights community. We are directly adjacent to the proposed living metal subdivision and we have serious concerns regarding traffic and safety with the current plan. Currently our 13 home subdivision relies entirely on

1:59:33 Northeast 25th Avenue as our only way in and out of our community. The new development plan channels a high volume of traffic onto the single localized road, creating a severe bottleneck at the intersection of Northeast 25th Avenue and Northeast 144th Street. This intersection already has incredible poor sight lines, a terrible visibility, making this a major safety risk and is not fully mitigated by the current proposal. Furthermore, Northeast 25th Avenue is an exceptionally narrow road. It is already a struggle to fit delivery trucks and adding primary access for three more homes means emergency vehicles like fire engines and ambulance could face dangerous delays. We have many senior citizens and young families with children who walk these streets daily and the surge in traffic heavily compromises

2:00:30 their safety. We strongly urge the committee to mandate a structural modification to the site layout, ideally requiring an alternative access point for the new development to prevent traffic from being directly into our quiet single access street. Furthermore, if Northeast 25th Avenue is utilized to access any of the new housing units, it is essential to install and enforce the parking regulations as on street parking would otherwise impede two way traffic flow. According to the current plans to widen the section of Northeast 25th Avenue near 144th Street and adding parking on the east side of that section still doesn't address the real problem. Again, Northeast 25th Avenue is the only way in and out of our subdivision and there is a visibility problem at the intersection. Adding traffic

2:01:29 with 22 or 24 new homes is dangerous. To truly understand how narrow these roads are and how blind the intersection of 144th and Northeast 25th Avenue can be, we would like to formally request that a county planning representative come out to view the area in person, seeing the physical constraints firsthand to make these safety hazards undeniably clear. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your dedication to keeping Clark County residents safe. Thank you, Ms. Porter. Okay, now we have call-in user number two. I just unmuted

2:02:19 or selected call-in user two. You should be able to unmute yourself. Call-in user two? Isn't it star something to unmute on the phone? We should remind them what that is. Yes, it's star three. Okay, call-in user number two, can you hit star three? That should unmute you on your end because we're still not hearing you. We're still not hearing call-in user number two. No, the red's not going away. You're still muted on your end then, is that what you're saying? They are. It looks like it's still muted on their end. Okay. So we have to remind them that they have a full week to leave. Oh, maybe more now. Okay, now

2:03:18 does it work? Oh, yes. Yes, now we're hearing you. Awesome. There we go. Hello. You did something, right? That was fine. Okay, my name is Deborah Ive Johnson. I live 2601 Northeast 142nd Street in Oak Meadows and I recently purchased my home earlier this year. Could you spell your last name? Could you spell your last name by mistake? It's Ive Johnson. I'm sorry, you're breaking up. I'm sorry. Don't mean to keep interrupting you. Can you say that again and you broke up there? We're not hearing you. I think you have a bad connection.

2:04:09 Is she unmuted still? I can't see her all of a sudden. Okay. If you're hearing us, Miss Johnson, I missed the first part of your last name, but you'll need to call back in. We'll come back to you because we seem to have lost connection here. So if she comes back. I don't see her at all. Yeah, I'm hoping she'll figure out she has been disconnected and will call us back. Regardless, anybody could submit additional written testimony during the open record if she doesn't come back. Okay, who's the next raised hand? Next one we have Cassie Moore and you should be able to unmute yourself. Cassie examiner Turner. Thank you. Thank you

2:05:09 for allowing me to speak. I agree with my neighbors concerning the safety of the changes to 25th Avenue. Forgot name and address, didn't I? Oh yes, thank you. Cassie Moore, M O O R E 2507 Northeast 142nd Street in Vancouver. Thank you. First, there are three houses at the south end that will have driveways on 25th Avenue around a blind corner. They will be backing into a 20 ft streak with cars coming around the corner, unable to see them because of the current homes. Second, disagreeing with Mr Taylor, the intersection of 25th and

2:06:05 144th is busy and doesn't seem to be slowing down. The request was approved to have a smaller setback and continue the creep out onto 144th until the driver on 25th can see far enough to safely pull out. But adding 210 trips a day will put major pressure on the intersection. I walk on 144th Street every morning and evening and can tell you that more cars run the stop sign at 26th and 144th than stop at it. Although the speed limit on 144th is 25 mph, rarely does anyone drive that slowly. I know the two safety measures are there to make that

