Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

All right.

We're on the air, so can we just get the meeting started? I'll call it to order. Any roll call?

Good evening. Chair Frazier?

Here.

Vice Chair Mojica?

She's on the line. She's on the phone. She's here.

Commissioner Stone?

Here.

Commissioner Kirk?

Here.

Commissioner Galarski? Here. Commissioner Brady?

Excuse.

Commissioner Royman?

He is on the way.

Not present.

He's not present, but he is on the way. He'll be here shortly.

Thank you.

All right, having done roll call, we'll just go to the first item of business, which is public comment. And seeing no one in the audience and no one coming down to speak on any items, we will close public comments and we'll start the briefing.

Go ahead. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to acknowledge that I'm on the meeting.

Yes, ma'am, we got you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. As always, I introduce myself. I'm Hunter White, and I'll be taking everyone on our adventure of the Planning Commission tonight. We have a total of 10 items. We'll have one item on On the routine agenda with the remaining on the non routine, so we'll go ahead and get started with that one routine item That's gonna be item number four. It is a use permit for a private invitation only eSports and digital creation facility they basically host video game tournaments and studio sessions they'll have about 20 to 220 attendees and two to six times per month. Staff is recommending approval essentially because everything's going to be contained within the office warehouse building that it's going to be in, and there's not any exterior activity, and it's limited to its use. Town board recommended approval with a good list of conditions that are there in your briefing notes. There were no cards in support. There were three cards in and seven letters in protest, with seven of those 10 being located in the neighborhood directly to the north. So that will conclude our routine agenda items. Does anyone have any questions?

Thank you for that. Commissioner Mohica, any questions on item four?

No, no questions. Thank you.

All right. Continue.

All right. We'll move on to item number five and number six. Their companion can be heard together. The first item, number five, is a waiver of conditions, mainly to basically to allow a different differing. type of tree and spacing in the buffer landscape buffer in the rear of the property Item number six is going to be the use permit that's going to be to allow light manufacturing outdoor storage a variety of waivers for parking residential adjacency and buffering and screening effectively what they do there is they remanufacture automotive steering components, and then they need the outside storage to contain those parts. Staff is recommending denial. Generally, we don't have a problem with the manufacturing use itself. It's more of the introducing the outside storage, especially with the lack of screening and buffering and with the residential that's to the east of that property. Town board recommended approval. There was one card in support. two cards in protest for the waiver of conditions, one card in protest for the use permit, and then one letter in protest for both.

have a question uh mr chairman is isn't this one just the the what they're asking for is a waiver about the 24 inch box trees every five feet in this and the specific species of tree too i'm sorry and and they wanted the specific uh they wanted a cypress tree as well right but it has nothing to do with the use right The fact that it's a office where it looks like they have outside storage already granted to them, is that right?

So they're related in a way.

But it's not related on what's before us. The only thing before us here is, at least help me if I'm wrong, a waiver of development standards requiring 24-inch block trees every five feet in conjunction with an existing office warehouse complex.

So item number five is a waiver of conditions. So when this office warehouse complex was approved, it was required that there be a three-foot landscape strip and so at this point they're not doing they're not doing that so to basically to continue to legally be there and for us to approve the use permit etc they also have to comply with those previous conditions they're not doing that so that's why they're doing number five then separately they're also applying for the uses and for not having current title 30 buffering and screening

Well, I'm still confused because I don't see where it has anything to do with the use. All I see is the 24-inch cypress trees.

So number five and number six are related. Yeah, five and six.

Oh, I didn't hear that. Never mind. Please continue.

Any other questions? We're all human. Did you have any other questions? Any other questions on five and six? All right. All right. We can move on. Commissioner Mohica?

No, no questions. Okay.

