Vancouver Land Use Hearings

0:00 [MUSIC PLAYING] I'm trying to hit the record. There we go. Start recording. I don't know why it was being persnickety. All right, examiner Marshall, we are ready. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Stephanie Marshall. I am the city of Vancouver.

1:00 Miss Marshall, you're muted. I am so sorry. I apologize. OK, I will start over. Good evening, everyone. My name is Stephanie Marshall. I'm the city of Vancouver hearing examiner. Today is Tuesday, March 17, 2026, and it is 6.01 PM. Now is the time and place set for a public hearing on file numbers PRJ-169771, LUP 85557. This is for a mixed use development referred to as the MAV. I'm going to be conducting a site plan review, master plan process. This is a type 3 hearing. The hearing examiner has received a staff report and exhibits that comprise the record. As of today, and I will be reviewing this application

1:59 and deciding the application on the basis of the materials in the record. Testimony provided tonight, and if there is an open record period following the end of the public hearing tonight, we will discuss that at that time. This is a proposal for a mixed use development for 152 units of multifamily development with 1590 square feet of office space with associated surface parking and landscaping. The site of the proposal is on four vacant tax lots at the southwest corner of Northeast 136th Avenue and Northeast 4th Street. This is in the Furcrest neighborhood. Before I get started with the hearing, I have some initial disclosures to make. I have not had any ex parte contacts outside of this hearing. That means I have not been contacted

2:57 by anyone who is a proponent of the application or an opponent or anyone that wishes to share anything about the application with me. Other than receiving the staff report and coordinating with staff regarding the date and time of this meeting and receiving and reviewing the exhibits that comprise the record. I do not have any interest in the outcome of this application and I do not have any interest in either the applicant or anyone associated with the applicant. I do not stand to gain anything by my decision on this application. I have no bias and I have not prejudged this application. At this time, if anyone wishes to challenge my ability to serve as the hearing examiner on this application, please state so now. And I will pause for a moment. OK. Hearing none, the procedure for this evening

3:56 will be as follows. First, I will hear from the applicant and anyone associated with the applicant's team. And second, I will hear from staff and then we will hear from any members of the public that wish to provide testimony regarding this application. And if you wish to do so, there is a raise hand button on your screen that you can hit. And then we will elevate you to be a panelist and you can provide your testimony. My decision will be issued following the close of the record, 14 working days after the close of the record. And my decision may be appealed to city council. I will be making my decision on the basis of master plan approval criteria per a development agreement. And I'm not going to go into all of the details of that at this time, but we will be addressing that more during the testimony this evening. At the end of any public testimony,

4:56 I will turn it back to the applicant for any rebuttal. I will also be asking the applicant if they have reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and if they have any questions or concerns regarding those proposed conditions. And then I will turn it back to staff one last time for any closing remarks. Are there any questions? All right. Hearing none, we will start with the applicant. And I will-- it looks like Mr. Odren has unmuted. So I will go ahead and swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Great. Thank you. You may proceed. You're welcome. Thank you, examiner Marshall. I appreciate it. It's my first time in front of you, so it's nice to meet you. My name is Mike Odren. I am a land use planner and landscape architect with Macase Pizito.

5:55 Address is 18405 Southeast Mill Plain Boulevard, Suite 100, Vancouver, Washington. I'd like to also mention that our development team is here today. We have our architect, our civil engineer, as well as our traffic engineer in case there are any questions that pertain to them. I'd also like to thank staff for preparing the staff report. Mr. Jones is here. Hi, Keith. It's been a while. At this time, I would like to present the PowerPoint presentation that I have prepared that explains the project. And I will hopefully-- am I sharing right now? Yes, I can see that. Can everyone else online see the first slide? Very good.

6:53 Again, this is a public hearing for the MAV mixed use development. As you can see here, this is a rendering of the project. And we'll have additional renderings later on to show. The proposal, as is indicated in the staff report, is for a phased mixed use development on about five acres, as you mentioned, at the southeast corner-- sorry, southwest corner of Southeast 136th Avenue and Southeast 4th Street, which consists of three three-story 24-unit buildings, one three-story 18-unit building, two three-story 15-unit buildings. Those buildings happen to have three live-work units in each unit on the ground floor, one four-story 32-unit building, a 3,700-square-foot one-story community building with 1,590 square feet of office space.