2:06:57 corner safer, but neither the stop sign nor the speed limit are ever enforced. Also, currently cars exiting 25th can have difficulty seeing west on 144th if there are cars parked in the no parking zone just to the west of 25th. Contacting 311 and asking for an officer to come out is met with "we don't have anyone available." In a perfect world, the speed limit, the no parking zone, and the stop sign might work, but we don't seem to have a perfect world at 25th and 144th. Examiner Turner, I urge you to consider the safety of the residents of both Livingstone Meadows and Mount Vista and have the Livingstone access rerouted to

2:07:51 144th, where there is already access. Thank you so much for your time. Our next person up to testify is Derek Rosenquist. Derek, I have just sent a request to unmute you. You should be able to. Can you hear me? Yep. Perfect. Good evening. My name is Derek Rosenquist, R-O-S-E-N-Q-U-I-S-T. My address is 515 Northeast 137th Avenue, Vancouver, Washington, 98684. I'm here tonight on behalf of my mother, Suzanne Rosenquist, who is owner of a portion of lot 20 of the 50 Wakers since 1982. She has asked me to speak for her tonight. We are not here to oppose a bill that we are here because the application contains documented

2:08:49 errors that if left uncorrected will permanently harm our property. First, the boundary, the recorded 2007 deed places the Northern boundary of my mother's land. Mr. Rosenquist, I lost you there. I just didn't follow the recorded what? The recorded 2007 deed. Okay. Yeah. It places the Northern boundary of my mother's land at 175 feet from the South boundary of lot 20. The plot proposed that boundary had only 126.41 feet, roughly 49 feet South of the recorded bound recorded where the quarter D places it. And I know for the record that the applicant's representative statement tonight regarding the four plot 14 is the first we've heard of any such offer. The 2007 deed already places half that lot within my mother's boundary. We have no contact with the applicant. The first we've known of this development proposal was when the sign appeared on the property. Second, a recorded contractual, right? When

2:09:48 my parents sold the adjacent parcel to lack of miss land properties in 2007, the recorded sale contract included a written commitment by lack of miss to connect my mother's home to a public sewer. Once appropriate permits were obtained, we asked the hearing Xamarin to require likeness to show how it tends to her that recorded obligation. Third, the easement my mother's recorded easement is 30 feet wide and covers ingress, egress, and utilities. That's the right she's held for nearly two decades. The plot's proposed replacement is labeled as a 20 foot access easement, a reduction of roughly a third and nowhere does the applicant extend utility rights to the replacement corridor. If 33% reduction with, with utility rights simply dropped is not alike for like replacement. Nobody has asked my mother's permission to make that trade. And we asked that any approval be conditioned on the replacement easement matching her recorded 30 foot width and expressly preserving her utility rights. The mother has owned the land for 43 years. She's asking only the developer build on land. They actually own preserve right. She's held for decades and honor a commitment made to her in writing.

2:10:47 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Russ Macross. I had a question. Give me a second to recall what it was. Your mother's property is a, is your mother's property a separate parcel? It was deeded. Yeah. Yeah. It shows up on, that's what I'm talking about. Thank you, Mr. Davio. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So there are there four tax slots on this site, Mr. Davio? Yes, there are. Okay. Okay. Got it. Now I'm, now I'm clear what you're saying. I will note Mr. Rosenquist, some, many of the issues you're raising, the easement, the agreements are private disputes or agreements between yourself and the applicant that I have no authority to enforce. But you do through, if necessary, a civil proceeding in Superior Court. I'm

2:11:44 assuming that you and the applicant can talk to each other or the applicant's going to be talking, contacting you to talk about these issues and see if they can be resolved. But I don't have the authority to interpret easements or prior agreements or the deed restrictions. Those are all private agreements between the private parties. But I understand the concern that I'm hoping the applicant will address them during either tonight or during the open record period. Who's our next raised hand, Mr. Davio? Our next raise hand is Elizabeth Hamlic. I just sent the request to unmute her. You should