All right, so we'll move on to item number 7. That is also a waiver of conditions of a previous use permit. This one they are trying to waive the requirement of compliance with the traffic study and to install school zone flashers on Desert Inn. The original use permit was for both the school and daycare, and essentially the applicant is looking to

Start the daycare use without putting in the flashers staff is recommending denial, and I'll let public works kind of Thank you commission just a little brief background on this application the applicant was informed that the previous land use approved the school and daycare and Since the school was approved they required the travel study update as well as to install flashers because of the intense use We recommended both all A couple options go back and just get the daycare use approved and that may not require the flashes probably wouldn't require a flash or traffic because daycare is different than the school. Or do a waiver conditions at that point public works would recommend denial because the school use is so intense and we want to make sure this children are safe the applicant chose to go with the waiver conditions, so if you approve this. application, they won't be required to do the traffic study update, nor will they be required to do the installation of the flashers because we had, like we explained to the applicant, we have no way to police when you're going to start the school. I know they indicated they wanted to do a phase you know, start the daycare first, then phase in the school, but we have no way of policing that. So if this application is approved, they can go right to doing the school use without installing the flashers or doing an update to the traffic study. Okay, thank you for that.

I got a couple, I got a light. Go ahead, Commissioner Kolarski. So if I understand you correctly, the daycare has been approved. Am I correct on that?

A daycare use has been approved, correct.

Okay, and they do not require the flashers or the traffic study?

So it may not require, depends on how many students, but since it was when they came in for their use permit for a school and daycare, it's combined into one. So the school is what requires the flashers.

Okay, so this waiver is, doesn't matter if they're gonna just do the daycare?

Correct, because the original application is for a school and a daycare. So if, like he said, if this gets approved today, you're waiving it for both the school and the daycare because that is what the approved use is.

Oh, that's not good.

Thank you. Commissioner Mohica, any comments on item seven?

No, I agree with Commissioner Kurlarski. This is, I guess we'll hear it when it comes forward.

Okay, for sure. All right, thank you very much. Next item.

All right. Item number eight is a waiver of development standards for side setbacks for a proposed accessory living quarters. Staff is recommending denial. Essentially, it's a self-imposed hardship, and there really aren't any site-specific conditions that would warrant that waiver. Paradise Town Board recommended approval. There were four cards in support, one card in protest, and one letter in protest. All right, moving on to item number nine. Item number nine is a waiver of development standards and a design review for a drive-through at Harmon Square. The applicant is requesting to add a new drive-through to the south portion of the building. The waiver for the parking area design is due to potential conflicts in the way that they are currently proposing on the site. Staff is recommending denial basically because of those conflict points and the potential that they have with regard to safety and causing an issue on the site. We did want to, staff did want to just call out that the staff report had indicated that a better scenario was basically to access everything from the west, but we kind of feel like that would also still create some access points. Oh, sorry. Basically that we would say we would probably support a one-way along that south heading west to east, and my understanding is that the applicant has provided a parking, a traffic demand study showing that as well.

Can I ask you a question? It looks like there are two drive aisles or driveways in that complex, is that correct, behind the building?

I believe there's actually a couple of more.

I know there's one at Dunkin' Donuts, and then I think there's one at...

There's one at White Castle, one at Smoothie, and the Dunkin' Donuts, so this will be the fourth one on the site.

And they all go counterclockwise as I'm looking down on the site, right? Yeah. And so they want to add another one that's going to go the same direction.

Yeah, right, but we're saying... They wanted to maintain two-way along that south boundary, so the problem was that when you're exiting, if you want to go left, you're having to cross across opposing traffic. If you're coming from the west, you're coming across opposing traffic.

Yeah, the narrative was not very... It's pretty tough to understand the traffic pattern and what's happening in the site without looking at a... top-down site plan looking at the site plan I see now That it's a counterclockwise Circulation through the whole site. Yeah, and and that's what they want to continue. So I Just want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly Yeah All right

All right, we'll move on to item number 10. This is also a waiver of development standards for increased building height for a proposed accessory structure, kind of a pool house. There was a waiver for reduced setbacks for a balcony. That was removed basically because we kind of talked about it internally, and just the way the code is written, we could remove that. that waiver um essentially the applicant is looking to build a 26 foot high pool house where it's about as close as five feet to the side and rear property lines uh the top of that pool house has a kind of like an outdoor deck staff is recommending denial essentially there's nothing site specific that you know is prohibiting them from meeting code at the moment so um That is where we're at on that. Lone Mountain CAC recommended denial. There was one card in support, four cards in protest, and one letter in protest. Two of the cards came from the adjacent four-lot subdivision to the east. And that will conclude our agenda for tonight.

