Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

Alright. Good evening, folks. We'll we'll start the briefing this evening, and we'll start with roll call.

Good evening.

Chairman Fraser? Here. Vice chair Mujica? Present. Commissioner Stone? Here. Commissioner Kirk? Here. Commissioner Kielarski? Here. Commissioner Brady? Here. Commissioner Voigtman?

Ready to rock and roll.

Nice. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, staff. Go ahead and get started with the briefing. Can you think of this on your way or what? You're right here. No. He's spontaneous.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Romeo Gummerang, principal planner with comprehensive planning. And I will be leading at tonight's planning commission briefing. And we will, I will retract that and we'll start over.

Well no, I think we're good. I think I was remiss and I guess the first item of business is public comments. So I'm gonna open this item up for public comments and anyone in the audience can come down and make a public comment. Public comment, seeing no one coming down, we will close public comments and now we can go to staff briefing.

Let's do this again. Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Romeo Gummerang, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning. And I will be leading the Planning Commission briefing for tonight's meeting. The first items are routine items.

Item number four, extension of time. In this case the second extension of time of a use permit for an outside dining in conjunction of an existing restaurant and eliminate pedestrian access. Staff supports the extension of time since there is an active building changes have occurred on the subject site or on the surrounding properties. Spring Valley Town Board recommended an approval. There are four cards in support and three cards against this request.

Item number five, the tenant and map for a condominium. The site was previously reclassified to RM 18 zoning via zone change 20 three-nine 35 for a multi family residential development. We had an approved extension of time twenty six-four-zero-seventeen to extend that associated waivers of development standards and design review for two years. This tentative map meets the requirements and standards of Title 30. Indian Springs Town Board recommended approval.

Item number six, to vacate a portion of the right of way for an installation of a detached sidewalk. Paradise Town Board recommended approval. Approval that there are two cards in support of this request and three cards against this request. The following items are companion item seven and eight. This includes the waiver of development standards to increase the height of the retaining wall and design review for modifications to a previously approved mini warehouse facility.

The subject site was previously approved for mini warehouse facility in May 2024 under use permit twenty four-ninety three. The increased retaining wall and fill height results from necessary drainage and grading adjustments. The site will be lowered relative to the adjacent homes reducing potential impacts. Existing wall along the commercial properties reach at 12.5 feet and proposed increase adds up to five feet above the current conditions. Staff supports the request and added height will not negatively affect surrounding properties.

Item number eight, oh, the Spring Valley Town Board recommends approval. There were one card and one letter of support received and two cards against the request. Item number eight is a proposed tentative map consisting of a one commercial lot and meets title 30 matches the accompanying design review and previous approvals on the site. The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. Item number nine, this is a PA, plan amendment, to redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial NC to Ranch Estate Neighborhood RN.

The existing rural residential development on the subject site and the adjacent parcels to the south and east, it is not determined that commercial development at this location may not be appropriate, and redesignating the parcels to the ranch estate neighborhood category will help maintain the consistent and compatible development pattern in the area between Sagebrush Street and Pecos Road. Paradise Standing Board recommended approval. One card in support and one card or letter I should say against the request. The following items, item number ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen are companion items. The first one is plan amendment.

This is to redesignate the existing land use category from mid intensity suburban neighborhood to urban neighborhood. The proposed land use category is compatible with the surrounding area. Board of County Commissioners have already approved an R4 zoning for the site per NZZ twenty two dash zero zero six eight in May 2022, which allows a density that would be conforming to the proposed urban urban neighborhood land use category. The request complies with the policy one point one point one of the master plan and staff plans the request appropriate for this location. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

Two cards of support has been received. The following against 10 cards, five letters, and one petition has been received. Item 11 is a zone change to request to r m 32 zoning. It's compatible with the surrounding area. The abutting properties in the north and south are planned for neighborhood commercial.

The adjacent property to the west is planned for corridor mixed use and zone c g. The abutting property to the east is developed as a as an r s three three zone single family residential subdivision. The adjacent property to the east of that subdivision is Zone R M 18. Staff finds the request to RM 32 zoning is appropriate for this location. Item number 12 is to vacate a portion of the right of way to accommodate detached sidewalk and patent easements that is no longer necessary for the development of this site.

Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. Three cards of support has been received and the following against 13 cards, five letters, and one petition. Item number 13, request for waivers to reduce parking, increase building height, and reduce setback for proposed multifamily development. The request to reduce the on-site parking to three thirty spaces where three forty two spaces are required. Increasing the height to 61 feet where the maximum is 50 is allowed and reduce the side street setback for carports to 16 feet where 20 is required.

