Chair Frazier.

Vice Chair Mohica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Gibson.

Happy to be here.

Commissioner Royman.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Go ahead, staff.

Good evening, Commissioners.

We'll begin the routine items for tonight's meeting.

First item is a second extension of time for waivers of development standards.

This is for accessory structures established prior to a primary structure, non-decorative fence and to increase the fence height for a single family lot.

This is off of uh Fog Street south of Bonanza Road.

Both staff and the town board recommend approval.

The town board uh did recommend uh adding a revising, I should say, the comprehensive planning bullet number one.

Um to go from one year to complete the building permit to six months instead and uh six months to address uh there are two code enforcement issues that were open.

Um I did um check and found that there was one of those uh code enforcement off uh uh code enforcement cases that actually is closed now.

Uh one remains open.

Next item is extensions uh uh first extension of time for use permits for a school and daycare and waivers of development standards and a design review for a property located on Desert Inn Road and Toy Pines staff and the town board recommended approval.

There was one card support and five cards in protest.

Item six is a tentative map consisting of two multifamily dwelling units and common lots.

This is on uh Pecos Road, south of Quendo Road, staff and the town board recommended approval.

Item seven is a use permit for office uh in conjunction with the existing building.

This is on Desert Inn Road east of Seneca Drive.

Uh staff and the town board recommend approval, and there are three cards in support.

What the hell?

Item eight.

Uh we have a request to hold this item until March 3rd, 2026 planning commission meeting.

This is per the applicant.

Uh this is for use permits to allow temporary events longer than 10 days, allow 12 events per year, um, and allow live entertainment longer than uh than the daytime hours, and also allow farmer's market.

This is in the Summerlin Summerlin um pound center area.

Uh they are currently already have you use permits for this purpose, but they want to expand into additional um additional area.

Staff recommended approval.

Uh we received 21 cards and one letter in support and 16 cards and four letters in protest.

And staff we have a question.

Sure.

Do we know why they're holding it?

Uh I'm not sure exactly.

I think the commit the uh applicant was working with some of the um nearby uh property owners who are concerned with um potential noise and traffic and things like that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh moving on to item nine.

It's a use permit uh for a proposed kennel in conjunction with the existing commercial center.

This is on Flamingo Road east of Cambridge Street.

Uh staff recommended approval.

The town board um it was a tied vote two to two, so it was no recommendation.

Uh we received two cards in protest.

Uh it's a so it's a kennel with boarding daycare and grooming services, but it's not associated with an animal hospital.

Item 10 is a use permit for a vehicle paint and body shop in conjunction with an existing warehouse.

This is off of uh Lamont Street and Alto Avenue.

Staff and the town board recommended approval.

Items 11 and 12 are companion items.

Um item 11 is for the uh vacation of a portion of right-of-way being Mojave uh road.

This is for detached sidewalks.

This is between Tropicana Avenue and Tompkins Avenue.

Staff and the town board recommend approval.

We received seven cards in support and 12 cards and two letters in protest.

This is to facilitate the development of the site for a gas station.

That's there's a use a holdover use permit for that, and a design review for this gas station as well as a convenience store on the property.

Staff and the town board recommended approval.

The town board did recommend no overnight parking or camping on the site.

Signage is to be provided on site notifying of this condition.

Lighting to be added to the empty space north of the convenience store location facing away from the residences to the north.

For this site included an additional six-foot block wall on the east property line.

So that was in response to the town board's recommended conditions.

Item 13 is to vacate a portion of Hawk Street between Pebble and Raven.

Staff recommended approval.

The town board recommended denial because they had concerns over the that the vacation would remove a north-south route in the in this area.

We receive five cards in support.

Item 14 is to vacate a portion of right-of-way being Bermuda Road between Neal Avenue and St.

Rose Parkway.

Staff staff and the town board recommend approval.

We received one card in support.

Item 15 is vacation of a drainage easement in searchlight.

Staff and the citizens advisory commission committee recommended approval.

And one letter in protest.

Staff is recommending approval.

There are two cards in support and two cards in protest.

So this total of six parcels that are involved in this plan amendment.

And they are of a multiple current land use categories.

