Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Applause] Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Go ahead and call the April 16th, 2025 planning commission regular meeting to order. Confirmation of posting and roll call. Thank you. The agenda was posted in accordance with Nevada open meeting law. All members are present in the chambers with the exception of member Crumb who's participating via teleconference. Excellent. Thank you. Please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We'll now open the first initial public comment. Uh, anyone wishing to be heard during this time, uh, please make yourself known. Folks may also call in at 7025899629 for initial public comment. Yes, please go ahead and state your name for the record, please. Uh, my name is Jim Parsons. I own the property at 1574 Foothill Drive, which is right behind 1501 Industrial. Um, I didn't receive the notice as to the variance request for the silos in the building to be added on to. Um, it was brought to me brought to my attention just a few days ago. So, um, biggest things I worry about is with what I do, the mess that can be created and what can do to all of our customers vehicles, um, with the dust and the fallout and the rain that what might happen if it triggers those chemicals. And then, uh, aesthetically having those big buildings here in town, I mean, if you let one company come in and build these massive buildings and silos, then what's next? You know, how many other how many other companies are going to get to do that? So, I don't think it's a good idea. Um, I don't know how much commercial truck traffic this is going to bring to us. You know, they go right by the veterans home to get in and out of there. What's that going to do to those guys over there? Um, all of us that back that property, we all have pretty large retaining walls that were all designed to hold up what's there now. you know, is that is it going to hold up the weight that they're adding to it with these new structures they want to put in and and the manufacturing and the all the chemicals and the storage that's going to be up there? I that's I have no idea what that would do, but I don't I don't think it would be good for us. Um, and then all the residents around there, you got the RV park that's right next to it. You got

a bunch of apartments up there where people live. They all know they're in an industrial zone, but um this isn't going to make their lives any easier or any better. And then what does this do for Boulder City? What does it bring to the town that's good for us? I can't I really can't come up with any good answers for any of this. So, um, and then I was reading that on the Clark County Assessor's Office, the site, the area the areas for light manufacturing code 50-.1210. Does this facility meet that criteria? I don't know how much manufacturing they're going to do or how big of a a process they're going to have. Um, those are I know a lot of questions that people are going to have. So, I think that's about all I have. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Um, and as a reminder, we will be having public hearing on uh each of the items for possible action. Uh but we will continue the initial public comment section if anyone wishes to be heard during the initial public comment. Please state your name for the record. Uh Bob Nixon. [Applause] As it relates to the notice, the 25x 50t vertical addition to the existing building 30 ft. Is that 30 ft on top of the existing building? because it doesn't say it's an add-on to the building. So, does that make it 30 plus 15 feet they have already? We're not able to answer questions at this time. This is strictly for public comment. Okay. Uh and then it's explanatory the silos what they're asking for there.

Do we have if you can't answer any questions? No, sir. And there will be presentations by the applicant and by staff. Uh and we'll then have public hearing be able to field any questions, pass them on to the applicant. Uh several steps ahead of us in which time these answers might come out. Uh but answering questions during public comment is not what we do. Uh materials stored, what what precautions are going to be keeping the material from going airborne? The property fully is the property going to be fully either concrete or paved. Uh what are they going to do with their wash out? Is that going to be put into haul off containers? Um, also the traffic coming in and out of of that street indust they're they're business hours and if you know there's two types of business hours. There's probably a business hours for the operation and then there's also a plant operation. So are they going to run 247s or 24 hours a day? And are they going to start before the time of what? 7 in the morning. Isn't that the starting time? And then what? There's other code issues that are need to be addressed. Uh 11-13-2, which is purpose. Uh I know that they'll need no matter what they do a conditional use permit. Um and then 11-13-5 which talks about limitations and uh and they those sections address noise pollution and and the 25 ft in height we

built in 20 21 up there and we're adjacent we're across the street from it and we were we were held to the 25 ft and when I talked to my neighbor around me. They were held at 25 ft. That's all I have. Thank you, sir. Hello, city council. My name is Jeff Gleason. Uh, I own Gleon Engineering at 707 Wells Road. Um my wife and I moved our company here 10 years ago um searching for exactly what you guys are protecting and that is over expansion of Boulder City. And I think that the term has bad connotations to it. But I think that the reason why Boulder City is so successful is because you guys have adhered to that and you have protected us from anything noxious that would be airborne contaminants um in this case carcinogens that are proven to exist um in the midst of people living around cement plants. So that's my major um focus here is that we're not just asking for a an edifice to be higher or to be not in con architectural balance. We're talking about health, the big C word carcinoma of the um respiratory area and that's essentially what cement plants do when you live next door to one. So that's uh my concern. Um we love Boulder City. It's been our oyster. We would never

ever think that you guys would betray what has succeeded since the building of the dam. And I leave you with that. And I hope that you make the right decision here. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jeff Ford. That's OD. Anyway, uh my major concern is the veterans home. Uh with a big truck traffic coming and going up and down the hill. As you go east on Industrial after you go through the light there on Memorial Parkway, it's uphill. And if they're going to be pulling pups being tandem trailers full of fly ash, silica sand, Portland cement, three key ingredients, and I'll talk about that in a minute, they're going to be pulling some pretty heavy loads up there with diesel trucks right along the east back side of our veterans home. And I think with all consideration to our veterans, they deserve better than that. They are at their final home, their final last stop. They're trying to make it the very best they can for those gentlemen up there. And there are some women up there. And as a matter of fact, I have a father-in-law that's up there. They like to go over on the east side in the afternoon to get out of the beating sun and stay in the shade and enjoy the nice grounds that they have out there that's going to be backing up these noisy trucks. I don't know if any of you have ever gone down the highway and seen one of these pup trucks, pup trailers, tandem trailers. They got a big tankers, like tankers. They got a lid on the top and sometimes you'll see the dust. I don't know if you've ever seen that coming out of them going down the highway, but you'll see some dust

sometimes coming out of them. Sometimes that can't be helped. These are the things we're going to face. There's three components that make up concrete. And I've done a print out on three of them, major components. There's probably a heck of a lot more than what I know, but anyway, one of them obviously is silica sand. Pull an MSDS sheet on that one, material safety data sheet, and it'll tell you all the hazards of silica sand. It does cause lung cancer, causes a lot of things. There's silica sand, there's fly ash, that's another bad one. All three of these articles I printed out, and I'll be more than happy to leave these with you because I'm not going to stand up here and read them, but you can pass them around, take a look at them. Every these three articles, fly ash, Portland cement, which is like powder, flour, and silica sand, are all very, very hazardous. These can take a look at take a look at those, read them. I don't think we need that floating around. I have a lot of sympathy for Parson's Auto Body. This man's got a contract. He's worked very hard for his business. It's the only place to take your car if it ever gets banged up. Okay? I don't trust anybody but Jim Parsons. And I think there's a lot of people in this room that'll say the same thing what I'm saying. He's got a huge contract with Shelby Automobiles. Okay? And he does specialty painting for Shelby's, brand new ones, not used ones, beat up ones, but brand new ones that have never been titled. He's got a contract with Shelby. And if there's going to be silica sand or any of that stuff that's floating around in the air that's going to get on any of his product, he's going to lose the contract with Shelby. I'm a Shelby fan. I've had a Shelby for many years. I recently sold it, but I don't think he deserves having his business ruined by the elements in the air and it's going to be all over. I want to know too, and everybody knows on forums,

