All right, so welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, April 7th.

Um, if you wouldn't mind standing and um join us in a pledge of allegiance.

I pledge of allegiance to the report which stands one issue under God's call.

Chair Frazier.

Here, Vice Chair Movica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here, Commissioner Kirk here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Here, Commissioner Brady.

Here.

Commissioner Roytman.

Here.

Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

All right, so the first item on our agenda is public comments.

Um time to set aside by NRS for anyone to come down and make public comments.

The commission cannot act on any of those comments, but you're more than welcome to do so.

Okay, seeing no one coming down for public comments, we will close that section of the meeting and we'll go ahead and get started staff.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good evening, Commissioners.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions, holds, or deletions.

At this time, staff requests the following.

Hold the following to the May 5th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and the corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting to June 3rd, 2026 for the applicant.

Item number 16, PA 26, 7000.

Item number 17, ZC 26086.

Item number 18, VS 26087, item number 19, WS 26088, and item number 20, TM 2650 25.

For the applicant's information, additional renotification fees may be required in accordance with Title 30 for items held or deleted, or if there are modifications to the original application.

These are for items 16 through 20.

If there are no requests by the planning commission or any members of the public, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you.

I got a motion for approval of the agenda.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor.

Thank you.

That motion carries.

However, if there are no planning commission briefing and regular meeting minutes ready for approval at this time.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items number four through ten, except those items that were previously deleted.

These items may be recon uh sorry, maybe considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item.

If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open in the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

Thank you.

So now this is a time where the commission is going to vote on items four through ten.

We're going to do that in one motion and one vote to approve all of those items.

So if you're in opposition or if you want to hear the item and you want to pull it from the agenda so it can be heard separately.

Now's the time to come down and ask for that request.

All right, seeing no one coming down, um, we'll go ahead and entertain a motion for the routine action items.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move that we approve uh the routine action items four through ten.

All right, there's a motion on the floor, cash your vote.

Commissioner my Commissioner Mohica.

Commissioner Mohica, yes.

All right, thank you.

That motion carries.

This is final action unless appealed.

The next item on the agenda is item number 11.

This is UC260032.

Use permit for second accessory living quarters design review for proposed accessory living quarters in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 4.51 acres in an RSAD residential single family 80 zone within the red rock overlay.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

251 North Rampart Boulevard Lost Race Navadic.

Excuse me, I can't hear you.

Can you pick it up by your checking?

Can the engineer turn that mic up?

Check, check, check, check.

Hello.

Oh, I'll hang down.

How's that?

Hello, hello.

Wow.

Okay.

All right.

So they they read into the minutes there, uh, what we're doing here.

I wanted to show you kind of where it's at and how rural it is.

It's just south of Blue Diamond.

Um, over here is uh the Blue Diamond Community about four miles away.

Over here is Holapie, about two miles away, and as you can see, it's just south of Blue Diamond, uh, near the BLM border.

Um, again, really rule all the parcels out here are two and a half acre.

The applicants is five acres, really rule really big.

Um I want to walk you through the site here.

So here's Torino, just as a bearing.

Here's the BLM over here.

Uh we've got the primary dwelling right here.

We've got the first ALQ right here.

We've got the second ALQ, which is what we're requesting right here, and then here are the agricultural uh supporting structures for the site.

Um staff, I'll just jump right into staff.

Staff didn't like the size of the house relative to the primary dwelling, and they didn't like the fact that it wasn't architecturally compatible with respect to the uh the primary dwelling.

Um, and and there was impacts that they that they said existed.

When we brought that up to the town board, they they didn't have any argument against the the size or the compatibility, they thought it was fine.

Um, so I'm wondering if those impacts really exist.

If if town board and the neighbors around there don't notice them, are they really an issue?

And I mean, the here's 18 letters of support where the letter specifically states you know size of the proposed structure and the design compatible to the primary residents, and I'll I'll give you those right there.

Um at the end of the day, I I think it's an easy yes, but we we bring it to your attention and and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Um, so um is anyone in so we'll we'll open this application up for a public hearing, and now's the time to come down and speak on this item if anyone wants to speak on this particular application.

All right, seeing no one coming down, we'll close the public hearing and I'll open it up to our commissioners.

And I'll start with Commissioner Mohica on the phone.

Any questions or concerns?

Well, uh, Mr.

Chair, this is in my district.

Okay, well, then we'll hold you for last.

Um no, I don't have anything.

All right, seeing no questions, then it'll come right back to you, Commissioner Mohica.

Um, I disagree with the applicant that this is an easy yes because it is not for me.

I agree with staff.

If it's not architecturally compatible, then it's not something we want to approve.

And also it exceeds the living area, so this would be a denial for me.

Okay.

So I'm I'm ready to make a motion.

All right, before you make a motion, let me just make sure all the commissioners have any quite any questions or comments, and everybody's good.

Okay, so let's let me why why don't you have this architecturally compatible, or is it painted different color?

Is it is it actually gonna be from what I remember reading?

Is it's not even really an accessory dwelling unit so much as it's more like uh RV storage.

It it can I show you some of the drawings?

Sure.

Okay.

So here's what the front of the house actually looks like.

This is the actual house in Utah.

Where um I can't see what you see.

Okay, well, there we go.

There we go.

Okay, sorry, I'm getting there.

There you go.

Here's what the house actually looks like.

It was actually built in Utah, and and it's and it's almost identical to the house that's caddy corner across the street.

It we just changed the roof line to match the one in Utah.

So here's the actual house, and it's similar in color uh to the to the primary residence with respect to color.

Okay.

This is the primary that I'm looking at.

No, this is this is the second ALU ALQ.

The the primary residence is right here.

And what does that look like?

Let me slide that over right here.

So it's different, but I mean it's not that different in a couple senses.

This house right here was built over 25 years ago.

