Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

Alright,

good evening staff and folks. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and get the briefing started for, what are we, We're on Tuesday, the twenty first. And first item first item of business is public hearing. So open up for public hearing. Anyone in the audience can come down and speak. The planning commission can't act or vote on anything, but you're more than welcome to do so. Seeing no one running down, we will close the public hearing, and we'll start the briefing.

Roll call.

Good evening, commissioners. Tonight's agenda is Let's

do roll call. Oh, yes.

Oh. Commissioner Fraser. Here. Commissioner Mojica. Present. Commissioner Stone. Here. Commissioner Kirk. Here. Commissioner Kolarski.

Here.

Commissioner Gibson. Commissioner Reutman. Live and in person. Thank you, mister chair.

Was like, who do you call?

I have an old sheet. Here. Commissioner Brady? Here.

Sorry. No, you're fine. Okay, so all present including Commissioner Brady. So let's get the briefing started.

Okay. Good evening commissioners. Tonight's agenda consists of 53 items. Item four through 22 are routine action items and 23 through 53 are non routine action items. I start with the routine action items. Number four is the ET, first extension of time for a restaurant building with drive through services and retail building. Staff didn't have any objection to the request. The site is already graded. There is a development agreement that was processed recently, and this is the first extension of time. Town Board also recommended approval.

We received three cards in opposition. Next item is another ET's second extension of time for accessory structure in conjunction with an existing warehouse office building. Staff office was okay with the request since there are some billing permit and inspection in process. Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval as well. We received one card in support and two cards in opposition.

Item six is a tentative map for one industrial lot, staff supported it as well as enterprise town board. Item seven is another tentative map for one lot commercial staff and enterprise town board, both recommended approval. Item eight is a use permit for a proposed office business services in conjunction with an existing office warehouse complex. This property is located in APZ2, and that's the reason we are doing a use permit. No gathering, we added a condition for no gathering of individual 25 people in acre as required by APZ, but we didn't have an issue with the use because it's a compatible use with the surrounding uses.

Saris Manor recommended approval too. We received one card in support and two cards in opposition. Nightmare nine is another use permit to allow retail as a principal use in conjunction with an existing office warehouse complex. Staff was okay. There was no parking issue. It's a compatible use, and similar uses were approved before for this site. Paradise Town Board also recommended approval. Number 10 is a use permit to allow outdoor dining, drinking, cooking in conjunction with an existing restaurant an IP zone. This request was previously approved in 2005. It initially commenced.

However, they never got a business license for the, outdoor dining portion of the business, but the restaurant has been running. So they're just reinstating the, outdoor dining portion. It meets Title 30 separation expectation for residential. Parking is met, so staff didn't have an issue. Paradise Town Board recommended approval. We received three cards and two letters in support. Next item is a Versus for easements of interest. We are at 11 number 11 now, Versus twenty six zero one zero nine. Vacation of easements. So the applicant was no show twice for town board, for Paradise Town Board.

One for on March 20 sorry, March 31, and the second meeting was April 12. So town board recommended holding the item to 04/28. We received two cards in support and nine cards in opposition. So, you can either hear it or hold the item. It's your choice.

So are we holding it?

It's there is no request for hold unless planning commission wants to hold it. So

But town board wants because to hold he was a no show?

Yeah. Town board recommended hold. Yeah.

So should I so should I recommend to hold it now or or when we have the meeting?

You can. You can request now. I just add it, or you can just say in the records, whichever you prefer.

So I so do I need to make a Sure. Motion now

No no motion.

Oh, no motion? Just the

meeting? Can do the meeting. Sure. I'm gonna read the routine action, and then we can hold it. So next item is item 12. It's another vacation, a portion of right of way for detached sidewalk. Sunrise Man and our staff board recommended approval. Item 13 is a vacation for easements. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. We received staff recommended approval as well.

We received one letters card and in opposition. Number 14 is another vacation of easements and a right of way to accommodate sidewalk. Error's price town board and staff didn't have an issue. We received one card and three letters in opposition. Number fifteen and sixteen are companion.