concrete. We've got to wrap it up. That's your time. One one second. Could I take one more second? One more second. When it comes to forms, any type of forms, you've probably seen them out there spraying them. It's it's uh with kerosene, so the concrete doesn't stick to the forms. So, when they wash the forms, another gentleman talked about wash out. When they wash off these forms, where is that kerosene going to go? On the concrete into holding tank that gets bumped out, or is it going to go into the earth? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] And as a reminder, folks can call in at 702589-9629 for the initial public comment period. Is that it? Need to know, sir, if you'd like to participate in the initial public comment period. Thank you, councel. Um, please state your name for the record. Daryl Folks, Folks Brothers Investments LLC, uh, 803 Industrial Court. and my brother and I own that property. Uh like the gentleman before me, all of them, uh I have to kind of have a little bit of a rejection on this uh plan on uh uh Jensen Precast. I do want to state I am not anti- business. I'm very pro business. And I'd like to state that uh I would like I know Jensen Pre-cast's been around a long time, successful business. I do believe like the others that this location is not correct for uh what they're trying to do there. Um our culde-sac is right across from uh you know their location. But I also have to chime in on uh Parson's auto body. I know Jimbo. I'm very close to that family and I know how hard he works and what he has at stake here. I'm part partially here supporting my property,

my neighbors, and I'm also supporting Jim Parsons. Uh I just don't believe this is a good location for a concrete plant. But I have a proposal. Um a place like this, a plant like this probably should be down in Elorado Valley, Spring Mountain Road. There was already a plant that is down there of some sort. It's concrete. I don't know their business. polymer amber polymer concrete. They're already down there. They're down away from all the residents. They're down in the valley. Seems like a much safer location. Now, I'd like to ask city of Boulder City to make maybe work with Jensen pre-cast, come up with a better plan, better idea, and everybody can kind of live together. I'm supporting them in that way. However, u I will restress that I don't think uh this property that they're wanting to do this on is a sufficient property and the erection and buildings that are beyond our codes. I have to stick with our codes. I am in a code situation right now with Pat Richardson here in Boulder City and I've had to adhere to certain codes and we are working on it. We're working together on it. So, you know, if I'm going to be hold be held to a standard, I think everybody else should be held to the same standard. That's what I have for you. Consider down in the valley. Maybe work with them. See if you can put something together. I think we're a businessfriendly town. I'd like to see it stay that way and hopefully this thing will get itself worked out. Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Hello, city council. My name is Doug Williams. Um, I uh own a car's life up on Wells and I also own Viva Las Vegas Autos on Yucka. So, the two properties right in the center, if you put a arrow right in the center of those two properties, that's where the property is being talked about today. Um Jim Parsons called me and reminded me about this meeting. I'm glad he did because I wasn't thinking too much about it. I didn't even understand that the location was a cement facility. Uh it's going to have those items that were mentioned earlier. Um we do restoration, uh car restoration at my location. Uh painting. We have a paint booth as well, just like Jim. not on the scale of Jim, but a lot smaller scale than that, but our cars are specialty automobiles. Uh, a lot of classic, very expensive vehicles in some cases. Um, and the last thing, we're constantly fighting dust. Uh, we're constantly fighting airborne chemicals that hit the area that we're in in both locations. Um, and adding to that with, uh, cement and the ingredients that go into that is not going to be fun. and especially for Jim's location as well. So, I'm here to support his business as well since he's done some cars for me over the years and he's also been a client of mine. Um, so I appreciate him bringing this to my attention that it uh is a possible danger to our uh community here. I also live up on wells, so air quality is always important to me, but it's tough as it is with the dust we have, I just don't want to see more chemicals in the air than what we're currently have. So, thank you. Thank you. And as a reminder, we've got a public hearing for each of the uh items after the presentation. Please come forward and

state your name. Uh Ted Wanacre. I have a property on 7-Eleven Wells Road. Um, I know you guys have already done the research and everything. I'm just reiterating the fact about the health issues. Um, I have some papers here for you guys to read. I'm pretty sure you have it. But, um, extremely on this articles here, they said for cement factories like this, they said extremely dangerous at a five five mile radius, dangerous at 20 miles. I clocked the mileage from the where the facility would be to city hall and it was a mile and a quarter just to give you an idea of the severity of it, you know. Thank you. Afternoon. Uh my name is Jeff Wilson, WFO. Hold on one second. We're going to reset the clock. There we go. Please state your name for the record. Jeff Wilson. Uh we built in 2020 corner of industrial industrial court there, right across the street from their driveway they're talking about. Um we moved out there light industrial fits what we do for our race shop out there. I'm very familiar with Jensen's operations being that I've dealt with them a lot through the years before I retired and we did our race shop out here. Um, I just hope the city takes the time to look at not only them, their Losi plant and uh, their competition and look at all those yards. Go and see. They're not neighborhood friendly yards and there's a lot of effect to the neighbors. That's all I got to say. Hope you look at that. Thank you.

Michael Wells, owner of Canyon Trail RV Park, uh, 1200 Industrial Road, Boulder City. Um, actually went to grade school in this room right here. I've been here a long time. Um, I agree with uh everything that all these other business uh business owners have talked about, but and um my biggest concern is the dust for all of us in the area and u you know our business brings in a lot of people to this town and if you bring this business in it's going to hurt our business tremendously And it's going to hurt all the businesses here in Boulder City because we provide a lot of customers to the little mom and shop, mom and pop shops and restaurants and not to mention all the dust that's going to cover all the RVs. And um we finally got a good road up there on industrial after many years of it being really bad. and now we're going to have all these trucks going up and down the road and tearing up our road. And uh I just think it's a really bad idea. And I also thought El Dorado Valley would be a a good place for this. Um um really hope that you guys will consider the effect that this company will have on all the restaurants and shops that we provide customers to. And uh the way I see it, um I don't really see what Boulder City has to benefit out of this. Uh we we we're not going to be buying any of their product. So I think Elorado is a good place for it. And I think Industrial Road is not a good

place. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. hearing and seeing none, we'll close this initial public comment period. Moving on to agenda item number one uh for possible action, approval of the minutes of the March 19th, 2025 regular meeting. I have a motion. Motion to approve the minutes. A second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All opposed. Motion carries. Moving on to item number two for possible action. Matters pertaining to approximately 0.24 acres located at 512 Pacifica away. Nisha. Uh good evening Chairman Fritz, uh Chairman McDonald, and members of the commission. So Nikisha Lion, city planner with the community development department. Item number two that is before you tonight, this is a variance request to permit a total of 1,248 square ft of accessory structures at 512 Pacifica Way, whereas our city code only allows for a maximum of 1,000 square ft of gross floor area for all accessory buildings and structures um if they are similar in material and color to the principal dwelling um located in the R18 zoning district. Uh the property owner is seeking this variance in order to construct an additional detached garage in their rear yard. The proposed detached garage is 528 square ft and this is to be located in the southeast corner of the lot. Um the lot is uh the aerial view of the lot is on the screen. Um the proposed additional accessory structure is to accommodate storage and additional parking of recreational