Um this house was just recently built, and so one of the reasons they don't want to copy the the primary uh dwelling exactly is because of that.

Trends 25 years ago weren't the trends of today.

This is more representative of homes today.

This is more representative of how homes were 25 years ago.

Let me spread these out so you can see them side by side.

And what does the first accessory look like?

That one's right here.

Here's the front and the back.

Let me open.

Can you see this?

Yes.

Right here.

So it's stuccoed.

Similar color.

And as far as the it's not really an RV garage, in in my opinion.

It's got a big RV garage.

It's you know, which is right here, but it's also got a fitness center, it's also got a covered patio over here.

They've also got a private safe room, but here's the living area.

Here, you know, here are your bedrooms.

Here's the other garage.

So it's not like just an RV garage, they have a lot of RV recreational equipment, and so they need a big area to store that.

Okay, what I'm reading here, it says that the floor plans show that half of the overall area includes the garage, patio, and the main living area is much smaller.

So that's exactly what you're looking at right here.

Okay, it's just that they're all connected.

Okay.

And you said town board did or the CAC was okay with this.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

I I I think that I I could support the application, but we'll but um we'll let Commissioner Mohica make a motion and we'll see where it goes.

Well, I'm just going but by what staff said, and and stab has looked into this.

I mean, we have staff for a reason, so they can review this documents, and I'm I'm gonna still uh stick to my original motion.

It will be uh unless he wants to hold it and work with staff and figure this out.

I I I I would I would ask um Commissioner Mohiko, give me a second.

I would ask staff.

Um I I see that town board did not have an issue with the application, and your denials were based upon.

I I thought I read somewhere where you wanted the property to be subdivided so that the so that the accessory structure would stand alone by itself.

And so I guess could you give us give me some feedback on on why you had that right up?

Yes, the primary concerns uh from staff were one the size, the accessory living quarters, which are you know significantly larger than both the primary residents and the existing accessory living quarters, um the lack of architectural compatibility with the primary residents, and you know, typically when we're seeing a site that's looking to have essentially three dwellings on it, we do like to see them subdivided as it's more appropriate to have multiple lots to accommodate those three dwellings as opposed to putting them all on the same lot, especially in a rural area.

All right, so so then my my comment would be that structure that was built a long time ago.

I think he wouldn't want to match that.

And so I'm kind of good with that.

The second part is um I'm struggling with reconciling the neighbors and town, their town board being okay with the application, and then having having our staff say um because of these these are these hard rules, you know, we're not okay with it.

So uh again, um, Commissioner Mohica, you can you can ask him to hold it so you guys can talk about it separately, but um, but I'm I'm I'm actually I could support the application.

Well, I don't I don't understand why we couldn't uh work with staff, and if they wanted subdivided for for him to work with staff and figure out how to better do this.

So is is there a way that we could so what would be the best option to hold it or to just condition this and have him work with staff and subdivide it?

Okay, so so I I think I heard a question from you, so I would ask that to the applicant.

Um what why why wouldn't you just go ahead and subdivide the property?

Um that was the original attempt was to subdivide it, um, but it became too expensive too quick with uh street curb, gutter, lights, all that kind of stuff that comes with subdivision.

And so this was uh a more equitable way to do it, and and because it qualified for the special use permit, it seemed like this was the path that kind of lit up and everybody started to follow.

Commissioner Mohica.

So I could I could deny it right now and make a motion to deny it, or I could I could approve it with the condition that they'd subdivide it.

I mean, what can I do?

So so I'm gonna I'm going to say this out loud.

I I think there's there's there's no path forward for the applicant.

Um I think it's um it's absolutely based upon money.

So so he so he would like to move forward with what he has or get it denied.

I believe that's where we're standing today.

So okay, so I'll make a motion to deny UC260032.

All right, there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

That motion does not carry.

Um I will in turn make a motion to approve this application and it's not in front of me.

Hold on a second.

UC 260032.

Motion on the floor, cash a vote.

Mohica, notion carries.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Item number 12 is UC 26009, holdover use permit to allow outdoor storage, waiver's development standards for the following: one modified residential adjacency standards, two, reduce buffering and screening, three, eliminate street landscaping and four offense.

Design review for outdoor storage on 0.46 acres in a CR commercial resort zone, generally located east of Fremont Street and north of Oki Boulevard within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

Name and address for your for the record and tell us about your application.

Uh sure, my name is Jory Caser.

I'm with All American Builders, and the address is 2909 Fremont Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89104.

Uh so the presented in front of you is what was proposed to our client as far as uh line landscaping goes for their storage unit.

Uh, as you can see here, they've outlined some landscaping around the perimeter there.

Uh, what our client is presenting is to fence off the area, add some additional parking, and then also close off some of the area here so that way they can create a perimeter, which I believe is what uh the city is asking as far as uh being able to provide some kind of a barrier to what they have right now currently.

All right, does that conclude your presentation?

Uh yeah, well, our client is also presenting that they're gonna asphalt the entire area here as per the apparently code of section 3.0403, and they'll be in scaping uh also adding in uh landscaping buffer on the back end here.

They're presenting this plan versus this plan here.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, so we're gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Um is anyone in the audience would like to come down and speak on this item?

All right, see no one coming down.

We will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to the commissioners.

Um Commissioner Kirk.

Um I guess my big concern is the current state of what you have and how it's gonna be cleaned up.

Um it looks like a uh 10 pounds of stuff pushed into a five-pound bag, right?

I mean, there are lots of cars, so and even out on into the right of way on on the Boulder Highway or Fremont Street.

So the only way that you're gonna get my support is if you are going to clean that up and get all those cars out of the right-of-way and not allow cars to park there anymore.

Now we can go up and down Baldro Highway and you can say, oh yeah, but it's but that's the way they do it.

Well, that's the way they've been doing it for a hundred years.

We're not doing that anymore.

