Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 Okay. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the June 11th, 2026 hearing of the Clark County Land Use Hearings Examiner. My name is Daniel Cairns, appearing remotely from British Columbia. I'll be the examiner presiding over tonight's hearing. And it consists of two agenda items. First up, 58th Avenue subdivision as PLD-2026-8. And secondly, the Hartwood North subdivision PLD-2025-114. And we have a procedural announcement about the heartland that I will get

0:59 to when I'm done with my introductory remarks, in which I describe, introduce you to me and describe how the process is going to work tonight. First of all, I and one other, I think we have just one other hearings examiner. We serve by appointment by the Board of County Counselors to review land use applications for unincorporated Clark County. We are independent land use lawyers. We are not county employees. We are not staff. We are independent. We provide an unbiased, independent evaluation of these proposals. And to do that, we review the application, all the materials associated with it, and in support of it, the staff report and all the various staff and state agency comments, and then also all of the public comments on each of these applications, because

1:54 they were publicly noticed and posted and oftentimes generate a good deal of local concern. So once we review all these, we review also the local code criteria. Those are the standards that control the outcome of each of these items. Those are the standards that were in the county's unified development code on the day each one of these applications was submitted. And that freezes in time the standards, the criteria that have to be met in order for an applicant to gain approval. We can't be more stringent nor more lenient than those standards allow, but yet we have to fairly interpret them, look at the record, determine if there is sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that each of those standards is met or can be met through conditions of approval. And if that evidence exists, then we are obligated by state law and

2:53 the local code to approve these development proposals. But there is a long way between here and there before that happens. And so part of that evaluation process is to convene a public hearing such as this and take public testimony on the applications. And then once everyone has had full opportunity to evaluate the proposal, make comments, respond to comments, only after that will I close the public record and then I take it under consideration and I will decide the matter. So in deciding these things, as I mentioned, we're obligated to be independent and unbiased. And I believe that I am with regard to both of these items. I don't have any personal or business or familial connections with the applicants or any of the parties who have weighed in on these items to

3:49 date. What I know about each one is what I have read from the record. I've had my record for approximately two weeks on each of these. And so if anyone has any questions or wishes to challenge my impartiality or ability to decide these, feel free to do so. Feel free to ask questions or challenge my participation during the public testimony portion of tonight's hearing. Here's the basic schedule of events for each of these. Once we get rolling, I'll begin with a staff report. And that is a verbal rendition of the written report that was issued prior to tonight's hearing. As I mentioned, these items are controlled by the approval criteria in the code. The staff report goes through in somewhat painful detail an analysis of those standards, what they require and what's in the application that addresses those standards. And staff makes

4:48 a recommendation on whether the standards are met or not by way of findings and also suggests conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the applicable approval criteria. So if anyone is interested in understanding exactly what these criteria are, I urge you to consult the staff report. It's a pretty good roadmap for understanding what controls these proposals as they go through. After the staff report comes the applicant's primary presentation. For you applicants out there, you can assume I'm generally familiar with the contours of the proposal. A couple of things I need to know from you upfront though. First of all, staff, as I mentioned, issue a report that contains suggested findings and conditions. I need to know if you have any particular objections, corrections, challenges to any

5:45 of those findings or any of those conditions. And I need those corrections or objections with specificity. Second, I need to know, everyone needs to know, what is the actual final version of the proposal that's before us. Some of these applications go through multiple revisions to the plan. And so I need to know what is the current proposal on both these items that's before us. And the third thing I need to know from the applicant is if there's public testimony on your application tonight, I want you applicant to keep track of the points raised, the questions posed by the public in the testimony. And I would ask you in your final rebuttal to respond to those questions or comments as best you can. Some of these, a lot of the testimony we get comes

6:43 in the form of questions of how a proposal is going to affect the local transportation system, stormwater drainage, critical areas, those kinds of things, which are of huge concern to abutting neighbors that already live next to these sites. So those are often most appropriately addressed by the applicant, sometimes staff, but oftentimes the applicant. So I'd look to you to take levering or on responding to the public testimony in your final rebuttal. Then anything else you want to offer applicant by way of last minute details. I may not have fully digested any really recent exhibits that were submitted in the last day or two. So just make sure that you go over those, any late breaking comments. That's it for the applicant's presentation. After that,