Previously approved NCZ twenty two-sixty eight had the same number of parking spaces provided with 27 more dwelling units and was at the time in compliance with the code. The increased height is oriented away from adjacent single family residential units uses rather and required setbacks and existing right of way widths provide adequate buffering. Staff finds the requests not appear to create adverse impacts to the site operations or surrounding streets. The proposed height does not introduce new or greater impacts than the previously approved design. The setback reduction is only proposed for carports and the location of the carports matches the previously approved plans.

Therefore, steps are supports all the waivers. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. Two cards of support has been received. 10 cards of protest, five five letters against, and one a petition against request. The next following items are companion items number fourteen, fifteen, and 16.

First one is a plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from open lands to corridor mixed use. The request for Centimeters land use category is appropriate for this location. There are properties planned Centimeters directly west of this site and farther south near the intersections of US 95 and State Route 163. The proposed amendment to policy 1.6 of the master plan which encouraged the viability and livability of Clark County's outlying community staff supports this request. There are no town board on this one.

There were eight cards of support that has been received. One letter of protest against this request. Item number 15 is a zone change to reclassify the property from an H2, general highway frontage, to CG commercial general zone. This area is vastly surrounded by undeveloped RS 80 and H2 zoning and rezoning of the property to CG should not be detrimental to the area. The conversion to an appropriate zoning district is encouraged by the county.

The rezoning will adhere to the policy 5.5.1 of the master plan, which urge redesignating or designating and supporting the development of industrial and employment uses in areas that are approximate to major air, rail, and highway facilities. Staff supports this request for the CG Zoning District. It's appropriate for this location. There were seven cards of approval received and one letter of protest. Item number 16 is a waiver development standards.

This is for the proposed communication utility building compound and all ancillary and associated equipment. This development includes waivers to eliminate street landscaping along US 95 where 10 foot wide street landscape area containing large trees in every 30 feet on center is required. Eliminate buffering and screening requirements along the Northeast and south property lines where a 15 foot wide landscape strip consisting of two offset rows of evergreen trees are required. The proposed design of the communication utility building compound is similar to those found in other parts of the county. The structures are relatively small in relation to the overall site and are set back significantly from US 95 right of way and the surrounding property lines.

The buildings are painted in neutral desert way and blends into surrounding areas. While no landscaping is being provided, the maintenance and restoration of the existing natural desert landscaping will better serve the site and the non native species. STAFF finds proposed communication utility building compound will support the master plan policies and STAFF supports this request. There were six cards of support and two letters of protest against this request. That concludes the non routine items.

Sounds good, thank you staff. So I'll turn it over to our commissioners for questions on the routine action items, and we'll start with vice chair Waikka.

This is regarding item number 16 that you just read. What assurance do we have or what's the procedure or guidelines for restoring the natural elements? How are we going to make sure they do what they're supposed to be doing? Because we're giving them a waiver of landscape, right, so that they can keep the natural?

Right, so The upkeep of I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

The upkeep of the natural, you just read it. Natural elements, item number 16.

Right, so without the new introduction of landscaping material on there, that will preserve the natural landscape of the surrounding in So the that basically just saying that no new landscaping is being introduced in that area in terms of species.

Right, so preserving the natural area. How do we make sure that they're not going to let the plants die and it's just going to be without What assurance do we have that they're going to preserve the natural area?

So I think this is in regards to eliminating landscaping overall. So what staff is saying is that if they start providing all these codes requirement, it's kind of out of character for the area. We don't generally support these standards to be waived, but they're saying basically given the lack of residential development to the East of US Highway 95 and the difficulty of maintaining non native desert landscaping for this area, staff finds the site would be enhanced by maintaining the existing native desert vegetation. So basically, are saying instead of bringing all these urban standards to this area, we better just keep the natural vegetation as is. And We don't have any issue with that, basically.

And nobody maintains it, so it's just if they die, they die?

I mean, we have a section in the code for maintaining the landscaping. We don't have a code enforcement. Our department doesn't have a code enforcement. But if they are in violation, they are in violation. So there is standards for maintaining landscaping. That's their responsibility to

So there is code violation if they don't maintain it and preserve it.

Correct, yeah. We have sometimes code violation for dried vegetation, trees. So they bring it to us and we make sure that they comply with code.

Alright. Alright. Any other questions on routine? Alright. Let's let's go to non routine.

Alright. Moving on to non routine action items. Item number 17, use permit 26049. This was the holdover from the early April Planning Commission meeting. Just to recap, this is a use permit to allow for outdoor storage along with waivers of the outdoor storage adjacent to residential districts.

Also to allow for a six foot high screen wall along the Northeast property line. Eliminate street landscaping along Fremont Street. Allow chain link fence along Fremont Street where fence is all and wall along the street shall be decorative. The increase in the height within the front setback of six feet where three feet is the maximum allowed in the front yard area. And staff recommended denial on this request.

