Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

Tuesday July 7th, so staff if you would go ahead and get us started Chair Frazier, oh So we're doing roll call here.

Oh Sure Vice Chair Mujica present Commissioner stone here Commissioner Kirk here Commissioner Kolar ski Commissioner Brady here Commissioner Reutemann

Oh yeah, I'm sorry, he's here. Okay, all right, so thank you for roll call. And let's, I think we stopped doing public comments at beginning and end. Or do we still do public comments at beginning and end? Let's just be safe. So this is a part of the meeting where we open up for public comments. Anyone in the audience can come down and speak. And if seeing no one rushing down to make any public comments, we will close that section of the briefing and we'll go ahead and get started, staff.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Planning Commissioners. It's great to see all of you again. My name is Michael Hewling and I'm a principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning Department and I'll be leading you through tonight's meeting. We do have a fairly lengthy agenda so I'm going to speed through your briefing a little bit, but please stop me at any point if you have any questions or concerns. With that, we'll go ahead and get started. So we'll start with the following requests. Item number 17, WS260206 is withdrawn for the applicant's request. Item 33, PA26700020. Item 34, VS250897. And item 35, UC250896. These items are requested to be held no date for the applicant. They will also be held no date from the corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting on August 5th, 2026.

Michael, on this one, would you please, after we get done, check and see when re-notification fees will be necessary on these hold no dates? There will have to possibly be a re-notification date if they go beyond that, I know.

So if they're holding no date, they are going to have to re-notify. They will automatically? Yeah.

Okay.

Those are all the requests that we have for withdrawals and holds. So we'll continue with the routine action items. Item number four is DR26-0290. This is a proposed expansion of Mountain's Edge Regional Park, which will include a new recreation centre and sports facilities, along with new park structures and signage. This is a 65-acre portion of the overall 225-acre park, and staff is recommending approval. Item number five, ET2640050, WS220084. This is the second extension of time for a vehicle sales facility, which had waivers for screening mechanical equipment, alternative landscaping, and alternative driveway geometrics. There's still an active code enforcement case on the site for unauthorized outdoor storage. The applicant has made progress toward commencement with technical studies completed and building permits under review. So staff is recommending approval but is unlikely to support further extensions of time. Item number six is UC260299. This application is for a public utility structure, communication tower, and associated equipment on a one acre portion of a 15.5 acre site. Staff is recommending approval. Item number seven, UC260301. This application is for a recreational or entertainment facility, specifically for a membership-based indoor pickleball club located within an office warehouse and distribution facility that is currently under construction. Staff recommends approval. Item number 8 is VS-26-0276. This is a vacation of a strip of right-of-way located south of an existing residential development. Public Works has determined that this right-of-way is no longer necessary for site drainage or roadway so the county is vacating it. Staff recommends approval. Items number 9 and 10 are companion applications. Number 9 is VS-26-0280. This is a vacation for a portion of Spencer Street for a detached sidewalk. Staff recommends approval. Item number 10 is DR-26-0281. This is for a gas station and convenience store. There are no associated waivers and a parking demand study has been provided in lieu of a waiver for increased parking. Staff is recommending approval. Item number 11 is WS260277. This is a previously approved single family subdivision currently under construction. The application is to reduce the setback along the east side of lot 35, which is internal to the subdivision. The setback reduction is to four feet where five feet's required. Staff is recommending approval. And this concludes the routine action portion of the agenda. Does the commissioner have any questions before we proceed with the non-routine action items?

Thank you, staff. So I'll open up to commissioners. Any questions or concerns on the routine action items that were just read in? Commissioner Kirk, online?

No, I'm good. Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Kolarski? Oh, I'm sorry. No, I didn't turn it off. All right. Thank you, Boris. Continue.