7:40 I'll take testimony from anyone who's in favor of the application. Then I take testimony from anyone with questions or neutral testimony. And finally, I take testimony from anyone who's in opposition to the proposal, opposed in any respect. So, and then after the opponent testimony, I come back to the applicant for final rebuttal. In all of these matters, the applicant gets the last word. And that's because the applicant has the burden of proof, the burden of proving that they meet the applicable approval standards that I mentioned, and which are preeminent in my evaluation, and should be a focus of any public testimony. After the applicant has done final rebuttal, understanding that applicants also have a right to submit final rebuttal in writing after

8:35 the hearing. But after I hear from the applicant, I'll turn to staff for parting advice based on testimony that comes in tonight. And then it's my typical habit to close record. In these cases, though, the notice indicated that the record would be kept open for at least one week following tonight's hearing. And that would put it to June 18th. During that time, anybody can submit any written comment that's relevant to these proposals before the record closes. And this is kind of a post-pandemic provision, just because a lot of people often have trouble navigating this WebEx internet-based environment, or they think of new things or additional things they want to talk about or raise as a result of this hearing. And so the record is open for anybody on a relevant

9:31 comment for a week. For those of you who are testifying tonight, be mindful that my decision comes out in writing approximately two weeks after the record closes. And my decisions are the county's final decision on a matter, but they can be appealed to Superior Court through the Lane News Petition Act. To appeal one of my decisions, you have to participate while the record is open, either orally at tonight's hearing or in writing. And you need to raise before me, while the record is open, any issue you want to preserve for a subsequent appeal. And you need to present to me evidence or documents or anything of any sort you want me to consider or that you would want to rely upon in that subsequent appeal. So when the record is open and when it finally closes, those are critical things that people need to be mindful of, because once the record closes,

10:27 that ends your ability to raise new issues and it ends your ability to submit evidence. So participation matters in these things. Let me give some pointers on how to participate tonight. First of all, when I'm done with my opening comments, we'll get a primer from staff as to how to navigate this WebEx internet-based environment, how that functions. When it's time for public testimony, I will take testimony from anyone who raises their hand. There's a little hand icon at the bottom in the order that I just presented, pro-neutral con. And when it's your turn to speak, we'll unmute your microphone. Start with your name and give me some understanding of where you live or what's your relationship to this property. It helps me better understand

11:26 where you're coming from and how this project is going to impact you. Also, if you could spell your name so I get that straight. Here's a kind of an insider's tip for anyone testifying tonight. A lot of people on the Heartwood North subdivision submitted written comments. Those are super useful. So if you're going to be presenting testimony and you've already submitted written comments, that's oftentimes the written comment is that is kind of the gold standard because I'm a terrible note taker. And it's useful to have your comments, your testimony and writing so that I can refer to it as I'm cogitating on the application and each of the issues that you raise. I have it in your words. So if you're going to testify tonight, submit your your script, your comments in writing. Do so by emailing them to the staff planner assigned to the case. And if you've already submitted comments and you don't have anything additional to add, you can say that and we can

12:26 move on to the next witness on the item. So that's just kind of insider's tip on how to how is best, most effective way to participate. When you do testify, stick to the approval criteria. As I mentioned, they control my decision. I can't go outside of them. If you raise issues that are unrelated to the approval criteria, there's nothing I can really do about that. I don't have the authority to condition or deny an application based on issues that don't relate to those criteria. If you think that other standards apply and or should apply, let me know what they are and why. But focus on those approval criteria. If you have any documents or other sorts of evidence you want me to consider, you can quickly email that to the staff planner to get that to me or sometime during this next week. But just remember to submit your written comments and your evidence before the

