Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

So we'll call the meeting in order and we'll receive staff presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the Commission. First item on tonight's agenda is under routine action. Roll call.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's my fault. I just got here. Let me get it together.

Can I have a roll call, please? Commissioner Frazier?

Here.

Commissioner Mojica? Here.

President?

Commissioner Stone? Here. Commissioner Kirk? Excuse. Commissioner Kolarski?

Here.

Commissioner Brady?

Here.

Commissioner Reutemann? In the building. Mr. Chair, we do have a quorum. Thank you very much. Now we can get started with the first item.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the Commission. First item is under the routine action portion of our agenda. Item four is use permits for banquet facility and a live entertainment in conjunction with an existing shopping center. The live entertainment will occur indoors. However, there's some possibility of noise outside. So staff is recommending limiting the use to daytime hours only. Staff and the town board recommended approval and we received one card in support. Item five is a use permit for an avocational, vocational training facility. It's actually for a traffic school. Staff and the town board recommended approval and we received two cards in support and three cards and one letter in protest. Item six is a use permit and design review for communication tower and all ancillary equipment. This is on Angel Peak in the Mount Charleston area. It's for an 85 foot tower. Staff and the town board recommended approval and we received one card in support and one card in protest. Item seven is a use permit and design review for truck parking and outdoor storage facility. There is an outstanding or an existing CC Pro violation on the site for an unpermitted use. Staff is recommending approval. The town board did not have a quorum, so there's no recommendation from the town board, and we received three cards in support. Item eight, vacation and abandonment of easements of interest. Staff and the Town Board recommended approval. There are two cards in support and two cards received in protest. Items 9 through 12 are companion items, and they have been requested to be held no date by the applicant. Moving on to... ITEMS 13 THROUGH 15, WHICH ARE COMPANION ITEMS. ITEM 13 IS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO REDESIGNATE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY FROM PU TO NEIGHBOR COMMERCIAL NC AND 4.8 ACRES WITHIN SEARCHLIGHT. THIS IS A COMPANION WITH 14 AND 15. 14 IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM RS 80 H2 AND CG ALL TO CG. Let me back up here just for a second. The town board meeting was canceled. However, staff is recommending approval for the plan amendment. We received three cards of support and two cards and two letters in protest. For the zone change, staff is also recommending approval. We received three cards of support and three cards and two letters in protest. Item 15 is waivers of development standards to eliminate buffering and screening requirements and a design review for communication utility buildings and associated equipment on a quarter acre portion of the 4.8 acre parcel. Staff is recommending approval. We've received three cards in support and two cards and four letters in protest. So that concludes the routine action portion. Are there any questions on any of those?

Thank you very much. Any questions from the board on the routine action items? All right. Seeing none, we'll continue.