So that includes urban neighborhood, compact neighborhood, and mid-intensity suburban neighborhood.

Proposing to change those all to corridor mixed use.

Staff and the town board recommended approval.

We received one letter in support and five cards and two letters in protest.

19 is the companion zone change from RS20 to CG, Commercial General.

Staff and the Town Board recommended approval.

Staff and the town board recommended approval, and we received one letter in support and six cards and one letter in protest.

Item 21 is waivers of development standards to use parking lot landscaping, reduce buffering and screening, and modify residential adjacency standards and also driveway geometrics.

And this is for a proposed shopping center, includes a design review for that as well.

Staff and the town board recommended approval, and we receive one letter in support and six cards, cards, and two letters in protest.

The first is a plan amendment from corridor mixed use to mid-intensity neighborhood.

So this be going from two units per acre to eight units per acre maximum.

This is off of south of Rush Avenue, east of Cameron Street.

Staff and the town board recommend approval.

There were two cards received in support and four four cards in protest.

The companion zone change is to go from RS20 to RS 3.3.

Staff and the town board recommend approval.

We receive one card support and four cards in protest.

And then item 24 is a vacation of right-of-way for part of Rush Avenue and Cameron Street.

This is for detached sidewalks.

Staff and the town board recommend approval.

There were four cards in support and three cards in protest.

Item 25 is a design review for the proposed single family resident residential development on the site.

This is also on the same same location 4.71 acres.

Staff and the town board recommend approval.

The town board did add a recommended condition to install crash gate at the west end of B Street.

This would be leading toward on the west side next to Cameron Street.

And also to install two additional architectural features on buildings facing the public road, which again would be rush and Cameron.

We receive three cards of support and three cards in protest.

And then finally, last item that's related is uh tentative map consisting of three single family lots and common lots.

And then we had that add condition with the crash gate.

So that completes the uh routine action portion.

All right, let's take a pause there.

Um, any questions from the commissioners?

Uh Commissioner Kalarski.

I'm going to pull item number five.

Or four, I'm sorry, the very first one.

All right, that's not a problem.

And then Commissioner Whitman.

I just wanted to let you guys know that here I am.

Sorry for being late.

No problem.

Let's note that Commissioner Workman made it and is here and participating.

Quiet staff.

Yeah, Commissioners, if I could just um uh provide more clarity on um item number 15.

The drainage easement that's being vacated in searchlight.

Um as you know, sometimes when people are drainage easement being vacated, they get a little bit you know, it's just vacating the public to be publicly maintained.

They're still got the same ease, but it's just gonna be public to be privately maintained.

They do have a drainage study submitted with our department, and we're reviewing it as so, and that's the reason why there's vacations before you.

Okay.

Thank you very much, staff.

Any other questions?

All right, let's continue.

Non-routine action items.

All right, moving on to the non-routine items.

Um, first is item 27.

It's a holdover use permit permit to allow outside storage and waivers to reduce parking, eliminate and reduce buffering and screening, and to allow outdoor storage adjacent to a residential zone and a design review for outdoor storage in conjunction with an existing existing uh office and warehouse building.

This is on uh Kimberley Avenue, east of Steptoe Street.

Uh staff and the town board recommended denial.

Uh we did receive revised plans uh subsequent to the town board meeting.

Uh they are reducing the uh number of outdoor storage yards to to one.

It would be located in the southwest corner of the site.

Um parking uh was is reduced to 36 spaces instead of 24 spaces, or 42 are required.

Um there's no change, however, in the staff recommendation, which as I mentioned is still for denial.

Um we did receive five cards and one letter in support and five cards in protest.

Item 28 is a waiver to increase the wall height in conjunction with single family residence.

It's in the RP area on Monte Cristo Way just north of Coley Avenue.

Staff and the town board recommend denial.

Uh there are five cards and one letter in support and two cards and one letter in protest.

Item 29 is a holdover waiver of development standards to allow six foot high non decorative fence within the front setback in conjunction with an existing single family residence.

This is on Viking Road east of McLeod.

Staff and the town board recommend denial, and we receive five cards in protest.

Item 30 is a holdover waiver of development standards to reduce rear setback for a proposed balcony in conjunction with an existing single family residence.