13:21 record closes. If you represent somebody else, let me know who that is so I understand who has a stake in the matter before me. And remember to raise your any issue you want to preserve for an appeal and submit any evidence you want to rely upon in a subsequent appeal. So that's it by way of, oh we also during the public testimony will probably limit the time that people are allowed to speak, especially for any application where there's a lot of opposition. Unfortunately, we have to limit the time so that everybody has a chance to speak, which shifts the focus. We'll limit that to I think three minutes a pop. That will shift the focus again to the written comments. That's why if you have an awful lot to say, put it in writing and submit it that way. The applicant will be given 20 minutes to make their presentation if they need that much time,

14:18 hopefully they won't. So we'll have those limitations and we will shortly get a primer on how to participate. But before that, I mentioned we have a little procedural surprise here on the second item. It's a Hartwood North subdivision. As I recall, this was kicked over from a previous hearing and so this is the continued hearing date. The applicant, as I understand it, has a request to continue this item to the second Thursday in August. That would be August 13th. Is the applicant out there in Zoom land for the Hartwood North subdivisions PLD 2025-114? Yes, Mr. Alexander, Steve Morash with Lanterholm representing the applicant and we have our whole

15:18 team here present today. Okay, and you have a request for continuance. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth. Okay, yeah, there's two reasons why we're requesting a continuance. One is that there was a comment that came in a few days ago raising issues with the public notice. Now, we've responded to that by providing a dated email showing that, I believe it was May 11, whatever the date of the email was, that the sign was amended with a sticker on that date. So the sign was accurate, but the allegations are that there are other problems with the notice like the agenda wasn't proper and it may not have been published. So one reason for the continuance is it would solve all these issues that have been raised with respect to the notice of this hearing if we continue to a date certain then that would solve that problem. The bigger issue for the continuance, however,

16:18 is comments that I believe were submitted yesterday or today. We got them today and it raises an issue that first came up about a month ago in another hearing. There's basically a glitch in the county's concurrency ordinance and the ordinance it says that roads shall meet nine-tenths volume capacity on the corridor and this 119th doesn't or at least there's certain segments of it that don't and the county staff has submitted findings indicating that they believe that although the code says shall meet nine-tenths volume capacity that there's other language in the code that gives staff the ability to look at factors under subsection f of the concurrency code to do sort of a bigger analysis of whether or not the corridor is actually functioning adequately

17:15 despite not meeting this nine-tenths because intersections are the choke points that back up the traffic. However, the code language says shall meet nine-tenths and so there's been an effort for the county council to address this with an interim ordinance that would clarify the intent of the code and originally that was scheduled to go to a hearing on June 16. However, I don't see it on the agenda for that date so I'm not sure you know exactly when but I believe probably in the next couple of months the county would address this with an interim ordinance if they do under the east county reclamation case which is a court of appeals case the applicant can waive vesting they have to waive all the vesting they can't selectively waive vesting but they can waive all the vesting so if there's an interim ordinance that comes into effect in the next

18:10 month or two the idea would be that this applicant would then waive all vesting and go under the new code that's in effect on the day that the interim ordinance is in effect which at this point we don't believe that there's any other material code changes and that would solve this uh this this glitch in the code where uh you know the county has an interpretation that you know maybe a little bit of odds with some of the language in the code would fix the problem so to speak and so for that reason I mean we'd rather not get a denial if there's a code fix that's you know in the in the works in the next month or two um and so for both those reasons I think we probably would want to continue to the September hearing I mean the August hearing might be might be okay but I mean I think the September hearing gives us a little bit more um leeway to see if the you know code does get fixed or not and you know how long that you know that might take so that's that's the basis for our

19:07 request for continuance one quick question uh when you say September hearing I know us hearings examiner Joe Turner and I we are both out of town for the second September hearing so I'm here for the first one that's September 10th is that what you're referring to you think yeah I believe that would be the date okay that would work so at this point you're requesting a continuance of this item to September 10th at six o'clock that's correct and we're also requesting no fee because the the continuance is kind of an odd you know there's a glitch in the code and when it was just raised in this matter yesterday I believe the the language about the fee says if it was something that was raised at the hearing then the applicant's not charged a fee so yes we would be asking for September 10th hearing and we'd request no fee I mean if we have to pay a fee obviously we can but