Okay. Item 16 is a waiver development standards second extension of time. This is for modified commercial driveway design standards. It's a design review for vehicle maintenance development in five acres. Staff is recommending denial due in part to development activity that has already occurred in the area that has changed since the Application was first approved. The Town Board recommended approval, and we received one card in support. Item 17, it's a third extension of time for waivers of development standards for single-family lots to have direct access to a collector street, which is Grand Canyon Drive. Staff is recommending denial due to No significant progress since the second extension of time. The Lone Mountain Board did not have a quorum for the meeting date, so there's no recommendation from them. We received one card support and six cards in protest. Item 18 is a holdover waiver of development standards to eliminate and reduce setbacks for existing single-family residents. There is an act of CC-PRO. case on the site for building without permits. Staff and the town board recommended denial. We did receive revised plans that were requested. And as a result, waiver development standards 1C and 1D can be withdrawn. However, the recommendation for denial is not changed. We received one card support and two letters in protest. Item 19 is waivers of development standards to increase height, reduce setbacks for proposed and existing accessory buildings for existing single-family residents. Staffers are recommending denial, and the Town Board has also recommended denial for the waiver of development standards, number one, and approval of waiver number two. We received one card and one letter in support and two cards and one letter in protest. Items 20 through 23 are companion items. They've been requested to be held to no date by the applicant. However, we did receive information that the applicant may wish to have these items heard after all. They would have to request in front of the commission to have that hold removed. We also have not received revised plans for this project. Going on to item 24, it's a plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from MN to CN. This is a companion with items 25, 26, 27, and 28. Staff is recommending approval. The town board recommended denial. We did receive one card in support, five cards in one letter in protest. Item 25 is a zone change to reclassify 1.44 acres from RS-20 to RM-18. Staff is recommending approval. The town board recommended denial. There was one card in support received and six cards in one letter in protest. 26 is the vacation and abandonment of easements of interest. Staff and the town board are recommending approval. We receive one card in support and six cards and one letter in protest. Item 27, amended waivers of development standards. The item, or waiver number two, is no longer needed. The design review for single family, it's a design review for a single family attached residential development on 1.44 acres. Staff and the town board are both recommending denial. There is one card in support and seven cards and one letter in protest. Item 28 is a tentative map for 14 single-family residential lots. Staff and the town board both recommend denial. Item 29 is a plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to entertainment mixed use. on 2.16 acres. This is a companion with items 30 and 31. Staff is recommending approval. The town board recommended denial, and we received two cards in support and seven letters in protest. Item 30, vacate and abandon a portion of right-of-way. Staff recommends approval. Town Board recommends denial. And we receive three cards of support and eight cards in protest. For item 31, this is for the project itself. It's a use permit for an office as a principal use and waivers of development standards to reduce setbacks, increase building height, and alternative driveway geometrics, and also design review for proposed mixed-use development and 2.16 acres. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver development standards number three and the use permit, but denial of waivers number one, number two, and the design review. The town board recommended denial, and there are two cards received in support and seven cards in protest. Items 32 through 34 are companion items. These are all being requested to be held by the applicant until July 7th, 2026 PC and the August 5th, 2026 BCC. That's followed then by items 35 through 38, which are companion items. And these are requested to be held by the applicant until July 7th, 2026 and August 5th, 2026 BCC. Then we have items 39 through 43, companion items requested to be held by the applicant until July 7th, 2026 B.C. and the August 5th, 2026 B.C.C. So then we move down to items, starting with items 44. These are companion items 44 through 48. 44 is a plan amendment from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood on 4.5 acres. Staffers recommending approval. Town board recommended denial. We receive eight cards and five letters in protest. The zone change is from CG to RM18. Staff is recommending approval and the town board is recommending denial. We've received seven cards and three letters in protest. Item 46, vacation and abandonment of easements of interest. Staff is recommending approval. Town Board recommending denial. We received eight cards and three letters in protest. Item 47, waivers of development standards for several items, including a reduced setback. reduce lot size, increase retaining wall height, eliminate parking area landscaping, reduce street landscaping, and modify driveway geometrics. Also, design review for proposed single-family attached residential development. Staff is recommending approval of waivers two, three, five, and six, and denial of waivers one, and four, and also the design review. The town board recommended denial for all items. We received nine cards and three letters in protest. And then item 48 is a tentative map for 52 single-family residential lots on the site. Staff is recommending approval, and the town board is recommending denial. We received one letter in protest. And the last item for the briefing tonight will be from Martin, who will brief you on an ordinance that's proposed.