Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 (upbeat music) - Okay, we're live. - Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to the August 13th hearing of the Clark County Land Use Hearings Examiner. My name is Daniel Cairns and I'll be presiding over tonight's hearing. We have on the agenda tonight a single item. It's Felida Terrace, site plan and zone change. That's PSR 2026-00021. Let me begin with an introduction to me and explanation as to how the process is going to unfold tonight. First of all, I and one other person, we serve by appointment from the Board of County Counselors

0:59 to review and decide development proposals in unincorporated Clark County. It's our job to review the record, review the application, review all of the public comments, the staff report and other documents that anybody submits into this each matter. And then we review the code and determine what the code requires. Then we convene a hearing such as this to take public testimony. But ultimately our job is to decide whether each of these proposals meets or doesn't meet the applicable approval criteria. And those are the standards that control each of these. Those are the standards that were in the code, the development code at the time each of these was submitted. So that submission freezes in time, the standards that will control its passage and ultimately ultimate decision through the county's process.

1:55 In making these decisions, I am required to be objective and free of conflicts of interest. And I believe that I am with regard to this one tonight. I don't know the applicant or the property owner. I have no familial or personal or business relations with anyone associated with the applicant. I don't know any of the opponents who have weighed in so far. What I know about this case is what I've gleaned from the record. And I've had my record. I've had access to it for about two weeks. And the record is a changing creature up until just an hour ago, things have changed somewhat. So that's what I know about this case. I believe I am free of any conflicts of interest or bias. And if anyone wishes to question me about any of these disclosures, feel free to do so during the public testimony portion of tonight's hearing. With regard to that hearing, here's how we're gonna go.

2:55 We'll begin with a staff report, and that's a verbal rendition of the written staff report that was issued prior to tonight's hearing. That's exhibit 59 in the record for those of you who are watching. After the staff report, I will take the applicant's primary presentation. The applicant can assume that I'm generally familiar with the proposal, but there are a couple things that I wanna know upfront from the applicant. First of all, the staff report that was issued has findings on each of the criteria and proposed conditions of approval. I wanna know, well, actually, it has alternative conditions of approval because staff is recommending denial. But I wanna know what objections or corrections you would have to the findings and the conditions, assuming you don't already object to the denial part of it.

3:54 After that, from the applicant, I need to know what's the current proposal before me, and that's one of the things that may be changing. So that's always an important thing to know before the record closes, is what is the plan? So right now we have an alternate, an alternate, I'll call it plan B, exhibit 63 that came in yesterday, I think it was. And it's intended, as I read it, to get around in development engineering's recommendation of a denial on the road mod. So those two things, the third thing I need from the applicant is there's likely to be a lot of public testimony in this matter. I would ask the applicant to keep note of all of the issues that the opponents raised. They've already raised a lot. They're summarized in the staff report, by the way.

4:51 And I want the applicant to take the first stab during rebuttal to responding to some of those, at least some of those opponent issues. And that's because a lot of times the opponent and neighbor testimony comes in the form of, how is this thing gonna function? How is it gonna affect my access and stormwater system? How is that gonna work? There are a number of things that public testimony asks of the applicant. And so I'd ask in rebuttal, the applicant take a first stab at responding to those questions. So that's the applicant side. After that, anyone else in favor of the proposal can testify. Then anyone in the middle there with neutral testimony or questions can testify. And then finally, anyone who is opposed. And I think we have, as I mentioned, we have a lot of opponent testimony. We're gonna limit time.

5:51 The applicant gets a chunk of 20 minutes to do their primary presentation. Anyone who wants to testify, members of the public, pro, neutral or con, is it three minutes a pop, Richard? - Yes, three minutes. - Three minutes a pop. But understand for those of you out there in Zoom land who wanna participate in this, the most effective way to do that from my perspective, here's sort of a pro tip, is when I go to sit down at my kitchen table to write this opinion, I'll have like copies of all the opponent testimony there in front of me. So it's a written thing. It's a written summary of your testimony. It's your letters that are most impactful because I'm a terrible note taker. And so if you're gonna spring some new and surprising issues during oral testimony,

6:47 I'd recommend you also submit your testimony in writing. I tell you it's most impactful and we already have a lot of the written issues in the record. So next I'll roll into how to frame your public testimony, but one of the first things will be don't repeat. So anyhow, so after we get the opponent testimony, I'll go back to take final rebuttal from the applicant. The applicant in all of these cases has the last word and that's because they have the burden of proof, the burden of proving that they meet each of the approval criteria, including all the road standards. And in this case, maybe a road modification too, if it's needed. After the applicant's final rebuttal, I'll go back to staff to see if there's any parting comments that staff has based on a public testimony. And then it's my typical habit as soon as the dust settles to close the record.

7:45 And that means that that'll end everybody's ability to raise new issues or to submit new evidence. You have to know that you are obligated if you want to appeal one of my decisions, you have to participate either orally or in writing before the record closes and you need to raise any issue that you want to preserve for an appeal and you need to submit any evidence you want me to consider or that you'd want to rely upon in the subsequent appeal. So all of you be mindful of when the record closes. As I mentioned, we have a request for the record at least to be kept open, maybe for an entire continuance. We'll talk about that before we're done here tonight. But if you want anything more than that in terms of additional time, you need to make that request while the record is still open. Let's see.

8:44 How to participate tonight in this WebEx internet-based environment. We'll get a little primer from Brian Mattson, the staff planner in a little bit. But when you testify, do so in that order I just recited. When your microphone is unmuted and it's your turn to talk, start with your name and you don't have to give me your address, but kind of tell me where you live relative to this project so I understand where you're coming from. If you agree with something that somebody else said, you don't have to repeat their testimony. Just tell me that. I'll ascribe that point to you and you can go on to your next point. If you want to submit any evidence or documents, you can email those to Mr. Mattson. The record's gonna stay open at least following tonight's hearing, so you'll have time to do that. But don't forget, if you represent somebody else,

9:43 let me know that. Don't repeat testimony and remember the best way to get your issues before me so that I don't forget them is to submit it in writing. So that's it by way of a procedural rundown. Now it's time for kind of a primer on how to operate in this WebEx environment. Brian. - Are you able to see the first slide? Am I sharing that correctly? - Yeah, I can see it. Looks good. - Okay, great. Okay, thank you, Mr. Examiner. My name is Brian Mattson. For everyone participating in tonight's hearing, if you're wishing to testify about a specific agenda item, staff ask that you raise your hand so that we can gauge who wishes to testify. If you're a call-in user, you can dial star three. If you're a web participant, you need to click the hand icon located in 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 may find the hand icon

10:42 shown by the red arrows. You may first need to turn on the list of participants. You can do this by clicking the participants button shown by the purple arrow. Once you've given your testimony, we would ask that you put your hand down. You can accomplish this action by either clicking the hand icon again or dialing star three again. We will ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute at any time they are not speaking. I will show you how to do that in the next slide. When it's your turn to testify, you'll be sent a request to unmute yourself. If you miss your opportunity to testify for some reason, the record on each case will be open for a period of time so you can submit your testimony in writing. Finally, the chat function has been disabled for public records purposes. As I mentioned, we asked everyone to keep their microphones muted at any time 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

11:41 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 here by the red arrows. If you're a web user and using a phone for audio, you can either mute yourself on your computer or using your phone's mute capability. Phone only users can use the mute capability on their phone. We would ask that you stay muted anytime you are not speaking. Thanks everyone. And that concludes the instructional portion of the presentation. - Thanks. Should we roll into the staff report then? - Sure. - Thanks. - I have to switch presentations here. Second. Are you seeing the... - No. Okay. Let's try that again.