7:51 Site amenities include a swimming pool, a topwater playground, a plaza area, dog run, and multiple plaza areas throughout the development. The surface parking, landscaping, and other infrastructural improvements. And it should be noted that the four existing lots will be combined into one lot prior to any building permit issuance. I should also note that, as you mentioned previously, that the site is subject to a development agreement that was first enacted in 1997, so that this project is being reviewed under the 1997 Vancouver zoning ordinance, rather than the Vancouver municipal code, except for a couple of code sections which were not included within the Vancouver zoning ordinance. And I believe that that mainly is solid waste and recycling,

8:47 as well as all of the engineering's requirements as well.

8:57 The vicinity map shows the site here outlined. And the aerial photo is showing that the site is-- the majority of the site is vacant with no significant vegetation, except for the southern approximately 70 feet, which is an existing parking lot. The existing parking lot was created or developed after the development of Stonehill development to the south. It was designed to be shared parking with Stonehill development to the south, as well as future development on these particular parcels as well. The, I believe, as part of the purchase sale agreement, the shared parking agreement was to be extinguished, so that the existing parking along there would be developed as part of this development.

9:56 And as indicated in the staff report, it should be noted that an analysis was taken of the Stonehill development to the south, that there is sufficient existing parking for the two existing office buildings down there over and above what the minimum requirement is for office parking, according to the current Vancouver Municipal Code. As mentioned in the staff report, the comprehensive plan is industrial, and the current zoning is OCI. However, the zoning under which this is being reviewed is--

10:42 you see-- I believe it was industrial. MC, correct? MC. That's correct. All right. And this is being reviewed under the mixed use ordinance provisions of that Vancouver zoning ordinance. Now for a few photographs-- I'm sorry, quite a few photographs of the existing site, should you not have visited the site previously. And I will try to go through these as expeditiously as possible. But as you can see here, I've numbered these for where the pictures were taken. This would be as part of the in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot. Looking to the west-- or sorry, to the east. Looking northeast from the southwest corner of the existing parking lot.

11:39 Looking north, and you can see the existing trees there. And those trees surround an existing stormwater facility that was built as part of the parking lot addition that will be removed as part of this development. And I will pause here. I'm just getting over one of the longest colds I've ever had. And I do have a pretty significant cough, so I'm going to try to maintain as much as possible. If I do start coughing, I will mute myself until I finish. This is a picture of that existing stormwater facility. As we're looking southeast from the west side of the site, looking across from the west to the east, and you can see the slight rise in the ground there. And then looking north from the west side of the site, we'll now move to the northwest corner of the site

12:37 as we look to the south, look to the southwest, and now look to the east. We are in the northern portion of the site where we're looking to the west, to the southwest, to the southeast, and to the east. Now we're in the northeast corner of the site, looking west, looking southwest, and looking south. Now we're in the southeast corner of the site, looking to the northwest. Now we're in the eastern portion of the existing parking lot, looking to the north, in the eastern portion of the parking lot,

13:36 looking to the west. Now looking to the south, that's the drive connection that currently goes into that existing parking lot that will be removed, as well as this drive aisle will be removed as well. From the south central portion of that parking lot, looking to the east, and looking to the north, and looking to the west. Now we are on the east side of Northeast 136th Avenue, looking to the northwest, to the west, and to the southwest. We're on the north side of Northeast 4th Avenue, looking to the west, to the south, and to the west. You will note that there are mature street trees

14:35 that are along both Northeast 4th Avenue -- sorry, 4th Street and Northeast 136th Avenue. Some of those will be removed for construction of a new driveway approach, with additional street trees added where the driveway approach was removed, as well as additional street trees installed along Northeast 136th Avenue, where there are none presently, and replacing one of the existing ones, as has been identified by the urban forester that is in poor health. Moving on to the plans. This is the existing conditions plan, showing the four existing lots, as well as the parking lot along the south side. This is the site and master plan, showing the locations of the buildings with -- Can you see my cursor? -Yes, I can see your cursor. -Very good.

15:35 I just wanted to point out the buildings along 4th Street. This building here and this building here, they contain the live/work units along the ground forward. Those will have sidewalk accesses directly into those bottom units. Those units are designed to have commercial uses or office uses as part of the front portion, meaning the frontage portion of the units themselves for direct access for customers or patrons. In the central area here, we have the community building and the office building with the recreational portion of it just to the south, the intent being that we tried to focus most of the buildings around this central area. With the play area, dog park, swimming pool and pool deck, a little grassy area there for sunning,

16:31 and then we have a couple of the smaller plaza areas down -- the central area between buildings C and D.