vehicles um as well as to provide protection from the sun and other um inclement weather conditions um to those items. So the proposed detached garage will match the primary structure uh as in the roof tiles, the stucco finish and the color. Um so this is in your packet. This is a layout um of the lot um the existing structures and then the proposed detached garage on this to the north in that hashed um marking. And then these are some of the elevations of what the proposed garage will look like. Um so on site there is an existing 720 ft uh detached garage that is to the southwest corner of the lot and then this detach garage uh will be adjacent to the structure. Um the city only allows 800 square ft of gross floor area for all accessory buildings and structures regardless of their architectural style. However, certain zoning districts can exceed that requirement if the proposed accessory building or the addition to an an existing accessory building matches in similar material and color. A new accessory building must match the primary dwelling and then the addition to an existing accessory building must match that accessory building. So for the R18 zoning district um that total increases from 800 square ft to 1,000 square ft for all um the gross floor area of all of the accessory buildings and structures on the site. So as this total um inclusive of what is proposed and is already existing on the site uh exceeds this threshold by 248 square feet and approved variance is required prior to the review and approval of a building permit um for the property owner to move forward with um building

the structure. To summarize, the property owner's justification states that the existing residence does not have an attached garage and the current detached garage uh is utilized for cars. of vehicles right now. The property owner is in need of additional storage space to accommodate a camper van, trailer, bicycles, and other equipment. Um, and the code does allow for an administrative variance of up to 10% to expand the existing garage that they have on site. Um, but that's not going to provide enough space. Um, and the property owner would like to keep the two garages and their intended uses separate. Their justification states that the existing code limitations on the maximum square footage for detachy structures is based on the zoning district rather than the actual size of the lot. And the subject property is uh 10,454 square ft, which exceeds the space requirements of lots of that are zoned R18, which is a minimum of 8,000 ft². So, the lot area width and depth align with the minimum requirements of an R110 zoning district, which allows up to 1,250 ft of accessory detach structures if they're meeting the same architectural standards. Um, also on this site, there is a uh 15t wide utility easement that limits the buildable area uh within the rear yard that you can see on the screen and the parcel map. Um, all other zoning requirements have been met. Uh the building department does require fire rated wall assemblies for structures that are less than 5t from um the property line and the applicant will be complying with that. Um and the structure does not encroach into the existing utility easement. So the application justification applicable drawings they're included in the commission packet that starts on page 16. Uh section 11324 of city code sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted and it is necessary for findings to be provided for all five of the criteria uh

for a variance to be approved and failure to meet any one of the uh criteria and is a sufficient enough reason for a denial. Uh so beginning on page nine of the agenda packet, I've provided the applicant's response to each of the criteria as well as staff findings for each of those. And based on the information that's provided, uh, staff offers two options for the commission's consideration tonight in regards to this variance that starts on page 12 of the agenda packet. So the first consideration is for conditional approval of the variance as the request does meet all of the criteria with consideration to the larger lot size that they have that would accommodate the additional square footage for accessory structures similar to the R110 zoning district. um as well as consideration for the 15oot easement uh that limits billable area um on the lot. Uh though approval of the variance is specific to the conditions related to the subject property, the city has approved similar variances in the past that is discussed on page 13 of the agenda packet. Uh if conditional approval um is granted by the commission tonight, two standard uh conditions um that we normally associate um with these types of applications would apply. That's on page 13 of the agenda packet. That's to prevent the conversion of the detached garage into a dwelling unit. And then to ensure conformance with the approved plans and information that um have been presented uh before you tonight if the scope of the work was to be expanded. The second consideration is denial of the variance as criteria A and B are not met. So as noted on page 13, uh there are no exceptional or extraor sorry extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are applicable to the property or to its intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of uses in the same vicinity and zone. So there are no specific um topography, circumstances or physical features of the property that necessitate a variance. The applicant could expand the side or rear of their residence to allow for

additional storage space. Um, and then regardless of the utility easement that is there, there is adequate space to expand the rear of the home, as I said, um, or the existing detached garage without encroaching into that area. Uh, the ability and substantial property right to have an additional accessory structure is not denied to the subject property. An accessory structure that conforms to the city standards could be developed on the subject property. This would require the applicant to reduce the proposed accessory structure to meet the maximum gross floor area requirement of 1,000 square ft um in conformance with chapter 20 title 11. Um however, that would reduce the area that they need by 248 square ft uh which creates less storage space than what is desired. The commission has options to associate conditions or modifications to the request if they deem necessary. The variance has been noticed in accordance with city code. We have received no written public comments. So the request before the commission tonight is to conduct the public hearing on the variance and to consider V-25-681 to make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny the request based on staff's findings that um are denoted on page 12 to 13 of the agenda packet. Staff is available if the commission has any questions and then the property owner is in attendance tonight and they can answer any additional questions that you may have. Thank you. Thanks Nisha. Uh we'll open it up on the day is here. Questions for staff to start us off please. Uh one question I have is the easement considered part of the square footage of the lot or is that eliminated? Is that part of uh it's a part of the square footage as well? Part of any other questions of staff. I've got a question for you. Um lot size and uh lot coverage obviously that wasn't a concern. Um that that's given that they are under the parameters of square footage size, not their zoning. Correct. R17 or R18 versus having their actual 10,000 plus square foot lot. It goes

based off their lot size, not zoning. Correct. Um yeah. So that's not based on that. Yeah, absolutely. So they fall into that coverage there. Fantastic. Any other questions of staff as stated the applicant's here. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Um, the applicant would like to speak if Fantastic. Commission would allow that. Absolutely. If you'd like to come. How you doing? Doing well. Thank you. My name is Don Juncan and I have actual photographs of the property in the back. Four of each. If you would like to look at them. The visual is better than anything else. Absolutely. Standard. Perfect. Thank you. So the property from the back of the house to the rear property line is 65 ft linear feet. So I have this big massive wide open space. I have a camper van that won't fit in the garage. I have a boat on a trailer I want to put in the garage also. Right now they're sitting outside. So if you look at the pictures there, the first one is from the back of the house to the back property. The empty lot behind me is about 25 ft above my property. And then the property next to me is a vacant lot. And next to that is a massive RV garage. I'm trying to keep up with the neighbors type of thing. But um because I can't fit everything inside of a garage and I'd like to take care of and keep it inside and the massive additional space I have there. And I don't know if I understood Naca correctly when we spoke before, but I understood that if everything matches the stuckle, the the roof, everything matches that I can get an additional 100 square f feet, but I might have misinterpreted that. So, I thought I was allowed to have,00 plus variance, but that I'm not sure about. So, I just wanted to take care of myself and and have a nice building to keep it in that