12:55 Try this again. How about now? - Let's see. - Public hearing? - Yep. - Okay. Good deal. All right. Tonight's during this presentation, staff is gonna try to give a rundown or a brief summary of the report and recommendation. We'll go to applicant's testimony and then public testimony. And then the applicant's rebuttal. The hearing examiner already covered this, so I'm gonna move forward. The case tonight is the Felida Terra site plan and zone change. The case number is PSR 2026-00021. The request is the applicant's requesting site plan review approval to construct an 18 unit apartment complex on 0.88 acres. Additionally, as part of this proposal,

13:54 the applicant's requesting to rezone the site from the current R-12 zoning to R-22 to allow for greater density. The applicant's Songbird Homes. The contact is PLS Engineering and the owner is Osprey Ventures, LLC. The location is 3511 Northwest 119th Street, Vancouver, Washington 98685.

14:19 Okay, as I said before, my name is Brian Matson. We also have a review engineer here for Alistair Dawson, who will talk about onsite transportation, probably get into the road modification issues a bit. We have a concurrency engineer, Craig Cottle and senior deputy fire marshal, Jason Noble also reviewed this for code compliance. As I said, I'm the review planner for this project. During our presentation, we're gonna provide the overview summary of the proposal, identify any major outstanding issues or concerns and ultimately make our recommendation to the examiner. Okay, on the vicinity map here, the subject property is identified by the black dot. If you can see my cursor, it's right here. North is oriented to the top of the page. The subject site lies south of Northwest 119th Street and east of Northwest Lakeshore Avenue and west of Northwest 35th Avenue.

15:18 Of note, here is Jefferson Middle School here. We also have the Volita Village mixed use development, a kind of kitty corner at the intersection of 119th and Lakeshore has some commercial uses here. And then Raspberry Fields Park is to the southwest here. The zoning map shows kind of the partialization of the surrounding lots. The site is highlighted here in red. The site and the parcels to the east are all zoned R-12. The parcels to the north across 119th Street are zoned R110. We have a single parcel zoned neighborhood commercial across the street to the west. You have the mixed use where they have the village, Volita Village mixed use development. And then to the southwest, you have R1-7.5, which is a single family zoning. - So a question, Brian. - Yes, sir.

16:16 - How close is the nearest R-22? - I don't, I don't have that information right here. I could break free from this presentation and find-- - That's okay, that's okay. Think about that maybe later. - Okay. I've got here, I've got an aerial map, an aerial photo, aerial photogrammetry of the site here in blue. You can see the school here off to the east. You can see both the arterials, Lakeshore Avenue and 119th here. These three buildings are the Volita Village mixed use development. And you can also see a lot of the single family residences that surround the area. I did, I put this one in also in case we wanted to talk about something in more detail because the last one was zoomed out so far, just in case somebody wanted to talk about 118th street,

17:14 which I anticipated would be a topic. This is just a blown up version of what I had there before. - Okay. - Okay, here's the proposed site plan that we wrote the staff report for. The main difference between this and the alternate one or the newer one is that the access here is proposed to connect to 118th street, which is this road here, which is a source of a lot of the comments. Also, part of the reason that development engineering is recommending a denial based on the road. - And the road mod was to the cross circulation requirement? - Cross circulation and street extensions. - Okay, and most of the opponents I assume are east of this property? - Correct, correct, that's my understanding. I didn't look up every address, but my understanding is most of them are to the east. - I'm betting. - Certainly the most impacted so.

18:09 You can see also here that detached sidewalks are being proposed along 119th and all along Lake Shore Avenue. There currently aren't any sidewalks along this property, so that'll be a benefit. You have a building proposed here on the north portion, and then you have another building here to the south portion. Both buildings meet the setbacks. You have the required landscape and landscape buffers. And then obviously you can see the parking lot here. - One question, is building height an issue and is there a difference in maximum allowed building height in R-12 versus R-22? - No, they're both 50 foot and the building height is a concern for the neighbors. A lot of comments about building height and loss of privacy as a result. - Okay.

19:08 - Okay, I put this in here because I didn't know if we were gonna talk about this now. It turns out that I'm going to request a continuance. The applicant I believe may want an open record period review time, but I'll let them speak for themselves. - New exit 63, okay. This is the new exhibit, yes. And you can see the main- - I've been calling that plan B. - Okay, right. You can see the main difference here is a deceleration lane and a ride in, ride out access to Lake Shore Avenue is what the alternate proposal is. And of note, there is no connection to 118th Street under this plan. - Not even emergency? - I don't see it on this plan. Again, with more time to review this, that might be a condition of approval for this plan if we were to look at it more, but-

20:07 - How about pedestrian access through there? That would always be in the cards, right? - I don't see it, right? I don't see it in this plan, right? They have a sidewalk here, but it's separated from the street by I'm gonna assume landscaping or whatnot. - Concertina wire. - Right, and one of the things that I got wrong in my staff report, I noticed when I was looking at this plan, and I'll mention that when I get to it. But again, at this point, at this preliminary alternate site plan or plan B, I don't see any pedestrian connections to 118th Street. Okay, I'll just go through a couple of quick site photos here. I won't dwell on them very long. If we need to go back to it, I can always go back to it, so. This first one is I'm standing in 35th Avenue,

21:04 and I'm looking at that 118th Street, looking westerly at it. There, if you can see in the background, there's a barricade. You keep driving straight through that barricade, you're on the site. - Okay, so people are parking in this thing? - Yeah, it's typical for dead-end roads. At least they were on this day. - Okay, and no sidewalks, but what's the width of 118th? - It's, I think it's a 25-foot right-of-way. It's on the plan, on the proposed plan, and I think it's a 21.4 width of asphalt, if I remember correctly. - 21.4 feet, okay. - I want to just take a second. I've noticed that a couple of participants have put their hands up. I'm not, we're not ignoring you. It's just, we haven't gotten to that part yet. So we will, you'll be able to testify. It's just, we have to get through this stuff first.

