Let's get the briefing started.

Oh, Jason, you already have to go.

So let's um let's start with roll call first.

Chair Frazier here.

Vice Chair Mohica.

Think she's online.

She says she doesn't hear anything.

Okay, she's online.

Okay.

Commissioner Stone here.

Commissioner Kirk here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Brady here.

Commissioner Roynman.

Live and in person.

Okay.

Our first order of business is public comments.

Um, you know, as as for NRS, we stayed at the first part of the meeting.

Um, anyone wants to come down and make a comment, you're more than welcome to.

The board cannot act on any of those comments, and seeing no one run rushing down, we're gonna close public comments.

Go ahead, Staff.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Michael Hewling, and I'm a principal planner with the Department of Comprehensive Planning.

Some of you may recognize me from previous meetings that I've attended, uh, but this is my first time actually leading a planning commission meeting.

Uh, so I'm excited to be here and trust the OGO a little easy on me tonight.

Uh with that, we'll go ahead and jump into tonight's agenda.

So we'll start with the following hold requests.

Items sixteen through twenty, these are companion applications.

Item number sixteen is PA twenty-six seven zero zero zero seven.

Item number seventeen is ZC twenty-six zero zero eight six.

Item number eighteen is VS twenty-six zero zero eight seven.

Item number nineteen is WS twenty-six zero zero eight eight, and item number twenty is TM twenty-six five zero zero zero two five.

These items are requested to be held for the applicant to allow further time for internal discussions with the developer.

These items are requested to be held until the May fifth, twenty twenty-six planning commission meeting.

The corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting date will change from May sixth, twenty twenty-six to June third, twenty twenty-six.

Those are all the hold requests, so we'll continue with the routine action items.

So, routine action items uh number four through ten.

Number four is ET twenty-six four zero zero zero zero seven, and this is for WS twenty-three zero eight eight one.

The original application was to increase uh fence and wall heights in conjunction with the single family residence, and this is the first extension of time.

There are still two active code enforcement cases on the site, one for building without a permit and another for operating a short-term rental.

Staff recommends approval with a condition of six months to complete the building permit and inspection process, which matches the condition of approval on the original notice of final action.

The Enterprise Town Board recommended approval with a recommendation to change planning's condition from six months to one year to complete the building permit and inspection process.

Items number five and six are companion applications.

Item number five is VS twenty-six zero zero seven eight.

This is a vacation of a portion of right away being Tioga Way to accommodate detached sidewalks.

Staff recommends approval.

Spring Valley Town Advisory Board recommended approval.

We've received one card and one letter in protest.

Item number six, UC 260077.

This is a use permit and design review for transportation service.

The site is proposed to operate as a parking lot for Tesla Autonomous Robo Taxis.

Per Title 30, this use is categorized as a transportation service since they will be picking up passengers and dropping them off around the county while functionally using the site as a parking lot when the vehicles are not actively transporting people.

A park and demand study was uh has been provided in lieu of a waiver for increased parking.

Staff recommends approval.

The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

We've received one card and one letter in protest.

Item number seven is UC 26013.

This is use permits and design reviews for gravel pit and rock crushing as well as hillside development.

The site's been used for various industrial uses for several decades, including a gravel pit, rock crushing, and a batch plant.

Previous applications for these uses have since expired, necessitating new land use approval.

Staff is recommending approval with conditions that the gravel pit and rock crushing be discontinued within 10 years of approval unless an extension of time is granted.

And this is a common uh time limitation that's imposed on similar industrial sites and uses throughout the county.

The Moapa Valley Town Board recommended approval with the following conditions remediation of the dust issue, daytime operations only, maintenance of fire access road, and control trucks removing product from the pit over access road.

We've received four cards in protest.

Item number eight is UC 260079.

This is a use permit and design review for a kennel.

Uh the application is to convert a vacant commercial building within a larger commercial subdivision into a dog kennel with outdoor dog runs and play areas.

The building itself will be renovated, the parking area and landscaping will also be renovated and enhanced.

Staff is recommending approval, Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

We've received four cards in support.

Item number nine is UC 260110.

This is a use permit for a banquet facility in the IP zone within an industrial complex that features office warehouse buildings.

The site has been used for a banquet facility in the past, and staff recommends approval.

The Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval with the added condition that no loitering is permitted after hours.

We've received no cards or uh letters either way.

Item number 10 is WS 260073.

This is a waivered increase, uh, decorative fence height in conjunction with an existing place of worship.

The request is to increase the fence to seven feet in height along the north and south property lines, and it will be a decorative fence.

Uh six feet is the maximum allowed per code.

Staff is recommending approval, the Whitney Town Board recommended approval.

We've received eight cards and one letter in support, two cards and one letter in protest.

This concludes the routine action portion of the agenda.

Does the commission have any questions before moving forward with the non-routine?

Thank you, staff.

Um, anyone in the on the commission have any questions?

Yes, um, Commissioner Kalarski.

I just have two questions.

I'm just wondering on item number four.