We're gonna we're we're trying to improve the neighborhood and by doing that improve your property values and your neighbors' property values, and make your life a little easier, and especially the residents that live behind you make their life easier.

So uh as long as uh there's some kind of I guess I I I I guess if they're gonna have a a parking lot, is does that uh I guess it's a question for staff.

Does that automatically put a maximum number of vehicles that they're allowed on that property?

So if they were approved for a parking lot or for outdoor storage, it would not establish a maximum number of vehicles that can be on the lot.

Say that again.

So if they were to request either a parking lot or outdoor storage as the primary use of it, it would not limit the maximum number of vehicles.

Well, is it gonna be striped?

I mean it's a parking lot.

Are we gonna stripe it?

So if they were requesting a parking lot, then the you know requirements for striping would apply for outdoor storage.

They they do not know.

Well, okay, then you know what?

Um I'd like to hear what Commissioner Clarski has to say about this, and then I may join back in in a minute.

All right, so I I got some other lights.

Um Commissioner Workman.

And if it's being used as outdoor storage, which is the special use permit, are are they able to use it in a J.

I mean, it appears that it is being used for the car dealership next door, is that right?

Or that's the intent.

That uh I may ask the applicant uh to clarify the request that is in front of you is is for outdoor storage.

They haven't specified a vehicle sales request as part of this application.

But if that is what's going on there, then does outdoor storage qualify to allow them to for that use?

No, those would be separate uses.

They would need the requisite approval for vehicle sales as well.

But it appears to me that that's what the intended um commissioner Mohica, any any questions or concerns of what the applicate application.

Yes, in addition to uh what the two previous commissioners have said, um, I also would like to know it's re it requires an eight-foot high decorative wall, and they're having existing six-foot high screen wall.

I would like to at least see that they put two feet up a decorative to be in compliance with an eight-foot high wall.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I I'll just I'll just say to the applicant.

Um I'm kind of in the same boat with my commissioners as far as regulating the outdoor storage.

I I get it, the vehicle sales is next door.

You have car overflow, you want to put them in this lot.

I I would agree with Commissioner Kurt that we we want to manage what that looks like so that you don't have um a very an eyesore, I would say, but I but I absolutely understand your the the thought process of of needing the space to make the business work.

So I'm um I'm amenable to an application that doesn't allow unlimited space.

Um outside of that, I'm I'm I'm okay with with not striping but condition of the number of vehicles, and um I'm okay with the block wall, but if that that comes as a condition, I'm I'm I'm good with that too.

I hope you heard it all heard all of that, Commissioner Kularski.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Kalarski, it's on you.

Okay.

Before I I get on my soapbox, because I was there today.

I had to park at the Crown Motel, which is two parcels down north of there, so that I could park and I could walk in front of your property.

That is not that that goes to show me how this is not a usable and is not a good situation for Boulder Highway.

But let me ask you this first.

You said the drawing that doesn't show the rear landscaping.

That's a new drawing.

This is the one that you want that this plan is the one that you want to utilize the plan currently you're placed right here that my fingers are on.

Yes.

Uh that is the new proposed, correct.

Has staff seen this?

Or is this the first time that they're laying their eyes on this?

Did you give it to your planner?

Let me put it to you that way.

I believe it's provided to the planner.

However, unfortunately, I do not have that information at this time, so I am not sure.

Okay.

Uh it was presented to me earlier today, and this is what is being presented from our client.

Okay, see, this is what happened two weeks ago.

Is that the and it wasn't you, but yeah, the representative came down and he was he couldn't tell me anything, and that's why we held it, and that's why I asked for somebody to contact me before tonight.

That did not happen.

Understandably.

Okay.

No, it's not understandable.

Well, I mean, on my behalf, I mean, uh obviously I you know so staff, have you seen this?

Staff has not seen us provide a site plan.

And uh just looking at this, the biggest thing that I see different is I don't see landscaping in the back as shown on the previous one.

I don't see, I thought I I understood you to say there was going to be landscaping along the street.

Did I understand that correctly?

Along the street, I believe our client is proposing to remove the landscaping and there is no landscaping there anyway, but it's all it's all cars parked on there.

You have the cars parked, and then you have the sidewalk, and then you have the street, and all the cars are parked there.

Correct.

I I believe from what was presented to them, I believe they're trying to avoid the landscaping on that front part.

Uh based off of this new plan here, they're trying to accommodate some more parking on the back side to allow some of those cars to move over away from the street side.

I thought I read on this that the uh the cars in there are inoperable.

Is that correct?

Are are those cars that are in that back area?

Is that storage or are those cars that are being repaired so that they can be used for sale?

Currently it's a combination of both, they're inoperable or and being repaired for sale.

So does that fall under the outdoor storage?

So if they're doing repair and maintenance on the vehicles, that would fall under an additional use of you know vehicle maintenance or repair in addition to the outdoor storage.

So he needs to have more use permits or more use requests in order to get this thing passed.

Am I correct?

Because he's gonna have to come back to us anyway.

If vehicle maintenance and vehicle sales are you know what the intent is for for the project, then yes, they should get those use permit requests added to the application.

I I I would I would offer that the applicant may have misspoke in and what's before him before us just outdoor sales.

Um we can maybe um keep moving forward in that in that sense.

Uh I would I would imagine he's not repairing and it's just for storage of vehicles.

Well, I can tell you that the cars that were parked in the front in front of the gate had buyer's guide paperwork on the windows.

So I'm assuming that it's all going that's all for sale.

And uh okay, I'll stand down.

So I think you've got a lot more work on this thing to do.

Uh I I'm gonna tell you right off the bat, I am not going to approve no landscaping the front.

Not gonna do it.

He's gonna have to put landscaping.

This is a storage.

It's not for repair maintenance.

So you're gonna need to have another use permit.

I think you really need to get back with the planner.