22:03 This picture is taken at the intersection of 35th Avenue and 119th Street. I'm looking west here. This is the existing signal that's at the intersection of Lakeshore and Northwest 119th. You can see that they have an existing sidewalk that extends to the west, but it stops at our site. So the new sidewalk will continue that. I didn't know if this site distance was gonna be an issue from 35th Avenue, so I took a picture looking easterly at 119th Street. Don't know if that really has much to do with this case, other than there is a path here that you can see. This is the path that will eventually connect with the school or the safe walking conditions compliance. - So you're looking off to the east there, right? - I'm looking on the east here to 119th Street. - Okay. - Okay, this picture I took, I'm standing at the northeast corner of the site

23:01 and I'm looking southerly south across the site. It's just kind of some scrub brush right now. No major trees that I could see or anything. The car you see here in the distance, that's Lakeshore Avenue. That car is driving north. Okay, I took this picture just to get a better view of the intersection. I'm standing at the northeast corner of the site, same spot as the last picture. I'm just looking westerly at the intersection here. You can see they have an existing crosswalk and then you have the commercial uses over here in that Felida Village mixed use development I've mentioned a couple of times. This picture I took from the northwest corner of the site. This is basically at the end of the crosswalk. I'm looking southeasterly here. You can see the neighboring houses through these power lines here, no, those are guy wires, sorry. You can also see the sign that they posted on site here. And then this road you can see here

24:01 is Northwest Lakeshore Avenue. This picture I took looking north from the south corner of the site. There's just one southerly corner and I'm looking north from there. You can see the fence line for the abutting neighbors to the right of the picture. That's the east side of the site. Okay. The submittal was deemed counter-complete February 24th, 2026. This application was deemed fully complete March 13th, 2026. And the staff report and recommendation to the hearing examiner was issued to July 29th, 2026 with a recommendation of denial. And that is exhibit 15 of. So the project is-- - Just the only basis for denial is the development engineering's recommendation of denial in the road mod. - Correct, sir. - Otherwise the land use issues are approval.

25:00 - Well, with conditions. - Okay. - These are just some general issues. The original hearing date was set for 5/14/2026, but it was canceled and rescheduled until tonight in order to give staff more time to review the applicant's plans and to allow a response to several transportation road modification issues. As part of the application, the applicant requested a zone change from R-12 to R-22 to allow for higher density. Staff have determined that this request meets the applicable approval criteria for zone change requests in land use finding one. Under land use finding eight of the staff report and recommendation, land use staff, I made it erroneously stated that the internal sidewalks connected to both the sidewalks along Northwest 119th street and Northwest Lake Shore Avenue. - What page of the staff report is this? - I think it's the bottom of 14

25:58 under land use finding eight, but that was an error. And I'm not sure where that came from or how I might have mixed up some line work and such, but-- - So what's the pedestrian connection between this project and Lake Shore and 119th like? - They don't have one on the preliminary plan that we wrote this report for. And what I'd like to do is state that that finding was an error and I want to request that a condition is added that at least one connection is made between the frontage sidewalks and the internal sidewalks to comply with the safe pedestrian route code requirement. Now, oddly enough, when I looked at the alternate plan or plan B, they do have a sidewalk connection from the sidewalk they're gonna build along Lake Shore to the internal sidewalks of the development. So they have it in the new plan, they just don't on the original one.

26:57 So, and I don't believe, I couldn't find anywhere in the code where I could require it for both, but for at least for one, I feel that that's supportable. - Clark County development engineering staff and the road modification review team did not support the applicant's road modification asking for relief from cross circulation and street extension requirements. And their road modification review team report, I feel adds more definition or more justification for that decision than the staff report does. So I would suggest looking at exhibit 58 for a better understanding of the road modification review team. And again, as you asked earlier, that's the primary reason for the recommendation of denial. Lastly, I'm kind of going over things we've talked about already here. The applicant submitted an alternate site plan, exhibit 63 on 812 in which the access is modified

27:57 and now proposes to access Northwest Lake Shore Avenue instead of Northwest 118th Street. Again, as I stated early, staff is gonna request additional time to review this information and requests a continuance to allow sufficient time to assess the code compliance and potential impacts. - Of plan B. - Plan B. - Okay. - I know, I called it the alternate site plan, but plan B probably is a little more descriptive. - It's shorter. - It is shorter. - Okay. - Okay, finally, the recommendation based on the application materials known as exhibit one, the revised development plans known as exhibit 42, the revised technical road modification known as exhibit 39 and the findings in conclusion stated in the staff report and recommendation known as exhibit 59. Staff recommends the hearing examiner denies this request. Now I put, I wanted to add if the hearing examiner

28:56 chooses to allow the plan B to be reviewed by staff during an open record period, then staff defers the recommendation until a suitable length of time has been granted to allow for the additional review of the new information. - Okay, so are you asking-- - Staff's preference is a continuation, but-- - Okay, a new hearing rather than just open record. How come? - What form that takes, so. - It's, I gotta tell you, I don't think I've ever seen staff recommend or ask for a continuance, ever. So what's the reason for a new hearing date instead of a open record? - I think to allow for a more thorough vetting of the new plan. One of the reasons is the new plan is gonna require a new road modification that they're gonna have to apply for. - And that has not been submitted? - That hasn't been submitted. So it's kind of a wonky, to do it during an open record period seems wonky and messy.

29:55 And that's, I think we're leaning towards-- - We don't want wonky and messy, that's for dang sure. - That's why we're leaning more to it, to a continuance. - And I understand at least one opponent has asked for a continuous or an open record. - Correct, correct. It was one of the comments that were entered into the record today. And I can't remember the number, 60 something, 60. - It's 62. - 62. - Ms. Burnett. - Well, no, it would have to be after the plan B, so. - Okay, oh, I think that says 63. - Yeah, I bet you it's 64 or 65. - 64, let's see. - I can track that down for you. It's comments from-- - Yeah, 64.

30:55 - Terry Burnett, okay. - Let's see. - It's another Terry Burnett submission, yeah. - Terry submitted several comments. I put the dates in there to try to delineate them. - Yeah, sure, okay, so that's the last one, okay. - Okay, staff will remain available for any questions. - Okay, thank you. I guess I think I understand the land use side of this pretty well. The only questions I have, I think relate to the road mod and is Mr. Dawson there? - Yes, sir, I'm here. - Hi, welcome. - Thank you. - So is the road mod request was for cross circulation and road extension and the development engineering,

31:49 this went to the road mod committee and how the recommendation was denial. So I'm trying to understand the feasibility of the applicant's plan A and that relied on Northwest 118th as the access, the only access for vehicles that is, and is it 25 feet of right of way and 21.4 feet of paved section, is that correct? Do you know? - That's what Brian said. I always just assumed it was 20 feet wide, but I suppose it could vary in pavement width. - Can you check on that, Brian? That kind of matters because as I understand, it doesn't have a sidewalk. It just has like a slab of pavement. So I wonder what the plan was to make that work.