This is in lone mountain area.

Staff recommend denial.

So it's a balcony on top of a patio cover, but they only approved the patio cover and not the balcony.

Shall not be used as observation deck or balcony.

So if approved as requested, it would be it would include the balcony, or if you were to approve per the uh CAC, it would be for the patio cover only.

I'm sorry, uh we received three cards in support and four cards and one letter in protest.

Item 31 is a holdover waiver development standards.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but the one that you just read.

Didn't we see that one already?

This is yes, it was at a previous um meeting.

I believe it was January 6th.

Didn't we deny it?

No.

No, no, you're coming back.

It was held.

Okay.

Yeah, it was held, and so it's it's back.

Um item 31 uh is uh requested by the applicant to be held to no date.

Uh this is a holdover waiver development standards to increase the height of a proposed single family residence in the mount up in uh Mount Mount Charleston.

Um they did hold the meeting with the town board on uh Thursday, January 29th.

Uh it was discussion only, no action took place.

The applicant uh did attend the meeting with a re some revised plans, but we need uh uh time to uh for them to resubmit to staff for our evaluation before uh rescheduling it before the town board and PC.

And so that's the the reason for the request to hold to no date.

Um we received three cards in support and seven cards and eight letters in protest.

Items items 32 through 35 are companion items.

First is a plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from ranch of state neighborhood to mid-intensity suburban neighborhood on 1.12 acres.

This is on Smoke Ranch Road west of Apricot Lane in the Lone Mountain Planning Area.

Um staff recommends denial.

This is an item that actually was before you back in November of 2024, along with the zone change.

Um it was held at the PC because uh the commissioners wanted to see a development plan.

This plan has now been prepared and it will be it is on on the uh is a companion item on today's agenda.

Um staff again, as I mentioned, recommends denial.

We've received um nine cards and two letters in protest.

The companion zone changes go from RS 20 to RS 3.3.

Um again, staff is recommending denial.

We receive one card in support and ten cards and two letters in protest.

Item 34 to is to vacate a portion of right-of-way being apricot lane.

This is for detached sidewalks.

Uh staff is right recommending approval, and there are 11 cards and two letters in protest.

Uh then finally, the um item 35 is for waivers development standards to allow attached sidewalks on Smoke Ranch Road and to reduce the street intersection offset.

Also, design review for proposed single family residential development on the site.

Um staff is recommending approval of the uh waiver number two, denial of waiver number one, and the design review.

Um they are proposing eight homes on the site.

However, the tentative map is not part of the proposal at this time that it would if they do get approved, it would have to be submitted later.

Um, if as I said, these applications are approved.

Uh they we receive one card support and 11 cards and two letters in protest.

Um items 36 through 40 are related items.

Um the first one is a plan amendment to designate the land use category of the site from mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to urban neighborhood.

This is on 4.7 acres.

This is a location south of Silverado Ranch, east of Gillespie Street.

This item is a companion with items 37 and 39.

37 being the zone change and 39 is the use permit, waivers and uh design review.

Um it is also related to item 38, which is a vacation, and item thir 40, uh, which is the tentative map.

Staff and the town board recommend denial for the plan amendment.

We received four cards in support and 11 cards and four uh letters in protest.

Um the zone change, companion zone changes to change the site from RS20 and RS2 to RM 32, residential multifamily 32.

Uh staff and the town board recommend denial, and we receive four cards in support and 11 cards and four letters in protest.

Um we'll skip ahead briefly to item 39, which is the use permit for senior housing.

This is requested to allow an increase in the density beyond the three 32 that would ordinarily be allowed.

Uh waivers development standards to reduce setbacks, modified uh buffering and screening, increased wall height and increase uh retaining wall height and reduce throat depth.

Uh also design review for multifamily residential development.

Um so items 36, 37, and 39 um are our companions, as I mentioned, may be voted on together.

Um these items um will go on to the BCC uh at their meeting on March 4th.

The other two items, um first one is item 38 to vacate uh easements of interest and a portion of right-of-way being Walmart Castle Lane.

I uh that um vacation was recommended for approval by staff and recommended for denial by the town board.

