Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Is that you, Beth? That's Beth. I'm here. Thank you.

Stand by. Thanks. Hi Lou,

Lou, are you there? Yes. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Stand by. Thank you. Thank Thanks, Holly. Okay, Bridget just needs to send them that handout that they gave me. So, she can do that from her computer, I think, up there. Sure, she could. Okay. Said

[Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Good evening. We'll go ahead and call all to order the July 16th, 2025 planning commission regular meeting uh confirmation of posting and roll call.

Thank you. The agenda was posted in accordance to Nevada open meeting law. Member Bonner and member Crumb are participating via teleconference and member Deresa and member Rudd are absent. Thank you. Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Uh this brings us to our initial public comment. Anyone wishing to be uh heard during the initial public comment make themselves known. Folks may also call in at 702-589-9629. Hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the initial public comment. Moving on to the agenda for possible action item number one, approval of the meeting minutes from June 18th, 2025 regular meeting. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. I'll second.

I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I..................... All. Opposed. Motion carries. And item number B on that the June 26th, 2025 Joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop minutes. I will so move. Do I have a second? Second. I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed.

Motion carries. Item number two for possible action. Uh IFDA 25201 BCOG Holdings uh 375 Crystal Court. A zoning review and application for one residential aotment for construction year 2025 2026. Gisha. Good evening, Chairman McDonald, members of the commission. Nikesha Lion, city planner with the community development department. So, item number two before you tonight is a zoning conformance review for a single family development aotment application pertaining to 375 Crystal Court. The property owner uh owns two vacant lots that are adjacent to each other. And this is within the Lake Me View Estates number three subdivision as you can see on the screen. Um, this is specifically 373 Crystal Court and then 375 Crystal Court that's before you tonight. Uh, they plan to develop both lots each with a single family home and they'll be maintaining ownership of both lots to use as residences, one for themselves and then the other for family members. Uh, city code states that a dwelling uh, proposed to be constructed for or by owner builders, they're exempt from the application and aotment process. Uh but each such dwelling upon issuance of a building permit uh shall be counted as part of the total allotment that's awarded for the construction year. Um and this pertains to lots that are platted after November 5th of 1996. Uh this um exception is limited to one dwelling uh by each owner and builder uh for a three-year period that commences from the issuance of the building permit. So, as building permits for both of the um lots to develop both of them are currently under review by the city, the property owner will use their owner builder um exception on the proposed single family home that is going to be on 373 Crystal Court and therefore

they've applied for a development aotment for the proposed single family home on 375 Crystal Court. The proposed home complies with the applicable provisions of the R110 zoning district. Uh the allotment request will be for construction year 2526. Um in which the city has issued four aotments so far. Um and then the owner builder specific aotment that will be issued for 373 Crystal Court will be issued once they uh get approval of their building permit and that is issued to them. So, the community development department tonight respectfully requests that the commission considers the aotment application to determine conformance with title 11 and then make a motion to forward this request to the aotment committee for their evaluation and rating. Uh staff is available for any questions that the commission may have and the property owners are here tonight and they can also answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Nika. Any questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant? And seeing none from the deis, I will entertain a motion. I I move to find that the application AFDA-25-201 is in compliance with zoning requirements and to forward this to the this request to the aotment committee for evaluation and rating. I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I.

All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number three for possible action matters pertaining to approximately.24 acres located at 892 Moonstone Drive. Nikisha. Uh thank you Chairman McDonald. Uh so this is a two-part variance request to reduce the minimum required front yard setback and increase the maximum lot coverage that's applicable to a proposed single family resident at 892 Moonstone Drive. This is also located in the Lake Me View estate subdivision. Uh, as you can see on the screen, the subject property is zoned R110, which requires a minimum front uh, yard setback of 20 ft and then allows a maximum lot coverage of up to 40%. And as designed, the livable space of the front portion of the home encroaches approximately 4 feet uh, 6 in into the required front yard setback. The enclosed footprint of the proposed residence is approximately 4,615 square feet and as the size of the lot is 10,632 ft, the footprint of the residence uh covers roughly 43.4% of the lot. Uh since the proposed residence seeks to deviate from uh these requirements, a variance application must be considered by the planning commission uh per chapter 32 of title 11. um an approved variance is required before a building permit can be uh reviewed and approved for the proposed plans. Uh the proposed single family dwelling meets all other requirements that are um outlined within chapter 3 of title 11. So there's a detailed overview of the applicant's justification as well as staff's analysis that's provided um within the agenda packet that starts on page 31 and city code. And we'll just kind of skip through these slides a little bit. We can go back as needed. So, city code

sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted and those are on the screen. And it is necessary that findings be provided for all five criteria for the variance to be approved. Failure to meet any one criterion is sufficient reason for denial of a variance. Uh to summarize the applicant's justification, they state that the subject property is constrained along the side property lines by the adjacent properties. So I'll go back to those photos. So the property to the west has a downhill landscaping wall um rather than a retaining wall. And this uh hinders their ability to move the home closer to the western boundary of the property. And then in order to support the current load of the existing property to the east, uh they will have to install a large rockery retaining wall that will run along the eastern boundary and then portions of the southeastern boundary of the lot. Um, in order to address those structural issues, the applicant states that these conditions essentially narrow the proposed uh the developable area of the lot. Necessitating portions of the home to be shifted into the front yard setback and then an additional uh lot coverage allowance allows them to uh place the home on the lot as they've designed. Uh the applicant states that the variance is needed to complement the existing designs and the property values of the surrounding homes while affording the homeowner with reasonable enjoyment of their property. Uh that would not be available without the ability to vary slightly in the placement of their home. Additionally, the HOA has already reviewed these designs and they have approved them with the deviations. The applicant's justification also states that the conditions of the subject property are not general or reoccurrent in nature due to the parcel's unique structural requirements as well as their elevation differences. Uh they say that the intended use of the subject property

aligns with um these distinctive constraints while still maintaining harmony with the surrounding community. And so the justification that they provided as well as applicable drawings um those have been included in the agenda packet that starts on page 38. Uh so based on this information, staff offers two options to the commission regarding the requested variance that uh starts on uh page 33 of the agenda packet. So the first consideration is for conditional approval of the variance uh as the request does meet all the criteria with consideration to the elevation differences on the parcel. Also coupled with the um limited structural support to the west and the um necessity for a rock retaining wall to the southeast and east of the lot which creates constraints to the developable area of the subject property. Uh these conditions narrow that area uh for the proposed home. The variance request allows for the applicant to design a home that still complements the existing architecture and the property values of the surrounding homes while allowing reasonable uh deviations for them to enjoy the property as they desire. Uh, additionally, the city uh has allowed similar front setback variances and I go over those on uh page 35 of the agenda packet. If conditionally approved, the standard condition that the variance is based on the plans and information submitted for this request and shall not apply to deviations in the plans if the scope of the variance is expanded beyond what is shown would apply. The second consideration is for a denial of the variance as criteria A and B are not met. Uh for criterion A, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or its intended use that do not apply generally to the other uh properties or classes of uses in the same vicinity and zone. So while the property does have elevation differences

um and the development of the parcel will um necessitate the need for retaining walls within certain areas of the parcel. Um, these characteristics are not necessarily uncommon in the Lake Meade Estate subdivision and as well as throughout Boulder City. There are other lots within the area and throughout Boulder City that have retaining walls as well as substantial elevation differences that were able to comply with all of the applicable space requirements uh of the R110 zoning district. Um, and as shown on the site plan, the proposed garage has a front yard setback of 24 ft uh 2 and 1/4 in. So that does meet the minimum 20 foot setback requirement. It's the proposed livable space that is encroaching into the front yard setback, which is a gym that the applicant could reduce in size in order to meet the front setback requirement. And then that would also reduce the lot coverage, allowing them to comply with that requirement as well. Uh for criteria B, the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right that is possessed by other property in the same vicinity. uh and zone but which is denied to the property in question. So their ability to have a single family uh residential home is not denied uh to the subject property itself regardless of the elevation differences in the structural considerations. Uh the variance request relates to the design of the house which is a preference rather than than a necessity to achieve reasonable use of the land. and the applicant can design a home that complements the surrounding architecture and design of other homes in the area while still complying with uh title 11. Uh it is important to note that uh the city does not have any variances on file specific to exceeding the maximum lot coverage uh of a property and the planning commission has not granted any front yard setback variances as it relates to the lake meate subdivision. Uh the variance has been noticed in accordance with city code. We've received two written public comments um