32:48 Is it wide enough for ingress and egress and it stands to reason that there ought to be at least a sidewalk on one side, is there room for those things? - I guess it comes down to, I mean, if it's 25 feet of right of way is what the plot says. So there'd be room for a 20 foot wide paved service with a five foot sidewalk at grade with no curb and gutter. It seems like there'd be room. They're just, it'd be really tight with, you know, trying not to grade on private property and matters of that nature. - And in terms of pedestrian circulation on into and through and out of this site, it is kind of disturbing that plan A didn't include any pedestrian connections to the two arterials,

33:47 which seems like a big omission in my mind since pedestrian ingress and egress would most likely flow towards the arterials. But I just couldn't envision anyone wanting to walk from this development up to the east since there weren't any like places pedestrians would go. So that was a thought that struck me when I was looking at this plan. The other thing that struck me in the original plan A and the engineering is the denial of the road mod. I can't recall, I can't recall in a long many years seeing a staff recommending access to an arterial for a project like this when there is access to a lesser street right there.

34:45 And then, you know, I deal with road modification requests to cross circulation all the time and the overriding policy issue is to not create any landlocked parcels that all parcels adjacent to a development site have to be given, you know, cross circulation connections so that they have access to the public transportation network. But that's not an issue here. It's not, the reason for cross circulation on this site has nothing to do with that policy basis for the cross circulation requirement. Am I missing something? - So it doesn't say in the code that it's for landlocked parcels. It does say be nice to your neighbor and try to give an access to the surrounding neighborhood. There's the block length maximum

35:45 that we try to abide by is 800 feet. The maximum block perimeter we try to abide by is 3,200 feet. This development does not meet either of that criteria even though they're on a corner. The subject site is approximately 500 feet from North to South. So the road modification is in relation to is it viable to A, extend the public road that has been stubbed to their plot boundary? And if it could be extended, should it, is it, I mean, I've seen other plans where it connects, whether it connects with a private drive aisle or a public road, I don't know, but there's nothing to preclude 118th from coming through their site and connecting somewhere to help create a block that is closer to meeting the standards. And then potentially if 118th street was extended,

36:45 it would feel like it wasn't an underdeveloped roadway while 20 feet paved width is the minimum acceptable for a public roadway. This typically with the intention that that's a partial width roadway and it will be widened to a full standard later. - That's not in the cards here, right? Not for that portion of it that's stubbed to their East that cannot be widened due to the proximity of the developed houses and the amount of right of way that was left for it, correct? - So neither plan A nor plan B proposes to punch 118th all the way through to Lake shore. Plan A just has access out 118th and plan B blocks off 118th and punches out to Lake shore. So neither plan A nor plan B addresses block length

37:44 or a block perimeter, right? - Correct. - Mr. examiner, are you seeing plan B here? Is this showing up? - Yeah. - Okay, great, thank you. - Yeah, and I've been lectured by traffic engineers in the past of the public safety hazards, the traffic safety hazards of allowing a development like this to take direct access onto an arterial. - I'm not a traffic engineer. We from development engineering and the road mod review team asked the applicant to address, are there any safety issues with taking access from one of these arterials? We did not get a response, so we could not conclude ourselves, we didn't pick a location and evaluate it. We asked the applicant to do so.

38:44 They politely declined to analyze and access onto another roadway. And so we said, since you are not evaluating the safety of your plan versus an alternate plan, and you're choosing to take access off of an underdeveloped, they're calling it an infill road. I'm calling it an alley 'cause it's the closest thing. So that shouldn't be the primary access to a new development. They should evaluate the access needs for their development and using an alley was not acceptable to development engineering. - Was there a safety issue? - I think that could be argued. - Okay, on plan B, what kind of road mod would you expect them to submit?

39:41 What road standards aren't met with plan B that would require a road mod? - So some items to address, I believe corner clearance would be met with the restriction of the right in right out. Of course, if they modified the approach to be full access, they wouldn't meet corner clearance with the signalized arterial. - You mean distance between that intersection of 119th and Lake Shore relative to this new access? - Correct. - It'd be too close. - Yeah, they would meet it though with the right in right out. So as it's drawn, my assumption is they would meet the spacing requirement to the intersection to the north. There's another, there's two existing driveways on the opposite side of the street from them. It looks like they would try to align with one of them. I think that this-- - Oh, okay. - Yeah, which is great.

40:41 It looks like the spacing might be too close to the other driveway. It looks like those are already substandard. So it's an existing condition, something to be evaluated. It seems kind of silly if we're asking them to access Lake Shore and not 118th, but technically they would have access to a higher classified road and why that's the predominantly favorite access, whether it's by the county or by the applicant or both. And then it depends on, I don't know if they had time to evaluate the site distance. It's possible that site distance could be met at that location going around. It's a soft horizontal curve, but there's still a corner there as it bends around this other lease side of their parcel. So that might come into play. - Okay, okay. So it's doable, at least theoretically, okay.

41:39 - I think it is. - Okay, all right. I guess that's all I have by way of questions for staff. I'll take the applicant's presentation and maybe for the applicant, let's start with Plan B. And are you requesting a continuance or an open record? Let's kind of get that out of the way first. - I'll let, for the record, Jamie Housley, attorney for the project. I'll let Mr. Johnson talk about the Plan B alternative, but our request would be for an open record period, Mr. Examiner. - Okay. - I'm gonna be gone next week anyway, so I think we could, yeah. I think we could be extending that period out a little bit than the typical 777 to give staff some additional time to look at what we submit. - Well, for sure, if there's a open record,

42:39 I mean, you haven't even submitted a road mod. The staff hasn't digested that and the public hasn't seen it either. I think the public just saw Plan B for the first time this evening. Word has not spread, but it's significant given their issues, I think. So that definitely warrants more time. - Yeah, we just don't feel like a continuance is warranted given that this was supposed to be heard in May and now we're in August. - Okay. Mr. Johnson. - Mr. Examiner, this is PLS Engineering in general here, but this is Jason Taylor with PLS Engineering and Travis Johnson is also here. We'll be tag teaming on this item tonight. I just wanted to address a few things with this alternate plan. All of this came about and it's been a long

43:38 and complicated process to try to propose a development on this site. And I think the letter that was submitted today goes into, briefly describes the history of that and the different site plans that it proposed and how we've gotten, I guess, at this point, we've got different responses on how we should develop this, how we should provide access to this site. And the best we can- - Wait, if I could just interrupt you for everyone out there in Zoom land. This is a late submitted memo from the applicant's exhibit 66. It's got a four page memo and about 50 pages of attachments. So it's significant submission. - Yeah, and the majority of those 50 pages is an old staff report that was submitted to the record. Part of that exhibit, the main point of that exhibit

44:36 is to confirm that this is not, 118th Street is not an alley. I think there was some confusion. Our original plan that we submitted ourselves called that an alley that was there. So we made a mistake there. It is not, and I think that was perpetuated in the county staff report. - So what is its classification? - Mr. Kerns, Mr. Herring is the owner, Travis Johnson, PLS Engineering. I think you, Mr. Haldaway and I are the only ones that know about the old Enfield code in Clark County. And that is an Enfield A type roadway, 20 feet wide is what it is. It ranges from 20 to 20 feet wide. - The right of way or the pavement width? - The pavement width. - Okay, but it's a 25 foot right of way? - That is correct. 25 of the roadway is centered within that 25 feet.