The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended denial. No letter of support or cards and protest against this item has been received. Just a note that this item has been held twice. Item number 18, waiver development standards, WS260154 holdover. This is a wayward to reduce the rear setback in conjunction of the existing single family residence to legalize the home gym and storage building that has been constructed.

Staff is recommending denial because the required setback reduction for the addition is self imposed hardship and construction without a permit. Item was previously held by the Planning Commission and is returning tonight for consideration. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval. There are three cards of support and three cards against the request. Item number 19, waiver waiver development standards, request to reduce the rear rear end rear side interior setbacks for an existing detached carport.

Staff finds that a similar request was approved for the property to the south for a detached metal carport. Staff is concerned that the carport does not match residence in colors or materials and request may have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The request is, as stated, is a self imposed hardship and cannot support the waiver development standards. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. One card and one letter of support has been received.

And no protest cards has been received. Item number 20, WS twenty six zero one seven eight, waiver request to eliminate the side interior for detached carport and side street setbacks of an existing patio cover. Request to reduce building separation between existing carport and the house. The subject site has an active code enforcement case for building without a permit. The RV cover is too large for the area and resulted in a self imposed hardship.

The site has sufficient area to build the patio cover. Could have been constructed to meet the required setbacks. The applicant has provided letter of support from the adjacent neighbor to the north. However, elimination and reduction of setbacks and separation generally decreased aesthetic appeal of residential areas and posed negative impacts for the surrounding neighborhood. Staff cannot support this request.

The support Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval. Three cards for approval and two cards rather against the request. Item 21, waiver to reduce the side interior setback and allow the side interior setback for the primary structure to not be in accordance with RS 20 district standards. The site has enough space on the lot to comply with title 30 setback requirements. Proposed addition may have a negative impact on the adjacent properties and the parcel in the neighborhood protection overlay.

The overlay seeks to preserve the required setbacks for primary structures per section 30,002,026. Considers this request to be self imposed hardship and cannot support this request. The Lone Mountain CAC recommended approval. There were two cards of support and three cards against request. Items 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are being held to the July 7 Planning Commission meeting and likewise to the 08/05/2026 Board of County Commissioners.

The next items are companion items 27, 28, and twenty nine and thirty. Plan amendment to redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial to business employment. The request to redesignate the site to business employment is too intense for and not compatible with the areas on the West Side Of Edmond Street. The site is adjacent to existing single family residences in the RS 20 zone within the NPO neighborhood protection overlay to the West. The request does not comply with the policy 6.221 six point two point one of the master plan, which promotes ensuring the design and intensity of the new development is compatible with established neighborhoods and uses.

The request is no not consistent with the policy one point four point four of the master plan, which encourages infill development that is compatible with the scale and intensity of the surrounding area. Therefore, staff cannot support this request. The Spring Valley Town Board recommended denial. One card of support has been received. Six cards and one letter letter of against the request.

Item 28, the zone change to reclassify the site from RS20 and CP. RS20 residential single family 20 and CP commercial professional to industrial park IP. Staff finds their request for industrial park zoning district is too intense for the surrounding area, especially on the West Side Of Edmond

Street.

Industrial park zone allows for various light manufacturing use, including vehicle maintenance, distribution centers, warehouse, flex space, technology, and light industry. The site is adjacent to an existing Rancho State neighborhood to the West. The proposed industrial park or IP would permit higher intensity uses to further encroach into the established NPO RNP overlay. Edmond Street should function as a border between the industrial uses to the East and the NPO RNP farther to the West. For these reasons, staff finds that the IP zoning is not appropriate for this location.

The next item is to vacation to request and abandon the easements and portions of the right of way as these easements are no longer needed for the development. And vacation of the right of way are being requested to be vacated to accommodate for the detached sidewalks. The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. One card in support has been received. Seven cards and one letter received against the request.

Item number 30 is waiver development standards. The applicant is requesting waivers for the reduced setback for the proposed fire pump building and for loading space adjacent to residential development. Staff finds the fire pump building can be relocated elsewhere on the site without needing a waiver. So staff cannot support this request. The loading area on the office's side of the main building from the residential area and it's fully screened with the added buffer setback and architectural treatment, that staff can could support the waiver.

However, staff is not supporting the companion items including the design review. Staff is unable to support the waiver request. Spring Valley Town Board recommended denial. And one card of support has been received. Six cards and one letter against the request.

The following items are item 31, 32, 33, and 34. First is the plan amendment to re designate the site from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood. The master plan encourages higher density uses. Staff finds the compact neighborhood land use designation appropriate for this location. The enterprise town board recommend approval.