Why did you guys say six months rather than the year?

Is there something we should know?

So my understanding is it was to match the original approval.

I'm not sure if the applicant indicated that six months would be a sufficient amount of time, but the original application was only given six months, so we're matching that.

Okay, and then this next question is on item number seven.

Is this partial or this use?

Is this anywhere near the we we did the Moapa two things last year?

Is this particular use anywhere near any of that other stuff?

If you're talking, are you talking about Moapa West, which was the major project, and then the bridge source?

No, it's on the we'll double check, but I'm pretty sure this is on the south end of Moapa Valley, and those were all the way north almost at I-15.

Okay.

Is that correct, Jillie?

She's shaking her head.

Yeah, I'd just wonder if they were all gonna kind of come together, possibly.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um Vice Chair Mohica.

Any questions?

See if you got a text message coming through.

Yeah, she told me she's in the meeting.

She's in it, but she we she we can't hear her.

Okay, all right.

Well, we'll move on.

Um, so so no questions.

You can move on to non-routine.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Uh, there you are.

Do you have any questions on the on the um non routine items that were read in by staff?

No, I do not.

Thank you.

Okay, first item on the nonroutine is item number 11, UC 260032.

So this is a single family residential property in Red Rock with an existing accessory living quarters and several other accessory structures.

The applicant is requesting a second accessory living quarters, which will be about 7500 square feet, while the existing primary residence is 3860 square feet, and the existing accessory living quarters is 1150 square feet.

Title 30 only allows one accessory living quarters and limits the area of it to that of the primary residence.

Staff is recommending denial due to concerns with the size, the materials not matching those to the primary residence, and because the site, you know, really should be subdivided into two lots to accommodate the three dwelling units rather than having a second accessory living quarters on the same property.

The Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council recommended approval.

We've received three cards in support.

Item number 12 is UC 260049.

This is a holdover use permit for outdoor storage with waivers for uh allowing outdoor storage adjacent to residential, reduced buffering and screening, street landscaping, and to allow six foot high non-decorative fence along the street.

Staff is recommending denial with concerns about the outdoor storage at this particular site, which is adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood, as well as CR zoning districts.

Staff believes that outdoor storage is too intensive a use for this site in the general area, and also has concerns with the waivers being requested, which will increase the intensity of the use.

The Sunrise Town Board recommended denial.

We've received no cards or letters either way.

Item number 13 is WS 260076.

This is an existing single family residence with an attached patio cover on the south side.

This request is to enclose the patio cover and make it into a uh an addition for the residents.

This changes the rear setback requirement in Title 30 from three feet to 15 feet since it will now be part of the primary structure.

And the applicant is proposing a 10 foot setback.

Staff is recommending denial because it's a self-imposed hardship that may adversely affect the adjacent neighborhood to the south.

Uh, please be advised that there was an error on the condition of approval from comprehensive planning as a standard language uh for a two-year commencement period was deleted by mistake.

Should you make a motion to approve this application?

Planning will read the standard condition of approval into the record.

The applicant has been informed of this change by the planner who was working with them.

The enterprise town board recommended approval.

We've received six cards in support, one letter in protest.

Item number 14 is WF 260096.

This is an existing single family residence with existing accessory structures consisting of a pool house shed and playground equipment that do not meet the Title 30 requirements for setbacks and separations.

There's an active code enforcement case for encroaching into the setbacks.

Staff is recommending denial since this is a self-imposed hardship and may negatively impact the adjacent neighbors to the east and west, and the applicant could relocate the structures to comply with setback requirements.

The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

We've received one card in support.

Item number 15 is WS26097.

This is also an existing single-family residence with waivers to increase fence height to nine feet, where six feet is the maximum, and to reduce the side setback for an attached trellis to three inches, where five feet is the minimum.

There's an active code enforcement case for building without permits.

Staff is recommending denial since the nine-foot-high chain link fence is not consistent with the neighborhood, and the reduced setback for the trellis.

It's a significant reduction, which will you know adversely affect the adjacent neighbor.

The Paradise Town Board recommended denial.

We've received one card and one letter in support and eight cards in protest.

And then as I said, items number 16 through 20 are requested to be held by the applicant until the May 5th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and the June 3rd, 2026 Board Accounting Commissioners meeting.

This concludes the non-routine action item portion of the agenda.

I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission.

All right, thank you, staff.

Um I'll open it up to the commissioners.

Any questions on the non-routine action items read in Commissioner Klarski?

No.

I'm sorry, I forgot to round it.

Um Vice Chair Mohica.

No questions, uh, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, seeing no questions, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is um discuss new and upcoming ordinances.

No?

No ordinances to discuss.

And then the next item discuss discuss any administrative items.

No administrative items.

All right, very good.

And then so the last item on our agenda is to receive some comments from public.

Um open it up for for public comments and I'll say my spiel.

Anyone is allowed to come down and make a public comment.

The commission cannot act on those comments, and seeing no one rushing down, we'll close public comments and we'll adjourn the briefing.

Thank you very much.