45:36 So I know that there was mentions of sidewalk. The whole road would have to be tore up, shoved over to one side or the other to put a sidewalk along that roadway. - Right, but it's feasible. - It's, I think that within, I don't know if this last submission, I don't remember what you said, exhibit 64. - 63 is your memo. - 63, I think it details- - Or 66 rather, 66 is your memo, 63 is plan B. - Apologies, 66, it details out proportionality. There is an old resolution from the county resolution, 2008 dash 12 dash 24 is exhibit E within. That's the middle of it. - So you're, 'cause if 118th was gonna be feasible,

46:35 it would have to be made safe. And in my view, given the dimension that it has, that would have to have a sidewalk. And your argument is that that would be disproportionate to the impact of the development? - I'm saying that the French improvements along Lake Shore Avenue, 119th Street are disproportional to the development itself. We've submitted an additional road log within that submittal to explain all that. And we've also submitted an updated site plan within that submittal, not showing French improvements. So just that and that alone, just the French improvements are disproportional to the impacts that this development is creating. So adding in, tearing up 118th Street with that, adding a sidewalk just adds to the problems of- - Okay, so it's the totality of the French improvements

47:31 on the two arterials when added to the 118th Street sidewalk, that's what pushes it beyond proportionality? - It pushes it beyond proportionality even without the sidewalk on 118th Street. And that's just great. - So are you trying to get out of the French improvements on the two arterials? - That's correct. - Oh, okay. And that's with plan A, but you haven't said with regard to plan B? - Well, we submitted plan B. We're getting into a lot here. I guess we can start off with, there was a submittal back in '09 that was approved of 11 lot subdivision that did access Northeast 108th Street, 18th Street, and didn't propose any connections to Lake Shore in 119th Street. And that is exhibit B within the letter I submitted. - Okay, so that was approved? - Yeah, that's correct, it was approved.

48:31 Single access, because that was the code at that point in time an infill A roadway. Those roadways were created as part of these infill projects to increase density. Since then, the commissioners did remove that section of code that were stuck with these roadways that were approved back then, and that provided the only access to these properties. - Okay. - That access was approved by Clark County when the project to the east was developed. And that was the access for this piece of property, subject property we're dealing with today. Of course, '08, '09 were difficult on a lot of people. There wasn't financing to move forward. Since then, the applicant did submit a 10 lot subdivision. And that was ELD 20-22-00107. - How did it propose access? - It proposed access to 118th Street

49:29 and proposed a same right turn pocket right in from Lake Shore. - Oh, so it had both. - That's correct. It had an access to 119th right in, right out. - Mr. Johnson, are those plans part of your road modification letter? If you want me to share those, I can. - If you'd like, Mr. Manson. - Okay.

49:58 During that time, we submitted a road modification for a right in and for right in, right out on 119th Street. There were a lot of challenges with getting that road mod approved. As I mentioned earlier, in this letter, there is an additional road mod for disproportionality. And what we couldn't get to with Clark County and the review engineers was an agreement on how much mitigation needed to be done for the right in off Lake Shore and the right in right off of 119th. Ultimately, they denied the access to 119th. And the Lake Shore one, they wanted medians down the roadways. They discussed people traveling backwards down that right in, right out, and we just couldn't get there. Five months into meetings and emails and road mods,

50:58 we couldn't get the county to agree with the right in off. That would be the-- - And that was off Lake Shore? - That's correct. - So what makes you think you'll do better this time? - If I can continue with the history, Mr. Herring-Zammer. - Okay. - Then I can apologize. We couldn't get there, so we dropped the project and we found it too difficult to propose a right in off Lake Shore and a right in, right out off 119th based on comments and the amount of time it took and then the mitigation that would be required. So we come back in with this third submittal and this third submittal is what the proposed 18 unit zone change project that we have here today. - So you mean with this third submittal, you mean plan A? - Yes, plan A, correct. Sorry, Mr. Herring-Zammer.

51:53 We did not propose any accesses on Lake Shore in 119th because of, based on the comments and on the problems with the road mod on the previous project. So we thought we were taking the easy path and just connecting into the infill roadway Northeast 118th Street. - You thought you were doing what the county wanted? - That's correct. - So question about plan A though, it looks like it has full frontage improvements for the two arterials. - It does, it does. We tried to take the easy path and propose full frontage improvements. We did make a mistake and we did not make a sidewalk connection from the development as you previously mentioned. - Okay, so that wouldn't be difficult to squeeze in. So people walking, they could easily get to both of these arterials? - That's correct. - It seems like there's space, heck.

52:52 - Yeah, it's a tight site. It's a difficult site, but you know, we did have an 11 lot subdivision that was submitted and there was nothing wrong with the density of it. And then there was also an eight lot short flat. I think it was a short flat, the first middle from 2009. But there is the same amount of trips from an 11 lot subdivision in this 18 year apartment complex and the letter does go through that. So the impacts of an 18 year apartment complex in a 11 lot subdivision are exactly the same. - Okay, I'm not surprised. I know the trip generation is different for apartments versus single family homes. - During this process, during the 30 year early issues process, we had a request to cross circulation.

53:48 As you know, Mr. Herring's diameter, cross circulation, cutting this property in half or making a public roadway connection, the only place we could make it is to Lake Shore. To me, intersection spacing from 119 did have to be further south and would require another road mod on top of a road mod. And when we submitted that road modification for cross circulation, the county came back and discussed connections, different connections besides cross circulation. The subject matter was about private connections. And we wanted them to explain how private connections to this project would and wouldn't be code. We wrote the road mod for cross circulation for a public roadway. We felt like it was easily approvable and we couldn't get approval or denial for that road mod even though we did request it. - So you're referring to the road mod associated with plan A? - That's correct.