2:12:29 be able to unmute yourself, Elizabeth. We're not hearing you yet, Ms. Hamlic. >> Start again, Elizabeth. >> Still not hearing you. Does she appear to be unmuted on your screen? >> The red's still there. And she's not a call-in user. I'll do it one more time. I'll try to do it one more time, Elizabeth. >> Okay. >> It was sent. She should be able to unmute herself. >> We're still not hearing anything. Ms. Hamlic, like I noted at the start, I will hold the record open for at least a week. So you'll

2:13:25 be able to submit your testimony in writing. But we are unable to get a connection. >> You know what? There's a little phone symbol by her. Even though she's not a call-in user, I wonder if she is on a phone which means star 3. >> If you're on a phone, Ms. Hamlic, hit star 3. >> I'm not positive, but there's a little symbol next to her which looks like a phone. Oh, well. >> Okay. We're not hearing. Ms. Hamlic, I'll ask you to submit your testimony in writing. At the end of the hearing -- at the end of the public testimony, I'll come back and see if we can try again. But Ms. Hamlic, if you're not hearing us, you might try exiting the meeting, signing back in. That may clear up this issue. So you'll be able to come back at the end of the hearing and end of the public testimony and we'll try again. >> Sorry, can you hear me now? >> There we go. Something happened. You made it.

2:14:25 >> When going to unmute myself, it took me into settings which then closed the meeting app. So I apologize for that. My name is Elizabeth Hamlic. I live at 14516 Northeast 24th Avenue. So it's just across 144th from this development. And I walk up and down 144th every day with my dogs. We're on this road a lot. And I just want to say that street, 144th, people speed on it consistently. People run through that stop sign consistently. The sidewalk is very narrow and the street is somewhat narrow. So when big trucks, school buses, delivery vehicles speed past, it's for what should be a pretty mellow area. It is a stressful street to walk down. It feels much more like walking -- the proportions are odd. And I'm

2:15:24 concerned about adding this extra 200, I don't remember the exact number, cars a day going in and out. It is a high traffic area for this neighborhood. And cars speed consistently and do not stop at the stop sign consistently. And I'm worried -- as an adult walking through there, I'm worried. My dog panics every time a car goes by and jumps to the side because it feels like they're so close. And I worry about the kids who play outside and ride their bikes on that sidewalk. It is -- I don't know how that street is going to handle this level of traffic. >> Thank you, Ms. Hamwick. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now we have a call-in user number 6. And I just said -- >> Star 3 to unmute.

2:16:23 >> They should be able to -- caller number 6 should be able to unmute themselves. Wait a minute. There it is. Green is on. >> We're not hearing it yet. The person who is on caller number 6 on their phone, please say something so we can make sure you're -- we're not hearing anything yet on caller number 6. >> Now they just muted themselves. >> Okay. >> I'll try to unmute it one more time. Caller number 6. You should be able to unmute yourself again. >> Are you ready now? >> There we go. >> Okay. This is Debra Ives Johnson again. I called back. >> Oh, great. Thank you.

2:17:16 >> And I still am Ives Johnson, I-V-E-F, J-O-H-N-S-O-N, and I live at 2601 Northeast 142nd Street. Recently moved into the neighborhood early this year. Some of my concerns have already been addressed by my neighbors. I'm not going to repeat those things. >> Thank you. >> But I do have two questions. On the road use, multiple pages of items, it talks about at the bottom of page 5 about expanding northeast 25th to the east. Now, I don't understand how they're going to expand it to the east. There's already a sidewalk there and a stop sign there, and there's nowhere for it to go. So I don't know if that's a miscommunication of what's actually going to be done, but I feel like it needs to be clarified to make sure that that is correct. I don't believe it.