Okay. Item number 12 is UC 260142. This application has been held a few times due to the applicant not appearing for town advisory board meetings. This is for a banquet facility within an existing commercial center. The banquet facility would be a 1,445 square foot lease space. Title 30 requires a 200-foot separation from residential, and the building location is about 30 feet from the eastern property line adjacent to residential zoning and 160 feet from the nearest residential building. Staff is recommending denial. The Spring Valley Town Board recommended denial. We've received five cards in support, four cards in protest. Items 13 through 15 are companion applications. 13 is VS-26-0278. This is a vacation and patent easements in a portion of Mall Avenue which will facilitate the proposed development and accommodate a detached sidewalk. Staff recommends approval. The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. We received two cards in support and eight in protest. Item number 14 is WS-26-0279. This is a companion design review for single-family residential development with waivers for street landscaping along Valley View Boulevard, buffering and screening along the 215 Beltway, increased retaining wall height along both Valley View Boulevard and Mall Avenue, and increased fill. The subdivision is for six lofts at a density of 1.98 units per acre. The homes are one and two story and up to 28 feet in height and range from 4,425 to 4,650 square feet. Staff was recommending approval of the design review and waivers three A and four, which are for increased retaining wall height along mall and increased fill. Staff is recommending denial of waivers one, two, and three B since these are self-imposed hardships that could be redesigned to comply with Title 30. The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval of waivers two, three, and four, denial of waiver number one and the design review, and added the following condition, any combination of retaining wall and decorative wall over nine feet along a public right-of-way to be terraced, landscaped, or rockscaped. We've received one card in support, five in protest, and one neutral. Item number 15 is the companion tentative map. This is TM26500075. As for the sixth loss, as I mentioned, staff has no issue with the layout of the subdivision and is recommending approval of the tentative map. The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. No cards either way. Item number 16 is WS260062. This application was originally presented back at the April 21st Planning Commission meeting and was held so that the applicant could work with staff on making changes. The applicant has submitted revised plans which shifted the patio covers on the north and south sides of the residence to comply with setbacks, removing waivers 1C and 1D. What remains is a waiver for side and rear setbacks for the addition to the residence and the front setback waiver for the carport. They're still an active code enforcement case for building without permits. Staff is recommending denial of the remaining setback waivers, which are 1A, 1B, and 1E. Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support, two in protest. Item number 17, WS260206, is withdrawn for the applicant's request. Item number 18 is WS260304. This application is for a proposed single-family residence with waivers to reduce the front and rear setbacks and to increase retaining wall height. It's a vacant lot, and the homes and walls can be redesigned to comply with Title 30, so staff is recommending denial. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval. We've received no cards either way. Items 19 through 26 are companion applications. 19 is PA 26700004. This project has been held several times for the applicant's requests. This is a plan amendment for a 5.1 acre site on the northwest corner of Buffalo Drive and Torino Avenue that currently has a planned land use of Rancho State neighborhood allowing up to two units an acre with a proposed planned land use low intensity suburban neighborhood which allows up to five units an acre. The surrounding area has a mix of single family development and vacant land and matches the current Rancho State neighborhood plan land use. Staff is recommending denial since the proposed higher density is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received no cards in support and 46 cards in protest. Item number 20 is EC260056. This is the companion zone change, which is from RS20 to RS5.2, and to remove the neighborhood protection overlay. The surrounding area is zoned RS20, and within the neighborhood protection overlay, staff is recommending denial for the same reasons as the plan amendment. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received one card in support and 43 in protest. Item 21 is VS-26-0057. This is the companion vacation for patent easements within the site which will allow for the proposed development. Staff is recommending approval. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We received seven cards in support and 39 in protest. Item 22 is WS-26-0058. This is the companion design review for the single family residential subdivision with waivers for reduced front and rear setbacks, increased retaining wall height, and reduced lot sizes adjacent to the neighborhood protection overlay, as well as reduced street landscaping along Buffalo Drive. The subdivision is 18 lots with a density of 3.53 units per acre. The homes are one story up to 22 feet in height and are 3,118 square feet. Staff is recommending denial of the design review and waivers. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received one card in support and 59 in protest. Item 23 is TM26-500-011. This is the companion tentative map for 18 lots, as I stated. Since staff is not supporting the companion applications, staff is also recommending denial of the tentative map. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial, no cards or letters either way. Items 24 through 27 are companion applications. 