54:47 - And you were shocked that you got denied? - Yeah, we were shocked because disproportionality would play a huge role in cutting this property in half and there's more difficulties and more road mods associated with bringing 118th Street and then filling a roadway through the site or south and chopping the property up more. - So in your prior discussions with the county, did the county want connection to both Lakeshore and 118th? 'Cause right now, plan A and plan B, it's one or the other, not both. - Well, I think there was a lot of phone calls to upstairs and to community development tractor and to the engineers reviewing it and there's quite a bit of pressure applied from the neighbors and that connection to 18th Street,

55:43 it was difficult for staff in the county to put it bluntly. So at that point in time, at that point in time, we finally did, we met with county staff and explained our argument, explained the old approvals and request to meet with them. Again, road mod committee denied that request. That's also part of the exhibits within the letter I sent. And then it wasn't until this week that they called and wanted to meet and try to find a solution to this project. And the challenge with access into the site is parking. I know that the state is allowing us to have no parking on these apartment projects, but it just doesn't work. When you get down to 1.5 or one parking space for these projects, you get parking overflow into the neighborhood properties.

56:41 - Yeah, you think the neighbors are mad now? - Yes, so we really wanna uphold that two parking spaces are just shy of two parking spaces per unit. And what ends up happening is when you can't have the 118th connection in the right end, right up off Lake Shore, or even a right end off Lake Shore, we get under that. We do not want to lose parking. And as you can see, I've read 20 comments from the neighbors about utilizing Northwest 18th Street as an access. I don't see anything in there that discusses code issues with using it, but if-- - Discuses what? - Code issues associated with using that access. Because if you look at a 20 foot wide roadway, the only comparable roadway in the county would be a private road, which allows 50 lots to be served off a private road, which staying with is that infill a roadway, or 580T.

57:40 So it is narrow, but based on county code, it does meet a private road standard, which the county code does allow 580T or 50 lots to be served off a private road. But we felt best to submit something to appease the neighbors, the county, make everybody happy, and that is the right in, right out. That is the option B site plan. - Okay, so at this point, are you going with either one, or have you dropped plan A in favor of plan B, or what's your position right now? - The position right now is the more we looked at this project, the more we analyzed how much impervious surface that we were going to have to install for Lakeshore Avenue and 119th Street. Within this letter, we did submit an additional site plan

58:38 that removes all frontage improvements and does propose the right in, right out access off Lakeshore Avenue. - So this is an alternative, but you're not dropping plan A. - We are dropping plan A. There's a plan B and a plan C now. - Okay, we're all, okay. - That would be planned. - Do you agree with Mr. Dawson about what kind of road mods would be needed to make plan B fly? - Yeah, I took some notes here. We do, just based on what was said, as I mentioned, Mr. Harrington, we will provide a sidewalk connection to Lakeshore Avenue from the project. We do have to provide pedestrian connection to the public right of way. Site distance was mentioned by county staff through email.

59:38 I don't know if Mr. Dawson mentioned it, but we do provide an exhibit with the letter shown. We do meet 400 foot site distance from the right out access. We do meet corner clearance. The driveway is supposed to be 250 feet from Northwest 119th Street, unless it is a right in right out access. In addition to that, since it is a right in right out access driveway spacing should not be considered. So right now, today that access does meet code and there shouldn't be a need for an additional road mod. - Except what about the frontage improvements? You're not proposing that as part of plan B, right? - Yeah, we're proposing that as part of the record right now. After you close the record and write your conditions, we don't see a need for another road modification.

1:00:34 - Okay, so plan B does include frontage improvements for the two arterials? - No, if Mr. Matz would scroll down, I think it's the last exhibit in the letter that was submitted. (silence) That's the site distance exhibit, Mr. Hearing Examiner. That's the exhibit that shows the impervious surface for the road mod that's in the letter. And that would be what we are proposing right now, option C. - No sidewalk along Lake Shore or? - No frontage improvements. - 119th, okay. And no connection with 118th, not even emergency access? - Emergency access is needed.

1:01:34 Both lakes coming in from Lake Shore to the development 118th are provable by the fire marshal. The parking lot does provide a T intersection just like it did before on option A. So this same layout does provide for fire turnaround emergency vehicle turnaround. It does appease the neighbors and based on the amount of square footage, we submitted this road mod for you to approve or deny. - Okay. And Mr. Housley already said, "Open record is what you want, not a continuance." - Yes, in the letter, the county did cancel the hearing on us once already, it's not the applicants. We couldn't get an approval or denial of the road modification early on.

1:02:33 County did wait till the last week to actually talk to us, even though we did request a meeting. Yes, we are changing the access, but this layout does meet all applicable code criteria. The layout doesn't change. The buildings are in the same spot. The landscape buffers are in the same spot. The parking count is the same. The garbage enclosure is the same. The only difference is the access goes south versus north. - And the frontage improvements. - And the frontage improvements, that's correct. - Okay. What else do you want me to know at this juncture? I think that's all I have Mr. Hingzamer, I appreciate it. - Mr. Hingzamer, one last thing before we turn it over. You had mentioned the issue with access onto arterials. I do agree with you that that has been

1:03:30 frustratingly apparent in the 30 years that I've been doing this. But in this particular instance, I think that the alternative proposal that we've come up with sort of finds the... Happy median, no pun intended, to address the access to the site. And I would point the examiner to a project at 14008 Northeast 30th Avenue, where there is 60 units that access onto a minor arterial, onto Northeast 29th Street up in Salmon Creek. - Just a full access? - Yes. - I guess I wasn't aware of that one. - Okay, second here, let me find. - And if I could submit that in the open record. Oh, there's one other fact.

1:04:27 This is just going on the zone change aspect of it. The examiner may know that the county's in the process of doing its Growth Management Act update. And the county just issued its final environmental impact statement for comment last month. Included within that, the preferred alternative here is to rezone this property to ARD 24 anyway. So just bear that in mind, please. - That's interesting. Will that be final before this case's record closes on this thing? - Probably not. It'll be coming on the heels of it though, however, and with an effective ordinance date, I would assume sometime near the first of the year. - Okay. Okay, you might consider, since the record's gonna be left open for some period, submitting something that kind of documents

1:05:24 that's the plan before the Board of Counselors. - Yeah, and that was a plan, by the way, developed by Long Range Planning. It was not something submitted by the applicant, so. - Wasn't your idea? - Wasn't our idea. - Okay. Okay. - Mr. Examiner? - Yep. - Can I, I'd like to just add a couple of brief things. You had asked me earlier how far was the closest other R-22 zoning. I did look at that. The closest one is two miles east. - Two miles, wow. - Yeah. Also, I wanted just to make it clear that none of the road modifications have been applied for yet, right? The road modifications we're talking about, none have been made application for yet. - Right, and I recognize the importance of having an actual application, actual proposal for everyone, staff, the public, me, to consider and to whether it meets or doesn't meet