We hold this for 60 days, say, get back with the planner.

Make sure you know all the things that he wants to do.

I can contact him and tell him what I'm looking for so that he can give you a better idea.

And and we go from there so that we can make this, as Commissioner Kirk said, we want to make sure that Boulder Highway starts to look better.

The a couple parcels up, the parcel right adjacent to you, it's empty.

If they come in with the project, I'm gonna require that they put landscaping.

The property to the north of them, they have landscaping.

The property to the north of that has landscaping.

The property across the street, which is the health district and the storage unit, and that terrible Herbst, they all have landscaping.

I I think we just need to keep emphasizing on putting this thing together, making sure that we have better property looking and we don't look like a junkyard.

And that whole area right there looks like a junkyard.

It really, really does.

Completely understandable.

I know it was mentioned a minute ago as far as the demising wall being elevated.

Is that not suffice, or are we requiring landscaping regardless?

Well, we can talk about the type of landscaping.

I I would like to see some sort of landscaping with actual plants.

If I have to go with gravel and big boulders, I will do that.

But I would like to see, I I want to see what what that's gonna look, what you can give to us to better that piece of property to better that uh what you got there.

You cannot have the amount of vehicles that you have and the way they're parked.

You cannot have your cars parked on the street, where people, if they want to come into your your establishment, they can park on the street.

I couldn't find a parking space.

That whole dream works that your your dream promoter cars, nothing in front of there.

The two parcels, which are one owner, I know that you can't park anywhere.

You can't even park inside.

I saw the postman.

That was it.

He only had one space.

That was all that was free.

Uh so I would I would suggest that with the storage with the vehicle repair with the uh what was the other one we said?

Vehicle sales.

Vehicle sales, because they all have to be tied in together.

That you do that, get with the planner, see what uh what else you need.

We hold this for what'd you say, staff you're more familiar with how long this is gonna take.

30 days, 60 days.

I do not want him to have to pay renotification fees.

45 days?

I can do 45.

So if the application's held from the original meeting date that it was scheduled for, which was the March 17th planning commission meeting, if it's held 85 days from that date, the applicant will be subject to renotification fees.

So if you want to keep it within that 85-day window, we might suggest holding it 45 days, 60 days to keep them from that 85-day threshold.

Okay, let's do a 45-day.

Do you think we could have that all done?

Uh and I'm looking from staff's perspective because you guys are the busy ones.

So potentially looking at the May 19th planning commission meeting to hold it until that date.

Okay.

And I read this, Steve Demerit is the planner.

Correct.

Okay.

I will contact Steve tomorrow, and then you can get with him and they can, you guys can and try and work out.

And if I need to come in and sit with you guys, I can do that.

Okay.

Totally understandable.

So May 19th is the deadline, it sounds like as far as we'll come back and we'll see if we can't get this thing.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'm going to make a motion to hold till May 19th.

Vivian, could I?

I'm sorry.

Can I jump in for just one minute?

Absolutely.

And if we could zoom back out to get both of the site plans on the screen.

Okay.

I didn't want to jump in here, and I am.

So it's difficult for me as a planning commissioner to look at something that has been drawn by hand and is not to scale.

You know, if you look at this in an aerial view, it's actually a rectangle, the the site.

What you've drawn here, it looks like a square until you start looking at the dimensions on the plan.

It's 200 feet by 100 feet, and yet you've drawn it as a square.

Uh the 35 foot driveway onto Fremont has an internal drive aisle of 24 feet that you've indicated that is not to scale.

I I would like uh Commissioner Kalarski, if you could also maybe suggest in your motion that we actually have a two-scale site plan that we can actually understand and get get the mashing of well, how many bushes would it be on the back side?

Because the thing's not to scale.

And so you know, I'm it gets me.

When we have applicants here that spend dollars with a design professional to prepare a scalable site plan, and this is not that.

And so I'm gonna have a hard time approving anything unless I have a scaled site plan.

Okay, that's all I wanted to mention.

And I don't know if all I'm doing is holding it, so I don't know if I can make that as a condition, but I'm going to suggest strongly that you get this to uh the scale as Commissioner uh Stone has suggested appreciate it, Commissioner Stone.

Thank you.

And uh I will go ahead and relay that message to my client.

All right, there's a motion on the floor to hold.

Commissioner, if I if I may.

So the staff recommendation would be if the applicant's intent is to add the additional uses, uh, whether it's vehicle sales and or vehicle maintenance to hold it no date because it's gonna need to be renotified because the notifications are gonna be different with the additional uses.

So if they are going to add those, we'd suggest hold it no date, subject to renotification.

If they're going to proceed with just the outdoor storage request that's currently in front of you, then it's okay to hold it for you know 30 days, 45 days, whatever you deem appropriate.

Let's hold it, talk to your client, find out if that's what he's gonna do.

He's gonna have to be renotified, and we're gonna have to kind of start all over again.

Perfect.

So if it's just outdoor storage we have until May 19th, if there's anything additional as far as repairs go, then we will have to file for new permitting and everything.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, you understand that.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and get with Steve, and Steve can uh can help you out with that.

Absolutely, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, there's a motion on the floor, Commissioner Mohica.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

All right, that motion to hold carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think this is now I see.

Item number 13, WS 260076, waiver of development standards reduce the rear setback for a proposed addition in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.1 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone.

It's generally located west of Sterling Creek Street and south of Rockstream Lane within Enterprise.

Good afternoon.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Jessica Lane with Proficient Patios representing Mr.

Nathaniel Lee, the homeowner.

So we are requesting a um, there's an existing patio cover.

As you see here, this is what he has existing that has already been permitted, built by him years ago.

Um, we are requesting to lower the rear setback from a 15-foot to a 10-foot setback to match what's already there built and enclose it as you see here with an enclosure with glass and screen, just like this.