2:18:16 >> What document was that you're referring to? >> Number 57, EXP 557. >> Oh, 757. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> Did she say exhibit 57? >> The bottom of page 5. And I'm afraid to go back there on my phone, so I don't want to lose it. >> That's the road modification decision. That's what I needed. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. And it says it's going to be on the east side. So my question is, are they widening the street on both sides for that little bit of distance for the entrance to the neighborhood? So that's my question. That's one of my questions, but that's not your question. My second question is, every of the new neighborhood on this whole off of 144th Street from 40th to 29th, all of those neighborhoods come off of 144th Street. Why is this neighborhood

2:19:12 coming off of 25th? It doesn't make sense. There's just better access off of that bigger main road. And that's what everybody else has done. So I kind of think it makes sense to, you know, all the other neighborhoods seem to think that was a good idea. So maybe it's a good idea. And then what was mentioned about the original plan saying that it was coming off of 144th, that does make sense. So I think that is a better company to be looked at. And my last thing is there was a comment early on about bald eagles and whether or not the bald eagles frequented our area. And I actually have a photograph that I took of a bald eagle perched on the top of one of the trees in the new development. And I would be happy to submit it to anybody with the date and the time that I took it. Okay, thank you. You can do that during the open record period.

2:20:07 I will, I will. And thank you very much for your time and all that you do. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Miss Iveson. And I appreciate your perseverance in getting through. Thank you. Okay, I don't right now. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Okay. Does anybody else want to say anything at all about this application who's not had the opportunity to do so? Please click on the "raise your hand" button now. Oops. We had one flash, but then it went away. Okay. Again, no need to repeat what's been said. But if you, anybody wants to raise the new issue, if you're afraid to raise your hand now. Sarah Lugo, Lugo, chimed it, put their hand up and it went right back down. Maybe it was just a mistake. I don't see it again.

2:21:06 Okay. Anything further from staff? Any response to the issues that have been raised? Yes. We have a little bit of response here. Well, what I want, the first thing I want to mention is, yeah, I do want to confirm one of the first things that Jason Taylor mentioned the applicant about the density. He was correct when he talked about, and it's in my staff report too, the average minimum lot size requirement is 6,500. It's funny, I did it several times and I came a couple square feet or think like 50 square feet over that 7101, but it's definitely at least 7,101 square feet. So they are above the minimum average. So, I mean, in theory, they could get at least some more lots, but so they're

2:22:00 not at the minimum average. I just wanted to point that out. And I think that's, I believe that's all there is from, from land use. There was a lot of engineering stuff and the bald eagle stuff. I'm pretty sure somewhere in one of the exhibits, I saw Lance discuss the bald eagle issue. And, but... I thought so too, that they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. So they are, they remain subject to the federal law about bald and golden eagles. Don't quote me on that one. So if there are eagles present, the applicant has to comply with federal law, but the fact that they're there, they may be using the site doesn't preclude this development

2:22:53 unless that somehow conflicts with federal law regarding protection of bald and golden eagles. But it may be, it's not something I have any jurisdiction over. The applicant has to comply with federal law and the feds can come, if they violated, the feds can pursue that. That's all from land use staff. I'm not sure if your engineering or habitat staff has anything further, but that's it from land use. Any, any anybody else? And if you have nothing to say, can you chime in and say, no, I have nothing to say. This is Alistair Dawson with development engineering. I was looking at the road modification, is that 57? Yes, 57. And the page five in reference is a copy and paste from the applicant's narrative, but

2:23:50 I believe it's just, I mean, Jason and PLS can comment in the open record if they want. It's probably just a transposing east versus west. Their improvements are on the west side of 25th Avenue. So I think it's just a typo. Yeah, it, well, it says the proposed roadway meets County code, the applicants utilizing the flex zone to add sidewalk and a planner strip on the east side. I think that is Midwest. Yeah, I think you're right too, because they, they don't have the right to the east side because that's private property. Yeah. And then Mr. Hearns examiner, you and I already talked about the access on 25th versus 144th. So I wasn't going to say anything else in regards to that. I think that was most of the public comment that DE could have responded to. So if you don't have any follow

2:24:49 up on that, I don't have anything further. I don't. Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Thank you. I'll unmute myself to Lancelot Clark County wetland habitat. I don't have any other issues either just on the bald eagles. Yes, it is a federal law is not made, but regulated by the fish and wildlife. So. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Watt. Mr. Taylor, any response from the applicant? Yes, there were a lot of issues brought up and I'll do my best to address the issues