20:02 we think it would be fair not to okay um uh staff you have any uh particular uh insights into this request uh marrying Bateman with um community development planner for the case um yeah we are fine with the continuance um but we were under the understanding that the applicant would pay the fee so I would have to look into that and let them know unless um Richard or Brent want to jump in and answer that part of it okay um I'm not really the person who deals with the fees um I'm not allowed to take money from anyone um so we can always talk with staff about the fee later yeah yeah you'll have to deal with staff on that later um for uh for the applicant team and for anyone out there in Zoomland who's listening to this and has an interest in this matter

20:58 I'm always inclined to grant uh continuances for a couple of reasons first of all the applicant has the burden of proof as I mentioned and so I'm always inclined to let the party with the burden bear that burden and if they need more time to do so then that's fair uh secondly the I did note the procedural objection on the notice um the way under uh Washington case law and it's pretty well established across the country to cure an allegation of a procedural defect is to provide more notice more process and so uh continuance would give people that opportunity for more um to prepare their comments for when this hearing comes up uh if there was an inadequate notice or a defective posting it doesn't result in denial it just results in more time for the for people

21:56 to prepare and that's what this would do um so for those of you who are in here to uh testify in heartwood north um I would ask you to keep your powder dry and uh show up on September 10th I'm inclined to grant the continuance request to September 10th at six o'clock because if you never know how these applications are going to change between now and when they come up for a hearing so that if you give comments tonight it might be irrelevant in light of changes that occur between now and when the continued hearing happens so I would urge all people with an interest in this matter to just hold on and watch to see what happens with this development proposal it may morph but it will be back before me on September 10th at six o'clock so I'm going to

22:55 grant this request and would urge everyone to attend that meeting be prepared connect with Miss Bateman before the hearing to see what changes what new things have come into the record and prepare your comments based on what the application looks like at that time uh does that uh make sense to everyone okay uh mr examiner we do have a hand raised by a Steve Thalberg I don't know if he wants to ask about the continuance or okay go ahead and go ahead and unmute mr uh Thalberg's microphone and we'll hear what he has to say about this

23:38 hello can you hear me yes go ahead hi this is Steve Thalberg an unincorporated Clark County and I was at the council meeting yesterday and the council was going to address concurrency but at the meeting they stated they wanted to hear the hearing examiner's results or findings before the county asked and since you're not giving a finding it's likely that the county will not be making any changes by the September 10th because they based their decisions upon the hearing officer's findings so this is like a chicken this is like a chicken and egg problem yes it is a chicken and egg problem and then the other question I'd like to raise is that you said

24:32 that the rules that guide your decisions are based upon the rules in force at the time of the application and that seems and that any change in the rules would not affect the rules enforced at the time of the application unless uh unless it's being considered that the applicant is withdrawing their entire application and then will resubmit it after that such time when the county may revise their interpretation of the current law um that's not how we those competing things where you're giving them time to have change in the law but you previously stated that your decisions are based upon the law at the time of the filing of the application right the way the law works is that

25:30 that vesting that you mentioned the application vests the approval standards at the time they are the application is submitted that is a right that state law accords an applicant and in this case mr morash the lawyer for the applicant here has indicated that they would they the applicant would waive that right to the vesting accorded by state law and and come in under the approval of standards that would apply now and so that that's how that would work the other thing is that as I understand the board's position they're always interested to hear how we examiners interpret the code um as I understand the board was interested in 174th street project uh which the record for which closed today and uh not not this application this uh hasn't really gained any

26:27 traction with the board but the 174th street application has and I think the issue is in that one uh so um the for the reasons that I had previously mentioned I'm still inclined to grant the continuance I appreciate questions I appreciate your questions thank you and I also appreciate your update from the board of county counselors um and any other uh questions or observations or objections to this okay this item none this item uh will be continued that the heartwood north subdivision pld 2025-114 will be continued to september 10th at beginning at six o'clock be aware that the application proposal might actually morph a bit so uh stay in close communication with miss bateman to see what comes into the record between now and then