So his existing patio cover goes all the way across, enclosing this area and leaving this patio cover still here existing and open as it's here, just on the side.

Um the color will be exactly the color he has here, so we're not changing anything in color.

And um, we do have an HOE approval.

There is his HOE approval.

We haven't gotten anything back from neighbors at this point of having an issue with it, and that's it, just requesting approval.

It has not been built yet.

We are just waiting for you guys to approve for us to move forward with construction.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Um we we will open this application up for a public hearing.

Um anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now it's time to come down.

We're seeing no one coming down.

We will close the public hearing and open up to commissioners.

I would just say thank you for coming and asking for approval prior to doing your work.

And um, I can support the application.

Go ahead, Commissioner Kalarski.

I just have a question.

Is there something wrong with the way this is to staff with the way we're doing things?

When it's the open patio, the setback is one thing.

But when we enclose it, then the setback increases.

Is there a reason?

At least that's what town board said.

So I'm just kind of curious if that in fact is true.

They said if it's the open patio, then the setback is to beat.

But if we had close it, then the setback required is 15.

Yeah, so the in code the setback requirement is different for a patio cover that's not enclosed.

It allows for you know further encroachment toward the property line.

When you enclose it, it becomes treated as part of the primary structure and is subject to the corresponding rear setback requirement.

But the the yard hasn't changed.

Nothing has changed except you added a wall.

I'm just curious why why it's like that.

Yeah, I would say part of it is it can be used for different reasons.

When you enclose it, you can now use that space as you know a kitchen, dining room, whatever other kind of typical residential uses where you have it just covered and not enclosed as a patio cover.

It doesn't, you know, facilitate the same kinds of uses that you can have when it is fully enclosed.

I just find that odd.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So Commissioner Roitman.

Uh I'll echo what the chair said.

Thanks for coming in advance, and uh I can uh support this.

All right, I don't see no other lights.

I'll go to Commissioner Mojico online.

This question is for staff.

Can you explain to me why it says that something else was previously approved?

Commissioner, can you can you clarify please?

It it says something like something else was previously approved.

That why does why don't they build it according to what was previously approved?

So I think you're referring in the analysis there's reference to the previously approved building permits.

Yes, those are the building permits that were approved for the residence itself as well as the patio cover, both of which complied with the uh setback standards.

They're now modifying that approved patio cover to enclose it.

So that's what is triggering the the waiver for the setback.

So the only difference is the fact that they want to enclose it.

Correct.

Okay.

I will make a motion to approve WS260076.

Commissioner, says I may uh to read it into the record.

The first condition had a typo on it.

Some of the standard language was removed for the two-year commencement period.

So we'd like to read into the record the following on that condition.

Applicant is advised within two years from the approval date that the application must commence or the application will expire unless extended with approval of an extension of time.

Uh thank you for reading.

So I thank you.

I will stick to my motion and add with approved uh staff conditions.

Recently that we're just read.

All right.

Applicants okay with that.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you very much.

That's a motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

All right, motion carries.

Good luck.

This is final action on this appealed.

Item number 14, WS26096 waivers of development standards for the following.

One eliminate and reduce setbacks and two reduced separations in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.23 acres in an RS10 residential single family 10 zone, generally located north of Mondo Pine Circle and west of Bristle Cone Street within Spring Valley.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record and tell us what we're doing.

Jackie Farley 6454 Mondale Pines Court or Circle 89146.

Please stop.

Oh, I was like, please stop looking at my phone.

Stop that.

Um, so yeah, this is my shed.

Been there since 2011, according to the assessors' historical images that I could use and find.

Um was received a letter in November of 2025 that it couldn't stay there anymore, and um, I use it for my pool supplies, my camping stuff, my Christmas holiday storage.

Uh it was there when I bought the house in October 2019.

I think that I'm here in front of you today because the town hall recommended it to be approved with staff conditions.

And I don't know what staff wants me to do.

I I I can't do anything else about the shed.

It's there, it's I can't change the setback.

Um, the only thing I can do is I can let you know that the neighbor to the east um live there when the gentleman constructed it, and she still owns the house today, and she did sign a petition stating she was in support of it and had no issues with it remaining there because I've cleaned up all the rats that the last neighbor used to let live in there.

So thank you very much.

Um I conclude your presentation.

Absolutely answer questions.

All right, fair, fair enough.

All right, so we're gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone to see if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one, we will close the public hearing, and I'll get some feedback from my commissioners, and I guess I will start with you said you mentioned you had the neighbors sign something.

Did you turn that in to staff, or do you have it with her?

I did, and it is in my justification letter.

Okay, as long as we have it for the record, staff.

Yeah, it's your part of the documents that I've got to do.

Yeah, because staff just confirmed that we do have it on file, yes.

Okay, all right, perfect.

Um then I will turn it over to the commissioners for any comments, questions.

All right, Commissioner Workman.

Uh earlier I said we like it when folks come for approval as instead of forgiveness.

It's also I think normal when you buy something and someone else had installed it, that that's uh sort of another good reason to be coming and asking for uh post post uh building approval.

Uh I also think it's great that you have your neighbors um uh support on this, and uh so I can definitely support the application.

Thank you, Commissioner Whitman.

Um I will move to no other comments.

I'll move to um online, Commissioner Mohica.

Oh, staff can you confirm that the neighbors don't have a problem with this?

Yes, staff has reproved the uh the letter of support from the adjacent neighbor.

Okay, motion to approve WS260096.

All right, there's a motion on the floor, cash your vote, all right.

That motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

And says final action unless appeal.

Item number 15 is WS26097 waivers of development standards for the following increased fence height and reduce setback for a proposed trellis in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.13 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located west of Seago Glen Circle and south of Seago Drive within Paradise.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Okay, my name is Alicia McNair.

And my address is 3431 Sego Glen Circo, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89121.