First, 15 is a vacation for a portion of right of way to accommodate sidewalks. Staff and Enterprise Tambor both recommended approval. We received one card in support, one card in opposition, and the companion item tentative map is for a one lot commercial map, which both staff and town board recommended approval. 17 I

have a question. Do you know, out of curiosity, do we know what's gonna go there?

I can double check the prior land use application real quick. So in 2001, there was a nonconforming zone change with waivers and design review for a commercial complex. And there was an extension of time in 2024, which I'm assuming is still valid. Otherwise, we would add it expired. So I think it's still the same application. We can double check that before the meeting.

So we don't know if it's a restaurant or

I think it be a combo of commercial complex uses. But we can double check to see if we see any specific uses on the live use application.

That would be great, thank because I know that area, there's, yeah. So thank you. Sure.

Number 17 is a waiver to allow accessory structures, walls, prior to the principal structure, which is a house. So customer wants to basically secure their property right now and just put the walls around. They had previously received some code violations for, illegal dumping, so they're trying to basically secure their property. Staff typically doesn't support this type of request, but in this case, because of the code enforcement and also, because staff is aware that they're working on their building permits to get the house basically submitted, and all the all the walls are meeting the code requirements, staff was okay with the request. We received two cards and two letters in support, and one card and two letters in opposition.

This is not in a town board area, so it didn't go to town board. Number 18 is another waiver for reducing setback. For a 2nd Floor balcony in conjunction with an accessory living quarters. So this item, this is for front setback reduction from 15 feet to 12 feet. Back in August 2024, they were here, and got a waiver to increase the height from, to go up to 22 feet.

So the plan was a second story building, a two story building. First story would be garage. Second story, accessory living quarters with balcony. This is still what they want to do. However, they are just trying to push the building a little forward, and it affects only the balcony and not the accessory living quarters or garage.

So those still meet the code. Based on this fact, that was Okay, because it just affects the balcony, not any main principal structure or the main structure. Also, due to topography of the lot and limitation due to having mature trees on the site, staff was Okay with the request to basically do that rather than removing the trees. Mount Charleston Tamar recommended approval. We received one card in support, one card and one letter in opposition.

Item 19 is nineteen, twenty, 21, 22 are companions. So they're going to be forwarded to BCC for final action. And it's for multifamily residential development, basically, and a mixed use development. It has three phases. So the first request is a plan amendment to go from BE to EM, entertainment mixed use.

Staff supported the request since there is no demand for industrial, development anymore in that area. And recently, most of developments there has been developed as commercial or high density residential, so staffs could support it. Spring Valley supported their request too. We received nine cards in opposition. The next companion item is a use permit for senior housing, and waiver, and this is actually senior and affordable housing.

Waiver for increasing retaining wall height from three feet to five feet and eliminate EV capable parking spaces. Staff didn't have an issue with this request, since this is an infill development. So it's compatible with the area. Also, it's for the eliminating EV spaces. Staff believes that since this is a senior housing project, the demand for EV is typically less, so staff could support it.

It also complies with master plan policies. And Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. We received nine cards again in opposition. Next companion is another use permit for a senior housing again. That's gonna be the phase two of the project, which is located northwest corner of the site. The phase one is Southwest. So second phase is Northwest. This is another senior housing, multifamily. And for the same reason, staff didn't have an issue. Spring Valley Township recommended approval and received nine cards in opposition.

The last phase, phase three, is the west or east of the parcel or project. That's for a mixed use development, and also for a waiver to increase the height from 55 feet, to 73 feet. Staff didn't have an issue for the use because this is compatible use. And for the height, staff, again, was not concerned because this this increased height is due to the design of the building. It consists of some levels of garage and some units on top, residential units on top.

Also, use or this project was a project was approved before in the same site for 77 feet. So staff realizes that this is less than what was approved previously. Stream mounted Tambor recommended approval as well. And we received nine cards in opposition. This concludes our routine action items. If there is any question, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you. Any questions from the board, the staff on the routine action items? Alright, seeing no one, we'll keep moving. Thank you.