27:26 um so thank you for that one uh and that oh we just had another hand raise I'm not sure if you want to address that who is that is my shards it must be the last name Michaud's maybe I'm not pronouncing it correctly I'm sure um the Michaud's I see the Michaud's have raised a hand is this a procedural question about the heartwood uh north subdivision go ahead and unmute the the Michaud's uh microphone I just did hello um this might be just kind of a dumb question I just want to wait wait wait wait could you introduce yourself please I apologize yes um so my name is actually Aria Johnson I married Cory Michaud and so I now go by Aria Michaud I am a adjacent to the heartwood phase two

28:24 property okay what's up I just wanted to make sure that written comment um will be uh extended as well um oh yeah this hearing yeah and then additional notice will come record is open and there are a lot of comments already in um but I always just caution people that these continuances oftentimes I don't know in this case but oftentimes result in the proposal changing so um if you have comments that you haven't submitted yet um maybe wait to see if this proposal changes and it might affect the relevance of those comments see what I mean perfect thank you yep record's still open not closed okay anything else on heartwood north

29:12 saying it's continued to september 10 stand by everybody um so that leaves the 58th avenue subdivision pld 2026-8 still before me and we need a primer on how to function in this webex environment before we roll into the public hearing on the 58th avenue proposal so who's going to do that uh thank you mr examiner this is brian mattson can you see my uh yeah it says webex instructions perfect okay uh again my name is brian mats and i'll be the planner for this next case that we're going to discuss but first for everyone participating in tonight's hearing if you're wishing to testify about a specific agenda item staff asks that you raise your hand so that

30:07 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 locate 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 and 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 have 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 by dialing star three again we will also ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute anytime you'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

31:04 testify has the opportunity please be aware that any noise in your personal environment will be broadcast at this time if you miss the opportunity 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 ask 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 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 well i just lost that screen didn't i let's try that again there you go

31:57 here okay sorry um 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 we would ask that you with that you stay muted anytime you're not speaking and that's the end of the raise your hand function chat okay for the next presentation unfortunately i lost the powerpoint presentation for this next case five minutes before the hearing so i'm going to attempt to do it with just the gis screen and the photos that i've taken at the site and the script that i had already prepared okay so bear with me please if you have any questions at all mr examiner please stop me and i can i can back up go for it okay

32:54 okay are you seeing my gis screen now um yeah yes yes okay so this lot in blue here is the subject parcel for our next for our next um our next case in this case the applicant is proposing to divide approximately 0.79 acres into 12 single family attached town home lots in the r16 zone and i have the plan right here so what you can't see very well here is there's an existing single family home located about right here a detached garage that is going to be demolished and they're proposing for uh three

33:51 separate buildings consisting of uh four town homes each and these will all be on their own lot uh a quick quick question this uh is the original plan that was submitted with the application that's exhibit one tab nine it hasn't changed as far as i can tell from the record is that right correct correct it has not changed this is from the original application other iterations of road mods and stormwater but this plan is is the same as the original application okay okay so um i'm going to go to the vicinity map again which i'm going to use gis for property located property is identified by the by the blue square here it lies on the south side of northeast 70th street here on the uh east side of northeast 58th avenue here it lies just north of walnut grove park and if we zoom out we can get a better idea of where this sits in terms of

34:49 vancouver landmarks this is i-205 over here this is patent parkway uh and this is st john's here and this is mini haha here so it gives you a better idea of the vicinity at least i hope um i'm going to turn on the the zoning here so uh the zoning you can see that this lot and all of the surrounding lots with the exception of the park are zoned r1-6 which is a single family residential zone uh the park is zoned public facilities because it's owned by the public

35:27 i'm gonna do a quick aerial photo here so you can see there's a couple of trees on prop on the property there are a couple of large ones here just to the south of this existing home here's your uh detached garage again this is uh 70th street and this is 58th if i get rid of this view and i show you them a little more recent you can see all the the buildings next door so okay you just can't see the house very well because of the shadow by the trees but again here's the park to the south kind of gives you an idea of the site conditions what you can't see here on this picture is that the this northeast corner i i think is about the high point of the site and it gradually slopes down to the southwest which is approximately the low point but again this is a gradual slope gives the parcel a slight south south southwest aspect but not much okay back to the plan