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Martin Gies with the Advanced Planning Division. I also have here Mark Donahue. He's put a lot of hard work into this ordinance and others in the future, and so he's here to help answer any questions. This is Ordinance 26900-423 to amend Title 30, as previously directed by the Board of County Commissioners and to modify the Title 30 fee schedule, add a revised plans procedure, amend language for court reporter, correct typographical errors within the defined term section, and make other corrections and clarifications as appropriate. Starting with the tree fee, this fee is set to increase per CPI every July 1st. So the fee goes up a little over $25 to $1,005.62. That'll go up every July 1 per CPI, not to exceed 5% as specified in the fee table. Next are changes to the administrative design review section. These are primarily language changes to accomplish the addition of our new revised plans procedure, which I'll cover here in a minute. But I do want to highlight a few things under the ADR. We are clarifying that changes from prior land use approvals for non-single family development exceeding requirements within 3606 shall still not exceed a building area, total building area of 25,000 square feet. And the design review would be required for changes exceeding 25,000 square feet of building area. We also made a clarification to the expiration date of the approval for an ADR, an administrative design review. So it's two years to commence unless otherwise approved. That's to match the expiration language in the other sections as well and to account for any time extensions that may have been approved. Next I'll move to the design review. Again, these are just language changes to account for the addition of the new revised plans process. You'll see some strikethroughs for minor deviations and administrative design reviews since some of those modifications are accounted for in the revised plans process. We'll kind of shift gears on the topic for a moment to follow chronological order of the code. This is special use permits for requests to expand the Gaming Enterprise District. Our code has language, That is sort of duplicative of what is in NRS. So we are clarifying that a court reporter is required in accordance with NRS 463.3086 and 656. So if there's any changes to those NRS statutes, we're still in alignment with those. shifting back to changes in support and related to the new revised plans process under the flexibility and relief procedures for minor deviation. Again, we have some changes to the requirements for submittal and standards for acceptance. We did not make any changes to the table for the standards, deviations to those standards. I do wanna highlight though, For letters of consent, we're clarifying it's affected property owners. Our staff routinely helps applicants determine which property owners would be affected. And then we are also clarifying that that letter of consent is not required for vacant property owned by the federal government, not just BLM. And a few points to clarify. Under the minor deviation, applications are prohibited for, we're making clarifications of structures over 200 feet in height. And then deviations to further increase or reduce a previously approved minor deviation. And we're also adding variance. Again, these are in support of the new revised plans language. Section G, that's the new section. You'll see lots of new text added to the code. revised plans process just to give you an overview of the intent and purpose of this. It's to allow generally changes greater than 10% and up to 25% of modifications that would previously be handled by a minor deviation. So this provides more flexibility and a kind of more efficient review. The revised plan is not required to demonstrate compliance with Title 30 or conditions of approval of an application or a tentative map, nor does it absolve the applicant to comply with the rest of Title 30 or their conditions of their approval or their tentative map. We are requiring that the application content clearly specify in a detailed table and description all of the changes that they are proposing to modify through their revised plan. Any subsequent deviations, I'll include a summary and calculation, including those cumulative changes, do not exceed the limits. To highlight a few of the items and elements that can be modified through the revised plan process, it'd be, again, between greater than 10% and up to 25% to things such as open space parking area, lot area, reductions in landscape buffer, width of street landscaping strip, setbacks as shown in the original approved plan, increase in the size of any non-single-family residential building, or the total area of multiple buildings or total area covered by any building or structure, modifications to design architectural style, kind of moving through to decrease in lot size or in the lot area, A revised plan or tentative map is not required to decrease the number of lots or increase the lot area within the map. And then we also have a caveat for if there's anything where there is a determination that needs to be made by the zoning administrator or the director on if it qualifies for a revised plan. One thing to note is we are prohibiting applications through a revised plan for anything that would Increase the density. Minimum lot area subject to lone mountain interlocal when the resulting net lot size would be reduced below 18,000 square feet. Minimum driveway length requirements would not be allowed through revised plans process. Norwood structures over 200 feet in height. And importantly, changes that would further increase or reduce a previously approved waiver of development standards or variance or result in further reduction and a separation to a less intense use. So a revised plans process regardless of percentage would not be, those changes would be prohibited through the revised plans process. And then lastly, under defined terms, there's just a few cleanup items, typographical errors in the header, and then in a couple definitions for bathhouse and dormitory. And that concludes my overview of the ordinance, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