Next item on non routine action item is number 23. There is a request to withdraw the application per the applicant. Number 24 is a use permit for a banquet facility within an existing commercial center. Staff sorry, this was, again, two times no show at the town board, March and 04/14. So, again, it's your choice if you wanna vote on it or hold it.

Spring Valley Town Board wanted it to be held to April. As far as our recommendation, staff, could not support it. Even though they meet the parking, They don't meet the separation to the residential, to the adjacent residential. It's less than 200 feet. Staff typically doesn't support this type of request.

There are three cards in support, two cards and one letter in opposition for that. Next item is 25, amended holdover waiver, for single family residents. So, initially this request was to increase the height of the residents. However, their plan was revised so they don't need to increase, height anymore. Based on the revised plan, it triggered another waiver to reduce the front setback.

So this item has been renoticed since then. So instead of going vertically, or as is originally was planned, now they're going horizontally. So there is a garage that intruding into the setback. Instead of 15 feet front setback, it's three feet. So staff could not support it even though the customer tried to mitigate the original request. However, is significant it's a significant reduction. And also the driveway is three feet only, so staff could not support it. Mt. Charleston Town Board recommended approval. We received four cards in support, eight cards and 10 letters in opposition.

Next item is a waiver to eliminate setback for an accessory living quarters in conjunction with an existing single family residence. That's for rear and side interior setback. Staff believe this structure is just too large for the lot. And it's built already, so if they had inquired about the requirement, it could be built per code, given the fact that the separation is exceeding the code requirement. So it could be moved closer to the house.

Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. They added a condition to ensure that the customer, gets proper permits and, meet all the safety codes, standards. We received two cards in support, two cards in opposition. Next item is 27, waiver to eliminate and reduce setback in conjunction with an existing single family residence. There are multiple additions, to this house.

There is an addition to the back. It was a patio cover that they enclosed it. On the rear, it's zero feet from the rear, zero feet from the side. And also there is a patio to the north of the residence, which is zero setback, another patio to the south that is zero setback. And there's a carport on the front that is three feet from the front property line.

Staff could not support any of that, and Sunrise Manor recommended denial. We received two cards in opposition. Next item is 28, is a waiver to eliminate building separation and also eliminate side interior setback for a carport in conjunction with an existing single family residence. Even though the material is compatible and it's, it has complementary colors to the house and customers try to mitigate the effect on the neighbors by installing rain gutters to drain water away from the adjacent property owner. We still could not support this because it's a zero feet setback, and separation from the House.

Enterprise Town Board there was no recommendation from Enterprise Town Board. We received three cards and one letter in opposition. Next item is another waiver, Item 29, a waiver to reduce setback and eliminate building separation for a shed in conjunction with a house. The setback is three feet, where five feet is required to the interior side. It is not compatible with the house, and staff believe that they could ask about zoning code before so it could be built per code.

Paradise Town Board recommended approval. We received three cards in support, four cards in opposition. Item 30 through 34 are requested to be held. So I jump to item 35. Item 35 through 39 are companion, and it's for a proposed restaurant.

First item is a plan amendment to go from l n to n c, neighborhood commercial. Staff believe this request is not compatible. To the north, east, and south to the north and east of this development, there are existing large home. They're zoned RS 10. So it's not compatible with those uses.

There is also one house that has animals. So it's all basically sorry, I take that back. That's not that item. But it's not a compatible use. And also, all the commercial plan land uses are mainly along arterial streets, and it doesn't meet or comply with master plan policy.

Policy. So staff recommended denial. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. We received two cards in support and 10 cards in opposition. The companion zone changes for reclassifying the site from RS20 to CG.

Again, staff believe that CG is more for larger regional serving commercial uses rather than, a restaurant, so staff recommended denial. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. However, they wanted the zone change to be reduced to commercial neighborhood, rather than CG. We received two cards in support, 10 cards and one letter in opposition. The companion waiver is for easement, staff recommended approval as well as town board.