everything matches. And I have a ton of empty space in the backyard. I have over 5,000 square feet. And if you remove the existing garage, which has a bathroom and a and a closet and everything, you remove that, I've got over 4,500 square feet of empty space, and I just wanted to get another garage in there and keep up with the Joneses. So, perfect. Any any questions for the applicant while we've got them. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll now conduct the uh public hearing on this matter. Anyone wishing to be heard, please make yourself known. Folks can also call in at 702589-99629 hearing. And seeing none, we'll go ahead and close this public hearing. Bring it around to the deis for discussion or motions. I'll kick us. Go ahead, please. Quick question. Do these have to be put into the record? They've we've captured them over there. Absolutely. Thank you. No questions. I will entertain a motion or any discussion. I move I can make a motion. Oh, sorry. Excuse me. Uh I move to conditionally approve uh V-25-681 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within this staff report. I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All opposed. Motion carries. Moving on to item number three for possible action matters pertaining to approximately 4.15 acres located at 1501 Industrial Road. Nikesha. Uh good evening again planning commission. So item number three that's before you

tonight. This is a request um as it relates to 1501 Industrial Road. Um this is to permit the construction of a vertical addition to an existing commercial and industrial warehouse and office building. This would increase the building roof height uh for about 1,250 ft of area um from 16 ft 8 in to 30 ft um as I would like to display on the screen. Thank you. Okay. So, this is an aerial of the site and this is a fancy mockup that I have created to show what's going on. So, as you can see, uh the proposed um building roof height again is 1,250 ft of area. That's going to change the height of that specific area from 16'8 in to 30 ft. And then the applicant is looking to um place three silos on the southern side of the property. um one being 32't 6 in, another is 37 ft and another one is 38 ft on the property. Um whereas city code only allows a maximum of uh height of 25 ft in the um commercial manufacturing zoning district. Uh Jensen pre-cast um also called Jensen Infrastructure. It's a pre-cast construction manufacturing company and they're seeking to expand certain components of their operations to Boulder City and they have secured a lease and purchase agreement for the um from the property owner for 1501 Industrial Road. And this is just an overview of the existing site. Um the subject property has this existing um 49,000 foot commercial industrial warehouse and office building. And this is currently the headquarters and manufacturing facility for a tire. Uh they produce a polyurethane flat free um tire um from this facility. Uh Jensen Infrastructure

will be utilizing the existing building as the production facility for their smaller pre-cast concrete products. So the largest size of the products that would be created in this facility um is 3 ft x 4tx 3 ft. And then the heaviest product that they would have is 247 pounds. Um production of these specific products. Let me go back. Um this will all occur through a closed process with their mixing machine and production line that's fully inside the existing building. As you can see from the floor plan. Uh for background specifically on the use as it relates to the variance request, um the polymer mix components uh such as small coarse aggregate, so sand, calcium, and rock, um these are going to be delivered to the subject property and they're going to be um blown into the proposed silos that are going to be located adjacent to the building through a closed tube system. Um these aggregates are no larger than 38 of an inch. Um these materials are then going to be conveyed from the silos to the mixing machines inside of the building through closed tubes that are about 6 in in diameter which would run along the lower roof line um of the building and then enter into the side of the um side elevation of the proposed expansion. So this is just examples of what the machinery looks like. uh the bottom of the silos on the left, that closed tubing system um and how they would transfer the material um inside of the facility. And then these are further examples of what that looks like. Uh so gravity would allow the materials to fall through the closed tubes from the roof into the mixing machines which um are then integrated accordingly with other raw materials to produce their finished polymer mix. Um and then that is then molded into the shape of boxes and lids. Um and so you can see that on the left um that mix coming out of the

augur. And then the photo on the right is showing the moles for the boxes and lids. Um the applicant is present and they can provide any further uh information on the use as it relates to the variance request that's before you tonight. Uh the commercial manufacturing zoning district permits um product fabrication and manufacturing uses such as what the applicant is proposing. The variance request that's before you tonight is uh for an increased vertical clearance of 1,250 ft on that existing building that's there. And then for three taller silos. Um and this vert additional vertical clearance is needed to accommodate their specialized material delivery system that I just went over. Um this is to maintain the quality of the products that are stored in the silos. Um and then for them to have the most like optimized production process to occur at this facility. The applicant plans to match the proposed race section of the existing building uh to the existing building finish and color as close as possible as well as the three proposed silos will be painted to match. Um as well as the CM zone limits building height of a structure to 25 ft. Uh in order to exceed this threshold, an approved variance is required prior to review and approval of any building permits. Uh to summarize the applicant's justification, this states that their specialized material delivery system that's used for their indoor pre-cast concrete manufacturing use uh to move the raw materials into the silos um to the mixing machines between the silos and the mixing machines is basically what is necessitating this um greater height request that's before you tonight for both the building and the silos. As well as taller silos are needed to again accommodate the quantity and the quality of the materials that they're um going to be stored in them. Uh their justification also states that the increased height of the building specifically that area um is essential to house and operate the equipment that they have um and that's the most

effective way of doing so for their manufacturing process. Uh they propose silos at this increased height um avoids having to um construct several smaller silos which reduces the total number of silos that are needed on site. Uh the justification also states that this approach minimizes the visual impact on neighboring uh properties compared to having multiple silos um trying to ensure greater alignment with the surrounding community's aesthetics. Um they've also stated that there are no other properties in the surrounding area that have buildings and structures at or above their requested height variance. Um, but there are kind of topography differences between their property and those that are across the street uh along Industrial Road um and that have a finished grade level that is at a higher elevation um which you can kind of see here on this uh Google Street View. So, when you compare the property that's across the street um with the tallest um height proposed silo that they have, which is 38 feet, um that silo would only be 5 ft taller than the building that is across from them. Um which helps to demonstrate the minimal impact of that height um in comparison to other properties. Um all improvements related to their request um will be located solely on the site and the vertical expansion and silos will be constructed um based on engineered plans and details that would be submitted and reviewed and approved through the city's um community development department. The applicant states that none of the improvements or materials being placed on the property are materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurous to the surrounding area and nor are they in conflict with the city's comprehensive plan. uh the proposed improvements. Um otherwise, then these requests do meet the applicable requirements of the CM zoning district. Um the community development department, utilities, fire, and public works departments have reviewed and this

proposed requests, the drawings and materials at this point. And um they don't have any comments or revisions. Uh the Boulder City Municipal Airport Division uh did have a comment to require the applicant to comply with the Federal Aviation Administration. So the FAA standards as a subject property is within uh 20,000 ft of our airport. So the applicant has already submitted the required form um for that compliance and they're waiting in response for the FAA. Um, so there are are possibly additional requirements that may be necessary, um, such as obstruction lighting and markings, um, since we're so close to the airport. And so based on that comment that was provided, uh, if the variance is approved, it would be conditionally approved. Um, and so it would be subject to the condition of meeting those FAA requirements once they receive a response. So the application justification, applicable drawings have been included in the commission packet that starts on page 30. again section 11324 of city code that sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted and it is necessary that findings be provided for all five criteria for a variance to be approved and failure to meet any one criterion is sufficient reason for denial of a variance. So, beginning on page 22 of the agenda packet, um I provided the applicant's response and staff's findings uh in regards to each of the criterion. And based on this information, staff offers two options for the commission in regards to the requested variance before you tonight. That begins on page 25 of the agenda packet. Um so the first consideration is for conditional approval of the variance as the request does meet all of the criteria with consideration to their specialized material delivery system to ensure their closed pre-cast manufacturing process can occur which is specific to the intended use of the subject property as well as u taking into consideration the topography differences within the area um to minimize the impact of proposed height increases uh to in comparison to the