16:43 The Level 5 tree plan, it does show removal of all of the existing trees that are along the southern portion of the project that just simply can't be kept. They're basically the parking lot trees that are in there, although the ones that abut the southern property line that are just off the property will be retained. And also the retention of two existing trees in the northwest corner of the site that should be able to be maintained. Pending, grading, I think we've been able to do that such. They are located within an existing water easement, but staff has not mentioned anything about that. There hasn't been any issues, and it also helps us meet our minimum tree density requirements. Over here off 136, we've identified one tree, and these plans are a little bit different.

17:42 They're updated from what is currently in the record. It should be noted that this project is being reviewed as a streamlined project where we did submit final engineering plans with our land-use application. We have received a couple rounds of red-line comments and have adjusted the project accordingly. Very minor changes. The main change has been if I can figure out how to back up here. Nope. Let's see. There we go. Building C, this location here is a four-story building. It was adjusted, and the parking along it adjusted as well to meet minimum aerial apparatus access requirements as required by the fire marshal,

18:39 as well as ADA parking for the four Type A ADA units that are in there as well. The rest of the project pretty much remains as designed. We did remove one of the carports that was located within the existing sewer easement down to the south side of Building C.

19:04 Now we have the landscape plan, as mentioned previously. We are meeting the tree density requirement. We do exceed that by two tree units. We also show the additional street trees that are being added along 136th Avenue as well as the new street trees along 4th Street where the existing driveway has been removed.

19:34 Oh, as well as the replacement.

20:04 [ Silence ]

20:35 ...of the development and the massing of the buildings, their relationships to property lines and such. And then this is an aerial view looking to the east with the pool area in this location here, carports located, and its relation to the existing office building to the south, another multifamily project that this sort of emulates. This is a project that was also done by the same developer located to the east and then the 711 and feeling facility to the north. This is a street view looking to the southeast where you can see the relationship particularly of the live-work units along here where they actually have storefront-esque frontages that would emulate more of a commercial type of use.

21:34 That's not the commercial use that we are proposing here in order to meet the requirements. We are proposing that office use. Before I do get to the summary, at this point in time, I would like to note just a couple of corrections in the staff report at this time. Page 17, the first paragraph at the top. These are the building comments. It says project proposes that for the 152 units, 228 stalls are required. We are proposing 328, 234 have been provided. It says 5%, 12 type A units are required. I believe that should be eight units. And we have clarified that with the building department

22:30 that yes, we are proposing eight type A units, ADA compliant units. And then in the next paragraph, in the last sentence, it indicates for this site, there will need to be 10%, 24 EV charging stations, 25%, 38 EV ready parking spaces and 10%, 24 EV capable parking spaces. The 25% of 234 is actually 59. And in our latest site plan that we've submitted, we do meet the minimum EV charging stations for each type. It also indicates down below that a separate demolition permit for removal of each existing building is required. There are no existing buildings.

23:28 That's more for clarification. And then on page 20, condition of approval 16, it indicates show accessible route and indicate which play features have accessible components on the site plan. I've been in contact with the building official with regards to this. The determination has been that the play area does need to be along an accessible route, which we have shown on the site plan. And I can go back to the site plan and show you that route here. Where is, there it is. Looking for my cursor. There we go.

24:22 This is the accessible route at this location here. An accessible route, it routes all throughout the subject property. We have shown the accessible route in a hatch pattern as requested by the building official. It connects all of the buildings and uses on site, as well as to the adjacent sidewalks. And as well as adjacent to the dog park play area and access to the pool. It should be noted that one thing I didn't mention was as far as transportation improvements are concerned, the only requirements are to replace any sections of the existing sidewalks along 136 Avenue and Northeast 4th Street that do not currently meet ADA standards. We have shown that on our civil engineering plans.

25:20 There are several panels that are lifting presently, and we've been requested by the city of Vancouver to get those ground down now prior to construction. And that is ongoing. We just were notified of that just recently. Back to the condition of approval. Indicates to show the accessible route, but it also indicates which play features have accessible components on the site plan. At this time, we do not have a design for the play structure. And I do not believe, unless I am corrected by staff, that the city reviews private play structures for ADA compliance. That is a function of the playground designer to ensure that the play structure or equipment themselves

26:20 meet the minimum ADA requirements for that. So I would request that the line and indicate which play structures have accessible components so that it would read show accessible route on site plan. Or something along the lines of show accessible route to the play area on the site plan. Okay. - I have yet, over almost 25 years, had a jurisdiction review, a play structure for ADA compliance, that that is a requirement of the playground designer. And I don't believe that either the Vancouver zoning ordinance nor the Vancouver municipal code

27:18 speaks to a review of a private playground equipment. If this were a public park, I could see where a review of that would be necessary. - Got it. - In summary, based on the application materials, analysis, findings of fact, and conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and recommendation to the hearings examiner, the proposed project meets the criteria for master plan approval, as well as site plan approval, should therefore be approved. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant agrees with the staff report findings and conditions of approval, except as discussed during this hearing. I'm now available for any questions you might have. - Okay, thank you, Mr. Oderin.