24 is PA 2670010. This project has also been held several times per the applicant's request. This is a plan amendment for a 2.64 acre site on the east side of Decatur Boulevard. The current plan land use designation is neighborhood commercial, and the applicant is requesting compact neighborhood, which allows up to 18 units an acre. The surrounding area features single-family development of mixed densities with existing neighborhood commercial to the north and southwest, while the rest of the area is planned for mid-intensity suburban neighborhood allowing up to eight units an acre. Staff is recommending approval of the plan amendment. The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval We've received five cards in support, 23 in protest. Item 25 is CC260137. This is the companion zone change, which is from CG to RS2. As I said, the surrounding area features single family development with a mix of RS20, RS3.3, and RS2 zoning. Staff believes that the RS2 zoning is compatible with the area and is recommending approval of the zone change. The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. We received six cards in support, 22 in protest. Item 26 is WS26-0138. This is the companion design review for single family attached residential subdivision with waivers for increased building height, reduced setbacks, increased wall height, reduced private street width, and reduced back of curb radius. The subdivision is 19 lots with a density of 7.2 units an acre. The homes are two-story and up to 38 feet in height and about 3,400 square feet. Staff is recommending approval of waivers one and two for height and setbacks due to the narrowness of the site and the architectural enhancements that are being provided. Staff is recommending denial of the design review in waivers three through six. which are self-imposed hardships that could be redesigned to comply with Title 30. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received three cards in support and 34 in protest. Item 27 is TM2650033. This is the tentative map for 19 lots. Since staff is not supporting the associated waivers for street width and back of curb radius, staff is recommending denial of the tentative map. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial, and we received no cards or protests either way. Items 28 through 32 are companion applications. Item 28 is PA 26-700-017. This application was held from the June 16th Planning Commission meeting. This is a plan amendment for a 1.44 acre site on the northeast corner of Hualapai Way and Serene Avenue that currently has a planned land use and bid intensity suburban neighborhood allowing up to eight units an acre with a proposed planned land use of compact neighborhood allowing up to 18 units an acre. The surrounding area has a mix of single-family development and vacant land with planned land use categories of mid-intensity suburban neighborhood, public use, and open lands. Staff is recommending approval of the plan amendment. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received one card in support, six in protest. Item 29 is ZC26-0208. This is a companion zone change, which is from RS-20 to RM-18. The surrounding area has single family development and vacant land, as I said. There's a mix of RS 3.3 and RS 80 zoning. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support, seven in protest. Item 30 is VS 260207. This is the companion vacation for patent easements within the site, which will be vacated to facilitate the development. Staff is recommending approval. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support and seven in protest. Item 31 is WS26-0209. This is the design review for single family attached residential development with waivers to reduce rear setbacks, allow attached sidewalks, reduce the street intersection offset, and reduce the curb return radius and reduce driveway separation. Waiver number two for open space is no longer needed since the applicant has provided revised plans that provide the required open space. Subdivision is 14 lots with a density of 9.72 units an acre. The homes are two-storey up to 32 feet in height and are about 1,500 square feet. The main concerns are the reduced rear setbacks and the lack of architectural enhancements on the rear facades of the models, which could help mitigate the impact of the setback reductions. So staff is recommending denial of the design review and waivers. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received one card in support, eight in protest. Item 32 is TM2650053. This tentative map is for 14 lots, and since staff is not supporting the associated design review and waivers, staff is recommending denial of the tentative map. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial, and we've received no cards either way. Items 33 through 35 are requested to be held for the applicant. Items 36 through 38 are companion applications. 36 is PA 26-700-021. This application was held from the June 16th Planning Commission meeting. This is a plan amendment for a 0.95 acre site on the northeast corner of Decatur Boulevard in El Dorado land that currently has a planned land use of neighborhood commercial with a proposed planned land use of business employment. To the north and south is undeveloped land planned for neighborhood commercial. To the west is a mini warehouse also planned neighborhood commercial. and to the east is single-family residential development plan for Rancho State neighborhood, which allows up to two units an acre. Staff is recommending denial since industrial development is too intense for the site. There's no industrial zoning on the east side of Decatur in this area, and the site is adjacent to existing single-family development that's within the neighborhood protection overlay. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received no cards in support and seven in protest. Item 37 is ZC-26-0255. This is the companion zone change from RS-20 to IL, and staff was recommending denial for the same reasons as the plan amendment. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We've received no cards in support, seven in protest. Item 38 is WS-26-0256. This is the design review for a 37 foot high, 14,000 square foot office warehouse with waivers for Residential adjacency standards, reduced front setback, reduced street landscaping, increased parking, reduced approach distance, and reduced throat depth. Staff was recommending denial of the design review and the waivers. The Enterprise Town Board recommended denial. We received no cards in support and seven in protest. Items 39 through 42 are companion applications. Number 39 is PA 26700-022. This is another hole from the June 16th meeting. This is a plan amendment for a 15.2-acre portion of a 31.58-acre site. The subject area is the northern portion of the parcel immediately south of Vegas Valley Drive. The current planned land use is public use, and the proposed planned land use is urban neighborhood, which allows greater than 18 units an acre. North of the site is an electric generation facility with a planned land use of business employment. South is a solar power facility and undeveloped area with a planned land use of public use. East is an automobile auction and recycling center with a planned land use of business employment. And west is the Las Vegas Wash and a wastewater treatment plant with a planned land use of public use. Staff is recommending denial due to the intensity of the surrounding uses and the impacts that these may have on the proposed residential development. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support, 16 in protest. Item 40 is CC260257. This is the companion zone change from PF to RM32, and staff is recommending denial for the same reasons as the plan amendment. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support, 16 in protest. Item 41 is VS260258. This is the vacation for a portion of Vegas Valley Drive to accommodate a detached sidewalk. Staff is recommending approval. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval. We've received one card in support, 14 in protest. Item 42 is DR-260259. This is the companion design review for a 348-unit multifamily development with a density of 22.89 units per acre. The apartment buildings are three-story and 40 feet in height, while the accessory buildings such as the clubhouse and the administrative building range from 15 to 20 feet in height. The site is undergoing a parcel map process to separate the subject development area from the rest of the parcel. The solar field that's on this portion will be eliminated to accommodate the proposed multifamily development. And while there are no waivers requested, staff is recommending denial of the design review due to the intensity of the surrounding industrial uses. The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended denial. We received one card in support, 19 in protest. Items 43 through 47 are also companion applications. Item number 43, PA 26-700-023. This is also a whole from the June 16th Planning Commission meeting. This is a plan amendment for a 29.46 acre site located on Boulder Highway and Harbin Avenue. The site has a current plan land use of entertainment mixed use, which allows greater than 18 units an acre with a proposed planned land use to compact neighborhood allowing up to 18 units an acre. There are a variety of uses around the site including single family, multi-family, an RV park, an elementary school, hotels, and a shopping center. These uses feature a corresponding variety of planned land use and zoning designations that include residential, commercial, and public facilities. The site is currently planned for high density development and is a long boulder highway, which is a state highway with high traffic volume and frequent bus transit available. Several other sites in the area are also planned for higher density than what the applicant is proposing. Based on these factors, staff is recommending denial of the plan amendment. The Whitney Town Board recommended approval. We received six cards in support and seven in protest. Item number 44 is ZC26-0265. This is a zone change from CR to RS2, and staff is recommending denial for the same reasons as the plan amendment. The Whitney Town Board recommended approval. We received four cards in support, seven in protest. Item 45 is VS26-0270. This companion vacation is for a portion of Harmon Avenue to accommodate a detached sidewalk. Staff is recommending approval. The Winning Town Board recommended approval. We've received four cards in support and five in protest. Item 46 is PUD 260266. So this planned unit development is for a 279 lot single family detached development with a density of 13.35 units an acre. The models are two-story, enough to 25 feet in height, ranging from 1,835 to 2,422 square feet. The modified development standards requested are for setbacks, specifically to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to five feet, and to three feet for the second-level intrusion, and from 15 feet to five feet for the rear setback. The applicant is also proposing five-foot-long driveways where 20 feet is the standard for single-family detached development Due to the visual impacts of the reduced setbacks, along with the vehicle circulation and parking issues that may arise due to the five foot driveways, staff is recommending denial of the planned unit development. The Whitney Town Board recommended denial. We received four cards in support and six in protest. And item 47 is TM26-500068. This is the tentative map for 279 lots, as I said. Since staff is not supporting the companion applications, staff is also recommending denial of the tentative map. The Whitney Town Board recommended denial, and we received no cards either way. This concludes the non-routine action item of the agenda, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the Commission.