properties to the north. Uh though approval of the variance is specific to the conditions related to the subject property, the city has approved similar variances in the past. This is further discussed on page 28. Um I've also kind of provided some history in regards to commercial building heights since the 1960s until now. That's on page 27. Um if conditionally approved, two conditions will apply. Uh that is denoted on page 26. uh one again is meeting the FAA requirements and then a standard condition um is to ensure conformance with the approved plans and the information that's before you tonight um if the scope of the work were to expand or change. The second consideration is denial of the variance as criterion A and B are not met. So, as noted on page 27, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or its intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant can adjust their operations to accommodate the 25 ft uh building height maximum. Um, and then there's additional uh space like square footage on the um uh subject property. So they could expand horizontally as well as they could expand vertically um but meet the 25 ft limit. Um and the taller silos uh have a visual impact regardless of if um what is proposed uh is less silos creates less silos um or if the tallest is 5 foot taller than the existing building that is across the um street of industrial drive. Uh uh criterion B. So the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. So the ability and substantial property right to have a vertical addition um or silos is not denied to the subject property. So again a vertical expansion and placement of

silos that conform to the city's standards could be developed on the subject property. This would require the applicant to reduce the proposed building heights to meet the 25 ft maximum requirement as denoted in chapter 13 of title 11. However, this would impact the operation um of their facility. So, the commission has options to associate conditions or modifications to the request if they deem necessary. Um the variance has been noticed in accordance with city code and since the posting of the agenda and packet the city has received five written public comments expressing opposition um to this consideration. All five of those have been um provided to the commission via email or on the dis as well as to the public um for your review and consideration as a component um of this variance request and then a component of the record. Um just to kind of briefly summarize the written public comments uh which do echo uh those objections already expressed. Um so the additional vertical construction the silo heights would negatively impact visibility the skyline and the overall aesthetics of our community. Uh heavy traffic and increase I'm sorry heavy trucks and increased traffic that could be up to 24 hours a day 7 days a week um along industrial road and streets could occur. And then the dry chemicals to be stored in the silos which are corrosive and likely to damage cars, buildings, equipment, then place a burden on adjacent businesses who will now have to protect their employees from hazardous dust. Um so the applicant is here and they are present and uh they are able to address any of the public comments that we have heard so far and then any additional uh questions and comments that the commission may have. So, the request before the commission tonight um is to conduct the public hearing on the variance and consider V-25-682 and to make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny the request based on Seph's findings. As I noted on page 29 of the agenda packet, staff is available for questions and as

mentioned, the applicant is here and can answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Nikisha. Um, do we have any questions for staff to start us off? Uh, knowing we'll bring the applicant up after. I will save mine till after the applicant. Thank you, Nikishha. We'll ask the applicant to come forward, give her presentation, and I'm sure there'll be a bunch of questions to be answered. Yes. Thank you. Uh, Ryan Black, 1305 Silver Reef Court, Henderson, Nevada, 8902, just over the hill. Uh, thank you for having us. Thank you for hearing us here tonight. I'll try and keep my initial comments to the variance that we're reviewing, but if you'll indulge me, I' I'd like to maybe address some of the other comments that we heard. If you if you don't mind, we'd like to. Um, as was uh stated by staff, we do request that instead of the 25 ft cap, we can go an additional 5 ft in vertical to accommodate the aggregate delivery to our extrusion machines that produce the compound that we cast into our molds. Um, that allows us a little more headroom, easier to maintenance. It also allows us to keep those delivery systems inside the building when they do reach that taller height. uh the total amount of the building is 49,000 square ft. This equates to about 2.5% of that building being increased uh in in height. So, we really tried to when doing our plant layout and design, we tried to really get as tight as we can with this production line to try and really minimize that. Uh, one construction cost obviously, but two also for the impact to the community around. Uh, as far as the silo heights go, we are requesting an increase in those. That would allow us to utilize more of our property for other purposes. Uh, obviously going vertical is always a

more efficient means than going horizontal. um that would also allow us to have a larger buffer with bringing in the raw materials. Um so we really uh again hope that staff and and that and that you can kind of understand the the challenges that that would present to us. And then as far as trying to minimize the impact on the surrounding neighbors, because we do sit about 6 ft lower, uh that side is, we're hoping that, you know, if that building was built at street level, the impact wouldn't be uh as great as it is because we do sit down below. And then when you drive around the neighborhood and kind of see from a distance, there's such a large elevation drop to the streets below that uh that at that point, it's the visual impact. we're thinking because of the angle is uh is going to be very minimal to the community. Um so that's kind of what I have on on the height variance. Um we can answer any questions to that. But just to kind of echo on with some of the comments we've heard here, we agree as Jensen pre-cast this is not a good site to have a pre-cast concrete manufacturing facility and that's not what we're bringing to Boulder City. Uh we're looking to bring a composite material that is completely enclosed inside of a closed system that controls all emissions. It's extremely important that our materials are stored in those silos because they must remain dry. Uh we can't have any moisture and all operations and manufacturing will take place inside the building. So there's no cement on site. There's no plans for that. Uh that like she said, the largest product that we produce is 30 in x 48 inches by 36 inches tall. There have been some other public comments that large equipment would be in the area. Um our largest forklift is an 8,000lb lift and that's just to place the mold onto the automated line. Our

main forklifts are two 5,000lb warehouse forklifts that you see normally moving about the neighborhood, moving boats and um other trailers in and out of properties and around properties. Uh we want to be good neighbors. We want to be good members of the community. We want to work through any challenges with our neighbors to mitigate um any issues that they might have with us joining the community. Uh we we really strive to be a good homegrown family-owned Nevada based business. Um trying to go over my notes here. There was a lot. Sorry. Uh emissions, everything is regulated and controlled by Clark County Department of Air Quality. Uh even with the variance approval, we still have to go through a rigorous submission to them to show that we can control all the silica, all of the uh any potential emissions um on site. Uh we there was a comment made on runoff. Obviously we're we're just like all businesses um beholden to the storm water uh pollution control. So we have to take regular testing whenever it rains. But the good news is there's nothing to be stored outside on our properties that would be outside of those silos other than finished good inventory. There was also a lot of comments about silica. uh silica yes is going into the silos but that has to be encapsulated and controlled and cannot produce emissions. All of the silos have bin vents that control the emissions and then part of our plan as improving the property is to eliminate the large dirt portion of the property and pave that. So we'll be making a substantial improvement to that property that will reduce the available for any wind emissions and that'll be where we store our finished goods. Um what else have we got? We talked about trucks and truck traffic. Uh Boulder City is no uh not new when it comes to truck traffic. I think we all enjoy the I1

bypassing all of that as we have now. But currently the Merit has about two to four full-size trucks per day that travel in and out of industrial. We currently do about four to six. That's in addition to your UPS and Amazon, but I think those are hitting all the businesses. Um, if we grow beyond that, we may, but who knows what the future in the market holds. Um, about 20 to 40 employees. Our normal operating is Monday through Thursday. Uh, currently we run 4:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. However, with the addition of this plant and our improved automation that we're bringing to it, we would really like to shrink those production hours. Um and usually in those production hour windows the four to five is a ramp up and then obviously 4:30 to 6:30 is kind of a wind down and clean down. Uh Friday we are open for minimal maintenance and you know couple deliveries in and out but we really try and keep the team to 410. um talked about silo heights, talked about partial split shift, and then oh, and then also there was there was thoughtful consideration given to the location of where we put those silos and trying to nest them as close as we can behind the popup that we're looking to increase on the building so that from the industrial side, you know, it's it's going to be an impact. We're not going to hide that fact, but we're we tried to do our best to try and minimize that and and we spent a lot of time in considering that. And then uh if you can go to do you mind going to just the very first picture you had? This one here? Go. Sorry. This one. This one. Oh. Okay. Which picture do you want? Uh, just the very first one that she started the slide