1:06:24 the approval criteria and that, but I recognize tonight is a lot of speculation about what all Plan B entails. You know, it's just a drawing, but it does have its dimension, it does have detail, but other applications like a road mod are going to be needed if Plan B has any viability. And the public, those details matter to the public. I recognize that. - Right, and based on what I was listening to, the Plan C is in play also, right? - What's Plan C? Wait a sec. - This is Plan C here, right, that we're looking at. I thought that the applicant had indicated that this-- - Okay, and this is in the memo packet that they submitted tonight, that's exhibit 66. - Correct, and this is the one, most notably to me anyway, that does not propose any sidewalks along Lake Shore

1:07:23 or 119th Street, which is a big difference. - 'Cause I'm looking at Plan B, exhibit 63, it appears to have a sidewalk on Lake Shore-- - It does, it does, but this is the, this one here that you're looking at, I know it looks the same, pretty close. This is the last exhibit that Travis asked me to scroll down to, or one of the last ones on the road modification letter, and this one does not show the sidewalks, and I thought that he had clarified that, but again, if I misunderstood that, by all means, set me straight, so. - Well, before we open it up to anyone else, Travis, what is it? Is this, do we have Plan B and now Plan C? - That's correct, Mr. Heering examiner. - And you're going with Plan C? - We'd like to go with Plan C, yes, after, yes. The only thing to add about the discussion,

1:08:21 R-22 property, the property directly to the east is medium density, it is R-12, so it's same classification as what we're proposing, R-22 and R-12 are both medium density residential. So the development to the east was built with single family homes, but it could have been built with apartment complexes. - Okay. All right, so at this juncture, I normally open it up to the public, but we, for those of you who are tuning in, I think we have a lot of public tuning in, we have this Plan B and now Plan C, which changes a lot of the details that matter relative to the comments that I've seen in the record already. Plus, Ms. Barnett,

1:09:16 Barnett has, her latest submission is exhibit 62 and is an opponent to this project and has requested at least an open record, I think, if I'm reading this correctly. So I attribute that request to virtually everybody who has weighed in on this application. My inclination, I haven't heard a compelling reason for a continued hearing. We have the issues, the land use issues, I think are fairly well crystallized in the opponent testimony, opponent comments, and in the staff report. And it comes down to what's in flux is just the access and road modifications that would be required. And so my inclination is to go with an open record,

1:10:16 pretty extended open record so that everybody has a chance to digest these important details. So my inclination is to do that and does anyone have a compelling argument for a continued hearing out there? - None other than my original statement in that because there is road modifications that have to be decided. - Yeah, that'll take time. That'll take time. And so also members of the public who have appeared tonight all geared up to testify, here's my advice to you that unless you have, number one, not submitted anything in writing, number two, cannot submit anything in writing, and number three, won't be around for the next couple weeks to submit something in writing,

1:11:15 I would allow you to testify tonight. But you have to understand you'd be testifying about what is now old news, an irrelevant plan that has been abandoned by the applicant. - If I may, Mr. Kerns, to Ms. Burnett's comments, one of her comments was specifically asking about the procedural review, like a continuance versus an open record. And to that, I think her testimony would be relevant to you. - Okay, Ms. Burnett, are you out there in Zoom land? Can we, I haven't read your letter tonight. - I can bring it up for you if you'd like, Mr. Kerns. - Well, let's bring Ms. Burnett up if she's here. - Yeah, we also had one other person that raised their hand before her, but right now I'm sending a request to unmute Terry Burnett. - Okay. - Terry, you should be able to unmute yourself.

1:12:12 - Ms. Burnett? How's it looking, Richard? - She's still red. - Okay, can you hear me now? - Yes, go ahead. - Well, that's good. - Have you been following the discussion so far tonight? - Yes. - Okay, go ahead. - There is just so much new stuff that just came at the 11th hour here that is just very hard to comprehend. I just feel like we need to step back and just start all over at this point. - I think the applicant's lack of trust in local government does not give him the right to demand a rushed, unvetted, dual-track approval. The land needs to- - We're not doing that. Everyone mistrusts the government,

1:13:11 so they're not alone in that, but also it's the access that we're talking about that has changed. - Well, the access is better off of Lakeshore and 119th, but I do, and just really oppose Northwest 118th Street because- - Right, right, right. You don't have your chance to talk about it. What your procedural request here, 'cause this is not gonna be decided tonight. In fact, I'm planning to not take public testimony tonight, but rather we're in kind of procedural land right now. So do you understand the difference between keeping the record open to allow the applicant to really crystallize what it is they're proposing and to make the additional road modification applications, get those in the door, get county staff to review

1:14:10 and either comment or approve those or deny those, and understanding that you and all of your neighbors will have a chance to review the new submission, review the staff's response to those things, and kind of understand what is happening. It'll be a fully public process. I mean, you've seen how it's unfolded so far. It's been pretty public. You've seen how it's happened. So it'd be the same thing, but with this new plan B or maybe plan C. - Can you tell me if plan B or C does approve what the 118th option is as a fallback safety net? - They haven't said that. It appears that they're dropping 118th and that they're going with access to Lakeshore Avenue. It's not either, it's not both. It's going to Lakeshore.

1:15:09 That's plans B and C as I read them. - Okay. - But you know, it's only Thursday. (laughing) - Well, I just hope everybody gets it right and that everyone can live among each other. I do still oppose so much. - Well, you're trying to guarantee that neither of those things are going to happen. The most you can hope for is you understand what the proposal is and you get to comment on it. - Yes, that sounds good. - Okay, I think with that, I'm inclined to talk about an open record period. So the first thing we need is the applicant has to have some time to put together what road modifications they see fit and submit those so the applicant needs, so we should have an open record period to allow that to happen.

1:16:06 And then staff and the public get to digest what the applicant submits and provide a response to that, might maybe including a staff decision on the road mod. And then the public gets and the applicant gets to respond to what staff does and recommends. So I'm looking at like a revolving door here that'll extend out a couple of weeks. - So Mr. Housley, are you the one who knows how much time the applicant needs? - Yeah, just and I said from the job I'm next week, but so I think if we could do a two week initial period for us to pull that information together, that should suffice on our end. - Okay, so just theoretically speaking, today's the 13th, two weeks is the 27th of August. So you think you can get, identify exactly what plan it is you're going with. And then and during that same period,

1:17:04 submit any and all road modifications that are needed to make that plan fly. - Yes. - All right, we'll pencil that in. August 27th, close of business, the applicant submits all the new stuff they need to. - Just to show that I'm clear, Mr. Kern, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. This is only for the applicant to submit. - I mean, people can say what they want, but I don't know what they're commenting on. - Staff's not gonna be able to review what they submit within two weeks. - No, no, no, they have two weeks. They have a lot to do. They have major lift. So in the 27th, you and Mr. Dawson should have everything you need to figure out what's the proposal is. So how much time does staff need to review, you know, the new plan and all road modifications, assuming you get it on the 27th? - So I welcome Alistair's input,

1:18:04 but for me to put a starting, I'd say five weeks, because Alistair has to coordinate this road modification review team. I'm just, if we're gonna negotiate, I'll start at five weeks. - That's a long time. - It is, it is. That's why if engineering can commit to a quicker turnaround, that would-- - Let's see if Mr. Dawson thinks is possible. What do you think is possible, Alistair? - You mean to put me on the spot here? - Well, Brian hasn't done a very good job, so it's your turn now. (laughing) - You don't like five weeks. - Well, it just seems long, but I don't know. - Well, there's also, this isn't the only project that staff has to review. Can I go to four weeks?