Three cards and one letter for support and five cards for against the request. Item 32, zone change to reclassify from CG to RS two. Staff finds that the site is no longer viable as CG or Commercial General. The area has transitioned more towards residential development. The RS two zoning on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is in harmony with the development trends for the area.

Staff finds the RS two zoning is appropriate for this location. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. Two cards and two letters of support and five cards against the request. Item 33, waiver development standards for attached single family residential development with waivers. The applicant submitted revised plans and was previously subject to previous hold by the request of the applicant.

The building height has been reduced to 35 feet, meaning the maximum height permitted by section 30,208. Therefore, waiver number one is no longer required. The west facing balconies have been removed, eliminating the need for the waiver. Therefore, waiver, two b is no longer required. The perimeter, perimeter wall has been revised to provide a six foot tall wall along the north and the east property line, satisfying the applicable, wall height requirements.

Therefore, waivers three a, three b are no longer required. However, existing waivers remains in place and steps recommended recommendation of denial is unchanged. Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. One card and one letter of support has been has been received. Seven cards and two letters received against the the request.

Item 34 is a tentative map for for 19 lot residential subdivision. Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. The following items 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are companion items. Plan amendment to redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood. Russell Road separates higher density uses from the RS 20 RNP area to the south, and the adjacent parcels are planned for Rancho State neighborhood.

CN is too dense, complex with the policy one point five point one, and places future residents next to a gas station and vehicle wash built assuming commercial use. Step find CN is inappropriate at this location. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. One card of support received and six cards received against request. Item 36, the zone change to Currently, NCN zone RS20, which is already allowed airport compatible uses changing to CNland use and RS2 would add many more homes directly under the aircraft overflights.

The parcel lies fully within the AE60 noise contour with long established and increasing flight activity. Staff recommends denial because the proposed residential density is incompatible with the current and future airport noise levels. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. One card of support received, six cards, and one letter of protest received for this request. Item 37 is a vacation abandonment to vacate portions of Russell Road and Red Rock Street.

The Russell Road segment is needed to accommodate for detached sidewalks. The full stretch of the Red Rock Street between Russell and Quail is requested for vacation to allow development on the site. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. Two cards of of support received and six cards of protest received. Item 38, waivers development standards to the applicant proposes a townhome development with attached units.

The applicant has submitted revised plans affecting the site plan, landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, cross sections, and companion tentative map. Map. The revisions reduced the unit count from 54 to 50, increased the minimum lot area to eighteen forty eight square feet, consolidating the open space and common elements, revised wall heights, adjust private street widths and interior walkways, relocate the sub streets, reconfigure parking, update interior landscaping, and modify building layouts and architectural features with the tentative map updated accordingly. As a result, waiver number one is reduced in intensity. Waiver 2A increases the wall from eight feet to 10 feet.

And waiver number 2B can be withdrawn while remaining waivers remain unchanged. Based on these revisions, that maintains the current recommendation as the change do not substantially address concerns concerns regarding the lot size in wall height. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. One card of support received and seven cards of protest received. Item 39 is TM, tentative map for 54 lot attached single family subdivision. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. And that concludes the non routine items of this agenda. Thank you.

Thank you staff. So what I'll do is I'll turn it over to commissioners for any questions on the routine actual items that were reviewed. Commissioner Kolarski?

Yeah. I just wanna say that on item number 17, we've heard it they've come down twice. We've held it twice. Today's staff received today, and this was a month ago that we held it, a revised set of plans on what they wanna do, which has created some problems. So I'm gonna hear it again, and then I'll just decide. I believe commissioner Stone asked them to do a professional, drawing. I believe it was this particular item, but I'm not quite certain.

Yeah. I think I just said, you know, professional to scale drawing. And

did they provide that? I don't know if it was a professional to scale, but I do know that they they did send something.

It appears that we received professional to scale drawing, but they are incomplete. They're not it's literally just a box basically showing the property line. It's not showing any of the requirements we already basically worked with the customer on. So it's not something we already told the applicant. It wouldn't be acceptable as if we're even accepting the application with those plans.

Commissioner Klarsky, I would just be willing to just tell them to hold it a third time and not waste our time and go ahead and continue to work on making it right.

And if I may, actually the plan we received today triggers at least two more waivers, or maybe three. That was not listed when you when on the agenda you see tonight.

So there you have it.

Sorry. Any any other any other questions from the commissioners on routine non routine action items? Okay. No other questions. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Are there any new up and coming ordinances?

There are none.

Okay. And then the next item on our agenda are discuss any administrative items.

None at this time.

Okay. And that brings us to the last item on our agenda, is to open it up for public comments from the general public. This is a section of our meeting for the briefing that you can come down and make comments. We can't act on any of them, but you can certainly put it on the record. Seeing no one coming down for for public comments, we'll close that section of the meeting and adjourn the briefing until 07:00.