[Applause] with. Yeah, that's perfect. Um just to highlight to the community that um we're looking to improve what's going on here. Not just with the addition of the concrete and the other site improvements that we're going to have to the site, but you can see here there's, you know, a large amount of material stored outside, pallets, um empty chemical totes, um 55gallon chemical drums. this we're a very similar operation to what is happening now and essentially there's raw materials coming in being placed in a mold or casting and then a finished good coming out being shipped out and we're just looking to do that we're just looking to do that with more automation and uh and more controls and and just as clean and as safely as we can with as big a minimal impact on the surrounding community and and hope to you know bring good high-paying manufacturing jobs to Boulder Um, that's all I've got. Paul, did you want to add anything or anybody's good? Sorry. I kind of I'm the local guy, so I've you know, I think Well, we appreciate your time presentation. We're probably going to have a bunch of questions. Uh, you want me to stay up questions for the applicant? Yes, please. If we've got questions for the applicant here, anyone wanting to start us off? Lou, you got anything out there? Yes. Yes, of course I do. Start us off, please. Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Black. I we appreciate you being here. Uh, just a couple of questions. You said yourself that the location wasn't ideal. So um if you could just explain how you arrived at the um location knowing it wasn't ideal and also although not required was there any effort made to um reach out to adjacent business owners to you know

kind of explain what you were doing and and you know try to gather some support for your operation. you know, the last thing that we want to do is um not support a business, but this is um you know, this is received a lot of push back. Yeah. No, understood and and appreciate it and appreciate the I mean, part of why I love Boulder City and and uh Oldtown Henderson is we have a tight-knit community and people pay attention and we show up to these sort of things. Um so, to address your first comment, I I apologize if I misspoke. This is a great site for us. My my point was that the building height was not ideal. It's a if you look at kind of what they're building as far as commercial and industrial manufacturing nowadays, they're you know 30 40t tall tilt up concrete. So you know had this building been 30 ft it would have been great. Uh we went through a very long I would say over a yearong kind of search for where we wanted to land and we came down ultimately to two sites. Uh one by and then this site here in Boulder City. We met with Henderson officials. We met with the neighbors there. Uh we met with the project committee here in in Boulder City and and and really got a really warm welcome from the community and and and the members of the uh of the of the city government that showed up, the people that live and serve in this community. As far as reaching out to the neighbors before we came in, we didn't because again, this type of operation is happening currently. So, I I did we didn't feel like we were bringing something new or different. Again, we're not bringing our large concrete. There's no cement on site. Uh I've heard some of that comment. So, uh and again, we're very good stewards of our neighbors and and one of the things we pride ourselves on is we want to try and with this new facility, bit of a flagship force. We want to be the best looking site and property on the block. We want to, you

know, improve what's going on in the neighborhood. Uh not be a detriment to it. And then as public comments did come in, we did reach out to all of the people who had written in and and provided the early public comments and I offered, hey, I can come meet with you. Give me a call. Would you like to email me back? And only one responded. And um it was not a welcome response, but uh that's fine. Everybody's entitled to their opinion. And I think again I think I think everybody who's here was kind of operating under the misconception that we're bringing you know big pre-cast concrete you know um to this area. That's not what we're bringing. We're bringing composite composite castings composite molding and and to this area. But yeah, anybody that we did um have a chance to reach out to, we did. And and I can tell you for sure as we progress through this process and as we're bringing our manufacturing material in, we're more than welcome to share uh plans, designs, what's going on. Uh even even as much as when we go to pave the lot, there's no reason that we can't get with our neighbors here who are painting automobiles and need to maybe set their cars outside to dry and and maybe we can try and coordinate, you know, hey, when do we disturb dirt and minimize that because that is going to be some disturbance during construction. But but we're more than willing to have those conversations and try and, you know, make things work out and as long as we can um find happy ground, we we want to have good neighbors and be good neighbors. If that answers your question. Yes. Thank you. Yep. I don't have any further questions for the applicant. Chairman McDonald. Perfect. Thank you, Lou. Any other questions for the applicant? I've got a question for staff. Fing. Yes, please go ahead. Make sure we get all the public questions answered. Sorry, you can turn that on. Um, one of the questions was related to wash out. I think you addressed it, but

I'm not sure you addressed it specifically. Yo, good good point. I said no concrete and in my mind that implies no wash out. So, yes. So, there is no wash out. We don't have wash out. Um, part of the composite manufacturing is like I said, everything has to be inside. The building itself, even inside of the building, we'll have clean rooms constructed to maintain number one, temperature. Temperature is very important to our process, but it also improves the quality of life for our employees. That's another big reason that we're moving to this is to get this process 100% inside. And another reason we love this building is it is fully HVAC. So the ability to control temperature um means that everything that cast it it hardens within 20 to 30 40 minutes max. So there is no cleaning out or flushing of like a like a large concrete batch plant. We do have a chemical cleaning agent that does go through our extrusion machines and then that is captured I'd say it dispenses maybe a quarter gallon you'd say John quarter gallon per flushing or cleaning. So it accumulates however we we've been doing this a little bit. We have safe ways to handle that to catch that to store that to label that and then ultimately to have that disposed of properly. Um and and and and do that the right way. We are very much about, you know, not trying to cut corners. We don't need to. There's no no all inside. No kerosene. No no no fully contained. I just I'm just checking the box. No kerosene. Fully contained. Um everything regulated by air quality. Uh everything regulated by ND, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. Uh including storm water and then including chemicals stored on site. robust labeling program as per OSHA regulations. Um, and will this are this plant will it create new jobs or do you already have

employees? So, so currently and we're a little slow right now. We could always take more business. So, uh, right now we're staffed at about 28 production workers on the shop floor and we're anticipating probably they all say they're coming. we're going to probably lose five or eight of them. And then obviously we're looking to to replace those with with people from the, you know, Boulder City and and then the surrounding Henderson area. And and and again bring, you know, we're bringing automated robots to this site. We want to help give people who maybe college isn't a path forward a good manufacturing job to to stay home in Boulder City and continue the the small town feel. One final question for me. Yes, ma'am. Um, so this is the planning commission, not not the city council. I know that a few folks said that, so I wanted to clear that up. But in terms of the zoning, I mean the variance requests that we're discussing. If this was denied, you already have a lease. Are you moving forward without these variances? and will because we they have nothing to do with the business license. We are strictly allowed to approve or deny variance related to your request on the height and the silos. Yes. Uh are you moving forward with the business regardless of the approval or denial of this variance? Yes, ma'am. Yeah, we've we've done our research and we feel that we're confident that especially based on what is currently happening and occurring on the site, we are in a lot of ways a a a better fit for the for the neighborhood and for the area. That's what we feel. I just wanted to ask that question so that the public understands that the planning commission, we're going to be neighbors. We want to be the best possible