We received four cards in support and 13 cards and four letters in protest.

Um that is a uh companion with a the tentative map, which is um for seven single family residential lots and six point four one acres.

Um this tenative map will establish new property lines after the vacation to vacate uh Walmer Castle Lane.

So each the single family area to the east will uh get essentially half of the area of the of the right-of-way if it's vacated, and then the site on which the multifamily um senior housing project would would get the other half on the on the west side.

Um so items 30 and 40 can be voted together.

Uh these two items, however, would be final action um at the PC meeting tonight.

Uh and that concludes uh the items on the um non-routine items.

That thank you, staff.

Um any questions from the commissioners?

Oh, I do see some lights.

Uh Commissioner Klarski.

Just one question on number 27.

Um that's an IP is the land use.

How long do you know how long that's been in IP?

And is there outside storage allowed?

NIP?

And this was item 27, yes.

27, okay.

I just remember this area all being industrial at one time, and we've kind of built houses around it.

So yeah, I don't think that uh building would cut mustard today for sure.

I mean the roll up doors all face roadway.

Just not a very good design.

I don't think it would, I don't think we'd approve it if it was coming before us today.

So, these questions that I I just not anything to try and change a vote or anything.

Right, yeah, I'm just trying to get information.

Yep.

Yeah.

So currently the site is surrounded on three sides by by residential development.

Um your question was is this was it was it other industrial in the area previously?

Well, I know there was because I got outvoted when those houses got put on.

Okay.

We were looking to put housing housing in.

Um that being said, is outside storage allowed in the IP land use.

You can do outside storage, but there are screening requirements.

There's screening requirements.

Okay, that's all I needed to find out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Gibson, are you the bottom line on or yeah?

Okay.

Commissioner Gibson.

So on item 30.

Do we know if they got those other two letters I requested?

Item third.

I'm sorry, did you say it?

Item 30.

So last time they were here, I'm the one that pushed it to this meeting and give them time to get.

I don't remember the name of the street.

I have to pull it up on Google Earth, but it was directly behind them and lower than them.

They had a letter from the direct neighbor, but I wanted letters from each side of that neighbor.

Do we know if we got those?

We do not have them.

Um I'm wondering if the applicant thought that they were supposed to just bring them tonight.

Okay.

Um but our staff was supposed to reach out to them the day after the meeting.

Um we don't have any information about it though.

Okay, and then my next question is is if I was to just approve the patio cover, how much are they obviously their plans are drawn for a patio cover with stairs and a rooftop?

I mean, does this go all the way back to the drawing board and start all over?

Or what's the impact?

Um just take off the stairs and take off the the rooftop deck.

So they could redline the plans and okay.

Yeah, as long as they want to just keep it the way the way it's shown, minus the stairs and minus the ability to stand on top of it.

Okay, thank you.

I have something to add to that.

Um didn't didn't we remind me of from ask them to didn't you said talk get with staff?

So in other words, I don't want them to use the excuse.

Oh, we didn't know we had to or something, because I I thought that we did tell them to get with staff from what he what we don't have any record um if any letters of support from the neighbors were provided to staff.

Yeah, I think it was I think you all were very clear to them.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, that's that's the only point I'm trying to make.

I don't want them to say, oh, we didn't know we had to because staff didn't call us.

Yeah, right.

I mean there uh to me there was no ambiguity, it was very clear.

We provided the addresses on the record.

Um again, I don't I our staff was directed to call.

I don't have the information on whether or not that actually happened, and we don't have anything new in the file.

All right, all right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh back to item number 27.

I think you said in the zoning district uh outdoor storage is okay as long as the screening requirements are met.

Is that correct?

Did I hear that right?

We do have screening requirements.

I don't have the full universe of the I thank you.

So I guess the question I have is uh are the are the requirements met based on what they've submitted.

You said they're removing one of the outdoor storage areas, the one nearest to the homes.

Now they just have a cyclone fence around the storage area.

I guess you can like ask for that during the hearing.

Just give us a second.

We have the revised plans.

You do have the revised plans?

And so my question is are the screening requirements are they sufficient?

Commissioners, it that they still do not meet the the two standards for outdoor storage, and that's what uh that's why they need the use permit, so it's not screened appropriately.