2:25:36 that I, that I can. I, so I have been skimming exhibit 5758, which is the road mod approval and the engineering conditions. It doesn't look like there are any surprises there. Yes. In our roadmap narrative, we incorrectly said that the 5 foot sidewalk and 12 planter would go on the East side. That was intended to say on the West side. So with the roadmap approvals, we don't have additional comments on the county's findings and conditions for

2:26:31 those items. There were concerns about 25th Avenue, its width and the access that will be there in the short term during construction. And then in the long term, after construction of these homes are completed, we will, you know, we're going to push to have our construction access directly off of 144th. That seems like the most logical place to have construction access so that we are not impacting 25th Avenue. Ultimately, that's up to the county to approve where that construction access goes. But it seems like the best location to do that. And that would limit impacts during construction to 25th Avenue. Obviously, there is some widening

2:27:25 that's going on there at the frontage. So the applicant's contractor will, will need to work to, to not block off that access for any long periods of time. The, the proposed development is 22 lots. I forgot to mention previously that, you know, the, I believe it stated in our narrative that, you know, with the county's updated low density code, the, the county would allow a duplex or even up to a fourplex to be built on any, any lot that meets the minimum lot standards. Then, then looking at this, the, the applicant was

2:28:19 trying to plan ahead and decided that at most they would try to construct, they would possibly, might not happen, but they may construct up to four duplexes within the development. So thinking ahead, we, we included that within the traffic report to, to allow for that, that proposed use. So it's not, it's kind of one of those, you know, it may happen. And if it does happen, then we, we have a traffic report that addresses all of the impacts of that. Not sure how the county is going to address those issues in the future if somebody proposes the development of single family homes, and then they decide to, to build multiplex units on each of those lots, how, how does that affect traffic? And we decided to address that up front. And the, the four duplexes generate more AM/PM and ADT than four single

2:29:16 family homes. So that was a conservative approach. But we're going back to 25th Avenue, 25 homes plus the existing, I think, 12 or 13 lots that are on that, on that road does not, does not represent a, a significant amount of traffic given the capacity of, of local access roads. We're, we're in the range of like 35, 35 lots, which would have an ADT of about 350 local access roads. While they have a higher capacity than this, the county has set, you know, design standards for, for roadways and, you know, for the amount of ADT that they, they would like to see on local access roads or the, an ADT that they would not want access roads to exceed. And that, that number is 1,500. So we'll be at, at about, with the development

2:30:15 we'll be at about 350 out of the 1,500 that the county would, you know, set as their, their design limit for, for that roadway. 144th Avenue, according to our traffic study doesn't, it doesn't currently exceed 1,500 either. Despite it being a neighborhood circulator, the county wouldn't want to see that road having more than 3,000 ADT. So that that roadway is also well, well below, below the limit of even a local access road. We don't, we don't believe that 25th Avenue will, yeah, we don't believe 25th Avenue will have any

2:31:10 safety issues. We don't believe that the corner is unsafe at 142nd and 25th. Those, those sharp corners. Mr. Taylor, your timer has run out as well. Okay. So if you want to respond further in the, during the open record period, you can. Okay. So I'm going to hold it open for a week. Do you want a week to submit a final argument? Do you want to submit new testimony that people, so I could hold it open for more than one, that have to hold it open for a week for new information and a week for response? Yeah, that sounds great to me. Okay. So you, you do want to submit additional evidence in response to the issues that have been raised? Cause that would happen, it would have to be three weeks, one week for new, new from anybody, one week for response from anybody and then applicant's final argument,

2:32:01 which you could waive. Uh, yeah, that seems appropriate. Okay. So that's what I'm going to do. Let me grab my calendar again on the floor here. Um, I will hold the record open for one week until July, July 30th for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence until August 6th for anybody to respond to whatever was submitted during that first week. And again, any, that's the second week is limited to response to whatever was submitted during the first week. No new issues can be raised. Then a final week, the 13th of August for

2:32:54 the applicant to submit a final written argument. Uh, the applicant can waive that or close it earlier by submitting your final argument earlier or just submit an email saying close the record and I will try and get my decision out by the 27th of August. Um, and again, 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 open record will get a copy of my decision. And again, you can contact staff if you decide you didn't need to testify, but you want to get a copy. That concludes our hearing for tonight. Thank Thank you all. Have a good evening.