approving or denying the variance related to the heist. It has nothing to do with the business. Yes, ma'am. And I just I I appreciate you indulging me. This is, you know, an opportunity for us to talk to the neighbors and the community. And I I didn't want to pass it up because I don't want people walking out of here feeling like they weren't heard or or or walking out with a misconception of what we're trying to do with this property and we are not trying to make a pre-cast property. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else for the applicant? I've got a I've got a question. uh for Nikesha or Michael um regarding uh our commercial manufacturing zone and you if you wouldn't mind uh indulging me in talking the difference between uh commercial manufacturing versus back when we adjusted the code and created the manufacturing which would have if I'm correct if it says given them 75 ft by right in the manufacturing zone Not to put you on the spot, but to to address if we've got [Music] um so just to clarify um Chairman McDonald, is this in regards to this the commercial building height history and how the height in this particular zone has changed over time? Correct. And if we look, so we see our commercial manufacturing still in use, but the industrial uh which is probably a little bit more uh appropriate. It was adjusted to a new code in 1964 creating C2CM and an M for manufacturing at 75 ft. Industrial research at 50 ft, which they wouldn't qualify for.

So, Chairman McDonald, are you asking for back in 1964, what was the distinction betweenuring? Do we currently still have commercial and have a separate manufacturing zone to where that then goes up into to allow them a different area of town in which it would be more conducive or heavy manufacturing? Yeah, this uh entire area along Industrial Road is either zoned uh BC, business commercial, which could be considered a lighter form or more limited manufacturing zoning district or CM and CM then included kind of light heavy and all of that into that zoning area there. Correct. That's correct. Fantastic. Thank you. Any other questions of applicant or staff before we do our public hearing? Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Thank you. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter, please make yourself known. Come forward. [Music] Members of the planning commission, my name is Charles Williams. Um, I own the property at 1582 Foothill, which is the back of the proposed business, as well as I lease property at 711 uh, Yucka, the back part of that. So, um, my property somewhat surrounds this property on two sides. So, I echo uh the concerns of many of those who have already spoke here today. Um my good

friends Jim and uh Dina Parsons who have the auto body shop um near this location that I think they have valid concerns. um they have a very good business that they have spent many years um putting together and so I stand with them as far as our concerns about what's going to go on right behind us. Um the uh I appreciate the comments of Mr. Jensen and explaining what has gone on there, but I have to tell you it's concerning to me um what will happen in this adjacent property. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Evening. My name is uh Paul Walks. I'm here representing uh uh Nick and Shirley Baron's Living Trust. Uh Darla Marquee, the trustee, asked me to attend tonight's meeting. Uh couple of issues. Uh I think I just heard that if the variance for the height is not approved that they're going to proceed with the project. I believe that's what I just heard. You asked the question. So I don't know why we're discussing a variance. That's number one. Number two, it's kind of an interesting concept when we're not comparing a 25- ft height sight specific, but we're comparing across the street because the property across the street is 5 ft higher than this

property. I thought heights were all sightsp specific. So again, I'm to the point where I I don't understand why this commission is even entertaining and I more importantly don't understand why uh they've approached the city and asking for these variances. Um I think most of the businesses in the area are against it. I I I am surprised also at the lack of not openness but the the lack of information that was provided to the community. Uh I think in particular uh the the people I represent only learned of this in the last week. So it's it's a very uh discomforting and I think disingenous uh manner in which we're moving forward here. Again, if they don't need the height, then why do we do a variance? I can tell you that and there are plenty of people in this room right now who have applied a 25- ft height variance is never approved. Not in housing, not in commercial. That is a standard that the city has had since I bet it's been in existence. So I don't that's the first thing they should have understood as they looked at this property. So I would urge and recommend that you deny this application. They've already admitted they don't need it. So uh that that's kind of my position at this point in time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this matter? Folks may also call in at

702589-9629 and state your name again for the record. Mike Wells. Um, I don't have the letter that the city sent to me, but if I remember what I read correctly, in that letter, it said that the lease was contingent on the, uh, variance being granted. So, um, so I'm getting from what the letter I got from the city and what this gentleman said are two different things. So, I I'm I'm not that the letter said it was contingent on the lease. Yeah, we've got to keep our comments up here. Sorry about that. Absolutely. So, so that's all I wanted to say is what what the gentleman was saying is different than what I got on the piece of paper from the city. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this matter? Hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and conclude this public hearing. We'll bring it around to the days for conversation. Entertain a motion. Any phone calls? I didn't see hear any phone calls. No. I'll make a motion. I was You want to make a motion or we want to entertain some discussion? Yeah. I just wanted to to make a quick comment. I think um one of our appreciate everybody's passion coming up here, but I think one of the comments kind of nailed it on the head. Um everybody wishes they could build it higher than 25 ft. That's why we have rules and laws and we would abide by them. Uh and they they've already said that they could work around it. So um I would motion to deny uh V25-62 V25-682 based on the findings from the staff in the report. I second that. I

have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor of denying say I. I. I. All those opposed. We've got one. Motion carries for denial. Moving on to item number four for possible action. Matters pertaining to approximately 0.58 acres located at 3 Linda Lane. taking uh good evening again, planning commission. Uh so item number four uh before I start the presentation tonight just for the record the property owner's name, email address, and their current address that have um been redacted from the application uh as well as the plans that were submitted for this item. Folks, folks, we're still conducting a meeting. Thank you. Um it's okay. And then uh this was redacted in compliance with uh NRS247 is a request for confidentiality. Um so the owner has provided the city with written permission to share the new address uh for the review and consideration of the variance application that's before you as well as they have appointed an agent that is going to represent them for tonight's meeting. Um, so the variance request is to permit the construction of a new single family residence uh with a proposed building height of 25 ft 10 in and a detached um RV garage with a proposed building height of 19 ft 3 in on a vacant lot that is located at 3 Linda Lane as you can see in the aerial slide. Uh in the R115 zoning district, city code limits

building height of a principal structure to 25 ft and accessory buildings or structures are limited to a height of 16 ft. So um in order for the applicant to um exceed those thresholds and to build what they have proposed, an approved variance is required um prior to review and approval of a building permit that is associated with either of these improvements. And so here's a site plan showing the layout um of the principal structure um that is kind of to the north of uh the lot, northwest of the lot. And then the um proposed RV garage uh to the southeast of the lot in that corner. Uh to summarize, uh their justification states that the extraordinary topography of the property uh creates challenges when they're attempting to basically build a home. Um as the parcel is cut into the side of a hill with uh two separate uh levels and these kind of varying elevations and topography. Uh the existing dimensions of the parcel are also very long and narrow. And due to these conditions, the property owners have basically incorporated the home into the topography um and the placement of the house on site. Um, and so they're building the home uh into the hill as well as they've rotated the position of the home uh to fit within the side setbacks to maximize the use of the parcel within the constraints of uh the required setbacks. So let's see if I can um just go to this photo for now so you can kind of see um the topography that's on site. Uh so the property owners have adjusted the location of their home. Um and this is to provide an optimal view of Lake Meade uh much like all of the other homes within the vicinity. Uh their justification states that they have worked within the constraints again of the applicable setbacks and the unusual grade plane um to place the home in a position um that will mitigate any