Any questions? I've got a couple of lights. I will start with Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Martin, just one of the things, because my general interpretation was that on a lot of these things with the revised plans and the minor deviations. This is stuff that is gonna be administratively done. It's not gonna be coming through the process. Am I correct on that? Is that? That's correct.

They're administrative application handled by staff.

Okay, because we have some town boards that will put a condition, if you will, that says that minor or major changes should be addressed through the public hearing process. So what you're putting in here, that's gonna take that away, or that?

So if there's a specific condition that was imposed on an application, they still have to comply with that condition. Or if there's a conflicting provision elsewhere in Title 30, depending on the specific application and land use, they still have to comply with those other provisions. So if something else prevents them from utilizing the revised plans process, they have to, they would default to whatever the.

So if we as a board here said, if there's major changes to this, we want to have it done as a public hearing, that is not going to happen or it can happen?

If you condition it, then that condition would prevail over the revised plans.

or what's written down right here that you're reading to us.

Correct. So they would have to abide by that condition. So again, the revised plans procedure, our staff, when we're looking at the revised plans, the changes are limited to what is being requested in the revised plan. We're not completing a review for the entirety of the development site. And the applicant has to comply with all other conditions and Title 30 standards or conditions of their tentative map. So if there is a condition that says major changes require a public hearing, that condition would take precedent.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gorski. Go ahead, Commissioner Roy.

I apologize if I'm out of order here, but going back to the non-routine action items on number 28, through 23. Because we don't have revised plans, does that mean should we hold this even if they come back and decide they want to see it? So if they show up during the agenda, then they could take this off of hold and then we could decide whether or not we wanna allow them to hear it tonight?

Yes, technically right now it's held, or it would be requested to be held. So the applicant would have to formally ask you to remove the hold, and then it's up to you whether you wanted to do that or not.

But we haven't seen revised plans? We have not.

If I just may add, we have been told, again, we haven't seen the plans, but we have been told the revised plan is as simple as removing those doors along the Decatur.

Okay.

But again, we haven't seen, so.

Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, one other thing.

Sure, go ahead.

Can you tell me what we're doing on, what is it, 29, 30, 31? Is it a happy minor one? I was under the impression that you guys had changed your recommendation from approval to denial. Have we gone back to approval?

No, so the approval is just for the use permit because use permit was just allowing office as the principal use. So it's not for the mixed use. I mean, it's not for the multifamily aspect of it. Our issue was mainly for the height. So we recommended denial on the height and on the setback and design review. We kept our approval for the office.

So we have approval on the use. and denial on some of the waivers and the design review?

And the design review.

Okay.

We don't necessarily have an issue with the use of the mixed use, basically. We just couldn't support the DR or height aspect of it.

Okay.

We'll talk. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Karski. So we're finished with the briefing. And thank you for the synopsis of the ordinances. And the next item on the agenda is our commission.

Mr. Chair, if I can go back to. Go ahead.

Can we go back to item number eight as a vacation of patent easements?

Please, please. We need to add a condition for dedication of Redwood Street.

And I apologize, what number was that?

That was number eight on the honor routine. So we need 30 feet for Redwood Street to be included in the conditions of approval. If we can have that added, please.

30 feet on Redwood Street?

Yes, please. They're vacant padden easements, but. they will be landlocked if they don't dedicate right away for that parcel. We did meet with the applicant. The applicant is aware that Redwood would be the only alignment we would want instead of Ponderosa to the south. And they're showing it on our site plan. We just need to make sure that is included in the record. We'll make sure we read it in. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. All minds clear so far? Okay, so let's go to item number three, which is discuss any administrative items, staff. All right, none?

None.

Okay, all right. And then the last item on our agenda for the briefing is public comment. It's part of our meeting where we open the meeting up for public comment. And anyone can come down and make a public comment on the record. And seeing no one rushing down, we will close public comment and adjourn the briefing. Thank you very much.