So my uh the main point of uh my trellis is that uh is because I have been invading by homeless, and I have some uh pictures of the homeless people climbing into climbing into my kitchen, going up into my kitchen, and then climbing down and trying to get away.

And and the reason is I won the my trellis is because I have two little kids, one is six years old and three years old, and they're always playing right there on the back of the and the back of the and and right there by the fence by the pens.

So I went to talk to uh the Clara County and Russell, and I talked to the manager.

Uh her name is Terry Koloski.

And when I went to the meeting for the uh town board, they say that they needed a they needed a letter from Terry Koloski saying that um white she called my trellis a trallis.

And uh so they needed approved from her, and so this is her email to send the same and explain it why I didn't need a permit from building permit, would not require from the government because it's a trellis.

And also um she told us uh to the touch the the to detach the fence five inches away from the um from the uh neighbors yard, which which we have a common common wall.

So it is really annoying for them and for us because it's really short.

So we did what the lady Terry said we did touch it, five inches and place the post in the ground with cement, which is right here.

What she says is it touch and uh and so in other ways it she says if you guys did touch it, it will I will call it a trellis.

So and they also she says she advisers advise us what type of uh plants we should plant, which is like um fire fire that has pointing uh turns so in case the homeless trying to jump into the fence and also I just want to say that uh really I need my trellis because I'm gonna put it all around it so to keep away the the homeless so if you guys can please let me have my trellis and for protection for my grandpa for my grandkids that they leave there, the dad is gone on the side of the uh drugs, he's a drug addict, and really really I need to protect my kids from them.

Does that include conclude your presentation?

Yeah, that's it.

That's all I have.

Okay, thank you very much.

And also I have been talking to the tough, to the stuff to your the staff, and I they direct us what to do.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, so we're gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

And anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to come down and do so.

And so when you come down, just give me your name and address for the record, and then you can speak into one of the mics.

Hi, I might do you want me to hold it?

Yeah, you can you can handheld or one three of you.

Okay, I'll just do this.

Uh, my name is Karen Gichot, and I live at 3421 Zigo Glen Circle, which is right next door.

Uh there are we live on a cul-de-sac, there's nine buildings with two with duplexes on there, so there's 18 homes, and she's not connected to me, but what she is calling if you if you if you put it on the middle on the dot.

Okay, all right.

So that it looks good to you, if it looks good to you, it looks good to us.

I can't tell I'm I guess I'm doing it this way.

That's perfect.

Okay.

This is the microphone.

Okay, this is not a trellis.

Um this is a chain link fence that was installed on the uh common wall.

The common wall has damage from water damage, and it's not safe to attach it.

I have pictures.

I've been working on this for three weeks, and my computer, my printer doesn't work.

But as you can see, it is they started the installation, they put the poles right here, it's about two feet, and down here at the end, this is a 60-foot long block wall, and at the end, it's about four inches, uh four feet from the ground when they installed it and attached it to the fence.

Now, okay, this one here will show you that it kind of goes in different tiers, but the chain length fence is eight feet, it is attached at the wall at the at the bottom, so six the wall is six feet with the eight foot fence is fourteen feet, and then there's also um uh arches.

Karen, is that can I ask you a question?

Yes on that photograph.

Yes.

Is that picture taken from your property?

Yes, I have I have a balcony.

Okay, and this is the same.

That's all I was asking.

Thank you.

Yes.

Now, as you can see, and the homeless are a terrible problem.

I have also been broken into, but this wall goes on my side, goes in between our fence, the and it is attached to the second story building.

It's not, you know, she said trellis, and then it is on your property, yes.

But it is the difference, she has eight feet from her house to the wall.

Mine is 71 inches.

I mean seven feet one inch.

Okay.

Now if you can see here, the homeless are in the back here.

And there isn't a fence, they only have it on one portion.

So if that was their main concern, they should have put the fence attached to her wall to keep the homeless out.

Now it it is a problem, and they came out today, they cleaned it up, and then they come back in in an hour and they're back.

But that's a whole nother story.

Now I don't know.

I tried my printer wasn't working, but there's whole they dug holes right at the base of this wall to um extend to put the poles in concrete.

But those holes went direct because of the three inches, they went directly underneath the fence.

So I'm not even sure about its stability at that.

Then so and you can't really see it here, but um maybe here because they put the poles in and attached it to the wall above ground, and then they had to put it in ground.

So these pipes that they used, they had to uh put pieces in.

So they're seamed together.

I don't know how, but they are not one piece.

Also in building a fence or or like this, and it's at least 14 feet, maybe two stories 20 feet.

The poles that they use were only two inches, and they're not wide enough.

We are, and as you can see in the back, we don't we're we're on a slight raised foundation, and there is nothing to block the wind.

And we get 60, 70 mile an hour winds.

Blows my patio furniture all over my deck.

And my concern is that I don't think it was I don't think that the poles that they use, the posts that they use were only two inches, and I did some research, and they should have been at least four, and especially she's gonna call it a trellis, but it is a chain link fence.

Now, over here you can see I don't know what the arches are for, but the fence goes 14 feet, then there's an additional two feet.

So um, but my main concern is that it wasn't done properly because the support should be a continuous support from the top to the bottom, and it's it's not a trellis.

And she had said she wanted to put bogan vias, and the lady asked her if she would be cleaning up the mess, but the wind blows to my side.

Okay, and we we we got we got that.

Anyway, so that's that's it.

It's not a fence, it's not a trellis, it's a fence and zoning for that anything over eight feet has to be approved at by a uh somebody with the wind to make it that tall.

So I I think that I would like to have that done for its stability because it my house is eight feet away.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your comments.

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the record.

Hi, my name is Scott Miller.

My address is 3491 Sago Glen Circle 89121.

I'm a few doors down, so I'm not one of the people that's the directly affected like this by Karen.