We received 13 cards in support, 17 cards and one letter in opposition. And the waiver application and design review for a restaurant includes waiver for reducing throat depth and reducing departure distance. Planning staff didn't have an issue since it meets all the zoning code requirement. But since we couldn't support the plan amendment and zone change, we didn't support this application. Public court staff recommended denial of this request.

Enterprise Tambor recommended approval of the waiver number one, denial of waiver number two, and design review. And they wanted to add a con they wanted a condition to be added, design review as public hearing for any future changes of plan, and four architectural features to the south face building elevations. We received two cards in support, 10 cards and two letters in opposition. And tentative map was could not be supported by staff due to not supporting ZC and PA. Enterprise Tambo recommended denial as well.

So I have a question. So we already know that it's gonna be a restaurant?

Yeah. The use is a restaurant. Yeah.

And you're saying that that area is for a larger use? Like, give me an example of what.

So what I meant was CG is more suitable for larger regional commercial uses. So we recommend CG to be placed next to those residential homes. So that's too intense for the area, basically. It's in

So give me an example of a larger commercial use.

Restaurant is a good example. So we don't we don't want restaurant. I mean, restaurant could be in CN, so more like shopping centers or more intense uses.

So we prefer a shopping center?

No. So those are good for more intense uses, which is shopping center is more intense. So we didn't want a CG because it allows them to do anything, basically. So if they go to CG, there is no guarantee that they do a restaurant. They can, request for any type of commercial that is allowed in CG. So that's why we didn't think that that's a proper zone to go there.

So you would be not you, but we would be okay with a restaurant, is what you're saying?

So we are not so the the problem is we are not looking at it as a use. There is no use permit. They're asking for a zone change, we think use that goes with a c g is too intense for this property.

So CG is too intense, but Commercial neighborhood would be okay.

That's what town board recommended.

I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Do we know what kind of restaurant they're asking

for? You

mean as far as having drive

Is it

like a McDonald's or is it a drive through type or is it a sit down restaurant? Do we know?

We can check the plan. I don't think we have those details, to be honest.

While she's looking at that, I just want to remind you that the point being is that even if we know what restaurant it is and we're good with it tonight, they can change it at any time. So they're not gonna be locked in to any type of development Yeah, I get that. I'm just Yeah, we're gonna look at the plan real quick.

I mean I think we all get the sense of if you were to say, oh it's like a McDonald's and we know what that intensity is like. If it's a sit down restaurant, we might have a better feel for what that intensity is like as well. So that's why I'm asking, do we

know what kind of restaurant it is? Plan shows a

tavern. I'm sorry?

Their plan shows a tavern with restaurants.

A tavern. Yeah. So like a, okay. Timbers. Alright, yeah Timbers or something. Okay. Thank you.

So, but if we took recommendation the of the town board and we went down to compact CN, was that the? Commercial neighborhood. Oh, commercial neighborhood. Then would they still be able to do the tavern, but then maybe less chance of a post approval upgrade to some more intense use?

We're checking the use very quick. I believe we do, but give us just one second.

Yeah, that restaurant would still be allowed. It would prohibit things like automotive related uses. So it's really neighborhood serving retail and commercial that would be allowed under that CN.

So, sorry, and if we approve the commercial general then when is our next opportunity, say they decide okay restaurant didn't work out, we're going to automotive, then that could skip us, is that correct? Or that necessarily wouldn't come before the board to be approved?

Correct. It may come to you all or it may skip you and go directly to the Board of County Commissioners. Yeah, even a use like that they're gonna have to come back in under at least the way the code is today, they'll come back in for a use permit because they won't be able to meet residential separations.

And the staff report said that the neighbors did not want residential at that location. Is that right?

No. That was a staff recommendation or analysis. There was no we we don't have any information about the neighbors before it goes to town board. So what I mentioned was to the north and east are larger homes, RS Right. 10

Okay. That's a tough one. Thank you.