since the posting of the agenda and that has been provided to the commission. Uh one was received by the adjacent property owner that is to the west expressing support of the application. Uh the other written public comment expressed concerns with the placement of the home being closer to the street. Um stating that it's inconsistent with the existing alignment and appearance of homes that are in the area and that are already built along Moonstone Drive. uh they state that they would uh this would cause a more cramped field, may result in a reduction in the lake view impacting property values. Um and they basically requested uh more information um in regards to consideration to making the determination to kind of see how um these variances would actually impact uh once built out. And so they specifically uh requested like a 3D modeling or a stick built structure. Um and so the applicant actually did make some 3D uh modeling for um the commission that we've provided to you all. Um and they can discuss that further in regards to that public comment. Um so we can pull the PowerPoint back up again. Thank you. Um, so in regards to approving a variance, the commission has the option to approve the request in whole or in part. And you may associate conditions or modifications to the request as shown on the screen. Staff is available to help with any of those modifications. So the request before the commission tonight is to conduct the public hearing and consider the variance and make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny the request based on staff's findings. Motion language is on the screen as well as provided in the agenda packet. staff is available for any questions that the commission may have as well as the applicant. Um they are in attendance tonight and they can answer any questions that the commission may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Nikesha. Um I I'll start us off with a question and you may or may not have the answer and I know that it is not the city's stance to track these things, but do we know how many more uh roughly vacant lots in that area there are? because as we seen there onesies, twzies around. Um do we have any type of estimate? Um I'm not aware but that is always a number that I can get for you and bring it back to the commission. Um any questions for staff before we invite the applicant up? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, please.

You did state there was no other front variances in this community, right? That's correct. Okay. And how about lot coverage? Same. We've never uh received any applications or um the planning commission has never reviewed any applications for that. All right. Thank you. Uh we will invite the applicant up at this time um if we've got anything to present and then if we've got any qu uh further questions for the applicant. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Paul Walks. I represent the Pinowskis, the owner of the property. Uh uh we're a builder here in town, so we've come across many uh situations like this where we've got hillside lots uh tend to be a little bit more difficult to to build on. A couple of points I think it's interesting. The HOA uh raised no issues. Uh they obviously uh we went through a couple of hearings with them. Uh they were concerned more about the retaining systems, what they were going to look like. Uh the setback was not an issue. As a matter of fact, that was brought up to them clearly. One thing about the setback issue across the front elevation, uh only 30% plus or minus of the home encroaches into the setback. uh the rest of it is far enough back and and sits behind the setback requirements. All other side and rear yard setbacks are met. Uh we believe that this if you look at the the pictures that you sh you saw uh the slope across the face of the lot in the corner in which we're proposing to do some setbacks uh is a very very substantial and steep. the street is about 8 to 10 feet above the corner of the lot there. So, by moving the house forward, we didn't see the impact that you would have with a basically flat lot. And I think the homeowners association agreed with that concept. Um, we we also uh the increase in the lot size. It's kind of a unique home. The design has a center exterior courtyard uh that the house is really kind of built around. So, as you come into the home, you come

through a uh courtyard door, and you're still in the outside space, which I believe was included in the counts. That that courtyard space is included in the in the lot coverage. Along with at the rear elevation, there's a large covered patio uh to eliminate as much sun coming in into the home as possible. So the the lot coverage I think is I understand that it's a total outline of the footprint but about a thousand square feet of it is outdoors. So uh there's really no home sitting on top of it other than a courtyard. So uh we uh had some concerns issued by one of the neighbors. We've approached it. We've given you copies today of the plan showing from uh the street elevation where the house is going to sit, how much of that house is going to be buried down into the lot. And then the second picture uh we were able to obtain a a photo of the inside of the house across the street that that voiced concerns about blockage. Uh you can see transposed in that picture that the Pinowski house is going to be below their window sills. So we have no impact on a view uh from that specific lot. Uh the homeowner has made sure uh it is mostly a flat roof system. We're we're under the 20 foot height requirements uh to be able to minimize any impact with the neighbors. So, uh, we're hopeful that, uh, uh, and I know it's never been proposed before, but but we believe that

that the the visibility or the the way the house is situated on the site, you would not ever believe that it's crowded onto the site uh, because it's it's set so low. So, I'd be glad to answer any questions you have at this time. Thank you very much. Uh, any questions for the applicant? Lou, Beth out there. Any questions? Yes, this is Beth. I have one quick question. Go ahead. Thank you. Is the gym connected to the house or is that a separate building? It's difficult to see on these small drawings.

It is a separate building, but it is connected by a roof between the gym and the garage element. So you'll walk you will walk through almost an archway coming into the interior courtyard. Okay. So that's in front of the courtyard area then. Okay. Thank you. That was my question.