Thank you very much. Any questions on the last one from the commission? I don't see one. Commissioner Mojica?

No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, very good. All right, so having done that, we're going through all the items. Next item on our agenda is are there any new or upcoming ordinances? Yes, we do have new ordinances. All right, thank you. Please share.

Okay sorry commissioners. Next meeting we will have an ordinance where we receive direction from the board last meeting. One of them we were going to allow for waivers to separations for massage. So currently massage has a separation from residential. between massage establishments and right now you cannot waive them so we'll bring an ordinance to amend that so we still have the separation but the waiver is allowed it actually be a use permit but you can reduce the separation with the use permit we've seen that now we used to and then a long time ago the board said they weren't supposed to come through us anymore Good question. Do you remember?

You would see them. We just don't have too many that come in. But yes, as it's written today, if there is a use permit, it would come before you.

Oh, I remember one commissioner said they didn't like our decisions.

I'm not sure if, I'm pretty, I agree that we probably had it at one point just to go to the board, but maybe with the new code. I can't say off the top of my head, but Jason said that.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure with the new code it changed to go back to you all. But again, there have not been that many because of those non-waivable separations.

We're also with the daycare issue that had come up where the state was issuing licenses without the... the operators coming to the local jurisdiction. We had several, about 28, I think, that need special use permits because they have from 12 to seven children and that requires a use permit from the county and they've already been licensed by the state. So with the new Title 30, it isn't as clear as the old code was that if you're in the residential zones from seven to 12, you didn't have to meet all the commercial standards trash enclosures, all the public work standards. And these use permits that we've been doing have like a litany of all these waivers. So one of the applications went to the board last week or last meeting, and they directed us to clarify that. So when you have one to six students or children, there's nothing required. When you go from seven to 12, you can do it in a residence, but it requires a special use permit. And then... you know we can evaluate if there's going to be an impact to the neighborhood just on the use but not on the development standards and then the last one for next meeting is we're going to go back to cell towers or communication towers to be administrative approval if they meet all the conditions so they won't have to come in for a use permit we'll still have the same like three to one separation from residential, and there's a pretty good long list of what's required as well with cell towers. But we had that a while ago, and then early, like 2012, I think we changed it to special use permit, and I don't really remember why. So we're going to go back to administrative ones. And especially this will be helpful when they're on BLM property in the middle of nowhere, but it is zoned residential technically. So that should streamline some of that. That's it, right, Jason? Okay, so that'll be introduced next BCC meeting and then public hearing in September.

All right, thank you very much. Any questions from the board? Commissioner Galarski, light on, no, maybe? Oh, no. Okay, all right, very good. Then we will do the next item. Are there any, discuss any administrative items?

items i i do have one thing um a few weeks ago commissioner stone had asked about having a presentation from the water district so they are going to come on the first meeting in september which is september 1st planning commission and they'll come to the briefing and i asked them for about a 15-minute presentation and we'll start with that and then see where it goes after that so we will probably try and run through the agenda a little faster than normal so we can hear from the water district. So I'd say if you have questions on items, please feel free to call ahead of time so we can get through it a little bit faster and hear the water district. And they're happy to come, so I'm anxious to hear what they have to say.

That's awesome. So thank you for that request, Commissioner Stone, and thank you for that, staff. Any questions from Commissioner Mojica online? I'm going to take that as a no questions. And then so the last thing we're going to have is public comments and see no one stepping down to make a public comment. We're going to close public comment and adjourn the briefing. Thank you.

I'm sorry about that. No comments. I apologize.

It's okay. It's okay. I assume we're good.