Sure.

Alright. Looks like all minds are clear. Continue.

Okay. So number 40 through 44 are companions, and, it's for industrial development with outdoor storage yards. So the first item is a plan amendment to go from neighborhood commercial to BE, business employment. Staff didn't have an issue with that plan amendment request, it's compatible with the area. The area has been transitioning to industrial uses, so staff, didn't have an issue.

To the North, there are properties to the North are all BE, business employment. To the East, there is an IP zone property. To the West is a church, and it's close to airport, so staff could support the BE designation. Zone change going from RS to CP, sorry, RS20 and CP to IP. And for the same reason staff recommended approval.

For both items, Paradise Tambor recommended approval. We received one card in support for both items. The companion vacation is for right of way to an accommodated sidewalk. Staff recommended approval. Paradise Town Board recommended denial. We received two cards in support. And the companion waiver design review application for the waiver is for eliminating and reducing buffering and screening. And that's along north and west property lines. So along north, there are two vacant lots and there are two existing homes. Staff is not concerned about vacant lots because they are planned BE, so the buffering screen doesn't even apply.

The concern staff has is the existing homes, so we could not support it. They wanna eliminate all the landscaping, but they wanna keep the six feet existing walls there instead of eight feet required walls. Along the West, same same waiver request. However, it's a church, so staff didn't have an issue with that being waived along the West. And other waivers include modify residential adjacency, which is to allow them to have outdoor storage when outdoor storage is not allowed next to residential either as principal or accessory use.

So staff could not support this, given the fact that they are actually waiving the buffering and screening. Those outdoor area would be adjacent to those homes. So we could not support that. Paradise Tambor recommended denial. We received one card in support.

And the companion tentative map is consistent on one commercial or, sorry, industrial lot. Paradise Town Board recommended approval of that. Next items, 45 through 48 are requested to be held. So I go to number 49, through fifty fifty three, which is our last items on this agenda. For single family residential subdivision, first PA request is to redesignate the site from RN to LN, going to basically low intensity suburban neighborhood.

It allows them to go from two dwelling units per acre to five dwelling units per acre. Staff believe that this is not compatible with the surrounding area. To the north, there are MPURMP I mean, north, west and south, there are MPURMP lots, larger lots. To the west, there is a lot that has animals, so it's all MPO RMP vibe there. So they didn't want, staff didn't, agree that this is a proper PA.

Enterprise Tambor recommended denial. We received one card in support, 11 cards and two letters in opposition. And zone changes to go from RS20 to RS5.2 and also removing the MPUR MPU overlay for the same reasons staff couldn't support. Enterprise Town Board did not support either. And we received one card in support, 11 cards and two letters in opposition. The vacation is for a portion of a right of way and easements. Staff supported it. Enterprise town board didn't. We received one card in support, 11 cards, and two letters in opposition. And the waiver applications for modify residential adjacency standards.

They're having lots as small as 5,000 something when code requires ten thousand minuteimum for any lots that is adjacent or budding MPURMP. And also, they're asking for rear setback reduction from 20 feet where code requires 30 feet to match the MPRMP requirement. Staff did not support any of that. And they also asked for a waiver to reduce street width. So Enterprise Tambo recommend denial as well.

And we received one card in support, 11 cards and two letters in opposition. And the last item is a tentative map for 12 single family resident. We did not support because we did not support the PA and ZC and waivers. And also they are having a hammerhead design, and that's not our preferred method of turnaround. So for that reason, staff recommended denial and enterprise staff recommended denial as well. That concludes our agenda tonight.

Alright. Thank you, staff. I see I see one light on. Questions? Commissioner? Commissioner?

Yes. Oh,

sorry. Sorry. Thank you, mister chair. Just a curiosity, I know we're holding 30, 31, thirty thirty four. But how far is that property from this property, the last property on the agenda, number 49? Is it North? Is it South? Because I'm seeing Miller. I'm seeing Buffalo here, and I saw the same thing on the other item. So are they relatively close to each other? Because if we look at the overall picture, we're picking and poaching and chipping away somewhere.