Thank you very much, staff. So I'll open it up to the commissioners for any questions. I'll start with Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for staff. Items 24 through 27 were held at our last meeting two weeks ago with a hold no date. And it said that notification fees might be required. Was their notification fees done? And what is the purpose of having a hold no date if We're going to see it two weeks later. I guess if there's neighbors, they don't think they need to show up until they're re-notified? I don't know. I'm being very, what's the word, cynical right now.

So I may have misspoke earlier. If they were held for less than 85 days, then re-notification fees may not have been required. So if those were held the previous meeting, no date, I don't believe they were re-notified.

So then my question is, is why the heck do we even have no holds if they're gonna come back two weeks later? Why are we accepting those?

What numbers are you, that's not- 24 through 27. Okay, we'll have to look into that. They can't come back two weeks later if they were held no date? So we'll take a look and see what what happened with those okay, thank you.

Okay commissioner Kirk any any any comments on the non routine action items briefing no no no question thank you okay all right sounds good all right so we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda which is discuss any new or upcoming ordinances. No newer upcoming ordinances. Okay. The next item we have is discuss administrative items, and one of the commissioners has one. Well, let's start with Commissioner Stone, if that's okay? All right, Commissioner Stone.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a man of few words, but I have a few words tonight, and I have a request, I have a justification, and I wanna get some feedback from the Planning Commission before we jump into it, but I'm gonna bring up an issue. So, you know, on our, on every item in our agenda, we have a staff recommendation, We also have a public work recommendation related to traffic, related to drainage, related to impact fees. We have a fire report, we have sewer, we have building department, which is all geared around the health, life safety of the public and our approvals or our denials. And I know this is implied because I am a civil engineer and I understand the backside of things, but it's certainly implied that we have water. But I think it would benefit the board, it would benefit even me, because I've been approached recently by constituents of the county uh... by members of the public that are interested in water and they come to me and they say commissioner stone how can you approve projects in clark county when water is such Because if you read the paper, the news, it sounds like we're out of water. And I think that's a reasonable question from members of the public. And I would say, of course, I'm not a lawyer. Oh, we have a lawyer right here. But there is sort of a big nexus between land development and water that we... It's implied, but we kind of like don't talk about on the board. And it just sort of hit me. We should talk about that a little bit because the public asks, I'm sure they've asked you on the board, hey, we have enough water for this place? I've had people ask me, I don't think I'm going to move to Vegas because I hear you don't have any water there. Certainly it's a big deal. I have total faith in the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority that they're on top of this. I know they have briefed, you know, to everybody, BOCC, staff, everybody about our water situation. But guess what? I think it would be a great idea if the Water District or the Southern Nevada Water Authority could kind of give us their off-the-shelf presentation that they've given to everybody about water, so that we as, you know, volunteers of the county, if you will, as planning commissioners, we can answer that question. And so my notes here are, let me just double check. So if we could get some sort of off-the-shelf canned presentation, we don't need to recreate the will and do something new, is that something that would be possible, staff, in a future meeting?

Commissioners, I do think that's possible. And I was thinking that when you were going to ask, when you were talking about this, I was afraid you were going to ask us to put it in the staff report.

No, no, no. Just a, just, no. And when I say implied, because I know the whole water commitment angle, and I know it's implied, it's law, it's all that. But, you know, I should know that answer. I should know that, well, based upon the current Lake Mead volume and our well's, Our well capacity, the state engineers allowed the next half a million homes to be rock and roll. We're locked in. Half the people that don't live in this state think that Lake Powell is gonna be empty tomorrow and Lake Mead will be empty next year. And I think that if we had just some you know, just a few bullet points that as a commission we could be aware of. I think that'd be really helpful for all of us if my fellow commissioners agree with that. I'm suggesting that, not ordering it, but it's something that we should all be a little smarter about. If you agree, then I would love for a set of yes, we all like that idea. Okay.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

Go ahead, Commissioner Kirk.

Commissioner Kirk. Hey, I was on the Water Authority Board For a few years, and almost every single meeting, it was like a bullet point where they would give us. The numbers on what they project the lake to do what the river is doing. So I don't think it would be crazy to have them. Ask them to come and give a presentation once every. 6 months or something or 3 months, whatever we feel. But, but it would certainly not be out of the ordinary and would be real simple for them to do that. So, I just put that out there that. That they have that information doesn't recreate the wheel doesn't make anybody do any more work. They're already doing. So, I think it would be real simple for them to do that. And I think that's a well founded concern. Commissioner stone, and I wholeheartedly support that.

Excellent. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate it. So at some meeting in the future at staff's discretion, we could make that happen. I love it. You got it.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Stone. I think I got a bunch of yeses across the board from the commission that everybody's on board for that request. I would say that I think that we do a great job with water conservation. We can always do more and do better. But if you travel around the country, around the world, I go sometimes and I go, wow, look at all this water waste. So I think we're doing a decent job, but we can always do better. So staff, if you would do that, that'd be awesome. And I think staff had an administrative item as well.

Yep, I just wanted to make an announcement that Jason Oswing has accepted the position as director of the department. now there's one thing it does need to be ratified by the board so we have to wait and hopefully by next tuesday's next meeting we'll know so i just wanted to let everyone know tomorrow no no no next meeting so by our your next planning commission meeting he should have been ratified earlier during the day well well deserved well deserved

Okay, so that's all the administrative items. I'll move on to the last item on our agenda, which is public comments. This is a part of our meeting when anyone from the general public can come down and make comments. The board cannot act or comment on those, but you can put anything you like on record. Seeing no one running down, we're going to close public comments and adjourn the briefing. See you guys at 7.