I'm sorry, Jason, say that again.

So it's not screened appropriately, which triggers a use permit requirement, and then the other thing they do not meet is that it has to be accessory to an indoor primary use uh located behind the front face of the primary building.

So they don't meet that requirement either.

So because they don't meet those two, it triggers the use permit.

Is it possible that uh this outdoor storage uh that they're gonna use is for this first unit, or is it for the whole all four units?

My understanding is uh there are different tenants in each one of these suites.

So which suite is going to be using the outdoor storage?

Do we know that?

So per the applicant, it's it says the the establishment of one outdoor storage yard on the west side of the building for tenant use.

Right.

The southwest uh the correct north northwest, I think the one furthest away from the the homes, I think, right?

That's correct.

And so did you tell did you say which suite is gonna use it, or you didn't say that?

I didn't hear that.

We believe it's suite A, which is directly adjacent to the outdoor storage yard.

Because that's that's the outdoor storage yard is southwest, so suite A is the westernmost suite commissioners.

That was just clarified on the revised plans we received, so that's why the staff report doesn't address that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

All right, so that's so that concludes our non-routine roof briefing.

So we do so we ordinances.

Do we want to talk about it?

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

So that's the next item is or ordinances.

If you want staff want to give us a briefing on that, or have any discussion?

Commissioners, I can go over the ordinance.

Good evening.

Um so I think last meeting, Jason mentioned that um we're doing an update ordinance.

Most of the changes are gonna be driven by state law, the last legislative session, and then there were some issues or items that the BCC directed us to make some changes.

So the I the ordinance is gonna be introduced tomorrow and then set for a public hearing for February 18th.

Okay, I'll just roll through these.

Um I did give you a handout, and it's on this.

Do you have it on the screen?

Yeah, okay.

So the first change we're making is to our notification signs that we post for zone changes in certain applications.

We've been charging 200 per sign, and it's cost 300, so we're up upping the price so we can get um uh cover our get our cost back.

Additionally, um, if you remember when we adopted Title 30, we got rid of the H2 zoning district, and we said you can't apply for zone changes to H2, and we were encouraging um applicants, property owners to apply for the H2 zone change, and we were going to waive the fee.

Well, the fee was only for two years and it sunseted on um January 1st, but the BCC directed us to go ahead and modify it so the fee will be um waived indefinitely.

So anyone who wants to come in if they meet um with staff and agree with staff's recommendation, um, then we will waive the fee for them and process the application.

Um one of the state laws that we um are implementing here is AB 241, which required multifamily dwellings to be allowed in commercial zoning districts, um, and it could be in conjunction with a mixed use development.

So as the code is today, um, to do multi-family in a commercial zoning district, it has to be in conjunction with a mixed use and subject to a special use permit.

So because of the state law, we're changing that so that if you are multifamily with included in a mixed-use zoning district, you it's a conditional use, which means it could just be through a design review if there's no other waivers that go with it.

And then if they want to do a standalone multi-family project, then they do need to do a use permit.

Um AB 396 was um a bill about accessory dwelling units.

Uh, we call them accessory living quarters.

And thankfully, um, we were pretty much in compliance with that bill.

When we were reviewing um the accessory living quarters standards, we had some limitations on lot size.

Um, for instance, if let's say you had an RS-20 lot that had a waiver to reduce the lot size, even if it was to um 18,000 square feet, they couldn't do an accessory living quarters on that property.

So we did delete that section, so that's no longer a requirement.

There was a requirement that you could not be with within a manufactured home or tiny park, or on a lot that was less than 4,000 square feet, and that couldn't be waived.

So we're keeping the condition there, but if they do want to put one on there and 4,000 square foot lot, they can apply for a special use permit.

Um, as we're going along, even this uh amount of time later, we're gonna come across unenco unintended consequences.

Um we came across here where um state highways are not considered on our master uh transportation plan as a collector arterial local street.

So um we did not have a requirement for landscaping other than the default to six feet.

So we are um requiring a 10-foot landscape strip along these streets, and um a good example would be on Boulder Highway.

Um one of the commissioners, Commissioner Jones asked us to um reevaluate the parking standards for many warehouses.