36:25 again the uh lots one through four here they're going they're proposed to access directly onto 58th avenue uh the lots five through twelve here these are going to access a private road this is tracked a and this road will connect with northeast 70th street to the north one of the things that i noticed when i was walking this side and taking my photos is there's not much room to walk along 58th avenue and you're going to see that in the pictures and these sidewalks that they're going to put in are really i think are really going to benefit the neighbors that live on 70th street as far as pedestrian access to the park because there really isn't a safe spot to walk along this road at least when i was out there so i just wanted to point that out okay let's go ahead and go to the photos i took when i was there this photo i'm looking uh west this is 70th street along the north of the site this sidewalk is at development just to

37:22 the east so this sidewalk is going to continue west along 70th street they're going to widen this pavement out and this will go around the corner lead to the south and will connect with that walnut grove park to the south this one i took uh basically standing at what i approximated was the northeast corner i'm looking south you can see the chain link fence that i assume is close to the south property line of this site you can also see that the you know that the site is kind of overgrown but it's not much of a slope from here this one i took at the intersection of 70th street and 58th avenue i'm looking easterly down 70th street this detached garage garage will be removed garage will be removed and so will this existing single family residence will be removed that's to develop this site and again the sidewalk will be coming through here where my cursor

38:16 is i will be turning south and going along here this next photo i'm standing in the same spot and i'm just looking northerly here i took this just in case somebody wanted to talk about site distance or something just so i had it doesn't have a whole lot of bearing it uh you can also see that this 58th avenue does have speed humps already installed different intervals so this is the same spot i'm just looking south here uh this is you can see the posted sign if the applicant is as installed uh again this will be widened out you can see that there's really not a pedestrian path here so i think that the sidewalk is going to be beneficial here with a wide with the widen right away i also noticed that they have the overhead power line so i'm i don't know if those are going to be undergrounded or they're going to be moved to the other side of the road i assume they're going to be undergrounded on this side

39:12 but i'll let the applicant speak to that if they choose to this one i'm sitting at the southwest corner i'm just looking east just because i'm walking along the property i thought i'd take this picture these trees are close to the south property line the reason you can't see this existing family home in single family residence in the most recent is because of the shadows from these trees they're quite tall and that's what's going to be demolished yes correct correct and this last one i took from standing in the park and i'm just looking at the southeast corner you can see there's kind of a elevation drop to get into the park but the site itself is flat the bank is is on the park side so i don't know if there'll be any sorts of retaining walls up here i doubt if there was a there was a small one or there's a short one

40:11 proposed at the southeast corner but again i made a condition in my staff report that that retaining wall had to meet the setback standards so i don't expect that to be an issue okay so there weren't many issues with this project except for the road modification and i think there was a couple of requests for additional stormwater information again i have this written out in my my powerpoint presentation that i destroyed so forgive me um if anybody wants to watch that uh powerpoint please get in touch and i'll get i'll contact the county it people so i can recover that and share it if you if anybody wants to see it but there weren't many uh if you if you do if you do recover it mr mattson uh it'll be submitted as an exhibit into the record of this

41:08 matter right correct correct and also there uh well there'll be a transcription of of everything we've said here too also but but both of those are usually automatically entered into the record so uh the applicant probably has a better recall of the specific issues i know that there was a road modification uh they were looking for relief to perimeter block length i think and i can't remember something else related to that circulation cross circulation i believe uh but the road modification review team has uh recommended approval of that now and that is one of the exhibits and i don't have that written down right here but um ultimately uh according to the proposed plan and the exhibits in the public record staff has recommended conditional approval for this project based on the plan you see here and the exhibits in the public record one note i do want

42:08 to point out again even though this was brought up earlier staff did issue a memo of correction for two smaller matters a couple of days ago or two days ago basically the matters that were clarified was that in the staff report land use staff incorrectly referenced the the parallel parking standards of the commercial or or otherwise non-narrow lot development standards and the narrow lot development standards have their own on-street parking length requirements and separation so i wanted to refer i wanted to reference the correct standard there and i also wanted to point out specifically that there is an existing single family residence there and that there will be a credit for probably two different narrow lots for that to make up for that single family residence that'll be removed well because single family residences are assessed a higher