But I think there's a problem, the size of the fence that's being asked for, the wall is is really out of out of size with the other walls, you know, in the in our development.

And the other thing is is that um well I think is uh Commissioner Reuteman was talking about um asking permission in advance, you'll notice there's already construction done, and yet here we are for the permits.

Uh the other thing is is I um I think this came out by the town board, but not sure because I wasn't able to attend.

They they've done an addition on the house, and I know there was never every notice about that.

So I think there's actually other unpermitted work on the property that someone should go out and look at.

And so for those reasons, I think that the this application should not be approved.

All right, thank thank thank you, sir, for your comments.

Ma'am, we we're gonna actually come back up.

You've got to come back up anyway.

So come on back up.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one else, we're gonna close this public hearing, and and I would just offer to the to the neighbors that spoke that anything that may or may not be approved, she would have to get permitted and and inspected, and so that piece would be would be taken care of.

So, right now I'm going to open it up to our commissioners for comments.

And um seeing okay, go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

You can start I'm sympathetic to your concern about the homeless, and I can only imagine you know, someone crying calling through my backyard.

It sounds like maybe your neighbors are dealing with some similar things.

Uh, but but I think that begs the question uh to your neighbor's point.

It looks like the fence or trellis or and I'll get to that in a second, is being built between you and your neighbor, and not necessarily between you and the adjoining empty space where the trail.

Uh ma'am ma'am, let him finish the question.

So I get I guess my question right there, yeah, right, exactly.

Isn't that separating you from your neighbor?

We yes, we follow what she says.

No, no, I understood.

But isn't that given your stated reasoning that you want to prevent the homeless from coming in?

Okay.

Aren't the homeless coming in from the back of your yard, not from the side of your yard?

At one point, like she said we live in the colour.

And at one point there was a guy coming from uh he went around and went and then my and then the that wall is really shallow.

So this guy when in my walk through our wall, common wall, and jump into my backyard, and then jump into the other backyard because it was empty.

That was empty.

The the person that was living there who died.

Yeah.

But the wall, sorry, the fence that you're building is between you and your neighbors.

Okay, this is the thing.

So I did it for privacy because they have cameras pointing on my house.

There isn't that's exactly what he says.

Okay.

All right.

Let me thank you.

For staff, the email that she received that talks about kind of metal or trellis, how do we distinguish in these cases between what is a trellis?

Right, frame, you know, I don't, and what is a fence.

Um, I I assume that you have determined or that we've determined that this is in fact the fence in accordance with what the neighbors kind of state.

Is that right?

Yeah, so staff cannot speak to the uh the the email and whatever correspondence came with that.

The uh planner who was working with the applicant on this application, the communication between them was that the intent was to have both of the uh the fence along the property line and then sort of the curb portion, you know, representing the sort of transition to the trellis, and that there were gonna be uh I'm told flowers as part of that structure, so that the the uh trellis would resemble kind of a more you know traditional trellis and its aesthetics.

But but so what we're looking at what we're looking at in those photos, what makes that from our perspective a fence and not a trellis?

Just so for the for the record and for the for the applicant here, why do how how if we have determined that is a fence?

I mean it looks like a fence to me, so I'm not challenging that, but uh one second, please.

Yeah, so part of the request is to increase the fence height, so that portion you know is certainly being treated as offense and meets the definition of offense per code.

Uh Trellis is not defined in Title 30.

The documents, uh the photos that were provided by the applicant again showed you know kind of a flowery uh finish on the fence to present a more traditional trellis aesthetic.

Um I'm not sure if those photos have been provided this evening, but that is what we have on file.

Okay.

Uh and and again to the neat, maybe that I'll just reiterate this your ma'am, I forgot your name, but you care.

You live next door?

Yes.

And so you are not in support, to be clear, you are not in support of what has been put up right now.

Is that correct?

Oh, definitely.

Sorry, one second, please.

The call says anything over eight.

Oh, can you can you come down?

Can you?

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

But my question so so we're gonna wait, ma'am, wait till you get down.

Wait till you get down.

Come on down.

Well, wait till you come on down.

We're gonna recognize that the applicant from a question for the commissioner, so I need your name and address for the record.

Karen Gitchau, 34 21, Seagal Glenn Circle.

Thank you very much.

And and sorry, and I know maybe this is not I'm a little out of order here, so I apologize to everyone.

But it if you're if this was determined by building inspector, if we were to approve this, and the building inspectors and whoever comes in were to determine that it was safe, would you be in support of it then or no?

Um well I I do know that the wind, because we're at a raised foundation, there is nothing on the back to block that wind.

If you were on a flat surface, that would be probably not a problem.

I really it doesn't bother me, but the fact that it was done, it was attached to the fence, it was not done properly because you cannot, it should have been done if they were going to do it the first time.

It should see now here she has all the pictures.

I understand.

But we we we got it.

But my thing is to protect the homeless, and I get it.

But if her fence is I I understand, we understand.

We understand.

You answered the question.

Yeah, sorry about that.

You're okay, you're fine.

Okay, um, I I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say.

I'm pretty skeptical about this though.

So this is absolutely a tough application for me.

And and and I'm and and I'll I'll I'll say a few things and then I'll I'll let I'll move to the next commissioner.

Because I can I can sympathize, I agree with Commissioner Workman.

I can sympathize with your your plight of let me let me finish with your plight of the homeless that may be transversing your property.

I I I would also say that what you've presented here as a trellis, I would not want to live next to.

So I I I really it's a tough one for me because I I think that in the grand scheme of things, I would be okay with this if it was not this draped, whatever, and it did actually have plants and flowers and everything on it, so that it looked more like a trellis, and then functioned for security and a trellis.

That's one thing.

The second thing I would say is you could also get rid of this monstrosity and maybe do something on top of the wall that would deter people from would do deter people from jumping across.