Okay. I have to I do have to say it does look a little cramped with this perspective here, but I mean there again I mean and we haven't allowed it anywhere else. So I do know for a fact that late last year you did deny something close to this. So um you know I I I could see it on both sides here and so I will encourage a little more feedback or discussion out there. Um you know the reality is is could they move or consolidate the gym a little bit? Absolutely. Um but at the same time they are encroaching towards a street but it's you know at the at the peak of it 40% of it is covered by street. So it's not like you can really say that it's coming from the front or it's really aesthetic. It's almost kind of like a side little cave that's built up already. Um, I don't have an issue. I would be curious to follow up to see how many more empty lots are out there because one of the things is creating a precedence and it's one thing that maybe a lot of these other homes didn't get the opportunity to do it. Um, this one looks to be fairly egregious. If there's another 75 homes, we're opening a can of worms. Uh cuz there's elevation changes throughout that entire community. If there's four left, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Chairman McDonald, um doing a quick assessment via Google Maps within this subdivision. It looks like there's

approximately 18 remaining vacant lots. And just as a reminder, we also have the public hearing to go through.

Yep. Yep. And so, um, 18 vacant lots, uh, you know, realistically given that location, that could be 18 future applicants before us looking for, uh, the same type. Um, just one last comment on lot coverage. If I'm correct, we have not entertained a request for lot coverage. So, it's not that we have denied everything or it we've just never heard it before. So, I don't think that not hearing it is grounds for complete immediate dismissal. Um, we should do our due diligence. If this is the first, then enjoy the maiden voyage. Um, yes, Tony. In response to your uh the 18 houses that are 18 lots that are left, uh I just want to remind everybody that we just issued beer 13 or 15 lots with the same setback

variance. Yeah. Approving their variance. Okay. Absolutely. Chairman, if I might, I I think one of the things that's occurring here also and uh these are infill lots basically. So most of them h like this one has homes on both sides of them. So we're already having to deal with with you know those conditions an additional challenge.

Yes. So, I'm not trying to minimize what you're saying, but but I think and and if you drive through, there's a it's a very unique mix because a lot of the homes have a lot of stepped landscape uh items on the front that actually, if you see how far back the house sits, there's landscape retaining walls that step down towards the street. So, there are structures that have been built in what I would consider the setback. Uh but they're, you know, it's mostly landscaping. It's not homes. So, so you see it and it they vary uh pretty significantly down there just because the of the way the lots and the streets all go. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Well, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Um we now will conduct our public hearing. Uh we'll open up the Does the audience get a chance to make a comment? Yes, sir. That's exactly what we're opening up. Uh we're going to do the public hearing portion right now. Uh anyone wishing to be heard on this matter. Now is the time. So please come forward. Uh state your name for the record. And folks, as a reminder, they can call in at 702589-9629.

Yes. Hello. My name is uh John Andredon. I I don't live directly across from this subject property, but set up the hill a little bit, but I'm across the street and um uh little familiar with the neighborhood and the house that just to the west of the property that was described as um being okay with this uh setback on the west side. Um they're they're they're moving out. their house is for sale. So they don't really have an interest whether you know the house is encroaching on the west side or not. And as is as was spoken about earlier too, the you know they could build a retaining wall there on the west side, you know, so they wouldn't cramp, I'm sorry, so the property would not necessarily have to build out um to to get coverage and and just to reiterate the the front setback is is inconsistent with the neighborhood. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this matter?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and close this public hearing. Um, Chairman McDonald, can I just clarify um a definition very quickly for lot coverage? Thank you. So, u my apologies. Um, I just misspoke earlier. So the internal space uh that's like a landscaping patio space that is not included in the lot coverage. Okay. Just want to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you.

And I will bring it around to the deis for further conversation or entertain a motion. I will kick us off and I will move to conditionally approve V-25-684 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within this staff report. Second. I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed say nay. Nay. Motion carries. Item number four, monthly progress report.

Um, so the only report is that the four remaining lots that's within the Villa Florence subdivision, they did receive approval by the city council on July 8th, uh, for development allotments to replace those that they previously had that expired last year. Thank you. Thank you. And we will open up to final public comment comment. Anyone wishing to be heard during the final public comment. Folks may call in at 702589-9629 hearing. And seeing none, we'll close the final public comment. Meeting adjourned. Awesome. Bing. Thank by Bye.

Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Bye, Holly. Thank you.