28:15 I was taking notes earlier this afternoon when I was reviewing the staff report and it sounds like, yeah, you've addressed the sidewalks and taken some good notes here on your condition of approval 16 with respect to the design of the playground. Let me just take a quick peek at my notes. And it may be that, is your traffic engineer going to be testifying this evening? Because I may just let him. - I do not have, either the traffic engineer, civil engineer or architect are available for any questions you might have. - Yeah, well, I think at this time, I'm gonna just hold my questions. I don't know if the applicant has additional persons that are going to be making a presentation. I thought that yours was very thorough and I very much appreciate the visuals.

29:14 That's always very helpful. And it's wonderful to have a key showing me where the photos were taken from. So thank you for that. - No, at this time, we had not intended on having any of the design team testify at this time. - Okay, not a problem. All right, other than your testimony, I guess at this time, then I will turn it to Mr. Jones. So Mr. Jones, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, thank you. I would ask you before you get started to just make sure that your testimony covers the few points that Mr. Odron made, especially with respect to proposed condition 16. - Yeah, those are comments that were directly from our building department and that's just not an area of my expertise,

30:13 but I know that, and Mr. Odron, correct me if I'm wrong, you had indicated, I know you're doing our process. So examiner Marshall, they submit engineering drawings at their own risk and we'll process those. And I believe you've also submitted building permit. Is that correct, Mr. Odron? - I do not believe we have submitted any building permits at this time. - Okay, okay, I thought you might have, but okay. - We have been working with the building official with regards to their review of the site plan, which focuses on ADA compliance primarily and ADA routing. - Okay, and I do agree. I mean, what you said made sense to me. I just can't directly verify. It's just not, I'm just not a subject matter expert to verify that. I mean, I could, oh, go ahead. - I do have an email correspondence with the building official indicating that yes,

31:11 her main concern was that we did have the playground area along an accessible route. She stayed silent on indicating whether or not she would be reviewing the playground for ADA compliance. But I believe that our discussion was satisfied or was resolved to her satisfaction with regards to ADA compliance for the playground. - Okay, and just a clarifying question actually, Mr. Odron. You mentioned that, and I appreciate that all of this is kind of happening all at once. So you mentioned that you had made some revisions to the site plan with respect to building C and just like you said, some minor changes, and then you just referenced this email correspondence. Can you get those to Ms. Brown to include in the record?

32:10 - Oh yes, absolutely. - Great, perfect, okay, that's all I have. All right, Mr. Jones, you may present your staff report and I will be taking notes and seeing if I have any questions. Thank you. - Sure, thank you. Thank you, examiner Marshall. Again, I'm Keith Jones. I'm a senior planner and work in development review with the city of Vancouver. I think I'll just, Mr. Odron prepared a good presentation covering most of the aspects. I'll just talk more about the procedure. So the application was accepted in November, November 5th of last year. We went through a completeness review and that was deemed fully complete December 9th of last year, following that, we did a notice of application and a notice of public hearing as required by the code and state law.

33:07 And we allowed for a 30 day comment period, which is also part of our code procedures. We noticed 500 feet from the outer boundaries of the development based on a mailing provided by the applicant. We posted the site and we also put it in the Colombian newspaper. During that 30 day comment period, we did not receive any public comments. I'll also note that the project is categorically exempt from SEPA, so there was no SEPA notice prepared. Following that, we took internal staff comments due to our own deadline and as Mr. Odron indicated, they also submitted for a civil engineering review. And that's also why there are a lot of sheets in the drawing set, just because of the amount of detail that was provided. Then two weeks before this hearing on March 3rd, we issued the staff report. That staff report recommends approval

34:06 with the conditions as stated in the staff report and that's staff's recommendation as of tonight. Other than that, I don't really have any other specific things. Up until the issuance of the staff report, we will mark the staff report as exhibit one to the eventual hearings examiner decision. All of the exhibits submitted with that report are lettered and those are as stated in the staff report, that anything that we receive after the issuance of the staff report two weeks before the hearing, we will then letter those. And I think the only thing that we've received is Mr. Odron's presentation, which I believe will be submitted as exhibit two. And then I guess if Mr. Odron also has some additional email correspondence to enter into the record, then we will enter those as the subsequent numbers. So no public comments received