So you said last item with

the Yeah. Number 40. Say 49. Okay. We'll just use 49.

So last item is at Shelbourne And Miller Lane. And

and item 30 is on buff with Buffalo. And then you have Torino and Ford. So are those streets because if you look to the east on Number 49, Buffalo is just just to the east. So

They're about three quarters of a mile apart.

And which one is north and which one is south? I don't remember how this will Shelbourne is north. So the Shelbourne Ford one number 30 is north of this one, Number 49. I'd just like to look at a at a over at a bigger overhead and be able to see where we're picking at. But not tonight.

So 30 is Buffalo and Torino. Mhmm. And then the other ones are Shelbourne and Miller. And so Shelbourne and Miller is north of Buffalo, Torino.

Okay.

Thank you. I

know we already went through the 35. Is CP do we still have CP? Because CN would be the old C1, am I correct? And CG would be the old C2?

CG is a combination of C1 and C2 So in our new CP is the same. So c p, we had c

p before.

C

So c n is more intense than c p though?

C p, yeah. C p is still restrictive offices primarily. C N is similar to c one, except it's actually supposed to be a little bit less intense than C one was. So what we did with the new code was all of the c one and C 2 became C G. So we didn't take the C 1 and make it C N, we took the C 1 and made it the same as essentially C 2.

So what is C N?

So C N is really neighborhood serving commercial. Restaurants are fine, shops that somebody can walk to, things like automotive uses that don't promote walkability are things that are not going to be allowed. It's similar to what C 1 used to be. It really is similar to what C 1 used to be. And then if I could before you move on, Number 11 with a vacation.

Hang hang on staff. I think vice chair had a question, or are we okay?

I can't remember what item it was, but you said the town board conditioned that as long as they get the proper permits, well wouldn't they have to get the proper permits to move Why would that be a condition?

That is correct, yeah. So anything you approve here, or is gonna be approved, Planning Commission or Board, it goes to billing department for permits and they need to comply with that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

So the question earlier on number 11, vacation 20 six-one hundred and '9, the applicant actually sent in a letter to withdraw that. So that was not provided to us. I found that in an email box. 11 was withdrawn by the applicant.

Maybe it's not the right time to do this, but there's one in my district which was they asked to be held by the town board because they no show number 24. So I'm fine withholding that as well.

Yeah, we can double check that too.

Yeah, believe that's that was 10 Spring Valley's recommendation holding till 04/28 because of no show. So I support that if if no one objects on the commission. Item number 24. We

can declare it now and staff will read it in when we start our next meeting. Oh, yeah. 100%. I'm okay with it.

Commissioner Reutman, I couldn't find anything in our folder for that item that you mentioned.

Hello? Yeah.

You ready?

Oh, I'm sorry. Understanding on the note here was that number 24. For number 20 Yeah. Four. Was that they were no show at the Spring Valley Town Board, and so that the Town Board recommended holding it until the four twenty eight Town Board meeting, and I support that.

Okay, sorry. I thought you were saying should we check to see if they ask for hold? Sorry about that. No, Or withdraw.

No problem. No, We wanna make sure we hold it.

Right, so just when we do the beginning of the next agenda, and we say these are the items to be held or deleted, we won't read that in, but if you want to state at that point that you want to add that one to the hold to go back to town board, we'll make sure it gets on there. It'll have to be a month hold so that we can get it on the next available agenda.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you. So that concludes our briefing. There's no more questions on the non routine action items. So next item on the agenda is to discuss any new or upcoming ordinances.

We do not have any.

Okay, we'll close that one. And the next item is to discuss any administrative items.

We do not have any.

Alright, we'll close that one. And that brings us finally to last part of our briefing, is comments by the general public. So open up to a public comment. Anyone can come down and speak to the planning commission. We can't act or vote on any of the comments. And now seeing no one coming down to make a public comment, I will end the briefing.