And I don't mean to to be um mean to someone dropping into your business, but you could put some razor wire across, and that wouldn't be um nice for to live like that, but at least it would keep people from coming into your backyard.

It would deter.

Oh, I won't say keep them.

It was I mean, if someone wants to get in your backyard, they will get in no matter what.

So I'm just saying there's there's the other options in my mind than what you've built.

Um, but I'll listen to what other commissioners have to say before I make a decision, and I'm gonna go down the line here.

I'm gonna start with Commissioner Kirk and then Commissioner Stone.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Um, based on the information presented, at least in my mind, this is not a trellis, this is a privacy wall, privacy screen.

Uh the fact that you've attached it to the wall, and you've someone has looks like they've broken through the concrete, the foundation.

You we don't know if that has compromised the wall.

We don't know that.

Uh let me finish.

Okay.

I don't I you've had your I've heard what you had to say.

Um, and uh I I think that you you hit the nail on the head earlier when you said, but they have cameras.

So that to me, that's the reason you're doing it.

Because if you were only worried about the homeless, you would do something along the back of your wall.

I get it that somebody can walk around, they could jump over the neighbors and come over around the front.

They could do that to anybody's house.

But a a taller wall in the back would be something that would discourage the homeless from coming over.

What you have built is nothing more, in my opinion, than a privacy screen.

And you you want to put, I mean, how long I have um jasmine in my front yard.

I don't know how on earth how long it's gonna take for uh something like Jasmine that grows relatively quickly here to make its way all up the trellis that you've built.

I mean, the sick you've got a six foot wall, right?

Then you've got uh looks like two and a half inch pipes for cyclone fencing going up another 14 feet.

It's just it's unbelievable, and I I there is no way I'm gonna support this.

Not a chance.

Um I don't know what you're gonna do, but it's not, in my opinion, it's not gonna be that.

Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I you know, this is not a trellis in my mind.

As a matter of fact, I don't see one living plant along the side yard there or the backyard.

I don't see an existing irrigation system that might serve any living plant in the backyard.

I think that the uh fabric on the screen is uh designed to prevent uh the neighbor from looking over the wall.

Uh homeless issues exist.

Um I don't see how this is gonna uh homelessness doesn't come into play for me.

This is uh uh not in accordance with Title 30.

The aesthetics look horrible.

It sets a precedent in Clerk County.

Think about this for a second.

How many homes in the county do you want to have with a 20 foot tall what amounts to me to be a baseball backstop that you would see at a junior high or high school around everybody's house?

Uh I'm not gonna support it.

Before I go to Commissioner Mohica, I I I would just I would just say, you know, and we we make this comment quite frequently, you know, we we try to take every every application on its own merits.

And and and I I would just say that there are some cases where there are chain link applications at a residence.

Um I'm a golfer and I I don't normally spray my golf ball right or left, but there are some some courses where people have chain link fences to protect their house from from stray golf balls.

Um I I don't I I can't get behind this particular application that's before us.

So I'm gonna go online to Commissioner Mohica and see if you can take us home.

Well, this is this is not in my district, but um I will say that I agree with Commissioner Stone that we don't want to set terrible precedence like we did earlier on an earlier item.

So I wouldn't be able to approve this either.

All right, go ahead, Commissioner Kalarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Let me just say I was at town board, so I heard what you said, I heard what your daughter said, I heard what your neighbors said.

I also went into the file plans, I saw the plans that you have.

I saw the pictures with the Bogan Via.

Yesterday I parked my car at the trailhead on Emerson and McLeod, and I walked all the way down to your property.

Uh you're right about the homeless.

They are across the wash over there by the uh by the commercial and the empty lot.

That's where they're at.

I did not see anybody on the trail that's directly behind your house.

What I found interesting with this development though was the fence that is adjacent to the trail because it fluctuates in height throughout the whole nine buildings, I guess you could say.

All have gates.

So you can be in your backyard, open the gate, and go on to the trail on those two.

The ones that were going further south, they did not.

Um so that was kind of neat.

Everybody is right when they say this trellis is not designed to take care of the homeless, not the one between your pro your your unit and Karen's unit.

It's not.

That is something uh designed for privacy.

There were also half the neighbors in your little cul de sac sent in letters opposing this request.

So half your neighborhood does not want you to have to do this.

I agree when I when I hear that what you need to do is you need to beef up your back if this is for the homeless.

You want to beef it to match what you wanted on the side, both north and south.

So I guess maybe you're having problems with the neighbor to the south.

I don't know.

But that means that I cannot support this.

I cannot support this.

I could not support this when I heard this the other day.

And through my research, I still cannot support this.

So what I am going to do is I'm going to move to deny WS 26-0097 following staff and town board recommendations.

Okay, thank you.

There's a motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

Yeah, there's I'm sorry, yeah.

The motion on the floor is for denial.

Oh Commissioner Calarson?

I'm sorry, Commissioner Mohica.

I support that denial.

All right, that motion passes for denial.

Thank you.

This is final action unless appealed.

And this completes the non-routine action items.

Michael, can you just tell them what the options are now?

What's gonna happen after this?

We'll talk right now.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So that was our last item.

And so the last the yep, the last item on our agenda is public comments.

All right, so the last item on our agenda is public comments.

And so now is anyone in the audience like to make a public comment?

You can come down.

The commission cannot speak on it or vote on that public comment, but you can put anything you would like to on record and see no one rushing down.

We're gonna close public comments.

Oh yeah, well, I was I was I was like, is he here for public comments or not?

Go ahead.

I'm just waiting for you to finish.

Okay, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Public comments.

Real quick, sorry.

I um walked in at 705.

Just wanted to just double check.

Items four through ten were were approved.

Sorry.

I I just got a letter saying I have to physically be present.

I didn't know if I had to speak on my item was number nine.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right, so we're so happy.

We're gonna close public comments and adjourn the meeting.

Thank you very much.