35:06 during the 30-day comment period. And I don't really have anything else to add at this time. - Okay, thank you very much. I had a question that I wrote down looking at the review clock, 170 days after the date the application was complete. So do you have a date or an estimate as to where we are in that timeline? - Yeah, so when we, well, for a couple of points, so yes, it was deemed complete on 12/9, but we also, when the applicant elects to submit civil engineering drawings, they also agree to waive their time period for doing that additional process and for us accelerating the process for them.

36:02 So there isn't, they do, 'cause they don't have to do the combined process. They can do what we call the standard process and go through a land use review with preliminary plans and then come back for engineering. So that's just a point of order there, so. - Excellent, okay, thank you. I don't have any other questions for you, Mr. Jones. Is there anyone else from the city that is going to be providing any testimony? I hadn't requested anybody else to be present, but. - There's no one else here from the city tonight except for that's prepared for testimony. Of course, Ms. Bowen is here as our admin staff. - Great, okay, thank you. All right, well, we will now turn it over, open it up for any public testimony. Is there anyone that wishes to provide testimony

37:01 on this application this evening? And I'll wait for a moment.

37:12 Ms. Bowen, can you see whether there's anyone online that perhaps you don't recognize their name and maybe they wish to testify? I think that you said that Furcrest had submitted something. - Furcrest had said that they were going to attend and may provide public testimony during the public comment, but they definitely gave us notice that they wanted to attend the hearing. - Okay. - So Margaret Milam is here and I believe Martha, I'm sorry, Martha, I forgot your last name and I don't want to guess, but I'm not seeing them raise their hands, but they may want to provide. - Okay. - Here's Margaret Milam with Furcrest. - Hi, good evening. I'm going to swear you in real quick, Ms. Milam. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, okay, can you state your name and spell your last name for the record?

38:09 - Sure, Margaret Milam, spelled M as in Mary, I-L-E-M as in Mary. - Okay, great, go ahead. - Yeah, so our intention really was just to listen, but whenever our neighbor's association is brought up, I go ahead and jump in and in the case of developments by this particular developer, the comment is always, we just appreciate how much they have worked at keeping our neighborhood association informed about the process, the progress and the specifics to the developments. So that is the end of my public comment. - Wonderful, I appreciate it, thank you very much. Martha, it looks like you have turned on your camera. No, you have nothing else to add. All right, well, thank you. Is there anyone else online that wishes to provide testimony this evening? Please raise your hand if you do.

39:05 - I'm not seeing anyone else, examiner Marshall. - All right, excellent. Okay, well, then now is the time for me to turn it back to... Oh, go ahead. - I'm sorry, Mike Oden, I think has something to offer. - Yes. - Just a clarification, which I failed to mention during my testimony. I did present this project to the Furcrest Neighborhood Association several months ago. And they were happy to hear that we presented it, first of all, went into great detail, indicated that we were keeping all of the street trees, adding additional ones, and that it's been a pleasure to have met with the Furcrest Neighborhood Association on not only this project, but I also presented another project to them that we had a hearing on a few weeks back.

40:04 So it was kind of double duty. So I failed to mention that to you previously, and just want to let you know that that is what we did. - Well, thank you. I think it's very nice when applicants communicate with surrounding neighbors that might be impacted by development. So thank you for that. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add before we go ahead and close the public hearing, Mr. Oden? - No, nothing further, thank you though. - Okay, Mr. Jones, did you have anything else that you wish to add? - I don't have anything else to add, thank you. - All right, thank you. Other than the slides and any revisions to the site plan and perhaps some of the email correspondence, is there any need to keep the written record open at the close of this public hearing? - No. - Okay. - I don't see any. - All right, well, thank you all. I will go ahead and close the public hearing now.

41:03 It is 6.40 p.m. on Tuesday, the 17th. I want to thank everyone for your professional testimony. And I appreciate the time that you spent this evening explaining this project. Any questions for me before we all log off? - No. - All right. Well, thank you. - Thank you, examiner Marshall. - Thank you examiner Marshall. - Thank you all. - Nice to meet you, bye-bye. - Thank you, examiner Marshall. - Thanks. - Good night. - Good night, everyone. - Good night. - Thank you. (upbeat music)