1:19:02 - Yeah, yeah. - So you think he can, so in four weeks, you have a decision out of the road mod committee, you think? - Right, yes, and then after that, well, okay, typically in a land use process, I have to go and coordinate with Brian after that. Maybe I don't have to coordinate with him after this, but typically there's a lot of coordination with development engineering, the applicant and the planner. - Okay, all right, well, let's pencil in four weeks. Brian, can you, what do you think? 'Cause it's just this issue, the land use stuff, unless you're gonna change your land use recommendation, we're just talking about the access and the road mod. - I don't think my stuff is what we're still talking about, to be honest, most of it's transportation related stuff. - My thought too. - So, I mean, if Alistair thinks four weeks works, then I'll follow his lead. - Who are we to second guess the engineering?

1:20:02 - Right. So if we go four weeks from the 27th, that's one, two, three, that's September 24. Did I get that right? - Yeah. - Okay, so the public also, during that period, will have all that time to throw stones at whatever the applicant has submitted on August 27th as well. But everyone I think is gonna be waiting to see what staff thinks about it. So staff, we should be able to cough up its analysis and recommendation of the new plan by September 24th. At that point, the applicant and the public get to digest and potentially throw stones at staff's recommendation. So I guess, Ms. Burnett, you're a typical opponent. How does two weeks sound?

1:21:01 And also, Mr. Housley, you and Ms. Burnett will be together in this, I think. Maybe. Two weeks from the 24th, that puts you to October 8th, which is the next hearing date. - So October 8th would be the next time that the hearing? - At that, well, no, at that point, you have until October 8th from the 24th 'til the 28th to digest staff's understanding, staff's revised staff report on the new plan and decide whether you agree with staff or not. And the same thing with the applicant. They may disagree with staff, who knows? But that's two weeks for the applicant and the general public to respond, comment on staff's revised report. Does that make sense? - Yeah. - Yes, it does.

1:22:00 - So Brian. - Yes. - I have a hearing on the 8th that evening. I think there are four items on the agenda, though. Normally I'd say, hey, let's put it on that night. - I thought you were-- - Yeah, I know, I know what I said, but I'm just, you know, to the extent that people are really hung up on having another hearing, it's possible, but that would make it tight. That would be a fifth item on that night's hearing. It would be, I think it's that, no. Can you check? - That would leave you with little to no time to review the two weeks of-- - That's true. - And Mr. examiner, I'm gonna throw another smoky response. I've got a pre-planned trip to Georgia that I'm gonna be gone on the 8th. - Okay, all right. So let's pencil in the 8th as--

1:22:59 - The close of the open record. - Yeah, close of the open record. And then the applicant gets a week for final rebuttal. They can submit that from Georgia, presumably. So that would be the 15th. And then at that point, the record closes. So does that seem feasible? - Just so that, I'm sorry, can I back up one second just to make sure I've got this clear. After the two weeks, we're gonna grant two weeks after the staff response for the applicant and the parties of record to submit whatever they wanna submit. And then you want an additional last two weeks for-- - No, no, last week, one week after-- - One week, okay. Final rebuttal of one week, gotcha. - Yeah, so that would put it on October 15th. And if the applicant is okay, the applicant can waive that. - Right, right, right. - From Georgia. - Yeah. They have the internet there, don't they?

1:23:57 - I believe they do, at the time. - Okay, okay. So Ms. Burnett, are you still online? - Yes, can you go over those dates one more time? - Okay, so the plan is changing and the applicant has until August 27th, that's two weeks to submit, I would say submit exactly what the plan is you're proposing, whether it's B or C or something else. And any road modifications, applicants submit everything you need to make the one true plan fly by the 27th of August. Then staff and the public have until September 24th, that's four weeks, to review and comment on the applicant's submission, that's September 24th. And then at that point, staff will kick out their revised report and the applicant and the public

1:24:55 have two weeks until October 8th to comment on staff's revised report. And then at that point, the record will close on October 8th, close of business. And then the applicant has one week for a final rebuttal. I don't know what they'll say, but they have the right of final rebuttal, typically it's a week, which they can waive if they're happy at that point and don't want to say anything more. So does that make sense then? - Yes, that does. - Okay, Brian, how do you feel about that? - We'll take what we can get. - Okay, Mr. Housley and Team Felida, can you deliver? - Yeah, we're good, appreciate that Mr. Housley. - Okay, all right, I think we have closure. Mr. Dawson has remained silent, I'll take that as consent.

1:25:54 Okay, so I'm going to, at this point, I'm gonna shut off public testimony because it would be pointless given how the plan is changing. I am instead going to conclude this hearing and keep the record open according to the schedule I just articulated, applicant has to submit everything by close of business, that's like five o'clock, five o'clock, right Brian? - Yes, if you email it to me and I'm not here at five, I'll get it the next day as long as it's under the deadline. - Okay, email it before five on August 27th. Then the staff will kick out a revised report by five o'clock on September 24th. At that point, also the public can submit any comments they want in response to the application, their deadline is five o'clock on September 24th.

1:26:52 After that, everybody, the applicant, the public, can respond to staff's revised report until five o'clock on October 8th. At that point, the record closes and I will only accept the applicant's final rebuttal, no new evidence until five o'clock on October 15th. Easy peasy. Okay, with that, I'll conclude tonight's hearing but keep the record open according to that schedule, okay? - Yes, sir. - All right, stay tuned and remember to visit us at our next hearing date, September 10th. Thank you very much, good evening. for your exam. Thank you, sir.

Topic	Confidence	Timestamp	Keywords
building_development	direct	13:56	subdivision, zoning, density, concurrency	View
building_development	direct	16:12	subdivision, zoning, density, concurrency	View
building_development	direct	49:14	subdivision, zoning, density, concurrency	View
building_development	direct	53:14	subdivision, zoning, density, concurrency	View
building_development	direct	1:05:48	subdivision, zoning, density, concurrency	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:24	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	2:48	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	5:19	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	7:38	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	13:28	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:13:43	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:25:59	public comment, public testimony, Public hearing	View

Clark County Land Use Hearings

Documents

Agenda

Slides / on-screen documents

Discussions