The new standard did require a lot of parking, and we did have waivers for them consistently.

So we went back to what the old code was at five spaces, and then we did add spaces for caretaker units.

So again, in coming across the code and different points in time, different projects, we realized that inadvertently the code was requiring attached sidewalks along frontage roads.

And of course, that wasn't the intent, and it was intended to be detached sidewalks.

So this section of the ordinances correcting that so that detached sidewalks are required on frontage roads.

And this is just clarifying that we mean the all the streets within the subdivision.

These are some changes regarding private streets.

And then for lots, which I typically call like a flag lot where there's lots like north and south of each other.

When they're just serving that one other lot, they're gonna have to have a minimum with driveways of 24 feet, and the county approved turnaround is no longer required.

The other part of this is where right now the code requires or limits, I should say, a maximum of six dwelling units on private streets that are less than 150 feet in length, and typically those streets are 24 feet wide.

Um we are now going to say that you cannot waive that.

So no longer can you come in for seven, eight or we've seen 10 or 12 units on these small streets, so there won't be a waiver allowed for those any further.

Another bill is AB 540, which is about affordable housing, and we were in compliance with that.

Um, but one thing that the the bill required us is to codify our expedited and prioritized review process for affordable housing projects.

So since for a couple years now, when we have affordable housing projects, we don't have them do the normal appointment process.

They come in and they do a pre-submital, they are assigned to one planner and they just work with the planner to get their reviews done without scheduling appointment online and so forth.

So we've been reviewing the applications as fast as we can.

Um, of course, once we take it in, we're limited to our time frames.

But um, this we just pretty much codified exactly the wording that was in the bill.

Um for extensions of time, administrative extensions of time.

We clarified that the administrative extension of time can only be done on the first extension of time for a project.

That was mostly the common practice, but there were a few times where they might have come in for an extension of time for a hearing, and then maybe the second one they wanted to do administratively.

So we're clarifying the option for administrative extension of time is only for the first extension for the project.

Um, typically the um extended time period is just gonna be for one year when they do an administrative extension, but what we're clarifying here is that if there was a subsequent application with a um later, if you will, time frame, we will extend the first application to match that time frame, even if it's over a year.

So this way we can kind of have just consistent time frames on the applications and not have them expiring at different times.

Um then for extensions of time for off-site improvements.

Currently, the code allows an extension time every two years, and there's no limit.

And I know in talking to public works that they have extensions of time coming in every two years, four or five, six times.

So, what this change will do is limit it to one year extensions with only a maximum of two extensions of time that can be done.

Otherwise, they would go back to the board.

But the director of public works does have some flexibility that they could do one if it warrants it, but we're going to try and just limit it to two for now and see if they're not getting to it within four years.

They should go back to the board and um give some direction as to what's going on with the project.

And then this last slide has three different definitions from different bills.

Really no substantial changes.

We just were mirroring the language from the from the bill.

The first one is about the inflatables, those are the bouncy houses, and we just again match the same language that they had.

Community facilities as regarding cannabis regulations where they have to have certain separations from community facilities.

And this definitions were strictly from the state.

And then the last one was just a minor change to the definition for recreational vehicle based on uh AB 38.

So that covers the ordinance.

Um, do you have any questions?

Thank you, staff.

And and we certainly appreciate all your hard work.

I mean, it's a continuous process.

Our county is always going to be changing, and so we we appreciate all the management of our of our codes and and rules.

Um Commissioner Kalarski question?

Um no, I'll talk with staff.

I I'm still confused on the attached and the detached sidewalks requirements.

So that's just me.

So I rather than take up time, I'll sit with them.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, so that's it for ordinances.

Um, any administrative items.

No administrative items.

Okay, so no administrative items.

So that that concludes our briefing.

So the last item on our our agenda for our briefing is um open it up for public comment.

Um it's a time that we set aside for a meeting.

Anyone in the audience can come down and speak.

Um we're it's uh not an item that we can vote on or have any any discussion about.

All right, so I opened it up for public comments.

Seeing no one coming down, we're gonna close that section of public comments and we're gonna adjourn the briefing.

Thank you.