43:04 rate than than attached town homes so one lot will be completely exempt and then the second lot will be partially exempt to make up for that single family residence okay and as i understand it your staff report is exhibit 29 and your tweak to it that you just submitted was exhibit 31 correct correct thank you okay thank you um i'll remain remain for any uh other questions also i forgot to mention that okay thank you um let's see um are there any engineering issues on this one i don't think there was there wasn't was there there wasn't even concurrence concurrency on this no we had no engineering issues on this one

43:59 mr examiner okay i guess then we're ready for the applicant's presentation please

44:11 yeah thank you thank you mr harry examiner uh andrew gone through with pls engineering uh last name spelled g-u-n-t-h-e-r um i don't have a whole lot to add from uh mr madison's presentation um i think we've worked pretty closely with county staff uh working out a few minor issues during the the land use review process um and um i support and kind of raised the the clarifications that that uh have been mentioned uh in exhibit 31 as far as impact fee credits and just clarification of the one street guest parking standards so those look good um mr madison mentioned that we had a a road modification request that came about during the

45:09 land use review that was i guess i would characterize it as almost a technicality that even though we're on a corner lot and we're a small parcel there aren't any uh any streets to the east of us within 800 feet so there was a sort of technically a block spacing standard that required us to to address the fact that we're not going to stub a public road to a park so other than that i think the review process has been pretty smooth and unless you want any further discussion of the of the exhibit 31 i really don't have a whole lot to add at this point okay thank you and you didn't have any uh changes or corrections to the staff report i guess the what came in today sort of reflects the conversation you had with mr madison

46:09 exactly yep that's all i had so yeah okay thank you um with that anyone uh have any uh anyone else have testimony in favor of this proposal anyone with neutral uh testimony or questions about it go ahead raise your hand what was that oh none yet okay anyone uh wish to provide uh testimony in opposition to this proposal raise your hand i think we have one opposition comment already from marcus logan exhibit 22 so there's that i'm not seeing any hands raised okay okay um

47:09 going once twice understanding anyone out there who may be lurking you have a week a full week to think about this and submit any written comments you might have on this matter um so okay let me come back to you mr gunther anything else you want to add before we uh conclude the hearing on this item yeah sorry that was i guess a little bit of a failure on my part not to acknowledge the public comment exhibit 22 the staff report i think mr madison did a good job of responding to that comment i didn't feel any any further response was necessary beyond staff's addressing of the issue so okay i noticed that yes okay staff anything else to add before we conclude tonight's hearing on this item

48:06 no sir staff has nothing further to add okay thank you okay um then i will um conclude the hearing on this item uh 50th avenue subdivision but the record will remain open for a week until uh close of business next thursday june 18th for anyone to submit any relevant comment on this item at that point the record will close and i will take it under consideration the decision will be issued about two weeks after the record closes but if anyone wants to submit anything any comment submit it by emailing uh to mr madson uh whatever you have documents comments whatever make sure it gets to him by 5 p.m on june 18th in order to be in record if it's late it's out um so and also if anyone out there in zoom land would like a copy of my decision when it

49:03 finally gets issued communicate with mr madson to get your name on the distribution list for that that decision okay i think that concludes this item um record stays open until uh close of business on the 18th and that also concludes tonight's hearing um we'll see you uh for the heartwood in september but i think we have other hearings in uh july and august so there are other there's other business before the county and uh before then i thank all of you for participating and stay in touch thank you good night thank you mr examiner thank you

Topic	Confidence	Timestamp	Keywords
building_development	direct	0:37	zoning, concurrency, subdivision	View
building_development	direct	35:04	zoning, concurrency, subdivision	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	3:07	public hearing, public comment, public testimony	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	11:00	public hearing, public comment, public testimony	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	13:42	public hearing, public comment, public testimony	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	47:36	public hearing, public comment, public testimony	View

Clark County Land Use Hearings

Documents

Agenda

Slides / on-screen documents

Discussions