obstructed views that they would have of Lake Me. Uh this is mostly from an existing uh two-story house and some tree canopy that is located north of the proposed home. And so the um 10-in increase uh accommodates a slanted roof design and this serves as a um cantalvered protective shade and weather cover um for a proposed deck that they have as you can see here on the screen. Um their design also includes a row of windows uh near the top of the roof to maximize natural light and conserve energy. And so if the height of the uh roof ridge was decreased by 10 in, then the row of windows would have to be eliminated from the design of their home. Uh the applicant's justification also states that the location of the lot. Um and then with there being no other vacant lots uh to build around them, uh there are no homes uh that would be um impacted um or their views of Lake Me would not be impacted uh once they construct uh or if they're able to construct what they have proposed. Uh the detached RV garage as proposed it will match the design of the house and they're requesting a higher height um than the standard um accessory buildings uh in order to accommodate a taller RV. Um there are no other houses or properties nearby again that would be impacted um or their views uh hindered of Lake me by the height of the RV garage. Uh their justification also states that the request is not materially detrimental to public welfare or injurous to property um their property and those that surround them and uh there's no contradictions to the comprehensive plan. Uh the community development department, utilities, fire as well as public works, we've all reviewed um the proposed requests, the drawings and materials that they provided for the variance and we don't have any comments or revisions. So, the application justification, applicable

drawings, those have been included in the um agenda packet that starts on page 49. Um as always, uh section 11324 of city code that sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted and it is necessary that findings be provided for all five of those. Uh failure to meet any one of the criteria is sufficient reason for denial of a variance. So, beginning on page 40 of the agenda packet, uh I've provided the applicant's response and staff findings in regards to each of the criteria. And based on this information, I offer two options to the commission in uh regarding the requested uh variance before you tonight. That begins on page 43 of the agenda packet. So, the first is consideration of conditional approval of the variance. Um as the request does meet all of the criteria with consideration to the topography of the property which creates challenges as the property owner is seeking to essentially use the existing grades that are present to construct their home. Uh the lot elevation just substantially changed from the northwest of the lot to the southwest of the lot increasing um by about 17 ft and then the lot elevation changes again uh south um from the southwestern corner um and then decreasing by 11.4 4 feet to the southeastern corner. Um a 10 in increase in building height is a very minimal deviation from the standard. Um and then for the accessory building, a 3 foot uh 3-in increase in the building height uh is a minimal deviation essentially due to the fact that that area um and the finished grade level of where this is going to be sitting is at a lower elevation. um which is similar to the elevation of their attached garage that is the lower level of the principal residence that they're proposing. Um though the ability and substantial property right to have a single family residence as well as an accessory structure is not denied to the subject property. Uh the grading differences of the property does create challenges as the property owner is just trying to uh

work within the existing constraints and topography um of the lot to construct their home. Uh though approval of the variance is specific to the conditions related to the subject property, the city has approved similar variances in the past and this is discussed on page 46 of the agenda packet. And if conditionally approved, the two standard conditions that we usually have with variances would apply. Um this is to prevent conversion of the detached garage into a dwelling unit and then to ensure conformance with the approved plans and information that have been presented before you tonight. the scope of the work were to expand or change. The second consideration is for denial of the variance as criteria A and B are not met. So as noted on page 44, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or its intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone. And so regardless of the existing topography, the applicant can adjust their proposed residence and the RV garage to meet the applicable building height maximums. Uh the property owner could grade the southwestern portion of the property to even out the topography. Um and then the ability and substantial property right uh to have either of these structures is not denied to the subject property. So again, a principal structure, an accessory structure um that conform to the city standards could be developed on the lot and this would just require the applicant to reduce the proposed building heights that they have um before you today in this request. Commission has the option to associate conditions or modifications to the request if they deem necessary and this variance has been noticed in accordance with city code. We have received no written public comments. So, the request before the commission tonight is to conduct the public hearing on the variance and consider V-25-683 to make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny the request. And that's based on staff's findings that are denoted on page 48 of the agenda packet. Staff is available

for any questions that the commission may have. And the um property owners agent is in attendance tonight and they can answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you. Uh any questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant that we can ask them to come forward? I do. Okay. Fantastic. Well, as the applicant agent, come forward. Yes. Hello. And if you wouldn't mind, just state your name for the record. [Applause] Uh, John Watso. Thank you. Are you the architect or I am not. I am the site engineer. Site engineer. So, um I I'm confused on the due diligence of this property. When you bought it, we knew the the the heights restrictions, everything else. So, they drew up plans and everything just 10 in. I mean, you you can basically get 10 in lower pretty easily without with, you know, eliminating maybe some windows, decorative windows and things like that. So, um what was the meaning behind that? just you were going to I cannot speak on the architectural design on it but I can state that so if you have a garage that's 8 ft tall you have to have another 2 ft just for your trusses for the expansion of the building on top of that then you have a common home now today is 9 ft and then you have a typical roof line above that the trusses are usually minimum 4T and it can go on up to about eight for a home of this with this dimension Okay. So, does that clarify or Yes. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. All right. Thank you. We will now conduct our public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this

matter? And folks may call in at 702589-9629. hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and conclude the public hearing. I'll bring it back around to the deis and entertain. Chairman Mc Chairman McDonald, can I ask a question of staff, please? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead, Lou. Nikesha, I know that the code is being rewritten and based on the comments from the engineer, is it um do you foresee any changes in the building height um going forward? Um at this time, I do not foresee changes to the building height moving forward. Thank you. Any other questions? And I will entertain a motion. I just have a comment. It's like um when we people purchase these properties, there's a lot of people on that lakeside that want to build a lot higher than 25 ft. I know my wife's a real estate agent and we she deals with that a lot when purchasing properties. So I think you know by setting a precedence of you know we just denied a height of variation already tonight you know we have laws in place um this isn't special circumstances besides the topography of the lot which the which the in my mind the um purchaser knew that when they going into it so just want to keep that in mind. Thanks. Any other comments otherwise we will entertain a motion. I will streamline those last comments. Um, and I will move to deny V-25-683 based on findings contained

within the staff report. I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor of denying say I. I. I. I. All those opposed denying. Nay. I got two. Motion carries. Moving on to item number five, monthly progress report. Hello again, planning commission. Uh so the only report uh is just to give you an update on the uh Riverrun Senior Apartments that recently came before you for their 12 aotments uh that is going to be considered by the city council on April 22nd. Thank you. Thank you. We will now open up for final public comment. Anyone wishing to be heard may call in at 702589-9629. Hearing and seeing none, we'll conclude the final public comment period. Meeting adjourned.